Protest challenging the agency’s decision to cancel award and amend a solicitation in response to a protest is denied, where the agency reasonably concluded that the solicitation included language suggesting both a best-value tradeoff approach to award and an LPTA approach, which created ambiguities for both offerors and evaluators.
URTruckBroker Corporation protested the Department of Veterans Affairs’ proposed corrective action in response to the protester’s earlier challenge to the award of a contract for linen transportation services to Owl Inc. The protester argued that the agency’s intention to terminate the contract, amend the solicitation, and accept revised proposals—rather than simply reevaluate existing proposals—is unreasonable.
The procurement was conducted on a lowest-priced technically acceptable basis, and URTruckBroker’s proposal was found to be technically unacceptable. URTruckBroker protested the unacceptable rating, prompting VA to review the procurement.
During its review, VA found an ambiguity in the solicitation concerning the basis for award, because the solicitation included both LPTA and best-value tradeoff language. The agency was concerned that this ambiguity may have created some confusion whereby the vendors may not have had a common understanding of how the agency would make its award decision. The agency was also concerned that the evaluators would not know which process to use. In response, the agency decided to cancel the current award, amend the solicitation, and accept revised proposals. UrTruckBroker’s protest was then dismissed as academic.
In response to the agency’s corrective action, the protester argued that the solicitation unambiguously stated that VA would use an LPTA process for award. According to the protester, because there is no ambiguity, the agency had no basis to amend the solicitation. Instead, UrTruckBroker argued the agency should merely reevaluate quotations as submitted.
However, GAO disagreed, finding the solicitation did contain an ambiguity. Specifically, the solicitation included language establishing that the non-cost factors “when combined, are approximately equal to Cost or Price,” which suggests a best-value tradeoff process. However, the solicitation also stated that the contract would be awarded using an LPTA process. Further, under the past performance factor, the solicitation included language establishing that the agency would evaluate quotations “utilizing overall narrative ratings of ‘acceptable’ or ‘unacceptable.’”
GAO agreed with the agency that this conflicting language created an ambiguity regarding the basis for award. Accordingly, GAO found the agency reasonable determined that it should cancel the award and amend the solicitation to clarify its intentions, and denied the protest.
URTruckBroker Corporation is represented by Brian Simbirski, Niagara Consulting. The government is represented by Melody A. Goldberg, Department of Veterans Affairs. GAO attorneys Mary-Catherine P. Overcash, Todd C. Culliton, and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.
