The agency awarded four BPAs. The protester challenged the evaluation process. The agency took corrective action and reevaluated. As a result of the reevaluation, the agency increased the number of awards from four to five, but the protester was still excluded. The protester filed a second protest, arguing that the increase in awards lacked justification. The agency maintained that it reasonably reassessed its requirements and found it could support five awards. GAO sided with the agency and found the change consistent with the RFQ, which did not stipulate a set number of awards.
F.H. Cann & Associates, Inc., GAO B-422308.5; B-422308.6
- Background - The agency issued a request for quotations (RFQ) for private debt collection services. Its goal was to establish multiple single-award blanket purchase agreements (BPAs). After awarding four agreements, the protester raised concerns regarding the evaluation process. This led to a reevaluation that resulted in five awards. The protester challenged this change, arguing that the decision to increase the number of awards was unjustified.
- Increasing Awardees - The protester claimed that the agency's increase from four to five awardees was arbitrary and lacked sufficient explanation. The agency countered that the increase stemmed from a reassessment of its debt-collection needs and that the solicitation did not specify a set number of awards. GAO agreed with the agency, affirming that it acted within its discretion and that the increase was consistent with the RFQ.
- Evaluation of Quotation - The protester challenged its evaluated rating under several factors, including the technical approach. It argued the agency’s assessment of three weaknesses was unfounded. GAO pointed out that the protester failed to demonstrate that the agency’s evaluation criteria were applied unreasonably. It noted that the agency’s evaluations were based on distinct solicitation requirements and reasonable judgments.
- Quality Control Assessment - Regarding the quality control factor, the protester argued that its one identified weakness should not outweigh its strengths. The agency maintained that the weakness was justified due to insufficient details in the protester's quality control plan. GAO found that the agency correctly assessed the strengths and weaknesses of the protester’s submission.
- Price Evaluation Process - The protester contended that the agency did not follow the proper negotiation process for fees. It claimed this relegated vendors to a “take it or leave it” stance. However, GAO determined that the protester was aware of this negotiation tactic before the award and failed to protest it promptly.
The protester is represented by James C. Fontana, Esq., and Heather Mims, Esq., of Warner PLLC. The intervenors, including CBE Group, Inc., Coast Professional, Inc., Continental Service Group, LLC, Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., and Transworld Systems, Inc., are represented by multiple attorneys from various law firms. The government is represented by Mary C. Schaffer, Esq., Ashlee Adams, Esq., and Kirsten Lefebure, Esq., of the Department of the Treasury. GAO attorneys Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., participated in the decision.
882620