TITLE: B-298195, The Severson Group, June 9, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298195
DATE: June 9, 2006
******************************************
B-298195, The Severson Group, June 9, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: The Severson Group

   File: B-298195

   Date: June 9, 2006

   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.

   We deny the protest.

   The VA issued the RFQ to provide rodent control services at several VA
   cemeteries in California as a set-aside for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned
   Small Businesses (SDVOSB). Quotations were to be evaluated based on the
   following evaluation factors: (1) technical capabilities, (2) past
   performance and (3) cost/price. There were five subfactors within the
   technical capabilities factor. Subfactor 1a required submission of a
   business license to perform rodent control. Subfactor 1b required the
   "names and copies of training certificate/documents and the number of
   years experience of contractor personnel performing rodent control." RFQ
   at 36.

   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, July 11, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 11 at 4. We have
   found that failure to submit training certificates or documents as
   required by a solicitation is a reasonable basis for rejecting quotations
   as technically unacceptable. Verizon Fed., Inc., B-293527, Mar. 26, 2004,
   2004 CPD para. 186 at 5; see Techseco Inc., B-284949, June 19, 2000, 2000
   CPD para. 105 at 3 (rejection of proposals as technically unacceptable was
   reasonable where request for proposal required submission of two training
   certificates for each engineer and the proposal included no applicable
   certificates).

   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 (May 15, 2006). These documents, issued by
   the California Structural Pest Control Board, signify the listed Terminix
   office's registration with the Board as a corporation. On their face,
   these documents do not constitute training certificates for personnel.
   Because TSG did not comply with technical capability subfactor 1b's
   requirement for training certificates, the agency reasonably deemed its
   quotation technically unacceptable.

   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, Nov. 21, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 241 at 8. Thus, the
   agency was not required to give TSG an opportunity to supplement its
   quotation in order to make it conform to the RFQ's terms.[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, Nov. 8, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 203 at n.4.

   [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.