ARES Technical Services Corporation

B-415081.5 Nov 04, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ARES Technical Services Corporation, of Greenbelt, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Millennium Engineering and Integration Company (MEI) of Arlington, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNG16547352R, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for safety and mission assurance services to be performed at the agency's Goddard Space Flight Center. ARES argues that the agency misevaluated proposals, engaged in unequal discussions, and made an unreasonable source selection decision. 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:  ARES Technical Services Corporation File:  B-415081.5 Date:  November 4, 2019 Daniel R. Forman, Esq., and James G. Peyster, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Paul F. McQuade, Esq., Michael J. Schaengold, Esq., Danielle K. Muenzfeld, Esq., and Daniel D. Straus, Esq., Greenberg Traurig LLP, for Millennium Engineering and Integration company, an intervenor. Victoria H. Kauffman, Esq., Amber M. Hufft, Esq., and James A. Vatne, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of proposals, and arguing that awardee’s proposal should have been rejected for failing to comply with proposal preparation instructions, 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 there was no basis for the agency to reject the awardee’s proposal. DECISION ARES Technical Services Corporation, of Greenbelt, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Millennium Engineering and Integration Company (MEI) of Arlington, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNG16547352R, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for safety and mission assurance services to be performed at the agency’s Goddard Space Flight Center.[1]  ARES argues that the agency misevaluated proposals, engaged in unequal discussions, and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Procedural History This is ARES’s fourth challenge to the agency’s award of the subject contract.  In July 2017, the agency originally awarded the subject contract to MEI.  After learning of the agency’s selection decision, ARES filed a protest in our Office.  In addition to challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals, the adequacy of discussions, and the agency’s source selection decision, ARES argued that MEI had an improper organizational conflict of interest (OCI) that should have precluded an award to MEI.  In response to that protest, NASA advised our Office that it would take corrective action by conducting an assessment of potential OCIs, and also would review ARES’s remaining protest allegations relating to the evaluation of proposals, the conduct of discussions and the agency’s source selection decision.  Based on the agency’s proposed corrective action, we dismissed ARES’s protest as academic.  ARES Technical Services Corporation, B-415081, Aug. 30, 2017 (unpublished decision).  After performing the corrective action detailed above, the agency again selected MEI for award of the contract.  ARES filed a second protest with our Office in January 2018, again challenging MEI’s eligibility for award based on an alleged OCI, and also challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision.  In response to ARES’s second protest, we issued a decision sustaining in part, denying in part, and dismissing in part ARES’s protest.  ARES Technical Services Corporation, B‑415081.2, B-415081.3, May 8, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 153.  We dismissed ARES’s allegation concerning an alleged OCI on the part of MEI because, in addition to obtaining OCI mitigation plans from both MEI and ARES and performing a detailed investigation into the matter and concluding that award to MEI would be unobjectionable, NASA also executed a waiver of any possible residual OCI that might have been present.  Id. at 3-5.  We sustained an allegation raised by ARES in connection with the agency’s evaluation of technical proposals, specifically finding that the agency’s evaluation of technical proposals failed to contemporaneously document how MEI’s OCI mitigation strategy might affect its management approach.  Id. at 5-7.  We also sustained an allegation relating to the agency’s evaluation of cost proposals, finding that the agency’s realism evaluation did not reflect the apparent approach on the part of MEI for capturing incumbent employees. [2]  Id.