Sanford Federal, Inc.

B-417756 Sep 12, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sanford Federal, Inc., of Stafford, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C262-19-R-0118, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for temporary janitorial staffing services at the VA's Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System facility. The protester contends that the agency improperly rejected its proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Sanford Federal, Inc. File:  B-417756 Date:  September 12, 2019 Daniel Lynam, Sanford Federal, Inc., for the protester. David W. Altieri, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) improperly rejected protester’s lowest-priced proposal under a lowest-priced technically acceptable solicitation set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs) is denied where the protester was not listed as a verified SDVOSB in the VA’s database. DECISION Sanford Federal, Inc., of Stafford, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C262-19-R-0118, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for temporary janitorial staffing services at the VA’s Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System facility.  The protester contends that the agency improperly rejected its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 13, 2019, the VA issued the RFP seeking temporary janitorial services for a base period of 120 days with an option period of an additional 120 days.  Request for Dismissal, Exh. 2, RFP, at 1, 6.  The VA issued the RFP as a total set-aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs), and included the clause found at VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) § 852.219-10 Notice of Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Set-Aside.  Id. at 1, 39.  This clause provides that offerors must be “verified for ownership and control” pursuant to the VA regulations set forth at 38 C.F.R. part 74 and be listed as verified SDVOSBs in the VA’s Vendor Information Pages (VIP) database to meet the definition of an SDVOSB set forth in VAAR § 852.219-10.  Id. at 40.  The solicitation further provided that “[o]nly verified [SDVOSBs] listed on the [VIP] database at the time of proposal submission and at time of award shall be considered for award and unverified firms will be considered non-responsive and ineligible for award.”  Id. at 81 (emphasis in original).  The solicitation provided that award would be made to the lowest-priced technically acceptable responsible offeror.  Id. at 83.  The VA received nine proposals prior to the June 21 due date established by the solicitation, including one from Sanford.  Request for Dismissal, Exh. 1, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS), at 1.  Sanford submitted the lowest-priced proposal.  Id.  The contracting officer (CO) could not verify that Sanford was an SDVOSB, and considered its proposal ineligible for award.  Id.  On July 5, the VA made award to DCG Solutions, LLC.  Id.  Also on July 5, the VA notified Sanford of the award decision, following which Sanford submitted its protest to our Office challenging the rejection of its proposal and subsequent award to DCG. DISCUSSION The VA argues that Sanford’s proposal failed to comply with the solicitation requirement set forth in VAAR § 852.219-10 that offerors be listed as verified SDVOSBs in the VIP database, making its proposal ineligible for award.  Request for Dismissal at 3-6.  The CO represents that she checked the status of offerors in VIP and “found that Sanford Federal, Inc. was not listed by name as a verified SDVOSB.”  COS at 1.  The CO also searched in VIP for the Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) number included in Sanford’s proposal, and “found a listing for FAR Solution, Inc. as a verified SDVOSB.”  Id.  The CO further indicates that she searched in the System for Award Management (SAM) by name--Sanford Federal, Inc.--and D&B number, but did not find a SAM registration for Sanford and again found that the D&B number was registered to FAR Solution, Inc.  Id.  The CO explains that she did not find information in either VIP or SAM indicating a corporate relationship between Sanford and FAR Solution--e.g., FAR Solution was not listed as “doing business as” Sanford nor was Sanford listed as “formerly known as” FAR Solution.  Id.  Sanford explains that it was formerly known as FAR Solution, Inc.; that it has completed a corporate name change with Virginia’s State Corporation Commission; and that on June 11 it submitted an application to have its name change recognized in SAM, but processing of its application is not yet complete.  Protest at 2; Response to Request for Dismissal at 1-2.