Tried & True Corporate Cleaning, Inc.

B-412874 May 17, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights TTCC, Inc., doing business as Tried & True Corporate Cleaning, of La Mesa, California, a small business, protests the rejection of its proposal by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4625-16-R-0002 for airfield grounds maintenance services at Whiteman Air Force Base (AFB), Missouri. TTCC argues that although the firm mistakenly failed to acknowledge an amendment in its proposal, the amendment was not material, and thus the Air Force acted improperly in rejecting TTCC's proposal. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  TTCC, Inc. File:  B-412874 Date:  May 17, 2016 Daniel J. Cragg, Esq., Eckland & Blando LLP, for the protester. Col. Matthew J. Mulbarger, Lt. Col. Damund E. Williams, and Capt. Christopher J. Elliott, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly rejected protester’s proposal for airfield grounds maintenance services is denied where proposal failed to acknowledge amendment to request for proposals that provided new information that would affect offeror’s performance.  DECISION TTCC, Inc., doing business asTried & True Corporate Cleaning, of La Mesa, California, a small business, protests the rejection of its proposal by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4625-16-R-0002 for airfield grounds maintenance services at Whiteman Air Force Base (AFB), Missouri.  TTCC argues that although the firm mistakenly failed to acknowledge an amendment[1] in its proposal, the amendment was not material, and thus the Air Force acted improperly in rejecting TTCC’s proposal.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The Air Force issued the RFP on February 2, 2016, seeking proposals to perform services for a base year and 4 option years.  RFP at 3-10.  Over the following weeks, the Air Force issued six amendments.  The protest concerns whether the final amendment was material, so we summarize each briefly.  Amendment 1 revised the RFP and removed “DRAFT” markings from the original RFP.  RFP amend. 1, at 1-2.  Three unnumbered amendments then followed, which provided answers to offeror questions seeking clarification of the agency’s requirements.  RFP unnumbered amends.  The next amendment, labeled as amendment 2, provided notice of and instructions for attending a site visit, and also extended the due date for proposals.  RFP amend. 5, at 1‑2.  The sixth amendment was labeled as amendment 3.  Amendment 3 reiterated the earlier answers from the unnumbered amendments but also provided new information:  minutes of the site visit, and a final set of questions and answers generated by the visit.  RFP amend. 3, at 1 & attach. B at 5-8.  Among the new information was the following: Question 28: Can the government provide a linear footage of fencelines?  Answer: The old fence lines have gravel installed under them. The linear footage of the new fences without gravel is approximately 10,500 LF [linear feet].   *  *  * Question 30: Will ditches need to be maintained that are in Areas 1 & 2 that are north of the main fence? Answer: No, these ditches are not included in this contract. Id. attach. B at 6. On March 9, TTCC submitted its proposal, but did not acknowledge amendment 3.  Protest at 2; Agency Report (AR) at 3.  On March 14, the Air Force rejected TTCC’s proposal on that basis, after which TTCC filed this protest.  Protest at 2; AR at 4.  ANALYSIS TTCC’s protest argues that the firm received and understood amendment 3, but inadvertently failed to expressly acknowledge the amendment.  Protest at 2.  TTCC argues that the failure to acknowledge the amendment did not make its proposal unacceptable because the amendment was not material.  Id.