Daniels Building Company, Inc. (36C25023B0003)

B-421680 Jul 24, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Daniels Building Company, Inc. ("Daniels"), a small business of Farmington Hills, Michigan, protests the award of a contract to CAVU-Roncelli Construction JV-10 LLC ("CAVU-Roncelli"), a small business of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 36C25023B0003 for the addition of emergency power to the Ann Arbor Michigan VA Medical Center (VAMC) central chiller plant. The protester alleges that the awardee's bid should have been rejected for failing to comply with the solicitation's requirement to provide a signed limitation on subcontracting certificate. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Daniels Building Company, Inc. File: B-421680 Date: July 24, 2023 Marcus R. Sanborn, Esq., Blevins Sanborn Jezdimir Zack PLC, for the protester. Samuel S. Finnerty, Esq., Peter B. Ford, Esq., and Daniel J. Figuenick, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for CAVU-Roncelli Construction JV-10 LLC, the intervenor. Deborah K. Morrell, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Anh-Thi H. Le, and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that the awardee’s bid should have been rejected as nonresponsive because it failed to include a valid signature on a material certification is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably concluded that the certification was signed and the signature was both discrete and verifiable. DECISION Daniels Building Company, Inc. (“Daniels”), a small business of Farmington Hills, Michigan, protests the award of a contract to CAVU-Roncelli Construction JV-10 LLC (“CAVU-Roncelli”), a small business of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 36C25023B0003 for the addition of emergency power to the Ann Arbor Michigan VA Medical Center (VAMC) central chiller plant. The protester alleges that the awardee’s bid should have been rejected for failing to comply with the solicitation’s requirement to provide a signed limitation on subcontracting certificate. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On January 5, 2023, the agency issued the IFB as a set-aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses for the addition of emergency power to the Ann Arbor Michigan VAMC central chiller plant. See Contracting Officer’s (CO) Statement of Facts (COS) (June 5, 2023) at 2; IFB at 6. The IFB contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract. IFB at 13. Relevant here, the IFB required all bidders to include an executed “VA Notice of Limitations on Subcontracting--Certificate of Compliance for Services and Construction” (“LOS Certification”) as required by VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Clause 852.219-77, and informed bidders that the failure to include a completed LOS Certification with the bid would result in rejection of the bid as nonresponsive. IFB at 53-55. The agency received four bids in response to the IFB by the bid opening scheduled for February 14, 2023. COS at 2. While a VA procurement technician was physically present at the opening, the contracting officer attended virtually via video call. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2. After the bids were opened, the contracting officer rejected the bid from the apparent low bidder for failing to include the required LOS Certification. Id. CAVU-Roncelli was the second-lowest bidder, with a total bid of $5.675 million, and Daniels was the third-lowest bidder, with a total bid of $6.23 million. Id. While CAVU-Roncelli’s bid included the LOS Certification, the contracting officer could not see a signature when viewing the bid through the video call. Id. Rather than rejecting the bid at that time, the contracting officer asked the procurement technician to scan and email him a copy of CAVU-Roncelli’s bid. Id. Upon reviewing the scanned copy of the LOS Certification, the contracting officer observed a faint mark on the signature line, but concluded that the mark was not decipherable and could not be concluded to be a valid signature. Agency Report (AR) Tab 9, Rescission of Rejection of Bid. The CO did not announce an apparent awardee during the bid opening. MOL at 2. Following the bid opening, the VA procurement technician mailed the original copy of CAVU-Roncelli’s bid to the contracting officer’s office. COS at 2. Notwithstanding that the original bid had been received, the contracting officer, based solely on his review of only the scanned copy of the LOS Certification, rejected CAVU-Roncelli’s bid for failing to include a valid signature on the LOS Certification. AR, Tab 9, Rescission of Rejection of Bid. The contracting officer subsequently reconsidered his decision to reject the bid, concluding that it was necessary to review the signature on the original bid document.