United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: La Dolce Vida Catering 

File: B-402421 

Date: April 15, 2010 

Joshua Carraha for the protester. 

Lee Wolanin, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency. 

Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest of source selection is denied where record shows award determination was 

reasonable and consistent with solicitation’s terms. 

DECISION 

La Dolce Vida Catering, of Chelsea, Massachusetts, protests the award of a contract 

to Regent School Catering FCS, Inc., of Glendora, California, under request for 

proposals (RFP) No. DTRT57-10-R-20001, issued by the Department of 

Transportation for cafeteria services at the Volpe National Transportation Systems 

Center. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals and the 

selection of Regent for award under the RFP. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFP, which was issued as a small business set-aside, commercial item 

procurement, contemplated the award of a no-cost contract for operation of the 

Volpe Center cafeteria. The RFP required each offeror to submit a written proposal 

that included a “technical description of the items being offered in sufficient detail to 

evaluate compliance with the requirements of the solicitation.” RFP at 2. The RFP’s 

statement of work included requirements related to the operation of the facility, food 

quality, menu (including cycling and pricing structure), personnel and supervision, 

trash removal, government-furnished equipment maintenance and repair, cleaning 

and janitorial services, security and reporting, and inspections. The RFP also 

contained terms limiting the contractor’s profit, as well as providing that any 

monetary loss from performance was to be absorbed by the contractor with no 

financial liability on the part of the government. 
The RFP stated that offerors’ technical proposals were to include information 

regarding “on-site/off-site food preparation, transportation, catering plans and 

procedures,” and whether the firms have a “bulk food purchasing system.” Id. at 2-3. 

Marketing information, including “any ideas to increase business from within the 

Volpe Center’s on-site population,” id., was requested, and offerors were to 

“[d]emonstrate a variety of menus . . . with prices included.” Id. at 3. Offerors were 

required to show the qualifications and experience of the proposed 

on-site manager, as well as submit a staffing plan with sufficient personnel to 

maintain sanitary conditions and satisfactory services, including adequate reserve 

staff. Id. The RFP advised that award would be made to the firm submitting the 

proposal deemed most advantageous to the agency giving equal weight to technical 

capability, staffing, and relevant past performance; the reasonableness of the firm’s 

pricing structure, including prices for certain breakfast and lunch items for which 

the offerors were to provide sample prices, was to be assessed. Id. 

Three proposals were received and determined to be reasonably priced. In terms of 

overall technical merit, Regent’s proposal was ranked highest, having received 

adjectival ratings of exceptional under each of the evaluation factors. The 

evaluators identified various strengths in Regent’s proposal, including its detailed 

approach to performance of the work requirements (including quality control, 

sanitation, and maintenance), its on-site manager’s substantial experience in food 

services operations and management, the firm’s successful performance of cafeteria 

services involving a similar or larger number of daily meals than those anticipated 

under the RFP, high-quality and varied menus, as well as several marketing plans to 

increase sales by encouraging use of the cafeteria through, for example, promotions 

and convenience features. 

La Dolce Vida’s proposal was rated acceptable under the technical and staffing 

factors; it received a rating of exceptional under the past performance factor based 

on its favorable reference information, even though the prior work described in the 

proposal was of a smaller magnitude than the work called for under the RFP.1

 The 

proposal was rated acceptable overall. The evaluators noted as weaknesses the lack 

of detail in the firm’s proposal regarding its plan to meet various RFP requirements, 

such as maintenance of the facility, and the lack of detail regarding marketing efforts 

to increase the use of the cafeteria and sales to agency personnel. Agency Report, 

Tab 13, Technical Evaluation Report, at 11. Strengths were noted regarding, for 

 

1

 While both firms received ratings of exceptional under the past performance factor, 

Regent’s proposal received a higher point score in this area. Our review of the 

proposals and evaluation record confirms that Regent’s higher point score 

reasonably reflects additional strengths in the proposal, since Regent’s experience, 

supported by favorable references, includes more cafeteria services experience and 

the preparation and service of more daily meals compared to the protester’s 

experience. 

Page 2 B-402421 
example, the firm’s diverse menus, its manager’s experience, and its customer 

service and quality control. The proposal was credited with a strength for offering a 

“comfort food” concept, which, in the evaluators’ view, “would allow for the freshest 

ingredients and new offerings which would be nutritionally balanced.” Id. The 

evaluators also assigned the proposal a weakness in this area, however, based on 

their finding that the protester’s comfort food concept was not clearly defined. The 

evaluators also found that the protester offered adequate staffing and demonstrated 

the capability to run a cafeteria even though the firm’s prior experience mostly 

involved catering. 

The contracting officer concluded that the Regent proposal was most advantageous 

to the agency and selected it for award, noting various strengths in the proposal, 

including its detailed explanation of the firm’s planned maintenance, sanitation, and 

quality control, its favorable and reasonably priced menu selections and options, as 

well as the marketing plans presented to increase cafeteria sales. In making the 

selection decision, the contracting officer noted that the protester’s proposal, while 

acceptable, failed to demonstrate as much relevant experience with similar cafeteria 

management and operations as Regent’s proposal, and failed to detail how the 

protester intended to perform much of the work required under the solicitation. 

In reviewing a protest against the propriety of a source selection, it is not our 

function to independently evaluate proposals and substitute our judgment for that of 

the contracting activity. Barents Group, L.L.C., B-276082, B-276082.2, May 9, 1997, 

97-1 CPD ¶ 164 at 6. Rather, we will review an evaluation to ensure that it was 

reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the solicitation and 

applicable procurement statutes and regulations; a protester’s mere disagreement 

with the evaluation does not show it lacked a reasonable basis. Id. On the record 

here, we see no basis to question the evaluation of the proposals or the selection of 

Regent. 

As noted above, the RFP expressly required technical submissions from the offerors 

demonstrating compliance with the stated requirements; the offerors were also 

specifically requested to propose ideas to increase cafeteria sales. Our review of the 

record confirms that in each evaluation area (technical, staffing and past 

performance), the additional detail and associated strengths in the Regent proposal 

were reasonably given more evaluation credit compared to the protester’s proposal, 

both in terms of technical merit and specific advantages in Regent’s proposal (such 

as several marketing plans to increase business at the cafeteria), as well as the 

degree to which Regent demonstrated its planned procedures and capability to 

perform, thereby reducing performance risk. 

While the protester challenges the adjectival ratings under the staffing factor 

(exceptional for Regent and acceptable for La Dolce Vida), our review of the record 

confirms the reasonableness of the difference in ratings, since Regent was credited, 

and we believe reasonably so, with proposing an on-site manager with more years of 

food services operations and management experience than the protester’s manager. 

Page 3 B-402421 
Page 4 B-402421 

The record also shows that both firms were assessed the same minor weakness 

under the staffing factor for proposing a larger staff than currently used by the 

incumbent contractor, prompting a remark by at least one evaluator that additional 

sales may be necessary to remain profitable with a larger staff. In light of the 

evaluator’s remark, the protester suggests that Regent’s proposal should have been 

downgraded for proposing more staff than the protester, and thus presenting a 

greater risk to profitability. We cannot conclude that the evaluation was 

unreasonable; both proposals were given a weakness in this area and to the extent 

Regent’s higher staffing presents more risk, Regent is not precluded from adjusting 

its staffing levels during performance as appropriate to maintain successful 

performance and profitability. 

An offeror is responsible for demonstrating affirmatively the merits of its proposal 

and risks rejection if it fails to do so. See HDL Research Lab, Inc., B-294959, Dec. 21, 

2004, 2005 CPD ¶ 8 at 5. No matter how competent a firm may be, the technical 

evaluation must be based on information included in the firm’s proposal. See

Watson Indus., Inc., B-238309, Apr. 5, 1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 371 at 3-4. While La Dolce 

Vida’s proposal did not take exception to the RFP requirements and was determined 

to be acceptable, the evaluation reasonably reflects the lack of detail in the 

protester’s proposal. Further, the record provides no reason to question the 

propriety of the agency’s selection of Regent on the basis of its technically superior 

proposal.2 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel 

 

2

 To the extent the protester challenges the qualifications of the evaluators, the 

selection of individuals to serve as proposal evaluators is a matter within the 

discretion of the agency; accordingly, we will not review such a challenge absent a 

showing of possible fraud, conflict of interest, or actual bias on the part of the 

evaluation officials, none of which have been shown here. See Eggs & Bacon, Inc., 

B-310066, Nov. 20, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 209 at 4. The protester also generally contends 

that the agency’s actions during the procurement involved a “combination of 

incompetence and preferential treatment,” Protest at 4, and that the “award was a 

direct result of discrimination.” Comments at 1. The protester’s general allegations 

do not provide any reason to question the fairness of the evaluation and award 

determination. Since procurement officials are presumed to act in good faith, we 

will not attribute unfair or prejudicial motives to procurement officials on the basis 

of inference or supposition. See Triton Marine Constr. Corp., B-250856, Feb. 23, 

1993, 93-1 CPD ¶ 171 at 6.