Vetcorp, Inc.

B-412198.2 May 09, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights VETcorp, Inc., a service-disabled, veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), of Frederick, Maryland, requests reconsideration of our decision in VETcorp, Inc., B-412198, Oct. 8, 2015 (unpublished decision), in which we dismissed VETcorp's protest of the rejection of its offer by the United States Marine Corps under request for proposals (RFP) No. M00264-15-R-1018. The protester contends that our decision dismissing its protest was flawed based on errors of fact and law. We deny the request for reconsideration. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision Decision Matter of:  VETcorp, Inc.--Reconsideration File:  B-412198.2 Date:  May 9, 2016 Frank V. Reilly, Esq., for the protester. Michael P. Giordano, Esq., United States Marine Corps, for the agency. Elizabeth Witwer, 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 post-award challenge to the terms of the solicitation as untimely is denied where the protester does not show that the prior decision contains errors of fact or law that warrant reversal or modification. DECISION VETcorp, Inc., a service-disabled, veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), of Frederick, Maryland, requests reconsideration of our decision in VETcorp, Inc., B‑412198, Oct. 8, 2015 (unpublished decision), in which we dismissed VETcorp’s protest of the rejection of its offer by the United States Marine Corps under request for proposals (RFP) No. M00264-15-R-1018.  The protester contends that our decision dismissing its protest was flawed based on errors of fact and law. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND The Marine Corps issued the RFP on July 6, 2015 as a SDVOSB set-aside.  RFP at 1. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price, single-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, consisting of a base year and four 1‑year options, for the delivery of caustic soda to three locations at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia.  Id. at 1, 7-9.  The RFP provided that the agency would evaluate proposals under the following three factors:  (1) technical capability, (2) past performance, and (3) price.  The RFP provided that the agency would make an award to the offeror who submitted the lowest‑priced, technically acceptable offer.  Id. at 43-42.  The RFP stated that technical acceptability would be determined by an offeror’s demonstrated capacity to meet the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW).  Id. at 43.  Of relevance here, paragraph 4 of the SOW required: The Contractor must have visited the sites of all plants prior to submitting its quote, in order to become familiar with plant security and tank connection points. RFP, SOW ¶ 4, at 8.  The Marine Corps amended the RFP twice to post dates for site visits.  Through RFP amendments 001 and 002, dated July 14 and July 21, respectively, the Marine Corps provided dates for site visits “in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Statement of Work.”  Amend. 001 at 1; Amend. 002 at 1.  Both amendments also extended the closing date for receipt of proposals to permit offerors to attend the site visits.  Id.  The amendments advised that offerors should arrive at a designated meeting place and that the parties would then travel together “to the location where the work will be completed.”  Amend. 001 at 2; Amend. 002 at 2. On September 21, the Marine Corps notified VETcorp that its proposal was determined to be unacceptable because VETcorp failed to attend any of the offered site visits.[1]  Protest at 2.  VETcorp filed a protest with our Office on September 30.  VETcorp’s sole ground for protest was that the failure to attend a site visit is not a valid basis to reject an offer.  Id.  The entirety of VETcorp’s argument is contained in two paragraphs in its protest: 6.  The Agency misevaluated the Protestor’s proposal and the Protestor’s proposal was therefore improperly rejected.  This is because a firm’s failure to attend a site visit is not a valid basis to reject an otherwise acceptable offer. 7.  Had the Agency followed the law, the Protester would have been the successful offeror because the Protestor’s proposal is technically acceptable and the Protestor’s price is lower than the price of the Awardee. Id.