a i solutions, Inc. (80GSFC23R0009)

B-424229,B-424229.2 Apr 30, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights a.i. solutions, Inc., of Lanham, Maryland, challenges the award of a contract to ARES Technical Services Corp., of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80GSFC23R0009, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for operations and maintenance services at the Wallops Flight Facility on Wallops Island, Virginia. The protester contends that the agency should have rejected ARES's proposal for failing to identify a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI) and that the agency conducted unequal discussions by allowing ARES to revise its proposal to address the potential OCI. The protester also argues that the agency evaluated proposals unreasonably and disparately and failed to perform a proper best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Matter of: a. i. solutions, Inc. File: B-424229, B-424229.2 Date: April 30, 2026 Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., and Gabrielle A. Sprio, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Brian G. Walsh, Esq., Tracye Winfrey Howard, Esq., W. Benjamin Phillips III, Esq., Jack O. Raineri, Esq., and Anthony Iorio, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for ARES Technical Services Corp., the intervenor. Jennifer L. Howard, Esq., Adam C. Supple, Esq., and Grant L. Arnold, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Thomas J. Warren, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency was required to reject awardee's proposal as ineligible for failing to provide notification of a potential organizational conflict of interest is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation and any representation concerning the alleged conflict was not material following the agency's waiver of the alleged conflict. 2. Protest that agency conducted unequal discussions is denied where the record shows that the agency's exchanges addressed the alleged conflict and did not result in changes to the awardee's technical or price proposal. 3. Protest that agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows the agency evaluated proposals in accordance with the terms of the solicitation and did not engage in disparate treatment. DECISION a.i. solutions, Inc., of Lanham, Maryland, challenges the award of a contract to ARES Technical Services Corp., of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80GSFC23R0009, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for operations and maintenance services at the Wallops Flight Facility on Wallops Island, Virginia. The protester contends that the agency should have rejected ARES's proposal for failing to identify a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI) and that the agency conducted unequal discussions by allowing ARES to revise its proposal to address the potential OCI. The protester also argues that the agency evaluated proposals unreasonably and disparately and failed to perform a proper best‑value tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Procurement History On October 18, 2023, NASA issued the solicitation for the Wallops Range Contract (WRC) at issue, to acquire operations and maintenance services at the Wallops Flight Facility on Wallops Island, Virginia. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1A, RFP at 1; RFP, attach. A, Statement of Work (SOW) at 4.[1] The solicitation's SOW included range operational, maintenance, and sustainment services, including launch ground operations support, engineering, command and control, and information technology services. Id.; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1. The RFP contemplated the award of a single hybrid contract that includes a core services element and an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) ordering structure with a one-year base period and four one-year option periods. RFP at 17, 96; COS at 1. The solicitation included a maximum ordering value of $253,780,000 and contemplated the issuance of cost-plus-fixed-fee and fixed-price task orders. Id. For source selection, the solicitation stated the intent to use the tradeoff process set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15 and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3, using three evaluation factors: mission suitability, past performance, and cost. RFP at 139. The solicitation explained that the cost factor was “significantly less important than the combined importance” of the mission suitability and past performance factors. Id.