The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest that was filed by a collection operation over how the Treasury Department awarded contracts to five different collection companies to collect tax debts owed to the government.
The background: The protest was filed after the Bureau of the Fiscal Service reevaluated proposals for private debt collection work and decided to expand the number of blanket purchase agreements from four to five. The protester, F.H. Cann & Associates, argued that Treasury had no reasonable basis for adding a fifth awardee and that the agency’s technical evaluation contained multiple errors under factors such as technical approach, quality control, and prior experience.
- The protester also challenged Treasury’s decision to establish a fixed commission fee schedule during negotiations, claiming the agency failed to follow the RFQ’s requirement to engage in fee negotiations.
- GAO’s review relied heavily on the RFQ’s flexible language, which stated that Treasury would award “multiple single-award BPAs” without specifying a number. As GAO noted, the acquisition record showed the agency originally intended to award “at least 4,” not exactly four, and Treasury documented that a reassessment of its debt portfolio justified supporting five awards.
The ruling: The GAO denied every substantive protest argument and dismissed the pricing argument as untimely.
- On the number of awards, GAO held that Treasury’s decision was reasonable and consistent with the RFQ, writing that nothing in the solicitation “bind[s] the Fiscal Service to establishing a set number of BPAs” and that reassessing needs two years after the RFQ was issued was a legitimate business judgment.
- On the technical evaluation, GAO backed Treasury’s findings, including weaknesses related to the protester’s administrative wage garnishment workflow, limited detail on integrating new processes, and insufficient creativity in problem-solving. GAO emphasized that disagreement with evaluators does not make an evaluation unreasonable.
- Under the quality control factor, GAO found no fault in Treasury assessing a weakness for the “extremely low” call-monitoring volume and limited detail on compliance assessments. GAO noted that call volume was reasonably subsumed within the stated evaluation of metrics likely to result in successful performance.
- On prior experience, GAO rejected the claim that Treasury relied on unstated criteria. The RFQ made clear that relevant experience included both consumer and commercial debt, and GAO stated it would be “illogical” for commercial debt experience to be required in phase one but irrelevant in phase two.
- Finally, the pricing argument was dismissed because the protester knew on April 30 that Treasury was asking vendors to accept or decline a predetermined fee schedule. GAO held that if the protester believed this approach violated the RFQ, it needed to protest then, not after awards were made.
