Citizen Contracting Group (36C24722Q0402)

B-420810 Sep 13, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Citizen Contracting Group, LLC (Citizen), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, protests the termination of its contract by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), awarded under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C24722Q0402 for lock and security components and installation. The protester contends that the agency's termination of the contract was not justified and was otherwise improper. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Citizen Contracting Group, LLC File: B-420810 Date: September 13, 2022 Jamie Bovender, Citizen Contracting Group, LLC, for the protester. Natica Chapman Neely, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Michael P. Price, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency acted reasonably when it terminated the protester’s contract for convenience of the government and cancelled the solicitation where the agency discovered post-award that the protester’s quotation failed to conform with the solicitation’s requirements and that the solicitation otherwise contained defects and inconsistencies. DECISION Citizen Contracting Group, LLC (Citizen), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, protests the termination of its contract by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), awarded under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C24722Q0402 for lock and security components and installation. The protester contends that the agency’s termination of the contract was not justified and was otherwise improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 24, 2022, the VA issued the RFQ under the provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 13, seeking quotations for the supply and installation of electronic locks at the VA Medical Center in Dublin, Georgia. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFQ at 2. The RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, and informed vendors that award would be made to the responsible vendor whose quotation would be most advantageous to the government using three evaluation factors: (1) technical capability; (2) past performance; and (3) price. Id. at 46, 63. The two non‑price factors, when combined, were more important than price. Id. at 46. The RFQ also contained FAR clause 52.212-4(l), which reserved to the government the right to terminate the awarded contract for its sole convenience. FAR clause 52.212-4(l). The VA received two quotations by the March 30 closing date for receipt of quotations, one from Citizen and one from Mayhew Technology Solutions (Mayhew). Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2. The agency evaluated the vendors’ quotations, and after assigning them both equal ratings under the two non‑price factors, the agency awarded the contract to Citizen because its quoted price was lower than Mayhew’s quoted price. Id. The agency notified the protester that it was the successful vendor on April 15, and posted a notice of award to the SAM.gov website on April 25.[1] On April 26, in response to a request from Mayhew and in accordance with FAR part 13, the VA explained to Mayhew its award decision. Id.; FAR 13.106-3(d). Subsequently, on April 29, Mayhew filed an agency-level protest with the VA, challenging the contract award to Citizen. AR, Exh. 5, Agency-Level Protest at 6. In its agency-level protest, Mayhew argued that Citizen did not possess the requisite number of years’ of experience, and asserted that Citizen was not certified to sell, install, and service the required lock and security components. Id. at 6-7. After reviewing the protest and the procurement record, the contracting officer for the procurement identified issues with the RFQ’s statement of work requirements, the evaluation criteria, and both vendors’ quotations. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2. She subsequently determined that corrective action was needed, which included cancellation of the award to Citizen, cancellation of the underlying solicitation, and a re-solicitation of the requirement after the agency had an opportunity to review its needs and perform the appropriate market research. Id. at 3; AR, Exh. 6, Agency-Level Protest Decision at 8-9. On June 1, the VA notified Citizen that it was taking corrective action in response to the agency-level protest and terminating Citizen’s contract for the convenience of the government pursuant to FAR clause 52.212-4(l). Protest, exh. 15, Notice of Termination for Convenience at 1. The protester filed the instant protest with our Office on June 10. DISCUSSION Citizen protests the termination of its contract and corrective action taken by the VA in response to the agency-level protest.