Mitchell Vantage Systems, LLC (80GSFC20R0037)

B-421548.2,B-421548.3 Sep 29, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Mitchell Vantage Systems, LLC (MVS), an 8(a)1 small business of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, protests the award of a contract to McCallie Associates, Inc., an 8(a) small business of Bellevue, Nebraska, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80GSFC20R0037, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for mission and instrument systems engineering services for the Mission Engineering and System Analysis Division and related Engineering and Technology Directorate organizations. MVS challenges NASA's evaluation of proposals under the past performance factor and the mission suitability factor, as well as the agency's 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: Mitchell Vantage Systems, LLC File: B-421548.2; B-421548.3 Date: September 29, 2023 Gregory S. Jacobs, Esq., Erin L. Felix, Esq., and Daniel H. Petkoff, Esq., Polsinelli PC, for the protester. Richard B. Oliver, Esq., J. Matthew Carter, Esq., and Dinesh C. Dharmadasa, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for McCallie Associates, Inc., the intervenor. Jennifer L. Howard, Esq., and Marla R. Harrington, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Michelle 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 proposals under the solicitation’s mission suitability factor is denied where the evaluation was done in a manner that was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s past performance evaluation is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Mitchell Vantage Systems, LLC (MVS), an 8(a)[1] small business of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, protests the award of a contract to McCallie Associates, Inc., an 8(a) small business of Bellevue, Nebraska, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80GSFC20R0037, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for mission and instrument systems engineering services for the Mission Engineering and System Analysis Division and related Engineering and Technology Directorate organizations. MVS challenges NASA’s evaluation of proposals under the past performance factor and the mission suitability factor, as well as the agency’s source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Engineering and Technology Directorate within NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center plans, organizes, and conducts a broad range of technical research and development activities in support of science applications. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1D, Statement of Work at 1. Through this procurement, known as systems engineering advanced services II (SEAS II), NASA will acquire a wide range of engineering services to support the Engineering and Technology Directorate in implementing the Goddard Space Flight Center’s mission. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. The agency issued the SEAS II solicitation on February 8, 2021, as an 8(a) set-aside, for mission and instrument systems engineering services.[2] COS at 1-2. The solicitation contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a 5-year ordering period and a 6-month option period. Id. at 1. The solicitation provided for award using a best-value tradeoff considering the following factors, listed in descending order of importance: mission suitability, cost, and past performance. AR, Exh. 1C, RFP at 125-26. The solicitation established that the mission suitability factor would be evaluated using a 1,000-point scale, and it consisted of two subfactors: technical understanding/ representative task orders[3] (600 points) and management plan (400 points). Id. at 128. Additionally, the solicitation stated that the agency would classify evaluation findings as strengths, weaknesses, significant strengths, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies.[4] Id. For the cost/price proposal volume, the solicitation required offerors to use a government pricing model that specified the direct labor categories and labor hours for nonmanagement labor. RFP at 112-13. The solicitation provided that cost would be assessed for cost realism and reasonableness.[5] RFP at 129. The solicitation also stated that the total proposed cost, total probable cost, and any cost risk associated with the proposal would be presented to the source selection authority (SSA).