Assessment and Training Solutions Consulting Corporation

Decision

Matter of: Assessment and Training Solutions Consulting Corporation

File: B-423398

Date: June 27, 2025

DIGEST

Protest challenging agency’s issuance of a sole-source purchase order using simplified acquisition procedures is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably determined that there was only one source available to meet the agency’s urgent requirements for first responder medical training prior to military troop deployment.

Assessment and Training Solutions Consulting Corporation (ATSCC), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business located in Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests the issuance of a sole-source fixed-price purchase order to Tactical Electronics and Military Supply, LLC (Tactical Electronics), of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, by the Department of the Navy to provide tactical first responder medical training prior to military troop deployment. ATSCC argues that the agency’s sole-source award is unreasonable and contrary to applicable procurement law and regulation.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The Navy’s Expeditionary Exploitation Unit-1 (EXU-1) has a requirement to provide tactical first responder medical training (hereinafter, medical training) to military personnel operating in various scenarios to include battlefield, remote care, prolonged transport, or unique rescue conditions. The medical training encompasses the treatment of the trauma/casualty patient with particular emphasis on penetrating, blunt, and blast trauma in conjunction with environmental and situational concerns. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Exh. 3, Statement of Work (SOW) at 1.[1] The medical training simulates a hostile environment where students must perform frontline first aid procedures of medical care, the different phases of medical care, and triage as they relate to medical care on the battlefield after neutralizing the enemy threat. Among other things, the successful contractor will be required to equip, train, and certify explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) platoons in advance lifesaving skills and techniques used in remote hostile environments without immediate evacuation support. SOW at 1.

To procure these services, the agency originally anticipated issuing a solicitation under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 13.5, simplified acquisition procedures, under which the agency would issue a firm-fixed-price purchase order. COS at 1. The SOW accompanying the agency’s December 2024 request for market research information anticipated a base performance period of March 24-26, 2025, with three option periods. SOW at 4.

As is relevant, the agency represents that during the first quarter of the current fiscal year a solicitation could not be issued because current year appropriated funding was not available. The agency explains that it was operating under continuing resolution authority (CRA) that would not be lifted until March 14, 2025, which would delay execution of a purchase order for the medical training scheduled to begin on March 24. COS at 1-2. Given the importance of this training for military personnel with impending deployments, the agency identified strategies to address the situation, including utilizing existing Defense Logistics Agency contracts or the purchase card payment method,[2] concluding that neither option was appropriate given the terms and conditions of the required training. Id. at 2.

While waiting on the availability of funds either through a new CRA or congressional appropriation, the contracting officer decided to initiate market research and complete all preliminary procurement actions to ensure readiness once funding was appropriated. Id. In conducting its market research, an agency representative engaged in an email exchange with three vendors, including the protester and the awardee, that was labeled as a “request for market research quote.” AR, Exh. 2, Req. for Market Research Quote for EOD First Responder Medical Suite Training 20241210 (Dec. 10, 2024).[3] The agency representative asked each vendor the following: “Please provide a market research quote to me as soon as you can for the attached [SOW]. Please feel free to reach out if you have questions.” Id. The agency representative added: “I am not a contracting officer and am not authorized to enter into agreements on behalf of the [government]. All contracts and delivery orders will be negotiated by a government contracting officer.” Id.

After receiving the request for market research information, ATSCC posed several questions to the agency. For example, on December 11, ATSCC inquired, in relevant part: “you ask that we respond with a quote as [soon as] we can – if we were to submit [no later than the close of business] Friday, 13 Dec 24, would that be ok? I don’t want to put [us at] a disadvantage by being too slow on the draw.” AR, Exh. 2, Email Communication from ATSCC. In a return email of the same date, the agency responded that was “totally fine.” Id. On December 13, ATSCC submitted another question, in relevant part: “will your office be making award to an offeror based off of what is provided [in] response to this [request for quotations (RFQ)]?” and noted that its “response [to the market research request] is forthcoming.” Id. On January 15, 2025, the agency representative responded: “Was not sure if I responded to this, but I collect my Market Research Data and then the Contracts shop may do a RFQ, selection will be based on all information collected. I am not part of the selection portion” and noted “I still have not received your quote.” Id.[4]

In the meantime, on February 13, the agency identified several factors that impacted its ability to move forward with the acquisition. Specifically, the agency noted:

·Urgent operational need to ensure EXU-1 personnel received battlefield trauma training prior to deployment, without which, there would be an unacceptable compromise to troop safety in hostile and combative environments.

·An immovable first training date of 24 March-26 March 2025, driven by active-duty military deployment schedules.

·EXU-1 did not have current year funds available to execute a new training requirement[.] Congress had not passed an appropriations bill or new continuing resolution, and the Contracting Officer lacked authority to issue a solicitation without full funding.

Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 3.

As a result, on February 13, 2025, the contracting officer sought and received authorization to designate this medical training as a mission critical requirement which allowed access to funding in the absence of current year appropriated funds. COS at 2. Thereafter, due to the agency’s time-sensitive needs, the contracting officer determined that there was insufficient time to conduct a competitive FAR part 13 acquisition to meet the March 24 training schedule. The contracting officer concluded that the only way to obtain the required training prior to military deployment was to issue a sole-source action based on urgent justification under FAR section 13.106-1(b)(1)(i). The contracting officer did not issue a solicitation. Id.

As is relevant, the urgent justification explained as follows:

If EXU-1 is not able to provide this training requirement, [this] will cause issues with rotating military personnel to complete this training and prevent from being able to complete mission requirements. This would also cause a ripple effect of delaying incoming military personnel to receive training before they report out for mission requirements. Without the proper training the EXU-1 military personnel would not have medical training they need to be prepared for requirements to ensure they are trained for all environment from desert, to urban, to the cold weather encountered at high altitude and everywhere in between.

AR, Exh. 4, Urgent Justification at 1.

On February 20, the contracting officer received approval of the urgent justification for a sole-source action to issue the purchase order to Tactical Electronics, the only vendor that submitted a complete capability statement and pricing information in response to the December 2024 market research. COS at 2. The contracting officer then drafted the sole-source purchase order paperwork and accompanying documentation which she forwarded for approval. COS at 2; MOL at 4.

Also on February 20, ATSCC emailed its capability statement and pricing information (self-identified as a “quote”) in response to the “Request for Market Research Quote for EOD First Responder Medical Suite Training 20241210.” COS at 2; MOL at 4 quoting, AR, Exh. 5, ATSCC’s Capability Statement. The next day, February 21, ATSCC’s market research information was forwarded to the contracting officer who took no action on the submission because “the paperwork for [Tactical Electronics] had already been approved and routed for final signatures.” COS at 2.

On February 28, the contracting officer issued the fixed-price purchase order to Tactical Electronics for a total price of $148,107.58 that included the March 24-March 26 base period and three option periods. MOL at 1. On March 3, Tactical Electronics signed the purchase order. COS at 3.

On March 7, the protester emailed the agency representative for a status update to which the agency responded that the “contract was awarded to another vendor by our contracts shop . . . [t]hank you so much for submitting a market research quote.” Req. for Dismissal, Exh. 2, Notification of Award. On March 14, ATSCC requested an informal debriefing. AR, Exh. 6, Notification of Sole Source Award at 1-2. On March 17, the contracting officer responded, in relevant part: “We appreciate the time and effort your company put into submitting market research information.” Id. at 1 Additionally, the contracting officer provided the name of the vendor to whom the purchase order was issued, the total dollar amount, and advised that the basis for the sole-source award was urgency. Id.

This protest followed.

DISCUSSION

ATSCC challenges the conduct of the competition, contending that the Navy’s decision to issue a sole-source purchase order to Tactical Electronics was unreasonable and contrary to applicable procurement law and regulation. Protest at 2; Comments at 2. First, the protester asserts that the agency actively solicited and received its technically acceptable, lower-priced quotation which the agency unreasonably failed to evaluate. Comments at 2. The protester also alleges that the sole-source justification was procedurally and legally defective since the agency was still pursuing competition up to and through finalization of the sole-source justification. Id. at 2-3. For the reasons that follow, we find no basis on which to sustain the protest.[5]

As an initial matter, we find no merit to ATSCC’s allegation that the agency’s conduct established a competitive RFQ. The record shows that while the agency representative’s emailed requests for market research information used the term “quote,” the email communications unequivocally stated that the representative was not a contracting officer and that all contracts and delivery orders would be negotiated by a government contracting officer. See e.g., AR, Exh. 2, Req. for Market Research Quote for EOD First Responder Medical Suite Training 20241210 (Dec. 10, 2024). The record also shows that in responding to a question posed by the protester, the agency representative specifically stated that any information provided by the vendor would be used only for market research and that any subsequent procurement action would be undertaken by the contracting officer. Id., Email Communication to ATSCC (Jan. 15, 2025).

In any event, the agency asserts that only the contracting officer has the authority to issue solicitations to solicit formal proposals or quotations. In this regard, had the contracting officer intended to issue an RFQ, the agency asserts that the RFQ would have included all relevant solicitation provisions, such as, section B: supplies or services; section F: deliveries or performance; section L: instructions, conditions, and notices to offerors; and section M: evaluation factors for award; to permit vendors to prepare and submit responsive proposals or quotations. The agency maintains that no such solicitation was issued by the contracting officer. See MOL at 6.

Based on the record presented, we find no support for the protester’s allegation that the agency’s email communications should be construed as an RFQ. Nor was the agency required to evaluate the protester’s February 20 market research submission, which ATSCC characterizes as a responsive lower-priced quotation. Accordingly, we deny this aspect of the protest.

ATSCC also contends that the agency’s decision to issue a sole-source purchase order using the urgency justification of FAR section 13.106-1(b)(1)(i) to Tactical Electronics was improper and inconsistent with the competition requirements of the simplified acquisition procedures of FAR part 13. According to the protester, there was more than one source reasonably available to perform the medical training requirements since the agency had received an eligible and cost-effective quotation from ATSCC, another known, reliable vendor. See Comments at 2-3.

When conducting a procurement utilizing simplified acquisition procedures, contracting officers must promote competition to the maximum extent practicable to obtain supplies and services from the source whose offer is the most advantageous to the government. 41 U.S.C. § 3305(d); FAR 13.104; see also Information Ventures, Inc., B-293541, Apr. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 81 at 3. As an exception to the general competition requirements, for purchases not exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, a contracting officer may solicit from one source if the contracting officer determines that the circumstances of the contract action deem only one source reasonably available (e.g., urgency, exclusive licensing agreements, brand-name or industrial mobilization). FAR 13.106-1(b). We review an agency’s decision to limit competition under such circumstances for reasonableness. Summit Techs., Inc., B-419126, B-419126.2, Nov. 19, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 384 at 4; Critical Process Filtration, Inc., B-400746 et al., Jan. 22, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 25 at 5.

Here, based on our review of the record discussed above, we reject ATSCC’s assertions that the Navy has failed to provide a reasonable justification for its conclusion that only one source was reasonably available to provide the medical training requirements prior to the deployment of military troops. As discussed above, the record reflects the Navy’s: well documented recognition of problems associated with the lack of current year available funding; consideration of other strategies to meet its needs; the need to ensure troop safety by providing medical training prior to deployment; and, based on market research, the availability of only one source capable of meeting the agency’s needs. More specifically, the record demonstrates that once the medical training was elevated to a mission critical requirement, the operational risks associated with a delay in awarding the purchase order would have prevented this mission critical medical training from occurring prior to troop deployment. The record further demonstrates that the Navy reasonably attempted to conduct market research well in advance of its anticipated requirement. The agency reasonably determined that only one source could satisfy its urgent requirements based on the single timely response to its December 2024 request for market research, and the protester provides no reasonable justification for its delay until late February 2025 in providing responsive information to the agency’s market research request.

A contracting agency has the discretion to determine its needs and the best method to accommodate them. See Ho-olaulima Gov’t Sols., LLC, B-421958, B-421958.2, Dec. 19, 2023, 2024 CPD ¶ 10 at 7. ATSCC’s disagreement with the agency’s needs and how to best accommodate them, without more, does not show that the agency’s judgment is unreasonable. Id.; see also, SSI Tech., Inc., B-417917, Dec. 4, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 418 at 7. Accordingly, on this record, we find that the Navy has demonstrated a reasonable basis for issuing the sole-source purchase order to Tactical Electronics based on an urgent justification.[6]

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel