United Capital Investment Group (SPE605-25-R-0200)

B-423682 Aug 11, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights United Capital Investment Group, Inc. (UCIG), of McLean, Virginia, protests its exclusion from consideration for award under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE605-25-R-0200, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for aviation turbine fuel. The protester contends that its exclusion is improper because the solicitation's registration requirement is a matter of responsibility that can only be considered at the time of award and cannot be the basis for eliminating the firm from the competition. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: United Capital Investment Group, Inc. File: B-423682 Date: August 11, 2025 Christopher R. Shiplett, Esq., Randolph Law, PLLC, for the protester. Brian Beirne, Esq., Steven Sosko, Esq., and Deanna Everett, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, 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 is dismissed as untimely where protest of solicitation improprieties was filed after closing time for submission of proposals. DECISION United Capital Investment Group, Inc. (UCIG), of McLean, Virginia, protests its exclusion from consideration for award under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE605-25-R-0200, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for aviation turbine fuel. The protester contends that its exclusion is improper because the solicitation's registration requirement is a matter of responsibility that can only be considered at the time of award and cannot be the basis for eliminating the firm from the competition. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on May 2, 2025, anticipated the award of a fixed-priced contract, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. Req. for Dismissal (RFD), encl. 5, RFP at 1, 3.[1] Proposals were due on May 16. Id. at 4. The solicitation required offerors to be “registered and approved in JCCS [the Joint Contingency Contracting System] to be eligible for contract award(s) in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Area of Operation (AOR).”[2] Id. at 53. The solicitation further advised that “[i]f Offeror is not approved by May 16, 2025 (Proposal deadline date), Offeror WILL NOT be further evaluated.” Id. The protester submitted its proposal on May 16. RFD at 3. In evaluating UCIG's offer, the agency found that UCIG was not approved in JCCS by the proposal deadline. Id. As such, the protester was eliminated from the competition. Id. The contracting officer sent an unsuccessful offeror notice to UCIG on May 29. Protest, exh. 6, Unsuccessful Offeror Notice at 1. The protester filed an agency-level protest with DLA on June 5. Protest, exh. 8, Agency-Level Protest. The agency denied that protest on June 26. Protest, exh. 9, Agency-Level Protest Decision at 4. The protester then filed a protest with our Office on June 29. DISCUSSION The protester challenges the agency's decision to eliminate the firm from the competition. In this connection, UCIG's main grievance is with the solicitation's requirement for offerors to be registered--i.e., vetted and approved--in JCCS by the due date for proposal submission. Specifically, the protester contends “[r]egistration in the JCCS system and government findings from that system are a responsibility matter and are therefore to be evaluated at the contract award and cannot be used to remove a bidder from competition,” and that “[r]equiring registration at the time of bid effectively means, under the JCCS process, that only current active DLA contract holders were eligible to bid on this work.”[3] Protest at 2; Protest, exh. 8, Agency-Level Protest at 1. Solicitation Challenges Prior to the agency report due date, the agency requested that our Office dismiss the protest. The agency asserts that the protest is untimely because UCIG challenges the terms of the solicitation but failed to file its protest prior to the deadline for proposal submissions. RFD at 3. We agree. Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission of protests. These rules reflect the dual requirements of giving parties a fair opportunity to present their cases and resolving protests expeditiously without unduly disrupting or delaying the procurement process. Verizon Wireless, B‑406854, B‑406854.2, Sept. 17, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 260 at 4. Our timeliness rules specifically require that a protest based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation that are apparent prior to the closing time for receipt of initial proposals be filed before that time. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1); see AmaTerra Envtl.