The protester argued the agency should have sought clarification for missing contract line item numbers (CLIN) in its proposal, since it communicated with another offeror regarding a missing price schedule. GAO disagreed. The agency’s communication with the other offeror was a clarification as it did not permit the offeror to resolve any material errors. That clarification did not trigger a requirement for agency communication with other protesters.
GovTranz, LLC, GAO B-423249
- Protest – The protester objected to the rejection of its proposal for ground wheelchair transportation services. It argued the agency unreasonably expected it to include prices for certain CLIN, should have entered into clarifications for it, and should have consulted SBCA prior to rejecting the proposal. GAO denied the protest in all respects.
- Missing Line Items – GAO agreed with the agency that the protester failed to submit a complete price schedule as required by the solicitation. The proposal did not include reference to the CLINs at all. The protester argued the agency should have taken this as the protester’s intention to not charge for wait times. GAO was unpersuaded. If the protester wanted to provide the agency with wait times for free, it should have filled out the wait time CLINs with a zero-dollar charge.
- Clarifications – The protester claimed the agency was required to seek clarifications regarding the missing CLINs. Allegedly, the agency communicated with another offeror regarding its missing price schedule. GAO noted this communication was not entered into discussions as the sole purpose of the clarification was to confirm that the offeror’s missing price proposal was not a result of agency oversight. The offeror was not permitted to resolve any errors. This did not trigger a requirement for the agency to seek clarifications from other offerors.
- Certificate of Competency – The protester argued the agency needed to seek a certificate of competency (COC) from the SBA prior to rejecting its proposal because the agency rejected its proposal on a pass/fail basis. It supported its finding by pointing out the agency’s use of a submission checklist. GAO was unconvinced. The agency rejected the protester’s proposal for non-compliance with solicitation instructions, not because of responsibility type evaluation factors.
The protester was represented by Stephanie L. Ellis, Nicole D. Pottroff, Shane J. McCall, John L. Holtz, Annie E. Birney, and Gregory P. Weber of Koprince McCall Pottroff LLC; and William Weisberg of Law Offices of William Weisberg PLLC. The agency was represented by Deborah K. Morrell of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Hannah G. Barnes and Christina Sklarew of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor.
