2021-10-27 METTS Source Selection Statement FINAL.pdf

Selection Statement for the

Marshall Engineering Technicians and Trades Support (METTS) III

Request for Proposals (RFP) 80MSFC20R0036

On October 18, 2021, I, along with other senior officials from the George C. Marshall

Space Flight Center (MSFC), met with the source evaluation board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the METTS III acquisition. The SEB presented their findings to me for the purpose of making a source selection decision.

I. PROCUREMENT HISTORY

The METTS III RFP was released on February 13, 2020. The RFP requires the successful offeror to provide the necessary management, personnel, equipment, and supplies to provide a wide range of engineering technicians and trade skills, and professional and management oversight of the technical staff with support to the MSFC Engineering

Directorate (ED), the Facilities Management Office (FMO), and other MSFC programs and projects requiring engineering technician and trade support services.

The effort will be performed under a cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contract. The contract consists of a one-year base period with four one-year options.

The Government designated this procurement as a 100% Section 8(a) set-aside under

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 19.5. The procurement was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, and NASA FAR Supplement

(NFS) Part 1815, Contracting by Negotiation.

Six amendments were issued to the RFP to respond to questions from industry and to update various portions of the RFP.

On April 10, 2020, NASA received three acceptable proposals from the following companies (the listed order was determined by a random drawing and corresponds to the order of evaluation):

1. ASRC Federal System Solutions, LLC (AFSS)

2. Cherokee Nation Aerospace & Defense, LLC (CNAD)

3. RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC (RSi-QT JV)

II. EVALUATION SUMMARY

The proposals were evaluated in accordance with the RFP, FAR Part 15, NFS Part 1815, and the METTS III Source Evaluation Plan.

The RFP listed three evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Cost, and Past Performance.

In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.304(e), Mission Suitability, Cost, and Past

Performance are considered essentially equal to each other, and Mission Suitability and

Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost. In accordance with the RFP, a best value tradeoff process, as described at FAR 15.101-1, was used in making the source selection.

The three evaluation factors are described as follows:

Mission Suitability: The subfactors used in evaluating Mission Suitability and their corresponding weights are listed below:

Subfactor 1: Management and Technical Approach 500 points

Subfactor 2: Staffing and Total Compensation 500 points

TOTAL 1,000 points

Cost: The Offeror’s proposed cost, including the Offeror’s fully burdened indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) labor rates, was assessed in accordance with FAR

15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(A) and (B).

For evaluation purposes, the offeror’s proposed costs for the contract requirements was established as the sum of (1) the mission services cost and fee for the contract period of performance, including all options and (2) an IDIQ value for the contract period of performance, including all options. For the IDIQ value, the Offeror-provided fully-burdened composite labor rates were multiplied by a pre-populated number of work year equivalent (WYE) personnel for each labor category and by the Offeror’s productive hours. In addition, both the proposed labor award fee (i.e., total labor cost multiplied by the proposed labor award fee percentage) and the proposed other direct cost (ODC) burden/fee (i.e., proposed burden/fee rate applied to a prepopulated estimate of ODC costs) were added to the IDIQ value.

Past Performance: The Offeror’s past performance, to include relevant Federal, State, and local government and private contracts, and the past performance of any proposed subcontractors and individual joint venture partners, if applicable, was evaluated. This factor was not numerically scored but was assigned a level of confidence rating (i.e., “Very High Level of Confidence,” “High Level of Confidence,” “Moderate Level of

Confidence,” “Low Level of Confidence,” “Very Low Level of Confidence,” or

“Neutral”) in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2).

On May 7, 2021, a competitive range consisting of all three proposals was established.

The evaluation of final proposal revisions is summarized below.

AFSS

For the Mission Suitability factor, the AFSS proposal received a total score of 685 (out of a possible 1000 points). The proposal received no significant strengths, six strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management and Technical Approach subfactor, the proposal received 345 points (out of a possible 500 points) resulting from no significant strengths, three strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The strengths related to (1) the proposed approach for achieving accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 “General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories” in the name of

MSFC, (2) the proposed program management approach for meeting program requirements within a changing, dynamic, and evolving work environment which should provide the experience, processes, and techniques to successfully staff the contract, and

(3) Top Secret Facility Clearance Levels (FCLs) held by the offeror and proposed subcontractors which will enable performance of in-progress Secret level testing at contract start date rather than requiring performance of these activities by civil servants until such clearances are obtained by the offeror.

Under the Staffing and Total Compensation subfactor, the proposal received 340 points

(out of a possible 500 points) resulting from no significant strengths, three strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The strengths related to (1) the proposed

General Manager based on the individual's diverse work experience in the public sector, very positive references, and level of commitment, (2) the proposed approach for providing and completing orientation and training of employees to assume and perform functions required by the solicitation, and (3) the proposed approach to attract and retain a qualified workforce.

For the Cost factor, the proposal had the highest proposed cost. Since the proposed cost was determined to be realistic, no probable cost adjustments were made.

For the Past Performance factor, the proposal received a rating of “Moderate Level of

Confidence” resulting from no significant strengths, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, and one weakness. The strengths related to (1) the exceptional performance of Aetos Systems Inc., ASRC Federal System Solutions’ proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the Marshall Engineering Technicians and Trades

Support (METTS) Services contract NNM15AA19C and (2) the exceptional performance of ERC, ASRC Federal System Solutions’ proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the Redstone Test Center Wide Engineering and Test Support

Services (RWESS) contract W91CRB-17-D-0009. The weakness is ASRC Federal

System Solutions subcontractor ERC’s record of predominantly unsatisfactory safety performance relative to the past performance references submitted for evaluation with respect to the Department of Labor (DOL)/Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Days Away from Work Injury and Illness (DAFWII)/Total Case Rate (TCR).

CNAD

For the Mission Suitability factor, the CNAD proposal received a total score of 655 (out of a possible 1000 points). The proposal received no significant strengths, three strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management and Technical Approach subfactor, the proposal received 335 points (out of a possible 500 points) resulting from no significant strengths, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The strengths related to (1) the proposed general program management approach, which includes a well-structured surge plan and effective recruiting methods for ensuring that requirements are met within a changing, dynamic, and evolving environment and (2) a Secret FCL held by the offeror and a Top Secret FCL held by the proposed subcontractor which will enable performance of in-progress Secret level testing at contract start date rather than requiring performance of these activities by civil servants until such clearances are obtained by the offeror.

Under the Staffing and Total Compensation subfactor, the proposal received 320 points

(out of a possible 500 points) resulting from no significant strengths, one strength, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The strength is the proposed general manager based on the individual's diverse work experience in the private sector, very positive references, education, and level of commitment.

For the Cost factor, the proposal had the second highest proposed cost. Since the proposed cost was determined to be realistic, no probable cost adjustments were made.

Confidence” resulting from no significant strengths, one strength, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The strength is the very good performance of Interfuze, Cherokee Nation Aerospace & Defense’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as a subcontractor on the U.S. Air Force, Eglin Test and Training Center (ETTC) - Range

Operation and Maintenance (EOMS) contract FA9200-05-C-0001.

RSi-QT JV

For the Mission Suitability factor, the RSi-QT JV proposal received a total score of 705

(out of a possible 1000 points). The proposal received one significant strength, four strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management and Technical Approach subfactor, the proposal received 375 points (out of a possible 500 points) resulting from one significant strength, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The significant strength is the proposed innovative approach to enhance MSFC fabrication capabilities which should result in decreased lead times for fabrication activities. The strengths related to (1) the proposal’s demonstrated understanding of PWS 2.3/3.3 Structural Strength Test

Laboratory Support schedule challenges and (2) the Top Secret FCLs held by the offeror and proposed subcontractors which will enable performance of in-progress Secret level testing at contract start date rather than requiring performance of these activities by civil servants until such clearances are obtained by the offeror.

Under the Staffing and Total Compensation subfactor, the proposal received 330 points

(out of a possible 500 points) resulting from no significant strengths, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The strengths related to (1) the proposed

General Manager based on the individual’s diverse work experience in the public sector, very positive references, education, and level of commitment and (2) the proposed approach and processes for providing completion of necessary orientation and training for employees to assume and perform functions required by the Performance Work

Statement.

For the Cost factor, the proposal had the lowest proposed cost of $224,095,570. Since the proposed cost was determined to be realistic, no probable cost adjustments were made.

Confidence” resulting from one significant strength, three strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The significant strength is the exceptional performance of QuantiTech when serving as the prime contractor on the U.S. Air Force Test Center

Technical Management Advisory Services (TMAS) Range contract

GS00Q14OADS329/FA248616F0034. The strengths related to (1) the exceptional performance of Sierra Lobo, Inc., RSi-QT JV’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Environmental Test and

Integration Services (ETIS II) contract NNG14CR62C, (2) the exceptional performance of Sierra Lobo, Inc., RSi-QT JV’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor (i.e., non-managing partner of a populated JV) on the Test Facilities

Operations, Maintenance, and Engineering (TFOME) II contract, NNC15BA02B, and (3)

RSi-QT JV team's predominantly very good record of safety performance with respect to the Department of Labor (DOL)/Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Days Away from

Work Injury and Illness (DAFWII)/Total Case Rate.

III. SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

The SEB presented its evaluation findings for each proposal to me, and I carefully considered the detailed findings and the board's responses to my questions about those findings, the point scores, the total proposed/probable costs, and the past performance level of confidence ratings. I also solicited and considered the views of the officials who attended the SEB presentation, who have responsibility related to this procurement and understand the application of the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP.

I determined the SEB conducted a thorough and accurate review of the proposals according to the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP, identifying findings and explaining how it believed those findings would affect performance. The findings were detailed, consistent with the RFP, provided clear descriptions of the merits of each proposal, and supported the various ratings assigned. While I agreed with the findings of the SEB, I also recognized my responsibility as the source selection authority (SSA) to examine the findings, the point scores, the total proposed/probable costs, and the past performance level of confidence ratings for each proposal, and to use my independent judgment to determine the appropriate discriminators for purposes of the selection.

Based on a comparison of all proposals against the three evaluation factors and relative importance of those factors, I select the proposal submitted by RSi-QT JV for award of the METTS III contract. The rationale for my selection follows.

AFSS vs. RSi-QT JV

Comparing the AFSS proposal to the RSi-QT JV proposal under the Mission Suitability factor, I noted the RSi-QT JV proposal appeared to have an advantage (i.e., 705 points) over the AFSS proposal (i.e., 685 points). To understand the respective evaluations, I compared the findings for each proposal under both Mission Suitability subfactors.

Overall, AFSS was assigned no significant strengths, six strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses, and RSi-QT JV was assigned one significant strength, four strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses.

Under the Management and Technical Approach subfactor, the AFSS proposal received three strengths. As discussed above, the strengths related to (1) achieving ISO/IEC

17025:2017 accreditation, (2) program management in an ever-changing work environment, and (3) established FCLs.

Under the Management and Technical Approach subfactor, the RSi-QT JV proposal received one significant and two strengths. As discussed above, the significant strength related to enhancing MSFC’s fabrication capabilities, and the strengths related to (1) understanding of structural strength testing and (2) established FCLs.

Comparing the respective findings under the Management and Technical Approach subfactor, both offerors had established FCLs that would allow them to immediately perform classified activities. In this regard, both the AFSS team (i.e., offeror and proposed subcontractors) and the RSi-QT JV team held a Top Secret FCL. Continuing the comparison under this subfactor, AFSS’s corporate investment and accelerated schedule for achieving ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accreditation and their proposed partnership with a local educational institution to ensure future staffing needs are addressed with appropriately trained personnel will have a positive impact on performance of the contract. Likewise, under this subfactor, RSi-QT JV’s understanding of the complexity and schedule challenges associated with the structural testing of large launch vehicle components and their proposed use of an established network of over 30 fabrication vendors will also have a positive impact on performance of the contract. However, in my view, the RSi-QT JV proposal had an advantage here due to its proposed use of an established network of fabricators. Use of this network will improve efficiency and reduce schedule delays over the life of the contract.

Under the Staffing and Total Compensation subfactor, the AFSS proposal received three strengths. As discussed above, the strengths related to (1) the proposed general manager,

(2) a training program, and (3) an approach to attract and retain a qualified workforce.

Under the Under the Staffing and Total Compensation subfactor, the RSi-QT JV proposal received two strengths. As discussed above, the strengths related to (1) the proposed general manager and (2) a training program.

Comparing the respective findings under the Staffing and Total Compensation subfactor, both proposals received a strength for the proposed general manager, and both proposals received a strength for their proposed train-the-trainer approach to training. Thus, I did not see a basis to distinguish either proposal with respect to the general manager or the training program. However, the AFSS proposal had an advantage under this subfactor due to a performance requirement to select and mentor successors across the entire workforce, which will help attract and retain a qualified workforce.

Comparing both proposals under the Mission Suitability factor, while the AFSS proposal had an advantage under the Staffing and Total Compensation subfactor and the RSi-QT

JV proposal had an advantage under the Management and Technical Approach subfactor, in my view, the RSi-QT JV proposal had the overall advantage due to its established network of over 30 fabrication vendors. Having access to this network will ensure fabrication requirements are met with minimal delay and possibly even create schedule margin for the programs and projects.

Comparing the AFSS proposal to the RSi-QT JV proposal under the Cost factor (and noting that no probable cost adjustments were necessary), since the AFSS proposal had the highest proposed cost and the RSi-QT JV proposal had the lowest proposed cost, I determined the RSi-QT JV proposal had an advantage under this factor.

Comparing the AFSS proposal to the RSi-QT JV proposal under the Past Performance factor, both proposals received a “Moderate Level of Confidence” rating. To understand the respective evaluations, I compared the past performance findings for each proposal.

Under the Past Performance factor, the AFSS proposal received two strengths and one weakness. As discussed above, the strengths related to (1) the exceptional performance of a proposed subcontractor when performing as a prime contractor on a highly relevant contract and (2) the exceptional performance of a second proposed subcontractor when performing as a prime contractor on a highly relevant contract. The weakness related to a record of predominantly unsatisfactory safety performance on a past performance referenced contract.

Under the Past Performance factor, the RSi-QT JV proposal received one significant strength and three strengths. As discussed above, the significant strength related to the exceptional performance of the non-managing mentor/partner (i.e., QuantiTech) when serving as a prime contractor on a highly relevant contract. The strengths related to (1) the exceptional performance of a proposed subcontractor when performing as a prime contractor on a highly relevant contract, (2) the exceptional performance of the same proposed subcontractor when performing as a prime contractor on another highly relevant contract, and (3) a record of predominantly very good safety performance on a past performance referenced contract.

Comparing the respective findings, I noted that neither offeror (i.e., neither AFSS nor the managing partner in the case of RSi-QT JV) had experience as a prime contractor. In addition, neither offeror had experience in all the PWS areas. Nevertheless, in my view, the RSi-QT JV proposal had an advantage over the AFSS proposal under the Past

Performance factor due to the exceptional performance record of the non-managing JV partner and the stronger record of safety performance.

I then proceeded with my best value tradeoff evaluation of the two proposals. The RSi-

QT JV proposal had an advantage over the AFSS proposal under the Mission Suitability factor. The RSi-QT JV proposal also had an advantage over the AFSS proposal under the

Cost factor. Finally, the RSi-QT JV proposal had an advantage over the AFSS proposal under the Past Performance factor. As a result, based on the advantages demonstrated by the RSi-QT JV proposal under all three factors, I determined that the RSi-QT JV proposal represents the best value to the Government.

CNAD vs. RSi-QT JV

Comparing the CNAD proposal to the RSi-QT JV proposal under the Mission Suitability factor, I noted the RSi-QT JV proposal appeared to have an advantage (i.e., 705 points) over the CNAD proposal (i.e., 655 points). To understand the respective evaluations, I compared the findings for each proposal under both Mission Suitability subfactors.

Overall, CNAD was assigned no significant strengths, three strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses, and RSi-QT JV was assigned one significant strength, four strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses.

Under the Management and Technical Approach subfactor, the CNAD proposal received two strengths. As discussed above, the strengths related to (1) program management in an ever-changing work environment, and (2) established FCLs.

Under the Management and Technical Approach subfactor, the RSi-QT JV proposal received one significant and two strengths. As discussed above, the significant strength related to enhancing MSFC’s fabrication capabilities, and the strengths related to (1) understanding of structural strength testing and (2) established FCLs.

Comparing the respective findings under the Management and Technical Approach subfactor, both offerors had established FCLs that would allow them to immediately perform classified activities. In this regard, CNAD’s proposed subcontractor and the RSi-

QT JV team held Top Secret FCLs. Continuing the comparison under this subfactor, CNAD’s approach to program management that includes a well-structured surge plan and a comprehensive array of recruiting methods to quickly adapt to an ever-changing work environment will have a positive impact on contract performance. Likewise, under this subfactor, RSi-QT JV’s understanding of the complexity and schedule challenges associated with the structural testing of large launch vehicle components and their proposed use of an established network of over 30 fabrication vendors will also have a positive impact on performance of the contract. However, in my view, the RSi-QT JV proposal had an advantage here due to its proposed use of an established network of fabricators. Use of this network will improve efficiency and reduce schedule delays over the life of the contract.

Under the Staffing and Total Compensation subfactor, the CNAD proposal received one strength. As discussed above, the strength related to the proposed general manager.

Under the Under the Staffing and Total Compensation subfactor, the RSi-QT JV proposal received two strengths. As discussed above, the strengths related to (1) the proposed general manager and (2) a training program.

Comparing the respective findings under the Staffing and Total Compensation subfactor, both proposals received a strength for the proposed general manager. Thus, I did not see a basis to distinguish either proposal with respect to the general managers. However, the

RSi-QT JV proposal had an advantage under this subfactor due to its training program which seeks to increase the effectiveness of the learning experience using a train-the-trainer approach.

Comparing both proposals under the Mission Suitability factor, since the RSi-QT JV proposal had an advantage under both the Management and Technical Approach subfactor and the Staffing and Total Compensation subfactor, the RSi-QT JV proposal had the overall advantage under the Mission Suitability factor.

Comparing the CNAD proposal to the RSi-QT JV proposal under the Cost factor (and noting that no probable cost adjustments were necessary), since the CNAD proposal had the second highest proposed cost and the RSi-QT JV proposal had the lowest proposed cost, I determined the RSi-QT JV proposal had an advantage under this factor.

Under the Past Performance factor, the CNAD proposal received one strength. As discussed above, the strength related to the very good performance of a proposed subcontractor when performing as a subcontractor on a relevant contract.

Under the Past Performance factor, the RSi-QT JV proposal received one significant strength and three strengths. As discussed above, the significant strength related to the exceptional performance of the non-managing mentor/partner (i.e., QuantiTech) when serving as a prime contractor on a highly relevant contract. The strengths related to (1) the exceptional performance of a proposed subcontractor when performing as a prime contractor on a highly relevant contract, (2) the exceptional performance of the same proposed subcontractor when performing as a prime contractor on another highly relevant contract, and (3) a record of predominantly very good safety performance on a past performance referenced contract.

Comparing the respective findings, I noted that neither offeror (i.e., neither CNAD nor the managing partner in the case of RSi-QT JV) had experience as a prime contractor. In addition, neither offeror had experience in all the PWS areas. Nevertheless, in my view, the RSi-QT JV proposal had an advantage over the CNAD proposal under the Past

Performance factor due to (1) the exceptional performance record of the non-managing

JV partner and a proposed subcontractor and (2) a stronger record of safety performance.

I then proceeded with my best value tradeoff evaluation of the two proposals. The RSi-

QT JV proposal had an advantage over the CNAD proposal under the Mission Suitability factor. The RSi-QT JV proposal also had an advantage over the CNAD proposal under the Cost factor. Finally, the RSi-QT JV proposal had an advantage over the CNAD proposal under the Past Performance factor. As a result, based on the advantages demonstrated by the RSi-QT JV proposal under all three factors, I determined that the

RSi-QT JV proposal represents the best value to the Government.

In summary, based on my integrated assessment of all proposals received, in accordance with the evaluation criteria and their relative importance established for the METTS III acquisition, it is my decision the proposal submitted by RSi-QT JV represents the best overall value to the Government. I therefore direct contract award to RSi-QT JV.

Steven C. Miley

Source Selection Authority