Science Applications International Corporation (80GSFC21R0046)

B-421660,B-421660.2 Aug 08, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of Reston, Virginia, protests the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) award of a contract to Space Network Solutions, LLC dba Space & Technology Solutions (STS), pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 80GSFC21R0046, to provide engineering support services. SAIC, the incumbent contractor, protests the agency's determination that STS's proposal was substantially superior to SAIC's under the most important evaluation factor, mission suitability, and offered the best value to the agency. Protest at 16-51. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Science Applications International Corporation File: B-421660; B-421660.2 Date: August 8, 2023 James J. McCullough, Esq., Michael J. Anstett, Esq., Alexander B. Ginsberg, Esq., Frank V. DiNicola, Esq., and Katherine L. St. Romain, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for the protester. Seth H. Locke, Esq., Brenna D. Duncan, Esq., Joshuah R. Turner, Esq., and Jedidiah Blake, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for the intervenor. Adam Supple, Esq., Grant Arnold, Esq., and Hema G. Sresty, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably determined that awardee’s proposal was substantially superior to protester’s proposal under the most important evaluation factor; offered a cost/price that was less than one percent higher than protester’s cost/price; and reflected the best value for the agency. DECISION Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of Reston, Virginia, protests the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) award of a contract to Space Network Solutions, LLC dba Space & Technology Solutions (STS), pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 80GSFC21R0046, to provide engineering support services. SAIC, the incumbent contractor, protests the agency’s determination that STS’s proposal was substantially superior to SAIC’s under the most important evaluation factor, mission suitability, and offered the best value to the agency. Protest at 16‑51.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 29, 2022, the agency issued the solicitation for the procurement at issue here,[2] seeking proposals to provide engineering support services for various organizations within NASA.[3] The solicitation contemplated the single award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract under which task orders will subsequently be issued,[4] and provided that the source selection decision would be based on a best-value tradeoff between the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: mission suitability, cost, and past performance. Of relevance here, the solicitation established three subfactors under the mission suitability factor (technical approach, management approach, and small business utilization), and provided that the agency would assign adjectival ratings and point scores under each subfactor[5] based on the agency’s assessment of strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies.[6] RFP at 147. With regard to the technical approach subfactor, the solicitation contained two “representative task orders” (RTOs) for which offerors were required to propose solutions. Specifically, the solicitation stated: The Offeror shall provide written task plans addressing each representative task. . . . [E]ach task plan shall identify the technical approach, labor categories, projected labor hours, Government interface, and the flow of activities from start to completion (including timeline). The plan must be sufficiently specific, detailed, and complete to demonstrate a clear and full understanding of the objectives; potential technical problems, risks, and critical issues; and possible problem mitigation/resolution. RFP at 115. With regard to evaluation under the technical approach subfactor, the RFP stated that each proposal “will be evaluated for effectiveness, reasonableness, understanding, and efficiency” and would include assessments regarding “the appropriateness of the offeror’s proposed resources, and associated programmatic risk.” Id. at 143. Consistent with these provisions, the solicitation advised offerors that their proposals should “demonstrate understanding of the overall and specific [contract] requirements; “convey the company’s capabilities for transforming understanding into accomplishment; and “present in detail, the plans and methods for so doing.” Id. at 105. On or before June 7, 2022, proposals were submitted by two offerors: STS and SAIC.