Smokeys Helping Hand, LLC (140L3724Q0131)

B-422957,B-422957.2,B-422957.3 Dec 03, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Smokeys Helping Hand, LLC (SHH), of Denver, Colorado, protests the issuance of a purchase order to RGZ Forestry, LLC, of Medford, Oregon, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 140L3724Q0131, issued by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), for vegetation control services. SHH argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation as offering an alternative payment schedule. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Smokeys Helping Hand, LLC File: B-422957; B-422957.2; B-422957.3 Date: December 3, 2024 Taten Petersian, for the protester. William B. Blake, Esq., Department of the Interior, 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 1. Protest that the agency unreasonably rejected protester’s quotation for failing to demonstrate compliance with the solicitation’s terms and conditions is denied where the record shows that the protester quoted an alternate payment schedule. 2. Protest that the agency unequally conducted discussions is denied where the record shows that the agency did not conduct discussions with any vendor. DECISION Smokeys Helping Hand, LLC (SHH), of Denver, Colorado, protests the issuance of a purchase order to RGZ Forestry, LLC, of Medford, Oregon, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 140L3724Q0131, issued by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), for vegetation control services. SHH argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation as offering an alternative payment schedule. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND BLM issued the RFQ to procure commercial vegetation control services over 350 acres in Cibola County, New Mexico. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFQ at 1.[1] Piñon and juniper trees within and adjacent to the project area have encroached on grasslands and meadows decreasing overall watershed capabilities, wildlife habitat, and forage production. Id. The selected contractor will cut, lop, and scatter these trees to increase the effectiveness of a subsequent fire spread operation. Id. The RFQ advised that the acquisition would be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures. RFQ at 2. The RFQ provided that the agency would issue a fixed-price contract, and that services would be completed within 60 days. Id. at 1, 4. Award would be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis considering experience, past performance, and price factors. RFQ at 4, 23. When demonstrating experience and past performance, the RFQ instructed vendors to identify three completed contracts that are similar in size and scope. Id. at 23. Prior to the July 30, 2024, close of the solicitation period, six vendors, including SHH and RGZ, submitted quotations. AR, Tab 5, Price Negotiation Memorandum (PNM) at 1. Agency evaluators ranked quotations from lowest-to-highest by price. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. SHH submitted the second-lowest priced quotation, and RGZ submitted the third-lowest priced quotation. AR, Tab 5, PNM at 1. BLM initially evaluated the lowest-priced quotation submitted by “Vendor A.” COS at 2. The contracting officer (CO) determined that Vendor A’s quoted price was much lower than its competitors’, and contacted the firm to clarify whether the quoted price was accurate. Id.; AR, Tab 7, Email from BLM to Vendor A at 1. In response, Vendor A attempted to submit a revised quotation, but the agency did not accept the revised quotation. COS at 2. Ultimately, the agency’s evaluators determined that Vendor A’s quoted past performance was technically unacceptable, and rejected the firm’s quotation on this basis. AR, Tab 4, Memorandum to File at 1. BLM then proceeded to evaluate SHH’s quotation. The evaluators determined that SHH quoted a progress-based payment schedule and, as result, they determined that the quotation did not comply with the RFQ’s terms and conditions. AR, Tab 4, Memorandum to File at 1. The evaluators also noted that, based on prior experience, SHH lacked financial stability to support a lump sum payment project. Id. BLM next evaluated RGZ’s quotation and determined that it was technically acceptable. COS at 3. On September 13, 2024, BLM issued the purchase order to RGZ in the amount of $137,200. Id. This protest followed. DISCUSSION SHH raises multiple allegations challenging the agency’s conduct of the acquisition.[2] Principally, the firm contends that the agency unreasonably rejected its quotation because it merely suggested the performance-based payments schedule. Supp. Protest at 1-2.