[Protest of NASA Contract Award for Systems Analysis and Engineering Support Services]

A firm protested a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) contract award for systems analysis and engineering research support, contending that: (1) NASA improperly included the awardee's bid in the competitive range; (2) NASA unreasonably evaluated the bids; (3) NASA used improper discriminators in its source selection decision; and (4) the awardee made material misrepresentations in its bid. The protester also claimed reimbursement for its protest costs pursuant to its earlier protest of NASA's refusal to forward to the Small Business Administration the protester's challenge of the small disadvantaged business (SDB) status of the awardee's proposed subcontractor. GAO held that: (1) NASA reasonably included the awardee's bid in the competitive range, since the bid had a reasonable chance of being selected for award; (2) the awardee's submission of a SDB participation plan in response to discussions did not constitute a new and late proposal, since the awardee was free to revise its bid after discussions; (3) NASA reasonably evaluated the awardee's SDB participation plan and the protester's technical proposal in accordance with the soliciation's evaluation criteria; (4) the awardee did not make any material misrepresentations regarding its SDB participation plan; (5) NASA did not use any improper discriminators in its source selection decision; and (6) the protester was not entitled to reimbursement for its protest costs, since NASA did not unduly delay taking corrective action in response to the protest. Accordingly, the protest and the claim for protest costs were denied.