Modesto Management, LLC (36C26325Q0529)

B-423728 Sep 30, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Modesto Management, LLC, of Oak Park, Illinois, protests the award of a contract to Eleven Bravo Group, LLC, of Plantation, Florida, by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C26325Q0529, for elevator maintenance services. The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated its quotation under the technical factor and raises various challenges to the agency's evaluation of the awardee's quotation. We dismiss the protest on the basis that the protester is not an interested party. View Decision Decision Matter of: Modesto Management, LLC File: B-423728 Date: September 30, 2025 Eric Dobyne for the protester. Jared Levin, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Alexa J. Young, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is dismissed on the basis that the protester is not an interested party to challenge the agency's award decision where protester fails to establish that it would be next in line for award even if our Office were to sustain its protest. DECISION Modesto Management, LLC, of Oak Park, Illinois, protests the award of a contract to Eleven Bravo Group, LLC, of Plantation, Florida, by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C26325Q0529, for elevator maintenance services. The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated its quotation under the technical factor and raises various challenges to the agency's evaluation of the awardee's quotation. We dismiss the protest on the basis that the protester is not an interested party.[1] BACKGROUND On March 12, 2025, the VA issued the RFQ as a set-aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB), pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation part 13, seeking quotations for elevator maintenance services at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System facility.[2] AR, Exh. 2, RFQ at 1, 6; COS at 2. The RFQ contemplated the award of a single fixed‑price contract with a base period of 1‑year and up to four 1‑year option periods. COS at 2; RFQ at 5‑6. Award was to be made on a lowest‑price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis considering two evaluation factors: (1) price and (2) technical. Id. at 56. To be technically acceptable, quotations had to include, among other things, the resumes of at least two elevator technicians, currently employed by the contractor or subcontractor, who would be performing under the contract. Id. at 149. The RFQ also included a limitation on subcontracting certification clause. In relevant part, this clause requires the vendor to certify that if awarded a contract for services, it will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the government to firms that are not certified SDVOSBs or certified veteran‑owned small businesses. Id. at 151. After a series of amendments, the agency extended the deadline for the submission of quotations to June 4. Id. at 150. In response to the amended RFQ, the agency received quotations from 17 vendors. COS at 3. Among those quotations, four, including Eleven Bravo's, were determined to be responsive to the RFQ and were considered for technical evaluation. Id. The remaining 13 quotations, including Modesto's, were determined to be ineligible for award for various reasons, including missing required documents listed in the technical portion of the RFQ. Id. All four of the responsive quotations were determined to be technically acceptable and quoted total prices lower than Modesto's. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 10. Accordingly, in addition to Eleven Bravo, based on the agency's evaluation, there were three other vendors that submitted technically acceptable quotations at a lower price than Modesto's. Id. Based on the agency's evaluation, the quotation submitted by Eleven Bravo was determined to be technically acceptable and quoted the lowest price of $2,173,301. Id. On July 2, the agency selected Eleven Bravo for award. COS at 3. On July 3, Modesto filed an agency-level protest challenging the award decision.[3] Protest, exh. G, Second Agency-Level Protest at 42. Modesto argued, among other things, that the agency improperly evaluated Eleven Bravo's quotation under the technical factor because Eleven Bravo is not a licensed elevator contractor and therefore would be required to subcontract all its elevator mechanic work in violation of the limitation on subcontracting. Id. On July 9, the agency issued a decision dismissing the protest on the grounds that Modesto was not an interested party to challenge the award decision because it was ineligible for award. Protest, exh. H, Agency Decision in Resp. to Second Agency‑Level Protest at 46‑47.