Ambulance Management Services, Ltd. d/b/a Trans-Care Ambulance (B-423804)

You should not care.

Category: Process issue

Date: 2 December 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423804

Ambulance Management Services, Ltd. d/b/a Trans-Care Ambulance, a small business based in Terre Haute, Indiana, protests the award of a fixed-price contract to Heartland Ambulance Service, LLC, under IFB No. 36C25025B0017, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs for nonemergency ambulance transportation services at the Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center in Indianapolis. Trans-Care's sole protest ground is that the VA made an improper affirmative responsibility determination for Heartland, alleging that a VA official told a Trans-Care employee that Heartland had attempted to bribe the official on a separate procurement. The VA denied any knowledge of the alleged bribe, and the official submitted a sworn declaration denying the statement attributed to him.

Interested party standing: GAO dismissed the protest on interested party grounds. Trans-Care was the fifth-lowest of six bidders at $31,049,618—nearly $13 million above Heartland's low bid of $18,452,800—with three intervening bidders it did not challenge. Under 31 USC § 3551(2)(A) and 4 CFR §§ 21.0(a) and 21.1, a protester must show a direct economic interest affected by the award; a protester who would not be next in line for award even if the protest were sustained is not an interested party. Trans-Care argued the gravity of its bribery allegation warranted an exception, but GAO found no statutory or regulatory basis for one, citing Athena Construction Group, Inc., B-413406 (2016); Do-Less Mowing Services, B-235425 (1989); and Vertical Jobs, Inc., B-415891.2 (2018).

Result: Dismissed. Trans-Care lacked standing as an interested party because three lower-priced bidders stood between it and the awardee, and CICA provides no "sufficiently grave" exception to the interested party requirement.

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.