Akima Facilities Operations, LLC (80gsfc22r0011)

B-421584 Jul 06, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Akima Facilities Operations, LLC, an 8(a) small business of Herndon, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to ASRC Federal Facilities Logistics, LLC, an 8(a) small business of Beltsville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80GSFC22R0011, which was issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for operations and maintenance (O&M), architect-engineering (A-E), construction, and information resources services. 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: Akima Facilities Operations, LLC File: B-421584 Date: July 6, 2023 Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Potomac Law Group, PLLC, for the protester. Damien C. Specht, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Roke Iko, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for ASRC Federal Facilities Logistics, LLC, the intervenor. Jennifer L. Howard, Esq., Victoria H. Kauffman, Esq., Amber M. Hufft, Esq., and James A. Vatne, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency evaluated proposals disparately is denied where the record reflects that differences in evaluations were a result of differences in proposals. DECISION Akima Facilities Operations, LLC, an 8(a)[1] small business of Herndon, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to ASRC Federal Facilities Logistics, LLC, an 8(a) small business of Beltsville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80GSFC22R0011, which was issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for operations and maintenance (O&M), architect-engineering (A‑E), construction, and information resources services. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on August 3, 2022, pursuant to the negotiated procurement procedures in FAR part 15, and amended it once. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1‑2. The RFP sought proposals for the provision of O&M, A‑E, construction, and information resources services in support of facility requirements at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Greenbelt site and the Wallops Flight Facility, as well as GSFC remote sites and NASA headquarters. Id. at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 4B, Statement of Work (SOW) at A‑4. The RFP contemplated award of a single, indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity contract with a five‑year ordering period and a maximum value of $320 million. COS at 1; AR, Tab 4A, RFP at 2, 14. Task orders to be issued under the contract will include both cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee and fixed‑price tasks. COS at 1; RFP at 102. The RFP provided that the agency would utilize a best‑value tradeoff methodology in its source selection, considering three factors: mission suitability; past performance; and cost. RFP at 136. The mission suitability and past performance factors, when combined, were approximately equal in importance to cost. Id. Individually, cost was more important than the mission suitability factor, which was more important than the past performance factor. Id. The mission suitability factor consisted of two subfactors: technical approach and management approach. Id. at 120, 137. Relevant here, among the aspects of each offeror’s technical approach was a quality control plan, for which the RFP instructed offerors as follows: The offeror shall submit a written Quality Control Plan (QCP) identifying the offeror’s approach to ensuring high quality service and product throughout the duration of the contract. Specifically, the offeror shall identify in the plan the procedures for continually monitoring, identifying, and correcting deficiencies. The QCP shall describe the offeror’s method (e.g. 100% inspection, planned sampling, random sampling, customer complaints, etc.) to determine whether performance requirements in the SOW are met. The Plan shall ensure that work is completed in accordance with Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) job plans, maintenance and construction specifications, drawings, and industry standards as applicable. Id. at 121. The RFP stated that the agency would evaluate the quality control plan, including all areas and information specified in the instructions, for effectiveness and reasonableness. Id.