Sauer Inc.

B-411137 May 22, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sauer, Inc., of Jacksonville, Florida, protests the award of a contract to J.P. Donovan (JPD), of Rockledge, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNK14527028R, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to modify and refurbish the flame trench and construct a flame deflector at launch complex 39B (LC-39B) at Kennedy Space Center. Sauer maintains that the agency misevaluated the awardee's proposal and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. We deny 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: Sauer Inc. File: B-411137 Date: May 22, 2015 Mark O. Masterson, Esq., Moye, O'Brien, Pickert & Dillon, LLP; and Kevin J. Kelly, Esq., Sauer Inc., for the protester. Richard J. McCarthy, Esq., and Ellen E. Espenscheid, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of awardee’s proposal and source selection decision is denied where record shows that agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations, and agency’s source selection decision was rational and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Sauer, Inc., of Jacksonville, Florida, protests the award of a contract to J.P. Donovan (JPD), of Rockledge, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNK14527028R, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to modify and refurbish the flame trench and construct a flame deflector at launch complex 39B (LC-39B) at Kennedy Space Center. Sauer maintains that the agency misevaluated the awardee’s proposal and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplates the award, on a best-value basis, of a fixed-price contract to perform construction activities associated with reconfiguring LC-39B from its previous configuration for use in Space Shuttle launches to a new configuration for use in connection with the agency’s new Space Launch System. Contracting Officer’s Statement of Facts, at 1. Firms were advised that the agency would use a price/performance tradeoff evaluation process that considered two evaluation factors, past performance and price, and further advised that the two factors were approximately equal in weight. Agency Report (AR), exh. 3, RFP, at BATES 199.[1] For purposes of evaluating price, the RFP advised offerors that the agency would consider only the base prices submitted, and that the agency would not consider any prices for optional items included in the proposal. Id. at BATES 200. For purposes of evaluating past performance, the RFP advised that the agency would consider recent, relevant contracts of similar content and complexity and advised that NASA would assign proposals an overall performance confidence level rating based on its evaluation.[2] Id. at BATES 200-202. Firms were advised that the agency’s past performance evaluation would focus on certain specified considerations. As is relevant to the protest, the RFP advised that the agency would consider an offeror’s demonstrated experience with fabrication, assembly, and erection of complex structural steel framing utilizing rolled heavy shapes and plates, as well as an offeror’s demonstrated experience with installation of large areas (greater than 10,000 square feet) of refractory brick on vertical surfaces built to tight tolerances. AR, exh. 3, RFP, at BATES 201. The RFP also advised that additional emphasis would be placed on experience with the fabrication and installation of large diameter steel pipe, and also provided that the evaluation of past performance would include an assessment of the overall safety record of the offeror during performance of previous contracts, to include consideration of a firm’s “Total Recordable Incident” (TRIR) rate and “Days Away Restricted or Transferred” (DART) rate.[3] Id. at BATES 182-183, 201-202. In response to the solicitation, the agency received a number of proposals. The agency evaluated proposals and, as is relevant to the protest, assigned a very high overall confidence level rating to the JPD proposal and a high overall confidence level rating to the Sauer proposal. AR, exh. 12, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at BATES 1530, 1531. The record shows that Sauer proposed a price of $19,654,000, while JPD proposed a nominally higher price of $19,675,000. Id. at BATES 1533.