Gamut Electronics, LLC, B-292347; B-292347.2, August 7, 2003

Gamut Electronics, LLC, B-292347; B-292347.2, August 7, 2003 TITLE: Gamut Electronics, LLC, B-292347; B-292347.2, August 7, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292347; B-292347.2 DATE: August 7, 2003 ********************************************************************** Gamut Electronics, LLC, B-292347; B-292347.2, August 7, 2003 Decision Matter of: Gamut Electronics, LLC File: B-292347; B-292347.2 Date: August 7, 2003 John Hibbs for the protester. Lt. Col. Thomas L. Hong, Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest of solicitation terms more than 4 months after closing date, and after protester submitted proposal and participated in product demonstration, is untimely and not for review. 2. Protest that agency improperly rejected protester's product as unsuitable is denied where agency evaluation was conducted in accordance with stated evaluation criteria and protester does not allege any specific errors in evaluation. DECISION Gamut Electronics, LLC protests the rejection of its proposal under solicitation No. DABJ47-03-R-ONDCP, issued by the Department of the Army for state-of-the-art counterdrug equipment. Gamut challenges both the terms of the solicitation and the rejection of its proposal. We deny the protest. The Army, acting as technical agency for the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC), issued the solicitation, a broad agency announcement (BAA), as a *sources sought* notice in FedBizOpps to obtain proposals of state-of-the-art counterdrug equipment that CTAC would provide to state and local law enforcement agencies under the Technology Transfer Program (TTP).[1] The procurement was conducted in a phased manner. In Phase I, offerors were to submit proposals for a single product meeting the following initial qualifying criteria: (1) product shall have a specific counterdrug application such as, but not limited to: Miniature digital covert audio/video surveillance; portable narcotic detection systems; advanced miniature audio or video-based body-wire devices; command, control, communication, computer, intelligence systems (C4I); covert vehicle tracking system, case management system, data-sharing and analysis systems, telephone/fax/internet intercept systems; and data mining or advanced internet/database/unstructured data search engines. (2) product must have a verifiable and established performance record with U.S. law enforcement agencies and (3) the product must be packaged as a fully integrated turn-key system and require no further development or enhancement effort. Solicitation at 2. Products were required to meet all three criteria in order to be considered for further evaluation under Phase II. Candidates selected for Phase II were to demonstrate and brief their proposed products to a panel of law enforcement personnel, who would evaluate the proposal for applicability and viability for the TTP. This Phase II evaluation was to be based on the following criteria, listed in descending order of importance: overall technical merit/feasibility of proposed equipment; potential contribution, relevance, and impact to the agency's mission and support of the TTP; and cost and schedule. The agency reserved the right to select all, some, or none of the responses to the solicitation for demonstration or contract award. Under Phase III, demonstration results were to be analyzed, recommendations of technologies for inclusion in the TTP were to be made, and contract(s) were to be awarded as applicable. Gamut submitted a proposal for its *Code Five System,* a wireless remote-controlled surveillance system. Gamut's proposal passed the Phase I evaluation and the firm was invited to demonstrate its product in Phase II. Based on this demonstration, the agency determined that Gamut's product did not meet the TTP's needs. After receiving notice of its proposal's rejection, Gamut filed this protest challenging the terms of the solicitation and the evaluation of its product. THE SOLICITATION Gamut asserts that the solicitation was actually an improper sole-source, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity procurement. In Gamut's view, the agency could only use a solicitation like this one to conduct market research, and then was required to issue a request for proposals (RFP) or request for quotations (RFQ), based on full and open competition, identifying the specific products desired by the CTAC. Gamut also identifies a number of alleged flaws in the solicitation based on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) S: 12.205. For example, while market research includes a review of product literature, the solicitation here prohibited submission of product literature. FAR S: 12.205(a).