Amentum Services, Inc. (80KSC021R0038)

B-421183,B-421183.2,B-421183.3 Jan 17, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Amentum Services, Inc. (Amentum), of Germantown, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Engineering, Research and Consulting, Inc. (ERC), of Huntsville, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80KSC021R0038, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for services to operate and maintain laboratories, developmental shops, and test facilities for the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The protester, the incumbent contractor, challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation of proposals and the best-value tradeoff 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. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Amentum Services, Inc. File: B-421183; B-421183.2; B-421183.3 Date: January 17, 2023 Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., and Jeffrey M. Lowry, Esq., Vedder Price P.C., for the protester. Michael F. Mason, Esq., Stacy M. Hadeka, Esq., Taylor Hillman, Esq., and Lauren Olmsted, Esq., Hogan Lovells US LLP, for Engineering, Research and Consulting, Inc., the intervenor. Heather J. Akram, Esq., Tracy Lee Belford, Esq., Young H. Cho, Esq., and Shannon A. Sharkey, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Michelle E. Litteken, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal under the mission suitability factor is dismissed as an untimely challenge to the terms of the solicitation; remaining allegations regarding the evaluation of proposals under the mission suitability factor are denied because the record reflects that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria. 2. Challenge to the conduct of discussions is denied where the record reflects that the agency’s discussions were meaningful, adequately tailored to each offeror’s proposal, and not otherwise inconsistent with applicable procurement law or the terms of the solicitation. 3. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s past performance is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria. 4. Protest challenging the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the record reflects that the decision was reasonable, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and adequately documented. DECISION Amentum Services, Inc. (Amentum), of Germantown, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Engineering, Research and Consulting, Inc. (ERC), of Huntsville, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80KSC021R0038, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for services to operate and maintain laboratories, developmental shops, and test facilities for the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The protester, the incumbent contractor, challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of proposals and the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Kennedy Space Center is a multi-user spaceport for launches of crewed and un‑crewed space flights. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5B, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1. NASA issued the solicitation on December 3, 2021, seeking a contractor to support the operation and maintenance of a diverse set of laboratories, developmental shops, and test facilities at the Kennedy Space Center. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1-2. The contemplated contract is referred to as “LASSO II,” which stands for laboratory support services and operations. The solicitation contemplated a fixed-price contract with an anticipated period of performance of 5 years. Id. at 2. The solicitation established that award would be made using a best-value tradeoff based on the following factors: mission suitability, past performance, and price.[1] AR, Tab 5A, RFP at 86. The mission suitability factor and the past performance factor, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. The past performance factor was the most important factor, followed by price and mission suitability. Id. The mission suitability factor consisted of three subfactors, with the following assigned point values: management approach (600 points), technical approach (300 points), and small business utilization (100 points). RFP at 87. NASA would assign adjectival ratings and numerical scores for each subfactor, and would establish an overall numerical mission suitability factor score. Id. at 88. The agency would evaluate the offeror’s approach to accomplishing the requirements, and any inconsistencies between the proposal volumes could adversely affect the ratings assessed. Id.