Protest alleging agency erred in finding protester’s quotation unacceptable is denied. The protester’s quotation did not address all the requirements set forth in the RFQ and included information that undercut its approach.
The Army issued an RFQ seeking executive communication kits—i.e., portable, secure data communications packages. Information Assurance Specialists, Inc. d/b/a Sub U Systems (SUB-U) submitted a quotation. The Army rejected SUB-U’s quotation because it did not address all three network security gateways set forth in the RFQ and did not comply with associated configuration requirements.
SUB-U protested, arguing that the Army had ignored the plain statement it made in its proposal about meeting the RFQ requirements. At the same time, SUB-U argued, the Army accepted the awardee’s blanket statement of compliance.
GAO did not see a problem with the evaluation. Despite its statement of compliance, SUB-U’s quotation only included information for two of the three network security gateways. Moreover, SUB-U included information about its performance in a prior procurement that undercut its statement of compliance. The awardee, on the other hand, did not include information that undercut its quotation.
SUB-U is represented by W. Jay DeVecchio and James A. Tucker of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The agency is represented by Robert L. Miller and Debra J. Talley of the Army. GAO attorneys Samantha S. Lee and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.