Yukon Fire Protection Services, Inc. (47PN1123Q0001)

B-422351 Apr 25, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Yukon Fire Protection Services, Inc., a small business of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the General Services Administration's (GSA) establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Trademasters Services, Inc., a small business of Lorton, Virginia, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47PN1123Q0001, issued for facilities maintenance and repairs. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its quotation as unreasonable. We deny the protest. 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: Yukon Fire Protection Services, Inc. File: B-422351 Date: April 25, 2024 Kristin E. Zachman, Esq., and Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., Cokinos Young, for the protester. Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Samuel S. Finnerty, Esq., Daniel J. Figuenick, III, Esq., and Annie B. Hudgins, Esq., Piliero Mazza, PLLC, for Tradermasters Services, Inc., the intervenor. Alexander Falciani, Esq., and Robert Notigan, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s quotation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, and, to the extent there were any errors, the protester cannot establish any reasonable possibility of competitive prejudice. DECISION Yukon Fire Protection Services, Inc., a small business of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the General Services Administration’s (GSA) establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Trademasters Services, Inc., a small business of Lorton, Virginia, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47PN1123Q0001, issued for facilities maintenance and repairs. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its quotation as unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFQ on April 5, 2023, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 (Federal Supply Schedules), to small business firms holding the GSA’s multiple-award federal supply schedule (FSS) contract for facilities maintenance and repair. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, Final RFQ at 4.[1] The solicitation contemplated the establishment of a single BPA, with fixed-price contract line items, with a 1‑year base ordering period of performance and nine 1‑year option periods. Id. GSA sought consolidated facilities, engineering, operation, maintenance, elevator, custodial and related services at the Alcohol Tabacco and Firearms (ATF) national headquarters building, in Washington, D.C. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. The solicitation included a detailed performance work statement (PWS) describing the tasks to be performed. See AR, Exh. 2A, PWS at 1. The solicitation advised that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering four non-price factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) management plan; (2) prior experience; (3) past performance; and (4) small business socioeconomic category designation. RFQ at 11. In turn, the management plan evaluation factor had two subfactors: (a) management approach; and (b) technical approach.[2] RFQ at 12-16. The solicitation advised that the non-price factors, when combined, were more important than price. Id. at 11. GSA applied one of four adjectival ratings for each of the non-price evaluation factors, and for each quotation, overall: excellent; very good; acceptable; unacceptable. See AR, Exh. 3, Phase One Evaluation at 7-8. As relevant to this protest, the agency explained that a rating of “unacceptable” would be assigned where “the Contractor is unlikely to meet some or all of the requirements of the BPA” and where “there is a limited probability of success and a high level of overall risk to the Government is recognized.” Id. at 8. The agency explained that an unacceptable quotation was not eligible for the issuance of the BPA. Id. GSA conducted the competition in two phases. In the first phase, the agency evaluated vendors’ prior experience, past performance, and price; in phase two, the agency evaluated vendors’ management plans.[3] RFQ at 12. The agency evaluated multiple phase two quotations, including Yukon’s quotation. COS at 7. The following is a summary of the final ratings of Yukon’s and Trademaster’s quotations:   Trademasters Yukon OVERALL VERY GOOD UNACCEPTABLE Prior Experience Acceptable Very Good Past Performance Very Good Very Good Management Plan Very Good Unacceptable Price $35,466,950 $37,095,302   AR, Exh.