FEMA sought the services to aid state, tribal and local governments to provide quick response to major disasters and emergencies. Its solicitation specifically sought a single-award blanket purchase agreement with one base year and two one-year options for both fixed-price and time and materials tasks. The agency received seven bids in response to the November 2021 request for qualifications. The award was made to AECOM in May 2022.

GAO initially denied the protests as “academic,” calling the allegations speculative and without factual support. It reaffirmed that decision after FEMA reevaluated submissions and again chose AECOM, agency General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez said June 1. 

Unfair Evaluations?

Fluor had termed the blanket purchase agreement as improper because FEMA failed to comply with regulatory requirements before using it. CDM Smith argued that the agency “unreasonably and disparately” evaluated its bid and AECOM’s bid. Both protesters claimed FEMA should have evaluated AECOM negatively related to experience and past performance factors and said the agency’s award decision was unreasonable because it was not made on a meaningful evaluation and best-value tradeoff as the solicitation required.

GAO ruled that Fluor’s challenge to the FEMA contract as a single-award blanket purchase agreement rather than as a multiple award was filed after deadline for receipt of initial quotations and after the contract award. Federal procurement rules prefer multiple-award contracts and say there should be no single-award blanket purchase agreement for more than $100 million. 

But GAO said this can be done if an agency chief determines needed conditions have been met. “Our review of the solicitation confirms that the RFQ put vendors on notice that FEMA intended to establish a single blanket purchase agreement,” its ruling said.

FEMA determined that work orders under the blanket agreement “are so integrally related that only a single source can reasonably perform the work,” Perez said. The contract calls for “rapid contractor support” for multiple and unpredictable disasters, FEMA said.

No 'Disparate Treatment,' Says GAO

In his review of CDM Smith’s complaint that bid evaluation was unreasonable, Perez said the review disparity stemmed from the firms' differing capabilities, and “was the result of differences in vendors’ quotations and not disparate treatment.” 

Fluor claimed AECOM’s cited experience in some areas was irrelevant because none of its references were for recent work supporting FEMA’s public assistance program. Perez disagreed, saying GAO’s review found “nothing objectionable with the agency’s evaluation of experience. She said “an offeror’s disagreement with an agency’s evaluation judgments ... does not demonstrate that those judgments are unreasonable.”

Both protesters also raised various objections to FEMA’s best-value tradeoff, including its comparison of competing offers. Fluor claimed the agency did not adequately consider whether its bid, rated higher in "relevance," was worth the its higher price. CDM Smith argued that the agency focused exclusively on price without performing a qualitative tradeoff. 

Perez again defended FEMA’s judgement as not “unreasonable,” without more protest evidence. The agency evaluator “specifically recognized Fluor’s experience, and multiple positive findings, but concluded that the others were “equally strong,” so the award decision did not warrant a price premium.

Fluor and CDM Smith did not comment on the ruling.