Gateway Ventures, Inc. (N66604-22-R-3001)

B-420965 Nov 22, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Gateway Ventures, Inc., of Norfolk, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to McLaughlin Research Corp., of Middletown, Rhode Island, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N66604-22-R-3001, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for engineering services to support the agency's towed hull and sensor system programs. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably eliminated its proposal from consideration. 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: Gateway Ventures, Inc. File: B-420965 Date: November 22, 2022 James Y. Boland, Esq., Allison M. Siegel, Esq.,and Lindsay M. Reed, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. Emilia M. Thompson, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Christine Milne, Esq., Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably eliminated the protester’s proposal from consideration is denied where the record shows that the agency properly determined that the protester’s proposal was unacceptable for failing to meet all of the solicitation’s pass/fail criteria. DECISION Gateway Ventures, Inc., of Norfolk, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to McLaughlin Research Corp., of Middletown, Rhode Island, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N66604-22-R-3001, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for engineering services to support the agency’s towed hull and sensor system programs. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably eliminated its proposal from consideration. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The facts in this case are straightforward and not in dispute. The RFP contemplates the issuance, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a cost-reimbursable task order under the Navy’s SeaPort Next Generation (SeaPort NxG) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts to perform engineering support services for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP, amend. 2 at 2-4, 7, 77.[1] Firms were advised that, in making the source selection, the agency would consider five pass/fail requirements; proposed/evaluated cost; and two equally-weighted non-cost factors, technical capability and past performance. Id. at 77-81. The RFP required firms to meet all five pass/fail factors in order to be eligible for issuance of the task order, and advised that failure to meet any one of the factors would render a proposal ineligible for issuance of the task order. Id. at 77. Because the solicited engineering services required the handling and storage of classified information, one of the pass/fail requirements was that offerors possess a facility security clearance (FSC); the FSC requirement is at the center of Gateway’s protest. The RFP provided that the agency would evaluate the FSC requirement on a pass/fail basis by determining whether an offeror’s FSC met the requirements specified in the Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specification form (DD Form 254) included with the solicitation. Id. at 77; RFP, attach. 1, DD Form 254. Offerors had to meet the requirements specified in DD Form 254 at the time of proposal submission. Id. During evaluations, the agency conducted an FSC verification check and learned that while Gateway possesses a secret-level facility security clearance, Gateway did not possess a “document safeguarding facility clearance”--specifically the capability to receive, store, and generate classified information--one of the requirements specified in DD Form 254. AR, Tab 3, Facility Verification Notification Checklist at 1; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 5. As a result, the agency eliminated Gateway’s proposal for failing to meet the FSC requirement. AR, Tab 6, Source Selection Decision Document at 2-3. The agency issued the task order to McLaughlin for $33,310,037, and notified Gateway the same day. After requesting and receiving a debriefing, Gateway filed the instant protest.[2] DISCUSSION Gateway argues that the agency erred in rejecting its proposal because the RFP did not require offerors to hold a document safeguarding facility clearance, which Gateway asserts is a separate requirement from a FSC. Protest at 1, 7. Gateway argues in the alternative that whether an offeror possesses a document safeguarding security clearance is a matter of responsibility. Id. at 10. We find no merit to Gateway’s protest.