Emerge Solutions Group, LLC

B-423299.2 Aug 01, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Maryland, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. HT001124R0041, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency, for development, operations, and maintenance of clinical systems and data processing. The protester contends that the RFP improperly fails to require an evaluation of offerors' professional compensation plans. We dismiss the protest as untimely filed. View Decision 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. Matter of: Emerge Solutions Group, LLC File: B-423299.2 Date: August 1, 2025 Matthew J. Michaels, Esq., and Scott E. Pickens, Esq., Barnes & Thornburg LLP, for the protester. Jason R. Smith, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that solicitation improperly fails to require an evaluation of professional compensation plans is dismissed as untimely where the alleged solicitation defect was apparent on the face of the solicitation as initially issued and the protest was filed after the initial due date for submission of proposals. DECISION Emerge Solutions Group, LLC, a minority‑owned 8(a) small business of Rockville, Maryland, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. HT001124R0041, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency, for development, operations, and maintenance of clinical systems and data processing.[1] The protester contends that the RFP improperly fails to require an evaluation of offerors' professional compensation plans. We dismiss the protest as untimely filed. BACKGROUND As alleged by the protester, the agency issued the RFP on June 18, 2024, to 8(a) offerors holding General Services Administration (GSA) multiple award schedule (MAS) contracts under special item numbers (SIN) 54151HEAL for health information technology services or 54151S for information technology professional services. Protest at 3‑4. Relevant here, the RFP did not expressly incorporate FAR provision 52.222‑46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. Id. at 8, 9. Additionally, the RFP's instructions did not require the submission of professional compensation plans. Protest, attach. 1, RFP at 29‑41. Proposals in response to the RFP were due by August 15, 2024. Id. at 1. The agency previously issued an order pursuant to the RFP, which the protester challenged in a protest filed with our Office. See Emerge Sols. Grp., LLC, B‑423299, Feb. 27, 2025 (unpublished decision). We dismissed the protest as academic after the agency notified us that it intended to take corrective action. Id. After dismissal of the previous protest, the agency issued two amendments to the RFP. Protest at 5. One amendment extended the transition period from two weeks to two months, updated the periods of performance, and permitted offerors to revise their labor rates. Id. It also made corresponding changes to the pricing worksheet, the performance work statement, and other sections of the RFP. Id. The agency requested that offerors update their price and technical proposals to the extent they were affected by the amendment, but did not permit changes to past performance proposals. Id. The amendment did not state anything with respect to professional compensation plans or FAR provision 52.222‑46. See generally Protest, attach. 2, RFP amend. No. 0002. The other amendment extended the time period for proposal submission to June 23, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern time. Protest at 5. It, too, did not state anything with respect to professional compensation plans or FAR provision 52.222‑46. See generally Protest, attach. 3, RFP amend. No. 0003. On June 19, the protester contacted the agency via email, stating that FAR provision 52.222‑46 was incorporated into task order solicitations under MAS contracts, asking whether the agency would conduct a price realism evaluation, and requesting that the agency confirm that offerors should submit professional compensation plans as part of their revised proposals. Protest, attach. 6, Email Correspondence at 1‑2. On June 20, the agency responded that FAR provision 52.222‑46 was not incorporated into the RFP, the agency did not intend to conduct a price realism analysis, and offerors were not expected to submit professional compensation plans. Id.