2024 04 22 CATTS Source Selection Statement.pdf

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

Selection Statement for the Consolidated Agency Technology Transfer Services (CATTS)

RFP 80MSFC23R0012

On March 28, 2024, 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 CATTS 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 CATTS Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on August 28, 2023. The RFP requires the successful offeror to provide Agency technology transfer services program support for the Technology Transfer Program (T2P) via consolidated Headquarters (HQ), Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), and Stennis Space Center (SSC) service requirements, with the additional ability to support T2P services via firm-fixed-price (FFP) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) task orders at the remaining NASA field centers under the CATTS enterprise contract. Performance will be in support of the following Performance Work Statement (PWS) elements:

Section 1.0 Introduction / Scope of Work Section 2.0 Management and Reporting Requirements Section 3.0 Technology Transfer Reports - Providing Evidence of Commercial Potential to Inform

NASA Patent Decision Making Section 4.0 Technology Transfer Services (Work Year Equivalent [WYE] Support) Section 5.0 Export Control Review Section 6.0 Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ)

The effort will be performed under a single FFP core mission contract with the ability to award FFP IDIQ task orders. The contract will consist of a 30-day phase-in period overlapping the incumbent contract, a one-year base period, and four one-year option periods.

One amendment was issued to the RFP to provide responses to questions provided by industry.

The Government designated this procurement as a 100% HUBZone small business set-aside under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 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.

On September 28, 2023, NASA received and evaluated three proposals from the following companies (the order corresponds to the order of evaluation [i.e., reverse alphabetical]):

1. Summit Technologies & Solutions, Inc. (Summit)

2. EN4S, LLC (EN4S)1

3. Acuity Edge, Inc. (Acuity Edge)2

II. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

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

The RFP listed three evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Price, and Past Performance. The RFP stated that as individual factors, Mission Suitability, Price, and Past Performance are considered essentially equal to each other. Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. 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:

Technical Approach 500 points Management and Compensation Approach 500 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

1 EN4S exceeded the Mission Suitability volume page limitation by seven pages and the Past Performance volume page limitation by two pages. For the Mission Suitability volume, this precluded an analysis of the offeror’s risk management approach and phase-in approach. For the Past Performance volume, this precluded an evaluation of the relevancy of the subcontractor referenced contracts as the Performance Work Statement Assignment Table was provided on pages outside the page limitation and the required information could not be gleaned from other areas of the offeror’s proposal. EN4S was notified of these issues by electronically transmitted letter on October 24, 2023.

2 Acuity Edge submitted a proposal that was valid for only 60 calendar days from the date for receipt of offers (i.e., September 28, 2023) as indicated in Box 12 of Standard Form (SF) 33. The SEB evaluated the proposal as required by NFS 1815.305-70(a) in the event discussions were conducted.

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

The Government performed a price analysis of all proposals received in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques.

Consistency between the Mission Suitability factor and the Price factor volumes was considered in determining if the offeror's proposed prices are fair and reasonable. Additionally, failure by an offeror to provide all required Excel Pricing Model (EPM) data (e.g., indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) labor rates for all labor categories for all years of performance) adversely impacted the offeror's Mission Suitability score or resulted in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable (see NFS 1815.305-70(a)(3)).

For evaluation purposes, the total price was established as the sum of: (1) the phase-in services price; (2) the mission core services price for the contract period of performance, including all options; and (3) an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (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. (See EPM Tab A-1, Summary of Total Price). For the purpose of evaluating the option to extend services period (i.e., FAR 52.217-8), the Government determined the six-month price by prorating the price proposed for the last year of mission core services (i.e., CLIN 014). The proposed 30-day phase-in services' performance period, established as a separate firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract line-item number within the FFP mission services value, will be performed concurrent with the incumbent contract.

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 evaluation was based on the information provided by the offeror in their Past Performance volume. However, the Government also considered Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) database records, completed past performance questionnaires, and any other relevant information obtained independently by the Government. Any offeror rebuttals, if applicable, regarding adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond was also made part of the evaluation record and included in the evaluation. Information provided to, or obtained by the Government, was utilized to assess the relevant aspects of each offeror's record of performing services or delivering products similar in size, content, and complexity in correlation to the requirements of this acquisition.

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

Summit

For the Mission Suitability factor, the Summit proposal received a total score of 655 (out of a possible 1,000 points) and the two subfactor ratings earned were "Good" (in Technical Approach) and "Good" (in Management and Compensation Approach). In support of these ratings, 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 Technical Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of "Good" and 335 points (out of a possible 500 points) resulting from no significant strengths, five strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The strengths were assessed for (1) the proposed approaches for process improvements which should reduce human error; improve identification and resolution of issues; reduce cost by sharing information, standards, research, and best practices; and allow for streamlined, standard, and faster social media and general media posts; (2) the proposed approach for integration of available technology with the NASA Technology Transfer System (NTTS) to maintain data integrity, mine data and metrics, and create meaningful reports; (3) the proposed approach for development of a marketing and communications plan which should enable strategic efforts that focus resources on technical areas with the greatest need; (4) the proposed approach for leveraging existing tools and resources to create a communications toolbox that will be part of a knowledge management system; and (5) the proposed approach for processing New Technology Reports (NTRs) which leverages available technology to reduce contract costs by avoiding development of tools which already exist.

Under the Management and Compensation Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of "Good" and 320 points (out of a possible 500 points) resulting from no significant strengths, one strength, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The strength was assessed for the proposed approach and tools to accomplish management functions described in PWS 2.0 which should reduce the likelihood of missed deadlines and allow for knowledge sharing across the CATTS contract and the Technology Transfer Program.

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the proposal to have the lowest total proposed price (i.e., $45,751,188) and further determined it to be fair and reasonable.

For the Past Performance factor, the proposal received a rating of "Very High Level of Confidence" resulting from two significant strengths, three strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The two significant strengths were assessed for (1) the exceptional performance of Summit Technologies and Solutions, Inc., when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant NASA Project Management Support Services (PMSS) contract NNC14BA03B, and (2) the exceptional performance of Summit Technologies and Solutions, Inc., when serving as a subcontractor on the highly relevant NASA Consolidated Program Support Services Project Coordination (CPSS PC) subcontract BT-21-004. The three strengths were assessed for (1) the exceptional performance of ARES Corporation when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant NASA Kennedy Space Center Exploration Ground Systems Support (KLXS) III contract 80KSC019C0016, (2) the exceptional performance of ARES Corporation when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant NASA STMD Engineering, System Integration, and Analysis Support Services (ESIASS) contract 47QRAA21D003Z; and (3) the exceptional performance of BryceTech when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant NASA Strategic Analysis, Management, and Program Services (STAMPS) contract 80HQTR19A0001.

EN4S

For the Mission Suitability factor, the EN4S proposal received a total score of 525 (out of a possible 1,000 points) and the two subfactor ratings earned were "Good" (in Technical Approach) and "Fair" (in Management and Compensation Approach). In support of these ratings, the proposal received no significant strengths, seven strengths, two significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of "Good" and 330 points (out of a possible 500 points) resulting from no significant strengths, six strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The strengths were assessed for (1) the proposed approach to technology marketing that leverages commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) market research tools and databases, partnerships with industry and academia, and industry best practices to assess technology commercialization potential and market NASA-developed technologies to appropriate audiences including industry, entrepreneurs, students, and startup companies; (2) the proposed approach for Technology Transfer Program support that leverages a strong understanding of technology transfer commercialization of federally-owned intellectual property as well as innovative and engaging practices that should lead to increased number of new technologies reported; (3) the proposed innovations that could result in more effective analysis of the commercial potential of NASA’s intellectual property, more efficient transfer of NASA’s intellectual property to industry, and encouragement of creativity from contractor staff which should result in process improvements; (4) the proposed approach to technical writing which includes a rigorous development, review, and approval process, creative use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) design tools, and process improvements; (5) the proposed approach for the processing of new technology reports (NTRs) and support of close-out of contracts which demonstrates the offeror’s knowledge of these critical functions and necessity of completing these functions within the timeframes specified in the Performance Work Statement;

and (6) the proposed approach for the release of NASA-developed software and the processing of software usage agreements.

Under the Management and Compensation Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of "Fair" and 195 points (out of a possible 500 points) resulting from no significant strengths, one strength, two significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The strength was assessed for the proposed approach for recruiting CATTS employees that leverages the offeror's affiliations with relevant reputable and recognized organizations to enhance the capabilities of the workforce. The significant weaknesses were assessed for (1) the proposal does not adequately describe the proposed risk assessment for the entire Management and Compensation Approach subfactor as required by MCA-5 of the solicitation; and (2) the proposal does not adequately describe the proposed phase-in/phase-out approach as required by MCA-4 of the solicitation.

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the proposal to have the highest total proposed price and further determined it to be fair and reasonable.

For the Past Performance factor, the proposal received a rating of "High Level of Confidence" resulting from one significant strength, one strength, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The significant strength was assessed for the exceptional performance of N4 Solutions when serving as a subcontractor on the highly relevant National Institutes of Health (NIH) Scientific, Technical, and Other Professional Services (STOPS) II contract HHSN-271- 2018-00012-I. The strength was assessed for the exceptional performance of ENFA Corporation when serving as a subcontractor on the relevant NOAA Operations, Maintenance and Sustainability (OMS) contract 133KP12DNEEB0011-6500-SUB20.

Acuity Edge

For the Mission Suitability factor, the Acuity Edge proposal received a total score of 605 (out of a possible 1,000 points) and the two subfactor ratings earned were "Good" (in Technical Approach) and "Good" (in Management and Compensation Approach). In support of these ratings, the proposal received no significant strengths, four strengths, no significant weaknesses, and one weakness. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of "Good" and 300 points (out of a possible 500 points) resulting from no significant strengths, three strengths, no significant weaknesses, and one weakness. The strengths were assessed for (1) the proposed approach for technology marketing which leverages a strong understanding of marketing early-stage technology to industry; commercial-off-the-shelf tools and databases; staff trained as scientists and engineers to assist in commercial screenings and assessments; and a strong understanding of what is needed to conduct commercialization events and training bootcamps for NASA employees and entrepreneurs; (2) the proposed approach for providing support to the Technology Transfer Program that outlines the development and delivery of technology transfer related training content at any time and to any audience; and (3) the proposed approach for export control review which establishes a standard minimum qualification for the export control professionals operating in this capacity. The weakness was the proposal does not adequately describe the approach for contract close-out activities associated with Performance Work Statement element 4.3 "Processing of New Technology Reports (NTRs) and Contract Closeout Activities" as required by Subfactor 1: Technical Approach (i)(A): New Technology Reports and Contract Close-out, of the solicitation.

Under the Management and Compensation Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of "Good" and 305 points (out of a possible 500 points) resulting from no significant strengths, one strength, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The strength was assessed for the proposed approach for managing a geographically dispersed workforce while maintaining HUBZone status.

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the proposal to have the second lowest total proposed price and further determined it to be fair and reasonable.

For the Past Performance factor, the proposal received a rating of "Very High Level of Confidence" resulting from two significant strengths, one strength, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The significant strengths were assessed for (1) the exceptional performance of Acuity Edge, Inc., when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant NASA Technology Transfer Program: IDIQ Prime Contract for Tech Transfer Support Projects for NASA contract 80MSFC18D0007, and (2) the exceptional performance of Research Triangle Institute when serving as a subcontractor on the very highly relevant NASA Technology Transfer Program: IDIQ Prime Contract for Tech Transfer Support Projects for NASA contract 80MSFC18D0007. The strength was assessed for the very good performance of Research Triangle Institute when serving as the prime contractor on the relevant NASA Earth Science Division Support for Applications in Designated Observables Studies (“ESD – DO Studies”) contract GS00F354CA80LARC20F0059.

IV. 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 total proposed 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 total proposed 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 the three proposals against the three evaluation factors for award and the relative importance of these factors, I select the proposal submitted by Summit Technology

& Solutions, Inc., for award of the CATTS contract. The rationale for my selection decision follows.

Summit vs Acuity Edge

Mission Suitability

In comparing Summit’s proposal to the Acuity Edge proposal under the Mission Suitability factor, I noted that Summit’s proposal had a significant advantage (i.e., 655 points) over the Acuity Edge proposal (i.e., 605 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, Summit’s proposal was assessed six strengths, while Acuity Edge’s proposal was assessed four strengths and one weakness.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, I reviewed the subfactor findings and noted that both proposals demonstrated a reasonably sound response and provided approaches that were beneficial to the CATTS contract.

Summit’s first strength related to the proposed approaches for process improvements to reduce human error; identify and resolve issues; reduce costs; and allow for more efficient social media and general media posts should increase the likelihood of success in delivering the commitments of the CATTS contract. The second strength related to the proposed approach for integration of available technology with NTTS to maintain data integrity, mine data and metrics, and create meaningful reports should increase the likelihood of successful NTTS operational efficiency.

The third strength related to the proposed approach for development of a marketing and communications plan to enable strategic efforts that focus on the greatest need should increase the likelihood of successful technology screening, assessment, and marketing. The fourth strength related to the proposed approach for leveraging existing tools and resources to create a communications toolbox as part of a knowledge management system should increase the likelihood of successfully supporting the T2P and reduced costs by eliminating redundancy.

Finally, the fifth strength related to the proposed approach for processing NTRs which leverages available technology to reduce tool development costs should increase the likelihood of successfully processing NTRs.

Under this same subfactor, the first Acuity Edge strength related to the proposed approach for technology marketing which leverages a strong understanding of marketing technology and tools, staff training to assist in commercial screenings and assessments, and the conduct of commercialization events and training bootcamps should result in effective marketing campaigns and commercialization events which cultivate quality leads and result in additional NASA-developed technologies to be licensed and leveraged by industry. The second strength related to the proposed approach for providing support to the T2P and develop and deliver technology transfer related training content at any time and to any audience should increase the likelihood of success of providing training that will be both beneficial to and desired by T2P staff. Finally, the third strength related to the proposed approach for export control review, and which establishes standard minimum qualifications for export control professionals, should increase the likelihood of success in performing export control reviews to ensure that staff performing export control reviews understand and apply applicable laws and regulations when reviewing documents, reports, images, videos, and other items for public disclosure. The weakness relating to the proposal not adequately describing the approach for contract close-out activities associated with PWS element 4.3 "Processing of New Technology Reports (NTRs) and Contract Closeout Activities" as required by Subfactor 1: Technical Approach (i)(A): New Technology Reports and Contract Close-out, of the solicitation, increases risk that these activities might not be performed in accordance with Government expectations.

In comparing the Summit proposal with the Acuity Edge proposal under the Technical Approach subfactor, I noted that the Summit proposal had a strength centered around NTTS data mining, data integrity, metrics, and operations. The opportunities provided in Summit’s NTTS approach go beyond current operations and should enable better tracking of issues and implementation of new processes, reduce human error in manual data entry, and meet T2P expectations for viewing and understanding program metrics that are mined from NTTS which is the legacy system that provides data driven decisions and which will continue to be used and further developed.

Further, I noted that the Summit proposal had a strength centered around marketing and communications which includes the development and implementation of a communications plan which should enable better use of limited resources on technical areas of greatest need and a communications toolbox to enable knowledge management which should increase the likelihood of successful technology screening, assessment, and marketing. The T2P relies on effective and efficient communication to reinforce the critical importance and value of the program to a variety of stakeholders. While the Acuity Edge proposal offered strengths in technology marketing, providing technology transfer related training content, and conducting export control reviews, I considered the Summit proposal strengths related to NTTS and communications to be of greater importance to the CATTS effort over the life of the contract.

Based on the merits of the findings noted above, I determined that the Summit proposal had a significant advantage over the Acuity Edge proposal under the Technical Approach subfactor.

Under the solicitation’s Management and Total Compensation Approach subfactor, I noted that both proposals demonstrated a reasonably sound response and provided approaches that were beneficial to the CATTS contract.

Summit’s strength related to the proposed approach and tools to accomplish PWS 2.0 management functions to reduce missed deadlines and allow for knowledge sharing across the CATTS contract and the T2P should increase the likelihood of success in accomplishing contract management functions for the contract.

Under this same subfactor, the Acuity Edge strength related to the proposed approach for managing a geographically dispersed workforce while maintaining HUBZone status should increase the likelihood of maintaining HUBZone status while accomplishing all necessary contract requirements.

In comparing the Summit proposal with the Acuity Edge proposal under the Management and Total Compensation Approach subfactor, I noted that Summit’s strength should help to more fully integrate and facilitate the flow of information across the T2P, effectively identify and address emerging technologies and issues, and leverage critical expertise, while the Acuity Edge strength should help to ensure the offeror successfully manages a potentially geographically dispersed workforce. However, I afforded greater weight to the Summit strength as it demonstrated a greater likelihood to increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of CATTS product delivery than that of the Acuity Edge proposal regarding its geographic workforce management approach. I also determined that the SEB’s evaluation of the proposed total compensation plans of both offerors was thorough, well documented, and consistent with the requirements of the solicitation and considered both plans to be realistic. Based on the relative merits of both approaches, I determined the Summit proposal to have a slight advantage over the Acuity Edge proposal under this subfactor.

In comparing the Summit proposal with the Acuity Edge proposal across both equally weighted subfactors, the Summit proposal had a significant advantage over the Acuity Edge proposal under the Technical Approach subfactor and a slight advantage over the Acuity Edge proposal under the Management and Total Compensation Approach Subfactor. Based on this, I determined that the Summit proposal had a significant advantage over the Acuity Edge proposal under the Mission Suitability factor.

Price

In comparing the Summit proposal with the Acuity Edge proposal under the Price factor, the Summit proposal had the lowest total proposed price whereas the Acuity Edge proposal had the second lowest total proposed price. I noted that both proposal's total proposed prices were determined to be fair and reasonable. I therefore determined the Summit proposal had a slight advantage over the Acuity Edge proposal under the Price factor.

Past Performance

In comparing Summit’s proposal to the Acuity Edge proposal under the Past Performance factor, Summit’s proposal received a “Very High Level of Confidence” rating while the Acuity Edge proposal also received a “Very 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 Summit proposal received two significant strengths and three strengths. The significant strengths were assessed for (1) the exceptional performance of Summit Technologies and Solutions, Inc., when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant NASA Project Management Support Services (PMSS) contract NNC14BA03B, and (2) the exceptional performance of Summit Technologies and Solutions, Inc., when serving as a subcontractor on the highly relevant NASA Consolidated Program Support Services Project Coordination (CPSS PC) subcontract BT-21-004. The Summit proposal was also assessed three strengths for (1) the exceptional performance of ARES Corporation when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant NASA Kennedy Space Center Exploration Ground Systems Support (KLXS) III contract 80KSC019C0016, (2) the exceptional performance of ARES Corporation when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant NASA STMD Engineering, System Integration, and Analysis Support Services (ESIASS) contract 47QRAA21D003Z; and (3) the exceptional performance of BryceTech when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant NASA Strategic Analysis, Management, and Program Services (STAMPS) contract

80HQTR19A0001.

The Acuity Edge proposal received two significant strengths and one strength. The significant strengths were assessed for (1) the exceptional performance of Acuity Edge, Inc., when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant NASA Technology Transfer Program: IDIQ Prime Contract for Tech Transfer Support Projects for NASA contract 80MSFC18D0007, and

(2) the exceptional performance of Research Triangle Institute when serving as a subcontractor on the very highly relevant NASA Technology Transfer Program: IDIQ Prime Contract for Tech Transfer Support Projects for NASA contract 80MSFC18D0007. The strength was assessed for the very good performance of Research Triangle Institute when serving as the prime contractor on the relevant NASA Earth Science Division Support for Applications in Designated Observables Studies (“ESD – DO Studies”) contract GS00F354CA80LARC20F0059.

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 the Summit proposal demonstrated relevant coverage across 12 of 13 PWS elements (i.e., PWS 2.0, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.7, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, and 5.0). I also noted that the Acuity Edge proposal demonstrated relevant coverage in 13 of 13 PWS elements (i.e., PWS 2.0, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.7, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, and 5.0). I also noted that both offeror’s demonstrated relevant performance as a prime contractor. I further noted that both Summit and Acuity Edge demonstrated exceptional performance history (i.e., quality of performance) on very highly relevant contracts. The Summit team received two significant strengths and three strengths. Both significant strengths related to exceptional performance of Summit on very highly relevant or highly relevant contracts while the strengths related to the exceptional performance by subcontractors on very highly relevant or highly relevant contracts. The Acuity Edge team received two significant strengths and one strength. The first significant strength related to the exceptional performance of Acuity Edge on a very highly relevant contract. The additional significant strength related to the exceptional performance history of a major subcontractor on a very highly relevant contract. The strength related to the very good performance of a major subcontractor on a relevant contract. I then considered the lack of relevant coverage of a single PWS element (i.e., PWS 4.8) for the Summit proposal and the greater depth of demonstrated relevant experience by the Summit proposal over the Acuity Edge proposal (i.e., two significant strengths and three strengths for Summit and two significant strengths and one strength for Acuity Edge) and determined that the missing PWS element coverage tended to negate the greater demonstrated depth of experience of the Summit proposal.

Therefore, I found no meaningful basis to differentiate the two proposals under the Past Performance factor.

I then proceeded with my best value tradeoff evaluation of the two proposals. The Summit proposal had a significant advantage over the Acuity Edge proposal under the Mission Suitability factor. Additionally, the Summit proposal had a slight advantage over the Acuity Edge proposal under the Price factor. Finally, the Summit and Acuity Edge proposals were considered to be essentially equal under the Past Performance factor. As a result, I determined that the Summit proposal offered an advantage over the Acuity Edge proposal based on the advantages in both the Mission Suitability and Price factors.

I further noted that Acuity Edge’s proposal is ineligible for contract award because its offer expired 60 calendar days from the date for receipt of offers (i.e., September 28, 2023) as indicated in Box 12 of Standard Form (SF) 33 and discussions were not conducted which was the Government’s stated intent as described in FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition, which was included in the solicitation. The comparative assessment of Acuity Edge’s proposal was undertaken for the purpose of providing Acuity Edge meaningful insight on how its proposal compared to the STS proposal in the event discussions were conducted.

Summit vs EN4S

Mission Suitability

In comparing Summit’s proposal to the EN4S proposal under the Mission Suitability factor, I noted that Summit’s proposal had a significant advantage (i.e., 655 points) over the EN4S proposal (i.e., 525 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, Summit’s proposal was assessed six strengths, while the EN4S proposal was assessed seven strengths and two significant weaknesses.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, I reviewed the subfactor findings and noted that both proposals demonstrated a reasonably sound response and provided approaches that were beneficial to the CATTS contract.

Summit’s first strength related to the proposed approaches for process improvements to reduce human error; identify and resolve issues; reduce costs; and allow for more efficient social media and general media posts should increase the likelihood of success in delivering the commitments of the CATTS contract. The second strength related to the proposed approach for integration of available technology with NTTS to maintain data integrity, mine data and metrics, and create meaningful reports should increase the likelihood of successful NTTS operational efficiency.

The third strength related to the proposed approach for development of a marketing and communications plan to enable strategic efforts that focus on the greatest need should increase the likelihood of successful technology screening, assessment, and marketing. The fourth strength related to the proposed approach for leveraging existing tools and resources to create a communications toolbox as part of a knowledge management system should increase the likelihood of successfully supporting the T2P and reduced costs by eliminating redundancy.

Finally, the fifth strength related to the proposed approach for processing NTRs which leverages available technology to reduce tool development costs should increase the likelihood of successfully processing NTRs.

Under this same subfactor, the first EN4S strength related to the proposed approach to technology marketing that leverages COTS market research tools and databases, partnerships with industry and academia, and industry best practices should result in improved product quality that are more useful to the T2P, improve patenting decisions, and lead to better quality leads. The second strength related to the proposed approach for T2P support that leverages a strong understanding of technology transfer commercialization of federally-owned intellectual property and innovative and engaging practices should lead to increased numbers of new technologies reported. The third strength related to proposed innovations should result in more effective analysis of the commercial potential of NASA’s intellectual property, more efficient transfer of NASA’s intellectual property to industry, and encouragement of creativity from contractor staff, resulting in overall process improvements. The fourth strength related to the proposed approach to technical writing which includes a rigorous development, review, and approval process, creative use of COTS design tools, and process improvements should result in better quality and consistent products. The fifth strength related to the proposed approach for processing NTRs and support of close-out of contracts should increase the likelihood of successful handling and processing of new technology reports and timely and accurate contract close-outs to enable timely payments to contractors. The sixth strength relating to the proposed approach for the release of NASA-developed software and the processing of software usage agreements should increase the likelihood of successful release of NASA-developed software to the software repository for subsequent use by United States entities via software usage agreements.

While I noted that the EN4S proposal had one additional strength over the Summit proposal under this factor, I noted that the Summit proposal had a strength centered around NTTS data mining, data integrity, metrics and operations which I considered to be of greater importance to the CATTS effort over the life of the contract. The EN4S proposal did not have a strength for NTTS data mining, data integrity, metrics and operations. The opportunities provided in Summit’s NTTS approach go beyond current operations and should enable better tracking of issues and implementation of new processes, reduce human error in manual data entry, and meet T2P expectations for viewing and understanding program metrics that are mined from NTTS which is the legacy system that provides data driven decisions and will continue to be used and further developed. While both the Summit and EN4S proposals had similar strengths for communications, technology marketing, and process improvements, I felt that the benefits of Summit’s strengths, particularly enhanced by the approach for the maintenance, management, and implementation of NTTS, outweighed the benefits of EN4S’ strengths. Based on the above, I determined that the Summit proposal had a slight advantage over the EN4S proposal under the Technical Approach subfactor.

Under the Management and Compensation Approach subfactor, I reviewed the subfactor findings and noted that the Summit proposal demonstrated a reasonably sound response while the EN4S proposal had no deficiencies with weaknesses outbalancing strengths though both proposals offered an approach that would be beneficial to the CATTS contract.

Under this same subfactor, Summit’s strength related to the proposed approach and tools to accomplish PWS 2.0 management functions to reduce missed deadlines and allow for knowledge sharing across the CATTS contract and the T2P should increase the likelihood of success in accomplishing contract management functions for the contract.

Under this same subfactor, the EN4S strength related to the proposed approach for recruiting CATTS employees that leverages the offeror's affiliations with relevant reputable and recognized organizations to enhance the capabilities of the workforce should increase the likelihood that the offeror will be able to attract suitably qualified personnel to staff the CATTS contract. However, the EN4S proposal was also assigned two significant weaknesses. The first significant weakness related to the proposal not adequately describing the proposed risk assessment for the entire Management and Compensation Approach subfactor as required by MCA-5 of the solicitation.

The second significant weakness related to the proposal not adequately describing the proposed phase-in/phase-out approach as required by MCA-4 of the solicitation.

In comparing the Summit proposal with the EN4S proposal under the Management and Total Compensation Approach subfactor, I noted that Summit’s strength should help to both meet deadline requirements and ensure knowledge sharing across the contract, while the EN4S strength should enhance the offeror’s ability to successfully recruit suitably trained personnel over the life of the contract. However, I was also cognizant of the EN4S proposal’s two significant weaknesses (based on material which was provided on pages which exceeded the established page limitation) which appreciably increased the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. For example, the first significant weakness precluded the Government’s assessment of the offeror’s identification and mitigation of any risks inherent to their proposed approach which appreciably increased the risk of unsuccessful performance under this subfactor.

The second significant weakness precluded the Government’s evaluation of the proposed approach to successfully transition effort from the incumbent to this offeror during the phase-in period which appreciably increased the risk of an unsuccessful transition. I also determined that the SEB’s evaluation of the proposed total compensation plans of both offerors was thorough, well documented, and consistent with the requirements of the solicitation and considered both plans to be realistic. As a result, I determined that the Summit proposal had a significant advantage over the EN4S proposal under the Management and Compensation Approach subfactor.

In comparing the Summit proposal with the EN4S proposal across both equally weighted subfactors, the Summit proposal had a slight advantage over the ENFS proposal under the Technical Approach subfactor, while the Summit proposal had a significant advantage over the EN4S proposal under the Management and Total Compensation Approach Subfactor. Based on this, I determined that the Summit proposal had a significant advantage over the EN4S proposal under the Mission Suitability factor.

Price

In comparing the Summit proposal with the EN4S proposal under the Price factor, the Summit proposal had the lowest total proposed price whereas the EN4S proposal had the highest total proposed price. I noted that both proposal's total proposed prices were determined to be fair and reasonable. I therefore determined the Summit proposal had an advantage over the EN4S proposal under the Price factor.

Past Performance

In comparing Summit’s proposal to the EN4S Edge proposal under the Past Performance factor, Summit’s proposal received a “Very High Level of Confidence” rating while the EN4S 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 Summit proposal received two significant strengths and three strengths. The significant strengths were assessed for (1) the exceptional performance of Summit Technologies and Solutions, Inc., when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant NASA Project Management Support Services (PMSS) contract NNC14BA03B, and (2) the exceptional performance of Summit Technologies and Solutions, Inc., when serving as a subcontractor on the highly relevant NASA Consolidated Program Support Services Project Coordination (CPSS PC) subcontract BT-21-004. The Summit proposal was also assessed three strengths for (1) the exceptional performance of ARES Corporation when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant NASA Kennedy Space Center Exploration Ground Systems Support (KLXS) III contract 80KSC019C0016, (2) the exceptional performance of ARES Corporation when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant NASA STMD Engineering, System Integration, and Analysis Support Services (ESIASS) contract 47QRAA21D003Z; and (3) the exceptional performance of BryceTech when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant NASA Strategic Analysis, Management, and Program Services (STAMPS) contract

80HQTR19A0001.

The EN4S proposal received one significant strength and one strength. The significant strength was assessed for the exceptional performance of N4 Solutions when serving as a subcontractor on the highly relevant National Institutes of Health (NIH) Scientific, Technical, and Other Professional Services (STOPS) II contract HHSN-271-2018-00012-I. The strength was assessed for the exceptional performance of ENFA Corporation when serving as a subcontractor on the relevant NOAA Operations, Maintenance and Sustainability (OMS) contract

133KP12DNEEB0011-6500-SUB20.

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 the Summit proposal demonstrated relevant coverage across 12 of 13 PWS elements (i.e., PWS 2.0, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.7, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, and 5.0). I also noted that the EN4S proposal demonstrated relevant coverage in 11 of 13 PWS elements (i.e., PWS 2.0, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.7, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.9, 4.11, and 5.0). I also noted that while Summit demonstrated relevant performance as a prime contractor, neither EN4S joint venture member provided demonstrated relevant performance as a prime contractor. The Summit team received two significant strengths and three strengths. Both significant strengths related to exceptional performance of Summit on very highly relevant or highly relevant contracts while the strengths related to the exceptional performance by subcontractors on very highly relevant or highly relevant contracts. The EN4S team received one significant strength and one strength. The significant strength related to the exceptional performance of N4 Solutions on a highly relevant contract while the strength related to the exceptional performance of ENFA Corporation as a subcontractor on a relevant contract. I then considered that the EN4S proposal lacked relevant coverage in two PWS areas while the Summit proposal lacked relevant coverage in only one PWS area. As a result, I considered the Summit proposal to have an advantage over the EN4S proposal under the Past Performance factor.

I then proceeded with my best value tradeoff evaluation of the two proposals. The Summit proposal had a significant advantage over the EN4S proposal under the Mission Suitability factor. Additionally, the Summit proposal had an advantage over the EN4S proposal under the Price factor.