Decision released in protest denial of NASA mission and instrument systems engineering services requirement

DIGEST

1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals under the solicitation’s mission suitability factor is denied where the evaluation was done in a manner that was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.
2. Protest challenging the agency’s past performance evaluation is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

DISCUSSION

MVS raises several challenges to NASA’s evaluation of proposals under the mission suitability factor and the past performance factor.  The protester also argues that the resulting source-selection decision was unreasonable.  We have reviewed all of MVS’s allegations and find none of them has merit.  We discuss MVS’s principal allegations below.

Mission Suitability   MVS challenges two aspects of the agency’s evaluation of proposals under the mission suitability factor.  First, MVS complains that NASA should have assigned a weakness to McCallie’s proposal to account for performance risks associated with probable cost adjustments that the agency made to McCallie’s proposal.  Second, MVS asserts that NASA evaluated the offerors disparately because the agency assigned strengths to McCallie’s proposal and did not assign strengths to MVS’s proposal even though the protester’s proposal included similar features.  We address each argument below.   At the outset, we note that in reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s evaluation, our Office will not reevaluate proposals, nor substitute our judgment for that of the agency, as the evaluation of proposals is a matter within the agency’s discretion.  Rather, we will review the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and with applicable procurement statutes and regulations.  AECOM Mgmt. Servs., Inc., B-417639.2, B-417639.3, Sept. 16, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 322 at 9.  A protester’s disagreement with the agency’s judgment, without more, is insufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably.  Vertex Aerospace, LLC, B-417065, B-417065.2, Feb. 5, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 75 at 8.   Evaluation of McCallie’s Proposal   As discussed above, when the SEB evaluated McCallie’s proposal, the SEB made an upward adjustment in the amount of $13.8 million to McCallie’s proposed costs.  AR, Exh. 9, SEB Presentation at 83.  The protester argues that NASA should have assigned a weakness to McCallie’s proposal because “McCallie’s unreasonably low cost necessarily indicates a corresponding deficiency in McCallie’s understanding of, and ability to perform, the mission.”12  Protest at 17.    NASA responds that the mission suitability evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation because the cost risks and cost adjustments had no bearing on the adequacy of McCallie’s technical approach.  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 12.

DECISION

Mitchell Vantage Systems, LLC (MVS), an 8(a)1 small business of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, protests the award of a contract to McCallie Associates, Inc., an 8(a) small business of Bellevue, Nebraska, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80GSFC20R0037, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for mission and instrument systems engineering services for the Mission Engineering and System Analysis Division and related Engineering and Technology Directorate organizations.  MVS challenges NASA’s evaluation of proposals under the past performance factor and the mission suitability factor, as well as the agency’s source selection decision.

We deny the protest.

See the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story