Protest challenging agency’s decision to issue a single blanket purchase agreement instead of multiple agreements is denied. The protester alleged that the agency’s market research had shown that multiple BPAs were preferable because no single vendor could deliver all the supplies and services required. GAO, however, found that agency had a reasonable explanation for going with a single BPA—namely, that holding competitions for multiple BPA holders would delay supplies needed for emergencies. What’s more, while there may not have been a single vendor capable of delivering all the requirements, the agency’s market research showed that vendors would likely establish partnering agreements to deliver the needed supplies and services.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued an RFQ seeking portable personal care facilities and shelters. The RFQ contemplated the establishment of a single blanket purchase agreement. CBP uses portable shelters when it facilities are compromised by natural disasters or surges in border security. As a result, these services needed to be provided quickly after CPB issued an order against the BPA.
Active Deployment Systems, Inc. (ADS) filed a protest challenging CBP’s decision to establish a single BPA instead of multiple BPAs. ADS argued that CBP’s market research had established that multiple BPAs were preferable because no single contractor had indicated it could perform all the requisite services.
GAO noted that under FAR 8.405-3(a)(3)(i) agencies should, to the maximum extent possible, give preference to establishing multiple award BPAs. An agency may, however, establish a single BPA after considering various factors, including complexity of the requirements, the benefits of on-going competition, administrative costs, and the technical qualifications of contractors.
GAO found that the CBP had considered these factors and sufficiently explained why a single BPA was preferable. The requirement called for shelters to be delivered with 24 to 72 hours following a disaster event. If CBP had multiple BPAs it would have to issue a solicitation and evaluate quotations, which take time and interfere with the agency’s ability to quickly response to a disaster. Additionally, holding repeated competition for these services would increase administrative costs.
CBP had also considered the technical qualifications of the schedule contractors. While ADS argued that a single contractor was not capable of delivering all the services, the market research had indicated that interested vendors would likely establish partnering agreements to support all the requirements.
ADS simply disagreed with the CBPs judgment. Disagreement with an agency’s judgment concerning how market research results should inform a decision does not provide GAO a basis to sustain a protest.
ADS is represented by Matthew T. Schoonover, Matthew P. Moriarty, John M. Mattox, II, and Ian P. Patterson of Schoonover & Moriarty LLC. The agency is represented by Joseph M. Barbato and Adam Struble of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Todd C. Culliton and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision.
