Vanderhouwen ()

B-419706 Apr 15, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights VanderHouwen & Associates, Inc., of Portland, Oregon, protests the decision by the Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, not to exercise further options under VanderHouwen's blanket purchase agreement (BPA) (No. 75836) for staffing services. Specifically, VanderHouwen challenges the agency's evaluation of vendors' performance--on which the agency relied in deciding not to exercise VanderHouwen's options--asserting that the agency's actions constituted a "procurement process" and rendered those actions subject to GAO's bid protest jurisdiction. Protest at 13-17. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  VanderHouwen & Associates, Inc. File:  B-419706 Date:  April 15, 2021 Howard W. Roth III, Esq., Meghan. A. Douris, Esq., and William G. Cason, Esq., Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker LLP, for the protester. Nicholas M. Bidwell, Esq., James J. Jurich, Esq., Kevin Bell, Esq., and Donna Oden‑Orr, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s decision not to exercise options under protester’s blanket purchase agreement, based on alleged errors in agency’s evaluation of vendors’ past performance, involves a matter of contract administration which we will not consider. DECISION VanderHouwen & Associates, Inc., of Portland, Oregon, protests the decision by the Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, not to exercise further options under VanderHouwen’s blanket purchase agreement (BPA) (No. 75836) for staffing services.[1]  Specifically, VanderHouwen challenges the agency’s evaluation of vendors’ performance--on which the agency relied in deciding not to exercise VanderHouwen’s  options--asserting that the agency’s actions constituted a “procurement process” and rendered those actions subject to GAO’s bid protest jurisdiction.  Protest at 13-17.  We dismiss the protest. During or before 2017, the agency established BPAs for staffing services with various vendors, including VanderHouwen; specifically, the agency established BPA-75836 with VanderHouwen in May 2017.  The base performance period for BPA-75836 was one year with nine 1-year option periods; after the base year, the agency exercised options for three of the 1-year option periods.[2]  In 2019, the agency advised the BPA holders (including VanderHouwen) that the agency would assess various aspects of the vendors’ ongoing performance, and that such assessments would be considered in determining whether to exercise future BPA options.  Protest, exh. 7, VanderHouwen Appeal of Decision Not to Exercise Options.  On March 5, 2021, VanderHouwen was notified that BPA-75836 would not be extended beyond May 2021 because VanderHouwen was ranked 11th of the 12 vendors evaluated.  Id.    VanderHouwen’s protest is based on various alleged errors in the agency’s evaluation of the vendors’ past performance, complaining that, due to these alleged errors, the agency improperly determined not to exercise additional options under VanderHouwen’s BPA.  The agency requests dismissal of VanderHouwen’s protest, maintaining, among other things, that the protest is challenging a matter of contract administration.  Agency Dismissal Request at 3-4.  More specifically, the agency states that it did not request or receive proposals or quotations from any of the vendors, and further points out that no new contracts/agreements were awarded.  Rather, the agency maintains that it simply decided not to exercise some of the vendors’ BPA options based on the agency’s consideration of the vendors’ past performance; accordingly, the agency maintains that the protest involves contract administration issues and is not for GAO’s consideration under our bid protest authority.  We agree.  As a general rule, option provisions in a contract are exercisable at the discretion of the government.  See, e.g., Nutriom, LLC, B-402511, May 11, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 113 at 3.  Our Office will not question an agency’s exercise of an option under an existing contract unless the protester shows that the agency failed to follow applicable regulations or that the determination to exercise the option, rather than conduct a new procurement, was unreasonable.  InGenesis, Inc., B-412101.2, Mar. 28, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 102 at 5; Sippican, Inc., B-257047.2, Nov.