B-299260.4, Swales Aerospace--Costs, April 30, 2007

B-299260.4 Apr 30, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Swales Aerospace requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protests challenging the award of a contract to SGT, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNG05096383R, issued by the National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) for mechanical systems engineering services to support NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299260.4, Swales Aerospace--Costs, April 30, 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: Swales Aerospace--Costs File: B-299260.4 Date: April 30, 2007 James J. McCullough, Esq., Steven A. Alerding, Esq., and Deneen J. Melander, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for the protester. Vincent A. Salgado, Esq., National Aeronautics & Space Administration, for the agency. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester's request that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing protests is denied, where the agency did not unduly delay taking corrective action in the face of clearly meritorious protests. DECISION Swales Aerospace requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protests challenging the award of a contract to SGT, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNG05096383R, issued by the National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) for mechanical systems engineering services to support NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. We deny the request. The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, provided for the award of a cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with a maximum ordering value of $400 million over a 5-year ordering period commencing on the effective date of contract award. RFP at Bates Nos. 43, 46-48, 90. Award was to be made on a best'value basis, considering mission suitability,[1] cost/price, and past performance. The cost/price factor, which included a cost realism component, was stated to be –significantly less important than the combined importance of— the mission suitability and past performance factors, and was individually less important than the mission suitability factor and more important than the past performance factor. Id. at Bates No. 159. The RFP included a –Limitations on Subcontracting— clause, which required that –[a]t least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern.— Id. at Bates No. 93. Swales and SGT were the only proposals submitted in response to the RFP. After initial evaluations, the source evaluation board (SEB) conducted discussions and sought and evaluated final proposal revisions. The source selection authority (SSA) adopted the findings of the SEB and selected SGT for award. The SSA noted that both Swales' and SGT's proposals were rated –very good— under the mission suitability factor (although Swales' proposal received a –slightly higher numerical score—), –excellent— under the past performance factor,[2] and that Swales' proposal had a –significantly higher proposed and probable cost compared to SGT.— Agency Report, Vol. XXII, Tab 22, SSA Decision, at Bates No. 7798, 7800, 7803'04. While considering that Swales' proposal received a –slightly higher Mission Suitability point score,— the SSA stated that he –did not note substantial differentiation in the overall technical value between the technical approaches that were offered by Swales and SGT.— Id. at Bates No. 7804. The SSA found SGT's proposal to be the –most advantageous— to the government, concluding that the –significantly lower probable cost offered by SGT far outweighs the slight Mission Suitability advantage proposed by Swales.— Id. at Bates No. 7805. On December 12, 2006, after receiving notice of award, Swales protested to our Office. Swales asserted that SGT's proposal should have been found technically unacceptable because the offeror failed to comply with the limitations on subcontracting clause, that the agency misevaluated SGT's proposal under two of the mission suitability subfactors and past performance factor, and that the agency's source selection decision was based on a flawed evaluation and cost-technical tradeoff. On December 15, Swales supplemented its protest, asserting that the agency misevaluated Swales' and SGT's proposals under the cost/price factor. With regard to its own proposal, Swales' asserted that the agency –double-counted— certain costs, used incorrect other direct cost rates, and used –grossly unrealistic— hours in computing the cost/price for several labor categories.