Phoenix Environmental Design, Inc. (unknown)

B-422949 Dec 09, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Phoenix Environmental Design, Inc. (PED), a service-disabled, veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of West Richland, Washington, protests the award of a contract to Walking Points Farms, LLC (WPF), an SDVOSB of Bremerton, Washington, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C78624Q50406, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for grass seed at the Santa Fe National Cemetery. The protester contends the agency's failure to provide the protester with an opportunity to submit a quotation was contrary to law and regulation. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Phoenix Environmental Design, Inc. File: B-422949 Date: December 9, 2024 C. Chad Gill, for the protester. Krishon Gill-Edmond, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s decision not to orally solicit a quotation from the protester is denied where the record does not demonstrate the agency intentionally excluded the protester from the competition. DECISION Phoenix Environmental Design, Inc. (PED), a service-disabled, veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of West Richland, Washington, protests the award of a contract to Walking Points Farms, LLC (WPF), an SDVOSB of Bremerton, Washington, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C78624Q50406, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for grass seed at the Santa Fe National Cemetery. The protester contends the agency’s failure to provide the protester with an opportunity to submit a quotation was contrary to law and regulation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 29, 2024, the contracting officer (CO) received a procurement request (which the VA calls a “notice of assignment”) for grass seed to be used at the Santa Fe National Cemetery in New Mexico. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.[1] This request included a statement of need, an independent government cost estimate (IGCE), and market research concerning potential vendors that could supply the required product. Id. at 2. After determining that the IGCE was below $25,000, the CO, on August 30, orally solicited four SDVOSBs that were provided by the contracting officer’s representative (COR). Id.; see also Agency Report (AR), Tab 1‑6, VA Email Regarding Potential Sources.[2] The protester was not included by the COR as a potential source of supply, and thus did not receive the RFQ. Of the four potential vendors, three expressed interest in submitting a quotation for the VA’s requirement. COS at 2. On September 4, the CO provided the solicitation to these three vendors. Id. The agency received one timely response, from WPF, and having determined the quotation to be technically acceptable, the VA awarded the contract to WPF on September 17. Id. On September 18, PED inquired with the CO concerning the award to WPF, asking why PED was not given an opportunity to compete for the agency’s requirement. AR, Tab 1‑14, PED and VA Email Exchanges, at 1. That same day, the CO explained he used an oral solicitation to fulfill the VA’s requirement, and that “[a]ny requirement thought to be under $25,000 dollar threshold we typically orally solicit at least 3 verified SDVOSBs directly to allow for competition amongst verified SDVOSBs.” Id. at 3. The CO provided he would keep PED “in mind for these types of requirements in the future.” Id. at 4. PED filed the instant protest that same day. DISCUSSION The protester challenges the reasonableness of the agency’s decision not to include PED among the vendors orally solicited for the VA’s requirement. Specifically, the protester contends the agency’s decision cannot stand as reasonable where the VA was aware of PED’s interest in competing for this type of requirement. PED explains it did not specifically express interest, prior to award, in the solicitation at issue in this protest, as the RFQ was not made publicly available, and the VA did not contact PED regarding submission of a quotation. However, the protester explains that on August 30 (the same day the agency orally solicited quotations for the Santa Fe requirement), the same CO advised PED about an active solicitation concerning a similar seed requirement at the Riverside National Cemetery in Riverside, California. See AR, Tab 1-16, CO Email Regarding Riverside Requirement at 1 (the CO explaining to PED that “[t]he following contract opportunity is accepting bids” and PED has “showed interest in bidding on similar requirements.”). Thus, the protester argues, the agency’s decision to exclude PED from the instant competition is unreasonable where the CO was aware of PED’s interest in competing for requirements like the VA’s need for seed at the Santa Fe National Cemetery. See Protest at 1-5; Comments at 1-9; Supp.