The solicitation required offerors to submit a PDF copy of a DoD Form. The protester submitted the form in the wrong format—i.e., as an image in Microsoft Word. The agency rejected the protester’s proposal. The protester objected, arguing that the submission instructions were immaterial. GAO noted that the solicitation clearly stated that submission of the PDF form was a requirement. If the protester thought this was an immaterial requirement, it should have filed a protest challenging the terms of the solicitation before the proposal deadline.
Defense Solutions Group, LLC, GAO B-420353
Background
The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) posted a solicitation seeking information technology services. The solicitation included instructions for what it referred to as “administrative requirements. Among other things, these instructions specified that offerors had to submit to DD Form 254, which is used to convey security requirements when a contact requires access to classified information. The instructions further required that the completed form had to be submitted in the original government-provided PDF.
Defense Solutions Group (DSG) submitted a proposal, but DISA rejected it because it did not comply with the solicitation’s administrative requirements. Instead of submitting a PDF copy of the original DD Form 254, DSG had submitted an image file in Microsoft Word. DSG filed a protest challenging the exclusion of its proposal.
Legal Analysis
DSG argued that the administrative requirement for DD Form 254 was not material. Indeed, the company contended, approval of the form would not occur until after award. Thus, DSG reasoned, it should not have been excluded before consideration of the merits of its proposal.
GAO noted that the solicitation unequivocally stated that compliance with the administrative requirements at the time of proposal submission was required. DSG’s complaints about this clearly stated threshold requirement was an assertion that the requirement was unreasonable. To the extent DSG contended that the administrative requirements were immaterial, it should have filed a protest before the proposal deadline to challenge the terms of the solicitation.
DSG is represented by J. Bradley Reaves and Beth V. McMahon of ReavesColey, PLLC. The agency is represented by Joseph A. Buitron and Michelle L. SAbin of the Defense Information Systems Agency. GAO attorneys Paula A. Williams and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.
