Draughon LLC

B-413008.2 Sep 30, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Draughon LLC, of Dunn, North Carolina, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Gregory Landscape Services, Inc., also a small business, of Lexington, South Carolina, by the Department of the Army, under invitation for bids (IFB) No. W9124G-16-B-0002 for grounds maintenance services for Fort Rucker, in Alabama. Draughon argues that it was able to see only parts of Gregory's bid, it the license of an Herbicide Pest Applicator as the IFB required, and failed to have the bid signed by an employee. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Draughon LLC File:  B-413008.2 Date:  September 30, 2016 Amy M. Miller, Draughon LLC, for the protester. Capt. Meghan E. Mahaney, and Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Department of the Army, 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 awardee’s bid should have been rejected as nonresponsive is denied where agency properly waived omission of unit prices as minor informality, where bid was signed by representative of awardee, and where bid provided licenses of subcontractor’s employees to meet requirement for proof of state license.  DECISION Draughon LLC, of Dunn, North Carolina, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Gregory Landscape Services, Inc., also a small business,[1] of Lexington, South Carolina, by the Department of the Army, under invitation for bids (IFB) No. W9124G-16-B-0002 for grounds maintenance services for Fort Rucker, in Alabama.  Draughon argues that it was able to see only parts of Gregory’s bid, it alleges that Gregory failed to properly bid on all contract line items, failed to submit the license of an Herbicide Pest Applicator as the IFB required, and failed to have the bid signed by an employee.  We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part.  BACKGROUND The IFB, issued on March 10, 2016, sought bids to perform commercial grounds maintenance services at airfields at Fort Rucker, as well as stage fields and other Army aviation-related sites in Alabama and Florida for a base year and four option years.  IFB Performance Work Statement (PWS) §§ 1.1-1.3; IFB amend. 1 at 45.  The IFB incorporated Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.219-30, designating the solicitation as a set-aside for women-owned small businesses, and provided that the Army would award a single fixed-price requirements contract to the bidder “whose bid, conforming to the invitation for bids, will be most advantageous to the Government, considering only price and price related factors included in the invitation.”  IFB at 86, 90; IFB amend. 1 at 45.  The IFB requested pricing for 18 contract line items (CLINs) each year, each of which listed a quantity that reflected the number of times the contractor would have to care for (mow, trim, etc.) particular areas over a year, and requested a unit price and an extended price for each.  IFB § B.  To be responsive, bidders were also required to submit “[p]roof of [s]tate certification for herbicide application.”  IFB amend. 1 at 43.  The Army conducted a public bid opening on April 14, at which the contracting officer opened five bids, including bids from Gregory and Draughon.  A representative of Draughon was present to witness the bid opening.  The contract specialist announced aloud the name of each bidder, its city and state, the amendments expressly acknowledged on the bid cover page, and the bidder’s total prices for the base year, the total price for each option year, and the total for all 5 years.  Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1.  After all five bids had been opened and announced, the contracting specialist stated that Gregory appeared to have submitted the lowest bid.  Id. According to the contracting officer, upon hearing that Gregory was the apparent low bidder, Draughon’s representative objected that the bid opening process was improper,[2] and demanded that he be allowed to review the bids.  Id.  The contracting officer states that the angry tone and behavior of Draughon’s representative led her to conclude that it was necessary to secure the bids, and end the bid opening without reading the bids or allowing Draughon’s representative to have access to them.  Id. The following day, the contracting officer and contract specialist reviewed the bids.  They first confirmed that their calculations of the bid totals were correct.  Id.  In reviewing Gregory’s bid, they noted that the bid acknowledged both IFB amendments, and had been signed by an individual identified as a Gregory representative in the company’s online records.  Id.  The bid included a copy of a document showing that Gregory’s subcontractor was authorized to do business in Alabama.  Agency Report (AR...