MEI Technical Integration Solutions, Inc. (80JSC019R0023)

B-418432 May 05, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bastion Technologies, Inc. (Bastion), of Houston, Texas, protests the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) interpretation of the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. 80JSC019R0023 for products and services in support of human space flight programs. The protester challenges the agency's interpretation of the solicitation's past performance submission requirements and the agency's decision not to consider Bastion's submitted past performance information forms (PPIFs). 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Bastion Technologies, Inc. File:  B-418432 Date:  May 5, 2020 Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., David R. Warner, Esq., Tyler J. Freiberger, Esq., and Heather B. Mims, Esq., Centre Law and Consulting, LLC, for the protester. Warnecke Miller, Esq., Alexander T. Bakos, Esq., and Cody Corley, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Christopher Alwood, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest of an agency’s interpretation of a solicitation, after the agency disclosed its interpretation of the solicitation’s terms via written notice stating that it would not evaluate part of the protester’s proposal submission, is ripe for review but is denied where the agency’s interpretation of the solicitation is reasonable and the protester’s alternative interpretation is unreasonable. 2. Protest alleging errors in the evaluation of past performance is dismissed as premature when brought during an ongoing evaluation, prior to award. DECISION   Bastion Technologies, Inc. (Bastion), of Houston, Texas, protests the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) interpretation of the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. 80JSC019R0023 for products and services in support of human space flight programs.  The protester challenges the agency’s interpretation of the solicitation’s past performance submission requirements and the agency’s decision not to consider Bastion’s submitted past performance information forms (PPIFs). We deny the protest. BACKGROUND NASA issued the RFP on November 1, 2019, seeking proposals to provide products and services to support technical integration activities and necessary infrastructure functions for human space flight programs, including the International Space Station program, the Orion program, and the Gateway program.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 0011, 0029;[1] Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award fee/incentive-fee, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for a 60-day phase in period, a 2-year base period, and three 1-year option periods.  RFP at 0007.  The RFP provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three evaluation factors:  mission suitability, past performance, and cost.  Id. at 0686.  The mission suitability and past performance factors, when combined, were stated to be more important than cost, with mission suitability being more important than past performance.  Id. As relevant here, section L.16.4.1 of the RFP required offerors to demonstrate their past performance by submitting PPIFs.  Id. at 0645‑0646.  The RFP specified that “[o]nly one contract shall be described per PPIF.”  Id. at 0646.  The RFP also specified that “[o]fferor[s] shall submit past performance information for no more than three contracts” per team member.  Id.  The RFP’s general instructions for proposal preparation provided that offerors should include in their proposals “any further discussion believed to be necessary or useful in demonstrating your ability to perform the work under this contract.”  Id. at 0638. Section M.3.2.1(b) of the RFP provided that, in addition to the PPIFs submitted by the offerors, the agency would use past performance information independently obtained from government and commercial sources in its evaluation.  Id. at 0688.  The RFP stated that such sources included, but were not limited to, the past performance information retrieval system (PPIRS) and similar systems, interviews with client program managers and contracting officers, and other sources known to the government.  Id.  Section M.3.2.1(c) of the RFP provided that past performance would be evaluated considering three aspects:  recency, relevance, and performance.  Id.