Scott Investigations and Research, LLC (SPE3S124R0011)

B-423342 May 27, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Scott Investigations & Research, LLC, of Omaha, Nebraska, protests the rejection of its proposal submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE3S1-24-R-0011, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for water drinking pouches. Scott asserts that the solicitation was unnecessarily restrictive, and that the agency failed to provide it with meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Scott Investigations and Research, LLC File: B-423342 Date: May 27, 2025 Nancy Scott, Scott Investigations and Research, LLC, for the protester. Kari Scheck, Esq., and Cathleen Choromanski, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that solicitation is restrictive of competition filed after the closing date for the receipt of proposals is dismissed as untimely. 2. Discussions with protester were meaningful where agency notified protester of the areas in its proposal that failed to comply with the solicitation, established a common cut-off date for revised proposals, and indicated that no further opportunity to submit revisions would be provided. 3. Agency is not required to reopen discussions to permit offeror to address deficiency first introduced in its final proposal revision. DECISION Scott Investigations & Research, LLC, of Omaha, Nebraska, protests the rejection of its proposal submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE3S1-24-R-0011, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for water drinking pouches. Scott asserts that the solicitation was unnecessarily restrictive, and that the agency failed to provide it with meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation for emergency water pouches on September 13, 2024, as a small business set-aside. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 1. On October 22, the agency issued amendment 4 to the solicitation, which changed the solicitation from a small business set-aside, to allow for full and open competition. AR, Tab 5, RFP, amend. 4. The closing date for the receipt of proposals was extended to November 12. Id. The solicitation provided for the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to the offeror that submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal. With respect to the technical evaluation, offerors were required to submit a product demonstration model (PDM). AR, Tab 2, RFP, amend. 1 at 11. Id. The PDMs were to be evaluated based on organoleptic qualities such as taste, color, texture, appearance, and overall quality as well as compliance with specifications, including a requirement for a center spout on the water pouch and sterilization requirements. Id. at 11, 13. Offerors were also required to submit a business proposal for evaluation with a food defense plan, an integrated pest program, and a quality system plan. Id. at 11-12. For price, offerors were required to provide prices for five tiers, each representing a 1-year period of performance. RFP at 5. Eight offerors, including Scott, submitted proposals in response to the solicitation. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 5. Scott submitted a business proposal, but did not submit a PDM. Id. at 5. Because Scott failed to submit a PDM, Scott’s proposal was not evaluated and was given a rating of “Reject.” AR, Tab 11, Final Proposal Revision Letters at 1. Subsequently, the agency opened discussions, and on December 18 sent Scott the following notice: Pursuant to [Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)] 15.307(b), this is the government’s formal written notification that discussions are opened. . . . Your firm is afforded the opportunity to address these areas of concern identified by the government. In addition . . . Scott Investigations & Research, LLC, may submit any revision, clarification, explanation, or additional information . . . that it may wish to provide at this time. If your firm does not respond to this notice by the specified date and time, your offer will be evaluated based upon its original submission. * * * * * Technical /PDM: PDM evaluation was not conducted. . . . Scott Investigations & Research, LLC did not submit signed amendment or PDMs prior to the time set for closing of offers.