Culmen International, LLC (19AQMM22R0130)

B-422475 Jul 01, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights RELYANT Global, LLC, of Maryville, Tennessee, protests the rejection of its proposal by the Department of State, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 19AQMM22R0130, to facilitate and deliver law enforcement training to foreign partner nations to build their capacity and deter terrorist groups from engaging in international acts. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably rejected its proposal after required parts of RELYANT's proposal were received late. Even though portions of its revised price proposal were late, RELYANT argues the agency unreasonably failed to review its timely proposal submissions to assess if the proposal was nevertheless sufficient to constitute a complete proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: RELYANT Global, LLC File: B-422475 Date: July 1, 2024 Jared Garceau, Esq., for the protester. John W. Cox, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Jungi Hong, Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's decision to exclude the protester's revised proposal from the competition is denied where the protester's proposal was incomplete and did not comply with the plain terms of the solicitation. DECISION RELYANT Global, LLC, of Maryville, Tennessee, protests the rejection of its proposal by the Department of State, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 19AQMM22R0130, to facilitate and deliver law enforcement training to foreign partner nations to build their capacity and deter terrorist groups from engaging in international acts. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably rejected its proposal after required parts of RELYANT's proposal were received late. Even though portions of its revised price proposal were late, RELYANT argues the agency unreasonably failed to review its timely proposal submissions to assess if the proposal was nevertheless sufficient to constitute a complete proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was issued on July 17, 2023, and subsequently amended six times, contemplates the award of up to four indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts, and four initial task orders for foreign law enforcement training to support the Department's Global Antiterrorism Training Assistance mission. Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, RFP amend. No. 6, §§ C.1, M.3. The contracts will have a 1-year base period of performance and four, 1-year option periods, with fixed-price training delivery prices, fully burdened daily instructor labor rates, and cost-reimbursable items. Id., § B.2. The four task orders will also have 1-year base periods, and four, 1-year option periods. Id. The maximum value for all IDIQ contracts and associated task orders is $900 million. Id., § B.3. The RFP's amended closing date for the submission of initial proposals was January 16, 2024. Id., § A.14. Each offeror's proposal was to consist of ten volumes consisting of separate technical and pricing proposals for the IDIQ contract and each of the four task orders. Id., § L.9. The solicitation included detailed instructions regarding the preparation and submission of each of these volumes. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 3. Relevant to the issues presented here, offerors' price proposals were to include two distinct components. First, offerors were required to populate price proposal workbooks for the IDIQ contract and each of the four task orders; the price proposal workbooks were spreadsheets included as attachments to the RFP that offerors were to populate with their respective pricing information. See AR, Tab 8, RFP, amend. No. 6 §§ L.11.2.1, L.13.1. Second, for both the IDIQ contract and each of the four task orders, offerors were required to “include a written narrative entitled Price Proposal Notes that clearly explains their pricing methodology, structure and assumptions to include a discussion in response to the elements noted in this solicitation.” Id., §§ L.11, L.13.1. The RFP established that the supporting price proposal notes were mandatory, informing offerors that “[p]roposals not received in accordance with these instructions may be considered unacceptable and rejected.” Id., §§ L.11, L.13.1. The solicitation also warned offerors that “[f]ailure to furnish current and complete information requested may cause a proposal to be determined unacceptable and rejected.” Id., §§ L.11, L.13.1. Furthermore, the solicitation also generally stated that “[f]ailure to submit a complete proposal by the closing time and date . . .