Share:
The protester alleged the awardee’s teaming agreement indicated that the awardee did not intend to comply with the solicitation’s limitations on subcontracting clause. GAO sided with the agency. The teaming agreement merely acknowledged the limitations on subcontracting and expressly indicated intent to comply.
Zero Waste Solutions, Inc., GAO B-423214.2; B-423214.3
- Protest – The protester challenged the award of a contract for refuse collection and recycling services. It argued the awardee’s bid was nonresponsive and should have been found ineligible. Alternatively, it also contended that the agency erred in making its affirmative responsibility determination for the awardee.
- Teaming Agreement – The protester pointed to specific language in the awardee’s teaming agreement with its subcontractor, who was not a woman-owned small business: “It is understood that the clause on limitations on subcontracting for a Small Business set-aside applies to this opportunity. The [t]eam does not believe the government intends to enforce this requirement at the [t]ask [o]rder level. Therefore, compliance with [FAR clause] 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting will be achieved over the life of the contract.”
- Nonresponsive – The protester argued the above language indicated that the awardee was unresponsive and did not intend to comply with the solicitation’s limitations on subcontracting clause. The contracting officer (CO) responded that the teaming agreement “acknowledged the limitations on subcontracting and expressly stated that [the awardee] will comply with the limitations on subcontracting.” GAO found no basis to question the agency’s determination that the awardee’s bid was acceptable and responsive to the solicitation. It therefore denied the protest
- Responsibility Challenge: GAO further dismissed the protester’s affirmative responsibility challenge. Such matters are at the CO’s discretion unless there are definitive responsibility criteria from the solicitation that the awardee did not meet or evidence of serious concerns that the contracting officer did not consider. Because neither existed, GAO denied and dismissed the protest as a whole.
Jonathan D. Shaffer, John Tanner, and Jesse Cardinal of Haynes and Boone, LLP represented the protester. Douglas P. Hibshman, Dana Molinari, and Jane Jung Hyoun Han of Fox Rothschild LLP represented the intervenor. Joseph C. Van Dusen of the Army represented the agency. Michael P. Price and John Sorrenti of GAO participated in the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor.
Share:
