Northeast MEP Services, Inc., B-285963.5; B-285963.7; B-285963.8, January 5, 2001

Northeast MEP Services, Inc., B-285963.5; B-285963.7; B-285963.8, January 5, 2001 TITLE: Northeast MEP Services, Inc., B-285963.5; B-285963.7; B-285963.8, January 5, 2001 BNUMBER: B-285963.5; B-285963.7; B-285963.8 DATE: January 5, 2001 ********************************************************************** Northeast MEP Services, Inc., B-285963.5; B-285963.7; B-285963.8, January 5, 2001 Decision Matter of: Northeast MEP Services, Inc. File: B-285963.5; B-285963.7; B-285963.8 Date: January 5, 2001 William A. Shook, Esq., Kelley P. Doran, Esq., and Gary J. Campbell, Esq., Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, for the protester. Jay P. Urwitz, Esq., David A. Wilson, Esq., Barry J. Hurewitz, Esq., Aimen Mir, Esq., and Karen L. Tinsky, Esq., Hale and Dorr, for the Center for Technology Commercialization, the intervenor. Bernard J. Roan, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the contemporaneous evaluation record, hearing testimony of the evaluation board chair, and arguments of the parties establish that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and in accord with the evaluation criteria. 2. Agency's assessment of the awardee's past performance as very good and the protester's as good was reasonable, where the agency considered the awardee's lower-rated performance of the incumbent contract together with its exceptional ratings of other significant, relevant contracts and found that the protester's past performance did not include efforts that were comparable in size, scope and complexity to the work to be awarded under the solicitation. DECISION Northeast MEP Services, Inc. (NEMEP) protests the award of a contract to the Center for Technology Commercialization (CTC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFP2-37066-CDT, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the operation and maintenance of the Northeast Regional Technology Transfer Center (RTTC). NEMEP challenges the evaluation of its technical proposal. We deny the protest. Under its Commercial Technology Program, NASA seeks to disseminate and encourage the commercialization of the agency's technology and information. To accomplish this, NASA operates a national network of six RTTCs, each of which has responsibility for an assigned region (i.e., Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Midwest, Mid-Continent, and Far West). The RTTCs link with affiliated organizations (federal, state, and local entities and non-profit institutions) having similar technology transfer and industrial development objectives, and establish relations with industry and trade groups to promote and make available the transfer of technology and information. Agency Report, Tab 2, Acquisition Plan, at 1-2. The RFP, as issued, contemplated the award of multiple, cost-no-fee contracts to operate and maintain the six RTTCs. [1] Offerors were informed that NASA intended to award a separate contract for each region. RFP sect. M.2(a) at 67. A performance-based statement of work (SOW) was provided that described the RTTC's required capabilities and operations. Each RTTC was established as a node for a regional technology transfer network, comprised of regional infrastructure participants which shall perform on a no profit or fee basis. As such, each NASA RTTC is encouraged to view itself as a core of a regional consortium of cooperating organizations (such as state and local economic development entities, universities, high-tech research parks, incubators, business and venture capital organizations, and other appropriate entities). The NASA RTTC will contribute materially to the transfer, application and commercial use of U.S. developed technologies to enhance the public and private interests of the region. RFP attach. J.1(a)1, SOW, at 3. The RFP stated that award would be based upon a cost/technical tradeoff without conducting discussions. RFP sect.sect. M.2(a)(2), M.3, at 67, 74-75. The three evaluation factors (and subfactors for the mission suitability factor) were identified as set out in the chart on the following page: Mission Suitability Understanding the requirement Management approach Small disadvantaged business participation Past Performance Cost Offerors were informed that the mission suitability factor was slightly more important than the past performance factor, and that each of these factors was significantly more important than the cost factor. RFP sect. M.3(c) at 75. Narrative descriptions of the evaluation factors were provided, as well as numerous elements and sub-elements for each of the mission suitability subfactors.