Main menu

Pages

Foxhall Technology, LLC | US GAO

featured image

Public document
The decisions issued on the dates below were subject to the GAO Protection Order. This edited version has been approved for public release.

decision

Regarding: Foxhole Technology, LLC

File: B-420718

date: July 29, 2022

Brian Bunting, J. Ryan Frazee, and Jennifer Eve Retener of Wiley Rein LLP.
William T. Welch, Esq., J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., and Lewis Rhodes, Esq., McMahon, Welch and Learned, PLLC, for AmVet Technologies, LLC, Intervenor.
Kevin R. Hilferty, Stephanie B. Young, Marianna Lvivski, and Stephanie J. Vilalta of the Department of Energy.
Scott H. Riback, Esq. and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.

digest

If records show that the protestor is not a stakeholder supporting the protest, the protest will be dismissed.

Foxhole Technology, LLC of Herndon, Virginia, under Request for Quotation (RFQ) No. 89303021RIM000005, protests the establishment of a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) and the issuance of two task orders to AmVet Technologies, LLC of Las Vegas, NV . , issued by the Department of Energy for Cybersecurity Assessment and Approval Support Services. Foxhole claims the agency should have excluded him from consideration of AmVet’s quote because the company did not have the business experience required under the terms of his RFQ.

We dismiss the protest.

Background

Competition for this requirement is limited to Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) vendors who maintain an appropriate FSS schedule, and the RFQ requires the establishment of a master BPA and the issuance of two initial task orders for the requested services ( I’m considering a base year and a 4 year). 1 year option. The RFQ advised that successful companies are determined using the best value trade-off source selection procedure. The initial task order is to be executed on a fixed price basis, but the RFQ is looking into the possibility that additional task orders may be issued on a fixed price basis, a time and materials basis, or a labor hours basis. increase. RFQ at 3.[1]

Firms were informed that the agency evaluates their quotes considering price and several non-price factors. It was a management approach.[2] RFQ at 53. Factors other than price were far more important than price overall. identification.

In response to RFQs, the agency received a number of quotes, including those submitted by Foxhole and AmVet. Agents evaluated quotes, participated in discussions, solicited, obtained and evaluated revised quotes. After completing the evaluation of the revised estimate, the agency assigned the following ratings to her Foxhole and AmVet estimates.

foxhole

Ambet

technical approach

acceptable

extraordinary

corporate experience

good

good

management approach

acceptable

extraordinary

price

$50,802,303

$46,327,561

Agency Report (AR), Exh. B.2, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), at 32. Based on the results of these assessments, the agency issued a ruling to AmVet, concluding that its estimate represented the highest value to the government. After being informed of the agency’s choice of sources and given a brief explanation of the agency’s decision, Foxhall promptly filed a protest.

discussion

Foxhole alleges that the agency improperly accepted AmVet’s quote because, according to Foxhole, AmVet did not have the business experience required under the terms of the RFQ. Foxhole claims that it required successful recruiting companies to have at least one example of corporate experience working as a prime contractor or team leader on a contractor team contract. Foxhole argues that none of AmVet’s examples of corporate experience met this requirement, and that the company’s estimates should have been excluded from consideration.[3]

We dismiss Foxhole’s protest as we conclude that Foxhole is not a stakeholder supporting the protest. Our Bid Complaint Rules, 4 CFR §§ 21.0(a)(1), 21.1(a), refer to “interested parties,” i. can. Even if the protest is upheld, if the company does not comply with the contract award (or in this example, establishing BPA and issuing task orders), the company is not a stakeholder within the meaning of our Bid Protest Rules. . Mesotech International Co., Ltd.B-419534, 22 March 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 131 at 3.

As noted above, Foxhole’s protest is limited to challenging the establishment of BPA and the issuance of task orders to AmVet. However, the record shows that even if AmVet’s quote was excluded from consideration, there were several other concerns that were found to be technically superior and priced lower compared to Foxhole’s. . Specifically, the record shows that at least four companies submitted quotes that were technically superior and priced lower than Foxhole’s quote.[4] AR, Exh. B.2, SSDD, at 32. Foxhole does not dispute the agency’s assessment of these or its own citations.

Therefore, even if there was an agreement with Foxhole that AmVet’s estimate should be dismissed, the record is clear that one of the intervening companies, not Foxhole, would line up for the ruling. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Foxhole lacks the direct economic interest necessary to sustain the protest.

Protest is dismissed.

Edda Emanueli Perez
legal adviser