Mountainside Medical Equipment, Inc. (36C242-20-Q-0920)

B-419839 Jun 25, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Mountainside Medical Equipment, Inc., of Marcy, New York, protests the award of a contract to Magellan Solutions USA Inc., of Brisbane, California, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C242-20-Q-0920, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the provision of telephone switchboard operators at the agency's James J. Peters Medical Center in Bronx, New York. The protester, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), argues that the agency has improperly made the award to a company that is not a verified SDVOSB, as required by the solicitation, and that the agency could not meet the "rule of two" requirement for VA small-business set asides. We dismiss the protest on the basis that the protester is not an interested party and the protest does not establish a valid basis for challenging the agency's action. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Mountainside Medical Equipment, Inc. File:  B-419839 Date:  June 25, 2021 Dana B. Pashkoff, Esq., Jessica C. Abrahams, Esq., and Lauren N. Olmsted, Esq., Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, for the protester. Kathleen Ellis, Esq., and Steven Devine, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Mercedes Wilson-Barthes and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging an agency’s decision to make award to a company that the protester alleges is not a verified a service-disabled veteran-owned small business is dismissed where the protester is ineligible for award and therefore lacks the requisite interest to maintain the protest. DECISION Mountainside Medical Equipment, Inc., of Marcy, New York, protests the award of a contract to Magellan Solutions USA Inc., of Brisbane, California, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C242-20-Q-0920, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the provision of telephone switchboard operators at the agency’s James J. Peters Medical Center in Bronx, New York.  The protester, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), argues that the agency has improperly made the award to a company that is not a verified SDVOSB, as required by the solicitation, and that the agency could not meet the “rule of two” requirement for VA small-business set asides.[1] We dismiss the protest on the basis that the protester is not an interested party and the protest does not establish a valid basis for challenging the agency’s action. The RFQ, issued on September 15, 2020, contemplated the award of a contract for “all personnel [and] supervision for the Switchboard Service requirement.”  Req. for Dismissal, exh. 1, RFQ, at 3.  Among other things, the RFQ required vendors to [s]ubmit signed and dated offers to the office specified in this solicitation at or before the exact time specified in this solicitation. Offers may be submitted on the SF 1449, letterhead stationery, or as otherwise specified in the solicitation. As a minimum, offers must show— *  *  *  * (9) Acknowledgment of Solicitation Amendments[.] Id. at 56. The agency twice amended the solicitation, each time extending the quotation submission deadline.  The VA states that four vendors, including Mountainside and Magellan, submitted quotations.  After the first of the two amendments, Mountainside submitted a timely quotation; however, Mountainside did not sign and return either of the two amendments.  Req. for Dismissal, at 2. In a January 14, 2021 email to the protester, the agency explained that because Mountainside’s quotation did not acknowledge receipt of either of the amendments, the quotation was incomplete and thus could not be considered for award.  Req. for Dismissal, exh. 5, Agency Protest Dismissal, at 6. In its initial protest filing, Mountainside states that its quotation was excluded from the agency’s evaluation process “for reasons not relevant to the present protest.”  Protest at 3.  However, we find that the agency’s conclusion in this regard--that Mountainside’s failure to acknowledge the amendments rendered its quotation ineligible for award--has direct bearing on the threshold issue of whether the protester has the requisite legal interest to challenge the award. Under the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3557, only an “interested party” may protest a federal procurement.  That is, a protester must be an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a contract.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.