Accura Engineering and Consulting Services, Inc. (80MSFC21R0007)

B-420854 Oct 12, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Accura Engineering and Consulting Services, Inc., a small business located in Atlanta, Georgia, protests the award of a contract to Vanguard Pacific, LLC, of Foley, Alabama, pursuant to synopsis No. 80MSFC21R0007, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for architect/engineering (A/E) services at the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama. Accura contends that NASA misevaluated the protester's and awardee's qualifications statements and made an unreasonable source selection decision. 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: Accura Engineering and Consulting Services, Inc. File: B-420854 Date: October 12, 2022 David Timm, Esq., and Diana Lyn Curtis McGraw, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for the protester. Adam Supple, Esq., and Rosalind Cylar, 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 challenging the agency’s evaluation of statements of qualifications submitted in a procurement for architect‑engineering (A/E) services is denied where the evaluation was consistent with the terms of the synopsis, and where the protester fails to demonstrate competitive prejudice from any alleged error. 2. Protest alleging that the agency improperly assigned significant weight to oral presentations/discussions when evaluating firms for an A/E services contract is denied where, consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation provisions applicable to A/E procurements, the agency properly conducted the mandatory discussions, and reasonably considered the information provided during discussions in its evaluation. DECISION Accura Engineering and Consulting Services, Inc., a small business located in Atlanta, Georgia, protests the award of a contract to Vanguard Pacific, LLC, of Foley, Alabama, pursuant to synopsis No. 80MSFC21R0007, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for architect/engineering (A/E) services at the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama. Accura contends that NASA misevaluated the protester’s and awardee’s qualifications statements and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND This procurement of A/E services, on a set-aside basis, was conducted pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Selection of Architects and Engineers Statute, also referred to as the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 1101‑1104, as implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.6. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Synopsis at 27.[1] In accordance with these regulations, on April 14, 2021, NASA synopsized the requirement.[2] Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) ¶ 1.01. The synopsis explained that the contemplated work would include design services, master planning, and surveillance and inspection services at the MSFC. Synopsis at 27-28. The agency sought to award a single, indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity contract, for its Facilities Engineering Design and Inspection Services (FEDIS II) requirement at MSFC, for a base year and four 1-year option periods, for task orders valued above $25,000, up to a maximum value of $250,000.[3] Id. Firms were advised that their qualifications would be evaluated under six factors, weighted as follows: (1) professional qualifications (20 percent); (2) specialized experience and technical competence (30 percent); (3) capacity (to accomplish the required work in the required time) (20 percent); (4) past performance on projects with similar scope (20 percent); (5) location in the general geographic area and knowledge of the locality (5 percent); and (6) previous NASA contracts (5 percent). Synopsis at 32-34. The synopsis explained that the agency would convene an A/E evaluation board to review the submitted SF-330 qualifications statements. Id. at 31. After that initial evaluation, at least three of the “most highly qualified” firms would be invited to participate in oral presentations/discussions. Id. at 35. Five firms, including Accura and Vanguard, submitted their A/E qualifications for evaluation. COS ¶ 2.05. After its initial evaluation, the source evaluation team (SET) identified the three most highly qualified firms, including Accura and Vanguard, and invited those firms to make oral presentations. Id. The selected firms were advised to limit their oral presentations to approximately 15 minutes, and allow for an additional 30 minutes to respond to the SET’s questions, highlighting areas of concern identified during the initial evaluation.