Decision Released: USAF Defensive Cyber Realization, Integration, and Operational Support (DCRIOS) Services protest sustainment

File: B-422245.5

Digest

Protest challenging agency’s determination that protester’s proposal was ineligible for award because it failed to include proof of a required certification is sustained where the solicitation required proof that the prime contractor had the certification at the time of proposal submission and, due to a merger between the protester and its wholly owned subsidiary, the prime contractor has the required certification.

Discussion

DecisionPoint challenges the agency’s determination that its proposal was ineligible for award because it failed to include proof of any level III CMMI certification for the prime contractor providing the CPT support services, as required by the FOPR. The protester argues that the agency’s determination is improper because the solicitation did not require submission of proof of the certificate at the time of proposal submission. The protester also argues that the agency’s decision was unreasonable because it failed to consider EmeSec’s merger into DecisionPoint[8] and the novation of the VETS II contract from EmeSec to DecisionPoint. As discussed below, although we find that the FOPR required offerors to submit evidence of a level III CMMI certification at the time of proposal submission, we conclude that the Air Force’s determination that DecisionPoint’s proposal failed to meet this requirement was not reasonable and sustain the protest on this basis …

Decision

DecisionPoint Corporation, known at the time of proposal submission as EmeSec Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Gaithersburg, Maryland, protests the Department of the Air Force’s rejection of its proposal under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA8773-23-R-0003, for defensive cyber realization, integration, and operational support (DCRIOS) services. The agency determined that it could not make award to the protester because EmeSec did not demonstrate that it held a required certification at the time it submitted its proposal. The protester argues that the solicitation did not require the certification at the time of proposal submission and, even if it did, the agency improperly ignored the effect of a novation in finding that EmeSec’s proposal did not comply with the certification requirement.

We sustain the protest.

Read the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story