Guardian DB Services, LLC (1240LU24R0012)

B-423691 Aug 05, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Guardian DB Services, LLC (Guardian), a small business of Mobile, Alabama, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1240LU24R0012, issued by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service for road, bridge, and related civil construction projects in the Forest Service's Intermountain Region 4. Guardian asserts that the agency improperly found that its proposal lacked information required under the evaluation criteria. We dismiss the protest as untimely. View Decision Decision Matter of: Guardian DB Services, LLC File: B-423691 Date: August 5, 2025 Johnny Johnson for the protester. Adam Humphries, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where an agency clearly indicated that a debriefing was considered closed after responding to the protester's questions, a protest filed more than 10 days after the agency's notification that the debriefing was closed is dismissed as untimely. DECISION Guardian DB Services, LLC (Guardian), a small business of Mobile, Alabama, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1240LU24R0012, issued by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service for road, bridge, and related civil construction projects in the Forest Service's Intermountain Region 4. Guardian asserts that the agency improperly found that its proposal lacked information required under the evaluation criteria. We dismiss the protest as untimely. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplated the award of at least ten indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity contracts for a 5-year ordering period for construction projects.[1] RFP at 1, 6‑8. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering four factors: (1) experience and capabilities; (2) organization and management; (3) past performance; and (4) price. Id. at 46-48. The technical factors were equally important and the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. at 46. As relevant here, under factor 2, the solicitation provided for evaluation of “the overall organizational structure and resumes for key personnel as submitted with focus on experience and expertise in work within the scope of the [multiple award task order contracts (MATOC)].” Id. at 46. The RFP instructed offerors to submit “an organizational chart and/or summary of the overall company organizational structure, from principle/ownership level to field level” and provide resumes for the following key personnel: project manager, site superintendent, quality control manager, and safety officer. Id. at 40. The Forest Service received proposals from 53 offerors, including the protester. After its initial evaluation of Guardian's proposal, the agency advised the protester that it had been removed from the competition because it had failed to submit a technical proposal addressing factor 2 of the evaluation criteria. Protest exh. Agency Protest at 1; see also Protest exh. Agency Decision. In this regard, the agency found that Guardian had failed to submit an organizational chart and resumes for key personnel. Protest exh. Agency Protest at 2. Guardian challenged its removal in a pre-award agency-level protest, arguing that the solicitation said nothing about an offeror's removal from the competition for failing to provide any information under any factor. Id. Guardian sought to have the Forest Service continue evaluating Guardian's proposal. Id. The agency sustained Guardian's protest and agreed to Guardian's requested remedy. Protest exh. Agency Decision. Specifically, the agency agreed to return Guardian's proposal to the competition and evaluate the proposal “per the solicitation terms.” Id. On May 9, 2025, the Forest Service notified the protester that the agency had made 28 MATOC awards and that Guardian had not received an award. Protest exh. Unsuccessful Offeror Letter. The agency advised Guardian that it could request a debriefing pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 15.506. Id. Guardian promptly requested a debriefing.[2] Debriefing Emails from Agency to Protester, June 17, 2025 at 5-6. On June 17, the Forest Service provided a written debriefing to Guardian. Post-Award Debriefing Letter. The agency assigned Guardian a rating of confidence for factor 1, experience and capabilities; a rating of low confidence for factor 2, organization and management; and a rating of high confidence for past performance. Id.