Matter of Access Logic, Inc.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (defendant) issued a Request for Offers (RFO) for a commercial contract to provide, install, and design a 360-degree rear projection curved display system for air traffic control. Prior to issuing the RFO, NASA conducted market research to determine which products would best meet its needs. The RFO required contractors to submit proposals that: (1) contained detailed technical descriptions of the offered items; (2) used the RFO-specified commercially available brand-name items or equivalents; and (3) demonstrated that the proposed projection screens, as installed, would have as little physical separation between each screen as possible. The RFO stated that the lowest-price technically acceptable proposal would be selected. Access Logic, Inc. (plaintiff) submitted the lowest-price proposal; however, NASA rejected Access Logic’s proposal as technically unacceptable because (a) Access Logic’s proposal stated that the installed screens would have up to a three-quarter inch gap between each screen; (b) Access Logic failed to specify a high half-gain angle, which is a component of screen brightness; (c) Access Logic failed to state that the automatic convergence display feature it proposed would work on rear projection screens; and (d) Access Logic failed to include a list of key personnel. Access Logic filed a bid award protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), arguing that NASA improperly rejected its bid based on undisclosed evaluation criteria.