GENCO Systems, Inc.

Decision

Matter of: GENCO Systems, Inc.

File: B-423304

Date: May 7, 2025

DIGEST

Protest that agency failed to properly consider protester’s price and unreasonably issued Federal Supply Schedule order to higher-priced vendor is denied where the record shows the agency’s source selection decision reasonably determined that successful vendor’s quotation provided the best value under the solicitation criteria.

GENCO Systems, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, a small business, protests the General Services Administration (GSA), Public Buildings Service’s issuance of a task order under a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to Jay Shapiro & Associates, Inc., of Far Hills, New Jersey. The agency issued the task order under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47PC0224Q0020, for construction management services at the Joseph P. Addabbo Federal Office Building in Jamaica, New York. GENCO argues that GSA improperly selected Jay Shapiro’s quotation over GENCO’s lower-priced quotation.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

GSA issued the RFQ to firms holding FSS multiple-award national BPAs for construction management services, program/project management services, and building/lease inspection services--zone 1.[1] The RFQ itself (labeled as an “instruction to offeror”) stated that the agency intended to issue a fixed‑priced task order to the vendor whose quotation provided the best value, which would be determined by “a tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost/price.” RFQ at 2. GSA states that the procurement was conducted under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 8.405‑3, the provisions of which describe the issuance of BPAs and the process for ordering under them. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1. The RFQ listed three factors and their weighting: staffing plan (30 percent), project management plan (30 percent) and price (40 percent). Id. at 2-3. The project management plan factor was divided into two equally weighted subfactors: quality assurance plan (15 percent) and program management plan (15 percent). Id. at 3.

The statement of work (SOW) for the RFQ described the required staffing as:

one (1) Off hours/Night Time Construction Inspector dedicated to providing Off hours and night time inspection services for all ongoing construction projects, one (1) Senior Project Manager / Team Leader, two (2) Senior Construction Managers with mechanical and electrical experience, Senior Commissioning Agent, Commissioning Agent and a Commissioning Specialist or equivalent contract labor categories.

Protest exh. 1, SOW at 4.[2]

Under the heading of hours worked, the SOW further specified:

The contractor’s onsite CM [construction management] staff (onsite CM staff includes one (1) Off hours/Night time inspector – who shall be onsite for 40 hours a week during off hours to include night time to perform construction phase inspection services, a work schedule shall be submitted on weekly basis for GSA approval, this work schedule shall be created based on the construction schedule of all ongoing projects[)].

Id. at 2.

Two vendors submitted quotations: GENCO, the incumbent contractor, and Jay Shapiro.[3] The evaluation used point scores to indicate the merit of each quotation under each factor and subfactor, which included assessing a score for the price factor. As relevant here, the evaluation concluded that GENCO’s quotation had what the agency refers to as “deficiencies”[4] regarding the firm’s approach to escalation of issues, its project planning, and its staffing of the off-hours/nighttime construction inspector position. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, Best-Value Determination at 3.

After completing the evaluation, GSA issued the task order to Jay Shapiro. GENCO requested a brief explanation and then filed an agency-level protest challenging GSA’s evaluation of the firm’s quotation and the decision to award the order at a higher price as unreasonable and inconsistent with the RFQ. GSA sustained GENCO’s protest in part, finding that the agency had improperly weighted the price factor in making the best-value determination, and directed the contracting officer to properly weight the price factor and make a new source selection decision. AR, Tab 1, Decision on First Agency-Level Protest at 12‑13. The agency denied GENCO’s remaining challenges.

GSA revised the price evaluation and recalculated both firms’ evaluated scores. To implement the agency-level protest decision, the agency used a revised price evaluation scheme that assigned scores to offerors’ total prices on the following basis: a price more than 15 percent below the agency’s estimate would receive the maximum weighted score of 40 points; a price below the estimate by less than 15 percent would receive 30 points; a price equal to or above the estimate by up to 15 percent would receive 20 points; and a price more than 15 percent above the estimate would be unacceptable and receive no points. AR, Tab 6, Best-Value Determination at 2. GENCO’s total evaluated price of $5,570,984 received a price score of 40 points, while Jay Shapiro’s price of $6,622,600.80 received 30 points. Id. at 3. The recalculation resulted in the following weighted scores:

Id.; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 5.

The contracting officer then reviewed the evaluations in greater detail and noted that GENCO’s quotation contained technical deficiencies:

The QAP [quality assurance plan] does not include how GENCO would address contract issues that require escalation past the Team Lead. The PMP [project management plan] states that the team lead will be assigned projects in “some cases” while the SOW [statement of work in the RFQ] requires “Team leader will provide CM services oversight for his/her own projects.” In both the QAP and PMP, GENCO does not discuss GENCO’s approach to preparing requirements in the project planning stage. GENCO specifies that the inspector is “Night-time” while the SOW specifies “Off-hours” which may include weekends and Federal Holidays.

AR, Tab 6, Best-Value Determination at 3; COS at 7.

The contracting officer explained that the evaluation of GENCO’s quotation had identified “many deficiencies,” among which were the firm’s failure to provide for weekend and holiday services. AR, Tab 6, Best-Value Determination at 4. The contracting officer noted that GENCO’s total evaluated price was $1,051,616.80 lower than Jay Shapiro’s price of $6,622,600.80, which represented a 17 percent price difference in GENCO’s favor, but that GENCO’s quotation failed to address all the SOW requirements because it did not provide for services on weekends and holidays. Id. The contracting officer selected Jay Shapiro’s quotation for award as the best value. Id.

After receiving a brief explanation of the agency’s basis for award, GENCO filed a second agency-level protest, challenging the evaluation and award decision, which also argued that the agency had failed to properly implement the decision in the earlier agency-level protest. GSA denied that second agency-level protest on January 21, 2025, AR, Tab 2, Decision on Second Agency‑Level Protest at 10, after which GENCO filed this protest.

DISCUSSION

Given the at-times confusing nature of the issues presented by the protester and the agency’s response, we begin with an overview of the main points argued by each party. GENCO’s protest begins with a history of the procurement and previous protests, and then challenges the technical evaluation and tradeoff. Protest at 4; see also id. at 6, 8 (arguing that agency-level protest decision “wrongly sided with the Agency”). GENCO contends GSA failed to consider its arguments related to the “unfair and unreasonable” best‑value determination.” Id. at 4. That determination was unfair and unreasonable, GENCO argues, because GSA failed to make “a proper trade off as required under [FAR] 15.308.” Id. at 7. GENCO argues that Jay Shapiro’s evaluated price was higher than GENCO’s price and, following the reevaluation, both firms’ total scores were 78 points, meaning that GSA lacked a valid basis to select Jay Shapiro’s higher-priced quotation. Id.

GENCO then argues that GSA’s best-value determination mentioned “unsupported and unsubstantiated weaknesses” but “linked only one” weakness to the best-value determination. Id. This weakness was labeled a deficiency for failing to address how the firm would provide services during “off hours” that could include weekends and holidays, but only addressed services during nighttime hours. Id. GENCO states that its second agency-level protest challenged that aspect of the evaluation as an “unlisted and unstated requirement,” and argued that the SOW did not indicate that the term “off hours” referred to weekends or holidays and never mentioned the agency’s requirement included services being provided on weekends or holidays. Id. at 8-9.

GENCO next takes issue with the statement in the January 21 agency-level protest decision that GENCO’s price quotation failed to cover staffing for “all the contemplated off hours[,]” including failing to fully price staffing for the off hours/nighttime construction inspector. Id. at 10. GENCO disputes that conclusion and affirms that its price quotation used the RFQ’s pre-filled pricing schedule, which listed 1920 hours per year for each of the four full-time positions, one of which was the off hours/nighttime construction inspector; that is, the protester used the agency’s specified pricing for the position at 1920 hours per year in the RFQ pricing schedule. Id. at 10; see Protest exh. 14, GENCO Quotation Price Schedule at 1‑2.

In challenging the source selection decision, GENCO argues that GSA decided not to issue the order to the protester based on “unsubstantiated deficiencies” that the firm contends were already rebutted. Protest at 11. GENCO also contends that the source selection decision lacks a proper tradeoff analysis and, instead, GSA “randomly picked up a few sentences and made up its own interpretations to make it look like deficiencies to justify a high price award.” Id. at 12. Thus, GENCO argues, GSA failed to identify specific benefits or discriminators to justify paying Jay Shapiro’s higher price. Id.

In the agency report, GSA argues that the protest is entirely improper because it represents an attempt to have GAO review issues already considered by GSA in the two earlier agency-level protests. As a result, GSA argues, the protest should be dismissed. MOL at 2 (“This protest is GENCO’s third bite at the apple”).[5] GSA also contends that even if the entire protest is not dismissed on that basis, our Office should dismiss as untimely the protester’s challenges to the technical evaluation.

In its comments responding to the agency report, GENCO disputes the characterization of its protest as including a challenge to the technical evaluation of its quotation. Comments at 1; see also id. at 2. To the contrary, the protester asserts, its protest challenges the decision in response to GENCO’s second agency-level protest that GSA had made a reasonable price reevaluation and best-value tradeoff. Id. at 1-2. GENCO contends that GSA’s agency report ignores the substance of the protest and does not claim that the agency made any tradeoff analysis in reaching its source selection decision. Id. at 2. As a result, GENCO argues that since both firms’ quotations received the same total score, GSA had no basis to select Jay Shapiro’s higher-priced quotation for award. Id.

GENCO’s comments then state that its protest “already addressed” the evaluation of a deficiency in its quotation for failing to cover services during weekends and holidays, and the firm posits that it is unclear whether the agency considered the deficiency in making a tradeoff in favor of Jay Shapiro’s higher price. Id. at 3. Ultimately, GENCO argues that the agency’s position is misleading, confusing, and irrelevant, and that its protest should therefore be sustained. Id.

In resolving the above various contentions, as an initial matter, we find that GENCO has abandoned any challenge to the technical evaluation by flatly stating in its comments that its protest did not challenge the technical evaluation. Id. at 1 (explaining that the “[a]gency report has further gone in length to wrongly describe our protest as a Challenge to the Technical Evaluation while our Protest to GAO is to challenge the Best Value Determination and Trade off analysis” and “as mentioned above GENCO is not protesting Technical Evaluation”); see also id. at 2 (“Agency is wrongly describing our protest as a challenge to technical evaluation”). Instead, the protester affirms, its protest to our Office challenges the reevaluation of prices and resulting source selection decision and does not substantively address the response in the agency’s report. Id. Given GENCO’s definitive statement in its comments that it does not intent to challenge its technical evaluation, we do not consider the protester’s other--somewhat confusing--statements to indicate an intent to pursue a challenge to the technical evaluation. Further, where an agency responds to a protester’s argument in the agency report and the protester’s comments in response fail to address the issue, our Office will consider the issue abandoned by the protester. Crowley Co., B‑258967, Feb. 21, 1995, 95‑1 CPD ¶ 105 at 1 n.1; Mountaineers Fire Crew, Inc. et al., B‑413520.5 et al., Feb. 27, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 77 at 13 n.6.

Based on our review, GENCO states it is challenging GSA’s failure to perform corrective action required by the first agency-level protest decision. It also argues that the second agency-level protest decision was incorrect. Apart from the abandoned challenge to the assessment of a deficiency under the technical evaluation discussed above, the central contention in the protest is that GSA made an unreasonable tradeoff judgment that Jay Shapiro’s higher-priced quotation was a better value than GENCO’s despite both firms receiving the same overall point scores. The protester does not raise a specific challenge to the calculation of prices or the application of the price scoring scheme; rather, its challenge to the price evaluation seems to be folded into its challenge to the tradeoff: whether GENCO’s lower price should have resulted in selection of its quotation for award.

As stated above, the essence of GENCO’s remaining argument is that GSA made an unreasonable tradeoff decision by issuing the order to Jay Shapiro at its higher price. The protester contends that GSA should have selected GENCO’s quotation for award based on its lower price, and the firm notes that after the reevaluation the two firms’ quotations they achieved the same evaluation score of 78 points.[6] Id. at 2-3.

Where a protester challenges the outcome of a competition among FSS vendors under FAR subpart 8 for the issuance of an order, and vendors’ responses form the basis for a tradeoff that is like a competition in a negotiated procurement (as contrasted with a simple FSS purchase), we will review the record to ensure that the agency’s selection is reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Verizon Fed., Inc., B‑293527, Mar. 26, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 186 at 4. When an agency uses point scores to compare among FSS vendors, the point scores serve as guides to intelligent decisionmaking. Castro & Co., B-412398, Jan. 29, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 52 at 10. Point scores do not mandate selection of a particular quotation, however, and source selection officials have broad discretion in determining the manner and extent to which they will make use of the scores to reach a selection that is rational and consistent with the evaluation criteria. Id.

The record here confirms the reasonableness of the contracting officer’s judgment in selecting Jay Shapiro’s quotation over GENCO’s despite their receiving the same point scores. Contrary to GENCO’s argument, the RFQ did not provide for pricing to be the deciding factor in the event of a tie; indeed, the point scores already included the assessment of points for each offeror’s price. GENCO received 40 points because its price was below the government estimate, while Jay Shapiro received 30 because its price was above the estimate. The resulting calculation of both firms scores at 78 points therefore included a quantification of GENCO’s price advantage.

However, as explained above, a reasonable tradeoff required the contracting officer to examine the substance of the evaluations, not just the point scores, and then to determine which vendor offered the best value under the factors specified in the RFQ. Id. Our review of the record shows the contracting officer made just such a reasoned judgment. The contracting officer reasonably determined that selection of Jay Shapiro’s quotation at its higher price represented a better value when compared to GENCO’s quotation which had an evaluated deficiency, even at a lower price. The record adequately documents the contracting officer’s judgment that, due to the assessment of a deficiency to GENCO’s quotation for failing to address off-hours services on weekend and holidays, the firm’s lower-priced quotation was not the best value when compared to Jay Shapiro’s quotation. In sum, that judgment was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the RFQ, so we deny GENCO’s protest.

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel