![]() Our bid protest rules provide that protests, other than those based on alleged solicitation improprieties, shall be filed no later than 10 days after the basis of the protest is known or should have been known, with the exception of protests challenging a procurement “under which a debriefing is requested and when requested, is required.” 4 C.F.R. Prior to the due date for the agency report, in response to our Office’s request to address the timeliness of the protest, the agency filed a request for dismissal on grounds that the protest should be dismissed as untimely. Similarly, VMD also challenges the rating assigned by the agency under the past performance factor, arguing that the agency assigned identical ratings to VMD and one of the offerors in the competitive range, even though, according to the protester, VMD provided the “unique advantage” of proposing. Specifically, VMD argues that under this factor, the agency assigned strengths to the two other offerors’ proposals but failed to do the same for VMD’s proposal, even though (according to the protester) VMD proposed the same or substantially similar performance. ![]() The protester argues that the agency held VMD’s proposal to a higher standard under the mission suitability factor and past performance factor. On February 11, 2016, VMD filed this protest challenging its exclusion from the competitive range and alleging that the agency treated its proposal disparately from the proposals submitted by competitive-range offerors. As relevant here, the SSDD discussed the strengths that were identified under the mission suitability factor in the proposals that were included in the competitive range. 4, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) exh. As part of the debriefing, NASA provided VMD with debriefing slides, the source selection decision document, and the SEB’s findings with regard to the evaluation of VMD’s proposal. (MORI), and on February 4, 2016, the agency provided VMD with a post-award debriefing. On February 1, 2016, VMD was notified of the award to MORI Associates, Inc. VMD elected to receive a post-award debriefing “in order to learn as much as possible from the debriefing process so that it might better improve its performance in future procurements.” Protest at 2, 4. The notification letter informed VMD that “equests for debriefings shall be in accordance with the, Parts 15.505 and 15.506. On December 1, 2015, NASA notified VMD that its proposal had not been included in the competitive range “ecause of its low mission suitability score.” Protest, exh. The agency’s evaluation identified a number of significant weaknesses in VMD’s proposal under the mission suitability factor. VMD submitted its proposal by the proposal due date and was evaluated by a source evaluation board (SEB). The solicitation stated that the non-cost/price factors, when combined, were more important than price however, mission suitability was more important than past performance or price, and price was more important than past performance. The RFP contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, to be made on a best-value basis considering the following evaluation factors: mission suitability, past performance, and cost/price. The RFP, issued on Maunder Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, was set aside for small businesses. ![]() VMD argues that its proposal was excluded based on the agency’s disparate treatment of competing proposals. NNJ14498840R for information technology, information management, communications, and multimedia services. (VMD), of Reston, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competitive range by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under request for proposals (RFP) No.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |