Ecology Mir Group, LLC (RFQ-1715292)

B-422881 Sep 12, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ecology Mir Group, LLC (EMG), of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a federal supply schedule (FSS) purchase order to another vendor under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N3220524Q4076A, issued by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command, for lodging negotiation and management services. EMG argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation as technically unacceptable. We dismiss the protest as untimely. View Decision Decision Matter of: Ecology Mir Group, LLC File: B-422881 Date: September 12, 2024 Zach McKnight and Marcia Compton, Ecology Mir Group, LLC, for the protester. Ann M. Calabrese, Esq., James M. Chisholm, Esq., and John Toner, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is untimely where it was filed more than 10 days after the agency advised the protester that its quotation was evaluated as technically unacceptable. DECISION Ecology Mir Group, LLC (EMG), of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a federal supply schedule (FSS) purchase order to another vendor under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N3220524Q4076A, issued by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command, for lodging negotiation and management services. EMG argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation as technically unacceptable. We dismiss the protest as untimely. The agency issued the RFQ via the General Service Administration's eBuy system pursuant to the procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 to procure lodging negotiation and management services for United States Naval Ship Kanawha personnel. RFQ at 1; RFQ, attach. 4, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. The agency required vendors to provide multiple extended stay studio rooms over a 3-month period in Mobile, Alabama, with eight additional 1week options. PWS at 1. The RFQ advised that award would be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis. RFQ at 3. The solicitation period closed on August 8, 2024. Id. at 1. On August 13, the Navy issued the purchase order to another vendor, and notified EMG and the other remaining vendors through the eBuy system that their quotations were unsuccessful. Award Notice--1 at 1. On August 16, the Navy provided EMG with a brief explanation of the basis for the award decision. Protest at 2, E-mail from Navy to EMG, Aug. 16, 2024. As relevant, the brief explanation included the following: In accordance with FAR 8.405-2(d), [Military Sealift Command] is providing this brief explanation of the basis for the award decision. Please note that this is not a debrief. In accordance with the terms of the RFQ, the Government awarded a single [firmfixedprice] Contract resulting from this RFQ to the responsible quoter whose quote, conforming to the RFQ, represented the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable quote inclusive of options. Your quote was not technically acceptable, and therefore, was not the lowest price technically acceptable quote. Id. In other words, the agency specifically advised EMG that its quotation was not selected for award because the quotation was technically unacceptable. Id. On August 19, EMG requested that the Navy provide a “debrief” and additional information as to why its quotation was evaluated as technically unacceptable. Protest at 3, E-mail from EMG to Navy, Aug. 19, 2024. On August 20, EMG sent additional correspondence to the Navy requesting a “debrief” by close of business, August 22. Protest at 4, E-mail from EMG to Navy, Aug. 20, 2024. Later that day, the Navy responded, “[y]our email has been [received].” Protest at 4, Email from Navy to EMG, Aug. 20, 2024. On August 22, EMG contacted the Navy again, explaining that it did not receive a response and that it “will have to loop in the [Small Business Administration] ombudsman and possible GAO if we cannot receive an explanation for the award at a cost higher than ours.” Protest at 5, E-mail from EMG to Navy, Aug. 22, 2022. Again, the Navy responded simply, “[y]our email has been received.” Protest at 6, E-mail from Navy to EMG, Aug. 22, 2024. On August 26, EMG contacted the Navy a final time. EMG communicated the following: We have not received anything from the government on this matter we are looping in our attorney and the [General Services Administration] Ombudsman's office as it looks like the government is trying to push off the ‘debrief' until the [period of performance] starts so EMG cannot file a protest. EMG was not awarded this [purchase order] even though we bid lower than the ‘awardee.' Protest at 6, E-mail from EMG to Navy, Aug. 26, 2024. On August 29, EMG filed this protest with our Office.