New Generation Solution, LLC (RFP-832268164)

B-421941 Oct 24, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights New Generation Solution, LLC (NGS), a small business joint venture of McLean, Virginia, protests its elimination from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. 832268164, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) for information technology engineering development and sustainment services. The protester contends the agency's decision to eliminate its proposal from the competition was contrary to the terms of the solicitation, or, in the alternative, the solicitation was latently ambiguous. 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: New Generation Solution, LLC File: B-421941 Date: October 24, 2023 W. Brad English, Esq., Emily J. Chancey, Esq., Jon D. Levin, Esq., and Nicholas P. Greer, Esq., Maynard Nexsen, PC, for the protester. Russell W. Bottom, Esq., and Daniel C. McIntosh, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably rejected protester’s proposal where the offeror failed to submit its proposal in accordance with the solicitation’s instructions, and where those instructions were not reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. DECISION New Generation Solution, LLC (NGS), a small business joint venture of McLean, Virginia, protests its elimination from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. 832268164, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) for information technology engineering development and sustainment services. The protester contends the agency’s decision to eliminate its proposal from the competition was contrary to the terms of the solicitation, or, in the alternative, the solicitation was latently ambiguous. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on February 24, 2023, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to firms holding DISA’s ENCORE III small business suite multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 1.[1] The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a single task order, with fixed-price contract line items, with a 1‑year base period of performance and four 1‑year option periods. Id. DISA sought contractor support to design, plan, install, configure, and maintain systems and services for DISA’s Compute Center’s enterprise and cloud hosting, storage, backup, and virtualization desktop infrastructure programs. AR, Tab 2, attach 1, Statement of Work at 1. The solicitation advised that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering (1) technical/management approach and (2) price.[2] RFP at 4-6. In conducting its evaluation, DISA would first ensure that each proposal met the administrative requirements outlined in the RFP, and then would evaluate the underlying merits of each proposal. Id. at 4. The RFP provided that “[i]f an offeror is considered to not meet or adhere to any part of the administrative requirements of the RFP, their technical/management proposal will not be evaluated, and they will not be considered for award.” Id. at 4. As relevant to this protest, the solicitation explained that “[w]ork performed under this task order is up to the Secret level,” and, as a result, offerors were required to complete and submit a Department of Defense (DD) Form 254.[3] Id. at 2. The RFP stated: The DD Form 254(s) shall be submitted in the original Government-provided, Attachment 3, PDF form. Completed DD Forms 254 in the original fillable form and format shall be submitted with proposals, or the offeror will be ineligible for award and their proposal will not be considered further. Id. On April 18, NGS submitted its proposal, to include its DD Form 254. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 8; AR, Tab 3, attach. 3, NGS DD Form 254. On April 19, the agency conducted an administrative review of the submitted proposals and determined that NGS’s proposal failed to comply with the administrative requirement for submission of the DD Form 254. COS/MOL at 8; AR, Tab 4, Administrative Proposal Review at line 10 (notating that while the protester submitted a DD Form 254 in a PDF format, it “is no longer fillable.”). On August 23, the agency notified NGS that its proposal would not be considered for award. AR, Tab 5, Pre-award Unsuccessful Offeror Letter at 1. DISA explained that the submitted DD Form 254 was submitted as “a PDF but is no longer fillable” and that “[t]he use of a non‑fillable form is not the original Government-provided PDF form.” Id.