InuTeq, LLC

B-411781 Oct 21, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights InuTeq, LLC, of Beltsville, Maryland, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. NNS15530376R, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for a task order to provide information technology (IT) services at the John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. InuTeq asserts that the initial solicitation did not require recertification of offerors' size status and maintains that it was improper for the agency to subsequently require such recertification. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has now been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  InuTeq, LLC File:  B-411781 Date:  October 21, 2015 Todd R. Overman, Esq., Richard W. Arnholt, Esq., Bryan R. King, Esq., Bass Berry & Sims PLC, for the protester. D. Evelyn Lyon, Esq., and Wendy L. Bateman, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where solicitation for a task order under a federal supply schedule contract provided that offerors must verify that their electronically-posted size status certifications were current, accurate, and complete “as of the date of this offer,” and the agency responded to potential offerors’ questions regarding the impact of this language by stating that an offeror’s size status would be verified “when the proposal is submitted,” protester’s assertion that the task order solicitation did not seek recertification of offerors’ size status is denied. DECISION InuTeq, LLC, of Beltsville, Maryland, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. NNS15530376R, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for a task order to provide information technology (IT) services at the John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.  InuTeq asserts that the initial solicitation did not require recertification of offerors’ size status and maintains that it was improper for the agency to subsequently require such recertification.  We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND In September 2014, NASA posted a synopsis on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOps) website, stating that it was planning to issue an RFP for IT services at the Stennis Space Center.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1.10, FedBizOps Synopsis, at 128-29.[1]  The synopsis provided that the procurement would be solicited from vendors holding General Services Administration (GSA) federal supply schedule (FSS) No. 70 contracts and would be conducted as a total small business set-aside pursuant to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541512.[2]  Id. In December 2014, NASA selected 5 contractors holding GSA schedule 70 contracts, including InuTeq, and provided copies of the draft RFP (DRFP) for this procurement to those contractors.[3]  Section K of the DRFP contained the following provision from Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 52.204-8, stating: The Offeror has completed the annual representations and certifications electronically via the SAM [System for Award Management][4] Web site . . . .  After reviewing the SAM database information, the Offeror verifies by submission of the offer that the representations and certifications currently posted electronically that apply to this solicitation as indicated in paragraph (c) of this provision have been entered or updated within the last 12 months, are current, accurate, complete, and applicable to this solicitation (including the business size standard applicable to the NAICS code referenced for this solicitation), as of the date of this offer and are incorporated in this offer by reference . . . . AR, Tab 2.02, DRFP, at 84 (emphasis added). The agency established January 14 as the deadline for submission of questions regarding the DRFP and, on that date, received 119 questions from potential offerors.  AR, Contracting Officer’s Statement, Aug.