MSC Industrial Direct Company, Inc.

B-416255 Jul 12, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights MSC Industrial Direct Company, Inc. (MSC), of Melville, New York, challenges the rejection of the quotation it submitted in response to request for quotations (RFQ) No. QSRA-RFQ-18001, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) to establish a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to provide and manage industrial product inventory at Warner Robins Air Logistics Complex. MSC asserts that the agency unreasonably rejected its quotation for failing to provide a summary subcontracting report (SSR) with its small business subcontracting participation plan. 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:  MSC Industrial Direct Company, Inc. File:  B-416255 Date:  July 12, 2018 Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., and Elizabeth N. Jochum, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Tyler J. Mullen, Esq., and Alissa J. K. Schrider, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. DIGEST Agency reasonably rejected protester’s quotation for failing to submit small business summary subcontracting report with its quotation where solicitation required vendors to submit the report and warned that failure to do so would result in rejection of the quotation. DECISION MSC Industrial Direct Company, Inc. (MSC), of Melville, New York, challenges the rejection of the quotation it submitted in response to request for quotations (RFQ) No. QSRA-RFQ-18001, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) to establish a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to provide and manage industrial product inventory at Warner Robins Air Logistics Complex.  MSC asserts that the agency unreasonably rejected its quotation for failing to provide a summary subcontracting report (SSR) with its small business subcontracting participation plan.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND GSA issued the solicitation pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 8.405-3, to establish a BPA to provide industrial products and related in-store services for a tool room and issue point at Warner Robins Air Force Base.  The solicitation was limited to vendors that are listed on GSA’s Federal Supply Schedule 51V, Hardware Superstore, and possess specific special item numbers (SIN).[1]  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2-3.  The solicitation provided that the BPA would be established with the vendor that submitted the quotation that represented the best value to the government considering price and the following non-price factors, listed in descending order of importance:  system interface capabilities; technical approach; past performance; and local and small business participation plan.  AR, Exh. 3, RFQ, Amend. 01, § 12.4.  The solicitation also included certain pass/fail criteria; any quotation that did not receive a pass on all of the criteria would be considered ineligible for award and the agency would conduct no further evaluation.  Id. at § 12.3.  For example, any quotation that did not contain the required narratives for any of the non-price factors would fail and be rejected.  Id.  As relevant to this protest, with respect to the small business participation plan, the solicitation required vendors to submit a narrative addressing four elements: a)  . . .the Vendor’s commitment to provide meaningful subcontracting opportunities for [small businesses, veteran owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, HUBZone small businesses, socially disadvantaged businesses, and women owned small businesses]. . . . b) . . . . c) . . . a copy of their current approved [multiple award schedule (MAS)] subcontracting plan and their latest annual [SSR]. . . .and d) . . . information on subcontracting related problems encountered on previous contracts identified within the SSR, and corrective actions taken to resolve those [problems]. RFQ, Amend. 01, § 11.7.6.  The solicitation stated the agency would evaluate the socio-economic merits of each quotation and the vendor’s commitment to providing meaningful subcontracting opportunities to small business.  Id.  In addition, specific to the small business participation narrative, the solicitation provided that the government would review the narrative to ensure that each of the four required elements were provided, and that:  “Quotations that do not provide all required elements will not be evaluated and will be determined not acceptable.”  Id.