• BDO, located at [DELETED] Virginia, with CAGE code 6YTU0, possessed an active secret FCL. AR, Tab 21, FCL Search.
• BDO, located in Bethesda, Maryland, with CAGE code 6YTU0 (and DUNS number 186516571), was not active in the SAM database, and had no information available for the immediate or highest level owner. AR, Tab 22, 6YTU0 CAGE Search.
• BDO, located in Chicago, Illinois, with CAGE code 32ZC7 (and DUNS number 047684840), was active in the SAM database, had no information available for the immediate or highest level owner, and was the immediate owner of BDO Public Sector, LLC (CAGE code 7PR40). AR, Tab 23, 32ZC7 CAGE search.

In addition, on June 8, the agency advised BDO that it was completing its compliance check, and that the CAGE code provided in its quotation did not match its DUNS number. AR, Tab 27, Email from Agency to BDO, June 8, 10:53 a.m., at 2. BDO’s first response stated:

The [CAGE] code listed in the submission is that of our wholly-owned subsidiary, BDO Public Sector, LLC. Please note that the [CAGE] code associated with BDO USA, LLP and the DUNS represented in our proposal should be 32ZC7. This [CAGE] code should be used in our response and replace the 6YTU0 [CAGE] code.

AR, Tab 28, Email from BDO to Agency, June 8, 1:27 p.m., at 2. BDO’s second response stated: “Our [CAGE] code is 6YTU0. This is for our Secret Clearance.” AR, Tab 27, Email from Agency to BDO, June 8, 2:24 p.m., at 1.

The agency then requested clarification regarding the two different and conflicting responses. BDO provided a further response, which stated: “I assume this solicitation requires a Secret Clearance. That is [CAGE] Code 6YTU0. The 32ZC7 is the [CAGE] Code for our GSA Contract under our National Headquarter[s’] address in Chicago, IL.” AR, Tab 28, Email from BDO to Agency, June 8, 2:38 p.m., at 1. In a subsequent communication, BDO continued to refer to the entity with CAGE code 6YTU0 as a subsidiary. AR, Tab 31, Email from BDO to Agency, June 11, 2018, 2:51 p.m., at 1 (“I am in the process of obtaining a DUNS for the BDO USA, LLP, [CAGE] Code 6YTU0 to show that as a subsidiary of BDO USA, LLP.”).

The agency argues that BDO cannot aggregate the qualifications of two different entities, the parent possessing the GSA PSS schedule contract and the subsidiary possessing the secret FCL, to meet the RFQ’s requirements. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 9-13. The agency contends that the NISPOM, incorporated into the RFQ, requires as a general rule that a parent organization have an FCL at the same or higher level as a subsidiary. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 10 (citing NISPOM § 2-109); MOL at 13. The agency argues that it properly found BDO ineligible for award because the BDO entity with CAGE code 32ZC7 that holds a GSA PSS contract does not possess a secret FCL. COS at 10; MOL at 14-17.

In its comments, the protester--for the first time--clarifies that its [DELETED] Virginia office is not a subsidiary of BDO (CAGE code 32ZC7), but is “a branch office that is part of the larger BDO USA contracting entity.” Comments at 1-2. The protester further explains that the reason there is a separate CAGE code for its [DELETED] Virginia office (formerly located in Bethesda, Maryland) is because the Defense Security Service required BDO to be assigned a separate CAGE code unique to its business location that would be granted the FCL. Id. at 3-4; see also id. Exh. 1, Decl. of Director of Contracts/Facility Security Officer, at 1-2. The protester also states that BDO Public Sector, LLP is a recently-established subsidiary that is in the process of applying for its own separate FCL, but has no relation to the solicitation or the protest. Id. at 4. BDO argues that it is eligible for award because it is a single entity that possesses both a GSA PSS contract and a secret FCL, and the agency “is reading into the Solicitation a requirement that does not exist--namely that the CAGE code for the Offeror and the CAGE code for the Secret FCL be identical.” Id. at 6.

Even if the representations provided by BDO in its comments are true, this information was not available to the agency when it was evaluating BDO’s quotation. Moreover, we disagree with the protester that its identification of different CAGE codes was inconsequential under these circumstances. The RFQ here required that an offeror submit a cover letter identifying the CAGE code, GSA PSS contract number, and DUNS number of the prime contractor and any teaming partner/subcontractor. RFQ at 3. The RFQ also required that contractors complete the DD Form 254 because the “contractor must have and maintain a valid FCL at the SECRET level at [the] time of proposal submission.” PWS at 31-32.

Information readily available, such as CAGE codes and DUNS numbers, must reasonably establish that differently identified entities are in fact the same concern. Raymond Express Intl., LLC, B-409872.3 et al., Sept. 11, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 265 at 6-7. CAGE codes are assigned to discrete business entities for a variety of purposes (e.g., facility clearances, pre-award surveys, and tracking the ownership of technical data) to dispositively establish the identity of a legal entity for contractual purposes. Gear Wizzard, Inc., B-298993, Jan. 11, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 11 at 2; National Found. Co., B-253369, Sept. 1, 1993, 93-2 CPD ¶ 143 at 2 n.1. CAGE codes and DUNS numbers are used to identify the entity that is the offeror for a given procurement. URS Grp., Inc., B-402820, July 30, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 175 at 4; see also FAR § 4.1803. In the documents submitted by BDO, the CAGE code for the offering entity is different than the CAGE code in the quotation for the entity with the FCL.

Specifically, in the quotation’s cover letter, BDO stated its CAGE code was 6YTU0. BDO also provided a DD Form 254 in its quotation showing it has a secret FCL for its location in [DELETED] Virginia, with a CAGE code of 6YTU0. BDO’s CAGE code for its GSA PSS contract is 32ZC7. In its response to the agency’s request for clarification, the protester informed the agency that CAGE code 6YTU0 belonged to BDO’s wholly-owned subsidiary BDO Public Sector, LLC. BDO’s subsequent communications with the agency did not correct this prior statement, and the information readily available to the agency did not affirmatively establish that the BDO entity holding the GSA PSS contract possessed a secret FCL. The record therefore supports the reasonableness of the agency’s decision to find BDO’s quotation ineligible for award because its quotation and subsequent clarifications failed to establish that it satisfied the RFQ’s requirements.  (BDO USA, LLP B-416504: Sep 14, 2018)

Raymond argues that the award to MPG must be overturned because it was made in the name of an entity that does not exist. Comments at 2-6; Supp. Comments at 2-5, 8-14. In this regard, Raymond points out that the award document--i.e., the standard form (SF) 1449 signed by the contracting officer--lists the awardee as “Parma Fruit MPG West,” rather than MPG West, LLC, and lists an address that is not MPG West, LLC’s address. According to Raymond, no entity named Parma Fruit MPG West is registered in the System for Award Management (SAM), and there is no commercial and government entity (CAGE) code or data universal numbering system (DUNS) number associated with that name. Am. Protest at 11. Also according to Raymond, state corporate records show that no entity is registered under the name Parma Fruit MPG West, as either a stand-alone name or as a tradename. Am. Protest at 11; Comments at 4-5. Finally, Raymond points out that with limited exception, MPG’s proposal did not refer to the offering entity as MPG West, LLC, but instead used names such as “Parma Fruit MPG West, LLC,” “Parma Fruit MPG West,” and “parma fruit MPGwest - GLOBAL.” Comments at 3‑4; Supp. Comments at 2.

The contracting officer responds that the award document lists the CAGE code and DUNS number of MPG West, LLC (as opposed to Parma Fruit MPG West or any other entity), and that the reference therein to “Parma Fruit MPG West” is a clerical error that she will correct after the protest proceeding has concluded. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 6-7. She also states that only one CAGE code and one DUNS number appeared in MPG’s proposal--those of MPG West, LLC--and that it was clear to her from the proposal that MPG West, LLC was the offeror. Id. at 7. Finally, the contracting officer provided a printout showing that prior to the award determination, the agency accessed the SAM database page that confirms that the CAGE code and DUNS number listed in MPG’s proposal are registered to MPG West, LLC. AR, Tab 39, SAM Search Results for MPG, at 2558.

For its part, MPG explains that MPG itself caused the error by inadvertently listing “Parma Fruit MPG West” in the “offeror” box of the completed SF 1449 that it submitted with its proposal. MPG Comments at 4 (citing AR, Tab 15, MPG Proposal (South Korea), at 1054). MPG, points out, however, that it did list “MPG West, LLC” in the “payment” box of the SF 1449. Id. MPG also explains that its use of the name “Parma Fruit MPG West” stems from its relationship with another firm, Parma Fruit, Inc. Id. This relationship was explained in the proposal as follows: “MPG West was established in 2007 in partnership with Parma Fruit to exclusively handle [Department of Defense] business.” AR, Tab 15, MPG Proposal (South Korea), at 1054. Lastly, MPG emphasizes that other than MPG West, LLC, no legally extant entity--Parma Fruit, Inc. or otherwise--was identified as the offeror in the proposal. See id. at 4-5.

Uncertainty as to the identity of an offering entity renders an offer technically unacceptable, since ambiguity as to an offeror’s identity could result in there being no party bound to perform the obligations of the contract. See Raytheon Co., B‑409651, B-409651.2, July 9, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 207 at 6; W.B. Constr. & Sons, Inc., B-405874, B-405874.2, Dec. 16, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 282 at 4. The information readily available, such as CAGE codes and DUNS numbers, must reasonably establish that differently-identified entities are in fact the same concern. See Intelligent Inv., Inc., B-406347, B-406347.2, Apr. 27, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 193 at 4-5; W.B. Constr. & Sons, Inc., supra. As a general matter, the entity awarded the contract should be the entity that submitted the initial proposal. See Raytheon Co., supra; W.B. Constr. & Sons, Inc., supra, at 5.

CAGE codes are assigned to discrete business entities by the Defense Logistics Agency and are used to dispositively establish the identity of a legal entity for contractual purposes. See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 4.1801; Gear Wizzard, Inc., B-298993, Jan. 11, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 11 at 2. Similarly, DUNS numbers are established by Dunn & Bradstreet Information Services for purposes of establishing the precise identification of an offeror or contractor. See FAR §§ 2.101, 4.605(b); URS Group, Inc., B-402820, July 30, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 175 at 4. CAGE codes and DUNS numbers are used to identify the entity that is the offeror for a given procurement. See W.B. Constr. & Sons, Inc., supra.

Here, Raymond has not sufficiently established that there is ambiguity regarding MPG’s identity that could result in no party being bound to perform the obligations of the contract. While it is true, as Raymond points out, that MPG’s proposal referred to the offering entity using various--albeit similar--names, the record reflects that the proposal listed only one CAGE code and only one DUNS number: those of MPG West, LLC. As stated above, CAGE codes and DUNS numbers dispositively establish the identity of a legal entity for contractual purposes. Further, although the award document includes an errant name and address for the awardee, it identifies the legal entity that is bound to perform the contractual obligations by listing the only CAGE code and the only DUNS number that appeared in the proposal. Finally, the contracting officer and MPG have stated on the record that MPG West, LLC was understood to be the intended offeror. See Contracting Officer’s Statement at 6-7; MPG Comments at 4. Given these circumstances, we find that the record is sufficiently clear to show that MPG West, LLC was the offeror and the awardee, and that MPG West, LLC is bound by the obligations of the contract. Raymond’s claim regarding the identity of the awardee is denied.  (Raymond Express International, LLC B-409872.3, B-409872.4, B-409872.5: Sep 11, 2015)  (pdf)