ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc.

B-414985 Oct 20, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the Department of the Air Force's decision not to consider its proposal under Request for Task Order Proposals (RFTOP) No. CT 16-1421, issued for cloud migration assessment of National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency activities. 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:  ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc. File:  B-414985 Date:  October 20, 2017 Stuart B. Nibley, Esq., and Amy M. Conant, Esq., K&L Gates LLP, for the protester. Colonel C. Taylor Smith, Esq., and  Lieutenant Colonel Kevin P. Stiens, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency failed to consider firm’s proposal is denied where the protester cannot demonstrate that the agency received the e-mail containing the proposal. DECISION ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the Department of the Air Force’s decision not to consider its proposal under Request for Task Order Proposals (RFTOP) No. CT 16-1421, issued for cloud migration assessment of National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency activities. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFTOP, issued on June 13, 2017, under the Air Force Installation Contracting Agency’s Cyber Security and Information Systems Technical Tasks indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, provided for the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order.[1]  RFTOP at 1.  The task order proposals were to be submitted electronically via e-mail to the contract specialist, at CSIACTAT@us.af.mil, no later than 1:00 p.m. Central Time, on July 17, 2017.  RFTOP, amend. 2, at 1.  The solicitation provided that proposal receipt would be acknowledged by return e-mail.  RFTOP at 2.  The protester reports, and the agency does not dispute, that on July 17, at 1:25 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), ManTech sent its proposal, via e-mail, to the agency’s designated recipient, CSIACTAT@us.af.mil, and received confirmation of completed delivery through its Microsoft Outlook delivery receipt feature.  Protest at 5; Protest, attach. d, Copies of Outlook Delivery Confirmations.  At 1:32 p.m. EDT, ManTech, not having received an acknowledgment from the agency that its proposal had been received, contacted the Air Force and was informed that the proposal was not in the CSIACTAT@us.af.mil mailbox.  Protest at 5; Decl. of ManTech Contracts Manager at 1.  ManTech re-sent the e-mail with its proposal at 1:37 p.m. EDT to the CSIACTAT@us.af.mil mailbox, and also sent the proposal, via e-mail, directly to the agency employee it had spoken to, and the contract specialist.  Protest, attach. c, ManTech E-Mails.  At 1:40 p.m. EDT, ManTech again received confirmation of receipt through Outlook, and at 1:49 p.m. EDT, the agency again informed ManTech that the proposal did not reach the CSIACTAT@us.af.mil mailbox.  Protest, attach. d, Copies of Outlook Delivery Confirmations; Decl. of ManTech Contracts Manager at 2.  At 1:59 p.m. EDT, ManTech removed the cover letter and again re-sent the e-mail with the proposal.  Protest, attach. c, ManTech E-Mails.  At 2:00 p.m. EDT, ManTech received confirmation of completed delivery through Outlook.  Protest, attach. d, Copies of Outlook Delivery Confirmations.  At 2:01 p.m. EDT, the contracting officer instructed ManTech not to send further e-mails because the deadline for the receipt of proposals had passed.  Decl. of ManTech Contracts Manager at 1.  Subsequently, the contracting officer informed ManTech that the agency had not received its proposal in the CSIACTAT@us.af.mil mailbox, and thus, that ManTech was not considered for award.  Id. at 2.  On July 27, ManTech submitted its protest to our Office. DISCUSSION ManTech asserts that the Air Force should be required to consider its proposal because the proposal was timely sent to the agency’s designated e-mail box, and ManTech received confirmation from its Outlook delivery system that it had been received.  ManTech notes in this regard that it reviewed the tracking record for the first sent e-mail which indicates that the Cisco IronPort system opened a Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) connection with the recipient at 13:28:47 (1:28 p.m. EDT), and received the SMPT remote response at 13:31:52 (1:31 p.m. EDT), three minutes later.  Protest at 6; Decl.