B-298489.4; B-298489.5, Compunetix, Inc., January 12, 2007

B-298489.4; B-298489.5, Compunetix, Inc., January 12, 2007 TITLE: B-298489.4; B-298489.5, Compunetix, Inc., January 12, 2007 BNUMBER: B-298489.4; B-298489.5 DATE: January 12, 2007 ********************************************************** B-298489.4; B-298489.5, Compunetix, Inc., January 12, 2007 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Compunetix, Inc. File: B-298489.4; B-298489.5 Date: January 12, 2007 James K. Kearney, Esq., Holly E. Svetz, Esq., and Erin L. Roberts, Esq., Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, for the protester. Joseph A. Artabane, Esq., Robert F. Condon, Esq., and Maura E. Molloy, Esq., Artabane & Belden, for Frequentis USA, Inc., an intervenor. Jerald J. Kennemuth, Esq., Laura M. Giza, Esq., Daniel C. Hymer, Esq., and John H. Eckhardt, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency performed an unreasonable evaluation of proposals is denied where the record shows that the agency's conclusions were reasonable, and were consistent with the stated evaluation scheme and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. DECISION Compunetix, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Frequentis USA, Inc. by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center, pursuant to request for offers (RFO) No. NNG05096022R, issued to procure Mission Operations Voice Enhancement (MOVE) systems. Compunetix, whose proposal was lower rated and higher priced than the awardee's, challenges virtually every evaluation conclusion reached by the agency, and contends that Frequentis is not a small business eligible for award under this small business set-aside procurement. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND[1] The solicitation here was issued on July 29, 2005, and sought offers "for the design, acquisition, development, integration, test, delivery and maintenance of all hardware, firmware, and software components" for the MOVE system configurations to be delivered to each site. RFO, Cover Letter, at 1. The Contracting Officer (CO) explains that the MOVE system being procured will "provide real time switching, conferencing, and monitoring of mission voice services in support of launches, simulations, landings, spacecraft emergencies, and critical operations." CO's Statement, Nov. 13, 2006, at 6. NASA anticipates replacing its existing mission voice systems--which were custom-designed and are aging--with standardized products over a 5-year period, followed by product support and maintenance for an additional 10 years. Id. To achieve standardization, the solicitation anticipates the use of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware and software to the maximum extent possible, RFO, Statement of Work (SOW), at 1-2, but also anticipates the development of certain products to meet NASA's unique requirements. Id. at 3-8. The RFO anticipated the award of what NASA terms "a commercial firm-fixed-price hybrid contract with both a basic requirement and indefinite delivery indefinite quantity" requirements, RFO at 78, for a period of 15 years. The basic requirement is to provide voice systems to three NASA centers: Goddard, the Marshall Space Flight Center, and the Johnson Space Center. The RFO also includes 15 options for installing the MOVE system at various other NASA sites, including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the Mission Control Center Moscow, and Vandenberg Air Force Base. CO's Statement, supra, at 7. The competition was limited to small business offerors. The RFO advised potential offerors that proposals would be evaluated under three factors, in declining order of importance: mission suitability, price, and past performance. RFO at 94. Although the price factor was more important than past performance, offerors were advised that mission suitability and past performance combined would be more important than price. Id. With respect to the mission suitability factor, the RFO advised that proposals would be evaluated using a 1000-point scale, divided into four subfactors, as follows: (1) understanding the requirements and technical approach, 450 points; (2) management and capabilities, 200 points; (3) technical and schedule risk, 300 points; and (4) safety and health plan, 50 points. RFO at 99. In addition, NASA anticipated assigning adjectival ratings to the resulting point scores of: excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor. AR, Tab 50, at 15.