Pitney Bowes, Inc. ()

B-423984,B-423984.2 Feb 05, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Pitney Bowes, Inc., of Washington, D.C., protests the issuance of a purchase order to Auctane, Inc., of Austin, Texas, by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for postage expenses. The protester contends that the agency improperly issued the purchase order (Order No. 45310025F0154) to Auctane on a sole-source basis, and that the issuance of the purchase order contributed to the agency's undue delay in implementing the corrective action related to the award of a contract for a mail management system. We deny the protest. View 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. Decision Matter of: Pitney Bowes, Inc. File: B-423984; B-423984.2 Date: February 5, 2026 William A. Shook, Esq., The Law Offices of William A. Shook PLLC, for the protester. Kimberly Essary, Esq., Savannah Felton, Esq., and Erin Norris, Esq, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, for the agency. Emily R. O'Hara, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging agency improperly issued a purchase order on a sole-source basis is denied where there was nothing objectionable with the issuance of a purchase order to pay outstanding invoices for the provision of postage under an existing agreement. 2. Protest challenging agency's alleged undue delay in implementing corrective action is denied where the delay was not a result of the agency permitting performance of an improperly awarded contract. DECISION Pitney Bowes, Inc., of Washington, D.C., protests the issuance of a purchase order to Auctane, Inc.,[1] of Austin, Texas, by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for postage expenses. The protester contends that the agency improperly issued the purchase order (Order No. 45310025F0154) to Auctane on a sole-source basis, and that the issuance of the purchase order contributed to the agency's undue delay in implementing the corrective action related to the award of a contract for a mail management system. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 13, 2024, after learning that the EEOC had issued a federal supply schedule (FSS) order (No. 45310023F0249), on a sole-source basis, to Auctane for a mail management solution, Pitney Bowes submitted an agency-level protest to the EEOC. Supp. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4-1, Agency-Level Protest at 4.[2] In the agency-level protest, Pitney Bowes argued that the agency failed to conduct market research and provide Pitney Bowes with an opportunity to compete for the mail management requirement. Id. at 5-6. The protester requested that the EEOC terminate the order issued to Auctane and “properly solicit the requirements for a mailing solution.” Id. at 6. The EEOC issued its decision on the agency-level protest on June 17. Supp. AR, Tab 4-2, Agency-Level Protest Decision at 3. In the decision, the agency advised the protester that it would take corrective action by: (1) “expanding the sphere of market research to include testing of a solution of the protester,” and (2) recompeting the requirement “by issuing a new solicitation under a GSA [General Services Administration] federal supply schedule.” Id. at 3, 5. On November 25, 2024, the EEOC issued a new solicitation for a “comprehensive mailing solution” that included the lease and maintenance of a mailing management system for the EEOC headquarters and 52 field offices.[3] Supp. COS at 2; Supp. AR, Tab 3-1, RFQ No. 45310025Q0001 at 6. Pitney Bowes submitted a timely quotation in response to the solicitation. See Supp. AR, Tabs 6-1 to 6-3, Pitney Bowes Quotation. Pitney Bowes's quotation was the only quotation received in response to the RFQ. Supp. COS at 2. The EEOC evaluated Pitney Bowes's quotation, finding that the protester's quoted price was 60 percent higher than the government's cost estimate. Id. at 2-3. On February 10, 2025, the contracting officer called Pitney Bowes's business development manager; during that call, the contracting officer informed Pitney Bowes's representative that no award had been made yet for the mail management requirement (RFQ No. 45310025Q0001). Jan. 14 Resp. to GAO Inquiry, COS at 1. At that time, the contracting officer also advised Pitney Bowes that its quoted price was 60 percent higher than the agency's cost estimate, and that the requirement “remained on pause due to the agency's budgetary restrictions.” Id. The agency and protester spoke again on March 18, when the contracting officer again informed Pitney Bowes “that the RFQ remained on pause.” Id. at 2.