Allegheny Science & Technology Corporation (89243423QEE000093)

B-421699,B-421699.2 Sep 01, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Allegheny Science & Technology Corporation, of Bridgeport, West Virginia, a small business, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) under the General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) to Energy Technology Alliance, LLC (ETA), of Redmond, Oregon, also a small business. The Department of Energy issued the BPA under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 89243423QEE000093, for scientific, engineering, and technical support (SETS) services for the agency's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, primarily in Washington, D.C. and Golden, Colorado. Agency Report (AR), Tab A.4, RFQ amend. 2 at 16. Allegheny argues that the agency misevaluated both firms' quotations and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety. Decision Matter of: Allegheny Science & Technology Corporation File: B-421699; B-421699.2 Date: September 1, 2023 Gordon N. Griffin, Esq., Hillary J. Freund, Esq., Kelsey M. Hayes, Esq., and Richard J. Ariel, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Shlomo D. Katz, Esq., Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., and Andrew C. Crawford, Esq., Brown Rudnick LLP, for Energy Technology Alliance LLC, the intervenor. H. Jack Shearer, Esq., Greta Iliev, Esq., Marianna Lvovsky, Esq., and Nicholas Bidwell, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated quotations for multiple award schedule blanket purchase agreement is denied where the record shows that the technical evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation and where a miscalculation in the vendors’ total evaluated prices was not prejudicial due to the protester’s significantly higher price. DECISION Allegheny Science & Technology Corporation, of Bridgeport, West Virginia, a small business, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) under the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) to Energy Technology Alliance, LLC (ETA), of Redmond, Oregon, also a small business. The Department of Energy issued the BPA under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 89243423QEE000093, for scientific, engineering, and technical support (SETS) services for the agency’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, primarily in Washington, D.C. and Golden, Colorado. Agency Report (AR), Tab A.4, RFQ amend. 2 at 16. Allegheny argues that the agency misevaluated both firms’ quotations and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ sought quotations from women-owned small businesses holding federal supply schedule contracts under the Professional Services--Engineering Services North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330EMI. The RFQ anticipated the establishment of a single fixed-price BPA for a base year and four option years, and indicated that the acquisition would be conducted under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 8.405. AR, Tab A.4, RFQ amend. 2 at 1, 13. The accompanying performance work statement (PWS) described the scope of the agency’s requirement in 19 service areas. AR, Tab A.2, RFQ attach. 1, PWS at 2. The RFQ provided that the evaluation of quotations would use three factors, listed in descending importance: technical approach; relevant experience and transition plan; and price. The technical approach factor was organized into two elements: management capabilities, and staffing plan; these two elements would be rated together. AR, Tab A.4, RFQ amend. 2 at 42, 45. The evaluation would rate quotations under the two non-price factors using adjectival ratings expressed as a level of confidence that the vendor would successfully perform the work: substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, or low confidence. Id. at 47. The RFQ also specified that pricing information in the form of hourly labor rates for individual labor categories in each year of performance should be submitted using an attached labor rate pricing spreadsheet. The spreadsheet provided estimated hours for each labor category for the purpose of the price evaluation. The RFQ also directed vendors to “provide matching labor category descriptions, including education, qualifications, and certifications, EXACTLY as stated in their Schedule contract (no variations from Schedule contract labor categories and associated position descriptions).” Id.