FH Cann & Associates, Inc. (B-422308.5; B-422308.6)

You should not care.

Categories: Technical evaluation, cost or price evaluation, process issue

Date: 3 December 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-422308.5,b-422308.6

FH Cann & Associates, of Exeter, New Hampshire, protests the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service's award of five blanket purchase agreements for private debt collection services under RFQ No. 1653552, issued pursuant to FAR subpart 8.4 to GSA Schedule holders. FH Cann—the only eligible vendor not to receive an award—challenges the agency's decision to increase the awardee pool from four to five during corrective action, its evaluation under the technical approach, quality control, and prior experience factors, and the agency's take-it-or-leave-it approach to commission fee negotiations. None of the grounds breaks new legal ground.

Increasing the number of awards: GAO found the Fiscal Service's decision to award five BPAs instead of four was consistent with the solicitation, which contemplated "multiple single-award BPAs" without specifying a number. The agency reasonably reassessed its debt portfolio after corrective action prompted by a COFC protest and determined it could support an additional award. GAO also noted F.H. Cann could not demonstrate competitive prejudice, since fewer awards would only have worsened its prospects.

Technical approach weaknesses: GAO declined to second-guess three weaknesses the agency assessed—an inaccurate administrative wage garnishment workflow, a lack of creative problem-solving, and insufficient detail on future process integration—finding each tied to stated evaluation criteria. The protester's argument that its strengths-to-weaknesses ratio warranted a higher rating found no support in the solicitation's adjectival definitions.

Quality control and unstated criteria: GAO held that call monitoring volume was reasonably subsumed within the quality control factor's stated criteria and that consensus ratings need not mirror individual evaluators' initial scores.

Prior experience and commercial debt: GAO concluded that commercial debt experience was intrinsic to the prior experience factor, given the solicitation's scope encompassed commercial debt and phase one required vendors to demonstrate such experience as a minimum qualification.

Fee schedule challenge dismissed: FH Cann's objection to the agency's nonnegotiable commission fee schedule was dismissed as untimely. The protester accepted the terms on 30 April 2025 and waited until after award on 3 July to challenge the approach—well beyond the 10-day filing window under 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2).

Outcome: Denied in part, dismissed in part. The agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation across all challenged factors. The fee negotiation ground was untimely. No corrective action recommended.

Digest

1 Protest challenging the agency's decision to increase the number of awards due to a reevaluation of its needs is denied where the agency's determination was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.

2 Protest challenging the evaluation of the protester's quotation under various evaluation factors is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

3 Protest challenging the agency's establishment of a fee commission schedule under the price factor that vendors could only accept or reject during fee negotiations is dismissed as untimely where the protest was filed after award.