HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaocrptalai0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
-e GeAtOa
E Comptroller General
of the United States
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548
Decision
Matter of: Ti Hu, Inc.
File: B-284360
Date: March 31, 2000
Sam Zalman Gdanski, Esq., Jeffrey Gdanski, Esq., and Scott Gdanski, Esq., for the
protester.
David H. Turner, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Katherine Riback, Esq. and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Agency reasonably determined that experience on full food service contracts was
less relevant for purposes of evaluating past performance than experience on mess
attendant services, which were the services being procured.
2. New and independent protest contentions are untimely, where the contentions
are based on the agency report but were raised more than 10 calendar days after
receipt of the report.
DECISION
Ti Hu, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Acorn Food Services, Inc. under
request for proposals (RFP) No. N00140-99-R-3749, issued by the Department of the
Navy for mess attendant services at Submarine Base Groton. The protester contends
that the past performance evaluation was unreasonable.
We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part.
The RFP provided for award on a best value basis, considering past performance and
price, with past performance being more important than price. In evaluating past
performance, the RFP stated that greater consideration [would be given] to the
contracts which the [agency] feels are more relevant to the RFP [work]. RFP
§ M(2). The possible past performance ratings were exceptional, satisfactory, and
unacceptable. Agency Report, Tab 17, Contract Review Board Presentation, at 6.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptalai0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)