Walker Development & Trading Group, Inc.

B-414453 Jun 21, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Walker Development & Trading Group, Inc. of Reno, Nevada, a small business, protests the corrective action taken in connection with request for quotations (RFQ) No. VA262-17-Q-0420 issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide laundry services to VA medical facilities located in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Loma Linda, California. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Walker Development & Trading Group, Inc. File:  B-414453 Date:  June 21, 2017 Terrance Walker, Walker Development & Trading Group, Inc., for the protester. Daniel J. McFeely, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest objecting to proposed corrective action taken in response to earlier protest is denied where agency reasonably decided not to reinstate its prior solicitation after determining that the previous solicitation did not accurately reflect its requirements, and instead issued a new solicitation that correctly stated the agency requirements.  DECISION Walker Development & Trading Group, Inc. of Reno, Nevada, a small business, protests the corrective action taken in connection with request for quotations (RFQ) No. VA262‑17-Q-0420 issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide laundry services to VA medical facilities located in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Loma Linda, California.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 10, 2016, the VA issued RFQ No. VA262-16-Q-0766 (“-0766”) for laundry services for the Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Loma Linda VA hospitals as a commercial item acquisition.  The RFQ anticipated the award of an indefinite‑delivery/ indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ), fixed-priced contract for a base year and four 1-year options.  Quotations were to be evaluated considering price and technical acceptability.  RFQ No. 0766 at 89.  The solicitation stated that award would be made to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable vendor.  Id. After the closing date for receipt of quotations, the agency reopened the solicitation on September 1, amended the solicitation to increase the maximum award amount, and set a due date for revised quotations of September 13.  Walker submitted a timely revised quotation.  On October 3, the protester received a notice that the agency cancelled the solicitation.  B-413924 Protest, Tab 3, Agency Cancellation Notice (Oct. 3, 2016).  On September 30, the same contracting activity stated that it was exercising its rights under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.217-8, option to extend services, to extend its contract with Railroad Cleaners to continue procuring these services.  RFQ 0766 at 41; B‑413924 Protest, Tab 2, Award Notice to Railroad Cleaners (Sept. 30, 2016).  After receiving the agency’s notice of cancellation of the RFQ, and subsequent award to Railroad Cleaners, Walker filed a protest with our Office protesting the cancellation of the RFQ.[1]  Our Office sustained the protest finding that the agency “failed to produce an agency report that coherently addressed the agency’s rationale for cancellation of the solicitation.”[2]  Walker Dev. & Trading Group, Inc., B‑413924, Jan. 12, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 5 at 6.  Our decision recommended that the agency, “if feasible, re-instat[e] the solicitation.”  Id. at 6. Following receipt of our decision sustaining Walker’s protest, the agency conducted an investigation to determine if it was feasible to amend and reinstate RFQ No. 0766.  Agency Report (AR) at 2; Tab 5, Contracting Officer’s Determination to Issue a New Solicitation.  For a number of reasons the contracting officer determined that it was not feasible to amend and reinstate the cancelled solicitation.  Specifically, the contracting officer determined that the nature of the changes required to address the flaws with the cancelled solicitation were so substantial that they exceeded what prospective vendors reasonably could have anticipated.  As a result, the contracting officer determined that additional firms likely would have submitted quotations had the substance of the subsequent changes been known to them.  Id.