Los Alamos Technical Associates, Inc. (80JSC022R0011)

B-421034 Nov 30, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Los Alamos Technical Associates, Inc. (LATA), a small business of Albuquerque, New Mexico, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80JSC022R0011, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for environmental compliance and operation support services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably found the firm's proposal unacceptable, and that the determination of unacceptability was essentially a determination of nonresponsibility that the agency was required to refer to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) for possible issuance of a certificate of competency. 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: Los Alamos Technical Associates, Inc. File: B-421034 Date: November 30, 2022 Samuel S. Finnerty, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., and Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Cody Corley, Esq., Wendy Bateman, Esq., and Tracy Herrell, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that the agency was required to refer the protester to the U.S. Small Business Administration for possible issuance of a certificate of competency is denied where the agency rejected the protester’s proposal for failure to submit required information, which did not constitute a responsibility-type determination. DECISION Los Alamos Technical Associates, Inc. (LATA), a small business of Albuquerque, New Mexico, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80JSC022R0011, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for environmental compliance and operation support services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably found the firm’s proposal unacceptable, and that the determination of unacceptability was essentially a determination of nonresponsibility that the agency was required to refer to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) for possible issuance of a certificate of competency. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 12, 2022, NASA issued the RFP as a total small business set‑aside pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, procedures.[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 2.00, RFP at 0003, 0013, 0015.[2] The agency sought proposals for a firm to provide “groundwater monitoring, environmental restoration, multi-media environmental compliance, sustainability program services and general environmental operation support services” at the Johnson Space Center, White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico. Id. at 0013, 0073. The solicitation contemplated the award of a single indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract, with cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee and fixed‑price task orders to be issued during a 5‑year period of performance. Id. The solicitation provided for award to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis using streamlined procurement evaluation factors and a limited tradeoff analysis. AR, Tab 2.03, RFP amend. 2 at 1079, 1081. The solicitation provided that the agency would conduct an initial review of proposals “to determine acceptability of the proposals in accordance with [NASA FAR Supplement (NFS)] 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals” and eliminate all unacceptable proposals from the competition. Id. at 1079. NSF section 1815.305-70 states as follows: (a) The contracting officer shall not complete the initial evaluation of any proposal when it is determined that the proposal is unacceptable because: (1) It does not represent a reasonable initial effort to address the essential requirements of the RFP or clearly demonstrates that the offeror does not understand the requirements; . . . (3) It contains major deficiencies or omissions or out-of-line costs which discussions with the offeror could not reasonably be expected to cure. NSF 1815.305-70(a)(1) & (3); see also Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 5‑6. The solicitation provided that the remaining proposals would be evaluated under the technical acceptability factor, and that “[a]ll ‘[a]cceptable’ or ‘[p]otentially [a]cceptable’ proposals” would be further evaluated against past performance and cost/price.[3] Id. at 1079. The solicitation further provided that tradeoffs would be made between past performance and cost/price for proposals evaluated as acceptable under the technical acceptability factor, with past performance and cost/price considered approximately equal. Id.