D B Systems (36C24620Q0241)

B-419542 Apr 28, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights D B Systems (DBS), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Washington, New Jersey, protests the issuance of an order to Elevated Technologies, Inc. (ETI), of Grand Rapids, Michigan, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C24620Q0241, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for elevator maintenance and repair services at the Durham VA Medical Center (VAMC). DBS contends that the agency's evaluation of ETI's quotation and the award decision are unreasonable. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  D B Systems File:  B-419542 Date:  April 28, 2021 Dewey Blake Jr., for the protester. Natica Chapman Neely, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where request for quotations included the late submission provision set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation provision 52.212-1(f)(2)(i) and protester’s quotation was received after the submission deadline, protester is ineligible for award and is therefore not an interested party to challenge the awardee’s evaluation. DECISION   D B Systems (DBS),[1] a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Washington, New Jersey, protests the issuance of an order to Elevated Technologies, Inc. (ETI), of Grand Rapids, Michigan, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C24620Q0241, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for elevator maintenance and repair services at the Durham VA Medical Center (VAMC).  DBS contends that the agency’s evaluation of ETI’s quotation and the award decision are unreasonable. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND On July 2, 2020, the agency issued the RFQ as an SDVOSB set-aside, to procure elevator maintenance and repair services for the VAMC pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, commercial items, and subpart 13.5, simplified acquisition procedures.[2]  MOL at 1 -2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFQ at 1, 52.[3]  The RFQ contemplated issuance of a single, fixed-price order, with a 1‑year base period and four 1‑year option periods, to the vendor that submitted the most advantageous quotation, considering the following three evaluation factors:  technical, past performance, and price.  RFQ at 55‑59.  The RFQ stated that the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than the price factor.  Id. at 55.  The solicitation also reserved to the agency the right to issue an order “to other than the lowest[-]priced” vendor.  Id.  Of relevance here, the solicitation incorporated by reference FAR provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items, which expressly limits the agency’s consideration of late submissions.[4]  RFQ at 1.  Specifically, subsection 52.212-1(f)(2)(i) states that any offer received after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is “late” and will not be considered unless (1) it is received before award is made; (2) the contracting officer determines that accepting the late offer would not unduly delay the acquisition; and (3) one of three exceptions applies.[5] Quotations were due by 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time on July 17, 2020.  RFQ at 52.  The contract specialist, who was identified as the primary point of contact in the RFQ, received three complete quotations by the deadline.  AR, Tab 2, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 89.  DBS submitted its quotation in five separate emails only the first of which was received by the contract specialist by the 4:30 p.m. deadline.  Id.; AR, Tabs 3‑7, DBS Quotation Emails 1 through 5 to the VA at 91‑308.  DBS’s partial email quotation received by the deadline did not include pricing for the four 1-year option periods, required licenses and certifications, and key contractor personnel résumés.  See AR, Tab 3, DBS Quotation Email 1 to the VA at 91-205.  DBS also called the contract specialist on July 17 to notify her that DBS was experiencing technical difficulties when submitting its quotation.  COS at 89.  DBS did not request an extension and no extension was provided.  Id.  Although the agency did not receive DBS’s complete quotation until after the deadline for quotations, the agency nonetheless evaluated the quotation, finding it ineligible for award because DBS’s quotation did not include all the required information and did not address portions of the technical factor.[6]  MOL at 11-12.  On January 8, 2021, the agency issued the order to ETI for $2,138,876.  AR, Tab 11, Award Notification at 386.  This protest followed. DISCUSSION DBS challenges the agency’s evaluation of ETI’s quotation and argues that ETI cannot meet the solicitation requirements.[7]  Protest at 2‑3.