Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. (80MSFC19R0033)

B-418835,B-418835.2 Sep 25, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc., of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to SGT, LLC, of Greenbelt, Maryland, by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80MSFC19R0033, issued to acquire ground systems and operations services at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama. Teledyne argues that the agency misevaluated proposals, improperly engaged in discussions exclusively with SGT, and made an unreasonable source selection decision. Teledyne also argues that certain current and former NASA employees had conflicts of interest in connection with their activities surrounding the acquisition. We sustain the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. File:  B-418835; B-418835.2 Date:  September 28, 2020 Andrew E. Shipley, Esq., Philip E. Beshara, Esq., Chanda L. Brown, Esq., and Jessica S. Aldrich, Esq., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, for the protester. Seth H. Locke, Esq., David E. Fletcher, Esq., Alexander O. Canizares, Esq., and Brenna D. Duncam, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for SGT, LLC, the intervenor. Vincent A. Salgado, Esq., Rosalind Cylar, Esq., and Warnecke Miller, 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 that individual having extensive involvement in essentially every aspect of the agency’s acquisition has an apparent conflict of interest is sustained where the record shows that the agency recognized the apparent conflict, but failed adequately to investigate and mitigate it. DECISION   Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc., of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to SGT, LLC, of Greenbelt, Maryland, by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80MSFC19R0033, issued to acquire ground systems and operations services at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama.  Teledyne argues that the agency misevaluated proposals, improperly engaged in discussions exclusively with SGT, and made an unreasonable source selection decision.  Teledyne also argues that certain current and former NASA employees had conflicts of interest in connection with their activities surrounding the acquisition.  We sustain the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFP contemplates the award, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a cost-plus-award-fee type contract to provide the solicited services for a base period of one year and six option periods spanning an additional 7-year interval.[1]  Firms were advised that proposals would be evaluated considering three equally-weighted factors--mission suitability, past performance and cost--and that the mission suitability and past performance factors, in combination, were significantly more important than cost.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 47, RFP Conformed through Amendment No 0004, at M-1.  The mission suitability factor included three subfactors worth a total of 1,000 points:  technical staffing and approach (worth up to 550 points); management and innovation approach (worth up to 300 points); and small business (worth up to 150 points).  RFP at M-4.  Firms also were advised that past performance would be assigned an adjectival rating of very high, high, moderate, low, or very low level of confidence (or neutral confidence where a firm had no record of past performance).  Id. at M-7 to M-8.  Finally, the agency advised that it would perform a cost realism evaluation to determine the realism of the offerors’ proposed costs.  Id. at M-5 to M-6. The agency received a number of proposals in response to the solicitation.  After evaluating proposals, the agency assigned the Teledyne proposal a total mission suitability score of 908 points, a very high level of confidence rating under the past performance factor, and determined that its most probable cost was $715,396,413 (Teledyne’s proposed cost was $706,190,207).  AR, exh. 118, Presentation to the Source Selection Authority, at BATES 3725.[2]  The agency assigned the SGT proposal a total mission suitability score of 903 points, a very high level of confidence rating under the past performance factor, and determined that its most probable cost was $651,625,392 (SGT’s proposed cost was $620,139,905).  Id. Using these evaluation results, the agency selected SGT for award on the basis of initial proposals, finding the proposals from SGT and Teledyne to be essentially equal under the non-cost factors, and basing the selection decision ultimately on SGT’s lower evaluated cost.  AR, exh.