SCOR2E- ATCS PLC and Guidehouse, Inc.

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.

Decision

Matter of: SCOR2E- ATCS PLC and Guidehouse, Inc.

File: B-423315

Date: May 15, 2025

DIGEST

1. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated quotations is denied where the record shows the agency evaluated quotations in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.

2. Protest that the agency improperly conducted a price realism analysis is denied where the record shows that the agency did not conduct a price realism analysis.

3. Protest that the agency made a flawed best-value determination is denied where the record shows that its determination was reasonable.

SCOR2E,[1] of Herndon, Virginia, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with The Cadmus Group, LLC, of Waltham, Massachusetts, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70FB8024Q00000008, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), for technical assistance. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation, improperly conducted a price realism analysis, and made a flawed best-value determination.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The agency issued the RFQ on August 19, 2024, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 8.405-2, to vendors holding contracts under General Services Administration multiple award schedule special item number (SIN) 541611 management and financial consulting, acquisition and grants management support, and business program and project management services. Agency Report (AR), Tab C, RFQ amend. 0005 at 1; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3. FEMA issued the RFQ to obtain technical assistance with response, recovery, and other disaster operations missions under the Office of Response and Recovery (ORR). AR, Tab D, Statement of Work (SOW) at 2; Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 3. The ORR provides guidance and oversight for the coordination and delivery of support to those suffering from natural disasters and other emergencies. FEMA, Office of Response and Recovery, https://www.fema.gov/about/offices/ response-recovery (last visited May 9, 2025). Technical assistance is needed to help ORR personnel guide and oversee the response to these disasters. COS at 1.

The BPA would be established with the vendor offering the best value to the government considering the following factors listed in descending order of importance: technical and management approach (factor 1); capability of proposed key personnel and staffing plan (factor 2); past performance (factor 3); price (factor 4); and subcontracting plan (factor 5). RFQ at 5, 13. As relevant here, the technical and management approach factor had two subfactors: concept paper and demonstrated prior experience. Id. at 5.

Under the demonstrated prior experience subfactor, vendors were to explain their experience by addressing 11 topic areas. RFQ at 7. For each topic area, vendors were to provide one recent and relevant example of prior experience. Id. These examples were to demonstrate experience with the corresponding statement of work (SOW) requirements as well. Id. This subfactor would be evaluated based on the references vendors provided for each topic area and how well vendors demonstrated their experience. Id. at 8. Under the technical and management approach factor the agency would assign a rating of high confidence, some confidence, or low confidence.[2] Id. at 10.

The agency received quotations from seven vendors. COS at 3. The evaluation results for SCOR2E and Cadmus were as follows:

	SCOR2E	Cadmus
Technical and Management Approach:	Some	High
Concept Paper	High	High
Demonstrated Prior Experience	Some	High
Capability of Proposed Key Personnel and Staffing Plan	High	High
Past Performance	Acceptable	Acceptable
Subcontracting Plan	Acceptable	Acceptable
Price	$64,080,276	$82,357,522

 

AR, Tab G, ADM at 3, 7.

Under the demonstrated prior experience subfactor, the technical evaluation team (TET) noted the qualities of SCOR2E’s quotation that raised or lowered its expectation that SCOR2E would successfully perform the contract. Regarding topic areas 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10, the TET concluded that SCOR2E provided recent and relevant examples of its prior experience and demonstrated complete knowledge and understanding of the requirements. AR, Tab F, SCOR2E Quotation - Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Evaluation at 2-4. Regarding topic areas 3, 6, 8, and 11, the TET concluded that SCOR2E’s quotation did not do so. Id. at 2-3. The TET concluded that, overall, it had some confidence in SCOR2E’s ability to perform the contract based on its demonstrated prior experience. Id. at 1. Under the technical and management approach, SCOR2E’s quotation ultimately received a rating of some confidence. AR, Tab G, ADM at 17.[3]

After evaluations were completed, the SSA determined that SCOR2E’s quotation was the second-highest rated after the quotation submitted by Cadmus. AR, Tab G, ADM at 16. Both vendors’ prices were determined to be reasonable. Id. at 7.

In comparing the quotations, the SSA noted that SCOR2E’s failure to adequately address all the topic areas under the demonstrated prior experience subfactor gave the agency only some confidence in its ability to perform the work required. The SSA noted that, while SCOR2E understood the requirements and proposed a sound approach for most of the topic areas, it did not provide experience that demonstrated an understanding of the requirements for topic areas 3, 6, 8, and 11. Id. at 9. Conversely, the agency noted that Cadmus demonstrated a thorough understanding of the requirements and successfully addressed all topic areas. Id. at 10. The SSA further noted that Cadmus’s superior experience gave the agency significantly more confidence in its ability to perform which merited its price premium. Id. The SSA determined that Cadmus provided the best value to the agency and made award to it on January 27, 2025. COS at 7. SCOR2E was notified the same day and this protest followed.

DISCUSSION

SCOR2E raises several challenges to the agency’s evaluation of quotations and asserts that the best-value determination is flawed. We have considered all of SCOR2E’s arguments and find that none provide us with a basis to sustain the protest. We note at the outset that where, as here, an agency issues an RFQ to federal supply schedule vendors under FAR subpart 8.4 and conducts a competition, we will review the record to ensure that the agency’s evaluation is reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Nittany Bus. Movers, Inc., B-411856, Oct. 27, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 327 at 1-2. A protester’s disagreement with the agency’s evaluation, without more, is not sufficient to sustain the protest. Id.

Demonstrated Prior Experience

SCOR2E asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation under the demonstrated prior experience subfactor. Specifically, SCOR2E challenges the agency’s findings under topic areas 3, 6, 8, and 11. Protest at 8-12. SCOR2E asserts that had it not been for these alleged errors, it would have received a technical rating equal with that of Cadmus and would have likely received award because of its lower price. Id. at 12. We have reviewed all SCOR2E’s arguments and find that it has not demonstrated that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable regarding any of the topic areas. We address several examples below.

Again, under the demonstrated prior experience subfactor, the RFQ required vendors to provide one example of prior experience for each of the 11 topic areas, demonstrating their understanding of the corresponding SOW requirements. RFQ at 7. This subfactor would be evaluated based on the vendors’ references and how well vendors demonstrated their experience. Id. at 8.

As a first example, topic area 3 required prior experience with “tangible results in Product Rollout Plan and Socialization Strategy Development.” RFQ at 7. Paragraph 4.3 of the SOW – support for product rollout plan and socialization strategy development – corresponded to this requirement. Sub paragraph 4.3.1 of the SOW required that “The Contractor shall develop rollout plans for products including compelling video products, publications, brochures, infographics, webinars, outreach and communication products, fact sheets and messaging to communicate key messages for FEMA programs.” SOW at ¶ 4.3.1.

In its evaluation of SCOR2E’s quotation regarding topic 3, the agency noted the protester’s quotation described creating products such as a guide for the agency, an internal Microsoft SharePoint site, and talking points for meetings and trainings. AR, Tab F, SCOR2E Quotation - Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Evaluation at 2. However, the agency noted that these examples focused on internal products for the agency, like the guide, as opposed to external products for the public. Id. The agency also noted that the protester’s quotation did not provide enough information because it did not demonstrate experience with rollout plans for products such as video products, publications, brochures, infographics, webinars, and outreach and communication products. Id. The agency’s findings regarding this topic contributed to the SSA’s determination that it had some confidence in SCOR2E’s prior experience. AR, Tab G, ADM at 9, 15.

SCOR2E asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation regarding topic area 3 for several reasons. The protester asserts that its quotation demonstrated experience with product rollout plans, and points to the portion of its quotation wherein it describes its experience developing, releasing, and rolling out an internal FEMA guide – “A Guide to Community Engagement.” Protest at 8-9; AR, Tab E, SCOR2E Quotation - Factor 1 Subfactor 2 at 2. The protester next asserts that the agency applied an unstated evaluation criterion. According to the protester, the evaluation implies that SCOR2E was supposed to provide a rollout plan for each type of media listed in SOW paragraph 4.3.1, which was not required. Protest at 8; Comments & Supp. Protest at 3.[4]

The agency responds that it reasonably evaluated SCOR2E’s quotation. The agency first notes that the TET considered the protester’s experience creating and rolling out “A Guide to Community Engagement” for FEMA in its evaluation, as well as the other portions of its quotation that mentioned the creation of an internal SharePoint site and conducting meetings and trainings. MOL at 9-10; AR, Tab F, SCOR2E Quotation - Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Evaluation at 2. The agency asserts, however, that despite this prior experience, SCOR2E’s quotation was still insufficient because it did not demonstrate experience with a rollout plan that included compelling video products, publications, brochures, infographics, webinars, outreach, or communication as required by the SOW. MOL at 10. The agency further asserts that the protester does not dispute that its quotation does not demonstrate this experience, but rather only asserts that it was not required to do so. Id. The agency argues that the RFQ expressly required vendors to demonstrate their experience with all of the requirements in the SOW, like the various types of media listed in paragraph 4.3.1. Id.

Here, we find that SCOR2E has not demonstrated that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation. The record shows that the agency considered SCOR2E’s prior experience creating the internal guide, as well as the SharePoint site and the trainings and meetings conducted. AR, Tab F, SCOR2E Quotation - Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Evaluation at 2. The record also shows that SCOR2E’s quotation does not mention any other types of media, like those listed in SOW paragraph 4.3.1, and the protester has not asserted that its quotation addresses these other media types. Id.; AR, Tab E, SCOR2E Quotation - Factor 1 Subfactor 2 at 2.

Lastly, the agency’s evaluation does not show that it expected the protester to describe a rollout plan for each type of media. As discussed above, producing rollout plans in general was a requirement of paragraph 4.3.1, but the evaluation criteria required only that vendors describe one experience example per topic area. RFQ at 7. More to the point, the agency did not in fact find that the protester’s quotation lacked rollout plans, rather; it found that the nature of the experience was limited to supporting internal communication as opposed to external media or communications. AR, Tab F, SCOR2E Quotation - Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Evaluation at 2 (noting that “The offeror did not demonstrate the SOW requirement of ‘compelling video products, publications, brochures, infographics, webinars, outreach & communication products. . . . Their response focuses more on internal products and the development of a guide as opposed to development of an external media or communications product.”). The protester does not directly dispute this finding, as a result, this protest ground is denied.

As another example, topic area 6 required prior experience with “tangible results in Policy and Procedures Development.” RFQ at 7. Paragraph 4.6 of the SOW – policy and procedures development – corresponded to this requirement, which included four sub paragraphs. The sub paragraphs listed several requirements, including that the contractor support the development of policies and procedures in several ways: by collaborating with various stakeholders, supporting the development of associated materials in accordance with various formatting guidelines and other requirements, supporting the development of the plan of action milestones, and facilitating meetings. SOW at ¶¶ 4.6.1-4.6.4.

In its evaluation of SCOR2E’s quotation regarding topic area 6, the agency determined that SCOR2E’s quotation “provided a broad response and does not demonstrate acceptable knowledge and understanding of the subject matter.” AR, Tab F, SCOR2E Quotation - Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Evaluation at 2. The agency then referred to several parts of SCOR2E’s quotation supporting this conclusion: “The offeror mentioned ‘including a policy and procedure review’. ‘Supported [Field Operations Directorate] in development of the FEMA Strategic Recruitment Plan (SRP) by providing organized, structured meetings and activities with actionable outcomes . . .’ (pages three to four).” Id.

SCOR2E asserts that the agency’s evaluation unreasonably ignored information in its quotation. SCOR2E asserts that its quotation discusses the development of a FEMA policy and procedure and mentioned facilitating meetings. Protest at 12; AR, Tab E, SCOR2E Quotation - Factor 1 Subfactor 2 at 3-4. The agency responds that the example cited by SCOR2E was considered by the agency and cited in the evaluation. The agency also responds that SCOR2E’s quotation does not contain details that the agency failed to consider. The agency asserts the protester’s argument amounts to nothing other than disagreement with the agency’s judgment that its quotation lacked sufficient detail. MOL at 12.

Here, we agree that SCOR2E has failed to show that the evaluation is unreasonable. As the agency notes, the portions of the quotation SCOR2E claims the agency ignored are specifically cited in the evaluation record as the basis for the agency’s conclusion that SCOR2E’s quotation was too broad. Compare AR, Tab F, SCOR2E Quotation - Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Evaluation at 2 (the agency states that SCOR2E’s quotation “provided a broad response and does not demonstrate acceptable knowledge and understanding of the subject matter,” citing to pages three and four of SCOR2E’s quotation) with Protest at 12 (where SCOR2E argues that the agency ignored the information on pages three and four of its quotation). The protester does not cite to any other portions of its quotation to support its claim that its quotation is sufficiently specific. As a result, the protester’s arguments amount to disagreement with the agency’s judgment, as the protester has not shown that the agency’s conclusions were illogical or unsupported by the record, but simply asserts that the portions of its quotation that the agency found to be broad should be read as adequately addressing the requirements. Int’l Ctr. for Language Studies, Inc., B‑419737.3, Dec. 20, 2021, 2022 CPD ¶ 85 at 6.

As another example, topic area 8 required prior experience with “tangible results in Program Analysis, Assessment and Management.” RFQ at 7. Paragraph 4.8 of the SOW – support for program analysis, assessment, management and reports – corresponded to this requirement. This section of the SOW contained 21 subtasks, such as implementing ORR programs by analyzing and assessing program data, conducting performance management and analytical studies, and analyzing existing program data and producing reports. SOW at ¶¶ 4.8.8, 4.8.11-4.8.14, 4.8.19-4.8.21.

In evaluating SCOR2E’s quotation under topic area 8, the agency found that it did not demonstrate an understanding of program analysis and assessment. The agency stated that the examples in SCOR2E’s quotation “focused internally rather than evaluating the success of the program.” AR, Tab F, SCOR2E Quotation - Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Evaluation at 3. The agency quoted the following portions of SCOR2E’s quotation as supporting its conclusion: “ ‘Our team identified trends that were discussed in a Leadership Alignment Session, Future-State Visioning Workshop and Prioritization Framework and Workshop with [hazard mitigation assistance] leadership. (3) Guidehouse used its expertise and knowledge of FEMA to develop four guiding principles for the hybrid work environment . . .’ (page five).” Id. at 3.

SCO2E asserts that the agency’s evaluation is unreasonable because there was no requirement in the RFQ or the SOW for “external experience” or “evaluating the success of the program,” and therefore the agency applied an unstated evaluation criterion. Protest at 10-11; Comments & Supp. Protest at 5. The protester also argues that even if it was required to demonstrate this external-facing experience, it did so, as its quotation described experience related to FEMA stakeholders, customers, and local and state government partners. Protest at 11.

The agency responds that it did not apply unstated evaluation criteria and contends that the protester’s argument is based on a misreading of the evaluation findings. The agency explains that its note that SCOR2E’s quotation focused “internally” refers to its quotation’s focus on internal processes as opposed to tangible results and did not imply that there was an external experience or focus requirement. MOL at 14. The agency further explains that its note regarding “evaluating the success of the program” also referred to SCOR2E’s quotation’s failure to describe the tangible results from its program analysis. Id. The agency further responds that the protester has not asserted that its quotation demonstrates the success of a program or discusses tangible results, and therefore the protester has not demonstrated that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable. Id.

We agree with the agency that the protester has not demonstrated the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria. The record shows that the agency’s explanation of the evaluator’s notes is consistent with the evaluator’s notes as stated in the evaluation. In its evaluation the agency cited to the portions of SCOR2E’s quotation that describe a guide produced for internal use by FEMA staff and an internal leadership training, and the agency noted that SCOR2E’s quotation “focused internally rather than evaluating the success of the program.” AR, Tab F, SCOR2E Quotation - Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Evaluation at 3; AR, Tab E, SCOR2E Quotation - Factor 1 Subfactor 2 at 5. The agency’s note that SCOR2E’s quotation “focused internally rather than evaluating the success of the program,” considered with the portions of SCOR2E’s quotation the agency chose to cite, shows that the agency was referring to the protester’s demonstration of internal products as opposed to discussing tangible results as asserted by the agency. As a result, the record does not support the protester’s allegation that the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria such as external experience or evaluating the success of the program. Moreover, the protester has not refuted the agency’s conclusion that its quotation does not discuss tangible results for this topic area and the record shows that the relevant portion of SCOR2E’s quotation does not discuss the tangible results or describe an evaluation of the success of the firm’s cited guide and training. AR, Tab E, SCOR2E Quotation - Factor 1 Subfactor 2 at 4-5. As a result, the protester has given us no basis to question the evaluation in this regard.

Price Realism

SCOR2E next asserts that the agency improperly performed a price realism analysis, which was not provided for by the solicitation. In support of its argument, SCOR2E focuses on a statement by the SSA in the best-value determination concluding that Cadmus’s “superior technical solution conformed to all solicitation requirements to include prior technical experience that conveyed to pricing experience of the same and/or similar type of FEMA work.” AR, Tab G, ADM at 16. SCOR2E asserts that this language is evidence that the awardee’s higher price was a positive discriminator in the agency’s view, effectively penalizing SCOR2E for having a lower price. Comments & Supp. Protest at 9. By considering price in this way, SCOR2E asserts that the agency’s evaluation was tantamount to a price realism analysis. Id. SCOR2E also asserts that the agency performed an unequal price realism analysis because it did not credit SCOR2E for its prior technical experience with FEMA and corresponding pricing experience. Id. at 10.

The agency responds that the protester misconstrues the one sentence in the best-value determination. The agency contends the determination instead shows that prices were evaluated solely for fairness and reasonableness in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. Supp. MOL at 4-5.

The record does not support the protester’s assertion that the agency performed a price realism analysis. The purpose of a price realism evaluation is to determine whether proposed or quoted prices are so low that they are not realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a lack of clear understanding of the requirements of the solicitation; or are not consistent with the methods of performance described in the vendor’s technical proposal. Ventera Corp., B-418871, B-418871.2, Oct. 5, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 345 at 7. The sentence quoted by the protester does not show that the awardee’s higher price was considered a positive discriminator, let alone imply that SCOR2E’s quotation was downgraded for having a lower price. In fact, the agency does not reference either firm’s price in the sentence. The agency’s comment does nothing more than acknowledge that the awardee’s technical approach conformed to the solicitation requirements and note that the awardee’s work experience with FEMA includes experience with the price for such work. The challenged statement refers to experience and does not convey a view about either firm’s actual price.

The only consideration of price in the best-value determination was reflected in the agency’s conclusion that both SCOR2E’s and Cadmus’s prices were fair and reasonable. AR, Tab G, ADM at 7. Because the protester’s interpretation of the agency’s comment does not withstand logical scrutiny, we deny this aspect of the protest. Federal Acquisition Servs. Team OASIS JV, LLC, B-418776.6, B-418776.7, June 22, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 244 at 5; See also, e.g. Ventera supra at 7 (explaining that an agency’s conclusion that the protester’s technical approach may not be successful due to insufficient staff did not imply a price realism analysis).

Best-Value Determination

Finally, SCOR2E also asserts the agency made a flawed best-value determination for two reasons.[5] SCOR2E asserts the agency “downplayed the price premium” for Cadmus’s quotation because the agency determined there was a 22.3 percent price difference between the quotations, when in fact – according to SCOR2E – the difference is closer to 30 percent.[6] SCOR2E also asserts the determination does not reflect any actual analysis. Comments & Supp. Protest at 8.

Both these claims are belied by the record. As already stated, in reviewing protests of an agency’s source selection decision in procurements conducted under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures of FAR subpart 8.4, we do not conduct a new evaluation or substitute our judgement for that of the agency. 22nd Century Techs., Inc., B-422659.5, B-422659.6, Jan. 14, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ 28 at 4. Rather, we will review the record to ensure the agency’s evaluation and award decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations. Id. Procurements conducted using FSS procedures provide for a streamlined procurement process with minimal documentation requirements. Id.

Regardless of the percentages referred to, the record shows that the agency was aware of and considered the actual prices proposed by the vendors and the difference between them in weighing the prices against the technical merits. AR, Tab G, ADM at 3, 16-17. Further, the record shows that the SSA analyzed and weighed the technical merits of both quotations. For example, the agency expressly compared the merits behind the ratings assigned to SCOR2E and Cadmus for the demonstrated prior experience subfactor – noting the topic areas that SCOR2E did not adequately address, and conversely noting that Cadmus’s quotation had successfully addressed all topic areas as evinced by the superior prior experience it demonstrated. Id. at 8-9. As the protester has failed to show that the best-value determination is flawed or insufficiently documented, this protest ground is denied.

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel

 

 

---