Each party to a GSA Schedule Contractor Teaming Arrangement must hold the Federal Supply Schedule Contract in question.
As demonstrated by a recent Gao Bid Protest decision, if one of the parties to the GSA CTA doesn’t hold the relevant Fss Contract, the CTA may be found ineligible for award of an order under that contract.
The GAO’s decision in M Inc., d/b/a Minc Interior Design, B-413166.2 (Aug. 1, 2016) involved a VA RFQ for healthcare facility furniture and related services. The VA issued the RFQ using the GSA’s eBuy system, and intended to award multiple Blanket Purchase Agreements to successful vendors holding GSA Schedules 71 or 71 II K.
The RFQ allowed vendors to submit quotations using GSA CTAs. If a vendor elected to use a CTA, the lead vendor was required to submit all CTA agreements, identify each CTA vendor and its respective GSA Schedule contract numbers, and specify each CTA vendor’s responsibilities under the BPAs.
M Inc. d/b/a Minc Interior Design submitted a quotation as the lead vendor of a team that included Penco Products, Inc. Minc’s quotation did not identify a current FSS contract number for Penco, nor did Minc identify any services that Penco was currently performing under an FSS contract.
In its evaluation of Minc’s proposal, the VA determined that Penco did not hold an FSS contract. As a result, the VA determined that Minc’s quotation was unacceptable.
Minc filed a GAO bid protest challenging the VA’s decision. Minc argued, among other things, that it had been unreasonable for the VA to rate its quotation as unacceptable based on Penco’s lack of an FSS contract.
The GAO wrote that “an agency may not use schedule contracting procedures to purchase items that are not listed on a vendor’s GSA schedule.” Furthermore, “the GSA considers each vendor competing through a CTA to be a prime contractor with respect to the items it would provide in support of the team’s quotation, and thus must hold an FSS contract.”
In this case, “[i]ssuance of a BPA under Minc’s quotation would thus have impermissibly used FSS contracting procedures to enter into a BPA with Penco despite its not having a current FSS contract.” The GAO denied Minc’s protest, holding, “[t]he VA reasonably determined that Minc’s quotation was unacceptable due to the inclusion of a CTA with a firm that lack an FSS contract.”
GSA Contractor Teaming Arrangements can be a highly effective way for two or more Schedule contractors to combine their resources, capabilities, and experience. But as the M, Inc. bid protest demonstrates, the members of a GSA CTA must all hold the relevant Schedule contract–or risk exclusion from the competition.
This post first appeared on SmallGovCon - Legal News And Notes For Small Government Contractors, please read the originial post: here