Updated May 2, 2024
The Solicitation
On June 22, 2023, FEMA issued Request for Quotations No. RFQ1631725 (“RFQ” or “Solicitation”) under Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) Subpart 8.4. Admin. R. at 960, ECF No. 22-2.1 FEMA sought to award a single award, firm fixed-price blanket purchase agreement (“BPA”) to a General Services Administration (“GSA”) Federal Supply Schedule contract holder with special line-item number (“SLIN”) 541611. Id. The purpose of the Solicitation was to provide FEMA’s Office of Policy and Analysis and Field Operations Directorate (“FOD”) with administrative support for the development and implementation of FOD’s Strategic Plan, establishment of a resource allocation planning process, implementation of change management initiatives, enhancement of internal and external communications, and leadership over the design and implementation of the FEMA Readiness Cycle. Id. The RFQ contemplated a period of performance consisting of one base year and four one-year options…
The Evaluation and Award
On August 22, 2023, FEMA awarded the BPA to PotomacWave. AR 1444–45. Eagle Hill filed a bid protest with the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) challenging FEMA’s evaluation. AR 1495–1540. In response, FEMA agreed to take voluntary corrective action to reevaluate the quotes and its award decision. See Eagle Hill Consulting, LLC, B-421938.1, Sept. 22, 2023 (unpublished decision) (dismissing protest as academic). On September 25, 2023, the CO issued another Source Selection Document (“SSD”), in which she again analyzed the proposals submitted by Eagle Hill, PotomacWave, and Arc Aspicio and made a best value determination. AR 1564–72. The following is a summary of the findings for each offeror’s proposal…
The Present Protest
On December 28, 2023, Eagle Hill filed its Complaint in this Court.2 See Pl.’s Compl., ECF No. 1. On February 7, 2024, Eagle Hill filed a Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (“MJAR”). See Pl.’s Mot. for J. on Admin. R., ECF No. 23. Plaintiff’s MJAR contained three exhibits: (1) a declaration from Eagle Hill employee Carlene Hastings (“Hastings Declaration”); (2) a copy of PotomacWave’s GSA Schedule; and (3) a declaration from Eagle Hill employee Andy Shuler (“Shuler Declaration”).3 See id. at 46–105. PotomacWave filed a Motion to Dismiss and Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (“Cross-MJAR”). See Def.-Intervenor’s Mot. to Dismiss and Cross-Mot. for J. on Admin. R., ECF No. 25. On March 1, 2024, the Government also filed a Cross-MJAR. See Def.’s Cross-Mot. for J. on Admin. R., ECF No. 30…
III. DISCUSSION
Eagle Hill challenges FEMA’s award to PotomacWave on four grounds. It alleges that: (1) the Solicitation included a latent ambiguity regarding the Factor 3 Price spreadsheet and a latent ambiguity regarding how the Agency intended to evaluate Factor 3 Price proposals; (2) PotomacWave was ineligible for award; (3) FEMA’s evaluation of Corporate Experience was arbitrary and capricious; and (4) FEMA failed to adequately document its evaluation. The Court addresses each argument in turn…
OPINION AND ORDER
In this post-award bid protest, Plaintiff Eagle Hill Consulting, LLC (“Eagle Hill”) contends that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA” or “Agency”) improperly awarded a contract for administrative support services to Defendant-Intervenor PotomacWave Consulting, Inc. (“PotomacWave”). Specifically, Eagle Hill alleges that FEMA’s evaluation of the solicitation’s Corporate Experience and Price Factors was flawed. Before the Court are the parties’ dispositive motions, the Government’s Motion to Strike exhibits filed by Plaintiff, and separate requests from both the Government and Plaintiff to supplement the administrative record with extra-record facts. As explained below, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the Government’s Motion to Strike, GRANTS the Government’s Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record, and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Eagle Hill’s Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record. Further, the Court DENIES Eagle Hill’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, GRANTS PotomacWave’s Motion to Dismiss and Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, and GRANTS the Government’s Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record.
Updated April 26, 2024
Nearly four months after GAO dismissed a protest challenging the award of this single award BPA, only to see the protest pushed to the Court of Federal Claims, the Courts have weighed in, siding with the defendant.
“EAGLE HILL CONSULTING, LLC, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES Defendant, and POTOMACWAVE CONSULTING, INC. Defendant-Intervenor.
Pursuant to the court’s Opinion and Order, filed April 19, 2024, granting defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record, granting defendant-intervenor’s motion to dismiss and cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record, and denying plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the administrative record. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this date that judgment is entered in favor of defendant and defendant-intervenor.”
Details related to the grounds for the challenge are limited, but the GAO decision document (see below) provides some insight.
Related Data
Added December 20, 2024
A decision has been released by GAO related to a protest dismissal which challenged the award of a $21M DHS FEMA administrative support services BPA requirement to provide a range of support services, including the development and implementation of the agency’s strategic plan, establishment of a resource allocation planning process, implementation of change management initiatives, enhancement of internal and external communications, and leading the design and implementation of the agency’s workforce readiness cycle.
DIGEST
1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s quotation under the corporate experience factor is dismissed for failing to state a valid basis of protest where the protester’s allegations do not demonstrate that the agency’s evaluation was inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of quotations is dismissed where the protest grounds are based on an unreasonable interpretation of the solicitation and therefore are legally insufficient.
DISCUSSION
Eagle Hill challenges FEMA’s evaluation of quotations in multiple respects. Specifically, the protester argues that the agency failed to reasonably evaluate PotomacWave’s quotation under the corporate experience factor, and further failed to conduct a reasonable and detailed evaluation of PotomacWave’s approach and capability to meet the agency’s requirements. Protest at 10-11. The protester also argues that the agency failed to evaluate all vendors’ quotations in a manner consistent with the terms of the solicitation and prevented vendors from competing on an equal basis. Supp. Protest at 4-6. Finally, the protester contends that the solicitation was latently ambiguous, that the awardee’s quotation should have been found ineligible for award, and that the agency’s best-value tradeoff determination was flawed. Supp. Protest at 7. FEMA requests dismissal of the protest, primarily arguing that the protest grounds fail to state valid bases of protest, fail to demonstrate competitive prejudice, and are otherwise speculative as to the alleged defects contained within PotomacWave’s quotation. Req. for Dismissal at 3-5; Req. for Dismissal, Oct. 20, 2023, at 5-9. For the reasons explained below, we dismiss the protest. Evaluation of the Corporate Experience Factor Eagle Hill argues that FEMA failed to reasonably evaluate PotomacWave’s quotation under the corporate experience factor. Protest at 11. In this regard, the protester alleges that the awardee “has not performed any work that qualifies as relevant to this procurement.” Id. Relying on information obtained from USAspending.gov,3 the protester further contends that the awardee’s experience “lacks size, scope, and complexity similar to this procurement,” and that the agency therefore failed to reasonably evaluate the awardee’s experience…
DECISION
Eagle Hill Consulting, LLC, of Arlington, Virginia, protests the agency’s establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with PotomacWave Consulting, Inc., of Alexandria, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ1631725, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for various administrative support services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated the vendors’ quotations in multiple respects. We dismiss the protest.
Protestor: Eagle Hill Consulting, LLC
Solicitation Number: RFQ-1631725
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Federal Emergency Management Agency
File number: B-421938.3
Outcome: Dismissed
Decision Date: Dec 20, 2023
Solicitation Number: RFQ-1631725
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Federal Emergency Management Agency
File number: B-421938.3
Outcome: Dismissed
Decision Date: Dec 20, 2023
Want to get involved with OS AI? - A small number of Sponsorship Opportunities are now available here. Starting at $500.