The Electronic On-Ramp, Inc. (47QTCB22R0006)

B-421229 Nov 22, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Blue Rose Consulting Group, Inc. (Blue Rose), a historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small business concern of Washington, D.C., protests the terms and conditions of the General Services Administration's (GSA) request for proposals (RFP) No. 47QTCB22R0006 for the HUBZone pool of the governmentwide acquisition contract (GWAC) called Polaris, to provide customized information technology (IT) services and services-based solutions. The protester contends that the solicitation's provision related to the consideration of subcontractor capabilities is unduly restrictive of competition. Protest at 2-4. We dismiss the protest because the matter involved is the subject of litigation before a court of competent jurisdiction. View Decision Decision Matter of: Blue Rose Consulting Group, Inc. File: B-421229 Date: November 22, 2022 Beth V. McMahon, Esq., and J. Bradley Reaves, Esq., ReavesColey, PLLC, for the protester. Carmody G. Daman, Esq., and Barbara B. Ayala, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Kyle E. Gilbertson, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is dismissed where the matter involved is the subject of litigation before a court of competent jurisdiction. DECISION Blue Rose Consulting Group, Inc. (Blue Rose), a historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small business concern of Washington, D.C., protests the terms and conditions of the General Services Administration’s (GSA) request for proposals (RFP) No. 47QTCB22R0006 for the HUBZone pool of the governmentwide acquisition contract (GWAC) called Polaris, to provide customized information technology (IT) services and services-based solutions. The protester contends that the solicitation’s provision related to the consideration of subcontractor capabilities is unduly restrictive of competition. Protest at 2-4. We dismiss the protest because the matter involved is the subject of litigation before a court of competent jurisdiction. BACKGROUND The Polaris GWAC is a multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to provide customized IT services. RFP at 3. The Polaris acquisition is divided amongst the following four solicitation set-aside types, or pools: small businesses; woman-owned small businesses (WOSB); service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB); and HUBZone. Agency Response to Protester’s Dismissal Objections at 1. Each pool has the same RFP number, except for the final digit. For example, the SDVOSB pool is identified as RFP No. 47QTCB22R0007, while the HUBZone pool is RFP No. 47QTCB22R0006. For ease of reference, we will refer to these Polaris solicitations by their identified pools (e.g., HUBZone solicitation). According to the agency, “[a]ll four of these RFPs are nearly identical in their terms, proposal requirements and evaluation criteria.” Id. On October 19, 2022, Blue Rose filed two identical protests with our Office. One protest challenged the terms of the SDVOSB solicitation (B-421230), and the other challenged the terms of the HUBZone solicitation (B-421229). Both protests challenged the same specific RFP provision related to the consideration of subcontractor capabilities (section L.5.4), which is identically stated in both solicitations. On October 20, 2022, the agency notified our Office that other firms had filed pre-award protests before the United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC), challenging the terms of each of the Polaris solicitation pools, with the exception of the HUBZone pool. Blue Rose requested, and our Office granted, an opportunity to argue that its protest challenging section L.5.4 in the HUBZone solicitation (B‑421229) and the SDVOSB solicitation (B-421230), should not be dismissed. Upon review, we dismissed Blue Rose’s protest of the SDVOSB solicitation (B-421230) on November 3, 2022, because the matter involved in Blue Rose’s SDVOSB protest was currently before a court of competent jurisdiction. Blue Rose Consulting Grp., Inc., B‑421230, Nov. 3, 2022 (unpublished decision). In this decision, we dismiss Blue Rose’s remaining challenge of the HUBZone solicitation because we conclude that the matter at issue is also currently before a court of competent jurisdiction. DISCUSSION In opposing the agency’s request for dismissal, Blue Rose argues the present protest should proceed before GAO, because “the HUBZone RFP is not being litigated in the Court of Federal Claims.” Objection to Dismissal at 2. The protester further contends that the particular solicitation provision the firm challenges (section L.5.4) is also “not at issue in the pending COFC cases.” Id. at 3 (emphasis removed). According to Blue Rose, since RFP section L.5.4 is not directly mentioned in the complaints before the COFC, the “facts and issues are simply not the same.” Id.