Warrior Service Company

B-417572 Aug 16, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Warrior Service Company (Warrior), a small business of Valley Stream, New York protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C24419Q0573, which was issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) for the procurement of two battery-operated sit-to-stand patient lifts and two battery-operated mobile passive patient lifts. Warrior argues that the VA misclassified the procurement and provided vendors with an unreasonable amount of time to respond to the RFQ, which together prevented it from finding the RFQ and submitting a timely quotation. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Warrior Service Company File:  B-417572 Date:  August 16, 2019 Frank V. Reilly, Esq., for the protester. Tyler W. Brown, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Alicia D. Martinez, and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the terms of a solicitation is denied where the agency reasonably classified the procurement in accordance with the terms of the solicitation and allowed a reasonable amount of time for the submissions of quotations in accordance with applicable procurement law and regulation. DECISION Warrior Service Company (Warrior), a small business of Valley Stream, New York protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C24419Q0573, which was issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) for the procurement of two battery-operated sit-to-stand patient lifts and two battery-operated mobile passive patient lifts.  Warrior argues that the VA misclassified the procurement and provided vendors with an unreasonable amount of time to respond to the RFQ, which together prevented it from finding the RFQ and submitting a timely quotation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 9, 2019, the VA issued the RFQ as a combined synopsis/solicitation, which was set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses in accordance with the commercial item and simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 13.  RFQ at 1.  The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price purchase order for two battery-operated sit-to-stand patient lifts, two battery-operated mobile passive patient lifts, and two batteries and a wall charger, for the Philadelphia VA Medical Center.  Id. at 1, 5.  The solicitation stated that award would be made to the lowest-priced technically acceptable vendor.[1]  RFQ at 20. Quotations were due on May 14, 2019, at 3 p.m., thus allowing potential vendors approximately five days to respond to the solicitation.  RFQ at 1.  On the date the quotations were due, prior to the 3 p.m. closing time, Warrior filed this protest with our Office. DISCUSSION Warrior challenges the terms of the solicitation, arguing that the VA misclassified the solicitation as a procurement for the manufacture of goods instead of a procurement of services, and that the VA did not give potential vendors a reasonable amount of time to prepare a quotation.  Protest at 1.  Warrior first alleges that it was unable to find the solicitation on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website because the agency improperly classified the procurement.[2]  Protest at 1.  The RFQ was classified as a solicitation for supplies under code 65, “Medical, dental & veterinary equipment & supplies.”[3]  See posting for RFQ No. 36C24419Q0573, available at fbo.gov (last visited July 23, 2019).  Warrior argues that the procurement is “for the furnishing of products and related training, which are services.”  Protest at 2.  While the protester does not specify under what classification code the agency should have classified the solicitation, it argues that the agency should have classified this procurement as a service rather than a supply because of the inclusion of the training component. [4]  Id. at 1-2.  In response, the VA contends that the solicitation was properly classified as a procurement of supplies because the training is incidental to the procurement of the product and is built into the manufacturer’s cost.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2.  In this regard, the VA asserts that any training associated with the procurement is “incidental to the supply of the equipment.”  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 3.  The agency argues that the solicitation “did not have a cost factor for training because the training was an incidental cost included in the manufacturer’s price.”  COS at 2.  The responsibility for determining the appropriate classification code rests with the contracting officer, and classification determinations necessarily involve some degree of judgment on the part of the contracting officer.  Kendall Healthcare Prods. Co.,    B-289381, Feb.