SCOR2E- ATCS PLC and Guidehouse, Inc. (70FB8024Q00000008)

B-423315 May 15, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SCOR2E, of Herndon, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with The Cadmus Group, LLC, of Waltham, Massachusetts, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70FB8024Q00000008, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), for technical assistance. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation, improperly conducted a price realism analysis, and made a flawed best-value determination. 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 redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: SCOR2E- ATCS PLC and Guidehouse, Inc. File: B-423315 Date: May 15, 2025 Brian G. Walsh, Esq., J. Ryan Frazee, Esq., W. Benjamin Phillips, Esq., and Michael O. Warren, Jr., Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Moshe B. Broder, Esq., Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., and Jennifer Eve Retener, Esq., Jenner & Block, LLP, for The Cadmus Group LLC, the intervenor. Matthew Lane, Esq., and Katlyn Har, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Christine Milne, 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 evaluated quotations is denied where the record shows the agency evaluated quotations in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency improperly conducted a price realism analysis is denied where the record shows that the agency did not conduct a price realism analysis. 3. Protest that the agency made a flawed best-value determination is denied where the record shows that its determination was reasonable. DECISION SCOR2E,[1] of Herndon, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with The Cadmus Group, LLC, of Waltham, Massachusetts, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70FB8024Q00000008, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), for technical assistance. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation, improperly conducted a price realism analysis, and made a flawed best-value determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFQ on August 19, 2024, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 8.405-2, to vendors holding contracts under General Services Administration multiple award schedule special item number (SIN) 541611 management and financial consulting, acquisition and grants management support, and business program and project management services. Agency Report (AR), Tab C, RFQ amend. 0005 at 1; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3. FEMA issued the RFQ to obtain technical assistance with response, recovery, and other disaster operations missions under the Office of Response and Recovery (ORR). AR, Tab D, Statement of Work (SOW) at 2; Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 3. The ORR provides guidance and oversight for the coordination and delivery of support to those suffering from natural disasters and other emergencies. FEMA, Office of Response and Recovery, https://www.fema.gov/about/offices/ response-recovery (last visited May 9, 2025). Technical assistance is needed to help ORR personnel guide and oversee the response to these disasters. COS at 1. The BPA would be established with the vendor offering the best value to the government considering the following factors listed in descending order of importance: technical and management approach (factor 1); capability of proposed key personnel and staffing plan (factor 2); past performance (factor 3); price (factor 4); and subcontracting plan (factor 5). RFQ at 5, 13. As relevant here, the technical and management approach factor had two subfactors: concept paper and demonstrated prior experience. Id. at 5. Under the demonstrated prior experience subfactor, vendors were to explain their experience by addressing 11 topic areas. RFQ at 7. For each topic area, vendors were to provide one recent and relevant example of prior experience. Id. These examples were to demonstrate experience with the corresponding statement of work (SOW) requirements as well. Id. This subfactor would be evaluated based on the references vendors provided for each topic area and how well vendors demonstrated their experience. Id. at 8. Under the technical and management approach factor the agency would assign a rating of high confidence, some confidence, or low confidence.[2] Id. at 10. The agency received quotations from seven vendors. COS at 3.