Guardian DB Services, LLC

Decision

Matter of: Guardian DB Services, LLC

File: B-423691

Date: August 5, 2025

Johnny Johnson for the protester.
Adam Humphries, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.
Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where an agency clearly indicated that a debriefing was considered closed after responding to the protester's questions, a protest filed more than 10 days after the agency's notification that the debriefing was closed is dismissed as untimely.

DECISION

Guardian DB Services, LLC (Guardian), a small business of Mobile, Alabama, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1240LU24R0012, issued by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service for road, bridge, and related civil construction projects in the Forest Service's Intermountain Region 4. Guardian asserts that the agency improperly found that its proposal lacked information required under the evaluation criteria.

We dismiss the protest as untimely.

BACKGROUND

The RFP contemplated the award of at least ten indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity contracts for a 5-year ordering period for construction projects.[1] RFP at 1, 6‑8. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering four factors: (1) experience and capabilities; (2) organization and management; (3) past performance; and (4) price. Id. at 46-48. The technical factors were equally important and the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. at 46.

As relevant here, under factor 2, the solicitation provided for evaluation of “the overall organizational structure and resumes for key personnel as submitted with focus on experience and expertise in work within the scope of the [multiple award task order contracts (MATOC)].” Id. at 46. The RFP instructed offerors to submit “an organizational chart and/or summary of the overall company organizational structure, from principle/ownership level to field level” and provide resumes for the following key personnel: project manager, site superintendent, quality control manager, and safety officer. Id. at 40.

The Forest Service received proposals from 53 offerors, including the protester. After its initial evaluation of Guardian's proposal, the agency advised the protester that it had been removed from the competition because it had failed to submit a technical proposal addressing factor 2 of the evaluation criteria. Protest exh. Agency Protest at 1; see also Protest exh. Agency Decision. In this regard, the agency found that Guardian had failed to submit an organizational chart and resumes for key personnel. Protest exh. Agency Protest at 2. Guardian challenged its removal in a pre-award agency-level protest, arguing that the solicitation said nothing about an offeror's removal from the competition for failing to provide any information under any factor. Id. Guardian sought to have the Forest Service continue evaluating Guardian's proposal. Id. The agency sustained Guardian's protest and agreed to Guardian's requested remedy. Protest exh. Agency Decision. Specifically, the agency agreed to return Guardian's proposal to the competition and evaluate the proposal “per the solicitation terms.” Id.

On May 9, 2025, the Forest Service notified the protester that the agency had made 28 MATOC awards and that Guardian had not received an award. Protest exh. Unsuccessful Offeror Letter. The agency advised Guardian that it could request a debriefing pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 15.506. Id. Guardian promptly requested a debriefing.[2] Debriefing Emails from Agency to Protester, June 17, 2025 at 5-6.

On June 17, the Forest Service provided a written debriefing to Guardian. Post-Award Debriefing Letter. The agency assigned Guardian a rating of confidence for factor 1, experience and capabilities; a rating of low confidence for factor 2, organization and management; and a rating of high confidence for past performance. Id. The debriefing letter addressed the bases for the agency's evaluation of Guardian's proposal under factor 2 and its rating of low confidence, as well as the agency's decision to make MATOC awards to 28 firms that received ratings of “confidence” or higher for all technical factors and submitted fair and reasonable pricing.[3] Id. In this connection, the agency advised that Guardian's proposal “did not contain an organizational chart, information about the organizational structure, nor any resumes for key personnel.” Id.

The same day it received the debriefing letter, Guardian engaged the agency in a series of emails. Debriefing Emails from Agency to Protester, June 17, 2025 at 1-3. Guardian first emailed the agency with questions about the evaluation process. Id. at 3. After the contracting officer responded to its initial questions, Guardian submitted additional questions and asked whether “a rating of Confidence/Confidence/Confidence” was considered a better value than its rating of “Low Confidence/Confidence/High Confidence.” Id. at 2. The agency responded that its answer was covered in the debriefing letter addressing the award determination. Id. Guardian then complained that the agency had not answered its question and asked again about the agency's tradeoff analysis and award determination. Id. at 1. In the agency's final response to Guardian that same day, the contracting officer stated that he could not “get into a point by point comparison of offers,” that he would not open a debate about the source selection procedures under FAR subpart 15.3, and that the debriefing was closed. Id. at 1. The contracting officer also reiterated that all awardees had received ratings of confidence or higher for all technical factors and submitted fair and reasonable pricing. Id.

On July 1, Guardian filed this protest with our Office arguing that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal under evaluation factor 2 and failed to award it a contract under the MATOC.

DISCUSSION

The Forest Service requests dismissal of the protest as untimely.[4] Specifically, the agency argues that the protest grounds were made known to the protester on May 9 in the unsuccessful offeror letter, as well as in the post‑award debriefing letter sent on June 17, and that Guardian's protest should have been filed no later than 10 days after the basis of protest was known. Request for Dismissal at 1 (citing 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2)). The agency contends that because the protest was not filed until July 1, approximately 60 days after the unsuccessful offeror letter and 13 days after the debriefing closed, it is not timely. Id.

Guardian opposes dismissal, arguing that our Bid Protest Regulations do not require dismissal because the word “may” in the regulation does not “guarantee dismissal.” Opposition to Req. for Dismissal at 1. In this connection, our regulations provide that “[p]rotests untimely on their face may be dismissed.” 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(b). Guardian also argues that pursuant to 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(c), our Office can consider an untimely protest “for good cause shown, or where it determines that a protest raises issues significant to the procurement system,” and that such conditions exist here where the agency sustained Guardian's earlier pre-award agency-level protest but did not ultimately award it a contract. Id. at 2. The protester further contends that the agency improperly terminated the debriefing without providing answers to its questions, and that, as a result, the protest “clock has not started for a timely protest as the debrief has NOT been concluded.” Supp. Opposition to Req. for Dismissal at 1‑2 (citing Department of Defense (DOD) Class Deviation 2018-O0011 – Enhanced Postaward Debriefing Rights (hereinafter Enhanced Debriefing Rights)).[5] As explained below, we agree with the Forest Service that Guardian knew or reasonably should have known of the basis for its protest at the close of the debriefing on June 17; we therefore dismiss this protest, which was filed more than 10 days after the close of the debriefing, as untimely.

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 4. Under these rules, a protest based on other than alleged improprieties in a solicitation must be filed not later than 10 calendar days after the protester knew, or should have known, of the basis for protest, with an exception for protests that challenge a procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals under which a debriefing is requested and, when requested is required. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2). In such cases, protests must be filed not later than 10 days after the date on which the debriefing is held. Id.

As noted above, the agency provided Guardian a debriefing regarding the evaluation of its proposal, including the basis for the agency's rating of low confidence for factor 2 on June 17. Notwithstanding Guardian's assertion that the agency improperly terminated the debriefing and failed to answer its questions, the Forest Service's unequivocal statement that it “consider[ed] this debrief closed” on June 17 in response to the protester's third set of debriefing questions was unambiguous as to the status of the debriefing. Debriefing Emails from Agency to Protester, June 17, 2025 at 1. Under the circumstances here, we find that the debriefing concluded June 17; therefore, to be timely, Guardian's protest regarding its evaluation had to be filed not later than 10 calendar days after the debriefing, which was June 27.

We have recognized that the fact that a protester may not have been satisfied with all aspects of a debriefing does not extend the time for filing a bid protest based on the information provided during the debriefing. See, e.g., State Women Corp., B‑416510, July 12, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 240 at 4 (dismissing protest where protester continued to pursue certain questions with the agency after the agency advised the protester that the debriefing had concluded). Thus, even if Guardian believed the agency's answers to its debriefing questions were inadequate or that the debriefing was improperly terminated, the agency's unambiguous statement that the debriefing was closed on June 17 started the clock for a timely protest, and Guardian's protest filed on July 1‑‑13 days after the debriefing closed‑‑is untimely.

Regarding the protester's contention that our Bid Protest Regulations do not require dismissal of untimely protest grounds, our regulations make clear that our Office will consider the merits of untimely arguments in limited circumstances only, that is, where good cause is shown or a protest raises issues significant to the procurement system. See 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(c). To prevent our timeliness rules from becoming meaningless, the exceptions to those rules are strictly construed and rarely used. Fisher Sand & Gravel Co., B-417496, July 26, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 280 at 7 n.9.

The good cause exception is limited to circumstances where some compelling reason beyond the protester's control prevents it from filing a protest. See Central Texas College, B-245233.5, Feb. 6, 1992, 92-1 CPD ¶ 151 at 3. The significant issue exception is limited to untimely protests that raise issues of widespread interest to the procurement community which we previously have not considered on the merits. Hawker Beechcraft Def. Co., LLC, B-406170, Dec. 22, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 285 at 4 n.4. We decline to reach the merits of this protest ground because Guardian gives us no reason to conclude that the failure to timely protest its evaluation was due to some compelling reason beyond its control, nor does it present any reason for us to conclude that the agency's evaluation reflects a significant issue to the procurement community. See Opposition to Req. for Dismissal at 1‑2; Supp. Opposition to Req. for Dismissal at 1‑2.

The protest is dismissed.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel