Gaver Technologies, Inc.

B-409535 Jun 03, 2014 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Gaver Technologies, Inc. (GTI), of Frederick, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Peerless Technologies, Inc., of Fairborn, Ohio, under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNC13ZCH020J, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for professional, administrative, computational, and engineering (PACE) services for the Glenn Research Center's (GRC's) Lewis Field, in Cleveland, Ohio, and its associated facility, Plum Brook Station, in Sandusky, Ohio. The protester challenges the rationality of the source selection authority's (SSA) best value award decision. We sustain the protest. We sustain the protest. View Decision 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: Gaver Technologies, Inc. File: B-409535 Date: June 3, 2014 Ralph C. Thomas III, Esq., Barton, Baker, Thomas & Tolle, LLP, for the protester. Alexander T. Bakos, Esq., and Kaprice L. Harris, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest is sustained where record shows that agency’s source selection authority lacked a reasonable basis for failing to give weight to several source evaluation board findings pertaining to strengths in the protester’s proposal. 2. Source selection authority’s reliance upon awardee’s offering of a 30-day phase-in period as a key discriminator in her source selection decision is unreasonable where awardee did not propose to complete phase-in within 30 days. DECISION Gaver Technologies, Inc. (GTI), of Frederick, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Peerless Technologies, Inc., of Fairborn, Ohio, under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNC13ZCH020J, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for professional, administrative, computational, and engineering (PACE) services for the Glenn Research Center’s (GRC’s) Lewis Field, in Cleveland, Ohio, and its associated facility, Plum Brook Station, in Sandusky, Ohio. The protester challenges the rationality of the source selection authority’s (SSA) best value award decision. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was issued on May 17, 2013 as a small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a 5-year period.[1] Services to be provided under the contract include computer science, computer software engineering, IT security, networking, application development, and web services. The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal was considered most advantageous to the government based on the following three factors (of approximately equal weight): mission suitability, relevant experience/past performance, and cost. The mission suitability factor was comprised of three subfactors: technical requirements (worth 45% of the factor weight), management plan (worth 35%), and work management (worth 20%). Under the technical requirements subfactor, offerors’ technical approaches and their responses to three sample scenarios were to be evaluated. Under the management plan subfactor, the solicitation provided for evaluation of the offeror’s organizational structure and management; risk management plan; phase-in plan; staffing, recruitment, retention and compensation; subcontractor management; and key personnel. Under the relevant experience/past performance factor, offerors were to be rated as very high, high, moderate, low, very low, or neutral confidence based on the relevance of their experience and the quality of their performance. Of relevance to this protest, the RFP explained that in evaluating offerors’ technical approaches, the agency would consider their overall understanding and approach to accomplishing the requirements of the SOW, taking into account the “adequacy, realism, effectiveness, quality assurance, risk reductions, efficiencies, and completeness” of the information provided in the following areas: 1. Proposed approach of disciplines, skills, and techniques the Offeror plans to use in the performance of this work. 2. Proposed innovative processes, systems, and technology trends the Offeror suggests for accomplishing and/or streamlining the tasks required in the SOW with supportive rationale. RFP at 92.[2] NASA received six proposals by the June 28, 2013 closing date. The agency evaluated the proposals, excluding two of them from the competitive range, and conducted discussions with the remaining four offerors. At the conclusion of discussions, the proposals of GTI and Peerless received the highest ratings.