Tanaq Government Services, LLC (47PN1123Q0002)

B-422880 Dec 02, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tanaq Government Services, LLC, of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc., of Chicago, Illinois, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47PN1123Q0002, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), Public Buildings Service, for consolidated facilities maintenance services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the protester's management plan quotation and the agency's best-value tradeoff 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. This version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Tanaq Government Services, LLC File: B-422880 Date: December 2, 2024 Christopher J. Slottee, Esq., Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C., for the protester. Alexander J. Falciani, Esq., and Anne C. McDermott, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of quotations and the resulting best‑value determination is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and the challenge to the best-value determination is based on the same evaluation challenges that are without merit. DECISION Tanaq Government Services, LLC, of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc., of Chicago, Illinois, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47PN1123Q0002, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), Public Buildings Service, for consolidated facilities maintenance services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s management plan quotation and the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFQ on July 24, 2023, to holders of GSA’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts for facilities maintenance and repair services, under the FSS procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3; Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, RFQ at 3.[1] The solicitation sought quotations to provide consolidated facilities engineering, operations, and maintenance services for the New Carrollton Federal Building (NCFB) in Lanham, Maryland, and the Silver Spring Metro Center (SSMC) in Silver Spring, Maryland. Id. The RFQ contemplated the establishment of a fixed-price BPA with a 1‑year base period and nine 1‑year option periods.[2] RFQ at 11, 43. The RFQ advised that a BPA would be established, using “informal selection procedures,” with a vendor offering the best value considering price and the following four non‑price factors (in descending order of importance): (1) management plan; (2) prior experience; (3) past performance; and (4) small business socioeconomic category designation. Id. at 11, 22. When combined, the non‑price factors were considered more important than price. Id. at 11. The management plan factor consisted of the following ten elements: (1) staffing plan; (2) monthly progress and communications plan; (3) quality control plan; (4) preventive/predictive maintenance plan; (5) maintenance control plan; (6) repair plan; (7) project management and alteration project assistance plan; (8) energy and water management approach; (9) stormwater management plan; and (10) custodial services plan. Id. at 12‑17. The procurement was to be conducted using a phased evaluation procedure. Id. at 11. Under phase 1, vendors were required to submit a price quotation and a technical quotation containing prior experience, past performance, and small business socioeconomic category designation information. Id. The RFQ provided that the phase 1 quotations would be evaluated for eligibility and vendors would be notified if their quotations were determined to have a “low probability of success and a high overall risk to the Government” or an “extremely non‑competitive” price. Id. at 12. The RFQ informed vendors, however, that the agency would not eliminate any vendor from further review and any vendor that wishes to continue to the next phase of evaluation would be able to do so by notifying the agency and submitting a phase 2 quotation consisting of its management plan. Id. Under the management plan factor, the agency would evaluate the vendors’ “overall approach and commitment to managing the [BPA] and accomplishing the objectives of this requirement.” Id. Vendors were “encouraged to provide innovative solutions that provide a positive benefit or advantage to the Government, which may be viewed favorably.” Id.