David Jones CPA PC

B-414701 Aug 25, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights David Jones CPA PC (DJCPA), of Atlanta, Georgia, protests the failure of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with it pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. VA119A-17-Q-0002, for Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) claims investigations for VA's Office of Resolution Management (ORM). DJCPA argues the agency unreasonably excluded its quotation from consideration for award based on a finding that one of the protester's line item prices was not fair and reasonable. We sustain the protest. We sustain the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  David Jones, CPA PC File:  B-414701 Date:  August 25, 2017 David Jones for the protester. Jason A. M. Fragoso, Esq., Steven E. Devine, Esq., and Michael J. Kraycinovich, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Frank Maguire, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is sustained where agency unreasonably based its price reasonableness determination on protester's price for a single line item. DECISION David Jones CPA PC (DJCPA), of Atlanta, Georgia, protests the failure of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with it pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. VA119A-17-Q-0002, for Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) claims investigations for VA's Office of Resolution Management (ORM).[1]  DJCPA argues the agency unreasonably excluded its quotation from consideration for award based on a finding that one of the protester's line item prices was not fair and reasonable. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, which was set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs), contemplated the establishment of a minimum of seven BPAs.  RFQ at 53.[2]  The solicitation advised vendors that the acquisition was being conducted in accordance with the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 13.303, and that the procedures of FAR Part 15 did not apply.  Id.  The RFQ provided for a phase 1 evaluation, in which the vendor's SDVOSB eligibility would be verified, and a phase 2 evaluation, in which the quotations advancing from phase 1 would be evaluated under technical approach, past performance, and price factors to determine which represented the best value to the government.  The solicitation advised that in the phase 2 evaluation, technical approach was significantly more important than past performance, and that technical approach and past performance, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id. at 53-54.  The RFQ also advised vendors that to receive consideration for award, a quotation had to be rated no less than satisfactory under the technical approach factor. The RFQ's price schedule requested unit and extended prices for each of the following five line items in each of five years of performance:  individual case, one issue; individual case, per additional issue; individual case, continuing violation; consolidated case, one issue; and consolidated case, per additional issue.  Id. at 22-24.  Vendors were to insert a not-to-exceed quantity for each line item.  The solicitation provided that the government would evaluate price "to determine whether or not it is considered fair and reasonable based on FAR 13.106-3(a)," and that the agency would not establish a BPA with any vendor whose price was evaluated as "questionable for reasonableness."  Id. at 54, 62. DJCPA was one of six vendors that submitted quotations by the specified due date.  One of the quotations did not advance to the phase 2 evaluation, and three of the five quotations that did advance were rated as less than satisfactory for the technical approach factor and excluded from further consideration for award.  DJCPA's quotation was rated as good under the technical approach factor; DJCPA's past performance was rated as high risk (based on the performance of its proposed major subcontractors); and the protester's price for one of the RFQ's 25 line items was determined "to not be fair and reasonable."[3]  BCM at 14, 18, 26.  The agency determined that because DJCPA's quotation had a price that was not fair and reasonable, it would no longer be considered for award.  Id.