K2 Aerial Applications, LLC (140L2623Q0003)

B-421376,B-421376.2 Apr 12, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights K2 Aerial Applications, LLC (K2), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Echo, Oregon, protests the award of a contract to Valley Air, LLC (Valley Air), of Caldwell, Idaho, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 140L2623Q0003, issued by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), for the distribution of sagebrush and other plant seed. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of quotations and resulting award decision. We deny the protest in part, and dismiss it in part. 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: K2 Aerial Applications, LLC File: B-421376; B-421376.2 Date: April 12, 2023 David W. Cramer, Esq., MB Law Group, LLP, for the protester. William B. Blake, Esq., Department of the Interior, 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 1. Protester’s challenge of the agency’s evaluation of its quotation as technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging the evaluation of awardee’s quotation is dismissed where the protester is not an interested party to maintain its allegations. DECISION K2 Aerial Applications, LLC (K2), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Echo, Oregon, protests the award of a contract to Valley Air, LLC (Valley Air), of Caldwell, Idaho, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 140L2623Q0003, issued by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), for the distribution of sagebrush and other plant seed. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of quotations and resulting award decision. We deny the protest in part, and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFQ on December 5, 2022, as a combined synopsis/solicitation for the acquisition of commercial items under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6, using the simplified acquisition procedures set forth in FAR part 13. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFQ at 1, 3.[1] Issued as a total small business set-aside, the RFQ sought fixed-price quotations for the distribution of sagebrush and other plant seed on 11 tracts of agency-managed land in Idaho. Id. at 1, 3, 29-39. The solicitation contemplated the award of a single contract, with an anticipated period of performance from January 18 through February 10, 2023. Id. at 1, 12. Under the RFQ, the agency would make award to the “responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.” Id. at 12. The solicitation stated that the agency’s award decision would be based on three evaluation factors: technical capability; prior experience and past performance; and price. Id. at 12-14. The RFQ established December 26, 2022, as the due date for quotations. Id. at 1. Three vendors submitted quotations in response to the solicitation. AR, Tab 7, Award Determination at 1. After review of quotations, the technical evaluator recommended Valley Air’s quotation for award. Id. The contracting officer, as the source selection authority, agreed that Valley Air’s quotation represented the best value to the government. Id. at 2. On January 3, 2023, the agency awarded the contract to Valley Air, in the amount of $109,967.15. AR, Tab 12, Contract Award at 1. The agency provided K2 with a brief explanation of the basis of award pursuant to section 13.106-3(d) of the FAR. AR, Tab 13, Post-Award Correspondence at 7. The agency informed K2 that its evaluation had concluded that K2’s quotation “did not demonstrate adequate technical capability,” and was therefore technically unacceptable. Id. On January 6, K2 filed this protest with our Office.[2] DISCUSSION The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of K2’s and Valley Air’s quotations, as well as the resulting award decision. K2 argues that BLM unreasonably evaluated its quotation as technically unacceptable. Protest at 1. Had the agency performed a proper evaluation, K2 claims, its lowest-priced quotation would have been selected for award. Id. The protester also challenges the agency’s evaluation of Valley Air’s quotation, arguing that the contracting officer should have disqualified Valley Air from award. Comments & Supp. Protest at 6.