[Protests of Proposed NASA Contract Award for Security Services]

Two firms protested a proposed National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) contract award for security services, contending that NASA improperly adjusted their cost rates. The first protester also contended that NASA: (1) improperly increased its estimated direct labor costs; and (2) should have found the awardee nonresponsible for failure to have the necessary licenses. The second protester contended that NASA: (1) improperly used unstated requirements in evaluating its proposed personnel; (2) incorrectly found that its on-site supervisors lacked sufficient authority; and (3) failed to consider its incumbency when evaluating its orientation and training proposals. GAO held that: (1) it would not consider the contention concerning labor costs, since that had no bearing on source selection and the first protester was not prejudiced; (2) NASA reasonably adjusted the first protester's cost rate, since it did not identify its proposed cost rate as a ceiling; (3) compliance with licensing requirements was a matter to be resolved by the awardee and local authorities; (4) NASA reasonably evaluated the second protester's proposed personnel, orientation, and training; and (5) NASA was legitimately concerned that the second protester would incur an operating loss at its proposed cost rate. Accordingly, the protests were denied.