The solicitation required offerors to demonstrate their software to the agency. The protester’s demonstration did not go well, so the agency found the protester ineligible. The protester argued that its botched demonstration was the agency’s fault. The protester contended that the agency had not provided data for the demonstration in usable format and did not give offerors enough time to “ingest” the data. GAO noted the format and time to ingest the data were specified in the solicitation. The protester should have lodged its objections to the terms of the solicitation before the proposal deadline.
Integrated Modern Engineering, LLC, GAO B-420636
Background
The Army posted an RFP seeking a commercial software solution for intelligence applications. The RFP required offerors to demonstrate the capabilities of their proposed software by accomplishing certain “data thread” steps. The RFP stated that the Army would provide product sample data to the offerors.
Integrated Modern Engineering (IME) submitted a proposal in response to the RFP. When IMP demonstrated its product, it was unable to connect to the cloud server for the demonstration. The Army paused the demonstration to allow IME to connect to the cloud. Two days later, IME attempted another demonstration. This time, however, IME was only able to complete two of the eleven data thread steps.
Based on its lackluster demonstration, the Army found IME ineligible for award. IME protested.
Analysis
IME argued that the Army had provided sample data in an incompatible format, which inhibited its demonstration. IME also contended that the Army had not provided the company with enough time to ingest the product data in advance of the demonstration.
GAO found these arguments untimely. The solicitation clearly identified the format in which the data would be provided and the amount of time in which offerors could ingest it. If IME objected to the format and the time, it needed to protest the terms of the solicitation before the proposals deadline.
IME is represented by Adam D. Bruski, of Warner Norcross + Judd LLP. The agency is represented by Jonathan A. Hardage and Michael Skennion of the Army. GAO attorneys Uri R. Yoo and Alexander O. Levine participated in the preparation of the decision.
