Excelsior Ambulance Service, Inc. (36C24723R0003)

B-421948 Sep 27, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Excelsior Ambulance Service, Inc. (EAS), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) located in Ludowici, Georgia, protests the actions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in connection with request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C24723R0003, issued by the VA to obtain advanced life support and stretcher van transportation services. EAS, the incumbent contractor, contends that it intended to submit a proposal for the "follow-on" contract but was unable to do so because the SAM.gov system failed to provide notification of the solicitation posting and the agency otherwise failed to notify it that the solicitation was posted. We dismiss the protest because, as filed with our Office, it does not establish a valid basis for challenging the agency's actions. View Decision Decision Matter of: Excelsior Ambulance Service, Inc. File: B-421948 Date: September 27, 2023 William M. Weisberg, Esq., Law Offices of William Weisberg, PLLC, for the protester. Deborah K. Morrell, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency failed to comply with the solicitation dissemination requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation part 5 because protester did not receive notification of solicitation posting in the SAM.gov database or directly from the agency is dismissed as legally and factually insufficient where the protester’s allegations, even if unrebutted, fail to establish a violation of procurement law by the agency. DECISION Excelsior Ambulance Service, Inc. (EAS), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) located in Ludowici, Georgia, protests the actions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in connection with request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C24723R0003, issued by the VA to obtain advanced life support and stretcher van transportation services. EAS, the incumbent contractor, contends that it intended to submit a proposal for the “follow-on” contract but was unable to do so because the SAM.gov system failed to provide notification of the solicitation posting and the agency otherwise failed to notify it that the solicitation was posted. We dismiss the protest because, as filed with our Office, it does not establish a valid basis for challenging the agency’s actions. The VA issued the RFP on May 26, 2023, as a set-aside for SDVOSB concerns by posting the solicitation on SAM.gov pursuant to the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 5.101(a)(1). This section requires a contracting agency to post solicitations expected to exceed $25,000 on SAM.gov.[1] The due date for proposals was June 26. Req. for Dismissal at 1. The VA received timely proposals from multiple SDVOSB concerns, but not from EAS. Following evaluation of proposals, the agency selected an offeror’s proposal for award. Id. at 1-2. On August 30, the protester emailed the contracting officer to inquire about the follow-on contract and learned that the solicitation had already been issued and that the proposal due date had passed. Id. at 3. This protest followed. EAS raises two arguments against the VA’s failure to meet the solicitation dissemination requirements of FAR part 5. First, the protester asserts that it is registered in the SAM.gov system and routinely receives automated notices of upcoming solicitation postings from the system, but it never received a SAM notification of the VA’s May 26 solicitation posting. Protest at 2; Resp. to Req. for Dismissal at 1. According to the protester, the system had notified the firm of other solicitations and awards both before and after the May 26 solicitation posting, and the protester implies that the reason it did not receive a notification about the May 26 solicitation was due to “well-known and well-documented ‘issues’ that the Government has been having with the SAM system over the last year or more.” Protest at 2. Next, EAS contends, without any supporting evidence, that it explicitly informed VA personnel of its intent to submit a proposal for the “follow-on” contract but the agency failed to inform EAS that the solicitation had been posted on SAM.gov. Id. EAS also asserts that since it had responded to the agency’s sources sought notice, the VA knew of its interest in competing for the follow-on contract. Resp. to Req. for Dismissal at 2. The VA requests dismissal of all grounds of protest, arguing that EAS failed to show a valid factual or legal basis of protest. See generally, Req. for Dismissal at 2-5. Specifically, the agency argues that it discharged its obligation to adequately publicize its requirement when it posted the solicitation on SAM.gov.