Protest of $36M NOAA Atmospheric Science and Technology Applications (ASTA 2.0) task Denied

DIGEST

1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s price proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.
2. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals under two technical factor elements is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

DISCUSSION

First, the protester alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s proposal under the price factor.  Next, IMSG argues that the agency treated the two proposals disparately under the staffing element by unreasonably evaluating STC’s cumulative retention rate.  Finally, the protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal under the key personnel element, contending that STC should have received a low confidence rating.  We have reviewed all of IMSG’s assertions and find no basis to sustain its protest.

Price Evaluation

The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated STC’s price.  Specifically, IMSG asserts that the awardee’s prices are “too low to align” with the PWS requirements and the ProTech 2.0 master IDIQ contract terms, as required by the TORFP.8  Protest at 10.  The protester points to solicitation language stating that the agency will determine whether the proposed pricing “align[s] with PWS requirements and ProTech2.0 contract terms” and cautioning that proposed prices “must align with the offeror’s technical proposal.”  TORFP at 80.

In its supplemental protest, IMSG questions the sufficiency of the agency’s price evaluation documentation and asserts that the agency failed to consider that STC’s technical approach depends on “retaining 100% of the incumbent IMSG workforce.”  Comments and Supp. Protest at 3, 7.  The protester points to language throughout the awardee’s proposal stating that:  “Team STC commits to retaining 100% of qualified incumbent personnel”; “Team STC’s staffing approach focuses on hiring 100% of the qualified incumbent personnel”; and STC’s “staffing plan at contract award is to hire all qualified incumbent staff.”  Id. at 4-5 (quoting AR, Tab 6, STC Proposal at 26, 49, 52).  The protester contends that STC’s low labor rates will prevent the awardee from matching incumbent salaries, preventing STC from carrying out its proposed technical approach.  Comments and Supp. Protest at 3-7.  Ultimately, IMSG argues that the awardee’s proposed price is too low to align with its technical proposal, which represents STC’s ability to successfully perform the work laid out in the solicitation…

DECISION

I.M. Systems Group, Inc. (IMSG), a small business of Rockville, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Science and Technology Corporation (STC), a small business of Hampton, Virginia, under task order request for proposals (TORFP) No. 1332KP24R005, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for scientific and technical services.  The protester challenges the agency’s price evaluation and various aspects of the agency’s technical evaluation.

We deny the protest.

Access the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story