QED Systems, LLC (RS3-19-0042)

B-419441.4 Jan 28, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights QED Systems, LLC, a small business of Aberdeen, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Envision Innovative Solutions, Inc., a small business of Manasquan, New Jersey, under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-19-0042 issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for engineering and technical support services. The protester challenges the agency's decision that the firm's final revised proposal was incomplete, and, thus, unevaluable and 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:  QED Systems, LLC File:  B-419441.4 Date:  January 28, 2022 Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq., John M. Mattox II, Esq., and Ian P. Patterson, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for the protester. E. Sanderson Hoe, Esq., Andrew R. Guy, Esq., and Anna M. Menzel, Esq., Covington & Burling LLP, for Envision Innovative Solutions, Inc., the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., Michael L. Hoyle, Esq., and Jennifer A. Janulewicz, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s decision not to consider firm’s proposal is denied where the proposal failed to comply with the solicitation’s instructions, and the solicitation permitted the agency to deem non-compliant proposals ineligible for award. DECISION QED Systems, LLC, a small business of Aberdeen, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Envision Innovative Solutions, Inc., a small business of Manasquan, New Jersey, under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. RS3-19-0042 issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for engineering and technical support services.  The protester challenges the agency’s decision that the firm’s final revised proposal was incomplete, and, thus, unevaluable and ineligible for award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 19, 2020, the agency issued the RFP, using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5 procedures, to small business holders of the agency’s Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 89; Tab 19, Solicitation Distribution at 2.[1]  The agency sought proposals for the provision of engineering and technical services to support the Army’s Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Center.[2]  AR, Tab 4, RFP attach. 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 2.  The solicitation contemplated issuance of a single task order with fixed-price and cost‑plus-fixed-fee contract line item numbers, a 30‑day transition-in period, an 11-month base period, and three 1-year option periods.  RFP at 89. As relevant here, the solicitation permitted subcontractors to submit their cost proposals directly to the agency, rather than to the prime contractor for inclusion in the prime’s proposal, “if the subcontractor deem[ed] its proposal contains proprietary data.”  RFP at 115.  Section L of the solicitation, “Instructions to Offerors,” required cost proposals submitted by either a prime or subcontractor to include three parts:  (1) a cost narrative; (2) a cost proposal; and (3) a sanitized cost proposal, which was to “be the same as the cost proposal but with all costs/prices deleted.”  Id. at 116, 121. The solicitation provided for use of a best-value tradeoff award methodology, in which the agency would compare the technical volumes of the proposals to their cost/price volumes to select the “best suited” offeror.  RFP at 127.  The technical volume was “significantly more important than” the cost/price volume.  Id.  Additionally, the solicitation established that offerors “must be determined eligible” for award, and that the agency would evaluate proposals “for compliance with submission requirements.”  Id.