Sotera Defense Solutions, Inc.

B-415723 Feb 28, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sotera Defense Solutions, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, challenges the elimination of its proposal from competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. W900KK-17-R-0014, issued by the Department of the Army, for training support services. The protester argues that the solicitation contained a latent ambiguity that resulted in the agency's improper exclusion of its proposal from the competition. 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:  Sotera Defense Solutions, Inc. File:  B-415723 Date:  February 28, 2018 Paul A. Debolt, Esq., James Y. Boland, Esq., Emily A. Unnasch, Esq., and Jengeih S. Tamba, Esq., Venable, LLP, for the protester. Captain Matthew Wilson and Deborah Muldoon, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging an ambiguity in a solicitation is denied where the protester does not demonstrate that its interpretation of the provision is reasonable. DECISION Sotera Defense Solutions, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, challenges the elimination of its proposal from competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. W900KK-17-R-0014, issued by the Department of the Army, for training support services.  The protester argues that the solicitation contained a latent ambiguity that resulted in the agency’s improper exclusion of its proposal from the competition.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on August 8, 2017, contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, with a 7-year ordering period and maximum contract value of $785,000,000.  RFP at 1, 2.[1]  The purpose of the contract is for the acquisition of services for the Army Intelligence Center of Excellence in support of their training and support missions at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.[2]  Agency Report (AR), Combined Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COSMOL) at 1-2.  The solicitation provided that fixed-price and cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee task orders would be issued under the contract.  RFP at 2, 64.  Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors:  program management, small business participation, past performance, and total evaluated cost/price (TECP).  Id. at 81.  The solicitation advised offerors that the government intended to strictly enforce all of the solicitation/proposal submission requirements outlined in section L of the solicitation.  Id. at 80.  The solicitation also advised that the government would utilize a compliance matrix--which was included in the solicitation--to screen the proposals.  Id.; see also id. at 71-72; id., section J, attach. 9, Compliance Matrix.  The compliance matrix was a table/chart that referenced 52 areas of section L for which offerors were to provide references to applicable sections of their proposals.  Id., section J, attach. 9, Compliance Matrix.  The matrix also included a “[g]overnment [c]heck” column, in which the agency would indicate whether “the offeror has followed the instructions of [s]ection L,” by checking it as “complete,” as appropriate.  Id.  The solicitation warned that failure to comply with the solicitation requirements and have items checked as “complete” would result an offeror’s proposal being rejected and not being evaluated.  RFP at 80; see also id. at 66.  Relevant here is solicitation instruction L.6.5.1, Cost/Price Workbook, which was also referenced in the compliance matrix.  Id. at 77; id., section J, attach. 9, Compliance Matrix.at 3.  For the TECP factor, the solicitation, as amended, instructed offerors to submit a workbook as follows: The completed workbook shall be consistent with the instructions and consistent with the offeror’s proposal (for example, labor rates proposed in the workbook shall match those presented in the Total Compensation Plan, if applicable, in Volume I of the proposal, and the subcontractors shall match those presented in [Federal Acquisition Regulation] FAR Clause 52.244-2, Subcontracts).  All of the offeror’s applicable rates (and all subcontractor(s)’s applicable fully burdened rates) shall be included in the workbook.  The list of subcontractors will be listed in Section I of the resultant contract, FAR Clause 52.244-2, Subcontracts, and will be binding within HTASC. RFP at 77.  The solicitation further instructed with regard to rates that “[t]he offeror (to include the prime and any subcontractors for the purposes of [the instructions with regard to rates] shall provide . . .