Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC (70CDCR25FR0000032)

B-423447 May 07, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC, a small business of Syracuse, Utah, protests the issuance of order No. 70CDCR25FR0000032 to Universal Strategic Advisors LLC (USA), of Irvine, California, under request for quotation (RFQ) No. 70CDCR25Q00000007, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, for administrative processing support services. The protester contends that USA improperly obtained the order through use of nonpublic information; the agency issued the order without providing adequate notice and opportunity for competition; and the agency failed to properly consider an unsolicited proposal submitted by the protester. The protester further alleges a violation of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 18 U.S.C. § 207, by USA's chief executive officer, as well as unethical contracting practices by the agency. We dismiss the protest as academic based on the agency's termination of the challenged order. View Decision Decision Matter of: Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC File: B-423447 Date: May 7, 2025 Nathan Young for the protester. Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Ian P. Patterson, Esq., and Haley M. Sirokman, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for Universal Strategic Advisors LLC, the intervenor. Joshua K. Adams, Esq., and Douglas J. Becker, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest of sole‑source order is dismissed as academic where the agency has terminated the order for the government’s convenience. 2. Protester is advised that citation irregularities may result in the imposition of sanctions. DECISION Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC, a small business of Syracuse, Utah, protests the issuance of order No. 70CDCR25FR0000032 to Universal Strategic Advisors LLC (USA), of Irvine, California, under request for quotation (RFQ) No. 70CDCR25Q00000007, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, for administrative processing support services. The protester contends that USA improperly obtained the order through use of nonpublic information; the agency issued the order without providing adequate notice and opportunity for competition; and the agency failed to properly consider an unsolicited proposal submitted by the protester. The protester further alleges a violation of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 18 U.S.C. § 207, by USA’s chief executive officer, as well as unethical contracting practices by the agency. We dismiss the protest as academic based on the agency’s termination of the challenged order. BACKGROUND On January 31, 2025, the protester submitted a document to the agency proposing to provide investigative targeting support services. Protest at 2; Req. for Dismissal at 1. The agency responded on February 25, stating that the document did not conform with the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 15.605 for unsolicited proposals, and that it therefore would not be evaluated.[1] Req. for Dismissal at 1. On February 28, the agency issued the RFQ--using the Federal Supply Schedule procedures of FAR subpart 8.4--by email directly to USA.[2] Id. at 2. In connection with issuing the RFQ, the agency executed a limited sources justification pursuant to FAR subsection 8.405‑6(a)(1)(A). Id. The agency issued the order to USA on March 14. Id. On April 13, the agency published a notice of award and the limited sources justification on SAM.gov. Id. Although the agency did not publish a notice of award until April 13, the protester learned of the March 14 order issuance on March 30.[3] Protest at 1. The protester filed this protest with our Office on April 7. DISCUSSION Dismissal of the Protest as Academic On April 14, the agency requested dismissal of the protest, arguing that the protester is not an interested party; the protest raises procurement integrity matters that are not proper protest issues for consideration by our Office; and the protest is speculative and fails to state a detailed basis for protest. See Req. for Dismissal at 2‑6. On April 18, the intervenor also requested dismissal of the protest, raising arguments largely similar to those advanced by the agency. See Intervenor Req. for Dismissal. The protester responded to both of those requests for dismissal, opposing the arguments raised by the agency and intervenor. See Resp. to Req. for Dismissal; Resp. to Intervenor Req. for Dismissal. On April 22, prior to our Office’s having the opportunity to decide the previously filed requests for dismissal, the agency notified our Office that it had terminated the order on April 18, and therefore requested that the protest be dismissed as academic.