Jacobs Polar Services-CH2M Facility Support Services (49100419R1001)

B-418390.2,B-418390.3,B-418390.4 Jun 12, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Jacobs Polar Services-CH2M Facility Support Services (Jacobs), of Englewood, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to Battelle Memorial Institute (Battelle), of Columbus, Ohio, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 49100419R1001, issued by the National Science Foundation (NSF), for Arctic research support and logistics services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation and source selection decision are unreasonable. 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:  Jacobs Polar Services-CH2M Facility Support Services File:  B-418390.2; B-418390.3; B-418390.4 Date:  June 12, 2020 Robert J. Symon, Esq., Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., Sarah S. Osborne, Esq., Lisa A. Markman, Esq., and Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Marques O. Peterson, Esq., Todd. J. Canni, Esq., J. Matthew Carter, Esq., Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., and Robert Starling, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for Battelle Memorial Institute, the intervenor. Colin W. O’Sullivan, Esq., and Benjamin I. Klein, Esq., National Science Foundation, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., Karly A. Newcomb, and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST  1.  Protest challenging agency’s cost realism analysis and evaluation of professional employee compensation plans is denied where the record demonstrates that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation provision 52.222-46. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation and source selection decision is denied where the record demonstrates only one instance of disparate treatment by which the protester was not prejudiced, and the evaluation and source selection were otherwise reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Jacobs Polar Services-CH2M Facility Support Services (Jacobs), of Englewood, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to Battelle Memorial Institute (Battelle), of Columbus, Ohio, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 49100419R1001, issued by the National Science Foundation (NSF), for Arctic research support and logistics services.  The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation and source selection decision are unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on February 15, 2019, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, for award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 26, RFP §§ L.1, L.2.[1]  The RFP contemplated a period of performance that consists of a 4-month phase-in period, a 4-year base period, three 2-year option periods, a 4-month phase-out period, and an option to extend services for up to six months pursuant to FAR clause 52.217-8.  Id. § F.2 at F-1.  The RFP requires that the contractor provide logistics, operations, and other support for Arctic research projects and facilities sponsored by NSF or other agencies, as directed by NSF.  Id. § C.2 at C-2. The RFP included the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical, past performance, and cost/price.  Id. § M.5.1.  The technical factor included the following subfactors, also listed in descending order of importance:  science support planning and execution; concept of operations and core competencies; and facilities management and operations.  Id.  The RFP stated that the technical factor and subfactors would be evaluated for strengths and weaknesses and assigned one of the following adjectival ratings:  excellent, very good, satisfactory, marginal, and unacceptable.[2]  Id. § M.6.4.  In addition, the RFP included FAR provision 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.  Id. § M.1.  The RFP stated that cost proposals would be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and realism.  Id. § M.8.1.  Award would be made to the offeror that provided the best value to the government, where the technical and past performance factors combined were significantly more important than the cost/price factor.  Id. §§ M.4, M.5.1. The agency received four proposals in response to the RFP, including from Jacobs and Battelle.  Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 7.  The source selection authority (SSA) selected Battelle for award, and following a debriefing, Jacobs filed a protest with our Office.  Id.  In response to the protest, the agency advised that it would take corrective action by “re-examin[ing] the underlying award decision . . .