B-299923, K9 Operations, Inc., August 6, 2007

B-299923 Aug 06, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights K9 Operations, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Britt's Bow Wow Bed N Biscuit under request for proposals (RFP) No. 20024820SGK, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), for commercial kennel facilities and services in support of CBP's Canine Enforcement Program. K9 asserts that the agency improperly evaluated Britt's proposal and that the agency contracting official was biased against K9. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299923, K9 Operations, Inc., August 6, 2007 Decision Matter of: K9 Operations, Inc. File: B-299923 Date: August 6, 2007 Patrick R. Currey for the protester. Melissa K. Erny, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where solicitation did not impose specific requirement that proposed facility have overnight parking approved by city, agency properly made award without regard to whether awardee's facility had such approval. DECISION K9 Operations, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Britt's Bow Wow Bed N Biscuit under request for proposals (RFP) No. 20024820SGK, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), for commercial kennel facilities and services in support of CBP's Canine Enforcement Program. K9 asserts that the agency improperly evaluated Britt's proposal and that the agency contracting official was biased against K9. We deny the protest. The RFQ, issued as a small business set-aside on January 19, 2007, provided for the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a 10-month base period, with four 1-year options, to the firm submitting the lowest-priced, technically'acceptable proposal. The determination of technical acceptability was to be based on driving distance (including travel time for canine officers from the kennel to the workplace), and compliance with the statement of work (SOW) requirements, including, for example, facility requirements (e.g., the size and construction of indoor/outdoor kennel runs), sanitation requirements (such as bathing and flea and tick prevention), food and feeding requirements, and other general requirements. RFP at 2-3. Under the general requirements, the SOW specified that [the] contractor shall provide an adequate number of secure parking spaces for CBP personnel to arrive and exchange vehicles for scheduled work. The number of vehicle parking spaces will be equal to the number of CBP canines housed at the kennel. A one to one ratio is required. The kennel operator should provide a safe and lighted area to load and unload canines. The parking spaces must be designated for CBP use only and twenty-four hour access to the parking area will be required. RFP, SOW, at 6-7. The agency received six proposals. By amendment issued April 13, the agency clarified the evaluation terms and procedures and requested revised proposals by April 23. RFP Amend. 2, at 2-3. Following receipt and evaluation of revised proposals, the agency awarded a contract to Britt's on June 11. K9 maintains that Britt's facility is technically unacceptable because it does not meet the 24-hour parking access requirement specified in the SOW. Specifically, the protester alleges that Britt's facility lacks the authorization for overnight parking required by the city. K9 concludes that Britt's should not have received the award. The protest is without merit. While a solicitation provision that requires a contractor to possess a specific license is a definitive responsibility criterion, compliance with which is a necessary prerequisite to contract award, Mobile Medic Ambulance Serv., Inc.--Recon., B-251545.2, Mar. 26, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 272 at 2, the RFP here contained no such requirement with regard to overnight parking. That is, the RFP did not specifically require offerors to demonstrate in their proposals that their facilities had been approved by the city for overnight parking as a prerequisite to being found technically acceptable. To the extent the protester believes city approval nevertheless will be required in order for Britt's to provide the required parking in performing the contract, this is a matter of contract administration; such matters are within the agency's discretion, and not subject to review by our Office. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.5(a) (2007).[1] K9 also asserts that the award decision was flawed because it reflected bias on the part of the contracting officer.