Distributed Solutions, Inc.

B-416394 Aug 13, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Distributed Solutions, Inc., (DSI) of Reston, Virginia, protests the rejection of its proposal, submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. N00039-17-R-0002, which was issued by the Department of the Navy, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), for an electronic procurement system. DSI challenges the agency's assessment that the firm's proposal was nonresponsive based on the failure to comply with several aspects of the solicitation. 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:  Distributed Solutions, Inc. File:  B-416394 Date:  August 13, 2018 Lawrence M. Prosen, Esq., Gunjan R. Talati, Esq., and Nicholas J. Nieto, Esq., Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, for the protester. Libbi Finelsen, Esq., and Agu Onuma, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of agency's decision to reject proposal as nonresponsive is denied where proposal failed to comply with material solicitation requirements in multiple respects. DECISION Distributed Solutions, Inc., (DSI) of Reston, Virginia, protests the rejection of its proposal, submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. N00039-17-R-0002, which was issued by the Department of the Navy, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), for an electronic procurement system.  DSI challenges the agency's assessment that the firm's proposal was nonresponsive based on the failure to comply with several aspects of the solicitation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND SPAWAR issued the RFP on July 13, 2017, seeking a contractor to develop a commercial electronic procurement system (ePS) for the Navy.  The RFP, issued pursuant to the negotiated procurement procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, contemplated the award of a hybrid contract with both fixed-price and cost-reimbursable line items, for a 10-year period of performance, which included a 1.5-year base period and nine option periods.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 1, RFP amend. 7, at 251, 310, 357.[1]  The contract was to be awarded on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering five evaluation factors.[2]  Id. at 381. The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of proposals.  In this respect, the RFP specified that offerors structure their proposals in seven volumes, five of which corresponded to the evaluation criteria and the other two volumes encompassed various administrative materials and required forms.  Id. at 360-63, § L-9.1.  Of relevance here, proposal volume VI (referred to as the "Offer/Signed Solicitation Set" volume) was to include miscellaneous solicitation items such as a cover letter, certain standard forms (e.g., Standard Form 33 (SF 33)), the completed RFP sections A-K, and the DD Form 254,[3] among other materials.  Id. at 363, § L-9.1.  For each of these volume VI documents, the solicitation stipulated numerous, clearly stated requirements, as discussed more fully below.  See id. at 375-76, § L-10.7. The solicitation also addressed the importance of compliance with the various proposal requirements.  In this respect, the RFP cautioned that "[t]o be considered for award, the Offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by the RFP and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions.  The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated."  Id. at 360, § L-8.1.  The RFP further highlighted that the government "reserves the right to reject any proposal that does not comply with proposal preparation instructions."  Id., § L-8.2.  Indeed, the solicitation reiterated the importance of compliance with the instructions, expressly warning that "Offerors must comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposals.  Proposals that do not comply may be considered nonresponsive, and may render the Offeror ineligible for award."  Id. at 365-66, § L-9.5.  Furthermore, the RFP advised that the government intended to award the contract without conducting discussions, and therefore the offeror's initial proposal was to contain the offeror's "best terms."  Id. at 381, § M-1.7.1. DSI timely submitted a proposal prior to the December 18, 2017, submission deadline.  As an initial step, a SPAWAR contracting officer reviewed proposals, including DSI's, for compliance with the solicitation's numerous, detailed instructions.  COS/MOL at 7.  With respect to DSI's proposal, the contracting officer identified several aspects of the offer that were not in compliance with the RFP, four of which are at issue here.[4]  Id. at 8-9; AR, exh.