Ambulance Management Services, Ltd. d/b/a Trans-Care Ambulance

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.

Decision

Matter of: Ambulance Management Services, Ltd. d/b/a Trans-Care Ambulance

File: B-423804

Date: December 2, 2025

Shane J. McCall, Esq., Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., John L. Holtz, Esq., Stephanie L. Ellis, Esq., Gregory P. Weber, Esq., and Annie E. Birney, Esq., Koprince McCall Pottroff, LLC, for the protester.
Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Kristine Cralle, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., and Eric A. Valle, Esq., Piliero Mazza, PLLC, for Heartland Ambulance Service, LLC, the intervenor.
Jared M. Levin, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.
Christine Martin, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that the agency made an improper affirmative responsibility determination for the awardee is dismissed where the protester is not an interested party to challenge the responsibility determination because the protester would not be in line for award if its protest were sustained.

DECISION

Ambulance Management Services, Ltd. d/b/a Trans-Care Ambulance (Trans-Care), a small business of Terra Haute, Indiana, protests the award of a contract to Heartland Ambulance Service, LLC, a small business of Muncie, Indiana, under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 36C25025B0017, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for non-emergency ambulance transportation services. The protester primarily asserts that the agency made an improper affirmative responsibility determination when it selected Heartland for award.

We dismiss the protest because the protester is not an interested party to challenge the award of the contract.

BACKGROUND

The VA issued the IFB on February 19, 2025, as a total small business set-aside, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 14 for non-emergency ambulance transportation services for the Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana, and its associated community-based outpatient clinics, and affiliated healthcare clinics. Protest, exh. A, IFB at 1; Protest, exh. C, IFB, amend. 0001, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at ¶ 1. The contractor will provide all vehicles, personnel, management, supplies, equipment, and necessary reporting for stretcher transports, basic life support, advanced life support, and critical care transport services. PWS at ¶ 1. The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to be performed over five 1-year ordering periods. Id. at 5.[1] The IFB stated that sealed bids were due by 2:00 pm EST on March 21, at the Network 10 Contracting Office at 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where a public bid opening would immediately follow. IFB at 1, 4; IFB, amend. 0001 at 1. The public bid opening was conducted as stated in the IFB. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at ¶ 6.

The agency received six bids, including those of Trans-Care and Heartland, and were recorded as follows:

COS at ¶ 8; Agency Report (AR), Exh. 4, Bid Abstract; AR, Exh. 5, Price Determination at 1. It was determined that Heartland's bid was the lowest with a total price of $18,452,800, and Trans-Care was the fifth-lowest bid with a total price of $31,049,618. AR, Exh. 5, Price Determination at 1. Neither Trans-Care nor Heartland attended the bid opening. COS at ¶ 8. The agency made award to Heartland on July 28, for $18,452,800, and published the notice of award to the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) website, the governmentwide point of entry, on the same day. Id. at ¶ 11.

This protest followed.

DISCUSSION

Trans-Care primarily asserts that the agency made an improper affirmative responsibility determination for Heartland. Trans-Care contends that a VA official told a Trans-Care employee that Heartland attempted to bribe the same VA official to secure a contract for a different procurement. Protest at 7. This conversation allegedly occurred on July 28 and Trans-Care provided two declarations from its employees to support this allegation; one from an employee alleging the VA official told her about the attempted bribe; and another from Trans-Care's [DELETED] stating that the Trans-Care employee reported the conversation to him on July 28. Protest, exh. E, Declaration of Trans-Care [DELETED]; Protest, exh. F, Declaration of Trans-Care Employee. Trans-Care did not report the alleged bribe to the agency and states that it “believed that [the VA official] reported this attempted bribe to the VA[.]” Protest at 7. Trans-Care asserts that due to this allegation of attempted bribery, the contracting officer should have found Heartland non-responsible and ineligible for award. Comments at 4-5.

The agency responds that Trans-Care is not an interested party to challenge the responsibility determination for Heartland because there are three intervening bidders between Trans-Care and Heartland that are eligible for award and Trans-Care has not challenged any of them. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 5-6. Therefore, even if this protest were sustained, Trans-Care would not be next in line for award and, pursuant to our Bid Protest Regulations, the protest must be dismissed. Id. at 7. The agency also represents that it had no knowledge of the alleged bribe, and no attempted bribe was reported to it by the VA official, Trans-Care, or any other party. COS at ¶ 10. The agency submitted a declaration from the VA official who the protester asserts spoke of the attempted bribery. The VA official asserts that while he recalls his conversation with the Trans-Care employee on July 28, as well as an email exchange between them on the same day regarding a matter of contract performance for a separate procurement, neither the conversation nor the email included any statement by the VA official about attempted bribery. AR, Exh. 2, Declaration from VA Official at ¶ 5. He further affirmatively declares that no employee from Heartland has ever offered him a bribe. Id.

Trans-Care counters that although it is not immediately next in line for award, its protest should still be considered. Trans-Care reasons that its allegation of attempted bribery on the part of Heartland is sufficiently grave to merit consideration of its protest regardless of Trans-Care's interested party status. Comments at 2-3.

Under the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, (CICA) 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3557, only an interested party may protest a federal procurement. That is, for a protest ground to be considered by our Office, a protester must be an actual or prospective offeror or vendor whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award or failure to award a contract. 31 U.S.C. § 3551(2)(A); 4 C.F.R. §§ 21.0(a), 21.1. A protester is not an interested party if it would not be next in line for award if its protest were sustained. Athena Construction Group, Inc., B-413406, B‑413406.2, Oct. 21, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 297 at 6.

We find that Trans-Care is not an interested party to maintain its protest allegations because it would not be in line for award if we sustained the protest. As noted above, the record shows that there are three intervening bidders, each with a lower bid, and Trans-Care has not challenged their eligibility for award. AR, Exh. 4, Bid Abstract; AR, Exh. 5, Price Determination at 1. Consequently, even if Trans-Care's allegations had merit, three other bidders would be in line for award ahead of Trans-Care. Additionally, Trans-Care does not provide any legal support for its contention that our Office should find an exception to our interested party statute and regulations where the protest raises “sufficiently grave” allegations regarding a responsibility determination. Where CICA and our regulations do not provide for such an exception, we have no basis to apply one. Rather, our Office has consistently decided that where a protester challenges the awardee's responsibility and does not challenge the responsibility or acceptability of the intervening bidders, that protester's interest in the procurement is too remote to render the protester an interested party. Do-Less Mowing Services, B‑235425, B-235426, B‑235427, Aug. 29, 1989, 89-2 CPD ¶ 185 at 2; Vertical Jobs, Inc., B-415891.2, B‑415891.4, Apr. 19, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 147 at 8 (protester's argument that the agency improperly conducted its responsibility determination is dismissed where the protester did not challenge an intervening offeror's evaluation and thus the protester would not be next in line for award even if this allegation was sustained). Accordingly, we dismiss the protest.

The protest is dismissed.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel