Senator probes NASA software procurement

NASA officials did not follow through on commitments made to the Government Accountability Office in response to a bid protest, according to the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a letter last week to NASA Administrator Michael Griffin that the agency needs to make certain it follows basic procurement principles and makes accurate statements to GAO.

At dispute is the space agency's failure to re-bid a $5.2 million contract for mechanical computer-aided design and data management software licenses and support services, awarded to Parametric Technology Corp. of Needham, Mass., in September 2005. Two losing vendors filed a joint bid protest at GAO claiming the award process was flawed.

According to Grassley, NASA's General Counsel Office responded in November 2005, stating, "there were some inconsistencies in the procurement process" but the agency would correct the problems by conducting a new acquisition within three to six months. Given NASA's response and decision to issue a new solicitation after conducting a review of requirements, GAO dismissed the protest.

But NASA has yet to inform GAO formally or informally of the actions that it took following the dismissal of the protest, Grassley said. According to the letter, after being asked why GAO had not been notified, NASA said such a move would "be an academic matter" in the absence of an open bid protest.

A spokesman said GAO does not have any comment on the matter. A spokeswoman for Parametric Technology declined to comment because the company does not discuss individual contracts. NASA officials did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Grassley said it appears that NASA did not begin the review of its requirements for the software and issued a "Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition" in February 2006 instead of conducting a new competition.

After receiving multiple complaints regarding the action, NASA's inspector general began reviewing the issue and found in August 2006 that the agency's acquisition approach in attempting to noncompetitively renew Parametric Technology's software licenses on a long-term basis was "questionable."

The IG recommended that NASA conduct an agencywide assessment of its needs for the software and suspend all procurements involving Parametric Technology's licenses for mechanical CAD and data management software. The agency's chief engineer's office was supposed to complete the agencywide assessment by Feb. 3.

In his letter, Grassley asked NASA to provide a copy of the assessment and explain why NASA failed to notify GAO of its decision to forgo a new acquisition.

"Regardless of which product NASA ultimately chooses, NASA needs to ensure that basic procurement principles are followed," Grassley said. "NASA also needs to keep GAO informed and alert them to the events that have transpired since the dismissal of the bid protest to ensure that future responses to GAO are taken credibly."

Grassley also wants NASA to tell him by April 19 whether it will conduct a new competitive acquisition for the software licenses and whether the "Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition" document was ever completed.