ADNET Systems, Inc.; North Star Group, LLC; OST, Inc.; Gauss Management Research & Engineering, Inc.; Enterprise Information Services, Inc.

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: ADNET Systems, Inc.; North Star Group, LLC; OST, Inc.; Gauss Management Research & Engineering, Inc.; Enterprise Information Services, Inc.

File: B-408685.3; B-408685.4; B-408685.6; B-408685.8; B-408685.12

Date: June 9, 2014

DIGEST

1. Protest that an agency unreasonably found that the protesters failed to provide sufficient relevant experience projects and pool qualification projects is denied where the protesters did not satisfy the solicitation’s explicit instructions for identifying relevant experience projects and pool qualification projects.

2. Protest that an agency unreasonably did not consider the protester’s experience as a subcontractor is denied where the solicitation informed offerors that the agency would only consider experience performed by the offeror as a prime contractor.

3. Protest that an agency was required to obtain clarifications from the protesters with respect to errors in their proposals is denied, because an agency may, but is not required to, engage in clarifications; clarifications may not be used to cure proposal deficiencies, such as those presented by the protesters’ proposals.

4. Protest that an agency treated the protesters disparately with respect to seeking clarifications is denied where the errors in the protesters’ proposals could only be corrected through discussions, and the agency did not conduct discussions; an agency may properly seek clarifications from one offeror and not another.

ADNET Systems, Inc., of Bethesda, Maryland; North Star Group, LLC, of Washington, D.C.; OST, Inc., of Washington, D.C.; Gauss Management Research & Engineering, Inc., of South Ogden, Utah; and Enterprise Information Services, Inc., of Vienna, Virginia, protest the rejection of their proposals under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS00Q-13-DR-0002, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) as a small business set-aside for the award of multiple contracts supporting the agency’s One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) program.

We deny the protests.

BACKGROUND

GSA’s OASIS program will provide a government-wide procurement vehicle for ordering a broad range of professional services.[1] To accomplish this, GSA issued two solicitations (each of which was amended numerous times): the RFP here, which was set aside for small businesses, and RFP No. GS00Q-13-DR-0001, which was issued on an unrestricted basis.[2] The two solicitations provide for the award of multiple (nearly 500) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts, under which any federal agency could issue fixed-price, cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, or labor-hour task orders for any of six “core disciplines” of professional services: program management, management consulting, logistics, engineering, scientific, and financial services. Agency Report (AR) at 1; RFP at 10, 19-23. The RFP here spans 28 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, 6 NAICS code exceptions, and numerous Product Service Codes (PSC), and is grouped by business size standard into seven contract “pools,” each having a “predominant” NAICS code.[3] RFP at 10, 86-87, 101-4.

The small-business RFP stated that awards would be made to the highest technically-rated offerors with fair and reasonable prices, considering the following five factors: responsibility; relevant experience; past performance; systems, certifications, and clearances; and price. See id. at 129-30. Offerors were informed that GSA would award 40 contracts each for pools 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6; and award 20 contracts each for pools 5A and 5B. Id. at 87, 129. Offerors were allowed to compete under more than one pool, but were instructed to submit a single proposal. Id. at 99.

Extensive and highly detailed instructions were provided for preparing proposals and submitting necessary documentation. The RFP stated--repeatedly, and emphatically--that submissions had to be clear and that the agency would strictly enforce all proposal submission requirements.[4] See id. at 129.

Among other things, offerors were required in their proposals to identify a number of completed or current projects: two pool qualification projects, which would establish an offeror’s eligibility to compete for a given pool, and at least three, but no more than five, relevant experience projects, which would be scored under the RFP’s screening and evaluation process (discussed below) in accordance with a point scoring table provided by the RFP. See id. at 99-100, 113-14, 129-30, 141, 157, 178. Both qualification projects and relevant experience projects could be projects completed under a federal contract, or under a task order issued under specified IDIQ contracts or blanket purchase agreements (BPA). See id. at 113, 152. The same federal contracts or task orders could be cited as both pool qualification and relevant experience projects, but an offeror was required to comply with separate submission requirements. See id. at 100.

As pertinent here, pool qualification projects had to correspond directly to a NAICS code, NAICS code exception, or PSC code, for the applicable OASIS pool. Id. at 99. Offerors were required to provide in their proposals a copy of an official award document for each qualification project, and--of significance here--a Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) report, if one existed, to validate the project’s NAICS or PSC code.[5] Id. at 100. The RFP stated that, in the event of a conflict between the NAICS or PSC code identified in the FPDS report and the code identified in the proposal documentation, the code in the FPDS report would control, unless the offeror submitted a statement from the project’s contracting officer that identified the “erroneous” NAICS or PSC code, explained the discrepancy, and provided a revised code. See id.; see also infra n.10 (submitting FPDS reports for additional relevant experience points).

Offerors were also informed that relevant experience projects had to be performed as a prime contractor and could include a “collection of task orders.”[6] See RFP at 113. The RFP stated that relevant federal experience had to be performed as a prime contractor, not as a subcontractor, and that any evaluation element for which an offeror was identified as a subcontractor would be rejected.[7] See id. at 98, 168. The RFP also stated that one (of the three to five) primary relevant experience projects[8] may, at the offeror’s discretion, be a collection of task orders placed under a single-award IDIQ task order contract or under a single award BPA, and that a “collection of task orders as a whole [would be] considered a single project.” Id. at 104, 113 (emphasis in original). Offerors were required to identify, using a template included with the solicitation, the type of contract vehicle, its award number, and the prime contractor’s name, as well as, for a collection of task orders, the award number for the overall IDIQ or BPA, and for each individual task order cited. Id. at 113; see attach. 7, Relevant Experience Template, at 1-2, 24-26. Also, offerors had to include a copy of the contract, task order, or official award form, highlighted (i.e., shaded) in relevant parts to, among other things, substantiate the NAICS code and core disciplines performed. RFP, attach. 7, Relevant Experience Template, at 3, 26. The RFP provided a proposal checklist in that regard for offerors to indicate whether their proposals included each mandatory and optional document, and to identify each document precisely. RFP at 104; attach. 4, Proposal Checklist; see supra n.4 (documentation instructions).

The RFP provided a self-scoring worksheet for offerors to claim points as specified in the RFP’s scoring table for various elements under the relevant experience, past performance, and systems, certifications, clearances factors.[9] See RFP at 104; attach. 5.A, Self-Scoring Worksheet. For example, for each relevant experience project, offerors could claim an increasing number of points for a project’s dollar value, number of OASIS core disciplines performed, and performance in multiple locations or outside the continental United States, among other things.[10] The RFP included a sample, completed self-scoring worksheet as an example for offerors to use in filling out their own worksheet. See RFP, attach. 5.B, Sample Self-Scoring Worksheet.

The solicitation’s exacting proposal requirements were matched by a similarly intricate, multi-phased evaluation, beginning with an initial screening process for verifying that an offeror provided the documents identified in its proposal checklist and that corresponded to the offeror’s self-scoring worksheet.[11] Id. at 129. Offerors were informed that “[a]ny discrepancies will be treated as clarifications.”[12] See id. Proposals that passed the initial screening would be preliminarily ranked according to offerors’ self scores.[13] See id. at 129-30. The top-ranked proposals (the top 40 or 20 depending on the pool, see supra at 3 (awards per pool)) would then be the subject of a more detailed evaluation on a pass/fail acceptability basis under the non-price evaluation factors. Id. at 130. The documentation for those proposals that passed the acceptability review would be further evaluated; any unsubstantiated points claimed by an offeror (under the relevant experience; past performance; and systems, certifications, and clearances evaluation factors) would be deducted; and proposals would be re-ranked according to their new evaluated scores. See id. at 130-41; AR at 4; see, e.g., supra n.8 (additional points for secondary relevant experience). Finally, proposals that remained in the top 40 or 20 ranking would be evaluated for price reasonableness. See id. at 130, 143. The RFP stated that this evaluation cycle would continue until the top 40 or 20 offerors in each pool with a fair and reasonable price were identified.[14] Id. at 130.

Evaluation

GSA received 330 proposals under the RFP, including, as pertinent here, 186 proposals for pool 1, 99 proposals for pool 3, 97 proposals for pool 4, and 49 proposals for pool 5B. AR, Tab 12, Source Selection Decision, at 1. ADNET’s and North Star’s proposals were rejected because they failed to provide at least three relevant experience projects. OST’s and Enterprise’s proposals were rejected because of discrepancies in their pool qualification projects. Gauss’s proposal passed the agency’s initial screening, but was not ultimately selected for award.

ADNET, which competed under pools 4 and 5B, identified five projects to establish its relevant experience. AR, Tab 3, ADNET Relevant Experience Proposal, at 1-41. The first three projects were separate “work activity projects” (WAP)[15] under ADNET’S second generation Space and Earth Science Data Analysis contract (SESDA 2, now expired) with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). See id. at 4-22. The fourth project was its current (third generation) SESDA 3 contract with NASA. Id. at 22-33. The fifth project was a collection of WAPs under the SESDA 2 contract. Id. at 33-41. GSA’s contracting officer decided that ADNET’s WAPs were not task orders, and concluded that ADNET had submitted only two relevant experience projects, (namely, its SESDA 2 and SESDA 3 contracts), and not three as required by the RFP. See AR, Tab 5-1, ADNET Evaluation, at 2. ADNET’S proposal was rejected in the initial screening on this basis. Id.

North Star, which competed under pool 1, also identified five projects to establish its relevant experience. AR, Tab 4, North Star Relevant Experience Proposal, at 1-38. The first three projects were performed under one Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) contract; the other two projects were performed under a second FAA contract. Id. For each project, North Star provided a standard form (SF) 30, Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract, and one or more task orders. Id. at 41, 99, 152, 207, 232. The first project was the FAA’s exercise of the contract’s first option year; the second project was the exercise of the second option year and the issuance of a task order (No. 2001); the third project was the exercise of the third option year and issuance of four task orders (Nos. 3001, 3002, 3003, and 3004). Id. at 41, 99, 152. Of significance here, North Star’s third project documentation included the four task orders, each of which highlighted services corresponding to applicable OASIS core disciplines. Id. at 163-86. The fourth project under the second FAA contract was task order No. 0001-03 amend. 2; and the fifth project was task order No. 0001-02 amend. 1. Id. at 207, 232. The contracting officer decided that North Star had incorrectly claimed contract modifications as task orders, and concluded that North Star had submitted only two relevant experience projects (namely, each FAA contract). See AR, Tab 4-1, North Star Evaluation, at 3. North Star’s proposal was rejected in the initial screening because the firm had not identified at least three relevant experience projects.

OST, which competed under pool 3, identified two FAA task orders as pool qualification projects. Although OST provided task order documentation for these projects, it did not provide any FPDS reports. AR at 14-15; see Tab 5, OST Proposal, Pool Qualification. The contracting officer searched FPDS and found existing FPDS reports for the task orders and the overall BPA. The FPDS reports identified principal NAICS codes that did not correspond to pool 3 and differed from the codes identified in OST’s award documents.[16] AR at 14-15; Supp. AR at 4-6. Because OST’s proposal had not provided explanatory statements from the FAA contracting officers with respect to this discrepancy, OST’s proposal was rejected. See AR, Tab 5-1, OST Evaluation, at 1-2.

Enterprise, which competed under pool 4, also identified two FAA task orders as pool qualification projects. Enterprise provided award documentation and FPDS reports for these projects. See AR, Tab 9, Enterprise Proposal, Pool Qualification, at 6-30. GSA rejected Enterprise’s proposal, because the NAICS codes identified (which Enterprise’s proposal specifically highlighted) in each project’s FPDS report did not correspond to pool 4, and Enterprise failed to provide explanatory statements from the FAA contracting officers, as required by the RFP. See AR at 18-19; Tab 9, Enterprise Proposal, at 14-15, 28-29; Tab 9-1, Enterprise Evaluation, at 1-2.

Gauss, which competed under pools 1 and 3, identified five projects to establish its relevant experience. See AR at 21; Tab 7, Gauss Relevant Experience Proposal, at 1-45. Gauss claimed that two of the projects were contracts issued by the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Command to Gauss as a prime contractor. Id. at 1-2, 23-25. However, Gauss’s proposal included contracts for these two projects that explicitly identified SOSSEC, Inc.,[17] as the prime contractor and Gauss as the subcontractor. See id. at 16, 39. Gauss’s proposal also included a letter from the ARDEC program manager (to verify the projects’ PSC codes) stating that the work under those contracts was performed by SOSSEC as the prime contractor and by Gauss as a subcontractor (under ARDEC’s “Other Transaction Authority,” see 10 U.S.C. § 2371). See Gauss Comments, attach. 9, Oct. 28, 2013, ARDEC Letter. GSA did not accept these two projects, because Gauss was found not to be the prime contractor. Gauss’s proposal, however, passed the initial screening (because it otherwise submitted two acceptable qualifying projects and three acceptable relevant experience projects) and was initially ranked among the top-40 proposals for pools 1 and 3. See AR at 21. In its further evaluation of Gauss’s proposal, GSA deducted all the points claimed by Gauss for its fourth and fifth relevant experience projects because they identified Gauss as a subcontractor. The point deductions resulted in Gauss’s proposal dropping out of the top-40 rated proposals in pools 1 and 3. Id.; Tab 8-1, Gauss Evaluation, at 19; Tab 13, Pool 1 Rankings; Tab 14, Pool 3 Rankings. As a result, Gauss did not receive an award.

These protests followed debriefings.[18]

DISCUSSION

ADNET, North Star, OST, Enterprise, and Gauss protest the rejection of their proposals, challenging GSA’s evaluation of their respective relevant experience or qualification projects. OST and Enterprise also argue that GSA was required to seek clarifications related to their pool qualification projects, and allege that the agency treated offerors disparately in that regard. We have considered all of the protesters’ arguments, and although we only address the primary ones, we find that none provide a basis to sustain the protests.

Protesters’ Arguments

ADNET argues that GSA unreasonably considered the firm’s NASA WAPs to be a single relevant experience project. ADNET Protest at 10-13. According to ADNET, the RFP permitted offerors to indentify task orders both individually and collectively as relevant experience projects, and only restricted offerors from “double-counting” experience under both an overarching IDIQ contract and its task orders. ADNET 2^nd Supp. Protest at 3-6; ADNET Comments & 3^rd Supp. Protest at 10-11. In this respect, ADNET claims that its WAPs reflect experience performing distinct OASIS core disciplines. ADNET also disputes GSA’s view that WAPs are not task orders. ADNET Protest at 10-12.

North Star argues that GSA unreasonably characterized its relevant experience projects as contract modifications, rather than task orders. North Star Comments at 5-8. North Star also contends that it did not intend to rely on a collection of task orders as its third relevant experience project and that the inclusion of additional task orders in that regard was a clerical error. North Star Supp. Comments at 10. In this respect, North Star maintains that the first task order identified under its third relevant experience project satisfies the OASIS core disciplines required.[19] See id. at 9-10.

OST argues that it was unreasonable for GSA to only evaluate the firm’s FPDS reports that listed incorrect NAICS codes for OST’s qualification projects, instead of evaluating the projects’ scope of work (SOW) included with the firm’s proposal. OST Protest at 16, 20, 22. OST argues that the projects’ SOWs show that its projects correspond to the NAICS codes for pool 3.

Gauss argues that GSA unreasonably did not accept the firm’s SOSSEC contracts as relevant experience projects. See Gauss Comments at 5. Gauss maintains that GSA’s contracting officer simply accepted the term “subcontractor” as stated in the projects’ contracts and summarily deducted evaluation points for those projects without actually evaluating the contracts. See id. Gauss contends that if the contracting officer had actually evaluated the contracts, he would have understood that the firm performed services directly for the government, and that, although Gauss was identified as a subcontractor, its performance was more akin to that of a section 8(a) contractor. See id. at 5, 9-10; see also Gauss Protest at 8.

Finally, Enterprise and OST contend that GSA was required to seek clarifications from offerors regarding NAICS code discrepancies, and allege that GSA evaluated their proposals disparately in that regard by seeking clarifications from some offerors, but not from Enterprise and OST. OST Comments at 22-23; Enterprise Protest at 8-9; OST Comments & 2^nd Supp. Protest at 3-9; Enterprise Comments & Supp. Protest at 3-8.

Failure to Comply with Proposal Instructions

Common to all of the protesters is their proposals’ failure, in our view, to comply with the RFP’s exacting, but clearly stated, instructions and documentation requirements. None of the protesters have shown that GSA’s evaluations were inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation in this respect.

In reviewing protests challenging the evaluation of proposals, we do not conduct a new evaluation or substitute our judgment for that of the agency but examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and in accord with the RFP evaluation criteria. Abt Assocs. Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 223 at 4. It is an offeror’s responsibility to submit a well-written proposal, with adequately detailed information which clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation requirements and allows a meaningful review by the procuring agency. See, e.g., International Med. Corps, B-403688, Dec. 6, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 292 at 7.

Here, with regard to ADNET’s protest, the RFP unambiguously informed offerors that a “collection of task orders” included all task orders issued under that single-award IDIQ as a single project. See RFP at 168, 246, 257. Further, the RFP was amended, in part, to respond to the following questions from offerors regarding the exact scenario for which ADNET’s proposal was rejected:

Question: [I]f a Single-Award IDIQ Task Order [contract] has 20 TOs [task orders], can an offeror submit TO [no.] 1 as one of the 5 relevant experience projects, and TOs [nos.] 2-4 (as a collection of Task Orders) as a separate project under the 5 relevant experience projects?

Response: No. If a single-award IDIQ contract is being used as a Relevant Experience [project], ALL task orders under that contract belong to that single Relevant Experience project.

* * * *

[Question: T]here does not appear to be any language in the RFP that prohibits this scenario. Can the Government confirm that the previous response still applies?

* * * *

Response: The response still applies. Either use the entire IDIQ or use the task orders individually.

Id. at 168, 246 (emphasis added).[20] GSA’s response explicitly disallowed the precise combination of task orders as submitted by ADNET. For this reason, we cannot agree with ADNET that the RFP only restricted offerors from submitting a master contract (or BPA) and its task orders, concomitantly, as a single relevant experience project. See ADNET 2^nd Supp Protest at 4-6. Moreover, ADNET’s interpretation of the RFP renders superfluous, and ambiguous, the RFP’s other detailed instructions and examples for scoring points for the magnitude and past performance ratings of task order projects when submitted individually versus collectively. See RFP at 114-15, 121-22, 139-41. In order for an interpretation to be reasonable, a solicitation must be read as a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all of its provisions. See Northrup Grumman Info. Tech., Inc., B-401198, B-401198.2, June 2, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 122 at 2.

Similarly, with regard to North Star’s protest, even were we to assume that the firm’s proposal identified task orders as relevant experience projects (and not contract modifications, as GSA’s contracting officer noted), the firm’s proposal did not otherwise comply with the RFP’s explicit instructions for submitting collections of task orders. Contrary to the solicitation’s instructions, North Star identified as relevant experience projects two individual task orders as projects 1 and 2, respectively, and a collection of four task orders as project 3--even though all six of these task orders were issued under the same FAA IDIQ contract. AR, Tab 4, North Star Relevant Experience Proposal, at 41, 99, 152-86. Additionally, the RFP, as amended in response to offerors’ questions, expressly stated that successive single-year task orders issued under the same single-award IDIQ contract would be considered a collection of task orders, not individual relevant experience projects. See RFP at 258. In this respect, the record shows that North Star’s first and second relevant experience projects were successive, one-year task orders for performance of the same services under the same single-award IDIQ contract.[21] See AR, Tab 4, North Star Relevant Experience Proposal, at 3, 9, 66-74, 116-29 (performance periods and task descriptions).

Accordingly, because the RFP prohibited the submission of task orders in the manner, or combination, submitted by ADNET and North Star,[22] we find that GSA reasonably determined that both firms failed to identify at least three relevant experience projects in their proposals, as required by the solicitation, and the protesters’ disagreement with the agency’s judgment in that regard does not establish that the agency acted unreasonably.[23] See Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD ¶ 6 at 10-11.

With regard to OST’s protest, the RFP unambiguously informed offerors that proposals had to include an existing FPDS report to validate a pool qualification project’s NAICS code. Moreover, with regard to both OST’s and Enterprise’s protests, the RFP cautioned that if the code identified in the report conflicted with the code in the offeror’s award documents, the FPDS report would control, unless the proposal included a statement from the project’s contracting officer resolving the conflict. See RFP at 100, 160-1, 181, 194, 202, 225, 231, 233, 254-55. Despite these explicit instructions, OST’s proposal did not include available FPDS reports for its qualifications projects or letters from the projects’ contracting officer explaining the reports’ NAICS code discrepancies.[24] See AR, Tab 5, OST Proposal, Pool Qualification Projects. Enterprise, on the other hand, provided existing FPDS reports for its qualification projects, but these reports highlighted obvious NAICS code discrepancies between the reports and the firm’s award documents.[25] AR, Tab 9, Enterprise Proposal, Pool Qualification, at 14-15, 28-29. While both OST and Enterprise now provide letters from their projects’ contracting officers explaining the NAICS code errors in the FPDS reports, these letters were not provided in the protesters’ proposals, as required by the RFP, and neither protester explains this omission, or otherwise shows how GSA’s evaluation was inconsistent with the RFP’s terms in that regard. OST Supp. Protest at 2, Exhib. 1, March 26, 2014, FAA Letter; Enterprise Protest at 7, Exhib. 1, FAA March 6, 2014, Letter.[26]

With regard to Gauss’s protest, the RFP unambiguously informed offerors that relevant federal experience had to be obtained in the role of a prime contractor. The RFP defined a prime contractor as the entity having privity of contract with the government, and warned offerors that any project that identified the offeror as a subcontractor would be rejected. RFP at 98, 108, 113, 166. Despite this plain language, Gauss not only submitted contract documents for two relevant experience projects identifying Gauss as a subcontractor for those projects, but its proposal included letters from the projects’ program manager also stating that Gauss had been a subcontractor. In this regard, the record shows that the SOSSEC consortium--and not Gauss--was the prime contractor for those projects.[27]

We find no merit to Gauss’s apparent belief that GSA was required to second-guess the representation in Gauss’s own proposal characterizing it as a subcontractor.[28] Agencies are under no obligation to infer information from a protester’s proposal to determine the protester’s intent; we find that GSA reasonably evaluated Gauss’s relevant experience proposal and properly disregarded the firm’s subcontractor experience consistent with the RFP.[29] See, e.g., The Louis Berger Group, Inc., B-407715 et al., Jan. 25, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 55 at 9; Leach Mgmt. Consulting Corp., B-292493.2, Oct. 3, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 175 at 5 (denying protest that protester’s experience should have been apparent because it related to other activities identified in its proposal).

Clarifications

OST and Enterprise also argue that the NAICS code inconsistencies in their proposals with respect to the pool qualification projects are ambiguities that should have been apparent to GSA.[30] OST and Enterprise argue that the agency had an obligation to conduct clarifications under FAR § 15.306(a) with respect to the NAICS code inconsistencies. See OST Comments at 22-23; OST 2^nd Supp. Comments at 13; Enterprise Protest at 8-9; Enterprise Comments & Supp. Protest at 8.

FAR § 15.306 describes a spectrum of exchanges that may take place between a contracting agency and an offeror during negotiated procurements. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the agency and offerors that may occur when contract award without discussions is contemplated; an agency may, but is not required to, engage in clarifications that give offerors an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors. FAR § 15.306(a); Satellite Servs., Inc., B-295866, B-295866.2, Apr. 20, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 84 at 2 n.2. Although agencies have broad discretion as to whether to seek clarifications from offerors, offerors have no automatic right to clarifications regarding proposals, and such communications cannot be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or cost elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the proposal.[31] A. G. Cullen Constr., Inc., B-284049.2, Feb. 22, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 45 at 5-6.

We find no merit to OST’s and Enterprise’s contentions that GSA was required to seek clarifications from the protesters with respect to their NAICS code discrepancies. As noted above, an agency is permitted, but not required, to obtain clarifications from offerors. Moreover, requesting clarification from one offeror does not trigger a requirement that the agency seek clarification from other offerors. See Serco Inc., B-406061, B-406061.2, Feb. 1, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 61 at 13. Here, to become acceptable, OST’s and Enterprise’s proposals would have required submission of substantive documentation from the contracting officers for their respective qualification projects explaining the NAICS code errors, among other things.[32] Thus, although the protesters view these errors to be minor or clerical, correction of these discrepancies would have required the agency to conduct discussions. See FAR § 15.306(d) (discussions occur when an agency communicates with an offeror for the purpose of obtaining information essential to determine the acceptability of a proposal, or provides the offeror with an opportunity to revise or modify its proposal in some material respect); see also Environmental Quality Mgmt., Inc., B-402247.2, Mar. 9, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 75 at 5.

Unequal Treatment

Enterprise and OST also complain that GSA treated the firms disparately with regard to clarifications. Specifically, the protesters identify a number of emails between GSA’s contracting officer and six other offerors that, according to the protesters, seek clarifications from those offerors “about NAICS code issues” or “deficiencies.” OST Comments & 2^nd Supp. Protest at 4; Enterprise Comments & Supp. Protest at 3. It is a fundamental principle of federal procurement law that a contracting agency must treat all offerors equally and evaluate their proposals evenhandedly against the solicitation’s requirements and evaluation criteria. See, e.g., Brican Inc., B-402602, June 17, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 141 at 4.

As an initial matter, the record does not support OST’s assertion that all six offerors were “similarly situated” to OST, or that “GSA asked the six vendors the same type of information that OST seeks to [clarify.]” OST Supp. Comments at 10; OST 2^nd Supp. Comments at 7. Rather, five of the communications are obviously distinguishable from OST’s (as well as Enterprise’s) situation.[33] The first clarification request involved an offeror (SMS) which certified that it was not a small business, even though it was applying for several pools under the OASIS small business solicitation. 2^nd Supp. AR, Tab 5-4, Selected Clarifications, at 3-5. The second involved an offeror (SP Systems) which, among other things, identified IDIQ contracts and BPAs as pool qualifications projects, but left unclear whether the offeror had actually received any orders or performed work in that regard. Id. at 11-13. The third involved an offeror (Invertix) which redacted classified portions of its qualifications projects. Id. at 20-23. The fourth involved an offeror (ATA) which submitted a proposal under a NAICS code exception, and, as the RFP indicated, FPDS reports do not report NAICS code exceptions. See id. at 24; RFP at 100, 156, 202. 233. The fifth (Futron) involved a letter from a project’s contracting officer that cited a predecessor contract number for the offeror’s project. See 2^nd Supp. AR at 3-4; Tab 5-4, Selected Clarifications, at 14-19.

Only one of the six offerors from which GSA allegedly sought unequal clarifications is similarly situated to OST. Like OST, the sixth offeror (TWM) did not submit FPDS reports or project contracting officer letters for its qualification projects, and the NAICS codes identified in the available FPDS reports conflicted with the award documents provided by TWM. 2^nd Supp. AR at 2-3; Tab 5-4, Selected Clarifications, at 6-10. The agency asked TWM to “[p]lease clarify your interpretation of how this project serves as a pool qualifier” for the respective pools. 2^nd Supp. AR, Tab 5-4, Selected Clarifications, at 6. OST and Enterprise assert that they should have been asked the same question by GSA, and that, had they been asked, they could have easily clarified their NAICS code discrepancies and placed in the top 40 ranking proposals. See OST Comments & 2^nd Supp. Protest at 8; Enterprise Comments & Supp. Protest at 6-7.

However, as discussed above, to become acceptable, TWM, like OST and Enterprise, would have been required to submit substantive documentation from their projects’ contracting officers explaining the NAICS code errors. Here, the record shows that GSA did not request that TWM provide project contracting officer letters (or any other missing, required documentation), nor did TWM submit any. See 2^nd Supp. AR, Tab 5-4, Selected Clarifications, at 6-10. In this respect, the record supports the agency’s contention that it only engaged in clarifications.[34] See Supp. AR at 5-7; 2^nd Supp. AR at 9-10; CO’s Supp. Statement at 5. In other words, although the protesters complain that they did not receive similar clarifications, the problems in their proposals, like those of TWM, would have required GSA to conduct discussions with those offerors.[35] Thus, despite OST’s and Enterprise’s objections, nothing in the agency’s communications with TWM supports sustaining their protests on the basis of unequal treatment.[36] Indeed, as we note above, requesting clarification from one offeror does not trigger a requirement that the agency seek clarification from other offerors. See Serco Inc., supra; see, e.g., Mil-Mar Century Corp., B-407644 et al., Jan. 17, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 39 at 12-13 (although agency clarification sought additional information to facilitate understanding of awardee’s proposal, protest that awardee was not provided opportunity to revise its proposal is denied), accord ST Net, Inc., v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 99, 111 (2013).

In sum, we find, as discussed above, that GSA reasonably evaluated the protesters’ proposals consistent with the terms of the RFP, and the protesters’ disagreements with the agency’s judgments in that regard do not establish that the agency acted unreasonably or contrary to procurement laws or regulations.

The protests are denied.

Susan A. Poling
General Counsel