MIRACORP, Inc.

B-410413.2 Feb 23, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights MIRACORP, Inc., of Mesa, Arizona, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Allegheny Science & Technology Corporation, of Bridgeport, West Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DE-SOL-0006252, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), for mission-oriented technical services (MOTS). MIRACORP alleges that DOE unreasonably and disparately evaluated the vendors' quotations, and introduced unstated evaluation criteria in its evaluation of the protester's quotation. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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:      MIRACORP, Inc File:                B-410413.2 Date:              February 23, 2015 Thomas K. David, Esq., and Kenneth D. Brody, Esq., David, Brody & Dondershine, LLP, for the protester. Andrew J. Mohr, Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., Daniel Strouse, Esq., Gabriel E. Kennon, Esq., and Amy J. Spencer, Esq., Cohen Mohr LLP, for Allegheny Science & Technology Corporation, the intervenor. Gabriel D. Soll, Esq., James Jurich, Esq., Timothy O’Keefe, Esq., Kimberly J. Graber, Esq., and Adam DeDent, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Eric M. Ransom, Esq., and Jennifer Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that the agency unreasonably and disparately evaluated the vendors’ quotations and introduced unstated evaluation criteria is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. DECISION MIRACORP, Inc., of Mesa, Arizona, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Allegheny Science & Technology Corporation, of Bridgeport, West Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DE-SOL-0006252, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), for mission-oriented technical services (MOTS).  MIRACORP alleges that DOE unreasonably and disparately evaluated the vendors’ quotations, and introduced unstated evaluation criteria in its evaluation of the protester’s quotation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND DOE issued the RFQ on December 27, 2013, as a set-aside for 8(a) small business firms holding a General Services Administration schedule contract under Professional Engineering Services Schedule 871, Mission Oriented Business Integration Services Schedule 874, or Facilities Maintenance and Management Schedule 03FAC.  The purpose of the RFQ was to establish a BPA with a 1-year base period and up to two 1-year option periods, with an estimated value of up to $85 million, to replace DOE’s existing contracts for these services.  The RFQ provided for establishment of the BPA with the schedule contractor whose quotation represented the best value to the government, considering two evaluation factors:  technical capability and price.  The technical capability factor consisted of four equally-weighted subfactors:  (1) relevant experience, (2) key personnel, (3) sample BPA calls, and (4) organization structure and staffing.  The RFQ also advised that, overall, the technical capability factor was more important than the price factor. DOE received six quotations in response to the RFQ.  After an initial review of quotations, DOE issued an RFQ amendment (to clarify certain required price information, among other issues) and requested revised quotations.  Between the agency’s initial review and its review of revised quotations, four of the six quotations were rejected for failing to comply with the requirements of the RFQ.  As a consequence, only the two remaining quotations, submitted by MIRACORP and Allegheny, were provided to the agency technical evaluation panel (TEP) for consideration.  DOE completed its original evaluation and made award to Allegheny on September 9, 2014.  MIRACORP then filed a protest of the award decision with our Office on September 18.  Thereafter, on September 26, DOE advised that it intended to take corrective action in response to MIRACORP’s protest consisting of reevaluating the proposals and making a new source selection decision (SSD).  Accordingly, our Office dismissed MIRACORP’s protest on October 1.  MIRACORP, Inc., B-410413, Oct.