Protest challenging the agency’s conclusion that a proposal was technically unacceptable is denied, where the protester did not satisfy the solicitation’s requirement for a food allowance for its employees. The protester argued that the solicitation allowed offerors to propose to provide either meals or a food allowance and that the agency irrationally concluded the financial allowance did not meet nutritional requirements, but GAO agreed that the amount the protester proposed to offer employees was too meager to provide three decent meals per day. GAO also found the agency had repeatedly raised this issue with the protester during discussions.
The State Department issued an RFQ for a contract to provide janitorial services at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait. The RFQ required offerors to provide 3 meals a day for staff that satisfied certain nutritional requirements. In lieu of providing meals, offerors could provide a meal allowance. In addition to meals, if an offeror planned to provide housing for staff, the RFQ required the offeror to submit a housing plan.
Gulf Civilization General Trading & Contracting Company responded to the RFQ. It proposed food and housing allowances. The agency submitted multiple discussions questions to Gulf, advising that there were problems with the allowances. Gulf raised its allowances in response to the agency’s concerns, but it was not enough. The State Department rejected Gulf’s proposal as technically unacceptable. A GAO protest followed.
Gulf first argued that the RFQ’s nutritional requirements did not apply to offerors who proposed a food allowance in lieu of providing meals. GAO found that this was not a reasonable interpretation of the RFQ. The solicitation required offerors to provide 3 meals per day that met certain nutritional requirements at no cost. This meant that if the offeror elected a food allowance instead of actual meals, the food allowance had to permit staff to purchase meals that satisfied the RFQ’s nutritional requirements.
Gulf also contended that the agency erred in determining that its proposed food allowance did not satisfy the nutritional requirements. But GAO determined that proposed allowance, which would allow staff to purchase about 1000 calories per day, was too low. What’s more, Gulf’s assumptions regarding the amount of food that could satisfy the RFQ’s nutritional requirements—e.g., four teaspoons of vegetables for lunch and dinner—were flawed.
Gulf also objected to the agency’s evaluation of its proposed housing allowance. Gulf proposed an allowance of 19 Kuwaiti dinar per month. The State Department found that the average rental rate for a two-bedroom apartment in Kuwait was 250 Kuwaiti dinar per month. GAO, however, did not rule on the housing issue. It found that because Gulf’s proposal was technically unacceptable under the food requirement, the company was not an interested party that could challenge the housing evaluation.
Finally, Gulf contended that the agency conducted misleading discussions because it never advised Gulf that the food and housing allowances were too low. GAO rejected this argument, finding that the State Department had repeatedly advised Gulf about concerns with the allowances.
Gulf is represented by Gabriel Grillo. The government is represented by Kathleen D. Martin of the U.S. Department of State. GAO attorneys Stephanie B. Magnell and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.
