SGT, Inc., B-281773; B-281773.4, April 1, 1999

SGT, Inc., B-281773; B-281773.4, April 1, 1999 BNUMBER: B-281773; B-281773.4 DATE: April 1, 1999 TITLE: SGT, Inc., B-281773; B-281773.4, April 1, 1999 ********************************************************************** 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. Matter of:SGT, Inc. File:B-281773; B-281773.4 Date:April 1, 1999 Arthur I. Leaderman, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., and Claire E. Kresse, Esq., Smith, Pachter, McWhorter & D'Ambrosio, for the protester. J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., McMahon, David & Brody, and Myrna E. Friedman, Esq., for QSS, Inc., an intervenor. Vincent A. Salgado, Esq., and Gregory LaRosa, Esq., National Aeronautics & Space Administration, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest against agency's evaluation of awardee's response to representative task order (RTO) is denied where agency reasonably concluded that solicitation did not require offerors to propose a technical solution, design a device or select a specific [DELETED] material technology, and that awardee's proposal of a methodology for performing the RTOs therefore was consistent with the solicitation; the agency reasonably accounted for protester's more detailed proposal of a higher cost, more capable [DELETED] material technology by crediting the proposal with significant strengths for its additional detail and demonstration of a thorough understanding of the technology, and by normalizing foundry costs in the probable cost figures presented to the source selection authority. DECISION SGT, Inc. protests the National Aeronautics & Space Administration's award of a contract to QSS Group, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 5-58392/237, issued as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside for multidisciplinary engineering development services (MEDS) for the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt, Maryland. The protesters challenge the evaluation under the technical, cost and past performance factors. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued on July 17, 1998, provided for award of a 5-year indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to provide engineering services to [Electrical Systems Center], [Information Systems Center], systems engineering, and related organizations, as required, for the study, design, development, fabrication, integration, testing, verification, and operations of space flight and ground system hardware and software, including development and verification of new technologies to enable future science missions. RFP Attachment A, Statement of Work (SOW), at 2. The SOW specifically provided for issuance of task assignments to perform services with respect to components, subsystems, systems, science instruments, and spacecraft, including attached shuttle payloads, free-flying spacecraft, aircraft and balloon payloads, and Space Station payloads as well as ground support equipment, simulators, non-flight models, and prototypes; candidate, feasibility, and systems definition studies; project management; systems engineering; analysis; preliminary design; detailed design; fabrication; assembly; integration; test and verification; test instrumentation; data systems management; launch and post-launch operations; research and technology unique to system development; parts and materials; documentation; maintenance; sustaining engineering; configuration management; performance assurance; systems safety; and contamination control. Id. Award was to be made on a best value basis to the offeror whose proposal was most beneficial to the government under three evaluation factors: (1) mission suitability (1,000 evaluation points available), with subfactors for understanding the requirement (400 points), personnel (150 points), and management plan/corporate resources (450 points); (2) past performance; and (3) cost. RFP sec. M.5.2, at 115. Cost was significantly less important than both the combined importance of mission suitability and past performance, and mission suitability alone, but was more important than past performance alone. Id. sec. M.4.3, at 111. The evaluation under both the mission suitability and cost factors was based to some extent on an evaluation of offerors' responses to representative task orders (RTO) set forth in the solicitation.