Expression Networks, LLC (1605TA-24-Q-00011)

B-422373 Mar 13, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Expression Networks, LLC, a small business of Washington, D.C., protests the issuance of task order No. 1605TA-24-F-00016 to Information Gateways, Inc., a small business of Novi, Michigan, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1605TA-24-Q-00011, issued by the Department of Labor for development, modernization, enhancement, operations and maintenance, and helpdesk support services for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation and made an unreasonable best-value tradeoff determination. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Expression Networks, LLC File: B-422373 Date: March 13, 2024 W. Brad English, Esq., Emily J. Chancey, Esq., Jon D. Levin, Esq., and Nicholas P. Greer, Esq., Maynard Nexsen PC, for the protester. Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Jeremy D. Burkhart, Esq., and Danielle R. Rich, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Information Gateways, Inc., the intervenor. Jose Otero, Esq., and Virginia Ackerman, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s quotation and best‑value tradeoff determination in a task order procurement is dismissed where the protester does not allege that the agency’s issuance of the task order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the underlying contract, and where the value of the issued task order does not exceed the applicable jurisdictional threshold. DECISION Expression Networks, LLC, a small business of Washington, D.C., protests the issuance of task order No. 1605TA‑24‑F‑00016 to Information Gateways, Inc., a small business of Novi, Michigan, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1605TA‑24‑Q‑00011, issued by the Department of Labor for development, modernization, enhancement, operations and maintenance, and helpdesk support services for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation and made an unreasonable best‑value tradeoff determination. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND As alleged by the protester, the agency issued the RFQ as a small business set‑aside on December 29, 2023, to firms holding the Department of the Army’s Computer Hardware, Enterprise Software and Solutions (CHESS) Information Technology Enterprise Solutions‑3 Services (ITES 3‑S) indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Protest, exh. 2, RFQ at 1‑2. In this regard, the RFQ (i) stated that it was open to “interested parties holding a[n] Army CHESS [governmentwide acquisition contract;]” (ii) required submission of quotations through the Army’s CHESS portal; (iii) directed vendors to propose labor rates and categories identified in their Army CHESS contracts; and (iv) provided that a quotation would be rejected if the vendor failed to provide a copy of its Army CHESS ITES 3-S contract or proposed pricing not in accordance with the contract. Id. at 2, 85, 93, 100. Despite being issued to holders of CHESS ITES 3‑S IDIQ contracts, the RFQ made reference to the ordering procedures applicable to Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts, stating that “[t]his requirement is being competed in accordance with [Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subsection] 8.405‑3” and that the agency would determine price reasonableness “in accordance with FAR [subsection] 8.405‑2(d)[.]” Id. at 2, 99. On February 8, 2024, the agency notified the protester that its quotation had not been selected for award, and that the agency had issued a task order to Information Gateways in the amount of $17,394,367.75. Protest, exh. 1. This protest followed. DISCUSSION The agency requests dismissal of the protest because it does not allege that the task order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the CHESS ITES 3‑S contract, and because it challenges the issuance of a task order valued not in excess of $25 million. Req. for Dismissal at 2‑5. Consequently, the agency contends, our Office lacks jurisdiction to consider the protest pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 3406(f) and our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(l). Id. We agree with the agency. Under the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994, as amended, our Office is not authorized to hear a protest “in connection with the issuance or proposed issuance of a task or delivery order except” in certain circumstances. 10 U.S.C. § 3406(f); 41 U.S.C. § 4106(f).