Precise Management, LLC

B-410912.2 Jun 30, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Precise Management, LLC (Precise), of McCalla, Alabama, requests reconsideration of our decision in Precise Management, LLC, B-410912.1, Jan. 21, 2015, in which we dismissed Precise's protest challenging the award of a contract to Visions, Inc. (Visions), of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under request for quotations No. VA247-14-Q-1719 (RFQ) for pest control support services at the Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center in Charleston, South Carolina; the Myrtle Beach Primary Care Clinic in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; and the Veterans Affairs Medical Clinic Warehouse in Hanahan, South Carolina. We deny the request for reconsideration. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision Decision Matter of: Precise Management, LLC--Reconsideration File: B-410912.2 Date: June 30, 2015 Ronjiel Sharpe, Precise Management, LLC, for the protester. Harold W. Askins, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Stephanie B. Magnell, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of a prior decision dismissing a protest is denied where the protester does not show that the prior decision contains errors of fact or law that warrant reversal or modification of the decision. DECISION Precise Management, LLC (Precise), of McCalla, Alabama, requests reconsideration of our decision in Precise Management, LLC, B-410912.1, Jan. 21, 2015, in which we dismissed Precise’s protest challenging the award of a contract to Visions, Inc. (Visions), of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under request for quotations No. VA247-14-Q-1719 (RFQ) for pest control support services at the Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center in Charleston, South Carolina; the Myrtle Beach Primary Care Clinic in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; and the Veterans Affairs Medical Clinic Warehouse in Hanahan, South Carolina. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND The VA issued the RFQ on October 20, 2014, as a small business set-aside. The RFQ provided for the award to the vendor that submitted the lowest-priced, technically-acceptable quotation. RFQ at 8. Three vendors submitted timely quotations, including the protester. Agency Report (AR), at 2. On December 1, 2014, the agency determined that Precise’s quotation was not technically acceptable, since it did not include an adequate pest management plan, did not describe its approach to implementing the solicitation’s limitation on subcontracting clause, and did not indicate the required three years of satisfactory experience/past performance. AR, Tab 3, Notice of Award and Debriefing (Dec. 1, 2014), at 1-2. The VA found that the other two vendors’ quotations were technically acceptable. AR, at 2. The VA made award to Visions, the lowest-priced, technically acceptable vendor. Id. The agency provided a debriefing to Precise and explained the basis for finding the protester’s quotation unacceptable. AR, Tab 3, Notice of Award and Debriefing, at 1. Precise filed its protest on December 8, alleging that the VA had erred by failing to set aside the solicitation for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs). Protest at 1. The protester also challenged agency’s determination that Visions was a responsible firm, alleging that the awardee lacked a necessary state pest control license to perform the contract. Id. Precise did not challenge the VA’s determination that its own quotation was technically unacceptable. Id. On December 12, Precise asked the agency to produce copies of Visions’ state pest control business license and state pesticide applicator license. Precise email (Dec. 12, 2014), at 1. The protester did not specifically request any other documents. Id. On January 6, 2015, the agency submitted its report on the protest and requested that we dismiss or deny the protest. AR, at 1. The agency first argued that the protester’s objection to the agency’s failure to set aside the contract for SDVOSBs was untimely. Id. at 2. The VA also maintained that because Precise’s quotation was technically unacceptable and ineligible for award, Precise was not an interested party under our regulations to protest the award to Visions. Id. at 4‑5. In addition, the agency also argued that it had evaluated vendors’ licenses in accordance with the solicitation. Id. at 3. On January 8, the protester objected to the scope of the agency’s document production and requested a copy of the awardee’s quotation, the agency’s evaluation of that quotation, and a copy of the awardee’s state pest control license. Objection to Document Production (Jan. 8, 2015), at 4.