Addx Corporation

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.

Decision

Matter of: Addx Corporation

File: B-423633

Date: July 23, 2025

Lee Dougherty, Esq., and Esna Mihail, Esq., Effectus PLLC, for the protester.
Ken M. Kanzawa, Esq., and Adam K. Lasky, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for KL3, LLC, the intervenor.
Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., and Aaron Weaver, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Emily R. O'Hara, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest to GAO is dismissed as untimely where the matter was untimely protested to the agency; the timeliness exception for filing a protest with GAO after receipt of a required debriefing does not apply to agency-level protests.

2. Protest is dismissed as untimely where protester's challenge to award based on patently ambiguous term was filed after closing time for submission of proposals.

DECISION

Addx Corporation, a small business of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to KL3, LLC, a small business of Apex, North Carolina, under Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) No. FOPR-25-004, issued by the Department of the Air Force for information technology architecture and engineering support. The protester challenges the evaluation of its proposal as well as the terms of the solicitation.

We dismiss the protest as untimely.

BACKGROUND

On February 25, 2025, the Air Force issued the FOPR under the One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services Plus (OASIS+) small business indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) multiple award contract administered by the General Services Administration (GSA). Req. for Dismissal (RFD), attach. 1, Solicitation Memorandum at 1. The Air Force sought information technology architecture and engineer support for United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). Id. The procurement would be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 16.505. Id.

On May 16, the agency issued the task order to KL3 for $12,636,523. That same day, Addx received its unsuccessful offeror notice, along with an eight-page written debriefing, which described in detail the evaluation results of Addx's proposal. RFD, attach. 2, Award Notice & Debriefing Letter. On May 19, Addx submitted written debriefing questions. RFD, attach. 3, Debriefing Questions at 2-4. The Air Force responded to Addx's debriefing questions on May 21. RFD, attach. 4, Debriefing Response at 1, 3-8. Addx filed an agency-level protest with the Air Force on June 2. RFD, attach. 5, Agency-Level Protest. On June 3, the agency dismissed Addx's agency-level protest. RFD, attach. 6, Agency-Level Protest Decision. Addx then filed its protest with our Office on June 13.[1]

DISCUSSION

The protester challenges the evaluation of Addx's proposal as well as the source selection decision. Protest at 4-9, 10-11. Addx also alleges the solicitation contained ambiguous instructions that prejudiced the protester. Id. at 9-10. The Air Force contends the protest to our Office is untimely because Addx's agency-level protest was untimely filed. RFD at 3. The protester asserts that its protest to our Office is timely because Addx filed a timely agency-level protest. Resp. to RFD at 2-3. In this regard, the protester maintains that Addx filed its agency-level protest within 10 days of when the basis of its protest became known--i.e., May 21, the date it received that agency's response to its debriefing questions. Id.

Challenges to Evaluation and Source Selection

Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission of protests. These rules reflect the dual requirements of giving parties a fair opportunity to present their cases and resolving protests expeditiously without unduly disrupting or delaying the procurement process. Verizon Wireless, B‑406854, B‑406854.2, Sept. 17, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 260 at 3-4. Under these rules, a matter initially filed with a contracting activity will be considered timely by our Office only if the agency protest was filed within the time limits provided by our regulations, unless the contracting agency imposes a more stringent time for filing, in which case the agency's time for filing will control. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(3); see M2 Glob. Tech., Ltd., B-400946, Jan. 8, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 13 at 2.

The rules for filing an agency-level protest are generally established by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Under these rules, protests of other than alleged solicitation improprieties are required to be filed within 10 days after the basis of protest is known or should have been known.[2] FAR 33.103(e); see M2 Glob. Tech., Ltd., supra at 2. Unlike GAO's timeliness rules, the FAR does not contain a “required debriefing” exception to this 10‑day rule. See FAR 33.103(e); Niksoft Sys. Corp., B-421801, Aug. 16, 2023, 2023 CPD ¶ 202 at 3-4. As our decisions have explained, while our regulations provide for a debriefing exception to the 10-day rule, this exception does not apply to a protest, such as Addx's, which was filed initially with the agency. Niksoft Sys. Corp., supra; M2 Glob. Tech., Ltd., supra. In other words, the rules for timely filing an agency-level protest are established by the FAR, and not GAO's regulations. Id.

Here, the protester received its unsuccessful offeror notice and written debriefing on May 16. Thus, any protest to the contracting agency that was based on information Addx received on May 16 had to have been filed no later than May 26. FAR 33.103(e); M2 Glob. Tech., Ltd., supra. Although the protester now argues that it did not know the basis of its protest until it received the agency's May 21 response to Addx's follow-up questions to the written debriefing, the record demonstrates otherwise. The May 16 written debriefing addressed, among other things, each of Addx's self-identified strengths within the firm's proposal and explained why the agency did not find such traits to constitute a strength. RFD, attach. 2, Award Notice & Debriefing Letter at 1-6. The agency's explanation addressed the facets of Addx's proposal that Addx argues now in its protest should have received strengths. See e.g., Protest at 4-9 (identifying years of experience, continuity, cybersecurity, and automation dashboard as facets of Addx's proposal that should have received strengths); RFD, attach. 2, Award Notice & Debriefing Letter at 2-3 (addressing why experience, continuity, cybersecurity expertise, advanced certifications, and automated dashboard do not rise to level of strengths). Thus, contrary to Addx's contentions, the record clearly reflects that the written debriefing provided more than just “high-level adjectival ratings.” Resp. to RFD at 2.

In sum, the May 16 debriefing, among other things, (1) identified the adjectival ratings assigned to all evaluation factors for the protester and awardee; (2) identified the number of strengths assessed to the protester and awardee; (3) identified the prices proposed by the protester and awardee; and (4) informed Addx that “KL3's proposal was determined to provide the best value to the Government.” RFD, attach. 2, Award Notice & Debriefing Letter at 1-8.

Based on this record, the May 16 debriefing provided Addx with sufficient information to know its bases of protest. Indeed, the protester does not credibly point to any new information in the agency's response to Addx's questions that was not already in the May 16 written debriefing.[3] Compare Resp. to RFD at 2, with RFD, attach. 2, Award Notice & Debriefing Letter at 1-3. Therefore, to be timely, Addx's protest to the agency should have been filed by May 26--i.e., within 10 days of the May 16 written debriefing. FAR 33.103(e); M2 Glob. Tech., Ltd., supra. Addx, however, did not file its protest with the agency until June 2, thus making its agency-level protest untimely. As explained above, a matter initially protested to the agency will be considered timely by our Office only if the initial agency-level protest was filed within the time limits provide by the regulations for filing a protest with our Office, unless the contracting agency imposes a more stringent time for filing, in which case the agency's time for filing will control. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(3); M2 Glob. Tech., Ltd., supra. Under the circumstances presented here, because the FAR contains a more stringent time for filing a protest with the agency than that provided for filing a protest with GAO, Addx's protest to our Office is untimely, because its initial protest to the agency had been untimely filed. M2 Glob. Tech., Ltd., supra at 3.

Challenge to Solicitation

The protester also contends the solicitation provided contradictory or ambiguous instructions. Protest at 9-10. The solicitation required proposal responses for the first two technical subfactors to not exceed one page. Protest, exh. 3, FOPR Evaluation Criteria at 4. The solicitation also noted the agency would not cross reference any other area of the proposal in evaluating those technical subfactors. Id. Addx notes, however, that the Air Force's response to the solicitation's questions and answers (Q&A) indicated that offerors could utilize a cross-reference matrix to consolidate information pertaining to qualification summaries or other aspects of the technical proposal. Protest at 10; see Protest, exh. 4, Agency Q&A Resp. at 2. Addx alleges that it relied on this ability to cross reference qualification summaries, but that the Air Force did not consider that cross-referenced material in its evaluation of the first two technical subfactors. Protest at 10. In this regard, Addx, specifically asserts that “[c]ontradictory instructions between Evaluation Criteria (FOPR) 1.9.1/3.1.1 and Q&A misled Addx,” and that the “Q&A's allowance of qualification summaries to cross reference to the entire technical proposal contradicts Evaluation Criteria (FOPR) 1.9.1/3.1.1's prohibition, creating ambiguity.” Protest at 9, 10.

The FAR requires that agency-level protests based on alleged apparent improprieties in a solicitation be filed before bid opening or the closing date for receipt of proposals. FAR 33.103(e). Our regulations also require that a protest based on alleged improprieties in a solicitation that are apparent prior to bid opening be filed before that time. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1). One such impropriety is an ambiguity, which exists where two or more reasonable interpretations of the solicitation are possible. Trailboss Enters., Inc., B-419209, Dec. 23, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 414 at 7. A patent ambiguity exists where the solicitation contains an obvious, gross, or glaring error, while a latent ambiguity is more subtle. Megatech Corp., B-417582, June 25, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 225 at 3. A patent ambiguity must be protested prior to the closing time for the submission of responses to the solicitation, in order to be considered timely. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1); Megatech Corp., supra. A vendor has an affirmative obligation to seek clarification of a patent ambiguity prior to the due date for quotation submission. Pitney Bowes Inc., B‑294868, B‑294868.2, Jan. 4, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 10 at 5.

Here, the protester, itself, acknowledges that the alleged ambiguity resulted from, in its view, two “contradictory” solicitation provisions. Protest at 9. Because this alleged contradiction between solicitation instructions was obvious and apparent on the face of the FOPR, any ambiguity in the solicitation was, therefore, patent. Megatech Corp., supra. Consequently, Addx was required to challenge the alleged solicitation impropriety with the agency before the due date for proposal submissions.[4] FAR 33.103(e); L&N/MKB, Joint Venture, B-403032.3, Dec. 16, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 298 at 4; see Sterling Med. Assocs., Inc., B-419794, June 25, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 248 at 4 (“When a patent ambiguity exists but is not challenged prior to the proposal submission deadline, we will not consider subsequent untimely arguments asserting the protester's own interpretation of the ambiguous provision.”). Having waited until after award to file its protest with the agency, this allegation to our Office is also untimely. Tower Corp., B‑254761.3, Mar. 8, 1994, 94-1 CPD ¶ 186 at 4; see C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(3).

The protest is dismissed.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel