United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Integrated Science Solutions, Inc.

File: B-406987; B-406987.2

Date: October 10, 2012

Patricia A. Meagher, Esq., Neil H. O’Donnell, Esq., and Suhani Kamdar, Esq., 

Rogers Joseph O'Donnell, for the protester.

J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., William T. Welch, Esq., and Kevin R. Learned, Esq., 

McMahon, Welch and Learned, PLLC, for the intervenor.

Alexander T. Bakos, Esq., and Kevin F. Kouba, Esq., National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, for the agency.

Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that an agency misevaluated the protester’s and awardee’s proposals is 

denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation 

criteria.

DECISION

Integrated Science Solutions, Inc. (ISSi), of Walnut Creek, California, protests the 

proposed award of a contract to Earth Resources Technology (ERT), of Laurel, 

Maryland, under request for proposals No. NNA09263816R, issued by the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for safety, environmental, and 

medical support services.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, provided for the award of a single 

indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for safety, environmental, and medical 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to 

a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has 

been approved for public release.
Page 2 B-406987, B-406987.2 

support services to all organizations and employees at the NASA Ames Research 

Center, California. Agency Report (AR) at 1.1

 This contract consolidates services 

currently being performed under two separate contracts: one for environmental 

support services, currently being performed by ISSi, and another for occupational 

safety, industrial hygiene and medical services.2

 Offerors were informed that both 

fixed-price and time-and-materials (T&M) task orders would be issued under the 

contract. RFP at 61.

The RFP provided for award on a best-value basis, considering the following 

evaluation factors: mission suitability, past performance, and cost/price. Id. at 91. 

The mission suitability factor was somewhat more important than cost/price, which 

was significantly more important than past performance. Id. at 104. The following 

subfactors and point scores were identified for the mission suitability factor:3

Subfactors Score

1. Technical Approach

 a. Technical understanding 

 b. Response to case study A

275

2. Management Approach

 a. Organizational structure and approach

 b. Staffing, recruitment, retention, and training

 c. Key personnel

 d. Total compensation plan

 e. Quality assurance plan

 f. Response to case study B

 g. OCI avoidance plan

275

3. Task Order Plan 350

4. Safety and Health Plan 100

TOTAL 1000

Id.

 1 Our page citations to the AR, and included documents, are to the Bates numbers 

assigned by the agency. 

2 The agency states that the work currently performed by ISSi involves less than 

half of the total requirements and functional areas of the new, consolidated contract 

at issue here. AR at 1.

3 The RFP also provided that the mission suitability factors would receive adjectival 

ratings (excellent, very good, good, fair or poor) in addition to point scores. RFP 

at 92.
Page 3 B-406987, B-406987.2 

Offerors were informed that the evaluation of proposals under the mission suitability 

factor would consider the offeror’s ability to fulfill the technical requirements while 

meeting quality, schedule, and safety requirements. Id. at 94. Compatibility 

between the proposed technical and management approaches and the overall 

resources proposed to accomplish the work was identified as an important 

consideration. Offerors were also informed that the agency would consider 

proposal risk with respect to cost, performance, and technical and management 

approach. Id.

The technical approach subfactor (275 points) consisted of two elements: technical 

understanding, which offerors were to address in their written volumes, and case 

study A (a hypothetical scenario), which offerors would address in an oral 

presentation. Id. at 70-72. In case study A, offerors were asked to address a 

laboratory manager’s request for technical assistance to ensure that the renovation 

of a 1960’s research laboratory facility, which uses radioactive sources and organic 

chemistry procedures, meets all safety, health, and environmental regulatory 

requirements. A number of assumptions were stated for the case study, including 

funding limitations that led the laboratory manager to seek a cost effective 

approach. Id. at 70-71. Offerors were instructed to present a coordinated approach 

and detailed technical analysis in responding to the case study, and were provided 

a list of items to include in their response. Id. at 70-72.

The management approach subfactor (275 points) consisted of 7 elements, 2 of 

which--organizational structure and approach, and case study B--were to be 

addressed in the oral presentation. The remaining elements, such as key 

personnel, were to be addressed in the written proposal volume. In case study B, 

offerors were asked to address a hypothetical scenario under which the laboratory 

from case study A, now in operation, is undergoing an unannounced Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection. The scenario involves two researchers 

having an accident in the hallway, including spilled chemicals, a lacerated hand, a 

broken mercury thermometer, alarmed building occupants, and a fire department 

response without tools or expertise to evaluate radioactive materials releases, 

among other things. Offerors were required to present a management plan for 

providing support to emergency responders following an accident; defining actions 

needed to return affected areas to unrestricted use; providing a technical 

assessment of regulatory requirements; and providing briefings to an inspector and 

employees. A list of items that offerors were to include in their response was 

provided in the RFP. Id. at 74-75.

Offerors were informed that the agency’s evaluation of the past performance factor 

would consider relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of each offeror’s record 

of performing services or delivering products similar in size, content, and complexity 

to the requirements of this acquisition. Id. at 92-93, 100-02. Offerors were 

instructed to list up to three relevant contracts performed by the offeror and up to 

three relevant contracts for each major subcontractor. Id. at 79. The RFP provided 
Page 4 B-406987, B-406987.2 

that past performance would be assessed as providing a very high level of 

confidence; high level of confidence; moderate level of confidence, low level of 

confidence; very low level of confidence; or neutral.4

 Id. at 93.

With respect to cost/price, offerors were required to provide cost/price proposals for 

ten fixed-price sample tasks (representing the work that would be required), which 

would be evaluated for price reasonableness; and for time-and-material tasks, 

consisting of government-estimated amounts for fees/permits, materials and travel, 

which offerors would burden with indirect costs (such as material handling or 

general and administrative fees, and profit). Id. at 86. Offerors were informed that 

the agency would perform a price analysis to assess the reasonableness of 

proposed fixed prices, and a cost analysis to assess reasonableness of time-andmaterials cost elements. Id. at 93. The RFP stated that proposed profit would be 

evaluated for reasonableness and “for the extent that it [would] serve as a motivator 

of efficient and effective contract performance.” Id. at 103. Offerors were warned 

that the agency would evaluate relatively low costs/prices “to determine whether 

there is a risk of default in the event of award to that Offeror.” Id.

The RFP also provided a number of pricing templates, such as summary pricing 

templates for the fixed-price sample tasks and for time-and-materials sample tasks, 

that offerors were required to complete. Id. at 83-88. Offerors were also required to 

complete a template for fully-burdened rates for each contract year, showing how 

the offeror arrived at its individually proposed rates, including profit. Id. at 85. 

Offerors were instructed to provide a detailed narrative to explain the rationale for 

the proposed profit. Offerors performing as prime incumbents, such as ISSi, were 

instructed to include current actual incumbent labor rates, if applicable, for each 

standard labor category. Offerors were informed that an offeror’s evaluated 

cost/price for selection purposes would be the sum of the offeror’s cost/price 

proposed on the summary fixed-price and time-and-materials templates for 5 years, 

excluding the price of phase-in and the emergency response T&M task. Id. at 103. 

Five firms, including ISSi and ERT, submitted proposals, which were evaluated by 

the agency’s source evaluation board (SEB). The SEB members individually 

evaluated proposals and then met to agree to a consensus evaluation for each 

 4 As relevant here, a “very high level of confidence” rating reflected relevant past 

performance of exceptional merit that was “very highly pertinent,” and which 

indicated exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner, with 

very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. A “high 

level of confidence” rating reflected relevant past performance that was highly 

pertinent, which demonstrated very effective performance that would be fully 

responsive to contract requirements with contract requirements accomplished in a 

timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part with only minor problems 

with little identifiable effect on overall performance. RFP at 93.
Page 5 B-406987, B-406987.2 

proposal, identifying strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in respective 

proposals.5

 See AR at 7; see, e.g., AR, Tab 42, ISSi Initial Consensus Evaluation, 

at 2,223-52. Cost/price proposals were evaluated by a price analyst who, among 

other things, reviewed offerors’ pricing templates and proposed profit rates. AR, 

Tab 69, Price Analyst’s Statement, at 2-3. 

The initial consensus evaluation results were presented to the source selection 

authority (SSA), who decided to include four proposals, including ERT’s and ISSi’s, 

in the competitive range. AR at 8; Tab 46, SSA Initial Evaluation Findings Briefing. 

The SSA directed the SEB to further analyze the remaining competitive range 

offerors’ proposals to “ensure vertical and horizontal consistency” among the offers, 

and to confirm evaluated strengths and weaknesses. AR at 8. 

Discussions were conducted, and ERT’s and ISSi’s final proposal revisions (FPR) 

were received and evaluated as follows:

ERT ISSi

Mission Suitability 845 666

Technical approach

234

Very Good

193

Good

Management approach

261

Excellent

193

Good

Task order plan

280

Very Good

210

Good

Safety & health plan

70

Good

70

Good

Past Performance High Confidence High Confidence

Cost/Price $38.8 million $33.9 million

AR, Tab 63, SEB’s Final Evaluation Findings, at 4,397. The SEB’s adjectival 

ratings and point scores were supported by narrative discussions that described the 

offerors’ respective strengths and weaknesses. In this regard, the SEB’s 

description of an evaluated strength addressed how the strength reflected the 

RFP’s requirements and explained why it was considered a strength. 

 5 A significant strength reflected some aspect of the proposal that was found to 

greatly enhance the potential for successful contract performance. A strength 

reflected an aspect of the proposal that would have some positive impact on the 

successful performance of the contract. AR, Tab 32, NASA Source Selection 

Guide, at 382.
Page 6 B-406987, B-406987.2 

For example, ERT’s very good rating under the technical approach subfactor 

reflected the SEB’s judgment that ERT’s revised proposal presented one significant 

strength, two strengths, and no weaknesses. Id. at 4,403-04. ERT’s response to 

case study A was one of the identified strengths, where the SEB found that ERT 

had demonstrated a clear understanding of the technical requirements and had 

proposed several innovative approaches to performing the work. Id. at 4,408. In 

explaining why ERT’s proposal merited a strength under this subfactor, the SEB 

noted, among other things, ERT’s proposal of a decommissioning phase, recycling 

materials during the construction phase, and preparing consolidated reports. Id.

ISSi’s good rating under the technical approach factor reflected the SEB’s 

determination that ISSi’s revised proposal presented three strengths (none of which 

were significant) and no weaknesses. Id. at 4,412. ISSi’s response to case study A 

was not one of the identified strengths.

ERT’s excellent rating under the management approach subfactor reflected the 

SEB’s judgment that ERT’s proposal presented a significant strength, three 

strengths, and no weakneses. Id. at 4,420-21. One of the strengths identified in 

ERT’s FPR under this subfactor was for its effective and appropriate response to 

case study B, in which it identified the procedures that should be in place in the 

Research Center during an emergency situation. The SEB cited ERT’s incisive and 

detailed assessment under this case study of the likely radiological injury and 

medical treatment options, which was found to show an ability to effectively support 

NASA Ames during similar situations. Id. at 4,424. In explaining why the SEB 

considered ERT’s response to case study B to be a strength, the evaluators noted 

ERT’s analysis of the health unit procedures, identification of factors to consider for 

treatment, and proposed long-term surveillance of injured parties, and found that 

the thoroughness of ERT’s response provided a clear indication of the vendor’s 

medical expertise, as well as inspiring confidence that ERT would provide effective 

support in similar real-life situations. Id.

ISSi’s good rating under the management approach subfactor reflected the SEB’s 

judgment that ISSi’s FPR’s contained four strengths (none of which were significant) 

and no weaknesses. Id. at 4,428-29. One of the strengths indentified in ISSi’s

proposal was its offer of a highly-qualified project manager as a key person, who 

the SEB found would have a positive impact on contract performance. Id. at 4,428, 

4,430.

Another strength was ISSi’s response to case study B, where the SEB found that 

ISSi proposed a multitude of effective and appropriate mitigations to the hazards 

and risks associated with medical care during an accidental spill or a similar 

emergency situation. The SEB also found that ISSi proposed “lessons learned that 

provide continuous improvement during emergencies.” The SEB found that this 

reasonable and effective approach would help increase employee safety and have 

a positive impact on successful contract performance. Id. at 4,431. In explaining 
Page 7 B-406987, B-406987.2 

why it considered ISSi’s case study B response to be a proposal strength, the SEB 

noted ISSi’s risk reduction approach, stating that the offeror had identified 16 risks 

and 36 risk mitigation measures, addressing such matters as delay in the delivery of 

medical care, and risk of contamination spread outside the containment zone during 

the transportation of the injured employee. The SEB found ISSi’s approach to the 

complex situation presented in case study B to be comprehensive and highly 

developed. Id. at 4,431-32.

The firms’ revised costs/prices were evaluated by the agency’s price analyst, who 

again reviewed, among other things, the offerors’ pricing templates and proposed 

profit rates. AR, Tab 69, Price Analyst’s Statement, at 3. He also developed a 

chart to reflect the rates proposed for positions for which the offeror was the 

incumbent contractor; and considered the offerors’ stated intentions with respect to 

retaining incumbent contractor employees, and whether current compensation 

levels for those employees would be paid. The price analyst analyzed each 

offeror’s potential realized profit and profit rate if they were to hire the incumbents 

and retain them at their current pay levels. Id. Thus, with respect to ISSi, the price 

analyst performed calculations based on the assumption that ISSi would retain 

incumbent staff at their current pay levels (“as stated in its proposal”) and found that 

this would result in an increase in ISSi’s “probable cost” over costs proposed in 

ISSi’s FPR.6

 The analyst calculated, further, that this increase in costs would result 

in reducing ISSi’s “realized profit” rate to approximately 1.6 percent (in contrast to 

the 7 percent profit rate listed in the protester’s FPR). Id. at 4. 

The technical and price evaluation judgments were presented to the SSA, who also 

read the offerors’ FPRs. He concurred with the findings and adopted them in 

making his source selection decision. AR, Tab 66, Source Selection Decision, 

at 4,696. Noting that he found no discriminators among the offerors under the past 

performance factor, the SSA based his selection decision on the mission suitability 

and cost/price factors, and recognized that the RFP provided that the mission 

suitability factor was somewhat more important than cost/price. Id. at 4,697. With 

respect to price, the SSA stated that the integration between mission suitability 

findings and price was critical to determining price reasonableness. Id. at 4,688. In 

this regard, the SSA noted the SEB’s determination that offerors’ cost/price 

proposals were reasonable and realistic, and that no cost adjustments were made. 

Id. at 4,695. 

Regarding the evaluation of the firms’ proposals under the mission suitability factor, 

the SSA noted ISSi’s proposal was the second-lowest rated among the proposals 

included in the competitive range. In this regard, the SSA found that ISSi’s 

 6 The analyst found that an “appreciable number” of the rates proposed by ISSi for 

incumbent positions were notably lower than the current actual rates for those labor 

categories. AR, Tab 69, Price Analyst’s Statement, at 3.
Page 8 B-406987, B-406987.2 

proposal, which had been assessed as containing nine strengths under this factor 

(none significant), simply met the RFP requirements in many areas of the statement 

of work. Id. at 4,697. In contrast, ERT’s proposal was the highest rated under the 

mission suitability factor, having received 121 points more than the next highest 

offer (and 179 points more than ISSi’s proposal). The SSA noted that ERT’s 

proposal had been assessed as having three significant strengths under the three 

most heavily-weighted mission suitability subfactors (contract task order plan, 

technical approach, and management approach), and eight strengths. 

Recognizing that other offerors, such as ISSi, had lower evaluated costs/prices than 

ERT, the SSA nevertheless concluded that these firms’ lower costs/prices were 

outweighed by ERT’s evaluated technical superiority under the mission suitability 

factor.7 Id. at 4,700. The SSA stated that he based his selection decision primarily 

upon the “markedly stronger approaches by ERT in these three most heavily 

weighted Mission Suitability [s]ubfactors.” Id. at 4,698. The SSA states that ERT’s 

superior mission suitability proposal would translate into better risk avoidance and 

management; that ERT’s proposal was credible and reflected the reality of the 

current market; and that ERT’s proposed prices supported the likelihood that the 

firm would obtain, and retain, high-quality staff throughout the life of the contract, 

which would provide superior contract performance within budget and with potential 

future efficiencies. Id.

ISSi was informed that ERT was the apparent successful offeror,8

 7 Regarding the other offerors’ lower evaluated costs/prices, the SSA acknowledged 

that none of them were found to be unrealistic or unreasonable, but stated that, in 

his judgment, each offer carried some level of performance risk, and did not 

correspond as well to what was promised under the mission suitability factor. In 

addition, the SSA was concerned that some of the proposed profit rates “may not be 

high enough to serve as a motivator of efficient and effective contract performance.” 

AR, Tab 66, Source Selection Decision, at 4,700.

and this protest 

followed a debriefing.

8 ISSi and another offeror challenged ERT’s size at the Small Business 

Administration (SBA), alleging that ERT had outgrown the size standard applicable 

to this procurement when it submitted its initial proposal on December 20, 2010. On 

September 19, SBA found that ERT met the small business size standard 

applicable to this procurement.
Page 9 B-406987, B-406987.2 

DISCUSSION

ISSi challenges numerous aspects of the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under 

the mission suitability factor, primarily arguing that its scores and ratings should 

have been higher and that the agency treated ISSi and ERT unequally. ISSi also 

objects to the agency’s cost/price evaluation, arguing that NASA incorrectly 

analyzed ISSi’s profit rate. We have considered all of ISSi’s arguments, although 

we only address its more significant arguments, and find that none provide a basis 

to object to the agency’s selection of ERT for award.9

In reviewing protests challenging the evaluation of proposals, we do not conduct a 

new evaluation or substitute our judgment for that of the agency, but examine the 

record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and in accord 

with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. Abt Assocs. Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 

1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 223 at 4. Where a protester challenges the agency’s evaluation 

and source selection, we will review the evaluation and award decision to determine 

if they were reasonable, consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation scheme, as well 

as procurement statutes and regulations, and adequately documented. See, e.g., 

Wackenhut Servs., Inc., B-400240, B-400240.2, Sept. 10, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 184 

at 6; S4, Inc., B-299817, B-299817.2, Aug. 23, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 164 at 9. A 

protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s evaluation provides no basis to 

question the reasonableness of the evaluators’ judgments. See Citywide Managing 

Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 

CPD ¶ 6 at 10-11.

Technical Approach Subfactor

ISSi complains that NASA misevaluated its proposal under the technical approach 

subfactor, because NASA did not identify ISSi’s response to case study A as a 

strength. ISSi contends that the technical requirements in the statement of work 

were nearly identical to the technical requirements of the contract ISSi has been 

performing, so that its proposal of its incumbent approach demonstrated its proven 

ability to comply with the applicable regulations and demonstrated a clear 

understanding of the technical requirements. Protest at 7. ISSi complains, in this 

regard, that the agency assigned a strength to ERT’s proposal for its approach to 

case study A, where the agency found ERT’s response showed a clear 

 9 ISSi also protested the agency’s evaluation of ERT’s past performance, arguing 

that ERT proposed a subcontractor whose allegedly fraudulent conduct should have 

precluded the high level of confidence rating ERT received. ISSi also argued that 

its own past performance rating should have been higher. The agency addressed 

ISSI’s past performance arguments in its report, and ISSi did not rebut or otherwise 

address the agency's response. We find that the protester has abandoned these 

arguments. CM Mfg., Inc., B-293370, Mar. 2, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 69 at 3.
Page 10 B-406987, B-406987.2 

understanding of the technical requirements, the ability to work in a reasonable and 

effective manner, and the ability to comply with applicable regulations.

The agency responds that it reasonably evaluated the two firms’ responses to case 

study A. With respect to ERT’s response, the SEB found that ERT had proposed 

cost-effective and innovative approaches to the renovation of a laboratory facility, 

which would help ensure regulatory compliance and employee safety. AR, Tab 63, 

Final SEB Report, at 4,408. The SEB specifically noted as justification for its 

assigned strength ERT’s proposed innovations, such as adding a lab 

decommissioning phase in order to clear out the area prior to the construction 

phase (which demonstrated insight into controlling hazards that may interfere with 

construction efforts) and consolidating safety, health, and environmental reports 

(which would streamline the review and distribution process, resulting in time 

savings for the contractor and the agency). Id. 

In contrast, the agency notes that, although ISSi’s response to the case study was 

appropriate, reasonable, and effective for all of the required elements, it did not 

propose anything unique or innovative that warranted a finding of a strength. AR 

at 11. Further, the agency states that its evaluation was based on its review of the 

offerors’ proposals, and not upon an offeror’s performance as the incumbent 

contractor.

We find the agency’s evaluation reasonable and consistent with the RFP. The SEB 

documented its basis for its evaluation in this area, citing specific examples to justify 

the strengths assigned. The SEB’s conclusion that ERT’s response to case study A 

demonstrated an approach that exceeded the RFP requirements and would have a 

positive impact on the successful performance of the contract was consistent with 

the evaluation standard stated in NASA’s Source Selection Guide. While ISSi 

disagrees with the evaluation results, insisting that NASA has provided no rationale 

for “its failure to recognize this strength,” ISSi has not shown that it offered 

innovations or other features (greater than its “proven ability” to meet the 

requirements) exceeding the requirements or otherwise warranting the assignment 

of a strength in this area. Protester’s Comments at 5. ISSi’s disagreement provides 

no basis to question the agency’s judgment.

Management Approach Subfactor

Similarly, ISSi complains that its proposal should have been assessed a significant 

strength under the management approach subfactor for its key personnel, arguing 

that each of its proposed key personnel exceeded the RFP requirements, and that 

its proposed program manager, in particular, could not reasonably be viewed as 

providing anything less than a significant strength. In this regard, ISSi states that it 

proposed the same individual for its program manager in earlier competitions for 
Page 11 B-406987, B-406987.2 

this requirement (in 1999 and 2004), where the program manager was identified as 

a significant strength in its proposal.10 ISSi argues that this program manager has 

been successful and effective in performing the incumbent contract, and that her 

increased experience and expertise should have been recognized as a significant 

strength. ISSi also argues that the inconsistency of the results here with prior 

evaluations—on the subject of its program manager--is unreasonable.

NASA responds that the protester’s program manager was specifically cited as 

highly qualified and effective, and was identified as a strength in ISSi’s proposal. 

However, the agency disagrees that a significant strength was warranted, noting 

that no other offeror was given a strength with respect to proposed key personnel. 

The agency again states that its evaluation was appropriately based on a review of 

the submitted written and oral materials, and not on prior evaluations or opinions. 

The evaluation record supports the agency’s arguments; the SEB’s review of ISSi’s 

FPR describes the protester’s proposed program manager as having demonstrated 

the ability to efficiently perform, coordinate, and integrate environmental, safety, 

health, and medical requirements. The SEB’s review also notes that ISSi’s choice 

of the program manager was based, in part, on the individual’s consistently meeting 

environmental, health, and safety requirements despite declining budgets and staff. 

The SEB concluded from this that the program manager “should help Ames 

facilitate effective management of the work, which will have a positive impact on the 

successful performance of the contract.” AR, Tab 63, Final SEB Report, at 4,430. 

This conclusion is consistent with the definition of a strength. AR, Tab 32, NASA 

Source Selection Guide, at 382. We find the agency’s evaluation reasonable and 

consistent with the RFP.

Also under the management approach subfactor, ISSi argues that its proposal was 

misevaluated for its response to the case study B element. Here the protester 

argues that it was unreasonable to assign only a strength for the response when the 

 10 Although ISSi states generally in its protest that the key personnel it identified in 

its proposal exceeded the requirements, the RFP did not specifically state 

requirements for key personnel. We recognize that the RFP in Attachment J.1(b)(2) 

provides “standard labor categories description[s] for [the] pricing template,” but 

ISSi does not explain how its comparison of the qualifications of its key personnel 

against the labor category descriptions in this attachment establish that its key 

personnel should have been evaluated as a strength under the management 

approach subfactor. In this regard, other than the program manager, the positions 

ISSi identified as key do not track the standard labor categories listed in the RFP. 

Compare RFP Attachment J.1(b)(2), Standard Labor Categories Description for 

Pricing Template, at 169-73, with AR, Tab 53, ISSi’s Mission Suitability FPR, at 

2,955-60. Moreover, after generally raising this argument in its initial protest, ISSi 

did not further address it in its pleadings.
Page 12 B-406987, B-406987.2 

SSA stated that ISSi proposed a multitude of effective and appropriate mitigations 

to potential hazards and risks, and that this “tracks the plain-language reading of 

what is needed for a significant strength.” Protest at 9.

Case study B describes a complex hypothetical scenario in which a radioisotope lab 

is undergoing a surprise inspection, during which an accident occurs that presents 

multiple problems that must be managed. Offerors were required to respond to the 

scenario with an oral presentation, presenting a management plan detailing initial 

response support, and defining the actions needed to solve the various critical 

problems. RFP at 97-98. The RFP stated that the management plan would be 

evaluated for an efficient methodology that meets current regulatory and operational 

requirements in a synergistic and timely manner, and listed the elements the 

evaluators would consider in determining the appropriateness, reasonableness, 

and effectiveness of the response. Id. at 97. 

The SEB found a strength in ISSi’s response, as cited by the SSA, above, and 

discussed it in its report with examples of risk mitigation measures that ISSi 

proposed, as well as noting the protester’s lessons-learned approach to provide 

continuous improvement during emergencies. AR, Tab 63, Final SEB Report, 

at 4,431-32. NASA argues that these evaluation conclusions, and the narrative 

evaluation on which they are based, are consistent with a strength, and not more. 

We agree. The definition of significant strength requires “some aspect of the 

proposal that greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.” 

AR, Tab 32, NASA SEB Source Selection Guide, at 382. We again find ISSi’s 

objections to the evaluation to be based on disagreement, without showing that the 

agency’s judgment was unreasonable or its conclusions inconsistent with the 

RFP.11

Cost/Price Evaluation

ISSi also protests the agency’s cost/price evaluation, arguing that the agency’s 

concerns with ISSi’s “realized profit” rate were based upon a flawed analysis. See

 11 Further, ISSi complains that the evaluators treated its proposal and ERT’s 

proposal unequally with respect to case study B, arguing that they noted strengths 

for ERT based on individual task orders, whereas ISSi’s proposal was found to have 

only one strength for its “innovative and proactive approach” for seven task orders. 

NASA responds that ISSi proposed the exact same set of management system and 

other details for the individual tasks, while ERT described a customized and distinct

approach to various aspects of the subfactor tasks. Supp. AR at 10-11. We find 

that the agency’s assignment of strengths reasonably reflected the offerors’ differing 

approaches. 

Supp. Protest at 7-11. As described above, the price analyst reported to the SEB 

that ISSi’s actual profit rate was likely to be significantly lower than the rate it stated 
Page 13 B-406987, B-406987.2 

in its FPR, if it hired incumbent staff and paid them at their current rates. This 

concern was mentioned by the SSA in his source selection decision. ISSi contends 

the analyst’s reasoning and calculations were flawed in a variety of ways.

NASA disagrees with ISSi that the agency’s evaluation of the firm’s actual profit rate 

was unreasonable. Supp. AR at 5-8. The agency also contends that, in any event, 

this concern was not found to be a proposal weakness, which was required to be 

discussed, and did not affect the SSA’s selection judgment. Id. at 9-10.

We need not resolve ISSi’s concerns with the agency’s evaluation of its profit rate 

because the record shows that the award decision was not affected by the SEB’s or 

SSA’s consideration of the adequacy of ISSi’s proposed profit rate. The SSA’s 

contemporaneous documentation of the source selection includes only one 

sentence relating to this issue: “[a]nd I have concerns regarding some of the 

proposed profit rates, which, in my opinion, may not be high enough . . . .” AR, 

Tab 66, Source Selection Decision, at 4700. Despite this expression of concern, 

the selection decision is substantively based on ERT’s proposal’s “distinct 

superiority” under the most important mission suitability factor, and the SSA’s 

conclusion that this technical superiority merits the associated difference in cost. Id. 

Under these circumstances, we conclude that, even were we to agree that errors 

were made in the price analysis, it would provide no basis to sustain ISSi’s 

protest.12

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 12 ISSi also argues that because the agency’s concerns with its profit rate were 

“fatal to ISSi’s chances [of] receiving [the] contract award,” it should have been 

raised in discussions. Supp. Protest at 1. As noted above, we do not agree that the 

expressed concern with ISSi’s profit rate affected the source selection decision.