Redhorse Corporation

B-417268 Mar 21, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Redhorse Corporation, of San Diego, California, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Boston Government Services, LLC (BGS), of Lenoir City, Tennessee, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 89243418QEE000007, issued by the Department of Energy for mission-oriented technical support services. Redhorse alleges that the agency's source selection decision 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: Redhorse Corporation File: B-417268 Date: March 21, 2019 Richard B. Oliver, Esq., and J. Matthew Carter, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. Anuj Vohra, and Christian N. Curran, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Boston Government Services, LLC, the intervenor. Stephanie B. Young, Esq., Christie M. Alvarez, Esq., and Adam DeDent, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where the record shows that the agency's best-value tradeoff analysis was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. DECISION Redhorse Corporation, of San Diego, California, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Boston Government Services, LLC (BGS), of Lenoir City, Tennessee, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 89243418QEE000007, issued by the Department of Energy for mission-oriented technical support services. Redhorse alleges that the agency's source selection decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on June 21, 2018, was set aside for 8(a) small business vendors holding General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 00CORP (Professional Services Schedule) contracts with various special item numbers (e.g., 520-12 (budgeting), 874-1 (integrated consulting services), and 871-211 (energy consulting services)). Combined Contracting Officer's Statement of Facts/ Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2-3. The RFQ provided for the establishment of a BPA for mission-oriented technical support services to be performed over a 1-year base period and three 1-year option periods. Agency Report (AR), Tab A.1, RFQ at 36. Orders would be issued on fixed-price or time-and-materials bases. Id. at 2-8. Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering management capabilities, staffing, experience, transition plan, past performance, and price factors. Id. at 29. The agency received three quotations prior to the closing date of September 4, 2018. COS/MOL at 4. On January 17, 2019, the agency selected BGS for award because its quotation received the highest technical ratings and had the lowest evaluated price of $23,069,828. AR, Tab F.1, Best Value Determination Memorandum at 7, 10. After learning that its quotation was unsuccessful, Redhorse filed the instant protest with our Office. DISCUSSION Redhorse alleges that the agency's source selection decision was unreasonable because the agency did not consider BGS's 8(a) program graduation date when comparing quotations.1 Protest at 20. Redhorse asserts that BGS's graduation date from the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program will occur approximately 14 months into the performance period, and as a result, BGS will not be able to continue performance after that date. Protester's Comments at 5. In Redhorse's view, BGS will not be able to continue performance after its graduation because BGS will be required to certify its status at the time of each order placed under the BPA. Id. Based on its view, Redhorse argues that the agency should have considered the fact that BGS could only perform for 14 months, while Redhorse could perform for the entire 48 months, when comparing quotations to determine which quotation offered the best value. Where, as here, an agency issues an RFQ to FSS contractors under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 and conducts a competition, we will review the agency's source selection decision to ensure that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Phoenix Grp. of Virginia, Inc., B-407852, Mar. 12, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 80 at 5. On this record, we find no merit to the protester's allegation because the solicitation did not require the agency to consider each vendor's future 8(a) eligibility when evaluating quotations. See NikSoft Sys. Corp., B-406179.2, Aug.