Northeast MEP Services, Inc., B-285963.9, March 8, 2001

B-285963.9 Mar 08, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST An agency's exchange with the awardee in a negotiated procurement to clarify whether all costs related to certain proposed services were already included in the awardee's cost proposal did not constitute discussions. Where the agency's request clarified information already present in the awardee's proposal and the awardee was not presented with an opportunity to revise its proposal. Offerors were informed that NASA intended to award a separate contract for each region. The following evaluation factors were identified: mission suitability. Were submitted for the Northeast RTTC contract. The proposals for each region were evaluated by a regional source evaluation committee (SEC). Proposals for the Northeast RTTC were evaluated at the Goddard Space Flight Center. View Decision Matter of: Northeast MEP Services, Inc. File: B-285963.9 Date: March 8, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys 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 contends that NASA improperly conducted discussions with CTC and not NEMEP. /1/ 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. The RFP provided for the award of multiple contracts to operate and maintain the six RTTCs. Offerors were informed that NASA intended to award a separate contract for each region. The RFP stated that award would be based upon a cost/technical tradeoff without conducting discussions. The following evaluation factors were identified: mission suitability, past performance, and cost. With respect to the cost factor, the RFP provided for a cost realism evaluation to assess the probable cost and a "level of confidence" for each proposal. Three proposals, including those of NEMEP and CTC (the incumbent contractor), were submitted for the Northeast RTTC contract. The proposals for each region were evaluated by a regional source evaluation committee (SEC). Proposals for the Northeast RTTC were evaluated at the Goddard Space Flight Center, which administers the Northeast RTTC contract. Each member of the SEC for the Northeast region individually evaluated NEMEP's, CTC's, and the third offeror's proposals. The evaluators documented their evaluation by completing evaluation and rating forms by hand. The SEC then met to discuss their findings and arrive at a consensus judgment regarding the proposals. The consensus judgment was documented in a summary evaluation report for each offeror. NEMEP proposal for a $[DELETED] contract was significantly lower-rated than CTC's proposal for a $7.13 million cost-no-fee contract. The source selection authority (SSA) was briefed as to each of the regional SECs' findings. Among other things, the Northeast region SEC informed the SSA that CTC in its technical proposal had identified certain special services to "clients" as being "fee-based services" and that there was disagreement within the SEC as to whether the government would be responsible for these fees. Agency Report, Memorandum of SEC Chair (Jan. 29, 2001), at 2. Although the SSA "indicated" that CTC would be selected for award, the SSA directed that the agency clarify whether all the costs to the government were included in CTC's cost proposal. Agency Legal Memorandum at 6. By letter of June 8, 2000, the contracting officer stated to CTC that the firm had proposed three categories of services (standard, selected, and new and expanded services) and requested that the firm clarify whether all of the above-listed proposed services have been included in your cost proposal. If any of these services are to be provided at additional cost to the Government, please identify them and their associated costs. Letter from NASA to CTC (June 8, 2000). By letter of June 19, CTC responded "[y]es, all costs associated with your citations are included in our estimated costs." CTC's proposal was determined to be the most advantageous to the government, and award was made to that firm.