Jacobs Technology, Inc. (80JSC020R0026)

B-420016,B-420016.2 Oct 28, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Jacobs Technology, Inc. (Jacobs), of Tullahoma, Tennessee, protests the award of a contract to Sierra Lobo, Inc. (SLI), under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80JSC020R0026, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for testing and operations support at the Johnson Space Center's White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of the offerors' past performance and technical proposals was flawed. 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 Technology, Inc. File: B-420016; B-420016.2 Date: October 28, 2021 Brian P. Waagner, Esq., Steven A. Neeley, Esq., Michael J. Schrier, Esq., Maya Desai, Esq., and Leah C. Kaiser, Esq., Husch Blackwell LLP, for the protester. Douglas P. Hibshman, Esq., Reginald M. Jones, Esq., and Michael A. Hordell, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for Sierra Lobo, Inc., the intervenor. Cody Corley, Esq., Ian F. Rothfuss, Esq., and Jaewon Choi, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s technical and past performance evaluations is denied where the record shows that the evaluations were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and any errors were not materially prejudicial. DECISION Jacobs Technology, Inc. (Jacobs), of Tullahoma, Tennessee, protests the award of a contract to Sierra Lobo, Inc. (SLI), under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80JSC020R0026, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for testing and operations support at the Johnson Space Center’s White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico. The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of the offerors’ past performance and technical proposals was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on August 17, 2020, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, seeking continued test and operations support at the Johnson Space Center’s White Sands Test Facility and other identified locations. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2.05, RFP amend. 4, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 2026-2027.[1] Specifically, this requirement, designated as the Test, Evaluation, and Support Team 3 (TEST3) contract, seeks contractor support for: propulsion testing; propellants, aerospace fluids, materials, and components testing; hypervelocity impact testing; flight hardware processing; technical services; training; facility maintenance and operation; and construction management. AR, Tab 2.01, RFP at 0015. The RFP anticipated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract--with task orders issued on a hybrid cost-plus-award-fee and fixed-price basis--with a 5-year period of performance. AR, Tab 2.06, RFP amend. 5 at 2329. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three factors: (1) mission suitability; (2) past performance; and (3) cost/price. Id. at 2498-2499. Mission suitability had four subfactors: (A) management approach (MA); (B) technical approach (TA); (C) innovations & efficiencies approach (IE); and (D) small business utilization (SBU). Id. at 2499. These mission suitability subfactors, in turn, each included sub-elements.[2] The MA subfactor included the following sub-elements: (i) contract management approach (MA1); (ii) safety and health approach (MA2); (iii) total compensation plan (MA3); (iv) staffing and critical skills plan (MA4); and (v) phase-in plan (MA5). Id. at 2500. The TA subfactor included sub-elements corresponding to an offeror’s technical understanding and resources for specific task orders: (i) base work task order (TA1); (ii) human landing system commercial lunar descent stage – vacuum hot fire test task order (TA2); and (iii) Mars ascent vehicle flow control valve test support task order (TA3).[3] Id. Mission suitability, as a whole, was evaluated on a 1,000-point scale, based on the relative importance of the underlying subfactors: the MA subfactor was worth 425 points; the TA subfactor was worth 350 points; the IE subfactor was worth 125 points; and the SBU subfactor was worth 100 points. Id. at 2499. Past performance would be evaluated for recency, relevance, and performance. Id. at 2502. Recent performance included work completed within five years of the solicitation, and NASA would use the following adjectival rating scheme to assess relevancy: very relevant; relevant; somewhat relevant; and not relevant. Id. at 2503.