Protest Denial Decision: $100M DHS FEMA FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Division Program Integration & Support BPA

OS AI Slice: Decision details were just released related to the protest denial of an award to support this Department of Homeland Security requirement seeking program integration and support services for FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Division and respective grant programs. Details on the single-award BPA awarded last Fall can be found here. (70FA6023A00000006).

DIGEST

1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of corporate experience is dismissed as factually and legally insufficient where protester had no knowledge of the contents of the awardee’s corporate experience quotation.
2. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of protester’s key personnel is denied where evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.
3. Protest alleging that agency used an unstated evaluation criterion is denied where the criterion was reasonably encompassed by the solicitation’s evaluation criteria.

DISCUSSION

AECOM contends that the agency’s evaluation of CDM’s corporate experience and conclusion that CDM’s corporate experience was more advantageous than its own were unreasonable.  Protest at 21, 25.  AECOM also argues that the agency failed to properly evaluate its key personnel.  Id. at 27.  In its supplemental protest, AECOM contends that the agency used unstated evaluation criteria when it penalized AECOM for its failure to provide a technical engineer as a key person.  Comments and Supp. Protest at 12.  For reasons discussed below, we dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part.5  Challenge to the Evaluation of Corporate Experience   AECOM first challenges the agency’s evaluation of the quotations under the corporate experience factor.  Protest at 21.  In this regard, AECOM argues that “it is inconceivable that AECOM did not receive the highest possible evaluation rating for corporate experience, and reasonably had to be considered superior to any proposal that CDM Federal could have submitted.”  Id. at 24.  The protester further argues that “even if CDM Federal has some arguably relevant experience, it would not be as relevant as AECOM’s experience.”  Id. at 25 n.11.  The agency requests dismissal of these arguments on the basis that AECOM’s challenge to the evaluation of CDM’s corporate experience and the protester’s assertion that its own experience must be superior do not provide legally sufficient bases for protest.  Req. for Dismissal at 7-8. For reasons discussed below, we agree with the agency.  Our Bid Protest Regulations require that a protest include a sufficiently detailed statement of the grounds supporting the protest allegations.  4 C.F.R. §§ 21.1(c)(4), 21.1(f), and 21.5(f).  That is, a protest must include sufficient factual bases to establish a reasonable potential that the protester’s allegations may have merit; bare allegations or speculation are insufficient to meet this requirement.  Saalex Sols., Inc., B-418729.3, July 23, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 298 at 5.  Unsupported assertions that are mere speculation on the part of the protester do not provide an adequate basis for protest.  Id.  Concerning the evaluation of CDM’s corporate experience, we dismiss AECOM’s argument for failure to state a valid basis for protest as it speculates as to the contents of CDM’s proposal.  As the agency points out, AECOM’s argument is based entirely on its supposition as to what CDM’s quotation might have included and how the agency might have considered it.  Req. for Dismissal at 10.  Such an argument is speculative on its face and fails to provide sufficient factual basis for protest.    Similarly, we disagree with AECOM’s argument that its status as the incumbent contractor meant that its corporate experience must be better than other vendors’.  In this regard, AECOM argues that “as the 14-year incumbent contractor…

DECISION

AECOM Technical Services, Inc., of Germantown, Maryland, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with CDM Federal Programs Corporation, of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for quotation (RFQ) No. 70FA6023Q00000003, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), for program integration and support services.  The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated quotations, which resulted in an unreasonable source selection decision.  We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part.

See the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story