St. Michael's, Inc.

B-410923 Mar 20, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Strategic Business Solutions, Inc. (SBSI), of Reston, Virginia, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. HHM402-14-R-0005, issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency, for support services to help establish internal controls; demonstrate and sustain audit readiness; and support a wide range of activities, such as financial, resource, and project management. The protester argues that the agency improperly determined that SBSI's proposal was unacceptable, based on its failure to comply with the solicitation's requirement that identifying information be redacted from proposals. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: SBSI, Inc. File: B-410923 Date: March 20, 2015 David A. Edelstein, Esq., Asmar, Schor & McKenna, PLLC, for the protester. LtC Gregory J. Fike, Esq., Defense Intelligence Agency, for the agency. Gary R. Allen, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that an agency improperly rejected a proposal because it included identifying information is denied where the solicitation explicitly required that such information be redacted from proposals. DECISION Strategic Business Solutions, Inc. (SBSI), of Reston, Virginia, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. HHM402-14-R-0005,[1] issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency, for support services to help establish internal controls; demonstrate and sustain audit readiness; and support a wide range of activities, such as financial, resource, and project management. The protester argues that the agency improperly determined that SBSI’s proposal was unacceptable, based on its failure to comply with the solicitation’s requirement that identifying information be redacted from proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP, which was set aside for small business concerns, provided for the award of multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts to obtain contractor support services, with a 1-year base ordering period and four 1-year options. The RFP established a lifetime ceiling value of $75 million, and provided for task orders to be issued to meet the RFP’s statement of objectives. Contracting Officer’s (CO) Statement (COS) at 1. The RFP provided extensive instructions for preparing proposals, which were to be submitted in three volumes.[2] In a table describing the contents to be included in each proposal volume, the RFP required offerors to submit “7 ORIGINALS–WRITTEN VERSION-REDACTED” for the second and third evaluation factors (technical/management approach and past performance). RFP at 110. Although the table did not explain what information was to be redacted, this was later clarified in an amendment to the RFP. Amendment 4 to the RFP set out various questions and answers regarding the solicitation. Question 22 sought guidance concerning the information that was to be redacted in proposals. RFP amend. 4 at 5, Question 22. The agency responded that redactions should include all information identifying the offeror, any subcontractors, or their respective personnel by name. Information identifying the offeror, or any subcontractor, as an incumbent on the first SIFM contract vehicle also needed to be redacted. Id. The agency received [deleted] proposals by the solicitation closing date, including SBSI’s proposal. COS at 4. Upon review, the agency discovered that SBSI had failed to redact information concerning its own identity, its personnel, the identities of its subcontractors, and their personnel. Id. at 5. According to the CO, SBSI’s proposal contained over 100 separate instances where SBSI failed to redact its proposal in accordance with the RFP requirements. Id. SBSI’s proposal stated that it took no exceptions to the RFP, and acknowledged all of the RFP amendments, including amendments 2 and 4. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5.1, SBSI Proposal, at 1. SBSI’s proposal was excluded from the competition based on the firm’s failure to redact the identifying information, as required by the RFP. AR, Tab 6.2, Notification of Exclusion. SBSI received a written debriefing on December 1, 2014, and this protest followed. The protester argues that its proposal was improperly removed from consideration. Specifically, SBSI asserts that its failure to redact the identifying information did not involve its proposal’s acceptability. Rather, the protester argues that its failure to comply with this requirement may have made its proposal “nonresponsive,” but that it was only a minor informality that the CO should have waived. Protest at 1, 6-8.