Warrior Service Company

B-417574 Aug 19, 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. 36C26319Q0585, issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), for the procurement of five Hill-Rom brand LIKO overhead lift systems and related supplies and services. Warrior argues that the VA improperly classified the procurement on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website 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. Warrior also argues that the terms of the RFQ are ambiguous. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Warrior Service Company File:  B-417574 Date:  August 19, 2019 Frank V. Reilly, Esq., for the protester. Tyler W. Brown, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  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. 2.  Protest challenging an alleged ambiguity in the solicitation is denied where the protester’s interpretation is not reasonable.    DECISION Warrior Service Company (Warrior), a small business of Valley Stream, New York, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C26319Q0585, issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), for the procurement of five Hill-Rom brand LIKO overhead lift systems and related supplies and services.  Warrior argues that the VA improperly classified the procurement on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website 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.  Warrior also argues that the terms of the RFQ are ambiguous. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 8, 2019, the VA issued the subject RFQ as a small business set-aside pursuant to the commercial items and simplified acquisition procedures contained in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 13.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1-2; Supp. COS at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFQ at 1.  The RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for five Hill-Rom brand LIKO overhead lift systems, installation, and related supplies and services, at the Nebraska Western Iowa VA Health Care System in Omaha, Nebraska.  RFQ at 1, 4-9.  The RFQ provided that award would be made to the lowest-priced technically acceptable vendor, where technical capability would be used to determine technical acceptability.[1]  RFQ at 34.  In accordance with the simplified acquisition requirements in FAR § 13.106-1, the VA prepared, and included with the RFQ, a justification to procure, on a brand name only basis, Hill-Rom LIKO lift systems.  AR, Tab 4, Justification, at 1. Quotations were due on May 14 at 4:00 pm Central Time, providing potential vendors with approximately seven days to respond to the solicitation.[2]  RFQ at 1.  Warrior filed this protest with our Office on May 14, prior to the deadline for the submission of quotations. 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 1-2.  The protester also contends that the solicitation is ambiguous, arguing that while the RFQ seeks quotations, the agency’s justification “indicates that an awardee has already been selected, making the acceptance of offers impossible and the Solicitation unnecessary.”  Id. at 3.  While we do not address each protest ground and argument raised by the protester, we have reviewed them all and find that none provide a basis to sustain the protest. Classification of the Procurement Warrior first alleges that it was unable to find the solicitation on the FBO website because the agency improperly classified the procurement.[3]  Protest at 1.  The RFQ was classified as a solicitation for supplies under code 65, “Medical, dental & veterinary equipment & supplies.”[4]  See posting for RFQ No.