QED Systems, LLC (RS3-24-0012)

B-423634 Sep 16, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights QED Systems, LLC, a small business of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, protests its elimination from the competition under Fair Opportunity Request for Proposals (FORP) No. RS3-24-0012 issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for various support services. The protester contends that the agency's decision to eliminate QED from the competition was unreasonable. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: QED Systems, LLC File: B-423634 Date: September 16, 2025 Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq., Ian P. Patterson, Esq., and Timothy J. Laughlin, Esq., Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, for the protester. Betty W. Irungu, Esq., and Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Emily R. O’Hara, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging protester’s elimination from the competition is denied where agency reasonably found protester’s proposal unacceptable for failing to comply with solicitation requirement. DECISION QED Systems, LLC, a small business of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, protests its elimination from the competition under Fair Opportunity Request for Proposals (FORP) No. RS3-24-0012 issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, for various support services. The protester contends that the agency’s decision to eliminate QED from the competition was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the FORP on March 25, 2025, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5. Agency Report (AR), Tab 28, FORP at 1.[1] The FORP was restricted to small business holders of the Army’s Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services (RS3) multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. Id. The solicitation sought support services, including programmatic/business management services, engineering support services, and acquisition/administrative support services. Id. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a single hybrid cost and fixed-price task order with one 10-month base period and four 12-month option periods. Id. Issuance of the task order would be based on a best-value tradeoff, considering the following factors: (1) gateway criteria; (2) oral technical presentations; (3) cost/price; and (4) small business participation. Id. at 50, 52. The solicitation explained that technical proposals would be evaluated in two parts. Under part 1, the gateway criteria and small business participation plans would be evaluated together on an acceptable/ unacceptable basis and were required to be submitted by the May 2 deadline. Id. at 49 (“The Offeror will be expected to provide a Small Business Participation and Subcontracting Plan on 2 May 2025 with the Part 1 – Gateway Criteria.”); see id. at 52‑53, 57. With respect to compliance, the solicitation warned offerors, “[i]f a complete proposal is not submitted by this closing time, the Offeror’s proposal will not be considered for award.” Id. at 34. Further, the RFP advised that any offeror receiving an “unacceptable” rating under part 1 would not be invited to participate in part 2 (oral technical presentation), and that offerors “that are notified that they have not been invited to Part 2 shall no longer be considered for award.” Id. at 54. While cost proposals were required to be submitted on May 2, the solicitation advised that the agency reserved the right to not evaluate cost proposals found ineligible for award during part 1 or part 2 of the evaluation. Id. at 56. When evaluating QED’s proposal under part 1, the agency found the firm had failed to include its small business participation plan. AR, Tab 52, QED Gateway Criteria Evaluation at 6. As such, the agency found QED’s proposal to be “unacceptable” under part 1, which rendered the proposal ineligible for award. Id. The Army sent an unsuccessful offeror letter to QED on May 20, 2025. AR, Tab 54, Unsuccessful Offeror Letter. The protester requested a pre-award debriefing, and the Army provided QED with a debriefing on June 3. AR, Tab 56, Debriefing. The protester filed this protest with our Office on June 13.[2] DISCUSSION The protester argues that its elimination from the competition was unreasonable. The protester contends that the agency should have found that QED complied with the requirement to provide the small business participation plan because QED provided a breakdown of its subcontractors and small business labor in its cost narrative proposal.[3] Protest at 5. Specifically, the protester alleges that the “Army’s adamance that QED supply a specific document to substantiate data it provided in multiple places that are clearly marked within its proposal is a paradigmatic example of elevating form over substance.” Id. at 7.