govSolutions, Inc.

B-413166.2 Aug 01, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights M Inc., doing business as Minc Interior Design, of Fayetteville, North Carolina, a small business, protests the issuance of Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) blanket purchase agreements (BPA) to five vendors, and the corresponding rejection of the protester's quotation as unacceptable, by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. VA119-16-Q-0072 for healthcare facility furniture and related services for Veterans Health Administration facilities in particular regions or nationwide. The protester argues that the VA improperly rejected the firm's quotation. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety. Decision Matter of:  M Inc., d/b/a Minc Interior Design File:  B-413166.2 Date:  August 1, 2016 Paul M. Dubbeling, Esq., P.M. Dubbeling, PLLC, for the protester. Amy Laderberg O’Sullivan, Esq., and Olivia Lynch, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Corporate Spaces, Inc., the intervenor. Ashley Dennis Presley, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, 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 unreasonably rejected protester’s quotation is denied where, although solicitation allowed vendors to submit quotations utilizing contractor teaming arrangements (CTA) among Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) vendors, protester’s quotation failed to identify an FSS contract for one supplier for whom protester submitted a CTA, and the firm in fact had no current FSS contract.  DECISION M Inc., doing business asMinc Interior Design, of Fayetteville, North Carolina, a small business, protests the issuance of Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) blanket purchase agreements (BPA) to five vendors[1], and the corresponding rejection of the protester’s quotation as unacceptable, by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. VA119-16-Q-0072 for healthcare facility furniture and related services for Veterans Health Administration facilities in particular regions or nationwide.  The protester argues that the VA improperly rejected the firm’s quotation.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The VA posted the RFQ on the General Services Administration e-Buy system on December 3, 2015, seeking quotations from vendors holding FSS contracts under Schedules 71 or 71 II K.  Additionally, the RFQ indicated that vendors were encouraged to subcontract or to form contractor teaming arrangements (CTA) with other vendors holding FSS contracts under those schedules.[2] The RFQ provided that the VA intended to issue multiple BPAs under which the VA intends to place orders with a total value of up to $546 million over a base year and four option years.  RFQ at 24, 26.  The RFQ also provided that in selecting vendors to receive BPAs, the agency would determine which quotations offered the best value to the VA considering four factors, in descending order of importance:  technical capability, past performance, small business participation plan, and price.  Id. at 67.  The competition was conducted under Part 8.4 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.  Id. at 24.  For vendors that elected to use CTAs, the RFQ required the lead vendor to submit all teaming agreements, identify all CTA vendors and their respective GSA schedule contract numbers, and specify each CTA vendor’s responsibilities for delivery, warranty, and other issues (among other things).  Id. at 61.  The RFQ also provided a form agreement that could be used in establishing a CTA.  RFQ attach. 11, CTA Template.  In RFQ amendment 2, the VA also responded to vendor questions and, in doing so, informed vendors that they were not required to use the form CTA, but that the essential elements of a CTA, included that “[e]ach team member must have a GSA Schedule contract.”  Id. at 2. With respect to the technical capability evaluation, the RFQ specified that offerors were to certify compliance with minimum technical requirements (MTR) from a list of 126 items,[3] and that the evaluation would assess whether the vendor was able to supply at least 88 of the 126 items.  RFQ at 67.  The RFQ also identified 12 items for which vendors were to submit detailed product literature for evaluation.  Id. at 69-70.  Vendors were also directed to provide pricing for one each of 13 items, and also to provide prices to perform services for two jobs, “for evaluation purposes only.”  RFQ at 4-23.  The RFQ also specified that the agency would evaluate quotations under the technical capability factor as acceptable, susceptible of being made acceptable,[4] or unacceptable.  Id.