SOFX Inc. (SPE1C1-24-R-0075)

B-423557,B-423557.2,B-423557.3 Aug 12, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ConnectUP, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Baltic, Connecticut; Labasa LLC, a SDVOSB of Denville, New Jersey; and SOFX, Inc., a SDVOSB of Charleston, South Carolina protest the rejection of their proposals submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE1C1-R-0075, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for cold weather trousers. The agency rejected the protesters' proposals on the basis that their product demonstration models (PDMs) were not received by the submission deadline, as required by the RFP. The protesters argue that the late delivery was due to government mishandling or interference because the solicitation instructions failed to explain the security access requirements necessary for proposal delivery, and the agency unreasonably declined to assist the commercial carrier when it was restricted from delivering the packages. We deny the protests. View 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. Decision Matter of: ConnectUP et al; Labasa LLC; SOFX Inc. File: B-423557; B-423557.2; B-423557.3 Date: August 12, 2025 Ruth E. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal and Ganister, LLC, for the protesters. Una Legin, Esq., and Morgan E. Dowd, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Janis R. Millete, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protests challenging agency's decision to reject the protesters' proposals as late is denied where the project demonstration models required to be submitted with the proposals were not timely received by the agency in a manner consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION ConnectUP, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Baltic, Connecticut; Labasa LLC, a SDVOSB of Denville, New Jersey; and SOFX, Inc., a SDVOSB of Charleston, South Carolina protest the rejection of their proposals submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE1C1-R-0075, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for cold weather trousers. The agency rejected the protesters' proposals on the basis that their product demonstration models (PDMs) were not received by the submission deadline, as required by the RFP. The protesters argue that the late delivery was due to government mishandling or interference because the solicitation instructions failed to explain the security access requirements necessary for proposal delivery, and the agency unreasonably declined to assist the commercial carrier when it was restricted from delivering the packages. We deny the protests. On March 28, 2025, the agency issued the solicitation as a set-aside for SDVOSBs for the purchase of “Gen III Layer 7 Extreme Cold Weather Trousers” under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 2, RFP amend. 0001 at 2, 5. The solicitation contemplated award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to the offeror[1] that demonstrated the “greatest probability of success and that will perform in a manner which will best meet the Governments' stated requirements.” Id. at 2. In its evaluation, the agency would consider the following factors in descending order of importance: (1) PDMs; and (2) past performance confidence assessment.[2] See AR, Exh. 1, RFP at 70-71. The solicitation required submission by 3:00 p.m. Eastern time on April 28 of proposals via email and PDMs delivered to: DLA Troop Support ATTN: Tiffany Taylor Bldg. 3-A-4422 700 Robbins Avenue Philadelphia, PA, 19111[3] Id. at 1-2 (emphasis omitted). As relevant here, the solicitation advised offerors that “only [United States Postal Service (UPS)], [United Parcel Service (UPS)] and FedEx [Corporation] are authorized to make deliveries.” Id. at 2. The solicitation also stated that “[i]t is solely the offerors responsibility to ensure its product demonstration models . . . are received on time.” Id. On April 24, five days before the deadline for proposal and PDM submission, the protesters' designated manufacturer of the PDMs utilized UPS to send each protester's respective PDM via overnight delivery for arrival on April 25.[4] Due to severe weather conditions, UPS did not attempt to deliver the PDMs on April 25 as intended. Protest at 3[5]; Comments at 1; See AR, Exh. 4, UPS Tracking Records. UPS next attempted delivery on April 28 at 9:12 a.m.; however, the protesters explain that the security guard at the delivery location did not permit UPS to deliver the PDMs to the final delivery destination because the delivery driver was not “personally authorized to make deliveries on base.” Protest at 3; See AR, Exh. 4, UPS Tracking Records.