National Aerospace Solutions, LLC (FA910122RB001)

B-422471,B-422471.2 Jul 02, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights National Aerospace Solutions, LLC (NAS), of Reston, Virginia, protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to Beyond New Horizons, LLC (BNH), pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. FA910122RB001, to provide test operations and sustainment services for the Arnold Engineering Development Complex (AEDC) headquartered at Arnold Air Force Base (AFB) in Tennessee. NAS challenges the agency's evaluation and source selection decision, complaining about virtually every judgment the agency made with regard to the technical, past performance, and cost/price evaluation factors. Protest at 18-45; Comments and Supp. Protest at 3-44. 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: National Aerospace Solutions, LLC File: B-422471; B-422471.2 Date: July 2, 2024 Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Jon W. Burd, Esq., Cara L. Sizemore, Esq., and Sarah B. Hansen, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Andrew E. Shipley, Esq., Philip E. Beshara, Esq., Jessica S. Aldrich, Esq., and Jarrod R. Carman, Esq., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, for Beyond New Horizons, LLC, the intervenor. Colonel Christine C. Piper, Michael J. Farr, Esq., Major Roza S. Sheffield, Gregory B. Porter, Esq., Ryan A. Mueller, Esq., and Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey J. Hannon, Department of the Air Force, 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 1. Agency reasonably determined that awardee's proposal was superior to protester's proposal under the most important evaluation factor, technical, based on the agency's determination that awardee's proposal offered greater benefits under three of the four equally weighted subfactors. 2. Agency reasonably evaluated the quality of protester's performance under the predecessor contract as “very good”--but not “exceptional,” and reasonably concluded that the protester's and awardee's proposals were essentially equal under the past performance evaluation factor. 3. Agency reasonably evaluated the cost realism of awardee's proposal where the agency considered multiple aspects of the offerors' cost/price proposals, including proposed labor hours, labor rates, and total evaluated costs. DECISION National Aerospace Solutions, LLC (NAS), of Reston, Virginia, protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to Beyond New Horizons, LLC (BNH), pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. FA910122RB001, to provide test operations and sustainment services for the Arnold Engineering Development Complex (AEDC) headquartered at Arnold Air Force Base (AFB) in Tennessee.[1] NAS challenges the agency's evaluation and source selection decision, complaining about virtually every judgment the agency made with regard to the technical, past performance, and cost/price evaluation factors. Protest at 18-45; Comments and Supp. Protest at 3-44.[2] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 16, 2023, the agency issued the solicitation, seeking proposals to provide a workforce capable of performing various services to support the AEDC's mission.[3] The procurement, referred to as “Test Operations and Sustainment II” or “TOS II,” is a follow-on to the predecessor “TOS I” contract that was awarded to NAS in 2015. AR, Tab 3, Industry Day Presentation at 43. The TOS II solicitation provided for the award of a primarily cost-plus-award-fee contract,[4] with performance potentially extending over a 12-year period and an estimated value in excess of $4 billion. AR, Tab 16i, RFP § L at 2; Tab 40, Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report at 7576. The solicitation advised offerors that the agency expects to experience a workload surge during the first several years of the TOS II contract, predicting that “nuclear modernization and hypersonic weapon systems development will drive the annual workload requirements to double or triple that which traditionally occurs in the course of an execution year.” AR, Tab 16g, RFP SOO at 4. Finally, the solicitation provided that the source selection decision would be based on a bestvalue tradeoff between the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical, past performance, and cost/price. AR, Tab 16n, RFP § M at 4. With regard to evaluation under the most important factor, technical, the solicitation established four equally weighted subfactors: management approach, technical operations, qualified personnel, and transition. For each subfactor, the solicitation identified specific requirements (referred to as “measures of merit”) against which each offeror's proposed approach would be evaluated.[5] Id. at 7-9.