Futron Inc. (FA2396-22-F-0174)

B-420703 Jul 25, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Futron, Inc., a small business of Woodbridge, Virginia, protests the rejection of its proposal under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. FA2396-22-F-0174, issued by the Department of the Air Force for aerospace structures experimental support services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably found the firm's proposal non-compliant with the solicitation's instructions. The protester also contends that the agency was required to make a referral to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) for a certificate of competency (COC) determination before rejecting Futron's proposal. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Futron, Inc. File: B-420703 Date: July 25, 2022 Brian A. Darst, Esq., for the protester. Colonel Frank Yoon, Major Alissa J. Schrider, Edward S. Fisher, Esq., and Major Jacquelyn C. Fiorello, Department of the Air Force, 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 1. Agency reasonably rejected protester’s proposal for failing to attach certain completed representations with its cover letter where the solicitation warned offerors that failure to submit them would result in the proposal being deemed ineligible for award. 2. Protest alleging that the agency was required to refer the firm’s eligibility for award to the U.S. Small Business Administration for a certificate of competency determination is denied where the agency rejected the protester’s proposal for failure to submit required information, which did not constitute a responsibility-type determination. DECISION Futron, Inc., a small business of Woodbridge, Virginia, protests the rejection of its proposal under task order request for proposals (RFP) No. FA2396-22-F-0174, issued by the Department of the Air Force for aerospace structures experimental support services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably found the firm’s proposal non-compliant with the solicitation’s instructions. The protester also contends that the agency was required to make a referral to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) for a certificate of competency (COC) determination before rejecting Futron’s proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On January 24, 2022, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the agency issued the RFP to small business holders of General Services Administration (GSA) One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFP Amend. 2 at 1.[1] The agency sought proposals for a contractor to provide personnel, equipment, materials, and services in support of the Air Force Research Laboratory, Aerospace Systems Directorate, Aerospace Vehicles Division, Structural Validation Branch (AFRL/RQVV). AR, Tab 4, Initial RFP at 12. The AFRL/RQVV “plans, manages, and conducts experimental activities to validate advanced structural designs and simulations to improve aerospace vehicle performance,” and “provides dynamic, thermal, and mechanical experiments to satisfy the requirements of Aerospace Vehicles Division researchers” as well as customers from other parts of the Air Force, Department of Defense, “other agencies, industry, and academia.” Id. The solicitation contemplated issuance of a hybrid fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee task order with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. AR, Tab 6, RFP Amend. 2 at 1, 4. The solicitation provided for award to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering technical and price evaluation factors, with the technical factor being more important than price. Id. at 1, 5-6. The solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate “all proposals that are in compliance with the criteria set forth in Table 1 of” the solicitation. Id. at 5. Table 1 established the three proposal sections offerors were required to submit--cover letter, technical proposal, and price proposal--as well as the page limitations and content requirements for each section. Id. at 3-4. Additionally, the solicitation provided that proposals should be “all-inclusive and not refer or require the government to external communication mediums to supplement the proposal.” Id. at 3. The solicitation further established that, for task order award, the agency would select a proposal that conformed to the solicitation requirements, including “all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the submission instructions.” Id.