AIS Engineering, Inc.

Decision

Matter of:  AIS Engineering, Inc.

File:  B-420431.2

Date:  January 19, 2022

DIGEST

Protester is not an interested party where it fails to challenge the agency’s determination that protester’s quotation was technically unacceptable and was therefore ineligible for award.

AIS Engineering, Inc., of Silver Spring, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Artel LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1520419, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), for commercial satellite communications bandwidth services for the United States Space Force space test and training range.  AIS contends that the agency’s evaluation of its quotation and resulting award decision were improper.

We dismiss the protest because AIS is not an interested party.

BACKGROUND

The RFQ was issued on June 15, 2021, to holders of General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule contracts (Information Technology Schedule), pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4.  Protest exh. B, RFQ amend. 3 at 1.  The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order for a 12-month base period with four 12-month option periods.  Id.  The RFQ established that task order award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, based on two evaluation factors:  technical/management approach (technical) and price.  Id. at 4-6.  The technical factor consisted of four equally-weighted subfactors:  (1) space segment coverage and quality; (2) space segment capacity; (3) space segment reliability; and (4) information assurance.  Id. at 5-6.  The technical factor was more important than the price factor.  Id. at 6.

Seven vendors, including AIS and Artel, submitted final quotations by the September 15 closing date.  DISA evaluated vendors’ submissions using various adjectival ratings schemes set forth in the RFQ as follows:  outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable for the space segment coverage and quality, and space segment capacity subfactors; and acceptable or unacceptable for the space segment reliability and information assurance subfactors.  AIS Response to Agency Dismissal Request, exh. H, RFQ amend. 3, attach. 8, Evaluation Table at 1-2.  The RFQ also established that quotations rated as “‘unacceptable” in any evaluation area would be considered “ineligible for award and shall be excluded from further consideration.”  RFQ amend. 3 at 4.  After completing its evaluation, DISA made task order award to Artel. 

On December 20, the agency provided AIS with notice of task order award to Artel.  Protest, exh. A, Notice of Award at 1.  Included in the explanation of award, the agency provided the following information and table to AIS:

Protest, exh. A, Notice of Award at 1.  Additionally, with regard to the evaluation of subfactor 4 (information assurance), DISA informed AIS that:

AIS received an Unacceptable rating for this subfactor as the quotation does not meet the requirements of Subfactor 4.  The Government reviewed AIS’ CIAQ,[[2]] “CTC0356_AIS_Attachment_C_CIAQ” and determined the single CIAQ was submitted in Excel format with instructional cells unlocked instead of locked as required.  In addition, the CIAQ did not document all applicable system segments, nor did it provide a response from the Prime contractor to each space segment for each control, as required by RFQ Section 3(d).  Based on the above, this standard does not meet the requirement under Subfactor 4.  AIS’ quotation does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of Subfactor 4, and based on the information stated above, AIS received an Unacceptable rating for Subfactor 4.

Id. at 2.  On December 29, AIS filed its protest with our Office. 

DISCUSSION

AIS’s protest consists of three allegations:  (1) the award decision was flawed as the agency converted the award decision from a best-value trade-off to a lowest-priced, technically acceptable selection process; (2) the agency’s evaluation of AIS under the space segment coverage and quality subfactor (subfactor 1) was unreasonable; and (3) the agency’s evaluation of AIS under the space segment capacity subfactor (subfactor 2) was unreasonable.  Protest at 6-12; see also AIS Response to Agency Dismissal Request at 2 (“In our Protest, we make three (3) main allegations. . . .”).

The agency requests dismissal of the protest.  Specifically, DISA argues that insofar as AIS was found to be technically unacceptable under the information assurance subfactor, which the protester “notably” does not challenge, there exists a separate rationale for why AIS remains ineligible for award even if it were to prevail in its protest.[3]  Agency Dismissal Request at 2-5.

AIS opposes dismissal of its protest, arguing that “AIS does challenge the Agency’s determination that AIS’s quotation was Unacceptable under Subfactor 4 and [it] is a minor technicality and informality.”  AIS Response to Agency Dismissal Request at 2.  The protester also asserts that had DISA reasonably evaluated AIS’s quotation under the first two technical subfactors, AIS would have been so “far superior to the competitive field” that the agency would have then provided AIS with an opportunity to “correct a minor technicality and informality” in its quotation under the information assurance subfactor.  Id. at 3.

Under the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3557, only an “interested party” may protest a federal procurement.  That is, a protester must be an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a contract.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.0(a)(1).  Determining whether a party is interested involves consideration of a variety of factors, including the nature of issues raised, the benefit or relief sought by the protester, and the party’s status in relation to the procurement.  RELM Wireless Corp., B-405358, Oct. 7, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 211 at 2.  A protester is not an interested party if it is ineligible to receive award under the protested solicitation, Trailblazer Health Enters., LLC, B-407486.2, B-407486.3, Apr. 16, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 103 at 14; Acquest Dev. LLC, B-287439, June 6, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 101 at 6, or if it would not be in line for award if the protest were sustained.  VSolvit, LLC, B-418265.2, B-418265.3, July 30, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 259 at 6; Cyberdata Techs., Inc., B-411070 et al., May 1, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 150 at 9.  Here, we find that AIS is not an interested party to maintain its protest.

As a preliminary matter, we find the record supports the agency’s assertion that AIS did not challenge the evaluation of its quotation under the information assurance subfactor.  Although the protester responds to the agency’s request for dismissal by simply stating that it “does challenge” the agency’s evaluation under this subfactor, AIS cannot cite to or reference any part of its protest--and our review of the record confirms there is none--to support this bald assertion.  See Protest passim.  This is even more apparent where the protester specifically challenges other aspects of the agency’s evaluation under the first two technical subfactors:  space segment coverage and quality; and space segment capacity.  Protest at 8-11.

Here, the solicitation expressly established that an “unacceptable” evaluation rating in any area would render the quotation “ineligible for award and [would] be excluded from further consideration.”  RFQ amend. 3 at 4.  As noted above, AIS’s quotation was found to be unacceptable under the information management subfactor.  Because AIS does not challenge the agency’s finding that the firm’s quotation was unacceptable under that subfactor--and as a result, the quotation’s ineligibility for award--AIS would not be in line for award even if the protest were sustained.[4]  VSolvit, LLC, supra at 6.[5]  AIS, therefore, lacks the direct economic interest necessary to be an interested party to otherwise protest the evaluation of its quotation or the resulting award decision.  4 C.F.R. § 21.0(a)(1); Chimes District of Columbia, Inc., B-419972, Oct. 18, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 344 at 5; Trailboss Enters., Inc., B-419209, Dec. 23, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 414 at 8-9. 

The protest is dismissed.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel