NV Services, B-284119.2, February 25, 2000

B-284119.2 Feb 25, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights All of which were required by the solicitation for a cost-plus-award-fee services contract. The protester was not prejudiced by this misevaluation because the awardee's evaluated probable costs were still substantially less than. Its proposal was technically superior to. Protest that the agency should have downgraded the awardee's technical proposal for failing to identify specific personnel available for contract performance is denied. Challenge to the agency's evaluation of the protester's and awardee's past performance is denied. The protester does not demonstrate that the agency's judgment was unreasonable. 4. Agency is not required to conduct discussions with the offerors where the solicitation advised that the agency intended to make award on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions and the record was adequate to allow the agency to make its best value determination. 5. View Decision Matter of: NV Services File: B-284119.2 Date: February 25, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION NV Services (NVS) /1/ protests the award of a contract to LB&B Associates, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFP5-51132-106, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for facilities operation and maintenance services at the Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland. NVS argues that NASA unreasonably evaluated NVS's and LB&B's technical proposals, performed an unreasonable cost realism evaluation of LB&B's cost proposal, and improperly failed to conduct discussions concerning the cost proposals. NVS also complains that the agency awarded the contract to LB&B with the intent to materially modify the scope of work. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a competitive small disadvantaged business set-aside under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 637(a) (1994), provided for the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for a 2-year base period with one 3-year option period. The contract will provide for planning and implementation of a comprehensive operations and maintenance program, covering electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and utility services, and for plant engineering and planning, site utility restoration, and construction coordination and quality assurance services. In performing the maintenance services, the contractor will employ "reliability centered maintenance" (RCM) /2/ strategies and operate a computerized maintenance management system. In general, the contractor is responsible for providing all resources (such as, labor, supervision, tools, equipment, and material) necessary to perform the contract. RFP attach C. Among other requirements, the contractor will be required to: provide or make available training courses in environmental compliance, hazardous materials, hazardous waste management, safety, and emergency response, as well as, other areas relevant to the areas of work in accordance with applicable laws. Id. at C1-6. See id. at C3-2. The RFP provided for award, without discussions, on a cost/technical tradeoff basis, and stated the following evaluation factors and subfactors for award: 1. Mission suitability a. Management plan b. Understanding and approach to meeting the requirements c. Quality control 2. Past performance a. Relevant experience b. Technical performance 3. Cost RFP at 96. The RFP stated that the mission suitability, past performance, and cost factors were of relatively equal importance, and that mission suitability and past performance, when combined, were significantly more important than cost. RFP at 97. Offerors were informed that the mission suitability factor would be adjectivally and numerically rated on a 1,000-point scale. The mission suitability subfactors were weighted as follows: management plan (300 points), understanding and approach to meeting the requirements (400 points), and quality control (300 points). RFP at 100. A detailed description as to how proposals would be evaluated under each of the mission suitability subfactors was provided. For example, under the management plan subfactor, offerors were advised that, among other things, NASA would be evaluating the offerors' organizational structure; access to corporate resources; and plans for recruiting, staffing, and compensation. RFP at 101-03. The past performance factor, which was to be adjectivally rated, provided for the evaluation of an offeror's experience and record of performing services similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the solicitation. /3/ RFP at 103-04. Offerors were informed that the agency would consider information provided by the offerors as well as information available within NASA or from other government agencies or non-government organizations. The RFP stated that offerors' cost proposals would be assessed for cost realism and reasonableness. RFP at 104.