Warrior Service Company

B-417612 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. 36C25719Q0769, which was issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) for the supply and installation of 200 mattresses and the removal of the existing mattresses. 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-417612 Date:  August 16, 2019 Frank V. Reilly, Esq., for the protester. Tyler W. Brown, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the terms of the 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 submission 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. 36C25719Q0769, which was issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) for the supply and installation of 200 mattresses and the removal of the existing mattresses.  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 21, 2019, the VA issued the RFQ as a combined synopsis/solicitation, which was set aside for small businesses in accordance with the commercial item procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12.  The RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for the supply and installation of 200 mattresses and the removal of the existing mattresses at the VA South Texas Health Care System.  RFQ Statement of Work (SOW) at 1.  The solicitation stated that award would be made to the lowest-priced technically acceptable vendor.[1]  Id. at 15. Quotations were due on May 28, 2019, at midnight, thus allowing potential vendors approximately seven days to respond to the solicitation.  RFQ Combined Synopsis/Solicitation at 1.  On the date the quotations were due, prior to the 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. 36C25719Q0769, available at fbo.gov (last visited August 14, 2019).  Warrior argues that the procurement is “to supply and install 200 mattresses and remove the old ones, not to manufacture the mattresses.”  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 presumably because of the installation and removal component. [4]  Id. at 1-2.  In response, the VA contends that the solicitation was properly classified as a procurement of supplies because the primary purpose of the procurement is to procure equipment--mattresses--and the remaining services are incidental to the procurement of the product.  Agency Legal Memorandum at 2.  The responsibility for determining the appropriate classification 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. 19, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 42 at 4.  Our Office will not overturn such a determination unless it is shown to be unreasonable.  Price Waterhouse, B-239525, Aug.