CDM Federal Programs Corporation (70FB8021Q00000019)

B-420783.3,B-420783.4,B-420783.5,B-420783.6 Jun 01, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Fluor Federal Services, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, and CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith), of Fairfax, Virginia, protest the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with AECOM Technical Services, Inc., of Los Angeles, California, under request for quotation (RFQ) No. 70FB8021Q00000019, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for advisory and assistance services. Fluor and CDM Smith both object to the evaluation of quotations and the agency's resulting best-value tradeoff, while Fluor also contends that FEMA did not adequately justify its decision to proceed with a single-award BPA. We deny the protests. 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: Fluor Federal Services, Inc.; CDM Federal Programs Corporation File: B-420783.3; B-420783.4; B-420783.5; B-420783.6 Date: June 1, 2023 Scott P. Fitzsimmons, Esq., and Brandon K. Regan, Esq., Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, L.L.P., for Fluor Federal Services, Inc.; and Robert J. Symon, Esq., Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., and Lisa A. Markman, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for CDM Federal Programs Corporation, the protesters. Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., Sandeep N. Nandivada, Esq., Victoria Dalcourt Angle, Esq., Markus Speidel, Esq., and Roke Iko, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for AECOM Technical Services, Inc., the intervenor. Matthew Lane, Esq., and Patrick J. Madigan, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Post-award protest challenging the establishment of a single-award blanket purchase agreement is dismissed as untimely where the solicitation specified that the agency intended to make a single award. 2. Protest challenging agency’s technical evaluation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and any differences in the evaluation of quotations stemmed from the firms’ different offerings. 3. Protests challenging agency’s experience and past performance evaluations are denied where the evaluations were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Fluor Federal Services, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, and CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith), of Fairfax, Virginia, protest the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with AECOM Technical Services, Inc., of Los Angeles, California, under request for quotation (RFQ) No. 70FB8021Q00000019, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for advisory and assistance services.[1] Fluor and CDM Smith both object to the evaluation of quotations and the agency’s resulting best-value tradeoff, while Fluor also contends that FEMA did not adequately justify its decision to proceed with a single-award BPA. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND FEMA provides assistance to state, tribal, and local governments and certain nonprofit organizations to enable communities to quickly respond to, and recover from, major disasters and emergencies through its public assistance (PA) program. Fluor Agency Report (AR), Tab K, RFQ at 45.[2] In 2016, FEMA began implementing an improved delivery model for the program, and established four locations for Consolidated Resource Centers (CRCs) in Virginia, Texas, California, and Puerto Rico. Id. at 45-46. On November 2, 2021, FEMA issued the RFQ, pursuant to the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4. Id. at 1‑2. The RFQ sought quotations to establish a single-award BPA designed to offer advisory and assistance services to support the CRCs. Id. at 45-46. The RFQ anticipated establishing a BPA with one base year and two 1-year option periods, and contemplated issuing BPA “calls” or orders on a fixed-price and time-and-materials hybrid basis. Id. at 2. The RFQ provided for establishment of the BPA on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following four evaluation factors: (1) relevant experience (experience); (2) technical; (3) past performance; and (4) price. Id. at 38. The experience factor was significantly more important than the technical factor, which was significantly more important than the past performance factor. The non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. The RFQ explained that the experience factor would be evaluated as pass or fail; a fail rating would render the quotation ineligible for award. Id. at 38-39.