All-American Express Solutions, LLC (36C25725Q0351)

B-423530 Aug 01, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights All American Express Solutions, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Indianapolis, Indiana, protests the award of a contract to Rollin'O'Stop, LLC, an SDVOSB of Ellenwood, Georgia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C25725Q0351, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for courier services. All American challenges the agency's evaluation of the awardee's quotation and the agency's affirmative responsibility determination. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: All American Express Solutions, LLC File: B-423530 Date: August 1, 2025 Glen Hannah, for the protester. Edward Oliver, for Rollin'O'Stop, LLC, the intervenor. Timothy Saffles, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Grace K. Byers, and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated awardee's experience and low pricing is dismissed where the solicitation did not require the agency to conduct such an evaluation. DECISION All American Express Solutions, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Indianapolis, Indiana, protests the award of a contract to Rollin'O'Stop, LLC, an SDVOSB of Ellenwood, Georgia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C25725Q0351, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for courier services. All American challenges the agency's evaluation of the awardee's quotation and the agency's affirmative responsibility determination. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFQ on March 12, 2025, as a set-aside for SDVOSBs under the simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 13. The RFQ contemplated the award, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a fixed-price contract to be performed for a base year with four 1-year options. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFQ at 1-4. The solicitation anticipated that the agency would evaluate quotations considering technical approach and price. Id. at 33. Price was to be evaluated by adding the total price for the base year and all option periods. The vendor's price would also be assessed for reasonableness, completeness, and fairness. Id. The solicitation did not contain any provision providing for a price realism analysis. Id. As relevant here, the RFQ incorporated by reference FAR clause 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards, which provides that the resultant contract will be subject to the Service Contract Act.[1] Id. at 20. This clause mandates that each service employee performing this contract be paid not less than the minimum wages and fringe benefits either determined by the Department of Labor in any attached wage determination or contained in a predecessor contractor's collective bargaining agreement. FAR clause 52.222-41. After receiving nine quotations by the closing date of April 4, the agency performed a comparative analysis using the solicitation's evaluation factors. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 7; Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. On May 2, the agency awarded the contract to Rollin'O and posted notice of the award on SAM.gov (System for Award Management). MOL at 7. On May 12, All American filed this protest with our Office. DISCUSSION All American primarily raises three grounds of protest: (1) that Rollin'O's price is “unreasonably low”[2] and cannot meet the awardee's obligations under the Service Contract Act; (2) that the agency unreasonably failed to consider Rollin'O's alleged lack of experience during the evaluation; and (3) that the agency erred in its affirmative responsibility determination. As discussed below, we dismiss these protest grounds as legally insufficient under our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.1(c)(4), (f).[3] In response to the protester's first argument, that the awardee's price is “unreasonably low,” the agency contends that this protest ground is legally and factually insufficient, because it amounts to a contention that the agency should have conducted a price realism analysis, which the VA was not permitted to do. Protest at 2; MOL at 12. The agency further notes that the protester's allegation that the awardee will not pay wages commensurate with the Service Contract Act during the performance of the contract is a matter of contract administration that is outside the jurisdiction of our Office. Id. at 13 (citing 4 C.F.R. § 21.5). As discussed below, we agree. Generally, for fixed-price contracts, while an agency may conduct a price realism analysis for the limited purpose of assessing whether a vendor's low price reflects a lack of technical understanding or risk, it may do so only when vendors have been advised that the agency will conduct such an analysis and that vendors' submissions may be rejected on the basis of low prices.