ISHPI Information Technologies, Inc. (89303021RIM000005)

B-420718 Jul 29, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Foxhole Technology, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) and the issuance of two task orders to AmVet Technologies, LLC, of Las Vegas, Nevada, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 89303021RIM000005, issued by the Department of Energy for cybersecurity assessment and authorization support services. Foxhole argues that the agency should have eliminated the AmVet quotation from consideration because the firm did not have the corporate experience required under the terms of the RFQ. We dismiss 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: Foxhole Technology, LLC File: B-420718 Date: July 29, 2022 Brian Bunting, Esq., J. Ryan Frazee, Esq., and Jennifer Eve Retener, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. William T. Welch, Esq., J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., and Lewis Rhodes, Esq., McMahon, Welch and Learned, PLLC, for AmVet Technologies, LLC, the intervenor. Kevin R. Hilferty, Esq., Stephanie B. Young, Esq., Marianna Lvovsky, Esq., and Stephanie J. Villalta, Esq., , Department of Energy, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is dismissed where record shows that the protester is not an interested party to maintain its protest. DECISION Foxhole Technology, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) and the issuance of two task orders to AmVet Technologies, LLC, of Las Vegas, Nevada, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 89303021RIM000005, issued by the Department of Energy for cybersecurity assessment and authorization support services. Foxhole argues that the agency should have eliminated the AmVet quotation from consideration because the firm did not have the corporate experience required under the terms of the RFQ. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND Competition for this requirement was confined to federal supply schedule (FSS) vendors holding appropriate FSS schedules, and the RFQ contemplates the establishment of a master BPA, along with the issuance of two initial task orders for the solicited services, for a base year and four 1-year options. The RFQ advised that the successful firm would be determined using best-value tradeoff source selection procedures. The initial task orders are to be performed on a fixed-price basis, although the RFQ contemplates the possibility of additional task orders to be issued on either a fixed-price basis, a time-and-materials basis, or labor-hours basis. RFQ at 3.[1] Firms were advised that the agency would evaluate quotations considering price and several non-price factors. The non-price factors, in descending order of importance, were technical approach, corporate experience, and management approach.[2] RFQ at 53. The non-price factors collectively were significantly more important than price. Id. In response to the RFQ, the agency received a number of quotations, including those submitted by Foxhole and AmVet. The agency evaluated the quotations, engaged in discussions and solicited, obtained and evaluated revised quotations. After completing its evaluation of revised quotations, the agency assigned the following ratings to the quotations of Foxhole and AmVet:   Foxhole AmVet Technical Approach Acceptable Outstanding Corporate Experience Good Good Management Approach Acceptable Outstanding Price $50,802,303 $46,327,561   Agency Report (AR), Exh. B.2, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), at 32. On the basis of these evaluation results, the agency made award to AmVet, concluding that its quotation represented the best value to the government. After being advised of the agency’s source selection and receiving a brief explanation of the agency’s decision, Foxhole filed the instant protest. DISCUSSION Foxhole argues that the agency improperly accepted the AmVet quotation because, according to Foxhole, AmVet did not have the corporate experience required under the terms of the RFQ. Foxhole maintains that the solicitation required the successful firm to have at least one corporate experience example where the firm performed as a prime contractor or team lead in a contractor teaming agreement. Foxhole argues that none of AmVet’s corporate experience examples meet this requirement, and that the firm’s quotation should have been eliminated from consideration.[3] We dismiss Foxhole’s protest because we conclude that the firm is not an interested party to maintain its protest. Our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.