United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Crown Worldwide Moving & Storage 

File: B-406614

Date: July 17, 2012

Robert S. Bowen and Peter A. Vargus, Crown Worldwide Moving & Storage, 

for the protester.

Kate Gorney, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.

Matthew T. Crosby, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where solicitation did not require submission of licenses or permits prior to award,

protest that agency improperly awarded contract to firm that allegedly lacks various 

business licenses and permits constitutes a challenge to the agency’s affirmative 

responsibility determination, which this Office does not review absent exceptions 

not alleged here.

DECISION

Crown Moving and Storage Company, d/b/a Crown Worldwide Moving & Storage, 

of San Leandro, California, protests the award of a task order to CG Moving 

Company, of San Bruno, California, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 

VA-261-12-Q-0082, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs, for relocation 

services for the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Crown contends 

that CG does not hold various licenses and permits and that CG therefore was 

ineligible for award.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

On February 7, 2012, the agency issued the solicitation as a total small business 

set-aside to five venders holding contracts under General Services Administration

(GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 48, Transportation, Delivery, and Relocation 

Solutions, Special Item Number 653-8, Office Relocation. RFQ at 1; Contracting 

Officer’s Statement ¶ 1. The solicitation established the following four evaluation 
Page 2 B-406614 

factors: technical capability, management capability, past performance, and price. 

RFQ at 25-26. Award was to be made based on the lowest-priced, technically 

acceptable proposal received in response to the solicitation.

1 Id. at 24-25.

The agency received five submissions in response to the solicitation. Contracting 

Officer’s Statement ¶ 1. After evaluating the submissions, the agency selected CG 

for award. Id. ¶ 2. This protest followed.

Crown contends that the agency should have disqualified CG from consideration for 

award because, according to Crown, CG does not hold the following four licenses 

and permits: a California Public Utilities Commission moving company permit; a 

California Department of Motor Vehicles motor carrier permit; a “[b]usiness license

to conduct business in California”; and a “Department of Transportation license.” 

Protest at 1.

As relevant to Crown’s contention, the solicitation provided that “[t]he contractor 

shall obtain all necessary licenses and/or permits” and that the “Contractor’s 

vehicles shall meet all current applicable Federal, State and local . . . licensing, 

registration and safety standards.” RFQ at 13, 17. Additionally, the solicitation 

provided that the agency “reserves the right to inspect [the] Contractor’s vehicles 

and equipment or require documentation of compliance with contract specifications 

and State[] laws [and agency] rules and policies governing transportation vehicles.” 

Id. at 17. The solicitation did not require vendors to submit any licenses or permits 

with their proposals.

Provisions, such as those in the solicitation here, that require a contractor to obtain 

necessary licenses and permits establish performance requirements that must be 

satisfied by the successful offeror during contract performance; as such, vendors 

are not required to satisfy the requirements prior to award, and the requirements do 

not affect the award decision, except as a matter of a contractor’s general 

responsibility. See Chem-Spray-South, Inc., B-400928.2, June 25, 2009, 2009 CPD 

¶ 144 at 5; United Seguranca, Ltd.

 1 Although the solicitation is designated as an RFQ, see RFQ at 1, 6, key sections 

of the solicitation describe the GSA FSS vendors’ responses to the solicitation as 

“proposals,” id. at 22-26. Additionally, in her statement on this protest, the 

contracting officer refers to the vendors’ responses as “proposals.” Contracting 

Officer Statement ¶ 1. Because the distinction between a quotation and a proposal 

is not relevant to our analysis in this protest, we adopt the agency’s usage of the 

term “proposal” in this decision.

, B-294388, Oct. 24, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 207 at 4. 

Our Bid Protest Regulations generally preclude our review of a contracting officer's 

affirmative determination of a vendor’s responsibility, except in circumstances not 

alleged or demonstrated here. 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(c) (2012). Moreover, because this
Page 3 B-406614 

solicitation was set aside for small businesses, any issue concerning CG’s 

responsibility is a matter for the Small Business Administration under its certificate 

of competency program. Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 19.6. Ultimately, 

whether CG complies with the license and permit requirements is a matter of 

contract administration, which we will not review. 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(a). Crown’s 

contention therefore provides no basis for questioning the agency’s evaluation.2

Finally, Crown for the first time in its comments on the agency report alleges that 

CG failed to comply with a solicitation requirement for a closed circuit television 

system. Comments at 2. Crown bases its allegation that CG does not have a 

closed circuit television system on a visit to CG by a Crown representative that took 

place after Crown received the agency report. Id. Under our Bid Protest 

Regulations, a protest based on other than alleged improprieties in a solicitation 

must be filed no later than 10 calendar days after the protester knew, or should 

have known, of the basis for protest, whichever is earlier. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2). 

Crown’s allegation does not appear to be based on anything in the agency report, 

and Crown has not presented any information to explain why this allegation was not 

raised in its initial protest. Accordingly, this allegation is untimely. Id.

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 2 Crown also argues, based on its belief that CG lacks a California Department of 

Motor Vehicles motor carrier permit, that CG should be disqualified from the 

competition for allegedly including the agency as a “reference” in its proposal. 

Protest at 1; see also Comments at 2. This argument lacks adequate explanation 

or supporting evidence to satisfy the requirement that a protester provide a 

sufficiently detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds to state a valid basis 

for protest. 4 C.F.R. §§ 21.1(c)(4), (f); American Ordnance, LLC, B-292847 et al., 

Dec. 5, 2003, 2004 CPD ¶ 3 at 6 n.3.