TITLE: B-299923, K9 Operations, Inc., August 6, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299923
DATE: August 6, 2007
*********************************************
B-299923, K9 Operations, Inc., August 6, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: K9 Operations, Inc.

   File: B-299923

   Date: August 6, 2007

   Patrick R. Currey for the protester.

   Melissa K. Erny, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency.

   Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel,

   GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Where solicitation did not impose specific requirement that proposed
   facility have overnight parking approved by city, agency properly made
   award without regard to whether awardee's facility had such approval.

   DECISION

   K9 Operations, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Britt's Bow Wow
   Bed N Biscuit under request for proposals (RFP) No. 20024820SGK, issued by
   the Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border
   Protection (CBP), for commercial kennel facilities and services in support
   of CBP's Canine Enforcement Program. K9 asserts that the agency improperly
   evaluated Britt's proposal and that the agency contracting official was
   biased against K9.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFQ, issued as a small business set-aside on January 19, 2007,
   provided for the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity
   contract for a 10-month base period, with four 1-year options, to the firm
   submitting the lowest-priced, technically-acceptable proposal. The
   determination of technical acceptability was to be based on driving
   distance (including travel time for canine officers from the kennel to the
   workplace), and compliance with the statement of work (SOW) requirements,
   including, for example, facility requirements (e.g., the size and
   construction of indoor/outdoor kennel runs), sanitation requirements (such
   as bathing and flea and tick prevention), food and feeding requirements,
   and other general requirements. RFP at 2-3. Under the general
   requirements, the SOW specified that [the] contractor shall provide an
   adequate number of secure parking spaces

   for CBP personnel to arrive and exchange vehicles for scheduled work.

   The number of vehicle parking spaces will be equal to the number of

   CBP canines housed at the kennel. A one to one ratio is required. The

   kennel operator should provide a safe and lighted area to load and unload

   canines. The parking spaces must be designated for CBP use only and

   twenty-four hour access to the parking area will be required.

   RFP, SOW, at 6-7.

   The agency received six proposals. By amendment issued April 13, the
   agency clarified the evaluation terms and procedures and requested revised
   proposals by April 23. RFP Amend. 2, at 2-3. Following receipt and
   evaluation of revised proposals, the agency awarded a contract to Britt's
   on June 11.

   K9 maintains that Britt's facility is technically unacceptable because it
   does not meet the 24-hour parking access requirement specified in the SOW.
   Specifically, the protester alleges that Britt's facility lacks the
   authorization for overnight parking required by the city. K9 concludes
   that Britt's should not have received the award.

   The protest is without merit. While a solicitation provision that requires
   a contractor to possess a specific license is a definitive responsibility
   criterion, compliance with which is a necessary prerequisite to contract
   award, Mobile Medic Ambulance Serv., Inc.--Recon., B-251545.2, Mar. 26,
   1993, 93-1 CPD para. 272 at 2, the RFP here contained no such requirement
   with regard to overnight parking. That is, the RFP did not specifically
   require offerors to demonstrate in their proposals that their facilities
   had been approved by the city for overnight parking as a prerequisite to
   being found technically acceptable. To the extent the protester believes
   city approval nevertheless will be required in order for Britt's to
   provide the required parking in performing the contract, this is a matter
   of contract administration; such matters are within the agency's
   discretion, and not subject to review by our Office. Bid Protest
   Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.5(a) (2007).[1]

   K9 also asserts that the award decision was flawed because it reflected
   bias on the part of the contracting officer. In support of this argument,
   K9 points to events under a prior contract, including, for example, the
   agency's failure to authorize a new contracting officer's technical
   representative (COTR) in writing; unannounced visits and informal
   inspections; a formal inspection outlining two violations conducted by
   other than the assigned COTR; and the subsequent removal of CBP's canines
   from the protester's facility and the utilization of Britt's facility for
   an interim contract.

   Government officials are presumed to act in good faith, and a protester's
   contention that contracting officials are motivated by bias or bad faith
   thus must be supported by convincing proof; we will not attribute unfair
   or prejudicial motives to procurement officials on the basis of inference
   or supposition. Worldwide Language Res., Inc., B-297210 et al., Nov. 28,
   2005, 2005 CPD para. 211 at 4.

   There is no evidence of bias here. The factual support presented by K9
   consists of agency actions in connection with its prior contract that K9
   apparently believes were unwarranted. A protester's mere disagreement with
   an agency's actions establishes neither that those actions reflected bias
   at the time, nor that they translated into bias in the current evaluation
   and award decision. See TEAM Support Servs., Inc., B-279379.2, June 22,
   1998, 98-1 CPD para. 167 at 6 (agency official's disagreement with
   protester over contract administration matters under prior contract did
   not show that the official was biased against protester during evaluation
   in current procurement).

   Finally, K9 contends that the agency structured the evaluation, including
   mileage costs and travel time, in such a manner that, given its location,
   it could not realistically compete from a price standpoint, and that its
   status as a disabled, veteran-owned business was not given consideration
   in the selection process.

   Under our Regulations, protests based on alleged improprieties in a
   solicitation that are apparent prior to the stated deadline for submitting
   offers must be filed before that time. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1). Here,
   the RFP, as amended, clearly set forth the evaluation provisions about
   which the protester complains, and the solicitation was not set aside for
   service-disabled veterans. Therefore, it was apparent on the face of the
   amended solicitation how the agency would evaluate proposals, and that an
   offeror's status as a service-disabled veteran would not be a factor in
   the evaluation process. This being the case, any protest by K9 challenging
   the evaluation provisions had to be filed prior to the extended April 23
   closing date for receipt of revised proposals. Since K9 did not protest
   until June 27, its protest on these issues is untimely, and will not be
   considered.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] We note further that, even where a solicitation contains a general
   requirement that the contractor obtain all necessary licenses and permits
   to perform the work--the protester points to no such requirement in the
   RFP here--the contracting officer is free to make award without regard to
   whether the awardee is licensed under local law at the time of award.
   Mobile Medic Ambulance Serv., Inc.--Recon., supra.