AE Works, Ltd. (V06-18-101)

B-419528.2 May 05, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AE Works, Ltd. (AE Works), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Sewickley, Pennsylvania, protests the cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C24620R0134, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for architect-engineer (A/E) services. The protester contends that the VA's decision to cancel the procurement was unreasonable and not made in good faith. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release.   Decision Matter of:  AE Works, Ltd. File:  B-419528.2 Date:  May 5, 2021 Nicholas T. Solosky, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for the protester. Tyler W. Brown, Esq., and Kathleen Ellis, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly cancelled a requirement for architect-engineer services is denied where the decision to cancel was reasonably based on agency concerns that insufficient funds were available. DECISION   AE Works, Ltd. (AE Works), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Sewickley, Pennsylvania, protests the cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C24620R0134, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for architect-engineer (A/E) services.  The protester contends that the VA’s decision to cancel the procurement was unreasonable and not made in good faith. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Generally, in acquiring A/E services, a contracting agency must publicly announce its requirements, evaluate the A/E performance data and qualifications statements on file as well as those submitted in response to the announcement, and select at least three firms for discussions without considering price.  Negotiations concerning price are then conducted with the highest-ranked firms.  See OLBN Architectural Serv., Inc., B‑402444.4, B‑402444.5, Oct. 4, 2010, 2011 CPD ¶ 55.  On June 10, 2020, the VA posted a request on the beta.SAM.gov website for Standard Form (SF) 330 A/E Qualifications statements with a due date of July 13, 2020.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Request for SF-330 at 2, 7.  The agency sought to award a fixed-price contract for A/E services on a project to develop a facility master plan for certain medical centers within the VA Mid-Atlantic Health Care Network.  Id. at 9.  The solicitation, issued as an SDVOSB set-aside, specified that the procurement was to be conducted in accordance with the Selection of Architects and Engineers Statute, formerly known as the Brooks Act, as implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.6.  AR, Tab 1, RFP at 1.  Under this Act, contractors are selected for A/E work on the basis of demonstrated technical competence and qualifications.  Fire Risk Mgmt., Inc., B-411552, Aug. 20, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 259 at 2.  The procedures do not include price competition; rather, the agency must identify the most highly qualified firm and attempt to negotiate a contract with that firm at a fair and reasonable level of compensation.  Id.  The request for SF-330 submissions provided for selection based on the following evaluation criteria:  (1) professional qualifications; (2) specialized experience and technical competence; (3) past performance; (4) personnel experience and qualifications; (5) capacity to accomplish the work in the required time; (6) reputation and standing of the firm; and (7) record of significant claims against the firm.  AR, Tab 3, Request for SF-330 at 3-4.  This notice explained that an evaluation board would assess SF-330 submissions to identify the most highly qualified firms.  Id. at 3.  The agency would then hold discussions with “at least three” of the identified firms.  Id.  On September 1, the VA identified the most highly qualified firm, provided that firm with the RFP, and began negotiations with that firm.  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2.  The agency terminated those negotiations on November 16 after determining that the firm’s best and final offer exceeded the agency’s allotted funds, and on November 19, the VA sent the RFP to the protester, the next most highly qualified firm.  Id; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The agency received AE Works’s proposal on January 8, 2021, and terminated negotiations with the protester via email on January 12 because the protester’s proposed price also exceeded the agency’s allotted funding.  COS at 2.  The VA notified the protester that the agency did “not believe that we can come to an agreement on cost for the project that will be satisfactory for both parties,” and as a result, decided to “terminat[e] any future negotiation.”  Protest, Exh.