VXL Enterprises, LLC (19AQMM21R0201)

B-420497 Feb 18, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CGS-ASP Security JV, LLC, of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the elimination of its proposal from consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. 19AQMM21R0201, issued by the Department of State (DOS) for security guard services at various locations in France. CGS argues that the agency improperly eliminated its proposal from consideration because the firm was not registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) at the time it submitted its proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  CGS-ASP Security JV LLC File:  B-420497 Date:  February 18, 2022 Robert Nichols, Esq., Andrew Victor, Esq., and Madison Plumber, Esq., Nichols Liu LLP, for the protester. Kathleen D. Martin, Esq., Department of State, 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 Agency properly rejected proposal submitted by protester because the firm did not have an active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) by the deadline established for proposal submission; the solicitation expressly required offerors to have an active SAM registration by the deadline for proposal submission as a precondition to the agency performing a substantive evaluation of the proposal. DECISION CGS-ASP Security JV, LLC, of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the elimination of its proposal from consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. 19AQMM21R0201, issued by the Department of State (DOS) for security guard services at various locations in France.  CGS argues that the agency improperly eliminated its proposal from consideration because the firm was not registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) at the time it submitted its proposal. We deny the protest. The facts of this case are straightforward and not in dispute.  On July 29, 2021, the agency published a pre-solicitation notice advising that it intended to solicit its requirement.  On October 13, the agency issued the RFP, which established a deadline for submission of proposals on December 15.  As is relevant here, the RFP included the provision at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.204-7 which, among other things, requires an offeror to be registered in SAM at the time it submits its offer.  In addition the RFP included another provision that provided as follows: Offerors, including any offeror organized as a joint venture, must have an active SAM registration at the time of proposal submission and throughout the procurement process.  Any offeror whose registration is not active in SAM at the time of proposal submission will be excluded from the process and their proposals will not be evaluated. RFP at 89.  (bold in original, italics supplied) The protester represents that on October 26, some two weeks after the agency issued the RFP, it incorporated as a joint venture and, thereafter, on November 15, submitted its application for registration in SAM.  That same day, the protester represents that it received a SAM-generated e-mail stating that its taxpayer identification number (TIN) had to be validated by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and that this process could take up to two days.  The protester further represents that on November 17, it received a second SAM-generated e-mail stating that the TIN validation process had failed.  CGS represents that it tried unsuccessfully several more times to register in the SAM before the deadline for submission of proposals.  The protester states that on December 14, it submitted its proposal to the agency but, as of that time, it did not have an active registration in SAM. By letter dated January 4, 2022, the agency advised CGS that its proposal had been excluded from consideration because the firm did not have an active SAM registration at the time of proposal submission.  Agency Request for Dismissal, exh. 3, Proposal Exclusion Letter.  CGS filed an agency-level protest challenging the exclusion of its proposal from consideration; the agency denied CGS’s protest; and CGS then filed the current protest with our Office. CGS argues that it was improper for the agency to have excluded its proposal from consideration.  CSG maintains that it was the fault of the government that it did not have an active SAM registration at the time of proposal submission because of confusion surrounding its attempt to register in SAM as a joint venture.