The final evaluation of APT and Bastion was as follows: Factor / SubfactorĪR, Tab 39, SSD, at 3585-3589 Tab 38, SMAS Briefing, at 3398, 3400. AR, Tab 39, Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 3583-3584. NASA received three proposals, including those of APT and Bastion, by the Augdue date. This can include adjustments to all proposed direct and indirect costs Upward or downward adjustments may be made to the proposed rates as a result of the assessment of cost realism. (3) The Government assessment of the "probable cost of doing business" with each Offeror, of the possible cost growth during the course of the contract, and of features that could cause a given proposal to cost more or less than proposed will be included in this evaluation. (2) The Offeror's proposed cost for the contract requirements will be a Government-calculated IDIQ cost using the Offeror-provided fully burdened, composite labor rates applied to a Government model of labor hours required, and Offeror-provided burden rates applied to a Government-provided estimate for travel and Miscellaneous ODC. NASA also described the methodology for assessing an offeror's proposed cost and an offeror's probable cost as follows: Under the cost factor, the RFP provided for an evaluation "to determine if the estimated cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect an approach that clearly meets requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance as described in the Offeror's Mission Suitability proposal." Id. Offerors were instructed to provide up to six contract references and were informed that the relevance of these references would be evaluated in comparison to the proposed SMAS contract in terms of size, content (or scope), and complexity. Under the past performance factor, offerors would receive an overall adjectival rating ranging from very high confidence to low confidence, in accordance with the system provided in NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) § 1815.305(a)(2)(A). The RFP also provided for adjectival ratings under these subfactors. Under the mission suitability factor, proposals would receive a score out of 1,000 points by summing the points awarded under three subfactors: management approach (maximum value 400 points) technical approach (maximum value 325 points) and sample task order scenarios (maximum value 275 points). The solicitation contemplated award to the responsible offeror whose proposal offered the best value to the agency, considering the factors of mission suitability, past performance, and cost, which were of relatively equal importance. The solicitation contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with a 1-month fixed-price transition period, a 23-month cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) base period, six 1-year CPAF option periods, and an optional 6-month extension period. On July 7, 2016, NASA issued the RFP as a small-business set-aside to be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15 procedures. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. The protester alleges that the agency's past performance and cost evaluations were flawed and that the best-value tradeoff decision was improper. The agency sought safety and mission assurance services (SMAS) for the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, Louisiana, and the Stennis Space Center in Hancock County, Mississippi. (Bastion), of Houston, Texas, by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), under request for proposals (RFP) No. NNM16577788R. (APT), of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the award of a contract to Bastion Technologies, Inc. Protest of the agency's best-value tradeoff decision is denied, where the agency's decision was reasonable.Ī-P-T Research, Inc. Protest challenging the agency's upward cost adjustment is denied, where the agency's decision was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.ģ. Protest that agency's use of internal evaluation instructions for the purpose of evaluating proposals represented unstated evaluation criteria is denied, where the agency evaluated past performance based on criteria logically encompassed by the terms of the solicitation.Ģ. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.ġ. Stanford, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Mims, Esq., and Tyler Freiberger, Esq., Centre Law and Consulting, LLC, for Bastion Technologies, Inc., the intervenor. McGuire, Esq., Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne P.C., for the protester.īarbara S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |