Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. (2032H5-20-Q-00079)

B-419599,B-419599.2 Jun 01, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., of Horseheads, New York, protests the issuance of three task orders to three vendors under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 2032H5-20-Q-00079, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for private debt collection (PDC) services. The protester challenges numerous aspects of the agency's evaluation and award decision. 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:  Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. File:  B-419599; B-419599.2 Date:  June 1, 2021 Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., and Michael T. Gwinn, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. Jeffery M. Chiow, Esq., Lucas T. Hanback, Esq., Deborah N. Rodin, Esq., and Alexandria Tindall Webb, Esq., Rogers Joseph O’Donnell, PC for The CBE Group, Inc.; and Isaias Alba, IV, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Meghan F. Leemon, Esq., and Christine C. Fries, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC for Coast Professional, Inc.; and Kelsey Hayes, Esq., and Christian B. Nagel, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Continental Service Group, Inc. dba ConServe, the intervenors. Eric M. Steinberg, Esq., Richard L. Hatfield, Esq., and Jonathan D. Tepper, Esq., Department of the Treasury, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of quotations and best-value tradeoff is denied where the evaluation and source selection decision was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., of Horseheads, New York, protests the issuance of three  task orders to three vendors[1] under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 2032H5-20-Q-00079, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for private debt collection (PDC) services.  The protester challenges numerous aspects of the agency’s evaluation and award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 30, 2020, the agency issued the RFQ under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 to six vendors holding General Services Administration, Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), Professional Services Schedule Financial Services, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561440-Debt Collection contracts.  AR, D.2, RFQ amend. 1 at 1-2.[2]  The RFQ contemplated the establishment of a maximum of three task orders, each of which would have a 1-year base period, and four 1-year option periods.  Id. at 8.  The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical approach; management approach, organizational structure and quality control (QC); and past performance.  Id. at 82.  The solicitation stated that under the technical factors of technical approach and management approach, organizational structure and quality control, quotations could receive the adjectival ratings of excellent, good, satisfactory or unsatisfactory.  Id. at 82-83.  Under the past performance factor, the quotations could receive an adjectival rating of excellent, good, satisfactory, unsatisfactory or neutral.  Id. at 83.  The solicitation required that each vendor propose a fixed commission rate based on the amounts actually collected.  Id. at 81.  The price factor would be determined by each vendor’s evaluated commission rate.  Id. at 83-84.  The solicitation stated that the technical factors when combined, were more important than the commission rate.  Id. at 84.  As relevant to this protest, the RFQ also warned vendors that as quotations became more technically equal, the commission rate would increase in importance in the best-value determination.  Id. Prior to the November 24 closing date, the agency received quotations from all six vendors, including Pioneer, Coast Professional, ConServe, and CBE Group.  COS at 4.  The agency evaluated five of the six quotations as essentially technically equal, as no quotation received significant strengths.  AR, Tab E.2, Award Document at 19.  The overall results were as follows:   Pioneer[3] Coast ConServe Vendor A CBE Technical Approach Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Mgmt. Approach, Organ.