Regency Inn & Suites

Case: B-411066 Agency: Department of Homeland Security : United States Coast Guard Protester: Regency Inn & Suites Date: 2015-05-08 Denied
View full decision with AI analysis on ProtestIntel →
B-411066.2 May 08, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Regency Inn & Suites, of D'Iberville, Mississippi, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Bluewater Management Group, of Norfolk, Virginia, also a small business, under request for quotations (RFQ) HSCG23-15-Q-P5L001, issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, for lodging and accommodations in Mississippi. Regency argues that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable. 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: Regency Inn & Suites File: B-411066.2 Date: May 8, 2015 Kishan Shah, Regency Inn & Suites, for the protester. T. DeShawn Davis, Esq., United States Coast Guard, for the agency. Young S. Lee, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency unreasonably concluded that the awardee’s quotation met various mandatory solicitation requirements is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable. 2. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s quotation as unsatisfactory is denied where the quotation failed to comply with mandatory solicitation requirements. DECISION Regency Inn & Suites, of D’Iberville, Mississippi, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Bluewater Management Group, of Norfolk, Virginia, also a small business, under request for quotations (RFQ) HSCG23-15-Q-P5L001, issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, for lodging and accommodations in Mississippi. Regency argues that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable. We deny the protest. The Coast Guard issued the RFQ as a small business set-aside on November 25, 2014. RFQ at 1. The solicitation incorporated the commercial item acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12.6, and the simplified acquisition procedures of FAR part 13. Id. The RFQ sought fixed‑priced quotations for lodging and accommodations located within a 35-mile radius of the Huntington Ingalls Industries shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi, for up to 112 Coast Guard personnel. Id. at 1-2. The solicitation contemplated the award of a contract on a best value basis for a 6‑month base period and one 3‑month option period. Id. at 2. The RFQ identified three evaluation factors: technical, past performance, and price, which were listed in descending order of importance. Id. The non‑price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. The RFQ required vendors to “fully demonstrate a bona fide capability to accomplish the material terms and conditions contained in th[e] solicitation and SOW [statement of work],” and advised that quotations shall “contain pertinent information in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of all such requirements.” Id. With regard to the technical factor, the solicitation established 14 separate mandatory lodging requirements. Id. at 6-7. For example, a vendor’s facility was required to have: double-occupancy rooms with two dressers and two wardrobe closets; at least 83 available parking spaces; and an on‑site business center with four functioning internet lines. Id. The solicitation notified vendors that a Coast Guard Technical Evaluation Team (TET) would conduct on-site visits of the vendor’s facilities to assess the 14 lodging requirements along with two objective requirements listed in the statement of work as part of the technical evaluation.[1] Id. The RFQ advised that the “[s]ite visits do not constitute a forum for discussions, only a means for Government personnel to evaluate potential properties.” Id. at 2. The agency received a total of 14 quotations in response to the RFQ. Agency Report (AR), Tab 12, Pre-Negotiation Memorandum (PNM), at 4. After receipt of the quotations, the technical evaluators conducted on-site visits to confirm information in each firm’s quotation.[2] Id. at 5. Based upon the information in the vendors’ quotations and the on-site visits, the TET rated nine of the 10 quotations unsatisfactory because the facilities failed to meet at least one of the RFQ’s mandatory requirements.[3] Id. at 1-11. The TET found that only one facility met the RFQ requirements--the facility provided by the awardee. Id. at 6. On January 15, 2015, the Coast Guard announced award of the RFQ to Bluewater. AR at 3. After requesting and receiving a debriefing, Regency filed the current protest with our Office. DISCUSSION Regency challenges the Coast Guard’s evaluation of the quotations. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably rated Bluewater’s quotation satisfactory because it failed to meet mandatory solicitation requirements.

Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...