D+S International, LLC (19AQMM24R0034)

B-422967 Dec 30, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights D+S International, LLC, of New York, New York, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. 19AQMM-24-R0034, issued by the Department of State, for comprehensive architectural and engineering services. The protester challenges the agency's determination that D+S was not eligible to compete because it failed to meet the solicitation's System for Award Management (SAM) registration requirement. We dismiss the protest as untimely. View Decision Decision Matter of: D+S International, LLC File: B-422967 Date: December 30, 2024 Anthony J. Mazzeo, Esq., Michael L. Sterling, Esq., and Sophia L. Arnold, Esq., Woods Rogers Vandeventer Black, PLC, for the protester. Kathleen D. Martin, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency unreasonably excluded protester from competition for failing to register its de facto joint venture arrangement in the System for Award Management (SAM) is dismissed as an untimely challenge to the terms of the solicitation, where the defect in the solicitation--the impossibility of registering a de facto joint venture arrangement in SAM--was readily apparent on the face of the solicitation. DECISION D+S International, LLC, of New York, New York, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. 19AQMM-24-R0034, issued by the Department of State, for comprehensive architectural and engineering services. The protester challenges the agency’s determination that D+S was not eligible to compete because it failed to meet the solicitation’s System for Award Management (SAM) registration requirement. We dismiss the protest as untimely. BACKGROUND The agency posted the solicitation on SAM.gov on February 9, 2024, seeking qualified architect/engineer firm‑led teams of licensed professionals to provide comprehensive architectural and engineering services for agency facilities worldwide. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 1. The solicitation anticipated the award of 12 indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity contracts, with at least three contracts set aside for qualified small businesses, for a 1‑year base period and four 1‑year option periods. RFP at 1. The solicitation contemplated a three-stage selection process under the Brooks Act, Pub. L. No. 92‑582 (40 U.S.C. §§ 1101‑1104) and specified the submission requirements and evaluation criteria for stage one proposals. Id. at 2, 3‑6. In stage one, offerors were instructed to submit “detailed information of the Prime [architect/engineer’s] design past performance, firm profile and design approach, and portfolio.” RFP at 2. Offerors’ stage one submissions would be reviewed and ranked by the technical evaluation panel and the highest technically qualified offerors would be selected for the shortlist of offerors to advance to stage two of the procurement. Id. The solicitation also required the submission of a “U.S. Person Qualifications (Omnibus certification) as a separate file” in their stage one submission. Id. The solicitation advised that “Offerors must be determined eligible as an Omnibus U.S. Person, in order to participate, if short-listed, in the next Stage 2 of the solicitation.” Id. Referred to as the “Omnibus” in the solicitation, the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, as amended (Security Act), established several statutory qualification requirements for firms seeking to compete for contracts to design and construct diplomatic facilities located overseas. See 22 U.S.C. §§ 4852‑4856. The Security Act requires that, where adequate competition exists, only United States persons and qualified joint venture persons may bid on a diplomatic construction or design project. Id. § 4852(a). The term “United States person” is defined in the Security Act as an entity which, among other things, “has performed within the United States, or at a United States diplomatic or consular establishment abroad, administrative and technical, professional, or construction services similar in complexity, type of construction, and value to the project being bid” and “has the existing technical and financial resources in the United States to perform the contract.” Id. § 4852(c)(2)(D) and (G). In addition, the term “qualified United States joint venture person” is defined as “a joint venture in which a United States person or persons owns at least 51 percent of the assets of the joint venture.” Id.