• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • What is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • Why Should you file a bid protest?
    • When Must you file a bid protest?
    • Where can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Building Operations Support Services, LLC, B-407711; B-407711.2, January 28, 2013

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • January 30, 2013
  • Best ValuePast PerformanceRelevancy of Past PerformanceSource Selection DecisionTechnical Evaluation
  • 0 Comments

Link: GAO Opinion

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Disposition: Protest denied.

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: 

GAO denied the protest of Building Operations Support Services (BOSS), LLC, based on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) award of a contract to Chugach Federal Solutions, Inc., under a request for proposals (RFP) for facilities operations and maintenance services at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

NASA issued the RFP as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside seeking proposals for a wide variety of facilities operations and maintenance services. The RFP provided for the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with a technical performance incentive fee for the RFP’s core services, as well as an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity portion for other services and construction. The RFP contemplated a two-year base period of performance and three one-year option periods. Award was to be made following a best value trade-off analysis considering cost/price and two non-price factors: mission suitability and past performance. With respect to the mission suitability factor, the RFP identified two subfactors–technical approach and management approach–that encompassed 20 different areas that NASA would evaluate.

First, BOSS objected to the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under the mission suitability factor. BOSS argued that NASA failed to assess every aspect of its proposal and only evaluated the areas of its proposal that were identified as a significant strength or strength. Here, the agency’s evaluation of BOSS’s proposal under the mission suitability factor was unobjectionable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. The agency explained that each member of the six-person SEB evaluated every aspect of the offerors’ initial and final proposals. As contemplated by the solicitation, the evaluators classified their findings (as strengths, weaknesses, etc.), reached a consensus on the findings, assigned adjectival ratings and points for each subfactor, and presented their consensus findings to the SSA. The evaluators rated BOSS’s final proposal as having one significant strength and three strengths under the technical approach subfactor and no strengths, weaknesses, or deficiencies under the management approach subfactor. The SEB’s ratings of very good under the technical approach subfactor and good under the management approach subfactor were consistent with the definitions of very good and good in NFS § 1815.305.

Next, BOSS challenged the agency’s evaluation under the past performance factor. Specifically, BOSS argued that its proposal should have received a higher past performance rating than Chugach’s because Chugach placed “significant reliance” on the past performance of its subcontractors. With regard to Chugach’s past performance, the SEB evaluated a total of eight past performance projects, three of which were performed by Chugach’s significant subcontractor. In accordance with the RFP, NASA assessed the relevance of each effort in terms of size, content, and complexity as compared to the procurement at issue, as well as a consideration of customer satisfaction. The evaluators reached consensus and assigned an overall performance rating of very high to the five efforts performed by Chugach; to the three efforts performed by Chugach’s subcontractor, the evaluators assigned one very high rating and two high ratings. Based on the ratings, and consistent with the past performance evaluation criteria, GAO concluded that NASA reasonably assigned Chugach’s proposal a past performance confidence rating of very high. There is no indication in the record that

did not weigh the past performance projects of Chugach “more heavily” than the projects of its significant subcontractor, as required by the RFP, GAO noted. Any suggestion otherwise is not supported by the facts because two of the three past performance projects attributed to Chugach’s subcontractor were rated lower overall than the projects that Chugach performed. The evaluation criteria do not contemplate that an offeror who merely submits more past performance projects attributable to the prime would receive a higher past performance rating on that basis, as the protester suggested. Therefore, the protester’s challenge to the agency’s past performance evaluation is without merit and did not provide a basis to sustain the protest.

Lastly, BOSS objected to the source selection decision on the basis that the SEB report demonstrated a “functional tie” between proposals and that the agency did not explain why award was made to Chugach. BOSS argued that NASA “should have placed more weight on cost.”  However, a review of the record showed that the source selection authority’s statement explains a well-reasoned basis for a tradeoff that justified paying Chugach’s higher price. The SSA explained that he carefully reviewed the SEB’s consensus findings with regard to each of the evaluation factors. The record showed that the SSA looked beyond the adjectival and percentile ratings and detailed in his statement the strengths and significant strengths of both proposals under the mission suitability factor.  The SSA noted that Chugach’s proposal received more strengths and significant strengths than BOSS’s (10 versus 4), and found that the “advantages offered by the Chugach proposal would likely result in performance benefits . . . .” The SSA determined that Chugach’s mission suitability proposal was “substantially better” than BOSS’s. Based on a review of the record, GAO concluded that the agency’s source selection decision was adequately documented, and found no basis to question the agency’s determination that Chugach’s proposal represented a better value to the government than did BOSS’s proposal.

Share

Related Posts

Matter of Sparksoft Corporation

July 2, 2023

Do You Have the Strength(s) for this Proposal? Bedda Show Me!

February 1, 2023

Peak-a-Boo, I see You! – An Agency’s Undocumented Best Value Analysis.

February 1, 2023

Please, Make My Bid Protesting Day by Not Documenting Your Award Decision.

November 17, 2022

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Facility Clearance
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • Impaired Objectivity
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursed Attorney's Fees
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-703-556-0411
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2023 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • What is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • Why Should you file a bid protest?
    • When Must you file a bid protest?
    • Where can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411