Randolph-Sheppard Priority: When Serving Food Means “Operating” the Cafeteria

This pre-award protest challenged a solicitation’s inclusion of a Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA) priority for state licensing agencies serving blind vendors. The protester argued the priority shouldn’t apply because the solicitation expressly reserved operational and managerial control of the dining facility tco the agency, meaning the contractor wouldn’t actually “operate” the cafeteria as the RSA requires. GAO denied the protest, holding that the RSA priority applies when a contractor’s duties are integral to the operation of a cafeteria—even without formal managerial control—and here the contractor’s food preparation and service tasks were central enough to the facility’s functioning to trigger the priority.

J Caye Premier Dining, Inc., GAO, B-424443

Background – The Air Force issued a solicitation as an 8(a) small business set-aside for mess attendant support services at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. After an earlier iteration of the procurement, the Florida State Licensing Agency (SLA) filed for arbitration with the Department of Education, alleging the Air Force failed to properly evaluate whether the RSA priority applied. The Air Force settled by agreeing either to enter direct negotiations with the Florida SLA or to promptly resolicit the requirement; the settlement also required any resolicitation to include the RSA priority. The protester, a non-RSA offeror, then challenged the solicitation, arguing the RSA priority was inappropriate because the contractor wouldn’t operate the dining facility—the Air Force expressly retained full operational and management control.
Scope of Work and “Operation” of a Cafeteria – The protester argued that the contractor’s duties—serving food, cleaning, preparing raw vegetables, making sandwiches, and providing cashier services—did not constitute “operation” of a cafeteria under the RSA. It pointed to explicit solicitation language reserving all operational and managerial control to the Air Force. GAO disagreed, finding the contractor’s tasks were integral, not ancillary, to the cafeteria’s functioning. Unlike GAO’s prior decision in *JW Mills*, where the contractor performed mostly custodial and cashier work, here the contractor would prepare all cold food items, conduct hot food preparation, and could even provide cooks during contingencies. These food-central duties fell within the RSA’s meaning of “operation of” a cafeteria.
Broad Interpretation of the RSA – The protester urged a narrow reading of “operation,” tied to managerial control. GAO rejected this, adopting a broader interpretation consistent with rulings from the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, which have held that the RSA priority applies to dining facility attendant contracts even where military personnel handle certain food preparation duties. GAO also gave weight to the Department of Education’s determination—made specifically in response to the Air Force’s request on this procurement—that “[w]ithout the services being sought by the Government, the cafeteria would not be able to operate.” Together, these authorities supported reading “operation” to include work integral to the cafeteria’s functioning.
Distinguishing Prior Precedent – GAO distinguished its prior decision in *JW Mills*, where it found the RSA priority inapplicable to a contract for cashier, scullery, and housekeeping services with only tangential food work. Here, by contrast, the contractor’s duties were substantially related to food preparation and service—the “heart of operating a mess facility.” While GAO acknowledged the protester’s interpretation was not irrational, the totality of the circumstances—including the nature of the duties, circuit court precedent, and DOE’s determination—supported the agency’s application of the RSA priority.

The protester is represented by Tracey L. Pruiett, Katherine B. Burrows, Meghan F. Leemon, and Timothy F. Valley of Piliero Mazza PLLC. The government is represented by Walker J. Gray, Erika L. Whelan Retta, Joseph M. Cappola, and C. Brandon Halstead of the Department of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Michael P. Grogan and Evan D. Wesser participated in the decision.