clearance to work at bastion technologies

Bastion’s second PPIF identified two contract numbers, two award dates, two start dates, and two sets of estimated and final costs. Bastion’s self-assessment of performance under these contracts discussed the last five years of performance, which covers the performance period of two of the listed contracts. Bastion’s description of work in its first PPIF discussed its performance on an additional 8 years of contract performance not captured by the listed contract start dates. Bastion’s first PPIF identified three contract numbers, three award dates, three start dates, and three sets of estimated and final costs. AR, Tab 18, Bastion Past Performance Proposal at 2090-2105. Bastion’s proposal included three PPIFs that discussed its own past performance. AR, Tab 19, Receipt for Bastion Proposal. On December 16, 2019, before the closing date for receipt of proposals, Bastion submitted its proposal to the agency. As relevant here, the RFP specified that when considering recency, past performance “on an ongoing contract where the contractor has not worked greater than nine months will be given less weight.” Id. Section M.3.2.1(c) of the RFP provided that past performance would be evaluated considering three aspects: recency, relevance, and performance.

The RFP stated that such sources included, but were not limited to, the past performance information retrieval system (PPIRS) and similar systems, interviews with client program managers and contracting officers, and other sources known to the government. Section M.3.2.1(b) of the RFP provided that, in addition to the PPIFs submitted by the offerors, the agency would use past performance information independently obtained from government and commercial sources in its evaluation.

The RFP’s general instructions for proposal preparation provided that offerors should include in their proposals “any further discussion believed to be necessary or useful in demonstrating your ability to perform the work under this contract.” Id. The RFP also specified that “fferor shall submit past performance information for no more than three contracts” per team member. The RFP specified that “nly one contract shall be described per PPIF.” Id. Id.Īs relevant here, section L.16.4.1 of the RFP required offerors to demonstrate their past performance by submitting PPIFs. The mission suitability and past performance factors, when combined, were stated to be more important than cost, with mission suitability being more important than past performance. The RFP provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three evaluation factors: mission suitability, past performance, and cost. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award fee/incentive-fee, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for a 60-day phase in period, a 2-year base period, and three 1-year option periods. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 0011, 0029 Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. NASA issued the RFP on November 1, 2019, seeking proposals to provide products and services to support technical integration activities and necessary infrastructure functions for human space flight programs, including the International Space Station program, the Orion program, and the Gateway program. The protester challenges the agency’s interpretation of the solicitation’s past performance submission requirements and the agency’s decision not to consider Bastion’s submitted past performance information forms (PPIFs). 80JSC019R0023 for products and services in support of human space flight programs. (Bastion), of Houston, Texas, protests the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) interpretation of the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No.

Clearance to work at bastion technologies