Brandan Enterprises Inc (W15QKN-24-R-0099)

B-423385 Jun 16, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Brandan Enterprises, Inc. (BEI), a small business of Knoxville, Tennessee, protests the issuance of a task order to Quality Innovation, Inc. (Qi2), a small business of Austin, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-24-R-0099, issued by the Department of the Army for visitor operations services at Arlington National Cemetery. The protester challenges the conduct of discussions, evaluation of BEI's proposal, and the resulting best-value tradeoff source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision 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. Matter of: Brandan Enterprises, Inc. File: B-423385 Date: June 16, 2025 Katherine B. Burrows, Esq, Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., Joseph P. Loman, Esq., Kelly A. Kirchgasser, Esq., and Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., and Charles F. Blanchard, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for Quality Innovation, Inc., the intervenor. Kenneth Gilliland, Esq., and Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging conduct of discussions as not meaningful is denied where agency informed protester its labor hours were insufficient, protester chose not to adjust its labor hours, and the final evaluation reflects a more detailed rationale for the stated concern--insufficient labor hours--not an unrelated and undisclosed concern, as claimed by protester. 2. Protest challenging assessment of a significant weakness in protester's staffing approach is dismissed in part as an untimely challenge to the terms of the solicitation. Remaining protest allegations are denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Brandan Enterprises, Inc. (BEI), a small business of Knoxville, Tennessee, protests the issuance of a task order to Quality Innovation, Inc. (Qi2), a small business of Austin, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-24-R-0099, issued by the Department of the Army for visitor operations services at Arlington National Cemetery. The protester challenges the conduct of discussions, evaluation of BEI's proposal, and the resulting best-value tradeoff source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 17, 2024, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the agency issued the solicitation to holders of the Army's Human Resource Solutions Recruiting, Management, and Administrative Services multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Initial RFP at 1.[1] The solicitation sought proposals for the provision of visitor operations services at Arlington National Cemetery (ANC) in Virginia. Id. The required services “include visitor screening at entry points (designated gates and Welcome Center), visitor information assistance at key locations within the cemetery, and vehicle/pedestrian traffic control at designated locations.” AR, Tab 22, RFP attach. 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. The solicitation provided the successful contractor would be required to “provide all personnel, supervision, equipment, materials, transportation, and non-personal services necessary to perform” the tasks set out in the PWS. Id. The solicitation established that a “single Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Task Order (TO) with cost reimbursable (CR no indirects/fee) line items for Other Direct Costs (ODCs) for a 12-month base period . . . and three 12-month option periods” would be issued. AR, Tab 23, Task Order Evaluation Plan (TOEP) at 2. Award would be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis, considering a technical factor and cost/price, with the technical factor being significantly more important than cost/price. Id. The technical factor consisted of four evaluation areas, which the solicitation specifically emphasized were not subfactors and would not be separately weighted. Id. at 5. The four evaluation areas were: (1) technical approach; (2) staffing approach; (3) management process; and (4) transition plan. Id. at 5-8. Under the technical factor, the agency would assess an offeror's understanding of the requirements, the completeness and adequacy of the offeror's response, and the feasibility of the offeror's proposed approach. AR, Tab 23, TOEP at 11. The evaluators would assign an adjectival rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable for the technical factor, and also would assess technical risk. Id. at 11-12. Price would be evaluated for reasonableness and balance. Id.