Equitus Corporation ()

B-419701 May 12, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Equitus Corporation, a small business located in Clearwater, Florida, protests the Department of the Air Force's decision not to fund Equitus's phase II proposal under the Air Force's Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program solicitation No. J201-CS01, for research and development of defense-related dual purpose technologies/ solutions. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Equitus Corporation File:  B-419701 Date:  May 12, 2021 Robert Guidry, the protester. Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, and Josephine Farinelli, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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 raised subsequent to a post-award debriefing provided in connection with a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) procurement conducted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 638 is untimely where it was filed more than 10 days after the basis of protest was known; since the procurement was not conducted on the basis of competitive proposals, GAO’s timeliness rules at 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2), which apply to protests that challenge a procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals under which a debriefing is requested and required, are not applicable. DECISION   Equitus Corporation, a small business located in Clearwater, Florida, protests the Department of the Air Force’s decision not to fund Equitus’s phase II proposal under the Air Force’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program solicitation No. J201-CS01, for research and development of defense-related dual purpose technologies/solutions.[1]  The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND The Air Force issued the initial solicitation in December 2019 seeking proposals for SBIR topic J201-CSO1.  This topic was an open call for innovative, clear, defense-related dual purpose technologies/solutions with a clear stakeholder need.  Protest, exh. C, Notification at 1-2.  The agency posted the phase II proposal instructions in July 2020, and phase II proposals were due August 26.  Req. for Dismissal at 1.  Equitus submitted a phase II proposal in response to the solicitation.  Protest, exh. C, Notification at 2.  On December 15, 2020, Equitus received notification of its “tentative selection for an award” which stated that “[c]ontract award is dependent on successful contract negotiations, funds availability, and review of company qualifications and proposal documents.”  Id.   After evaluating proposals, the agency found that it would be inappropriate to fund Equitus’s proposal because the proposed effort “failed to meet the statutory definition of research and development” and lacked “the level of innovation required to allow the use of [the research, development, test and evaluation] RDT&E appropriation.”  Req. for Dismissal at 2; id., attach. 1, Memo for File at 2.  On March 10, 2021, the agency notified Equitus that its phase II proposal was not selected for award.  Protest, exh. B, Non-Award Letter at 1.  The letter advised Equitus that its proposal is “not‑awardable based on the requirement not fitting the requirement of research and development[.]”  Id.  The letter explained that “[o]verall, the proposal lacks the level of innovation required to satisfy the definition of [research and development] R&D or to allow the use of an R&D appropriation.”  Id.  Thereafter, Equitus requested a debriefing, which the Air Force provided on March 16.  On March 25, Equitus filed this protest with our Office.  DISCUSSION Equitus challenges the evaluation of its proposal, arguing that the Air Force applied an unreasonable interpretation of “R&D” and lacks an understanding of Equitus’s proposed effort.  The Air Force responds that the protest should be dismissed as untimely because it was filed more than 10 days after Equitus knew or should have known of the basis for protest.  Equitus asserts that it did not learn its basis of protest until receiving the debriefing, and that it properly filed its protest within 10 calendar days of that time.  For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the protest is untimely, and dismiss it on that basis. Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission of protests. The timeliness rules reflect the dual requirements of giving parties a fair opportunity to present their cases and resolving protests expeditiously without disrupting or delaying the procurement process.  The MIL Corp., B-297508, B-297508.2, Jan.