BioneX LLC (FA568225Q8004)

B-423630 Jul 25, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights BioneX, LLC, a historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small business of South Fulton, Tennessee, protests the award of a contract to BFrench Consulting, LLC, of Cape Coral, Florida, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA568225Q8004, issued by the Department of the Air Force for certified strength and conditioning specialist services in support of the 57th Rescue Squadron at Aviano Air Base in Italy. The protester contends that the agency improperly failed to apply a HUBZone price evaluation preference, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.219-4, while evaluating BioneX's quotation. We dismiss the protest because, as filed with our Office, it does not establish a valid basis for challenging the agency's action. View Decision Decision Matter of: BioneX, LLC File: B-423630 Date: July 25, 2025 Warren Caldwell for the protester. Joseph Kurr, Esq., for BFrench Consulting, LLC, the intervenor. Sanique J. Balan, Esq., and Colonel Nina R. Padalino, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that agency failed to apply a historically underutilized business zone price evaluation preference to the protester’s quotation is dismissed where the solicitation failed to establish such a preferential evaluation scheme. DECISION BioneX, LLC, a historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small business of South Fulton, Tennessee, protests the award of a contract to BFrench Consulting, LLC, of Cape Coral, Florida, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA568225Q8004, issued by the Department of the Air Force for certified strength and conditioning specialist services in support of the 57th Rescue Squadron at Aviano Air Base in Italy. The protester contends that the agency improperly failed to apply a HUBZone price evaluation preference, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.219-4, while evaluating BioneX’s quotation. We dismiss the protest because, as filed with our Office, it does not establish a valid basis for challenging the agency’s action. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFQ on December 12, 2024, using the commercial acquisition procedures of FAR part 12, and the simplified acquisition procedures of FAR subpart 13.5. Agency Req. for Dismissal, attach. A, RFQ at 1. The solicitation anticipated award on a best-value tradeoff basis “to [a] responsible [vendor] whose quot[ation] meets or exceeds the requirements outlined in this solicitation and is most advantageous to the Government,” based on price and technical capability[1] evaluation factors. Id., attach. C, RFQ Evaluation Factors at 1-2. With respect to price, the RFQ advised that the agency would evaluate the fairness and the reasonableness of the total evaluated price. Id., attach. C, at 3. The Air Force was also to analyze separately priced contract line items to determine if the prices were unbalanced. Id. As relevant to this protest, among the various provisions, clauses, and contract terms in the solicitation that were marked as applying to this procurement, the RFQ did not include a marked box next to FAR clause 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns. Id., attach. D, RFQ Clauses and Provisions at 29. After evaluating quotations, the agency determined that BFrench Consulting provided the best value to the government and notified the protester of its determination. Id., attach. E, Email Correspondence at 1-2. In response, BioneX inquired about the agency’s failure to apply a 10 percent price discount, on the basis of FAR clause 52.219-4, in the evaluation of BioneX’s price. Id. The Air Force explained that the clause was not applicable to the instant solicitation because it only applied to “acquisitions conducted within the United States,” and not, as here, where “the service[s were to] be performed outside the United States.” Id. at 2. This protest followed. DISCUSSION BioneX argues that the Air Force improperly failed to apply a HUBZone price evaluation preference in its evaluation of Bionex’s proposed price. Protest at 1-2. The protester disputes the agency’s explanation that FAR clause 51-219.4 does not apply to overseas procurements, contending that such an “interpretation ignores clear regulatory language and established GAO case law.” Id. at 1. Conceding that the clause was not specifically included in the RFQ, BioneX claims that where “the contracting officer does not affirmatively waive the HUBZone price evaluation preference, the clause operates by default.” Resp. to Req. for Dismissal at 2.