B-309964; B-309964.2, ITT Industries Space Systems, LLC, November 9, 2007

B-309964; B-309964.2, ITT Industries Space Systems, LLC, November 9, 2007 TITLE: B-309964; B-309964.2, ITT Industries Space Systems, LLC, November 9, 2007 BNUMBER: B-309964; B-309964.2 DATE: November 9, 2007 ************************************************************************* B-309964; B-309964.2, ITT Industries Space Systems, LLC, November 9, 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: ITT Industries Space Systems, LLC File: B-309964; B-309964.2 Date: November 9, 2007 Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Joseph J. Dyer, Esq., Grace Bateman, Esq., Jon B. Crocker, Esq., Heather L. Pitz, Esq., and Amanda B. Weiner, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for the protester. Scott Arnold, Esq., Bradley Wine, Esq., Joseph Berger, Esq., Austin Fulk, Esq., and Justin A. Chiarodo, Esq., Dickstein Shapiro LLP, for Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., an intervenor. Vincent A. Salgado, Esq., James T. Mahoney, Esq., Daniel Hymer, Esq., and Laura M. Giza, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging evaluation of proposals and source selection decision is denied where record demonstrates that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, and protester's arguments amount to mere disagreement with agency's conclusions. 2. Agency's failure to address Defense Contract Audit Agency qualification of audit results regarding awardee's cost proposal due to awardee's noncompliance with cost accounting standards was not prejudicial where agency demonstrated that awardee's noncompliance would not result in any increased costs to the government. DECISION ITT Industries Space Systems, LLC protests the award of a contract to Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. (BATC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNG07177439R, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the operational land imager instrument for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission. ITT argues that NASA improperly evaluated its proposal as well as that of the awardee, failed to conduct meaningful discussions with ITT, and, as a consequence, the award decision was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) is an Earth-observing satellite program. Under this program a series of Landsat satellites have been collecting images of the Earth's surface since 1972 for a variety of uses, including land use planning, agricultural monitoring, and natural resources management. On January 9, 2007 NASA issued the subject RFP for the procurement of the LDCM's next generation Operational Land Imager (OLI) instrument--"a multispectral, reflective-band, imaging sensor," which is intended for flight aboard a separately procured LDCM satellite. Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 3. The solicitation contemplates the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract with a base period of performance of 52 months for the OLI instrument (including delivery of the OLI instrument within 39 months of contract award and integration of the instrument in the separately procured satellite), an additional 5 years of post-orbit sustaining engineering, plus five 1-year options for additional sustaining engineering. The RFP provided for award to the offeror submitting the proposal which was determined to represent the best value to the government. In making the best value determination, the RFP established a trade-off process in which NASA would evaluate and consider proposals with respect to three factors: mission suitability, cost, and past performance. The mission suitability factor was more important than either the cost or past performance factors, both of which were of equal importance. Moreover, the RFP specified that the cost factor was "significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor." RFP at 00197. Section M.4 of the solicitation identified five subfactors within the mission suitability factor. According to this section of the RFP, each subfactor was assigned a maximum numerical point value with a combined maximum value of 1,000 points as follows: A. Instrument Design Concept 400 points B. Instrument Testing and Calibration Planning 250 points C. Management, Systems Engineering, Performance Assurance 250 points D. Safety and Health 50 points E.