2022-11-07 NFSS Source Selection Statement.pdf

(PS60 Rev. 2019-04-25) CUI//SP-SSEL

Selection Statement for the NASA Financial Services (NFSS) Acquisition

RFP 80MSFC21R0015

On October 11, 2022, 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 NFSS acquisition. The SEB presented their findings to me as the source selection authority (SSA) for the purpose of making a source selection decision.

I. PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The NFSS Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on November 5, 2021. The RFP requires the successful offeror to support NASA's missions, programs, projects, Centers, and organizational offices through performance of the following work elements in accordance with Performance Work

Statement (PWS) 4.0, Contract Work Elements:

• Resource/Financial Management

• Accounting

• Quality Assurance Services

• Travel and Conference Administration

• Financial Management Business Information Services

• Special Financial Analyses

The effort will be performed under a commercial-services, single-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with firm-fixed-price (FFP) and cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) task orders. The contract will have an ordering period of eight years from the contract effective date consisting of a two-year base period with three two-year options.

Four amendments were issued to the RFP to provide responses to questions provided by industry.

The Government designated this procurement as a 100% small business set-aside under Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 19.5. The procurement was conducted in accordance with

FAR Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services, in conjunction

FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Part 1815, Contracting by Negotiation.

On January 5, 2022, NASA received five acceptable proposals from the following companies

(the alphabetical order corresponds to the order of evaluation):

1. Chiricahua-Logical, JV (C-L JV) (Joint Venture consisting of Chiricahua Procurement, LLC and Logical Innovations, Inc.)

2. MM Technologies (MMT JV) (Joint Venture consisting of Manufacturing Technology

Solutions [MTS] and MDW Associates, LLC [MDW])

3. PTG JV (Joint Venture consisting of Paragon TEC and Thompson Gray)

4. Redhawk Administrative Services (Redhawk)

5. Savantage Solutions (Savantage)

On July 26, 2022, the contracting officer established a competitive range consisting of MMT JV and PTG JV. Following discussions, both offerors provided final proposal revisions (FPRs) on

September 13, 2022. The evaluation of FPRs is described below.

II. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The proposals were evaluated in accordance with the RFP, FAR Part 12, FAR Part 15, NFS Part

1815, and the NFSS Source Evaluation Plan.

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

The RFP stated Mission Suitability is considered significantly more important than Price/Cost.

Price/Cost is more important than Past Performance. Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are considered to be significantly more important than Price/Cost. In accordance with the RFP, a best value trade-off process, as described at FAR 15.101-1, is to be 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:

Management and Technical Approach (MTA) 600 points

Staffing and Total Compensation (STC) 400 points

TOTAL 1,000 points

After evaluating each proposal, the SEB voting members collectively developed a consensus adjectival rating (i.e., "Excellent," "Very Good," "Good," "Fair," or "Poor") for the first subfactor based upon the documented findings (i.e., significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies). Following the establishment of a consensus adjectival rating, the SEB voting members collectively developed a consensus percentile rating that corresponded with the adjectival rating. Once the percentile rating was established, the numerical score for that subfactor was computed by taking the consensus percentile rating for that subfactor and multiplying it by the maximum points available for that subfactor (see listing above). This represented the numerical score for a given subfactor. This process was repeated for the second Mission Suitability subfactor by offeror. The final point value for the Mission

Suitability factor was then calculated as the sum of both subfactors' point values. In accordance with NFS 1815.370(h)(viii), the SEB did not assign an overall adjectival rating for the Mission

Suitability factor.

Price/Cost:

For the FFP component, the Government performed a price analysis of all responsive proposals received in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis

Techniques.

For the CPFF component, the proposed cost to include the offeror's fully burdened IDIQ labor rates, was assessed to determine reasonableness and realism in accordance with FAR

15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(A) and (B). Additionally, consistency between the Mission

Suitability factor and the Cost factor volumes was considered in determining if the offeror's proposed costs (Tab A-2) are reasonable and realistic.

For evaluation purposes, the total value was established as: the sum of (1) the proposed phase-in services price; (2) a price/cost using the offeror-provided Other Direct Cost Indirect Rates applied to a pre-populated cost estimate, for the contract period of performance, including all options (Tab A-1, Summary of Total Firm-Fixed-Price); (3) an IDIQ price using the offeror-provided fully burdened rates applied to a pre-populated estimate of labor hours for each labor category, for each Center, for the contract period of performance, including all options (Tab A-

1); and (4) an IDIQ probable cost using the offeror-provided fully burdened rates applied to a pre-populated estimate of labor hours for each labor category, for each Center, for the contract period of performance, including all options (Tab A-2, Summary of Total Cost). For the purpose of evaluating the option to extend services (i.e., FAR 52.217-8), the Government determined the six-month cost by prorating the price/cost proposed for the last year of services.

Past Performance:

The offeror's past performance, including 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 an adjectival rating. The applicable adjectival ratings were "Very High Level of

Confidence," "High Level of Confidence," "Moderate Level of Confidence," "Low Level of

Confidence," "Very Low Level of Confidence," and "Neutral" in accordance with FAR

15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A).

III. Evaluation of Proposals

MMT JV

For the Mission Suitability factor, MMT JV's proposal received a total score of 724 (out of a possible 1,000 points) and the two subfactor ratings earned were "Very Good" (in Management and Technical Approach) and "Good" (in Staffing and Total Compensation). In support of these ratings, the proposal received one significant strength, three strengths, and no significant weaknesses or 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 an adjectival rating of "Very Good" and 480 points (out of a possible 600 points) resulting from one significant strength, two strengths, and no significant weaknesses or weaknesses. The significant strength was assessed for the proposed innovative approach for promoting training, knowledge sharing, and work synergies across the enterprise which should provide a strong foundation for new employees to accelerate skills development on individual work packages. The strengths were assessed for: (1) the proposed enterprise-focused management approach to identify issues across the enterprise, establish Agency-wide best practices and process improvements, provide clear communications and quick responses, and establish an overall standardized management process to accomplish contract requirements in a complex and dynamic environment across the enterprise; and (2) the proposal's demonstrated in-depth knowledge and understanding of PWS

4.4, Travel and Conference Administration Support, and PWS 4.6, Special Financial Analysis.

Under the Staffing and Total Compensation Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of "Good" and 244 points resulting from no significant strengths, one strength, and no significant weaknesses or weaknesses. The strength related to the proposed approach for recruiting and retaining specialized personnel to maintain a qualified, skilled workforce to assume and perform functions required by the PWS in support of the enterprise contract.

For the Price/Cost factor, the SEB determined the proposal's total value to be $276.4M, having no CPFF IDIQ probable cost adjustments, and which was the lower of the two proposals. MMT

JV's proposed FFP components were determined to be fair and reasonable, along with MMT JV's

CPFF components determined to be reasonable and realistic.

For the Past Performance factor, the proposal received a rating of "High Level of Confidence" resulting from one significant strength, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, no weaknesses, and one adequate finding. The significant strength was assessed for MMT JV Protégé Managing

Partner MDW Associates' performance as prime contractor on the highly relevant Missile

Defense Agency (MDA) Technical, Engineering, Advisory, and Management Support (TEAMS)

Business Operations contract. The strengths were assessed for: (1) MMT JV Protégé Managing

Member MDW Associates' performance as prime contractor on the relevant MDA Strategic

Financial Management Support and Financial System Integration contract; and (2) MMT JV proposed subcontractor Wichita Tribal Enterprises, LLC's performance as prime contractor on the relevant Financial Analysis and Business Support Services (FABSS) II contract. The adequate finding related to MMT JV proposed subcontractor Media Fusion's performance as non-managing partner of the Alutiiq-Fusion JV on the highly relevant Langley Administrative, Media and Professional Services (LAMPS) II contract.

PTG JV

For the Mission Suitability factor, PTG JV's proposal received a total score of 812 (out of a possible 1,000 points). The proposal received one significant strength, six strengths, and no significant weaknesses or 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 an adjectival rating of "Very Good" and 540 points resulting from one significant strength, four strengths, and no significant weaknesses or weaknesses. The significant strength was assessed for the proposed approach for promoting work synergies, sharing information, building a community of best practices for employees to assume and perform the functions required by the PWS, and creating a collaborative community of analysts to support an enterprise contract. The strengths were assessed for: (1) the proposed Program Management Operations (PMO) approach for meeting enterprise contract management requirements within a dynamic and geographically dispersed work environment which should provide the management processes and techniques necessary to successfully execute contract requirements; (2) the proposed contract administration system

(CAS) approach to manage work packages awarded under the NFSS contract by leveraging extensive corporate knowledge and experience of the commercial iSite tool, and augmented by the use of other supporting tool capabilities; (3) the proposal's demonstrated in-depth understanding of PWS 4.3, Quality Assurance Services; and (4) the proposed phase-in approach which leverages an experienced phase-in team and corporate investment which should reduce the risk of transition from multiple contracts into an enterprise wide NFSS contract.

Under the Staffing and Total Compensation Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of "Good" and 272 points resulting from no significant strengths, two strengths, and no significant weaknesses or weaknesses. The strengths were assessed for: (1) the proposed approach for recruiting and retaining specialized personnel to maintain a qualified, skilled workforce to perform functions required by the PWS in support of the enterprise contract; and

(2) the proposed staffing approach to provide personnel resources with specialized expertise and experience to perform contract requirements.

For the Price/Cost factor, the SEB determined the proposal's total value to be higher than MMT

JV's, having no CPFF IDIQ probable cost adjustments. PTG JV's proposed FFP components were determined to be fair and reasonable, along with PTG JV's CPFF components determined to be reasonable and realistic.

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

Confidence" resulting from one significant strength, one strength, no significant weaknesses or weaknesses, and one adequate finding. The significant strength was assessed for PTG JV Mentor

Non-Managing Partner Thompson Gray's performance as a subcontractor on the highly relevant

Enterprise Resource Planner Business Intelligence (ERP BI) contract. The strength was assessed for PTG JV proposed subcontractor ECS Federal's performance as prime contractor on the very highly relevant MDA Strategic Planning/Financial Management Support and Financial Systems

Support/Integration contract. The adequate finding was assessed for PTG JV proposed subcontractor BDO's performance as a subcontractor on the United States (US) Army Materiel

Command (AMC)/United States Army Environmental Command (USAEC) – Cost to Complete

Audit Readiness Support contract.

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 the Mission Suitability findings, adjectival ratings, point scores, the Price/Cost total values, and the Past Performance findings and 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. I also concluded that the evaluation plan for this procurement was followed, the evaluation of proposals was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented, and that the SEB's findings were reasonable and valid for the purpose of making a selection decision. While I agreed with the SEB's findings, I also recognized my responsibility as the SSA to examine the

Mission Suitability findings, adjectival ratings, point scores, the Price/Cost total values, 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 making a best value award selection for the Government.

Based on a comparison of both proposals against the three evaluation factors for award and the relative importance of these factors, I select the proposal submitted by MMT JV for award of the

NFSS contract. The rationale for my selection decision follows.

Mission Suitability

In comparing PTG JV's proposal to the MMT JV proposal under the Mission Suitability factor, I noted that PTG JV's proposal had an advantage (i.e., 812 points) over the MMT JV proposal

(i.e., 724 points). Looking beyond these scores and the underlying adjectival ratings, I determined they are supported by the corresponding findings for the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

To better understand the respective evaluations, I compared the findings for each proposal under each of the two Mission Suitability subfactors. Overall, PTG JV's proposal was assessed one significant strength, six strengths, and no significant weaknesses or weaknesses, while MMT

JV's proposal was assessed one significant strength, three strengths, and no significant weaknesses or weaknesses.

Under the solicitation’s Management and Technical Approach subfactor, which was the most heavily weighted subfactor, I reviewed the subfactor findings and noted that both proposals demonstrated overall competence and provided approaches that were beneficial to the NFSS contract. PTG JV's significant strength related to the proposed approach for promoting work synergies, sharing information, and building a community of best practices to perform PWS requirements should result in greater efficiency and effectiveness in support of the enterprise.

The strength related to the proposed PMO approach for meeting enterprise contract management requirements within a dynamic and geographically dispersed work environment should enable the offeror to more effectively support the Agency’s Mission Support Future Architecture

Program (MAP) operating model. The strength related to the CAS approach to manage work packages by leveraging extensive corporate knowledge, experience, and other supporting tool capabilities should foster successful use of the Government CAS tool and enhance data transfer capabilities between offeror and Government platforms. The strength related to the proposal's demonstrated understanding of PWS 4.3, Quality Assurance Services, should allow for the provision of a highly specialized workforce to successfully meet enterprise contract requirements. Finally, the strength related to the proposed phase-in approach should reduce the risk of transition from multiple contracts into a single enterprise contract.

Under this same subfactor, the MMT JV significant strength related to the proposed innovative approach for promoting training, knowledge sharing, and work synergies should provide a strong foundation for new employees to accelerate skills development and an effective environment for employee career enhancement and job satisfaction. The strength related to the proposed enterprise-focused management approach to identify issues, establish best practices and process improvements, provide clear and prompt communications, and establish a standardized management process should promote collaboration and understanding across the enterprise financial management community. The strength related to the proposal's demonstrated in-depth knowledge and understanding of PWS 4.4, Travel and Conference Administration Support, and

PWS 4.6, Special Financial Analysis, should enhance the offeror’s ability to provide effective support for travel related activities and therefore customer satisfaction as well as their ability to rapidly respond to specialized subject matter expertise requirements.

In comparing the PTG JV proposal with the MMT JV proposal under the more heavily weighted

Management and Technical Approach subfactor, I noted that both PTG JV and MMT JV had a single, similar significant strength. The PTG JV proposal had a significant strength for the proposed approach for promoting work synergies, sharing information, and building a community of best practices. Likewise, the MMT JV proposal had a significant strength for the proposed innovative approach for promoting training, knowledge sharing, and work synergies across the enterprise. Both significant strengths should therefore allow for the provision of a well-trained, collaborative, and knowledgeable workforce.

PTG JV's strengths should enable rapid program management response to the evolving, dynamic requirements of an enterprise contract, provide for effective work package management, which is important to this all IDIQ contract, enhance the performance of PWS 4.3, and provide effective transition of multiple Center contracts into the enterprise model. I also noted that MMT JV's strengths should strengthen cross-Center collaboration and allow for effective performance of

PWS 4.4 and 4.6 requirements.

Based on the above, I concluded that the PTG JV proposal had an advantage over the MMT JV proposal under the more heavily weighted Management and Technical Approach subfactor.

Under the solicitation’s Staffing and Total Compensation Approach subfactor, I noted that both proposals demonstrated a reasonably sound response and provided approaches that were beneficial to the NFSS contract. PTG JV’s strength related to the approach for recruiting and retaining specialized personnel should help to enhance employee skills while improving the offeror’s ability to attract and retain a qualified workforce. The second strength related to proposed staffing approach to provide personnel resources with specialized expertise and experience should increase the offeror’s ability to successfully staff suitably qualified personnel over the life of the contract.

Under this same subfactor, the MMT JV’s strength related to the approach for recruiting and retaining specialized personnel to maintain a qualified, skilled workforce should enhance the offeror’s ability to establish and maintain a fully certified workforce, enhance employee skills, and improve the offeror’s ability to attract and retain a suitably qualified workforce.

In comparing the PTG JV proposal with the MMT JV proposal under the less heavily weighted

Staffing and Total Compensation Approach subfactor, I noted that PTG JV's two strengths should help to both successfully recruit and retain specialized personnel and enhance the ability to staff qualified personnel, while MMT JV's strength should likewise help to successfully recruit and retain qualified personnel, all over the life of the contract. As a result, PTG JV’s primary advantage under this subfactor related to their ability to leverage a comprehensive suite of recruiting methods and tools to provide an experienced workforce. Based on the above, I concluded that the PTG JV proposal had an advantage over the MMT JV proposal under the less heavily weighted Staffing and Total Compensation Approach subfactor.

In comparing the PTG JV proposal with the MMT JV proposal across both subfactors, the PTG

JV proposal had an advantage over the MMT JV proposal under the more heavily weighted

Management and Technical Approach, as well as an advantage under the less heavily weighted

Staffing and Total Compensation Approach subfactor. Based on this, I determined that the PTG

JV proposal had an advantage over the MMT JV proposal under the Mission Suitability factor.

Price/Cost

In comparing the PTG JV proposal with the MMT JV proposal under the Price/Cost factor, the

MMT JV proposal had the lowest total proposed price/cost whereas the PTG JV proposal had the highest total proposed price/cost. With both proposal's FFP components determined to be fair and reasonable, along with both proposal's CPFF components determined to be reasonable and realistic, I therefore determined the MMT JV proposal had an advantage over the PTG JV proposal under the Price/Cost factor.

Past Performance

In comparing PTG JV’s proposal to MMT JV’s proposal under the Past Performance factor, PTG

JV’s proposal received a “Moderate Level of Confidence” rating while MMT JV’s proposal received a “High Level of Confidence” rating. In an effort to understand the respective level of confidence ratings assigned under the Past Performance factor, I compared the findings for each proposal.

The PTG JV proposal received one significant strength, one strength, no significant weaknesses or weaknesses, and one adequate finding. The significant strength was assessed for the performance of Thompson Gray, PTG JV's Mentor Non-Managing Partner, as a subcontractor on the highly relevant ERP BI contract. The strength was assessed for the performance of PTG JV's proposed subcontractor ECS Federal's performance as prime contractor on the very highly relevant MDA Strategic Planning/Financial Management Support and Financial Systems

Support/Integration contract. The adequate finding was assessed for the performance of PTG JV proposed subcontractor BDO's performance as a subcontractor on the United States (US)

AMC/USAEC – Cost to Complete Audit Readiness Support contract.

The MMT JV proposal received one significant strength, two strengths, and one adequate finding. The significant strength was assessed for MMT JV Protégé Managing Partner MDW

Associates' performance as prime contractor on the highly relevant MDA TEAMS Business

Operations contract. The strengths were assessed for: (1) MMT JV Protégé Managing Member

MDW Associates' performance as prime contractor on the relevant MDA Strategic Financial

Management Support and Financial System Integration contract; and (2) MMT JV proposed subcontractor Wichita Tribal Enterprises LLC's performance as prime contractor on the relevant

FABSS II contract. The adequate finding was assessed for MMT JV proposed subcontractor

Media Fusion's performance as non-managing partner of the Alutiiq-Fusion JV on the highly relevant LAMPS II contract.

I also considered whether the performance demonstrated by each offeror in relation to the requirements of the PWS demonstrated relevant performance across the breadth of these activities. I noted that both offerors provided relevant coverage of five of seven PWS areas (i.e., PWS 3.0, 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, and 4.6 for PTG JV and PWS 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, and 4.6 for MMT JV). I also noted that the PTG JV "Moderate Level of Confidence" assessment factored in the fact that neither Paragon TEC nor Thompson Gray (i.e., the protégé managing partner and non-managing mentor partner, respectively) provided relevant referenced contracts as a prime contractor.

Conversely, MMT JV protégé managing partner MDW Associates demonstrated relevant performance as a prime contractor, which I considered to be important to this enterprise contract.

I noted that both PTG JV and MMT JV demonstrated exceptional or very good performance history (i.e., quality of performance) across five PWS areas in relation to the NFSS acquisition.

However, upon reviewing the findings, I concurred with the lower confidence level rating assigned to the PTG JV proposal since none of the referenced contracts demonstrated that either

PTG JV partner had prior relevant experience as a prime contractor, nor did JV protégé managing partner Paragon provide any relevant referenced contracts, which decreased my confidence in PTG JV's ability to successfully manage this effort. Thus, in consideration of the above, I determined the MMT JV proposal had an advantage over the PTG JV proposal under the Past Performance factor.

I then proceeded with my best value tradeoff evaluation of the two proposals. The PTG JV proposal had an advantage over the MMT JV proposal under the Mission Suitability factor.

Conversely, the MMT JV proposal had an advantage over the PTG JV proposal under the

Price/Cost factor as well as an advantage over the PTG JV proposal under the Past Performance factor. I then considered the relative weighting of the three factors (i.e., Mission Suitability being significantly more important than Price/Cost, which is more important than Past Performance).

I also weighed whether PTG JV’s additional strengths, which to some degree were the primary driver of the PTG JV Mission Suitability advantage, were worth the price/cost premium (i.e., the higher Price/Cost of the PTG JV proposal over the MMT JV proposal) and the lower confidence level rating for the PTG JV proposal under the Past Performance factor (based on the lack of relevant referenced experience for the JV protégé managing partner and lack of relevant referenced experience as a prime contractor for either JV partner).

For example, under the Management and Technical Approach subfactor, both proposals were assigned a significant strength for their approach for promoting workforce synergies across the enterprise contract. Additionally, both proposals were assessed a strength for their proposed enterprise management approach. Further, both proposals were assessed a strength for their in-depth demonstrated understanding of NFSS PWS areas (i.e., PWS 4.4 and 4.6 for MMT JV and

PWS 4.3 for PTG JV). However, the PTG JV proposal was assessed strengths for their proposed

CAS work package management approach and their proposed phase-in approach. Under the

Staffing and Total Compensation Approach subfactor, both proposals were assessed a strength for their approach for recruiting and retaining specialized personnel for the enterprise contract.

Additionally, however, the PTG JV proposal was assessed a strength for the proposed staffing approach to provide personnel resources with specialized expertise and experience to perform contract requirements. In essence, the PTG JV proposal was assessed additional strengths for (1) the CAS approach to manage work packages by leveraging extensive corporate knowledge, experience, and other supporting tool capabilities; (2) the proposed phase-in approach; and (3) the proposed staffing approach to provide personnel resources with specialized expertise and experience. Regarding the phase-in strength, however, I noted that the proposed phase-in period is only 90 days relative to a potential eight-year performance period of the contract and therefore was less impactful than the approaches which provided benefit over the life of the contract.

I also noted the confidence level rating differences of the two proposals and assessed my confidence in both offeror’s ability to successfully perform contract requirements. For example, the MMT JV proposal was assessed a “High Level of Confidence” based on one significant strength, two strengths, one adequate finding, relevant referenced experience of the JV protégé managing partner as a prime contractor, and relevant coverage of five of seven PWS areas.

Conversely, the PTG JV proposal was assessed a “Moderate Level of Confidence” based on one significant strength, one strength, one adequate finding, a lack of relevant referenced contracts for the JV protégé managing partner, and relevant coverage of five of seven PWS areas.

However, noting that the PTG JV protégé managing partner provided no relevant referenced contracts and that neither JV partner provided relevant referenced contracts as a prime contractor, I had concerns regarding this JV’s ability to successfully manage the NFSS enterprise effort (i.e., seven geographically dispersed NASA centers) and believed the confidence level rating difference assessed was fully warranted.

Based on the relative weighting of the three factors, I considered the advantage of the PTG JV proposal under the Mission Suitability factor to be more than offset by the advantages of the

MMT JV proposal under both the Price/Cost and Past Performance factors. In essence, I did not consider the advantage provided by PTG JV’s additional strengths under the Mission Suitability factor of sufficient benefit to warrant the additional price/cost premium of the PTG JV proposal when combined with my concerns regarding the experience of the PTG JV partners and the associated confidence level rating difference between the two proposals under the Past

Performance factor.

In sum, based on my integrated assessment of both proposals and in accordance with the evaluation criteria and their relative importance established for the NFSS acquisition, I therefore considered the advantages of the MMT JV proposal under the Price/Cost and Past Performance factors to outweigh the advantage of the PTG JV proposal under the Mission Suitability factor.

As a result, I determined the MMT JV proposal represents the best value to the Government and select that firm for award of the NFSS contract.

Rhega C. Gordon

Source Selection Authority