S&K Global Solutions, LLC

B-412729 Mar 14, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights VMD Systems Integrators, Inc. (VMD), of Reston, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competitive range by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNJ14498840R for information technology, information management, communications, and multimedia services. VMD argues that its proposal was excluded based on the agency's disparate treatment of competing proposals. We dismiss the protest as untimely. We dismiss the protest as untimely. 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:  VMD Systems Integrators, Inc. File:  B-412729 Date:  March 14, 2016 Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., Kara L. Daniels, Esq., and Nathaniel E. Castellano, Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, for the protester. Richard J. McCarthy, Esq., Randall T. Suratt, Esq., and Cody L. Corley, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Joseph G. Billings, Esq., and Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for MORI Associates, Inc., an intervenor. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Post-award protest challenging exclusion from competitive range, based on information obtained during post-award debriefing, is untimely where protester requested that the debriefing be delayed until after award. DECISION VMD Systems Integrators, Inc. (VMD), of Reston, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competitive range by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNJ14498840R for information technology, information management, communications, and multimedia services.  VMD argues that its proposal was excluded based on the agency’s disparate treatment of competing proposals.  We dismiss the protest as untimely. The RFP, issued on March 30, 2015 under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, was set aside for small businesses.  The RFP contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, to be made on a best-value basis considering the following evaluation factors:  mission suitability, past performance, and cost/price.  Protest, exh.1, Solicitation at 1.  The solicitation stated that the non-cost/price factors, when combined, were more important than price; however, mission suitability was more important than past performance or price, and price was more important than past performance.  Id. VMD submitted its proposal by the proposal due date and was evaluated by a source evaluation board (SEB).  The agency’s evaluation identified a number of significant weaknesses in VMD’s proposal under the mission suitability factor.  Protest, exh. 5, SEB Findings at E-7, E-11 to 13.  On December 1, 2015, NASA notified VMD that its proposal had not been included in the competitive range “[b]ecause of its low mission suitability score.”  Protest, exh. 3, Notification of Exclusion.  The notification letter informed VMD that “[r]equests for debriefings shall be in accordance with the [Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)], Parts 15.505 [Preaward debriefing of offerors] and 15.506 [Postaward debriefing of offerors].”  Id.  VMD elected to receive a post-award debriefing “in order to learn as much as possible from the debriefing process so that it might better improve its performance in future procurements.”  Protest at 2, 4. On February 1, 2016, VMD was notified of the award to MORI Associates, Inc. (MORI), and on February 4, 2016, the agency provided VMD with a post-award debriefing.  Protest at 3.  As part of the debriefing, NASA provided VMD with debriefing slides, the source selection decision document, and the SEB’s findings with regard to the evaluation of VMD’s proposal.  See Protest, exh. 3, Debriefing Slides; exh. 4, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD); exh. 5, SEB Findings.  As relevant here, the SSDD discussed the strengths that were identified under the mission suitability factor in the proposals that were included in the competitive range.[1]  See Protest, exh.