In and Out Valet Company

B-411019 Apr 15, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights In and Out Valet Company (IOVC), of Irwin, Pennsylvania protests the terms of Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) request for quotations (RFQ) No. VA260-15-Q-0049, for valet parking services for the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, Washington. The protester, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) concern, asserts that the VA should have set the procurement aside for SDVOSBs. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: In and Out Valet Company File: B-411019 Date: April 15, 2015 James Tramonte for the protester. David G. Fagan, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging an agency’s decision not to set aside a procurement for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs) is denied where the agency reasonably concluded from its market research that it did not have a reasonable expectation of receiving proposals from two or more SDVOSBs capable of performing the required services at a fair and reasonable price. DECISION In and Out Valet Company (IOVC), of Irwin, Pennsylvania protests the terms of Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) request for quotations (RFQ) No. VA260-15-Q-0049, for valet parking services for the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, Washington. The protester, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) concern, asserts that the VA should have set the procurement aside for SDVOSBs. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on January 7, 2015, and set aside for small businesses, seeks proposals to provide fast, efficient, and professional valet parking services to alleviate the congestion and delays in the limited parking areas for the VA Puget Sound Health Care System facilities in Seattle. The successful contractor is to furnish all necessary labor, supervision, materials, equipment, services, and supplies needed to perform valet parking services for approximately 650 to 750 vehicles per day. RFQ at 7, 9. In October 2014, prior to issuing the RFQ, the contracting officer conducted market research to identify SDVOSBs or veteran‑owned small businesses (VOSBs) with North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code No. 812930 (parking lots and garages) using the VetBiz web portal to search the Vendor Information Pages (VIP) database.[1] Based on the VetBiz research, the agency found only two companies that were listed as VOSBs or SDVOSBs under the relevant NAICS code and were located in the state of Washington, neither of which appeared to provide valet parking services. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, Contracting Specialist’s Statement at 1. The contracting specialist then expanded his search to the nearby states of Oregon, Idaho, and California, in which he found 12 companies listed as VOSBs or SDVOSBs under the relevant NAICS code, only one of which performs valet parking services. Id. at 1. The contracting specialist then performed a search without geographic restriction and found 46 VOSB and SDVOSB companies nationwide under the relevant NAICS code. Further market research revealed that six of these companies perform valet parking services. The six companies were located in California, Texas, Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Id. The agency also considered the procurement history of this requirement. Id. Specifically, the contract specialist noted that the last time the requirement was competed, it was set aside for SDVOSBs. However, the awardee performed for only one week before ceasing performance. The agency then awarded to the SDVOSB that was next in line for award, but the second contractor informed the agency that it was also unable to perform the contract. See id.; AR, Tab 4, E-mails, at 36. As a result, the agency had to issue a sole source contract to the incumbent contractor to perform the services until the agency could again compete the requirement. Id. As a result of the lack of SDVOSB businesses in close geographical proximity to the place of performance, and the procurement history of SDVOSBs having difficulty in meeting this requirement, the agency concluded that there was not a reasonable expectation of receiving offers from two or more SDVOSB firms that would be capable of performing the required work at a fair and reasonable price. Accordingly, the agency posted the solicitation on January 7 as a small business set-aside. On January 8, IOVC contacted the agency to request that the procurement be set aside for SDVOSBs, and on January 13 it filed this protest. DISCUSSION IOVC asserts that the VA failed to perform sufficient market research to ascertain the interest and capability of SDVOSBs to perform the requirement.