Phoenix Environmental Design, Inc. ()

B-418304 Mar 02, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Phoenix Environmental Design, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of West Richland, Washington, protests the issuance of purchase order No.140F0120P0004, by the Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to Wilbur-Ellis Co., of Twin Falls, Idaho, for the supply of herbicide. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably excluded it from the competition. The protester also contends that the agency improperly awarded the purchase order to a large business despite setting aside the procurement for small businesses. We deny the protest in part, and dismiss it in part. View Decision     Decision Matter of:  Phoenix Environmental Design, Inc. File:  B-418304 Date:  March 2, 2020 C. Chad Gill for the protester. Sheryl L. Rakestraw, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq.,  and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s failure to solicit protester is denied where agency’s decision was reasonable.  2.  Protest alleging agency improperly awarded purchase order to large business concern is dismissed where protester fails to show that awardee’s quotation, on its face, demonstrated that awardee was not a small business. DECISION   Phoenix Environmental Design, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of West Richland, Washington, protests the issuance of purchase order No.140F0120P0004, by the Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to Wilbur-Ellis Co., of Twin Falls, Idaho, for the supply of herbicide.  The protester contends that the agency unreasonably excluded it from the competition.  The protester also contends that the agency improperly awarded the purchase order to a large business despite setting aside the procurement for small businesses. We deny the protest in part, and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND On October 10, 2019, the Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex (NWRC) notified the agency’s contracting office of an urgent requirement for fifteen gallons of Esplanade 200SC herbicide or an equivalent product.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1-3; Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1.  Award was to be made to the responsible small business that could provide the requested product on the delivery date at the lowest price.  COS at 2.  To allow for a quicker receipt of the herbicide, the agency allowed delivery by common carrier or pickup by the agency within 150 miles of the Southeast Idaho NWRC.  Id. at 1.  The contracting officer explains that the herbicide is to assist in the restoration of native habitats following an unplanned wildfire.  Id. at 1.  The wildfire destroyed a portion of “cheatgrass,” which is one of the most prevalent invasive species in the area.  Id.  The control of cheatgrass is imperative to giving native plants the opportunity to reestablish in the area.  Id.  According to the agency, time was of the essence for this procurement because the soil conditions following a wildfire are ideal for controlling the spread of cheatgrass as herbicide is more readily absorbed into the soil due to the absence of leaf litter.  Id.  The agency needed the herbicide no later than October 25 because there was concern that a “freezing event” could occur, which would greatly diminish, if not eliminate, the efficacy of the herbicide.  Id. Consistent with the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 13.003 and § 13.104, the contracting officer solicited quotations from three small business.  Id. at 2.  One was a local vendor; the other two were sources that had submitted the lowest prices in response to a prior solicitation (RFQ No. 140F0118Q0036) for multiple herbicides that was set aside for small businesses.  Id.  While Phoenix had submitted a quotation in response to RFQ -0036, its price was not among the lowest.  Id. at n.1.  In fact, the contracting officer asserts that Phoenix’s price placed it sixth in line for award, out of seven vendors, for the RFQ -0036 acquisition.  Id.  Therefore, Phoenix was not solicited for this procurement. The contracting officer issued an oral solicitation to these three small businesses on October 15, and the three vendors responded the same day.  Id. at 2.  The contracting officer gave Wilbur-Ellis verbal notice to proceed on October 16, and the agency issued a formal purchase order on October 17.  Id.