Enigma International, LLC (W911W4-19-R-GTMO-III)

B-419672 May 12, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Global Dimensions, LLC (GDL), of Fredericksburg, Virginia, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. W911W4-19-R-GTMO III, issued by the Department of the Army for linguist support services. Global Dimensions complains that the Army unreasonably rejected its proposal for omitting a nondisclosure agreement. 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:  Global Dimensions, LLC File:  B-419672 Date:  May 12, 2021 Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., and Brett A. Castellat, Esq., Greenberg Traurig LLP, for the protester. Captain Philip L. Aubart, Department of the Army, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably rejected the protester’s proposal is denied where the rejection was consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION   Global Dimensions, LLC (GDL), of Fredericksburg, Virginia, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. W911W4‑19-R-GTMO III, issued by the Department of the Army for linguist support services.  Global Dimensions complains that the Army unreasonably rejected its proposal for omitting a nondisclosure agreement. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On December 20, 2019, the Army issued the RTOP against the Department of Defense Language Interpretation and Translation Enterprise II indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity contract to procure linguist support services at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Conformed RTOP at 2, 18; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2.  The selected contractor would be expected to interpret, translate, and transcribe information obtained from enemy combatant detainees.  RTOP at 19.  The RTOP contemplated the issuance of a task order to be performed on both time‑and-materials and cost‑reimbursable bases over a 1-year base period and four 1‑year option periods.  RTOP at 3-16.  The task order had an estimated value of [DELETED].  COS at 2.  Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering management and cost/price factors.  RTOP at 75, 77-79.  Importantly, the RTOP advised, as part of the evaluation criteria, that the agency would conduct a compliance review.  RTOP at 75.  Specifically, the RTOP advised under section M.2.2, Compliance Review, that “[a]fter receipt of proposals, but prior to the evaluation process, the Government will perform a compliance review of the offeror’s proposal to determine the extent of compliance to the solicitation instructions, and whether the proposal meets any of the conditions listed in M.4, Rejection of Offerors.”  Id.  One of the conditions for rejection included failing to respond meaningfully to the proposal preparation instructions by omitting significant material data and information.  Id. at 76.  The RTOP instructed offerors that a third-party firm may serve as a non‑government advisor during the source selection process.  RTOP at 69.  Because the third-party firm may require access to proprietary information, offerors were required to contact the third-party firm directly to form a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).  Id.  When submitting their proposals, the RTOP advised that “[e]ach offeror shall submit copies of the agreement with their proposal.”  Id. GDL and multiple other offerors submitted proposals prior to the January 4, 2021, close of the solicitation period.  AR, Tab 6, Compliance Checklist Results at 1.  The Army rejected GDL’s proposal because the proposal omitted the NDA with the non‑government advisor.[1]  Id. at 6; see also AR, Tab 5, Compliance Checklist--GDL (showing that the agency determined that firm’s proposal lacked the required NDA, and therefore omitted significant information required by the RTOP); see also Protest at 3 (acknowledging that the firm did not submit the NDA as part of its proposal).  After learning that its proposal was rejected, GDL filed this protest with our Office.[2] DISCUSSION GDL asserts that the Army unreasonably rejected the firm’s proposal.[3]  GDL argues that the RTOP did not require firms to submit the NDA.  Protest at 4-5 (arguing that the NDA did not constitute required proposal content).  Alternatively, GDL argues that the NDA did not constitute a material requirement because the agreement does not affect the price, quantity, or delivery of the services.  Id.