Tope Technology, LLC

B-416663.6 Oct 16, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tope Technology, LLC, an 8(a) small business concern located in Clearfield, Utah, protests the award of a contract to ML-TKL Construction JV, an 8(a) small business concern, of Springville, Utah, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91151-17-R-0064, issued by the Department of the Army, for construction services. Tope challenges the Army's evaluation of its proposal as noncompliant with the solicitation's formatting requirements and thus ineligible for award. 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:  Tope Technology, LLC File:  B-416663.6 Date:  October 16, 2019 John C. Dulske, Esq., and Bryan L. Kost, Esq., Dykema Gossett PLLC, for the protester. Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Robert Neill, Esq., Robert Nelson, Esq., and Eugenee M. Gray, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal as noncompliant with the solicitation’s formatting requirements and thus ineligible for award is denied where the agency reasonably conducted an initial assessment of proposals for compliance with the solicitation’s published formatting requirements in accordance with the amended solicitation terms. DECISION Tope Technology, LLC, an 8(a) small business concern located in Clearfield, Utah, protests the award of a contract to ML-TKL Construction JV, an 8(a) small business concern, of Springville, Utah, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91151-17-R-0064, issued by the Department of the Army, for construction services.  Tope challenges the Army’s evaluation of its proposal as noncompliant with the solicitation’s formatting requirements and thus ineligible for award.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the solicitation on August 21, 2017, as a set-aside for participants in the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 8(a) program.  The RFP sought construction services for a broad variety of minor construction projects at the U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground in Utah.  RFP at 1.  The solicitation contemplated the award of a single, fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for a base year with four 12-month options.  RFP at 1, 18, 23.  The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following three factors:  (1) technical, (2) past performance, and (3) price.  Specifically, the solicitation provided that first proposals would be evaluated for technical acceptability, followed by a tradeoff analysis conducted between the past performance and price factors.  Id. at 25. The solicitation provided that offerors should submit their proposals in four separate volumes, to include, as relevant here, a price proposal.  With regard to the format of the price proposal, the initial solicitation provided that “[a]ll Excel formulas, lookup tables, and links shall be intact, and no links shall exist to files not included with the submission.”  Id. at 24.  It also provided that “[e]xcel workbooks should not contain hidden spreadsheets.”  Id.  In addition, the RFP explained that “PDF or flat files will not be considered adequate” and that “[f]ailure to comply with these formatting requirements may result in rejection of the proposal.”  Id. On October 6, 2017, Tope submitted a proposal in response to the RFP that included its price proposal in PDF format.  Protest at 3.  In April 2018, the agency provided evaluation notices (ENs) to Tope that identified several deficiencies with Tope’s technical proposal.  None of the ENs mentioned an issue with the PDF format of Tope’s price proposal.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 12, Tope ENs, at 1-19.  Tope responded to the ENs.  Id.   On August 7, the Army notified Tope that its proposal had been excluded from the competition because it had been found noncompliant under the mission capability factor, and therefore, was technically unacceptable and would not be considered for award.  AR, Tab 13, Notice of Elimination, at 1.  After receiving a pre‑award debriefing, Tope filed a protest with our Office.  In response, the agency took corrective action and our Office dismissed the protest as academic.  Tope Technology, LLC, B-416663.2, B‑416663.3, Sept.