Decision released in protest denial of NASA Technical Workforce Education and Expertise Development Services (TWEEDS) Program requirement

DIGEST

1. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of mission suitability proposal is denied where protester fails to demonstrate that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable or inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation.
2. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of past performance is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.
3. Protest challenging agency’s cost/price evaluation is denied where the agency reasonably evaluated price in accordance with the solicitation and where the protester failed to timely raise its challenge to the agency’s cost reasonableness evaluation.

DISCUSSION

AFTS raises several challenges to the agency’s evaluation and award decision.  First, the protester contends that NASA unreasonably evaluated offerors’ mission suitability proposals by, among other things, unreasonably assessing various weaknesses and a significant weakness to AFTS’s proposal and unreasonably assessing various strengths and a significant strength to Osi’s proposal.  The protester next asserts that NASA misevaluated Osi’s limited recent experience and past performance.  AFTS also contends that the agency deviated from the solicitation requirements when it evaluated cost and price proposals.  Finally, AFTS argues that the agency’s best-value tradeoff determination was improper.    While we do not address all of the protester’s arguments in this decision, we have considered each argument and find no basis to sustain the protest.  We discuss the principal allegations below

Evaluation under Mission Suitability Factor

The protester contends that the agency improperly assessed three weakness and one significant weakness in AFTS’s mission suitability proposal, including a weakness for AFTS’s proposed organizational structure, and staffing levels that NASA viewed as “too lean.”  Protest at 11.  AFTS also argues that NASA unreasonably identified a significant weakness under this factor, on the basis that AFTS’s proposed key positions were inconsistent with its overall management approach.  Id. at 17-19.  The agency defends its evaluation of proposals as reasonable, evenhanded, and consistent with the solicitation.  COS at 6-19; Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 3-23.  As discussed below, we deny the protester’s allegations.  The evaluation of an offeror’s proposal is a matter within the agency’s discretion.  CASS Prof’l Servs. Corp., B-415941, B-415941.2, Apr. 27, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 163 at 6.  In reviewing protests of an agency’s evaluation of an offeror’s technical proposal, our Office does not reevaluate proposals; rather, we review the evaluation to determine if it was reasonable, consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation scheme, as well as procurement statutes and regulations, and adequately documented.  Team People LLC, B-414434, B-414434.2, June 14, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 190 at 5.  A protester’s disagreement with the agency’s evaluation, without more, is not sufficient to render the evaluation unreasonable.  Glacier Tech. Solutions, LLC, B-412990.3, Mar. 15, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 91 at 7.    As two representative examples, we discuss the weakness and the significant weakness assessed to AFTS’s proposal, for its proposed organization structure and key positions, respectively.  As discussed below, we deny these allegations…

DECISION

ASRC Federal Technology Solutions, LLC (AFTS), a small business of Beltsville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Osi Vision, LLC, a small business of San Antonio, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80GRC022R0013, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for its technical workforce education and expertise development services (TWEEDS) program.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals and resulting award decision.    We deny the protest.

See the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story