Sancorp Consulting, LLC (HQ003424R0178)

B-422985.4,B-422985.5 Jun 11, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sancorp Consulting, LLC, a small business of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the issuance of orders to Premier Enterprise Solutions, LLC, a small business of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, and Arlo Solutions, LLC, a small business of Washington, D.C., under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HQ003424R0178, issued by the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service (WHS), for technical, administrative, and professional support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of quotations and the best-value tradeoff decisions for each call order. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Sancorp Consulting, LLC File: B-422985.4; B-422985.5 Date: June 11, 2025 Douglas P. Hibshman, Esq., Keeley A. McCarty, Esq., and Jane Jung Hyoun Han, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for the protester. Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and Emily P. Golchini, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Arlo Solutions, LLC; and Jonathan D. Perrone, Esq., Joshua M. Sather, Esq., and Timothy J. Turner, Esq., Whitcomb, Selinsky, P.C., and Sharon O. Steele, Esq., Steele Law Offices, LLC, for Premier Enterprise Solutions, LLC, the intervenors. May Sena, Esq., and Stephan Piel, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protests challenging the technical evaluation of first call order are denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protests of the evaluation of the second call order are dismissed where protester’s quotation was technically unacceptable, and, as a result, protester is not an interested party to challenge the agency’s evaluation or issuance of the second call order. DECISION Sancorp Consulting, LLC, a small business of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the issuance of orders to Premier Enterprise Solutions, LLC, a small business of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, and Arlo Solutions, LLC, a small business of Washington, D.C., under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HQ003424R0178, issued by the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service (WHS), for technical, administrative, and professional support services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of quotations and the best-value tradeoff decisions for each call order. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFQ on May 23, 2024, under the General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Professional Services - Business Services multiple award schedule contract. Agency Report (AR), Tab 14, RFQ at 3.[1] The RFQ, set aside for 8(a) small businesses and issued under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, sought quotations to establish multiple award blanket purchase agreement (BPAs) with vendors to provide technical, administrative, and professional support services to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligent & Security (OUSD(I&S)) enterprise.[2] Id. at 3, 76. The solicitation anticipated establishing BPAs consisting of a base year and four 1-year option periods, and contemplated issuing orders against those BPAs on a fixed-price, labor-hour, or time-and-materials basis. Id. at 3. The “good faith estimate amount” for all BPAs is $856 million. Id. The RFQ provided a performance work statement (PWS) for the BPA’s general requirements, and specific PWSs for the two initial call orders that would be awarded concurrently with the establishment of the BPAs. AR, Tab 2a, BPA PWS; AR, Tab 11a, Call Order 1 (EXDIR) PWS; AR, Tab 11b, Call Order 2 (SASP) PWS. Under call order 1, the awardee is to provide services to the I&S Executive Directorate (EXDIR). AR, Tab 11a, EXDIR Call Order PWS at 1. With call order 2, the awardee will provide services to the Sensitive Activities & Special Programs (SASP) Office. AR, Tab 11b, SASP Call Order PWS at 1. The solicitation advised that the “evaluation of the BPA will be based on the evaluation results for Call Orders 1 and 2,” and that while there may be multiple BPA’s established, there “will only be one awardee for each call order.” RFQ at 83. Call orders would be issued individually on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors: (1) technical; (2) past performance; and (3) price. Id. at 30-31. The possible adjectival ratings for the technical factor were outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable. Id. at 89-90. Past performance would be evaluated and assessed a confidence rating of substantial, satisfactory, neutral, limited, or no, confidence. Id. at 90-91. The technical factor was more important than the past performance factor, and the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. at 31.