Pinnacle Solutions, Inc.

B-414360 May 19, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Pinnacle Solutions, Inc., of Huntsville, Alabama, a small business, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNJ16556087R, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for aircraft logistics, integration, configuration management, and engineering services (known as ALICE), at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) and Ellington Field, in Houston, Texas; the NASA Forward Operating Location, in El Paso, Texas; the Langley Research Center, in Hampton, Virginia; and other locations. RFP at C-24 & F-3. Pinnacle argues that NASA misevaluated its proposal and unreasonably excluded it from the competitive range. 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:  Pinnacle Solutions, Inc. File:  B-414360 Date:  May 19, 2017 Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Elizabeth A. Ferrell, Esq., George A. Smith II, Esq., Lisa A. Markman, Esq., and Emily A. Unnasch, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Karen M. Reilley, Esq., Warnecke Miller, Esq., and Amy V. Xenofos, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging evaluation of proposal is sustained where evaluation record does not reasonably support the assessment of weaknesses in protester’s proposal, and reflects apparent disregard of aspects of protester’s proposal and application of unstated evaluation criteria.  2.  Protest challenging exclusion of protester’s proposal from competitive range is sustained where competitive range determination included higher-scoring higher-priced proposal and relied on comparison of point scores and on contracting officer’s unsupported speculation about whether holding discussions with the protester would result in assessment of a significant strength to a revised proposal. DECISION Pinnacle Solutions, Inc., of Huntsville, Alabama, a small business, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNJ16556087R, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for aircraft logistics, integration, configuration management, and engineering services (known as ALICE), at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) and Ellington Field, in Houston, Texas; the NASA Forward Operating Location, in El Paso, Texas; the Langley Research Center, in Hampton, Virginia; and other locations.  RFP at C-24 & F-3.  Pinnacle argues that NASA misevaluated its proposal and unreasonably excluded it from the competitive range.  We sustain the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on August 19, 2016, as a small business set-aside, sought proposals to provide ALICE services for a 2-month phase-in period, followed by a 16‑month base period and two 2-year option periods, under a single fixed-price, cost-plus-award-fee, and cost-plus-fixed-fee indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract.[1]  Agency Report (AR) Tab 3, RFP transmittal letter, at 1; RFP at B-9, L-12.  The RFP listed a combination of “to be determined” and “offeror-furnished information” cost elements, which were to be updated as the contracting officer issued orders.  An order limitations clause stated that the order maximum would be $182,350,000.  RFP at B-1 to B-2, B-9.  The RFP specified the individual labor categories required, and provided a position description, a minimum education and experience level, and a reporting relationship for each.  RFP appx. C (“Personnel Requirements”) at C-1 to C-15.  NASA was to have “overall authority and will provide priorities and direction for all work contained within this [statement of work],” and to “establish work hours consistent with meeting the mission at each contract location,”[2] while the contractor was to “provide personnel for varied work schedules to meet changing mission requirements.”  RFP at C-26 to C‑27.[3]  The RFP set forth the estimated level of effort (referred to as “productive hours”) for each labor category at each location.  Those were then incorporated in pricing model spreadsheets that offerors were to complete by filling in cost data.  RFP at L-28 to L‑30 & attach. L-4 (Pricing Model Excel Workbook file), at sheets “ISCT-SR JSC” through “ISCT‑SR LARC.”  Proposals were to be evaluated under three factors:  mission suitability, past performance, and cost/price.  The mission suitability and past performance factors were approximately equal in importance, and each was more important than the cost/price factor.  RFP at M-2.  The mission suitability factor consisted of three subfactors...