Arcticom LLC (80AFRC22R0003)

B-421256,B-421256.2 Dec 28, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Arcticom, LLC, of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to TBP&JJ Worldwide Services, LLC, of Leesburg, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80AFRC22R0003, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for base operations and maintenance support services. Arcticom argues that NASA unreasonably evaluated its past performance proposal, and improperly made the 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: Arcticom, LLC File: B-421256; B-421256.2 Date: December 28, 2022 Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., The Martin Law Firm, PLLC, for the protester. Damien C. Specht, Esq., and James A. Tucker, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for TBP&JJ Worldwide Services, LLC, the intervenor. Allison M. Genco, Esq., Jennifer L. Rawls, Esq., and Alex M. Ray, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s past performance proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably disregarded past performance information for affiliated companies in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency unreasonably made its selection decision is denied where the record shows that the source selection authority reasonably compared the proposals and conducted the tradeoff in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Arcticom, LLC, of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to TBP&JJ Worldwide Services, LLC, of Leesburg, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80AFRC22R0003, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for base operations and maintenance support services. Arcticom argues that NASA unreasonably evaluated its past performance proposal, and improperly made the selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 2, 2022, NASA issued the RFP as an 8(a) set-aside[1] for small businesses to procure base operations and maintenance support services at the Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California. Agency Report (AR) Tab 2a, RFP at 14-16.[2] Specific services to be provided included facility operations, maintenance, repair, janitorial, grounds-keeping, and other miscellaneous facility upkeep services. Id. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to be performed over a 2-month phase-in period, one 12-month base period, and four 1-year option periods. Id. at 16‑19; 63. The evaluation would proceed in a multi-stage process. RFP at 57. First, NASA would evaluate proposals for technical acceptability, and eliminate any proposal evaluated as technically unacceptable. Id. Next, NASA would evaluate offerors’ proposed prices and referenced past performance. Id. Finally, NASA would conduct a tradeoff analysis with the past performance factor being considered significantly more important than the price factor. Id. at 57, 63. Eight offerors submitted proposals prior to the July 22 close of the solicitation period. AR, Tab 16, Source Selection Statement (SSS) at 931. The agency’s evaluation produced the following relevant results:   Technical Acceptability Past Performance Confidence Total Evaluated Price Arcticom Acceptable Low $46,784,247 TBP&JJ Acceptable Moderate $47,424,612   AR, Tab 15, Source Selection Authority (SSA) Briefing at 926.[3] NASA assigned the Arcticom proposal a past performance confidence rating of “low” because the agency determined that two of the three contracts provided in the firm’s proposal were not relevant since they referenced the performance of affiliate companies, and because the third contract demonstrated performance that was only of adequate quality. AR, Tab 10, Past Performance Evaluation Report (PPER) at 748. Based on the evaluation results, the SSA identified TBP&JJ’s proposal as representing the best value. AR, Tab 16, SSS at 945. When comparing Arcticom and TBP&JJ, the SSA noted that, while Arcticom’s evaluated price was slightly lower, TBP&JJ’s referenced past performance demonstrated a higher likelihood of success. Id. at 946. After learning that its proposal was unsuccessful, Arcticom requested a debriefing. As part of the oral debriefing, NASA informed Arcticom that two of its contracts were not evaluated because the contracts were performed by affiliate companies, and Arcticom’s proposal did not explain how the firm would utilize those companies during performance of the instant requirement. AR, Tab 14, Arcticom Debriefing Script at 853.