Team Housing Solutions

B-414105 Feb 10, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Team Housing Solutions, a woman-owned small business of New Braunfels, TX, protests the General Services Administration's (GSA) decision not to consider its quotation pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 04160045, issued by GSA for long-term lodging services. Team Housing disputes GSA's determination that Team Housing's quotation was late because its quotation was not submitted to the online portal identified in the solicitation. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Team Housing Solutions File:  B-414105 Date:  February 10, 2017 Jared Gallini, Team Housing Solutions, for the protester. Andrew Sinn, Esq., and Gregory Swartzberg, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s decision not to consider vendor’s quotation is denied where the quotation was not timely received by the agency in a manner consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Team Housing Solutions, a woman-owned small business of New Braunfels, TX, protests the General Services Administration’s (GSA) decision not to consider its quotation pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 04160045, issued by GSA for long-term lodging services.  Team Housing disputes GSA’s determination that Team Housing’s quotation was late because its quotation was not submitted to the online portal identified in the solicitation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND GSA issued the RFQ via the GSA e-Buy system on August 29, 2016, under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, to vendors holding contracts under GSA Federal Supply Schedule No. 48, “Transportation, Delivery, and Relocation Solutions.”  Contracting Officer’s (CO) Statement at 2-3.  The RFQ anticipated the issuance of a task order for long-term lodging services.  Id.  In the RFQ, the agency included Instructions to Offerors regarding the preparation and submission of quotations, and also identified the evaluation criteria and basis for award.  RFQ at 2-3.  Of relevance here, while the RFQ was issued via GSA’s e-Buy electronic portal, the RFQ established that quotations were to be submitted via GSA’s Information Technology Solutions Shop (ITSS) electronic portal--no later than 4:00 p.m. Central Time (CT), on September 28, 2016.  Id.  The RFQ further cautioned that quotations would not be accepted as valid unless submitted to ITSS.  Id.  The RFQ reiterated that failure to submit quotations via ITSS may “result in exclusion from consideration.”  Id.  Notably, the RFQ did not instruct vendors to submit quotations via GSA’s e-Buy portal. The agency reports that by 4:00 p.m. on September 28 it received quotations in ITSS from five vendors, several of which contacted the agency to ensure that their quotations had been received.  CO Statement at 4.  The agency did not receive a quotation from Team Housing via ITSS.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 17, ITSS List of Quotes Received.  On October 6, the agency evaluated the five quotations it received via ITSS, made a selection decision, and began preparing the task order issuance documents.  CO Statement at 4.  On October 13, before the agency had issued a task order, the agency received an automated notice from the e-Buy system concerning a quotation that Team Housing had submitted via e-Buy.  AR, Tab 22, e-Buy Closeout E-mail Notice.  The agency indicates that this e-mail was the first notice it had of Team Housing’s quotation.  CO’s Statement at 4.  In a letter dated October 26, the agency advised Team Housing that it would not consider its quotation since it had been submitted via e-Buy rather than ITSS.  AR, Tab 4, Ineligibility Letter.  This protest followed. DISCUSSION Team Housing argues that, to the extent its quotation was incorrectly submitted, it was due to ambiguous and unclear solicitation instructions.  Protest at 6-10.  Specifically, the protester contends that the agency’s instructions were unclear because the RFQ and the agency’s communications concerning it contained numerous errors and inconsistencies.  Protest at 6-8 and Protester’s Comments on the Agency Report at 4-7.  Furthermore, Team Housing maintains that the agency erred in not evaluating and considering the quotation since it had been timely received in the e-Buy system.