ATA Aerospace, LLC (FA9453-18-R-0003)

B-417427 Jul 02, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ATA Aerospace, LLC (ATAA), of Albuquerque, New Mexico, protests the award of a contract to Millennium Engineering and Integration Company (MEI), of Arlington, Virginia, by the Department of the Air Force, Research Laboratory, Space Vehicles Directorate, Integrated Experiments and Evaluation Division (AFRL/RV), under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA9453-18-R-0003, to provide various services in support of the research and development integrated space experiments program. ATAA challenges the agency's cost realism evaluation and technical evaluation of the awardee's proposal for one of three initial task orders. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. 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:  ATA Aerospace, LLC File:  B-417427 Date:  July 2, 2019 Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Michael E. Stamp, Esq., and Bret Marfut, Esq., Protorae Law PLLC, 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, the intervenor. Colonel C. Taylor Smith, Major Michelle E. Gregory, Christian J. Robison, Esq., and Charles L. Webster III, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. John Sorrenti, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency’s cost realism evaluation is unreasonable is sustained where the record shows that the agency’s determination that both offerors’ proposed costs were realistic is based in large part on an unsupported conclusion that both offerors’ proposed labor hours were analogous to historical data from the predecessor contract, even though the awardee’s proposed labor hours were less than half of the protester’s proposed labor hours. 2.  Protest that agency should have rated awardee’s proposal as technically unacceptable because its proposal did not propose three methods of performance is denied where a reasonable interpretation of the solicitation shows that it did not require offerors to propose these three methods. DECISION ATA Aerospace, LLC (ATAA), of Albuquerque, New Mexico, protests the award of a contract to Millennium Engineering and Integration Company (MEI), of Arlington, Virginia, by the Department of the Air Force, Research Laboratory, Space Vehicles Directorate, Integrated Experiments and Evaluation Division (AFRL/RV), under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA9453-18-R-0003, to provide various services in support of the research and development integrated space experiments program.  ATAA challenges the agency’s cost realism evaluation and technical evaluation of the awardee’s proposal for one of three initial task orders. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND On May 22, 2018, the agency issued the RFP as a small business set-aside.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFP at 1, 115.[1]  The RFP stated that the contractor would provide “concept design, development, integration, test and evaluation of new space technologies, innovative, engineering prototypes, and new employment concepts.”  Id. at 114.  The RFP further explained that the AFRL/RV “conducts innovative research and development of ground, high-altitude balloon, near-space, and spaceflight experiments.”  Id.  The contractor would provide research, engineering, and technical management to perform space technology analysis, development, integration, experimentation, demonstration, and evaluation in support of the AFRL/RV’s mission.  Id. The RFP sought to award a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract and up to three cost-plus-fixed-fee initial task orders.  Id. at 118.  The RFP stated that award would be based on a best-value tradeoff determination considering a technical factor and cost/price factor.  Id.