DCR Services & Construction, Inc. (RFQ1489735)

B-420179.2,B-420179.3 Apr 28, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DCR Services & Construction, Inc., a small business of Detroit, Michigan, protests the non-selection of its quotation for the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1489735, issued by the Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS), for contaminated site cleanup services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of quotations and resulting selection decision. We deny the protest in part and dismiss in part. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: DCR Services & Construction, Inc. File: B-420179.2; B-420179.3 Date: April 28, 2022 Lewis P. Rhodes, Esq., and Orest J. Jowyk, Esq., McMahon, Welch and Learned, PLLC, for the protester. William B. Blake, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the evaluation of the protester’s technical quotation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of one awardee’s quotation is dismissed where the protester would not be in line to receive a blanket purchase agreement if its allegations were sustained. DECISION DCR Services & Construction, Inc., a small business of Detroit, Michigan, protests the non-selection of its quotation for the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1489735, issued by the Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS), for contaminated site cleanup services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of quotations and resulting selection decision. We deny the protest in part and dismiss in part. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on May 5, 2021, under the General Services Administration’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, seeking contaminated site cleanup services. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFQ at 1; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1-2. The RFQ anticipated the establishment of multiple-award BPAs with a 5-year ordering period, with orders to be placed on fixed-price, labor-hour, and time-and-materials bases. RFQ at 4. The solicitation provided that NPS “intends to award up to five (5) BPAs, but reserves the right to make any number of awards, including the right to make no award.” Id. The solicitation provided for the establishment of BPAs on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following non-price factors listed in descending order of importance: (1) experience; (2) technical approach and capability; (3) management capacity; (4) past performance; and (5) small business participation.[1] Id. at 38-39. NPS would evaluate experience for relevancy, where “projects that demonstrate a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities may be considered relevant and receive a higher rating.” Id. at 39. The technical approach and capability factor had three subfactors: (a) key personnel; (b) site remediation; and (c) sampling and analysis plan. RFQ at 39. Under the key personnel subfactor, NPS would evaluate the capabilities, qualifications, and prior experience of the offered key personnel to determine their capability to complete the required services. Id. Under the site remediation subfactor, a vendor’s quotation would be evaluated to determine the extent of the firm’s technical capabilities to conduct site clean-up activities in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Id. And under the sampling and analysis plan (SAP) subfactor, a vendor’s plan would be evaluated to determine how well it identifies the nature and extent of potential contamination at the hypothetical site provided in the RFQ. Id. The management capacity factor had three subfactors: (a) staffing; (b) communication plan; and (c) green remediation practices. Id. Under the staffing subfactor, the solicitation advised that quotations would be evaluated on their “approach to recruit, select and develop appropriate staffing by technical discipline for all elements of the [statement of work (SOW)], to include the Subject Matter Expert pool.” Id. Under the communication plan subfactor, a vendor’s quotation would be evaluated for its demonstration of lines of authority and communication, and if it offered “sufficient administrative capacity to manage and control cost for multiple orders simultaneously with minimal Government oversight.” Id.