Crystal Clear Maintenance, Inc.

B-417482 Jun 28, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Crystal Clear Maintenance, Inc. (CCM), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, protests the award of a contract to Raven Operations, LLC, a SDVOSB located in Scottsdale, Arizona, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C78619Q0198, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Cemetery Administration, for grounds maintenance services at the Santa Fe National Cemetery. The protester asserts that the agency improperly permitted CCM to revise its price and misled it during discussions. 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:  Crystal Clear Maintenance, Inc. File:  B-417482 Date:  June 28, 2019 David A. Rose, Esq., Law Offices of Rose Consulting, LLC, for the protester. Steven E. Devine, Esq., and Adrienne Z. Schwartz, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Christopher An, Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency improperly allowed protester to modify its quotation in violation of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 14 is denied where the solicitation was a request for quotations, which does not fall under the guidance of FAR part 14. 2.  Protest that agency misled and coerced protester to increase its price is denied where record shows that agency’s inquiries were reasonable and that the protester exercised its own business judgment in raising its prices. DECISION Crystal Clear Maintenance, Inc. (CCM), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, protests the award of a contract to Raven Operations, LLC, a SDVOSB located in Scottsdale, Arizona, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C78619Q0198, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Cemetery Administration, for grounds maintenance services at the Santa Fe National Cemetery.  The protester asserts that the agency improperly permitted CCM to revise its price and misled it during discussions.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, posted on February 21, 2019, contemplated the award of a requirements contract with a base period of one year and four option years.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, Statement of Work (SOW), at 1, 5.  The agency posted the solicitation as a combined synopsis/solicitation pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6, “Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation for Commercial Items.”  AR, Tab 1, RFQ at 2.  The solicitation contemplated that, in accordance with FAR § 13.106-2(b)(3), award would be made to the vendor, whose quotation presented the “best benefit to the government” considering the following factors:  price, technical capability, past performance, and SDVOSB verification.  RFQ at 3.  Vendors were to complete a price schedule, providing unit and extended prices for various categories of service--e.g., weed control, gopher control, and string trimming.  AR, Tab 2, SOW, at 1-5. Three vendors timely submitted quotations in response to the solicitation.  Contracting Officer’s Statement/Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 3.  On March 23, the agency notified CCM of two apparent errors in its quotation.  AR, Tab 5, Email Correspondence, at 1.  The first error was that the protester had entered unit and extended prices for contract line item number (CLIN) 0001, which did not include estimated quantities and was not intended to be separately priced.  Specifically, the contracting officer advised CCM that “[t]here should be no pricing for CLIN 0001 as it is a primary CLIN . . . and pricing is on the subCLINs.”  Id.  The second apparent error was that the protester provided a price for string trimming of [DELETED] per job.  According to the agency, the contracting officer’s concern that this price might be mistaken was informed, in part, by her knowledge of CCM’s pricing for this item on the predecessor contract, which was [DELETED] per job.  COS/MOL at 8-9.  In response to the agency’s inquiry as to whether this second price was a mistake, the protester stated it would “correct the string trimming.”  AR, Tab 5, Email Correspondence, at 1.  The protester also contacted the contracting officer seeking advice on how to adjust its quotation.  The contracting officer responded that she was unable to tell the protester how to clarify its quotation.  AR, Tab 11, Contracting Officer’s Declaration, at 1.