Ace Electronics Defense Systems, LLC (N633942-20-R-0038)

B-420863 Sep 02, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ace Electronics Defense Systems (Ace), a small business located in Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract in support of mission package consoles for Littoral Combat Ship platforms to Cemtrol Inc., a small business located in Anaheim, California. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N63394-20-R-0038. Ace protests the agency's refusal to consider its final proposal revision (FPR). We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Ace Electronics Defense Systems, LLC File: B-420863 Date: September 2, 2022 Adam Bruski, Esq., Warner Norcross + Judd LLP, for the protester. Andrea Maglasang-Miller, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Michelle E. Litteken, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s decision not to consider protester’s proposal is denied where the record shows that the proposal was never received by the agency. DECISION Ace Electronics Defense Systems (Ace), a small business located in Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract in support of mission package consoles for Littoral Combat Ship platforms to Cemtrol Inc., a small business located in Anaheim, California. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N63394‑20-R-0038. Ace protests the agency’s refusal to consider its final proposal revision (FPR). We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On December 3, 2020, the Navy issued the RFP for procurement and manufacturing of materiel, assembly of materiel, quality assurance, and delivery of materiel in support of mission package consoles for Littoral Combat Ship platforms. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 2, RFP, Statement of Work (SOW) at 85. The solicitation required that proposals be submitted electronically to the contracting officer and the contract specialist, and it provided their respective e-mail addresses. RFP § L, ¶ 7.7.3. In January 2022, after the receipt of initial proposals, the Navy established a competitive range that included Ace’s proposal. See AR, Exh. 1, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; AR, Exh. 4.1, Email from Agency to Protester, Jan. 21, 2022. On January 27, 2022, the Navy issued amendment 8, which closed discussions, required that final proposal revisions be submitted electronically to the contracting officer and the contract specialist, and provided their respective email addresses. AR, Exh. 2.2, amend. 8 at 1. FPRs were due no later than 10:00 a.m. Pacific Standard Time on February 11. Id. The protester reports, and the agency does not dispute, that Ace attempted to submit its FPR on the morning of February 11. Protest at 1; Protest exh. B, Email from Protester to Agency, Feb. 11, 2022; COS at 2. According to the protester, it was not aware that the Navy had not received the February 11 email until June 29, 2022, when the agency informed Ace via email that the Navy did not receive an FPR from Ace. Protest at 1; see also AR, Exh. 4.5, Email from Agency to Protester, June 29, 2022. The agency states that emails sent from a commercial email service to a “us.navy.mil” address are routed to the government’s Enterprise Email Security Gateway (EEMSG) for screening. AR, Exh. 5, Decl. of Network Eng’r ¶ 3. If an email complies with the EEMSG requirements, the email is then transmitted to a Navy email security gateway where it is screened against the Navy’s policies. Id. The agency email addresses relevant to this protest utilize the FlankSpeed server. AR, Exh. 6, Decl. of Forensic Analyst ¶ 4. The FlankSpeed server has a maximum file size limitation of 30MB for external emails, and emails that exceed that limit are blocked. Id. ¶ 5. On July 7, 2022, Ace filed this protest with our Office. After receiving the protest, the agency conducted an investigation to determine whether the contracting officer and contract specialist received an email transmitting Ace’s FPR on February 11. COS at 2. The investigation found that the total size of Ace’s February 11 email was 31.58MB. AR, Exh. 5, Decl. of Network Eng’r ¶ 8; AR, Exh. 5.1, EEMSG log. The Navy determined that Ace’s February 11 email was received by the EEMSG, and when the EEMSG attempted to transmit the email to the contracting officer’s and contract specialist’s respective inboxes, the FlankSpeed server rejected the email because it exceeded the server’s file size limit. AR, Exh. 5, Decl. of Network Eng’r ¶ 8. The Navy concluded that the contracting officer and contract specialist did not receive Ace’s February 11 email. AR, Exh. 3, Decl. of Procuring Contracting Officer ¶ 5; AR, Exh. 4, AR, Exh.