B-298195, The Severson Group, June 9, 2006

B-298195 Jun 09, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Severson Group (TSG) protests the Department of Veteran Affairs' (VA) determination that the firm's quotation in response to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 600-532-06JS was technically unacceptable. TSG also protests the cancellation of the RFQ because no technically acceptable quotations were received. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298195, The Severson Group, June 9, 2006 Decision Matter of: The Severson Group File: B-298195 Date: June 9, 2006 Robert E. Severson for the protester. Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Jeanette M. Soares and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably determined a quotation was technically unacceptable where protester failed to submit the training certificates required by the solicitation. DECISION The Severson Group (TSG) protests the Department of Veteran Affairs' (VA) determination that the firm's quotation in response to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 600-532-06JS was technically unacceptable. TSG also protests the cancellation of the RFQ because no technically acceptable quotations were received. We deny the protest. The VA issued the RFQ to provide rodent control services at several VA cemeteries in California as a set-aside for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB). Quotations were to be evaluated based on the following evaluation factors: (1) technical capabilities, (2) past performance and (3) cost/price. There were five subfactors within the technical capabilities factor. Subfactor 1a required submission of a business license to perform rodent control. Subfactor 1b required the –names and copies of training certificate/documents and the number of years experience of contractor personnel performing rodent control.— RFQ at 36. TSG and another SDVOSB concern submitted quotations. TSG's quotation included Terminix as a subcontractor and Terminix's business license for rodent control. TSG did not produce its own license for rodent control. While TSG's quotation included the names and number of years of experience in rodent control of some Terminix personnel, it failed to provide training certificate/documents for either TSG's personnel or Terminix's personnel. The VA found TSG's quotation technically unacceptable because it did not (1) include TSG's business license for rodent control and (2) provide training certificate/documents for either TSG or Terminix personnel. The VA found the other SDVOSB concern's quotation to be technically unacceptable as well. Faced with no technically acceptable quotations from SDVOSBs, the VA cancelled the RFQ and reissued it as a set-aside for small-businesses. Following a debriefing, TSG filed this protest.[1] TSG protests the VA's determination that its quotation was technically unacceptable. The protester argues that the solicitation did not state that the prime contractor had to hold the business license for rodent control, so that its submission of Terminix's license satisfied the RFQ's terms. TSG also argues that subfactor 1b did not require individual training certificates and its submission of Terminix Branch Office Registrations suffices to satisfy this requirement. TSG contends its quotation therefore should have been considered technically acceptable and it should have received an award under the original solicitation. In reviewing an agency's technical evaluation, we will not reevaluate vendors' submissions; rather, we will examine the record to ensure that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria and with procurement statutes and regulations. See Maritime Mgmt., Inc., B-260311.2, B-260311.3, July 11, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 11 at 4. We have found that failure to submit training certificates or documents as required by a solicitation is a reasonable basis for rejecting quotations as technically unacceptable. Verizon Fed., Inc., B-293527, Mar. 26, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 186 at 5; see Techseco Inc., B-284949, June 19, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 105 at 3 (rejection of proposals as technically unacceptable was reasonable where request for proposal required submission of two training certificates for each engineer and the proposal included no applicable certificates). We find that TSG failed to comply with the RFQ's terms because its quotation did not include the required training certificates. TSG's allegation that the RFQ did not ask for training certificates for individuals is contrary to the RFQ's plain language, which requires training certificate/documents for –contractor personnel performing rodent control.— RFQ at 36 (emphasis added). TSG's allegation that it did submit training certificates is also not supported by the record.