Scientific and Commercial Systems Corporation; Omni Corporation, B-283160; B-283160.2; B-283160.3; B-283160.4; B-283160.5, October 14, 1999

Scientific and Commercial Systems Corporation; Omni Corporation, B-283160; B-283160.2; B-283160.3; B-283160.4; B-283160.5, October 14, 1999 TITLE: Scientific and Commercial Systems Corporation; Omni Corporation, B-283160; B-283160.2; B-283160.3; B-283160.4; B-283160.5, October 14, 1999 BNUMBER: B-283160; B-283160.2; B-283160.3; B-283160.4; B-283160.5 DATE: October 14, 1999 ********************************************************************** Scientific and Commercial Systems Corporation; Omni Corporation, B-283160; B-283160.2; B-283160.3; B-283160.4; B-283160.5, October 14, 1999 Decision Matter of: Scientific and Commercial Systems Corporation; Omni Corporation File: B-283160; B-283160.2; B-283160.3; B-283160.4; B-283160.5 Date: October 14, 1999 Thomas C. Papson, Esq., and Richard P. Castiglia, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for Scientific and Commercial Systems Corporation; and Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Eric W. Leonard, Esq., and Daniel A. Silien, Esq., Wiley, Rein & Fielding, for Omni Corporation, the protesters. Douglas L. Patin, Esq., and Robert J. Symon, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, for Information Dynamics, Inc., an intervenor. Vincent A. Salgado, Esq., and Jerald Kennemuth, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protesters' contentions that agency improperly evaluated proposals are denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated in accordance with the criteria announced in the solicitation, and the record reasonably supports the evaluators' conclusions. 2. Protester's argument that an upward adjustment made to its proposed costs to account for unacceptable reductions in staffing was improper is denied, where the record shows that the agency had a reasonable basis for the adjustment. DECISION Scientific and Commercial Systems Corporation (SCSC) and Omni Corporation protest the award of a contract to Information Dynamics, Inc. (IDI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 3-038038, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for support services at the NASA Glenn Research Center in Ohio. [1] The protesters primarily argue that the agency's evaluation of proposals and the award decision were flawed. We deny the protests. Background NASA's Glenn Research Center (GRC) defines and develops advanced technology for high priority national needs. The work of the GRC is directed towards new propulsion, power, and communications technologies for application to aeronautics and space to ensure the nation's leadership in these areas. The GRC's end products primarily consist of reports made available to potential users in various fields, including the aircraft engine, energy, automotive, and space industries. RFP sect. C, at C-1. The GRC is staffed with scientists and engineers who plan, conduct or oversee and report on the research tasks and projects at the facility. The contract contemplated by the RFP is to obtain services in support of those projects. The RFP for the management operations contract (referred to in the record as the MOC-1 contract) was issued on December 7, 1998 as a total small business set-aside. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-incentive-fee type contract for a 2-year base period, with up to three 1-year option periods. Id. sect.sect. F.2, L.3; Agency Report (AR), exh. 3, Industry Briefing, Dec. 15, 1998. The RFP identified seven discrete tasks for which the successful offeror is to provide management operations. [2] Section M.3 of the RFP listed mission suitability, cost and fees, and relevant experience and past performance (REPP) as evaluation factors of equal importance. RFP sect.sect. M.3, M.4.b. The RFP stated that within the mission suitability factor, the agency would evaluate the following subfactors (numerical weights shown in parentheses): quality control (500 points); management plan (350 points); and key personnel (150 points), for a maximum total of 1,000 points. Id. amend. 1, sect. M.4.a. The RFP stated that the agency would perform a cost analysis in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.404, and that the agency would determine a probable cost for each offeror. Id. sect. M.3 FACTOR-2 COST AND FEES, at M-4. Of the three factors, cost and REPP were not scored, but were evaluated by the source evaluation board (SEB) for consideration by the source selection authority (SSA). RFP sect. M.2. Offerors were required to submit proposals in three separate volumes: mission suitability (volume I), cost and fees (volume II), and REPP (volume III). Ten firms, including Omni, SCSC, and IDI, submitted proposals by the respective due dates.