Security Logistics Intelligence Construction Engineering Company (36C25024Q7572)

B-422390 May 28, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Security Logistics Intelligence Construction Engineering Company (SLICE), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Moline, Illinois, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C25024Q7572, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for ambulette transportation services supporting the Columbus, Ohio VA Ambulatory Care Center (VAACC). The protester contends that the RFQ is unduly restrictive of competition. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Security Logistics Intelligence Construction Engineering Company File: B-422390 Date: May 28, 2024 Cecil Avery for the protester. Jared M. Levin, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging solicitation requirements as unduly restrictive of competition is denied where the record supports the agency’s position that the requirement is reasonably necessary to meet the agency’s needs. DECISION Security Logistics Intelligence Construction Engineering Company (SLICE), a service‑disabled veteran‑owned small business (SDVOSB) of Moline, Illinois, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C25024Q7572, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for ambulette transportation services supporting the Columbus, Ohio VA Ambulatory Care Center (VAACC). The protester contends that the RFQ is unduly restrictive of competition. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 9, 2024, the VA issued the RFQ as a set‑aside procurement for SDVOSB concerns, pursuant to the simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation part 13, seeking quotations to provide ambulette transportation services for the Columbus VA Ambulatory Care Center in Ohio. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFQ at 1, 5, 48. The RFQ contemplates the award of a single indefinite‑quantity, indefinite‑delivery contract for a 1‑year base period and four 1‑year option periods. Id. at 1. The RFQ provides for award on a best‑value tradeoff basis considering price and three non-price factors: technical, past performance, and veterans involvement. Id. at 75. As relevant to this protest, the RFQ’s performance work statement (PWS) requires that the transportation services be provided in accordance with all “certifications, licenses, and training required” by federal, state, and city laws and guidelines.[1] RFQ at 5. The RFQ specifically requires vendors to submit proof of an Ohio emergency medical, fire, and transportation services (EMFTS) license. The PWS also requires that all drivers: have a current [cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)] certification and have successfully completed the Standard and Advanced First Aid Course of the American Red Cross or U.S. Bureaus of Mines or equivalent and be capable of providing necessary medical assistance to the attending medical care specialist. Id. at 25. Quotations were due on February 27, 2024.[2] RFQ at 107. SLICE filed this protest with our Office on February 26. DISCUSSION SLICE argues that the RFQ’s requirements are unduly restrictive of competition. Specifically, the protester contends that the requirement that vendors possess an Ohio EMFTS license is unnecessary to meet the agency’s needs. Protest at 3-5. SLICE further argues that the EMFTS licensing requirement is unreasonable because VA contractors who do not otherwise serve the general public are not bound by Ohio licensing requirements and because the VA has not required similar state licensing in other procurements.[3] Id. at 3‑4; Comments at 2‑5. The agency responds that the Ohio EMFTS license requirement is necessary to meet its needs because the VA relies on the EMFTS certification process for quality assurance and safety oversight. MOL at 5. The VA also states that the license is necessary to avoid performance disruptions that could be caused by the state attempting to enforce its licensing requirements on a noncompliant contractor. Id. at 6. When a protester challenges a specification or requirement as unduly restrictive of competition, the procuring agency has the responsibility of establishing that the specification or requirement is reasonably necessary to meet the agency’s needs. eReceivables, Inc., B‑416773, Dec. 12, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 423 at 5; Remote Diagnostic Techs., LLC, B‑413375.4, B‑413375.5, Feb. 28, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 80 at 3‑4. Where an agency reasonably identifies its needs and allows vendors the opportunity to meet those needs, the fact that a solicitation’s requirements may be burdensome or even impossible for a particular vendor to meet does not make them objectionable, if the requirements properly reflect the agency’s needs. See TransAtlantic Lines, LLC, B‑411846.2, Dec. 16, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 396 at 9.