The Severson Group
Highlights
The Severson Group (TSG) protests the Department of Veteran Affairs' (VA) determination that the firm's quotation in response to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 600-532-06JS was technically unacceptable. TSG also protests the cancellation of the RFQ because no technically acceptable quotations were received.
B-298195, The Severson Group, June 9, 2006
Decision
Robert E. Severson for the protester.
Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.
Jeanette M. Soares and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency reasonably determined a quotation was technically unacceptable where protester failed to submit the training certificates required by the solicitation.
DECISION
The Severson Group (TSG) protests the Department of Veteran Affairs' (VA) determination that the firm's quotation in response to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 600-532-06JS was technically unacceptable. TSG also protests the cancellation of the RFQ because no technically acceptable quotations were received.
The VA issued the RFQ to provide rodent control services at several VA cemeteries in
TSG and another SDVOSB concern submitted quotations. TSG's quotation included Terminix as a subcontractor and Terminix's business license for rodent control.
TSG did not produce its own license for rodent control. While TSG's quotation included the names and number of years of experience in rodent control of some Terminix personnel, it failed to provide training certificate/documents for either TSG's personnel or Terminix's personnel.
The VA found TSG's quotation technically unacceptable because it did not (1) include TSG's business license for rodent control and (2) provide training certificate/documents for either TSG or Terminix personnel. The VA found the other SDVOSB concern's quotation to be technically unacceptable as well. Faced with no technically acceptable quotations from SDVOSBs, the VA cancelled the RFQ and reissued it as a set-aside for small-businesses. Following a debriefing, TSG filed this protest.[1]
TSG protests the VA's determination that its quotation was technically unacceptable. The protester argues that the solicitation did not state that the prime contractor had to hold the business license for rodent control, so that its submission of Terminix's license satisfied the RFQ's terms. TSG also argues that subfactor 1b did not require individual training certificates and its submission of Terminix Branch Office Registrations suffices to satisfy this requirement. TSG contends its quotation therefore should have been considered technically acceptable and it should have received an award under the original solicitation.
In reviewing an agency's technical evaluation, we will not reevaluate vendors' submissions; rather, we will examine the record to ensure that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria and with procurement statutes and regulations. See Maritime Mgmt., Inc., B-260311.2, B-260311.3,
We find that TSG failed to comply with the RFQ's terms because its quotation did not include the required training certificates. TSG's allegation that the RFQ did not ask for training certificates for individuals is contrary to the RFQ's plain language, which requires training certificate/documents for contractor personnel performing rodent control. RFQ at 36 (emphasis added). TSG's allegation that it did submit training certificates is also not supported by the record. The documents TSG identified in its quotation as training certificates for each of the three VA participating facilities are Branch Office Registrations. See Letter from Protester to GAO (
TSG's allegation that the VA should have asked for the missing training certificate/ documents is without merit. Vendors bear the burden for failing to submit an adequately written quotation and contracting agencies are not obligated to go in search of needed information which the vendor has omitted or failed adequately to present. See Fluor Daniel, Inc., B-262051, B-262051.2,
Since the VA received two quotations under the RFQ and found neither to be technically acceptable, the agency had a reasonable basis to cancel the RFQ. See Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 52.219-27(b)(2) (set-asides for SDVOSBs must be awarded to an SDVOSB); Sunshine Kids Serv. Supply Co., B-292141, June 2, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 119 at 2 (small business set-aside reasonably cancelled when no technically acceptable proposals were received).
The protest is denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
[1] TSG complains that the contracting officer provided an indefinite and ambiguous debriefing. Our Office will not review a protester's contention that the debriefing it received was inadequate because the adequacy of a debriefing is a procedural matter concerning an agency's actions after award, which are unrelated to the validity of the award itself. Symplicity Corp., B-297060,
[2] Since we conclude that the agency reasonably determined TSG's quotation to be technically unacceptable because it lacked training certificate/documents as requested by the RFQ, we need not address protester's allegations that under the RFQ's terms TSG could rely on its subcontractor's business license for rodent control rather than its own license and that the contracting officer improperly inquired about the nature of the business relationship between TSG and its subcontractor.