VMD Systems Integrators, LLC dba VMD Corporation (B-422384.3; B-422384.5)

You should care.

Category: Multiple Award Schedule, compliance,

Date: 25 March 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-422384.3%2Cb-422384.5

VMD Systems Integrators protested the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decision to eliminate its proposal from a competition for project management and cybersecurity compliance support services under RFQ #70FA3123Q00000045. SynergisT JV filed a similar protest. The solicitation was issued under GSA Schedule SIN 54151HACS. VMD’s proposal included labor categories under another SIN (54151S), which DHS deemed noncompliant. GAO sustained the protest, finding no solicitation language that restricted vendors to quoting labor categories under only one SIN.

Elimination based on labor categories under different SIN: GAO held that while the solicitation stated it was issued under SIN 54151HACS, it did not explicitly restrict offerors from quoting labor categories from other SINs. Relying on past precedent (e.g., Pitney Bowes, Inc.), GAO found the agency’s exclusion of VMD’s proposal was unreasonable.

Evaluation of awardee’s labor categories: GAO sustained VMD’s argument that the agency failed to refute its claim that AccelGov's proposed labor category for a technical writer did not align with the duties required. The agency’s silence on this issue was treated as a concession.

Other challenges: Including to AccelGov’s experience and use of JV partner LCATs—were dismissed either because they failed to allege violations of law or regulation or were unsupported by the solicitation.

The protest was sustained in part and dismissed in part. GAO recommended reevaluation or a revised solicitation, and reimbursement of protest costs.

Digest

1. Protest alleging that the agency erred in eliminating the protester’s quotation from the competition for quoting labor categories (LCATs) under special item numbers (SINs) from the protester’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract other than the SIN under which the solicitation was issued is sustained where the solicitation did not limit applicable SINs.
2. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s quoted labor categories is dismissed in part where the protester fails to allege a violation of statute or regulation, and sustained in part where the agency fails to refute the protester’s allegation that the LCAT quoted by the awardee for one position fails to encompass the duties of that position.
3. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s quotation under experience factor is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.