Mission1st Group, Inc. (W52P1J-19-R-I3MP)

B-419522 Mar 15, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Mission1st Group, Inc. (MGI), of Arlington, Virginia, protests the elimination of its proposal from consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-19-R-13MP, issued by the Department of the Army to acquire systems engineering and technical assistance, and program management office support services. MGI argues that the agency unreasonably eliminated its proposal for failing to include evidence demonstrating that the firm was International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001:2015 certified for the 2-year period preceding the deadline for submission of proposals. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Mission1st Group, Inc. File:  B-419522 Date:  March 15, 2021 Justin A. Chiarodo, Esq., Stephanie M. Harden, Esq., and Oliver E. Jury, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for the protester. Eric A. Harder Smith, Esq., and Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s elimination of proposal from consideration for failure to satisfy a material solicitation requirement is denied where record shows that protester, in fact, failed to satisfy the requirement. DECISION   Mission1st Group, Inc. (MGI), of Arlington, Virginia, protests the elimination of its proposal from consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-19-R-13MP, issued by the Department of the Army to acquire systems engineering and technical assistance, and program management office support services.  MGI argues that the agency unreasonably eliminated its proposal for failing to include evidence demonstrating that the firm was International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001:2015 certified for the 2-year period preceding the deadline for submission of proposals.  We deny the protest. This case involves just a single issue and the facts are not in dispute.  The RFP contemplates the issuance of a task order for the solicited services.[1]  Among other things, the RFP included a “go/no-go” evaluation factor requiring each offeror to possess a capability maturity model integration (CMMI) level II certificate, and also an ISO 9001:2015 certificate.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 29. RFP, amend. No. 0002, at 17-18.[2]  With respect to the latter requirement, the RFP required each offeror to provide a current, valid, dated certificate documenting that the prime contractor possessed an ISO 9001:2015 certificate for a period of two years prior to the deadline for submitting proposals.  Id.  The deadline for submitting proposals was October 5, 2020.  AR, exh.  28, amend. No. 0002 Summary of Changes at 1.  In effect, offerors were required to show that they possessed a current/valid ISO 9001:2015 certificate, and also that they had possessed one during the interval of October 5, 2018 to October 5, 2020. In response to the RFP, MGI included only its current/valid ISO 9001:2015 certificate.  AR, exh. 43, MGI Proposal, Vol. 1, CMMI/ISO Certification Volume at 5.  That certificate was issued on December 27, 2019, and is valid for a 3-year period ending on December 26, 2022.  Id.  MGI provided no information in its proposal to show that it had possessed an ISO 9001:2015 certificate for the time period between October 5, 2018 and December 27, 2019.  After examining the MGI proposal, the agency rejected it without further evaluation based on the firm’s failure to meet the RFP’s requirement to demonstrate that it had possessed an ISO 9001:2015 certificate for the 2-year time period specified (October 5, 2018 to October 5, 2020).  After being advised of the agency’s rejection of its proposal and requesting and receiving a debriefing, MGI filed the current protest. MGI argues that the agency erred in rejecting its proposal.  MGI states that it reasonably read the RFP as requiring only that it provide its current/valid ISO 9001:2015 certificate, and not as also requiring it to submit outdated or expired certificates.  MGI states that it has been ISO 9001:2015 certified since 2016, and that it would have included an expired certificate with its proposal had it understood the RFP to require its submission or, alternatively, had the agency simply requested that the certificate be provided after the submission of its proposal.  MGI maintains that the RFP was latently ambiguous as to the requirement for any expired certificate. We find no merit to MGI’s protest.  A latent ambiguity exists where both the protester and the agency have reasonable interpretations of a solicitation term or requirement.  AECOM Management Services, Inc.--Advisory Opinion, B-417506.12, Sept.