B-310485, Nilson Van & Storage, Inc., December 10, 2007

B-310485 Dec 10, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Nilson Van & Storage, Inc. protests the award of a contract to A+ Relocation Services, Inc., dba A+ Moving and Storage under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91247-07-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army for moving and storage services at Fort Bragg. We dismiss the protest. View Decision B-310485, Nilson Van & Storage, Inc., December 10, 2007 Decision Matter of: Nilson Van & Storage, Inc. File: B-310485 Date: December 10, 2007 Alan F. Wohlstetter, Esq., Denning & Wohlstetter, for the protester. H. Addison Winters, The Yarborough Law Firm, P.A., for A+ Relocation Services, Inc. dba A+ Moving & Storage, an intervenor. Maj. William J. Nelson, Department of the Army, for the agency. Frank Maguire, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that contracting officer improperly determined awardee to be responsible, notwithstanding awardee's failure to supply all information requested by solicitation regarding previous performance of comparable contracts, is dismissed, where information request did not constitute definitive responsibility criterion, and there is no evidence raising serious concern that contracting officer ignored relevant responsibility information. DECISION Nilson Van & Storage, Inc. protests the award of a contract to A+ Relocation Services, Inc., dba A+ Moving and Storage under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91247-07-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army for moving and storage services at Fort Bragg. We dismiss the protest. The solicitation was issued on August 3, 2007 for services related to the moving and storage of household goods of service members and their dependents. The requirement was divided into three separate schedules: schedule I for outbound moves, schedule II for inbound moves, and schedule III for intra city and intra area moves. Agency Report at 2. Award was to be made on the basis of price. RFP at 115. The Army awarded three separate contracts, including schedule II to Nilson and schedule III to A+ Relocation. Nilson, the incumbent on the schedule III requirement, protests the schedule III award to A+ Relocation on four grounds: 1) the solicitation improperly failed to include past performance as an evaluation factor; 2) the awardee failed to comply with solicitation clause 52.212-2(b), which called for offerors to provide information on up to three contracts –of comparable magnitude and similar in nature to the work required— under the solicitation; 3) the Army failed to conduct a preaward survey and thereby make a proper responsibility determination; and 4) an alleged criminal conviction of the president of the awardee violated a performance work statement (PWS) provision requiring background checks of contractor employees. The Army requested summary dismissal of the protest by letter of October 19. We concluded, and advised the parties, that three of Nilson's arguments failed to state valid protest grounds: the first issue was untimely because it concerned an alleged solicitation impropriety, and thus had to be filed prior to the closing time, Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2 (a)(1) (2007); the third issue concerned an affirmative responsibility determination that was not for our review, under 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.5(c); and the fourth issue was a matter of contract administration that was not for our review, under 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.5(a). GAO Memorandum to the Parties, Oct. 25, 2007. We did not dismiss the second protest ground--that A+ Relocation's failure to comply with RFP clause 52.212-2(b) rendered the agency's affirmative responsibility determination improper--concluding that further development of the record was necessary. However, we now find that this argument, too, is not for our review. RFP clause 52.212-2(b) advised offerors to provide specific information on up to three contracts –of comparable magnitude and similar in nature to work required— under the RFP, that were performed within the past 3 years. RFP at 115. Past performance was not an evaluation factor, and the agency states that the requested information was intended to assist the contracting officer in making her responsibility determination. See AR at 5. In response to the clause, A+ Relocation provided a list of names, addresses, and telephone numbers regarding three prior contracts, but did not identify the contract values and descriptions of the services performed, as requested by the clause. AR, Tab 7, at 5-6. In a document entitled –Determination of Responsibility,— dated September 19, the contracting officer memorialized the bases of her finding that A+ Relocation was a responsible offeror. AR, Tab 7, at 1.