Deep Space Systems Inc.

B-417714 Sep 26, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Deep Space Systems (DSS), Inc., of Littleton, Colorado, protests the award of a task order to Intuitive Machines (IM), LLC, of Houston, Texas, under a request for task plan (RFTP) denoted as Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) Task Order No. 2, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for commercial lunar payload delivery services. DSS challenges the agency's evaluation of task plans (hereinafter "proposals") and 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:  Deep Space Systems, Inc. File:  B-417714 Date:  September 26, 2019 Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Scott M. Dinner, Esq., and Michael E. Stamp, Esq., Protorae Law PLLC, for the protester. Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., Pargament & Hallowell, PLLC, for Intuitive Machines, LLC; and D. Matthew Jameson III, Esq., and Marc Felezzola, Esq., Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir, P.C., for Astrobotic Technology, Inc., the intervenors. Vincent A. Salgado, Esq., Cody Corley, Esq., and Brian Wessel, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Joshua R. Gillerman, 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 source selection decision is denied where the record shows that the agency performed a reasonable price realism analysis and reasonably evaluated technical proposals in accordance with the solicitation as well as applicable procurement law and regulation. DECISION Deep Space Systems (DSS), Inc., of Littleton, Colorado, protests the award of a task order to Intuitive Machines (IM), LLC, of Houston, Texas, under a request for task plan (RFTP) denoted as Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) Task Order No. 2, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for commercial lunar payload delivery services.  DSS challenges the agency’s evaluation of task plans (hereinafter “proposals”) and source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND In 2018, NASA awarded nine indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) CLPS contracts to procure end-to-end commercial payload delivery services between the Earth and the lunar surface.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 12, Contracting Officer’s Statement of Facts (COS) at 528.[1]  The IDIQ contracts provide a 10-year ordering period during which NASA can issue fixed-priced task orders.  Id. NASA issued the RFTP under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5 to all CLPS contract holders, asking offerors to prepare a proposal for the delivery of flight-qualified NASA-sponsored science and technology payloads to the lunar surface by December 31, 2021.  AR, Tab 2, RFTP, at 45; AR, Tab 12, COS, at 528.  The firms awarded task orders would provide all activities necessary to safely integrate, transport, and operate NASA payloads using contractor provided assets, including launch vehicles, lunar landers, and associated resources.  Id. Award was to be made to the proposals representing the best value to the agency, considering price and non-price factors.  RFTP at 49.  First, the agency would evaluate proposals for technical acceptability by assessing them for compliance with several baseline technical requirements.[2]  Id.  Technically acceptable proposals would then be evaluated under the likelihood of successful payload delivery factor and the price factor. Id. at 50.  The likelihood of successful payload delivery factor was comprised of two components:  risk and schedule.  Id.  Offerors would receive a confidence rating for both components.  Id.  NASA would then perform a tradeoff between the significantly more important likelihood of successful payload delivery factor and price.  Id. Pertinent here, the RFTP provided that the agency would evaluate proposed prices for realism, advising that unrealistically low prices may demonstrate a lack of understanding of NASA’s requirement and represent a high-risk approach to contract performance.  Id. at 55. The RFTP also stated that to be “suitable for evaluation,” price proposals needed to provide traceability to the overall proposal, and include a narrative explaining all pricing and assumptions.  Id.