GENCO Systems, Inc. (47PC0224Q0020)

B-423304 May 07, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights GENCO Systems, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, a small business, protests the General Services Administration (GSA), Public Buildings Service's issuance of a task order under a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to Jay Shapiro & Associates, Inc., of Far Hills, New Jersey. The agency issued the task order under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47PC0224Q0020, for construction management services at the Joseph P. Addabbo Federal Office Building in Jamaica, New York. GENCO argues that GSA improperly selected Jay Shapiro's quotation over GENCO's lower-priced quotation. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: GENCO Systems, Inc. File: B-423304 Date: May 7, 2025 Anil Kumar for the protester. Richard O. Hughes, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency failed to properly consider protester’s price and unreasonably issued Federal Supply Schedule order to higher-priced vendor is denied where the record shows the agency’s source selection decision reasonably determined that successful vendor’s quotation provided the best value under the solicitation criteria. DECISION GENCO Systems, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, a small business, protests the General Services Administration (GSA), Public Buildings Service’s issuance of a task order under a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to Jay Shapiro & Associates, Inc., of Far Hills, New Jersey. The agency issued the task order under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47PC0224Q0020, for construction management services at the Joseph P. Addabbo Federal Office Building in Jamaica, New York. GENCO argues that GSA improperly selected Jay Shapiro’s quotation over GENCO’s lower-priced quotation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND GSA issued the RFQ to firms holding FSS multiple-award national BPAs for construction management services, program/project management services, and building/lease inspection services--zone 1.[1] The RFQ itself (labeled as an “instruction to offeror”) stated that the agency intended to issue a fixed‑priced task order to the vendor whose quotation provided the best value, which would be determined by “a tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost/price.” RFQ at 2. GSA states that the procurement was conducted under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 8.405‑3, the provisions of which describe the issuance of BPAs and the process for ordering under them. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1. The RFQ listed three factors and their weighting: staffing plan (30 percent), project management plan (30 percent) and price (40 percent). Id. at 2-3. The project management plan factor was divided into two equally weighted subfactors: quality assurance plan (15 percent) and program management plan (15 percent). Id. at 3. The statement of work (SOW) for the RFQ described the required staffing as: one (1) Off hours/Night Time Construction Inspector dedicated to providing Off hours and night time inspection services for all ongoing construction projects, one (1) Senior Project Manager / Team Leader, two (2) Senior Construction Managers with mechanical and electrical experience, Senior Commissioning Agent, Commissioning Agent and a Commissioning Specialist or equivalent contract labor categories. Protest exh. 1, SOW at 4.[2] Under the heading of hours worked, the SOW further specified: The contractor’s onsite CM [construction management] staff (onsite CM staff includes one (1) Off hours/Night time inspector – who shall be onsite for 40 hours a week during off hours to include night time to perform construction phase inspection services, a work schedule shall be submitted on weekly basis for GSA approval, this work schedule shall be created based on the construction schedule of all ongoing projects[)]. Id. at 2. Two vendors submitted quotations: GENCO, the incumbent contractor, and Jay Shapiro.[3] The evaluation used point scores to indicate the merit of each quotation under each factor and subfactor, which included assessing a score for the price factor. As relevant here, the evaluation concluded that GENCO’s quotation had what the agency refers to as “deficiencies”[4] regarding the firm’s approach to escalation of issues, its project planning, and its staffing of the off-hours/nighttime construction inspector position. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, Best-Value Determination at 3. After completing the evaluation, GSA issued the task order to Jay Shapiro. GENCO requested a brief explanation and then filed an agency-level protest challenging GSA’s evaluation of the firm’s quotation and the decision to award the order at a higher price as unreasonable and inconsistent with the RFQ.