Crosstown Courier Service, Inc. (36C24222Q0540)

B-421258 Dec 22, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Crosstown Courier Service, Inc., of Chicopee, Massachusetts, protests certain corrective action taken in response to an agency-level protest that it filed in connection with request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C24222Q0540, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for courier services to be performed at the agency's New York Harbor Healthcare System. Crosstown argues that the agency improperly has terminated a contract awarded to the firm. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Crosstown Courier Service, Inc. File: B-421258 Date: December 22, 2022 Steven A. Neeley, Esq., Michael J. Schrier, Esq., and George E. Stewart, Esq., Husch Blackwell, LLP, for the protester. Natica Chapman Neely, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s decision to terminate protester’s contract is dismissed where the protest concerns a matter of contract administration that Government Accountability Office does not have jurisdiction to consider. DECISION Crosstown Courier Service, Inc., of Chicopee, Massachusetts, protests certain corrective action taken in response to an agency-level protest that it filed in connection with request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C24222Q0540, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for courier services to be performed at the agency’s New York Harbor Healthcare System. Crosstown argues that the agency improperly has terminated a contract awarded to the firm. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND This is our third occasion to consider the agency’s actions in connection with its efforts to acquire these services. In March 2021, the agency issued a different solicitation (RFQ No. 36C24220Q0977) to acquire these services, and in June 2021, the agency awarded a contract to FG Management Group, LLC. In the wake of that award decision, another concern, Marquis Solutions, LLC, filed a protest with our Office challenging the propriety of the agency’s award. We sustained Marquis’s protest, finding that the agency’s evaluation of quotations and source selection decision did not withstand logical scrutiny; treated firms disparately; and failed adequately to document the bases for its evaluation and award decision. Marquis Solutions, LLC, B-419891, B‑419891.2, Sept. 14, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 316. We recommended that the agency reevaluate quotations and make a new source selection decision. Id. at 7-8. In response to our first decision, the agency reevaluated quotations and made a new source selection decision, affirming its award to FG Management. In the wake of that award decision, Crosstown first filed an agency-level protest, and thereafter, a protest with our Office, challenging the propriety of the agency’s award decision. In response to Crosstown’s protest to our Office, the agency advised that it would take corrective action by terminating the contract awarded to FG Management and cancelling the underlying solicitation. Agency Corrective Action Letter, January 6, 2022. The agency further advised that it would reassess its requirements and issue a new solicitation at a later date. Id. Based on the agency’s proposed corrective action, we dismissed Crosstown’s protest as academic. Crosstown Courier Service, Inc., B‑419891.3, Jan. 6, 2022 (unpublished decision). On June 30, 2022, the agency issued the current RFQ. The agency received quotations in response to that solicitation and selected Crosstown as the apparent successful firm. By e-mail dated October 11, the agency forwarded to Crosstown an award document signed by the contracting officer. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 5, Award Notice at 2. The agency required Crosstown to sign a copy of it and return it to the agency. The agency’s contracting officer transmitted the award document via e-mail and requested that Crosstown provide the agency with “the names and background check documentation for the employees you are proposing for this service within 10 days.” AR, Exh. 5, Award Notice at 1. That e-mail further represented that if Crosstown did not provide the requested information within the allotted time, the agency would conclude that Crosstown would be considered incapable to meet the performance criteria. Id. By e-mail dated October 13, Crosstown responded to the agency’s request for information pertaining to its prospective employees. Crosstown did not transmit the requested information, but instead sent only a letter in which Crosstown disputed the requirement that the requested information had to be provided within 10 days. AR, Exh. 6, E-Mail Correspondence between the Agency and Crosstown at 5-7. Crosstown’s letter characterized the agency’s request for that information as “a new evaluation criterion not stated in the solicitation.” Id.