Department of the Air Force (FA872624RB021)

B-422938.3 Feb 05, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Department of the Air Force requests that our Office modify the recommendation in our decision in ATP Gov, LLC, B-422938, B-422938.2, Dec. 12, 2024, 2024 CPD ¶ 306. In that decision, we sustained a protest filed by ATP Gov, LLC, a small business of Elk Grove, Illinois, concluding that the agency erred by issuing a delivery order to iGov Technologies, Inc., a small business of Reston, Virginia, for satellite terminal assemblies because iGov's proposed equipment did not conform to material requirements of the solicitation. We recommended that the agency either reevaluate the proposals it received and make award to an offeror that proposed a terminal assembly that met the solicitation's requirements or revise the solicitation to better reflect the agency's needs. The agency argues that performance of the delivery order to iGov is ongoing and that reevaluating or amending the solicitation would entail unacceptable delays and costs. The agency asks us to modify our recommendation to recommend that the agency pay ATP's proposal preparation costs in lieu of reevaluating proposals or amending the solicitation. We dismiss the request because it is untimely. 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: Department of the Air Force File: B-422938.3 Date: February 5, 2025 Colonel Nina R. Padalino, Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Michael J. Farr, Esq., Rachel C. D’Orazio, Esq., Major Jason B. Hebert, and Sean M. Hannaway, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Laurel A. Hockey, Esq., Daniel Strouse, Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., Pablo Nichols, Esq., Rhina Cardenal, Esq., and Jason W. Moy, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for ATP Gov, LLC, an intervenor. Shomari B. Wade, Esq, Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., Christopher M. O’Brien, Esq., and Timothy M. McLister, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for iGov Technologies, Inc., an intervenor. Michael Willems, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for modification of remedy is dismissed as untimely when it was filed more than ten days after the filer knew or should have known the basis of its request. DECISION The Department of the Air Force requests that our Office modify the recommendation in our decision in ATP Gov, LLC, B-422938, B-422938.2, Dec. 12, 2024, 2024 CPD ¶ 306. In that decision, we sustained a protest filed by ATP Gov, LLC, a small business of Elk Grove, Illinois, concluding that the agency erred by issuing a delivery order to iGov Technologies, Inc., a small business of Reston, Virginia, for satellite terminal assemblies because iGov’s proposed equipment did not conform to material requirements of the solicitation. We recommended that the agency either reevaluate the proposals it received and make award to an offeror that proposed a terminal assembly that met the solicitation’s requirements or revise the solicitation to better reflect the agency’s needs. The agency argues that performance of the delivery order to iGov is ongoing and that reevaluating or amending the solicitation would entail unacceptable delays and costs. The agency asks us to modify our recommendation to recommend that the agency pay ATP’s proposal preparation costs in lieu of reevaluating proposals or amending the solicitation.[1] We dismiss the request because it is untimely. BACKGROUND On May 2, 2024, the agency issued fair opportunity proposal request FA872624RB021 for theater deployable small military satellite communications equipment and associated services.[2] Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a single fixed-price delivery order with delivery of a first integration test terminal due six months after issuance. Id. The solicitation provided numerous “threshold” requirements that were mandatory for award, as well as other “objective” requirements that were optional but desirable. See Agency Report (AR), Tab 9e, Technical Requirements Document at 8. Relevant here, among the threshold requirements was a requirement that terminals “shall provide auto-tracking/auto-acquire functionality,” and that this requirement would be verified by demonstration. Id. at 15, 46. Additionally, the solicitation also required that “[t]he terminal assembly shall be certified via [Army Forces Strategic Command] for operation with the antenna(s), allowing transmission over [Wideband Global Satellite Communications (WGS)] when integrated with WGS-certified equipment.” Id. at 18.