ASRC Federal System Solutions, LLC (80MSFC20R0036)

B-420443,B-420443.2 Apr 12, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ASRC Federal System Solutions, LLC (AFSS), a small business of Beltsville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC (RSi-QT), also a small business of Huntsville, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80MSFC20R0036, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for multidisciplinary engineering technician and trade support services at the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama. AFSS challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals and resulting award. The protester also contends that RSi-QT gained an unfair competitive advantage by proposing a former NASA official as a key person and improperly engaging that former official to prepare its proposal. 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: ASRC Federal System Solutions, LLC File: B-420443; B-420443.2 Date: April 12, 2022 Amy L. O’Sullivan, Esq., Zachary H. Schroeder, Esq., Issac D. Schabes, Esq., and Karla V. Perez Chacon, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Carla J. Weiss, Esq., David B. Robbins, Esq., Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., Moshe B. Broder, Esq., and Scott E. Whitman, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC, the intervenor. Ian Rothfuss, Esq., and Jerry L. Seemann, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging that awardee gained an unfair competitive advantage based on employment of a former government official is denied where the agency, after conducting an investigation of the alleged conflict of interest, reasonably concluded that the former official did not have access to non-public, competitively useful information. 2. Protest alleging that agency conducted misleading discussions is denied where the record shows that while the agency twice raised a concern about past performance, and later indicated that it considered the issue resolved, the responses did not fully resolve the agency’s concern; nonetheless, the record shows no reasonable possibility that the protester was competitively prejudiced by any error that may have occurred. 3. Protest alleging that agency improperly awarded a competitive 8(a) set-aside contract to an ineligible joint venture is denied where the Small Business Administration’s regulations no longer require that the agency approve joint ventures for competitive 8(a) awards. DECISION ASRC Federal System Solutions, LLC (AFSS), a small business of Beltsville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC (RSi-QT), also a small business of Huntsville, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80MSFC20R0036, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for multidisciplinary engineering technician and trade support services at the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama. AFSS challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals and resulting award. The protester also contends that RSi-QT gained an unfair competitive advantage by proposing a former NASA official as a key person and improperly engaging that former official to prepare its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 13, 2020, the agency issued the Marshall Engineering Technicians and Trades Support (METTS) III solicitation as a small business set-aside, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15 procedures.[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 1281, 1282; COS ¶ 1.01.[2] The solicitation anticipated award of a single cost-plus-award fee contract for both mission services and indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) components, for a 1-year base period and four 1-year options.RFP at 983, 985. The RFP advised that award would made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering mission suitability, cost, and past performance. Id. at 1420. The solicitation instructed that these three evaluation factors were equal in weight but that mission suitability and past performance, when combined, were significantly more important than cost. Id. The mission suitability factor consisted of two subfactors, each to be weighted equally and assigned up to 500 points: (1) management and technical approach, and (2) staffing and total compensation. Id. at 1422. The RFP provided that NASA would evaluate proposals and assess significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies, as appropriate. Id.at 1421-22.