Integrity National Corporation

B-411582 Sep 01, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Integrity National Corporation, of Rockville, Maryland, a small business, protests the cancellation of request for quotations (RFQ) No. VA245-15-Q-0132, which was issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for cleaning and janitorial services for the Washington, D.C. Veterans Affairs Medical Center (DCVAMC). We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Integrity National Corporation File: B-411582 Date: September 1, 2015 Ruth E. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal and Ganister, LLC, for the protester. David W. Altieri, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of the cancellation of a solicitation is denied where the agency reasonably concluded that the solicitation inaccurately stated the requirement, and where the agency decided to consider whether to set the procurement aside for award under the AbilityOne program. DECISION Integrity National Corporation, of Rockville, Maryland, a small business, protests the cancellation of request for quotations (RFQ) No. VA245-15-Q-0132, which was issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for cleaning and janitorial services for the Washington, D.C. Veterans Affairs Medical Center (DCVAMC). We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ was issued on April 24, 2015, and provided for the award of a fixed‑price contract for cleaning and janitorial services for the DCVAMC for a 1-year base period and four 1-year options. The procurement was conducted via the General Services Administration (GSA) e-Buy portal, under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 and was open to vendors holding FSS contracts. Contracting Officer Statement at 1. The solicitation required the contractor to provide “all labor, supervision, management support, and equipment, supplies, consumables, and materials to facilitate cleaning of treatment areas, administrative support offices, and Canteen.” RFQ, Statement of Work (SOW) at 5. The RFQ stated the total approximate square footage to be cleaned under this contract was estimated to be 1,107,594.95 gross square feet. Id. The contracting officer states that the vendors were advised in the RFQ that award would be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis.[1] Contracting Officer Statement at 1. The VA conducted a site visit for vendors. Prior to the close of the solicitation, several vendors submitted questions and requests for clarification, including the following: 11. What are the square footage totals of the clinic spaces, hallways and canteen? [answer] will be provided during walk thru Agency Supp. Filing, Questions and Answers, at 3. Ten vendors submitted quotes by the May 5 deadline. Contracting Officer Statement at 1. The agency concluded that Integrity had submitted the lowest‑priced, technically-acceptable quote, and made award to that vendor on May 13. Id. On May 15, two unsuccessful vendors filed agency‑level protests contesting the award. Id. UNITED Facility Services Corp., doing business as EASTCO, alleged that the statement of work and the site visit were misleading with regard to the amount of square footage required, and the responsibilities of the contractor. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, Agency-Level Protest of EASTCO (May 19, 2015), at 1. In addition, EASTCO asserted that the usage of supplies and equipment was not properly spelled out in the RFP or at the site visit. Id. The second agency-level protest, which was filed by ADS‑Meyers, Inc., argued that the solicitation was defective regarding the scope of work and the square footage of the areas to be cleaned, and that the site visit did not include “all [of] the areas in the Scope of Work that the bidder would be responsible for cleaning, and/or buildings listed in the solicitation.” AR, Tab 6, Agency-Level Protest of ADS‑Meyers, Inc. (May 19, 2015), at 1. In this regard, ADS contended that the individual conducting the site visit “was unsure of all [ ] the bid requirements.” Id. In response to the agency-level protests, the contracting officer reviewed the solicitation, and determined that the protests were “essentially correct.” Contracting Officer Statement at 1. The contracting officer concluded that the “solicitation must be cancelled in order to take appropriate corrective action, such as re-assessment of the requirement, correct deficiencies in the scope of work, and exploration of procurement of the services under FAR Subpart 8.7.” Id. The contracting officer decided to take corrective action and cancel the solicitation. Id.