Mentor Technologies, Inc.; Science & Engineering Services, I,

Mentor Technologies, Inc.; Science & Engineering Services, I, BNUMBER: B-281773.2; B-281773.3; B-281773.5; B-281773.6 DATE: April 1, 1999 TITLE: Mentor Technologies, Inc.; Science & Engineering Services, I, B-281773.2; B-281773.3; B-281773.5; B-281773.6, 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:Mentor Technologies, Inc.; Science & Engineering Services, Inc. File:B-281773.2; B-281773.3; B-281773.5; B-281773.6 Date:April 1, 1999 H. Sang Lee for Science & Engineering Services, Inc., and John Bollinger for Mentor Technologies, Inc., the protesters. 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. DIGEST 1. In probable cost determination, agency reasonably concluded that protester had significantly overstaffed response to representative (sample) task order (RTO) used in evaluating proposals, where response included significant number of electrical engineer hours to perform design work notwithstanding that RTO statement of work provided that design had already been completed, and proposed level of effort significantly exceeded that assumed in in-house estimate and by other offerors. 2. In probable cost determination, agency reasonably determined that second protester had significantly overstaffed response to representative (sample) task order (RTO) used in evaluating proposals, where response recognized that it was expanding the scope of the RTO to include hours for complying with agency program management system not specified in the RTO, and proposed level of effort significantly exceeded that assumed in in-house estimate and by other offerors. DECISION Science & Engineering Services, Inc. (SESI) and Mentor Technologies, Inc. protest the National Aeronautics & Space Administration's (NASA) 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.