AutoFlex, Inc

B-415926 Apr 19, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AutoFlex, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Baltimore, Maryland, protests the termination of its contract and the subsequent award of a contract to District Fleet, LLC, a small business of Thurmont, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C10X18Q0041, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the lease of executive vehicles. AutoFlex contends that the VA unreasonably terminated its contract, failed to conduct the procurement in accordance with the Veterans First Contracting Act, and failed to provide AutoFlex with a debriefing. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. View Decision Decision Matter of:  AutoFlex, Inc File:  B-415926 Date:  April 19, 2018 Luis D. MacDonald, for the protester. Aleia Barlow, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Paula J. Haurilesko, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the agency unreasonably terminated the protester's contract is denied, where the agency reasonably terminated the contract in response to a successful agency-level protest by another vendor. 2.  Post-award protest that the agency failed to set the procurement aside for veteran-owned small business concerns is dismissed as untimely, where the solicitation identified the procurement as set aside for small business concerns. DECISION AutoFlex, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Baltimore, Maryland, protests the termination of its contract and the subsequent award of a contract to District Fleet, LLC, a small business of Thurmont, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C10X18Q0041, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the lease of executive vehicles.  AutoFlex contends that the VA unreasonably terminated its contract, failed to conduct the procurement in accordance with the Veterans First Contracting Act,[1] and failed to provide AutoFlex with a debriefing. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. BACKGROUND The RFQ was issued on November 30, 2017, as a small business set-aside for the award of a fixed-price contract for the lease of four 2018 Chevrolet Suburbans.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFQ, at 6-7, 14.  The RFQ contemplated a period of performance of one base year and four option years.  Id. at 7.  The RFQ stated that award would be made on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis.  Id. at 26. As relevant here, the VA amended the RFQ to respond to questions from prospective vendors.  AR, Tab 5, RFP amend. 1 at 1.  The amendment included the following: 4.  Is this Veterans Affairs['] Solicitation in accordance with the Veterans First Contracting Act? This requirement is being solicited in accordance with the Veterans First Contracting Program. Id. at 2.  The VA received five quotations in response to the solicitation, including District Fleet's and AutoFlex's.  AR, Tab 8, Abstract of Quotations.  District Fleet submitted the lowest-priced quotation, which the VA initially found unacceptable.[2]  Id.; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2.  Autoflex, the incumbent contractor, provided the next lowest-priced quotation.  COS at 3.  The VA awarded the contract to Autoflex on December 20, 2017, with an effective date of March 12, 2018.  Id.; Protest, attach. 2, Autoflex's Contract, at 1. District Fleet filed an agency-level protest of the contract award to Autoflex.  COS at 3; AR, Tab 11, Agency-Level Protest E-mail.  The VA determined that the evaluation of District Fleet's quotation was erroneous, found the quotation to be technically acceptable, terminated Autoflex's contract, and awarded the contract to District Fleet.  COS at 3-4; AR, Tab 14, Addendum to Award Decision, at 2.  Upon learning of the termination of its contract, Autoflex protested to our Office. DISCUSSION Autoflex contends that the VA unreasonably terminated its contract and awarded the contract to a firm that was not a VOSB concern.  Protest at 1-2.  The protester argues that the VA failed to conduct the procurement in accordance with the Veterans First Contracting program and misled Autoflex into believing that the procurement would be set aside for VOSB concerns.  Id.; Comments at 1.  Autoflex also argues that the VA failed to provide a required debriefing.  Protest at 2. Generally, we decline to review the termination of contracts for the convenience of the government because such actions are matters of contract administration.  Phenix Research Prods., B-292184.2, Aug. 8, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 151 at 3.