Skip to main content

[Protest of Contract Award Under NASA Solicitation]

B-210800 Published: Apr 17, 1984. Publicly Released: Apr 17, 1984.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

The incumbent contractor protested a contract award under a solicitation issued by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for scientific and support services. NASA determined that the proposals submitted by the protester and the awardee were of equal technical merit; and the contract was awarded on the basis of lower evaluated costs. The protester alleged that the awardee: (1) would not be able to obtain or retain personnel to perform the contract; (2) embellished the resumes of key personnel; (3) entered into an illegal personal services contract with NASA; and (4) had an employee conflict of interest. The protester also disputed the NASA cost realism analysis and alleged that the awardee misrepresented its past performance and had committed industrial espionage. Regarding the first contention, GAO stated that it will question an agency's determination concerning a proposal's technical merits only upon a clear showing of unreasonableness, abuse of discretion, or violation of procurement statutes or regulations, none of which were shown in this case. GAO refused to conduct an investigation based on the protester's speculative statements concerning resumes of key personnel. GAO also held that the contract did not meet the criteria for a personal services contract. Furthermore, GAO found that the protester did not present a reasonable basis on which to question the NASA cost analysis. As to the allegations of misrepresentation and industrial espionage, GAO found that the protester did not have correct information. Moreover, GAO stated that it will not review an affirmative determination of responsibility absent a showing of fraud or bad faith or that the offerer did not meet definitive responsibility criteria. Finally, GAO held that, while a potential for improprieties existed in the employee conflict-of-interest situation, allegations did not establish proof. Accordingly, the protest was denied.

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Bidder responsibilityContract award protestsContract performanceContractor personnelCost analysisTechnical proposals