ASG Solutions Corporation- dba American Systems Group (N00244-22-R-0035)

B-420743 Aug 10, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ASG Solutions Corporation, d/b/a American Systems Group (ASG), a small business of San Diego, California, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. N00244-22-R-0035, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, for warehouse services in San Diego and Port Hueneme, California. ASG contends that the Navy is required by regulation to conduct this procurement using the Navy's SeaPort Next Generation (SeaPort NxG) contract vehicle. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: ASG Solutions Corporation d/b/a American Systems Group File: B-420743 Date: August 10, 2022 Ritobrata Banerjee for the protester. Andrew McCabe, Esq., and Robert McCall, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Hannah Barnes, Esq., Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that the agency was required by regulation to conduct a procurement for warehouse services using the Navy’s SeaPort Next Generation contract vehicle is denied where the plain language of the regulation exempts the agency from the requirement to consider this contract vehicle when acquiring commercial items. DECISION ASG Solutions Corporation, d/b/a American Systems Group (ASG), a small business of San Diego, California, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. N00244-22-R-0035, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, for warehouse services in San Diego and Port Hueneme, California. ASG contends that the Navy is required by regulation to conduct this procurement using the Navy’s SeaPort Next Generation (SeaPort NxG) contract vehicle. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 28, 2022, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, the agency issued the RFQ, using General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures, as a set-aside for historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small business concerns. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFQ at 1. The solicitation sought warehouse services, including material receipt, identification, stowage, and delivery, for Navy ships in San Diego and Port Hueneme. Id. at 10-14. The RFQ provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following three evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical capability, past performance, and price. Id. at 66. During the pre-solicitation process, the agency conducted market research and reviewed various contract vehicles, including the Navy SeaPort NxG vehicle, and determined that there was no existing contract vehicle to procure the warehouse support services sought by the agency. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. As part of its market research, the Navy issued a sources sought notice seeking qualified small businesses and received 24 responses by the January 31 closing date for responses to the notice. Id. On January 13, GSA contacted the Navy in response to the sources sought notice and provided market research information that the Navy determined indicated sufficient competition among small businesses, including among HUBZone small business concerns. Id. As a result of this research and information, the contracting officer determined that a HUBZone set-aside was in the best interest of the government. Id. On February 8, the contracting officer completed a commercial item determination supporting the conclusion that the warehouse services required by the agency were of “a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace.” Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 3; see COS at 2, citing FAR part 12 (Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services); see FAR 2.101 (defining a commercial service). As a result of this determination, the agency concluded that the SeaPort NxG contract was not an appropriate vehicle for the required services and that the solicitation would be issued pursuant to FAR part 8 as a HUBZone set-aside. COS at 2‑3. The agency issued a pre-solicitation notice between April 22 and April 28. AR, Tab 4, Pre-solicitation Notice at 2. Beginning April 23, the protester initiated a series of communications with the agency asserting that the Navy was required to source these warehouse services through SeaPort NxG. COS at 3. The agency issued the solicitation on April 28, and the protester continued to email and call the agency from different phone numbers. Id. at 4. On May 4, the protester was referred to the contracting officer, who provided the protester with an explanation of why the agency believed SeaPort NxG was not the appropriate contract vehicle for this procurement. Id. at 4-5; see Protest exh. A, Email Communication.