Protest objecting to exclusion of proposal from competitive range is denied. The solicitation required offerors to meet certain milestones. The agency had found that the protester’s proposal did not clearly indicate it was going to meet two of the listed milestones. GAO agreed with the agency. The protester’s proposal included a table, which indicated that the company would not meet the milestone within the time prescribed by the solicitation. This table created confusion. The agency reasonably found the protester’s proposal deficient.
The U.S. Special Operations Command issued an RFP to holders of the Army’s Computer Hardware Enterprise Software Solutions IDIQ contract. The RFP contemplated award of a task order for information technology services.
Harmonia Holding Group submitted a proposal in response to the RFP. The agency, however, assigned Harmonia a deficiency under the RFP’s transition plan factor. Under that subfactor, offerors had to provide a timeline with milestones that set forth a schedule for operational capability. The timeline had six milestones. The agency found that Harmonia’s proposal failed to meet two milestones. As a result of this deficiency, the agency excluded Harmonia’s proposal from the competitive range. Harmonia protested.
One of the milestones required offerors to hold a kickoff meeting with the agency one day after the start of the transition period. The agency had penalized Harmonia because a table in its proposal showed that the kickoff meeting would occur five days after the start the start of transition. Harmonia claimed the agency had misinterpreted its proposal; its proposal had stated the kickoff meeting would occur immediately after award. Harmonia contended that the word “immediately” meant that the meeting would occur on the first day. Harmonia contended that it listed the meeting as occurring on day five in the table because the company believed it would take longer than one day for the agency to schedule the kickoff meeting and make agency representatives available.
But GAO did not buy Harmonia’s argument. To the extent that Harmonia made itself available for immediate coordination with the agency on day one, this was not the same as actually holding a kickoff meeting. The agency reasonably concluded that Harmonia would not meet the kickoff meeting requirement when its table indicated the meeting would occur five days after transition.
The agency had also found that Harmonia’s proposal did not meet a milestone for ensuring that new hires where accepted into a security clearance system within 25 days after the start of transition. Harmonia argued that it proposed to complete this task “no later than 25 days.”
Once again, however, Harmonia’ argument was undermined by a table in its proposal. That table showed that the milestone on day 25. By graphing the milestone to day 25, Harmonia introduced ambiguity into its proposal as to whether it intended to submit the necessary employees on or before that day. Harmonia had the burden to submit a well-written proposal. GAO did not find the agency’s reading of the proposal unreasonable.
Harmonia is represented by Jon D. Levin and Emily Chancey of Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC. The intervenor, Halvik, is represented by Alexander J. Brittin of the Brittin Law Group. The agency is represented by Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Erika Whelan Retta, Matthew W. Haynes, Major Allison K.W. Johnson and Major Brian Shust of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Hannah G. Barnes and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
