Science and Technology Corporation (80ARC023R0006)

B-422601 Aug 23, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Science and Technology Corporation (STC), a small business of Hampton, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc. (AMA), also a small business of Hampton, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80ARC023R0006, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for aircraft and spaceflight systems engineering support services. The protester contends the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals under the mission suitability and past performance factors, made unreasonable cost adjustments, failed to conduct meaningful discussions, and made an unreasonable best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Science and Technology Corporation File: B-422601 Date: August 23, 2024 Robert J. Symon, Esq., Nathaniel J. Greeson, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., and Owen E. Salyers, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Francis E. Purcell Jr., Esq., and Joseph R. Berger, Esq., Thompson Hine LLP, for Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc., the intervenor. Michael G. Anderson, Esq., H. Gray Marsee, Esq., and Shannon A. Sharkey, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Jacob Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Science and Technology Corporation (STC), a small business of Hampton, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc. (AMA), also a small business of Hampton, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80ARC023R0006, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for aircraft and spaceflight systems engineering support services. The protester contends the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals under the mission suitability and past performance factors, made unreasonable cost adjustments, failed to conduct meaningful discussions, and made an unreasonable best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 16, 2023, the agency issued the RFP as a set-aside for small businesses in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15 and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) subpart 1815.3. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3b RFP sections B‑M at 135; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1, 4.[1] The agency sought to procure a variety of services, including scientific research, engineering services, and program/project management support services.[2] AR, Tab 3c Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 2. The solicitation contemplated award of a contract with fixed price contract line item numbers (CLINs) for phase-in and core contract management requirements, and an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) CLIN under which the agency would issue cost-plus-fixed-fee task orders. COS at 1. The period of performance included a 1-year base period with four, 1-year option periods. Id. The due date for proposals was May 12, 2023. AR, Tab 3b, RFP sections B-M at 102. The solicitation provided for the evaluation of proposals based on the following factors: mission suitability, past performance, and cost/price. Id. at 135. The mission suitability factor consisted of two subfactors: management approach and technical approach. Id. at 139. Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis where mission suitability was more important than past performance, past performance was more important that cost/price, and when combined, mission suitability and past performance were significantly more important than cost/price. Id. at 146. For the management approach subfactor, the agency would evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the offeror’s approach to organizational structure/partnering, as well as its approach to staffing, recruitment, retention, training, and its phase-in plan. Id. at 140. The agency would also evaluate the effectiveness of the offeror’s approach to fostering innovation, the reasonableness of its compensation plan, and its representation of limited rights data and restricted computer software. Id. The solicitation further provided that if the source selection board determined that the offeror failed to adequately demonstrate the ability to perform with the resources proposed, it might assign a weakness or perform a probable cost adjustment. Id. at 111. For the technical approach subfactor, the agency would evaluate the offeror’s approach to three sample task orders. Id. at 141. The three sample task orders covered the following three areas, respectively: systems analysis, entry systems, and launch vehicle analysis. Id. at 114‑115.