Dynacs Engineering Company, Inc., B-284234; B-284234.2; B-284234.3, March 17, 2000

Dynacs Engineering Company, Inc., B-284234; B-284234.2; B-284234.3, March 17, 2000 TITLE: Dynacs Engineering Company, Inc., B-284234; B-284234.2; B-284234.3, March 17, 2000 BNUMBER: B-284234; B-284234.2; B-284234.3 DATE: March 17, 2000 ********************************************************************** Dynacs Engineering Company, Inc., B-284234; B-284234.2; B-284234.3, March 17, 2000 Decision Matter of: Dynacs Engineering Company, Inc. File: B-284234; B-284234.2; B-284234.3 Date: March 17, 2000 James S. Ganther, Esq., Ganther & Fee, for the protester. Michael A. Hordell, Esq., Gadsby & Hannah, for Federal Data Corporation, an intervenor. Bernard J. Roan, Esq., National Aeronautics & Space Administration, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. In evaluating awardee's past performance, procuring agency reasonably decided not to consider information that awardee had experienced transition problems in performing an ongoing contract, where awardee explained that performance problems in fact were not the result of its actions, and cognizant contracting officials had not actually assigned awardee a negative performance rating at the time of past performance evaluation. 2. There is no prohibition against an agency's raising items during second round of discussions that it discussed with the offeror during the first round. DECISION Dynacs Engineering Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Federal Data Corporation (FDC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 3-094978, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the development and operation of international space station facilities, and the development and performance of microgravity experiments. Dynacs protests that NASA misevaluated its and the awardee's proposals, held improper discussions with the awardee and conducted an inadequate cost/price/technical tradeoff. [1] We deny the protest. The solicitation provided for proposals to be evaluated under three equal factors--mission suitability, cost/price and past performance. RFP sect. M.3 (a). Mission suitability was comprised of four subfactors--understanding the requirement, management plan, key personnel, and corporate resources. RFP sect. M.4. Proposals were to be assigned a point score and an adjectival rating for each subfactor, as well as the overall mission suitability factor. Id. Past performance also was evaluated with an adjectival rating. RFP sect. M.8. With respect to cost, the solicitation was comprised of both fixed-price and cost-reimbursement items, and accordingly provided for both a price analysis (of the fixed-price items) and a cost realism analysis (of the cost-reimbursement items). RFP sect. M.5. In addition, the mission suitability score was to be adjusted based on the cost realism analysis. RFP sect. M.6. Award was to be made to the offeror that submitted the proposal offering the best value to the government. RFP sect. M.3. Four offers were received and, following an initial evaluation by the source evaluation board (SEB), two--Dynacs's and FDC's--were included in the competitive range. NASA held discussions with both offerors and requested that each submit a final proposal revision (FPR-1). After FPR-1 was received, the agency held a second round of discussions and asked offerors to submit a second final proposal revision (FPR-2). Following the evaluation of FPR-2, both Dynacs, with a score of 881, and FDC, with a score of 740, were rated very good under the mission suitability factor. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS), Jan. 7, 2000, at 10, and both were also rated superior for past performance. Source Selection Statement (SSS) at 8, 9. With respect to cost/price, FDC's proposal was evaluated at [DELETED] lower than Dynacs's, and FDC also was found to have offered a very favorable share ratio (the percentage of costs FDC would absorb in the event of cost overruns on the cost-reimbursement items). SSS Addendum (SSSA) at 4. The source selection authority (SSA) reviewed the evaluation results, and determined that FDC's proposal offered the best value to the government. SSS at 10. Award thus was made to FDC, and this protest followed. PAST PERFORMANCE The solicitation provided that the past performance of the offerors and any subcontractors and teaming partners would be assigned an adjectival rating of superior, satisfactory or unsatisfactory, based on their demonstrated accomplishment of work of similar magnitude, scope and complexity to the work required by the RFP. RFP sect. M.8. Dynacs argues that the agency, in assigning FDC a superior rating, unreasonably failed to consider negative past performance information regarding FDC's performance of an ongoing NASA contract at the Glenn Research Center (GRC).