Land Shark Shredding, LLC

B-415908 Mar 29, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Land Shark Shredding, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Bowling Green, Kentucky, challenges the decision not to issue it a task order under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C24218Q0018, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for document shredding services for the New Jersey VA Health Care System. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably found its quotation nonresponsive and that it should have been issued the task order. 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. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Land Shark Shredding, LLC File:  B-415908 Date:  March 29, 2018 Timothy J. Turner, Esq., Whitcomb, Selinsky, McAuliffe, PC, for the protester. Natica C. Neely, Esq., and Donald C. Mobly, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency finding that protester’s quotation was nonresponsive is denied where the record indicates that the protester failed to submit a fully responsive quotation. DECISION Land Shark Shredding, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Bowling Green, Kentucky, challenges the decision not to issue it a task order under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C24218Q0018, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for document shredding services for the New Jersey VA Health Care System.  The protester contends that the agency unreasonably found its quotation nonresponsive and that it should have been issued the task order. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, posted on the General Services Administration’s (GSA) e-Buy[1] system on November 30, 2017, was set aside for veteran-owned small businesses (VOSB) and requested quotations from vendors holding a GSA Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 36 contract.  Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFQ, at 1, 23-24; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The RFQ contemplated issuance of a fixed-price task order with a period of performance for one base year and four 12-month option years.  RFQ at 5-6.  Award was to be made to the lowest-priced, technically-acceptable quotation.  Id. at 34. The RFQ included three evaluation factors:  technical; price; and past performance.  RFQ at 34-35.  For the technical factor, vendors were required to submit a capability statement, not to exceed 10 pages, in which vendors were to address the following three subfactors:  performance capability and schedule; management, training, and certification; and subcontracting plan.  Id. at 34.  For the performance capability and schedule subfactor, the RFQ instructed vendors to provide a “detailed statement of contractor’s capability in reference to this requirement,” and a “[p]roposed schedule for service to all facilities.”  Id.  For the subcontracting plan subfactor, the RFQ stated: Provide proposed team, including all subcontractors and the duties which will be performed by the pertinent individuals.  This information will enable the [contracting officer] to assess the contractor’s compliance with the limitations on subcontracting or percentage of work performance requirement. Id.  The RFQ advised vendors that “[f]ailure to provide the information requested in the evaluation criteria may result in being found non-responsive.”  Id. at 35. On December 22, the contracting officer posted an e-Buy notification that no award under the RFQ would be made, and emailed notices to the three vendors that had submitted quotations.  COS at 2.  On December 30, the protester inquired why no award would be made, and the contracting officer responded on December 31, advising the protester that all of the quotations received were determined to be nonresponsive.  AR, Exh. 6, Email Correspondence between Land Shark and Contracting Officer, at 3-4.  The contracting officer further advised Land Shark that its quotation was found to be nonresponsive because it had failed to provide a schedule for service to all facilities, as required under the performance capability and schedule subfactor, and had also failed to provide a subcontracting plan.  Id.