Zin Technologies, Inc. (80GRC022R0016)

B-422405,B-422405.2 Jul 13, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Zin Technologies, Inc., a small, disadvantaged business of Cleveland, Ohio, protests the award of a contract to Sierra Lobo, Inc., a small disadvantaged business of Fremont, Ohio, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80GRC022R0016, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for various space flight system development and operations services at the Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio. The protester primarily contends that the agency misevaluated proposals under the mission suitability and relevant experience and past performance factors, conducted flawed discussions with offerors, and failed to mitigate a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI) involving the awardee's major subcontractor. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Zin Technologies, Inc. File: B-422405; B-422405.2 Date: June 13, 2024 Jeffery M. Chiow, Esq., Eleanor M. Ross, Esq., Timothy M. McLister, Esq., and Jordan N. Malone, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for the protester. Douglas P. Hibshman, Esq., Keeley A. McCarty, Esq., Dana Molinari, Esq., and Jung Hyoun Han, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for Sierra Lobo, Inc., the intervenor. Stephen T. O’Neal, Esq., MacAllister A. West, Esq., James P. Burke, Esq., Kendall A. Grodek, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Michael P. Price, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency’s assessment of weaknesses to the mission suitability volume of the protester’s proposal is denied where the record demonstrates the weaknesses were reasonably assessed. 2. Protest alleging the agency engaged in discussions that were not meaningful and unequal is denied where the record demonstrates the agency’s conduct of discussions was reasonable and treated offerors in an even‑handed manner. 3. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals under the relevant experience and past performance factor is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and adequately documented. 4. Protest challenging the agency’s best-value determination is denied where the record demonstrates the source selection authority’s decision was based on a reasonable underlying evaluation. 5. Protest alleging the agency failed to mitigate an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) with respect to the awardee’s major subcontractor is denied where the protester has failed to allege hard facts indicating the existence of a potential OCI. DECISION Zin Technologies, Inc., a small, disadvantaged business of Cleveland, Ohio, protests the award of a contract to Sierra Lobo, Inc., a small disadvantaged business of Fremont, Ohio, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80GRC022R0016, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for various space flight system development and operations services at the Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio. The protester primarily contends that the agency misevaluated proposals under the mission suitability and relevant experience and past performance factors, conducted flawed discussions with offerors, and failed to mitigate a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI) involving the awardee’s major subcontractor. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 16, 2023, NASA issued the RFP pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, seeking proposals to perform the requirements of its space flight systems development and operations contract III (SpaceDOC III).[1] COS at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 4b, RFP at 154; AR, Tab 4c, Statement of Work (SOW) at 1, 4.[2] The agency anticipated awarding a contract consisting of a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) “Core” portion and a CPFF and fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) portion,[3] for a 3‑year base period with two 2-year options, and a possible 6‑month extension. COS at 1. The RFP advised that NASA intended to award the contract to the “responsible [o]fferor whose proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation and provides the best value to the [g]overnment based on the weighting of the evaluation factors” identified in the RFP. RFP at 155. The RFP’s evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance, were: (1) mission suitability; (2) cost/price; and (3) relevant experience and past performance. Id. at 168. The RFP informed offerors that when combined, the non‑price factors were significantly more important than the cost/price factor. Id. The RFP announced an adjectival and points rating scheme for NASA’s evaluation of the non‑price factors. Id.