(PS60 Rev. 2019-04-25)

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 1

Selection Statement for the Program Planning & Control (PP&C) II Acquisition

RFP 80MSFC25R0011

On July 10, 2026, 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 Program Planning & Control (PP&C) II acquisition. The SEB presented their findings to me for the purpose of making a source selection decision.

I. PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The PP&C II Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on June 12, 2025. The RFP requires the successful offerors to provide the planning, coordination, technical management, execution, and surveillance of the activities necessary to assure disciplined performance of work and timely application of resources for the accomplishment of all requirements specified under the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

The PP&C technical scope of the PWS includes PP&C Integration; Program Analysis;

Earned Value Management (EVM); Cost Estimating and Cost Analysis; Resource Data Storage and Retrieval Analysis Center; Scheduling and Scheduling Analysis; and Risk Integration and Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA); and Programmatic Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). This PWS requires the Contractor to coordinate with Contractor employees, directorates, and offices across the NASA Centers and facilities to coordinate standardization and exercise responsibility for the required activities.

This effort will be performed under a single award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract utilizing cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) task orders. The contract consists of a two-year base period with three one-year option periods, to be exercised at the Government’s discretion.

Two amendments were issued to the RFP to respond to industry questions and to make minor revisions to the original solicitation.

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 15, Contracting by Negotiation, and NASA FAR Supplement 1815, Contracting by Negotiation.

On July 28, 2025, acceptable proposals were received from the following companies:

Abacus Technology Corporation (Abacus) 5404 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1100 Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Aerodyne Industries, LLC (Aerodyne)

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 2

8910 Astronaut Boulevard, Suite 208 Cape Canaveral, FL 32920

ARES Technical Services Corporation (ARES) 8444 Westpark Dr, Suite 800 McLean, VA 22102

BCF Solutions, Inc. (BCF) 14325 Willard Road, Suite 107 Chantilly, VA 20151

MDW Associates (MDW) 1750 Tysons Blvd., Suite 1500 McLean, VA 22102

Reach Space Partners LLC (Reach) 215 Wynn Drive, 4th Floor Huntsville, AL 35806

Tecolote Research, Inc. (Tecolote) 420 S. Fairview Ave., Suite 201 Goleta, CA 93117-3654

II. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The proposals were evaluated in accordance with the RFP, FAR Part 15, and NFS Part 1815. The Government evaluated the proposals in two general steps:

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

Relative to the importance of these factors, the RFP stated that Mission Suitability and Past Performance are considered essentially equal to each other. Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost.

In accordance with the RFP, a best value trade-off 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:

Management Approach 600 points Technical Approach 400 points TOTAL 1,000 points

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 3

Cost: Consistency between the Mission Suitability factor and the Cost factor volumes was considered in determining if the offeror’s proposed costs are reasonable and realistic.

Additionally, failure by an offeror to provide all required Excel Pricing Model data (e.g., IDIQ labor rates for all labor categories for all years of performance, for all Centers, if multiple) would have resulted in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable (see NFS 1815.305-70(a)(3)).

The offeror’s 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). This factor, although not numerically scored, was relevant in determining the offeror’s understanding of the requirements of the solicitation and its resource requirements. The proposed Phase-in services price performance period, established as a separate firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract line-item number (CLIN), will be performed concurrent with the incumbent contract. No probable cost adjustments were made to the proposed FFP CLIN value.

The offeror’s proposed and probable costs for the contract requirements was established as the sum of (1) the Phase-in services price; (2) IDIQ value 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 and fixed fee; (3) a calculated value using the offeror-provided Other Direct Cost Indirect Rates applied to a pre-populated cost estimate for each Center, for the contract period of performance, including all options (See Attachment J-18, Excel Pricing Model, Tab A, Summary of Total Cost); (4) a calculated fixed fee value determined by multiplying the proposed fixed fee percentage to the total cost before fee; and (5) a calculated value for the six-month option to extend services period (i.e., FAR 52.217-8), determined by the Government by prorating the 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).

The evaluation of the proposals is summarized below.

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 4

III. Evaluation of Proposals

Abacus

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the Abacus proposal was assessed a total score of 802 out of a possible 1,000 points. Across the two subfactors, the proposal was assessed no deficiencies, one significant strength, one strength, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, the Abacus proposal was assessed an adjective rating of “Very Good,” and 522 points (out of a possible 600 points) based on the assessment of one significant strength for the proposed offeror's comprehensive approach for recruiting and retaining personnel, including the incumbent workforce.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the Abacus proposal was assessed an adjective rating of “Good” and 280 points (out of a possible 400 points) based on the assessment of one strength for the proposed offeror's robust approach to establishing a common Program, Planning, & Control (PP&C) framework across all centers.

Under the Cost factor, Abacus had the 6th lowest proposed and probable total cost and fee which was determined to be fair and reasonable. No probable cost adjustments were necessary.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Abacus proposal was assessed an adjectival rating of “High Level of Confidence” resulting from one significant strength and two strengths.

The significant strength was assessed for the very good performance of Abacus Technology Corporation serving as a subcontractor on the very highly relevant US Air Force Engineering and Professional Administration Services Advisory and Assistance Services contract GS00Q14OADS742. The strengths were assessed for: (1) the exceptional performance of Logical Innovations, Inc., an Abacus Technology Corporation proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant NASA Business Management Services contract, NNJ16RN22C. The subcontractor’s workshare is 10% of total anticipated work year equivalents (WYEs) which satisfies the threshold of 10% or more of total anticipated FY26 and FY27 WYEs to be designated a major subcontractor; and (2) the exceptional performance of COLSA Corporation, an Abacus Technology Corporation proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the relevant NASA Huntsville Operations Support Center contract NNM17AA12C. The subcontractor’s workshare is 10% of total anticipated WYEs which satisfies the threshold of 10% or more of total anticipated FY26 and FY27 WYEs to be designated a major subcontractor.

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 5

Aerodyne

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the Aerodyne proposal was assessed a total score of 484 out of a possible 1,000 points. Across the two subfactors, the proposal was assessed no deficiencies, no significant strengths, no strengths, one significant weakness, and no weaknesses.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, the Aerodyne proposal was assessed an adjective rating of “Good” and 360 points (out of a possible 600 points) based on the assessment of no strengths or weaknesses.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the Aerodyne proposal was assessed an adjective rating of “Fair” and 124 points (out of a possible 400 points). The proposal was assessed one significant weakness because the proposal does not adequately demonstrate the ability to perform critical and diverse PWS efforts, which require a wide range of expertise across many task orders supporting a variety of programs/projects and institutional customers, across the totality of the NASA enterprise.

Under the Cost factor, Aerodyne had the lowest total probable cost and fee which was determined to be fair and reasonable. Probable cost adjustments were necessary based on understated escalation and labor.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Aerodyne proposal was assessed an adjectival rating of “Moderate Level of Confidence” resulting from one strength which was assessed for the exceptional performance of Aerodyne when serving as a subcontractor on the relevant Engineering Services and Science Capability Augmentation (ESSCA) contract, 80MSFC18C0011.

ARES

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the ARES proposal was assessed a total score of 960 out of a possible 1,000 points. Across the two subfactors, the proposal was assessed no deficiencies, two significant strengths, three strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, the ARES proposal was assessed an adjective rating of “Excellent” and 576 points (out of a possible 600 points). The proposal was assessed one significant strength and two strengths. The significant strength was assessed for the comprehensive approach to attract and retain specialized personnel.

The strengths were assessed for: (1) the proposed integrated teaming and organizational structure; and (2) the organizational strategy for adapting to short and long-term workload fluctuations.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the ARES proposal was assessed an adjective rating of “Excellent” and 384 points (out of a possible 400 points). The proposal was assessed one significant strength and one strength. The significant strength was assessed

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 6 for the proposed approach to effectively and efficiently perform PP&C disciplines. The strength was assessed for the proposed Process Improvement Working Group centralizing standardization framework.

Under the Cost factor, ARES had the 2nd lowest total probable cost and fee of $258.1M to include all option periods, which was determined to be fair and reasonable. Probable cost adjustments were necessary for account for understated labor rates and a subcontractor discount adjustment.

Under the Past Performance factor, the ARES proposal was assessed an adjectival rating of “Very High Level of Confidence” resulting from two significant strengths and two strengths. The significant strengths were assessed for: (1) the exceptional performance of ARES when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant Kennedy Exploration Ground System Program Support Services Contract III, 80KSC019C0016;

and (2) the very good performance of ARES when serving as a subcontractor on the very highly relevant Human Spaceflight Technical Integration Contract, 80JSC020C0017. The strengths were assessed for: (1) the exceptional performance of CGI Federal, an ARES proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant CPSS PP&C contract, 80MSFC21DA007. The subcontractor’s workshare is 11.2% of total anticipated WYEs, which exceeds the threshold of 10% or more of total anticipated FY26 and FY27 WYEs to be designated a major subcontractor; and (2) the very good performance of Astrion, an ARES proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the relevant Project and Engineering Support Services Contract, 80ARC021D0001. The subcontractor’s workshare is 11.8% of total anticipated WYEs, which satisfies the threshold of 10% or more of total anticipated FY26 and FY27 WYEs to be designated a major subcontractor.

BCF

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the BCF proposal was assessed a total score of 382 out of a possible 1,000 points. Across the two subfactors, the proposal was assessed no deficiencies, no significant strengths, no strengths, one significant weakness, and one weakness.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, the BCF proposal was assessed an adjective rating of “Fair” and 234 points (out of a possible 600 points). The proposal was assessed one significant weakness for the proposal’s lack of adequate description of the proposed organizational structure.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the BCF proposal was assessed an adjective rating of “Fair” and 148 points (out of a possible 400 points). The proposal was assessed one weakness which was assessed for the proposal’s lack of adequate description of the approach to perform three PP&C PWS elements.

Under the Cost factor, BCF had the 5th lowest total proposed and probable cost, which was determined to be fair and reasonable. No probable cost adjustments were necessary.

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 7

Under the Past Performance factor, the BCF proposal was assessed an adjectival rating of “High Level of Confidence” resulting from one significant strength and two strengths.

The significant strength was assessed for the exceptional performance of BCF when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant MDA TEAMS HQ Acquisition contract, HQ0147-16-C-0047. The strengths were assessed for: (1) the exceptional performance of BCF when serving as the prime contractor on the relevant MDA TEAMS Next Program Planning and Acquisition contract, HQ0858-24-C-0002; and (2) the exceptional performance of NSI, BCF's proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the relevant Naval Air Systems Command Cost and Schedule Analysis contract, N00421-19-D-0075. The subcontractor’s workshare is 10.89% of total anticipated WYEs which exceeds the threshold of 10% or more of total anticipated FY26 and FY27 WYEs to be designated a major subcontractor.

MDW

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the MDW proposal was assessed a total score of 474 out of a possible 1,000 points. Across the two subfactors, the proposal was assessed no deficiencies, no significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and two weaknesses.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, the MDW proposal was assessed an adjective rating of “Fair” and 234 points (out of a possible 600 points). The proposal was assessed two weaknesses for: (1) the proposal’s lack of adequate description of the proposed organizational structure; and (2) the proposal’s lack of adequate description of the proposed approach to adapt its management strategy and organization to accommodate potential short- and long-term workload fluctuations.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the MDW proposal was assessed an adjective rating of “Good” and 240 points (out of a possible 400 points) based on the assessment of no strengths or weaknesses.

Under the Cost factor, MDW had the 3rd lowest total proposed and probable cost and fee

Under the Past Performance factor, the MDW proposal was assessed an adjectival rating of “Moderate Level of Confidence” resulting from two strengths which were assessed for: (1) the exceptional performance of MDW when serving the prime contractor on the relevant MDA Teams Business Operations contract, HQ014716C0028; and (2) the exceptional performance of X3M, MDW’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as a subcontractor on the highly relevant NASA Program Analysis & Control – V contract, 80GSFC2D0001. The subcontractor’s workshare is 15% of total anticipated WYEs which exceeds the threshold of 10% or more of total anticipated FY26 and FY27 WYEs to be designated a major subcontractor.

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 8

Reach

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the Reach proposal was assessed a total score of 820 out of a possible 1,000 points. Across the two subfactors, the proposal was assessed no deficiencies, one significant strength, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, the Reach proposal was assessed an adjective rating of “Very Good” and 540 points (out of a possible 600 points). The proposal was assessed one significant strength and one strength. The significant strength was assessed for the proposed comprehensive approach for recruiting and retaining personnel, including the incumbent workforce. The strength was assessed for the proposed integrated teaming and organizational structure.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the Reach proposal was assessed an adjective rating of “Good” and 280 points (out of a possible 400 points). The proposal was assessed one strength for the approach to perform PP&C disciplines.

Under the Cost factor, Reach had the 4th lowest total proposed and probable cost and fee

Under the Past Performance factor, the Reach proposal was assessed an adjectival rating of “High Level of Confidence” resulting from two significant strengths which were assessed for: (1) the exceptional performance of Mori Associates, the protege managing partner of the Reach Space Partners Mentor- Protégé Joint Venture, when serving as the prime on the very highly relevant COMIT contract, NNJ16JA52B; and (2) the exceptional performance of ASRC Federal System Solutions, LLC (AFSS), Reach’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant NASA Program Analysis & Control – V contract, 80GSFC2D0001. The subcontractor’s workshare is 26% of total anticipated FY26 and FY27 WYEs, which greatly exceeds the threshold of 10% or more of total anticipated FY26 and FY27 WYEs to be designated a major subcontractor.

Tecolote

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the Tecolote proposal was assessed a total score of 502 out of a possible 1,000 points. Across the two subfactors, the proposal was assessed no deficiencies, no significant strengths, one strength, one significant weakness, and one weakness.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, the Tecolote proposal was assessed an adjective rating of “Good” and 378 points (out of a possible 600 points). The proposal was assessed one strength and one weakness. The strength was assessed for the proposed well-defined management and organizational structure and teaming arrangements. The

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 9 weakness was assessed for the proposed phase-in approach which is not adequately and/or clearly described.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the Tecolote proposal was assessed an adjective rating of “Fair” and 124 points (out of a possible 400 points). The proposal was assessed one significant weakness because the proposal does not adequately demonstrate the ability to perform critical and diverse PWS efforts, which require a wide range of expertise across many task orders supporting a variety of programs/projects and institutional customers, across the totality of the NASA enterprise.

Under the Cost factor, Tecolote had the highest total probable cost and fee which was determined to be fair and reasonable. Probable cost adjustments were necessary due to an error in the productive factor input (downward) and understated labor rates.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Tecolote proposal was assessed an adjectival rating of “Moderate Level of Confidence” resulting from one significant strength and one strength. The significant strength was assessed for the exceptional performance of Tecolote when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant U.S. Space Force Space Systems Command Acquisition and Financial Services (SAFS-3) contract, FA880923DB001. The strength was assessed for the exceptional performance of Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc. (AMA), Tecolote's proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant NASA LARC Technology, Engineering, and Aerospace Mission Support 3 (TEAMS 3) contract, 80LARC17C0003.

The subcontractor’s workshare is 19.5% of total anticipated WYEs, which satisfies the threshold of 10% or more of total anticipated FY26 and FY27 WYEs to be designated a major subcontractor.

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 total proposed and probable cost 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, Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 10 adjectival ratings, point scores, the total proposed and probable cost 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 seven proposals against the three evaluation factors for award and the relative importance of these factors, I selected the proposal submitted by ARES Technical Services, Inc., for award of the CPSS PP&C II contract. The rationale for my selection decision follows.

ARES vs Abacus

Mission Suitability

In comparing the ARES proposal to the Abacus proposal under the Mission Suitability factor, I noted that the ARES proposal had a significant advantage (i.e., 960 points) over the Abacus proposal (i.e., 802 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, the ARES proposal was assessed two significant strengths and three strengths. The Abacus proposal was assessed one significant strength and one strength.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, which was the most heavily weighted subfactor, I reviewed the findings and noted that the ARES proposal was a comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit. The significant strength for the comprehensive approach to attract and retain specialized personnel should improve the likelihood of uninterrupted service delivery and help to safeguard institutional knowledge, thereby significantly enhancing mission continuity and operational success.

The strength for the proposed integrated teaming and organizational structure should result in increased overall operational organizational and managerial efficiency and effectiveness. The strength for the proposed organizational strategy for adapting to short and long-term workload fluctuations should help to ensure the offeror is suitably positioned to optimize resource allocation resulting in uninterrupted mission performance.

Also under the Management Approach subfactor, I reviewed the finding and noted the Abacus proposal demonstrated overall competence. The significant strength for the offeror’s comprehensive approach for recruiting and retaining personnel, including the incumbent workforce, should enhance the likelihood of offeror provision of an experienced, well-motivated, and dependable workforce.

In comparing the ARES proposal with the Abacus proposal under the most heavily weighted Management Approach subfactor, I noted that both proposals had significant strengths for their proposed approaches for recruiting and retaining personnel which

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 11 should provide effective means of ensuring the offerors are suitably positioned to provide experienced, well-motivated, and effective workforces, though I recognized that the particulars of the Abacus approach provided additional elements which I considered to demonstrate slightly more depth to the overall approach. However, I also noted that the ARES proposal had two additional strengths relating to both the proposed organizational and teaming structure and organizational strategy for adapting to short and long-term workload fluctuations. These additional strengths should increase operational efficiency and effectiveness and help to ensure optimized resource allocation and mission performance, which I considered important due to their potential contract management impact over the life of the contract. As a result, I considered the ARES proposal to have an advantage over the Abacus proposal under the most heavily weighted Management Approach subfactor.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, which was the least heavily weighted subfactor, I reviewed the findings and noted that the ARES proposal was a comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit. The significant strength for the approach to effectively and efficiently perform PP&C disciplines should suitably position the offeror to drive and achieve consistent and exceptional outcomes across the Agency programs and projects that will be supported by this contract. Likewise, the strength for the proposed Process Improvement Working Group centralizing standardization framework should provide an effective, well-structured, and iterative process improvement framework throughout the contract workforce to improve overall contract performance.

Also under the Technical Approach subfactor, I noted the Abacus proposal demonstrated a reasonably sound response. The strength for the proposed robust approach for establishing a common PP&C framework across the NASA centers should position the offeror to allow for PP&C process improvements and enhanced standardization across the Agency.

In comparing both proposals under the least heavily weighted Technical Approach subfactor, I noted that both proposals had strengths for their proposed process standardization and improvement framework. However, I also noted that the ARES proposal also had a significant strength for their proposed approach to effectively and efficiently perform PP&C disciplines which I considered critical in demonstrating the offeror’s understanding of key contract activities and their approach to perform them. As a result, I considered the ARES proposal to have a significant advantage over the Abacus proposal under the Technical Approach subfactor.

In comparing the ARES proposal with the Abacus proposal across both subfactors, the ARES proposal had an advantage over the Abacus proposal under the most heavily weighted Management Approach subfactor and a significant advantage over the Abacus proposal under the least heavily weighted Technical Approach subfactor. Based on this, I determined that the ARES proposal had a significant advantage over the Abacus proposal under the Mission Suitability factor.

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 12

Cost

In comparing the ARES proposal with the Abacus proposal under the Cost factor in consideration of all option periods, the ARES proposal had the second lowest total probable cost, which was determined to be fair and reasonable, while the Abacus proposal had the sixth lowest total proposed/probable cost, which was also determined to be fair and reasonable. No probable cost adjustments were necessary for the Abacus proposal while probable cost adjustments were required for the ARES proposal. Based on the above and the relative standing of the probable costs, I determined the ARES proposal to have a significant advantage over the Abacus proposal under the Cost factor.

Past Performance

The ARES proposal was assessed an adjectival rating of “Very High Level of Confidence” resulting from two significant strengths and two strengths. The significant strengths were assessed for: (1) the exceptional performance of ARES as the prime contractor on a very highly relevant contract; and (2) the very good performance of ARES as a subcontractor on a very highly relevant subcontract. The strengths were assessed for: (1) the exceptional performance of CGI Federal as the prime contractor on a very highly relevant contract; and (2) the very good performance of Astrion as a prime contractor on a relevant contract. I noted that the referenced contracts demonstrated relevant performance of ARES as a prime contractor, with relevancy demonstrated across all seven applicable PWS elements across the four relevant contracts.

The Abacus proposal was assessed an adjectival rating of “High Level of Confidence” resulting from one significant strength and two strengths. The significant strength was very good performance of Abacus as a subcontractor on a very highly relevant contract.

The strengths were assessed for: (1) the exceptional performance of Logical Innovations, Inc., as the prime contractor on a highly relevant contract; and (2) the exceptional performance of COLSA Corporation, as the prime contractor on a relevant contract. I noted that the referenced contracts did not demonstrate relevant performance of Abacus as a prime contractor though relevancy was demonstrated across all seven applicable PWS elements across the three relevant contracts.

I also considered whether the performance demonstrated by each offeror in relation to the requirements of the PWS demonstrated relevant performance across the full breadth of the applicable PWS areas. First, I noted that the ARES proposal demonstrated relevant coverage across seven of seven applicable PWS areas (i.e., PWS 3.0, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, and 6.0). I also noted that the Abacus proposal demonstrated relevant coverage across seven of seven applicable PWS areas (i.e., PWS 3.0, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, and 6.0). I also noted that only ARES demonstrated relevant performance as a prime contractor. Upon reviewing the findings, I concurred with the “Very High Level of Confidence” assigned to the ARES proposal (which demonstrated relevant performance across the full breadth of applicable PWS areas) and the “High Level of Confidence” assigned to the Abacus proposal (which also demonstrated relevant performance across the full breadth of applicable PWS areas but lacked relevant

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 13 performance as a prime contractor). Thus, in consideration of the above, I determined the ARES proposal to have an advantage over the Abacus proposal under the Past Performance factor.

I then proceeded with my best value tradeoff evaluation of the two proposals. The ARES proposal had a significant advantage over the Abacus proposal under the Mission Suitability factor. Additionally, the ARES proposal had a significant advantage over the Abacus proposal under the Cost factor. Finally, the ARES proposal had an advantage over the Abacus proposal under the Past Performance factor. As a result, based on the advantages of the ARES proposal over the Abacus proposal in all three factors, I determined the ARES proposal had a significant advantage over the Abacus proposal.

ARES vs Aerodyne

In comparing the ARES proposal to the Aerodyne proposal under the Mission Suitability factor, I noted that the ARES proposal had a significant advantage (i.e., 960 points) over the Aerodyne proposal (i.e., 484 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, the ARES proposal was assessed two significant strengths and three strengths. The Aerodyne proposal was assessed one significant weakness.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, which was the most heavily weighted subfactor, I reviewed the findings and noted that the ARES proposal was a comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit. The significant strength for the comprehensive approach to attract and retain specialized personnel should improve the likelihood of uninterrupted service delivery and help to safeguard institutional knowledge, thereby significantly enhancing mission continuity and operational success.

The strength for the proposed integrated teaming and organizational structure should result in increased overall operational organizational and managerial efficiency and effectiveness. The strength for the proposed organizational strategy for adapting to short and long-term workload fluctuations should help to ensure the offeror is suitably positioned to optimize resource allocation resulting in uninterrupted mission performance.

Also under the Management Approach subfactor, I noted the Aerodyne proposal demonstrated a reasonably sound response and was assessed no strengths or weaknesses.

As a result, I considered the ARES proposal to have a significant advantage over the Aerodyne proposal under the most heavily weighted Management Approach subfactor.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, which was the least heavily weighted subfactor, I reviewed the findings and noted that the ARES proposal was a comprehensive and

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 14 thorough proposal of exceptional merit. The significant strength for the approach to effectively and efficiently perform PP&C disciplines should suitably position the offeror to drive and achieve consistent and exceptional outcomes across the Agency programs and projects that will be supported by this contract. Likewise, the strength for the proposed Process Improvement Working Group centralizing standardization framework should provide an effective, well-structured, and iterative process improvement framework throughout the contract workforce to improve overall contract performance.

Also under the Technical Approach subfactor, I noted the Aerodyne proposal had one or more weaknesses. The significant weakness assessed for the adequately demonstrated ability to perform critical and diverse PWS efforts, which require a wide range of expertise across many task orders supporting a variety of programs/projects and institutional customers, across the totality of the NASA enterprise, could appreciably increase the risk of unsuccessful performance of key PWS activities.

In comparing both proposals under the least heavily weighted Technical Approach subfactor, I noted the ARES significant strength for the approach to perform PP&C disciplines and strength for the proposed Process Improvement Working Group centralizing standardization framework while also noting the Aerodyne significant weakness for the lack of understanding and ability to perform complex PP&C requirements. As a result, I considered the ARES proposal to have a significant advantage over the Aerodyne proposal under the Technical Approach subfactor.

In comparing the ARES proposal with the Aerodyne proposal across both subfactors, the ARES proposal had a significant advantage over the Aerodyne proposal under the most heavily weighted Management Approach subfactor and a significant advantage over the Aerodyne proposal under the least heavily weighted Technical Approach subfactor.

Based on this, I determined that the ARES proposal had a significant advantage over the Aerodyne proposal under the Mission Suitability factor.

Cost

In comparing the ARES proposal with the Aerodyne proposal under the Cost factor in consideration of all option periods, the ARES proposal had the second lowest total probable cost, which was determined to be fair and reasonable, while the Aerodyne proposal had the lowest total proposed/probable cost, which was also determined to be fair and reasonable. Probable cost adjustments were necessary for both offerors. Based on the above and the relative standing of the probable costs, I determined the Aerodyne proposal to have a slight advantage over the ARES proposal under the Cost factor.

Confidence” resulting from two significant strengths and two strengths. The significant strengths were assessed for: (1) the exceptional performance of ARES as the prime contractor on a very highly relevant contract; and (2) the very good performance of

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 15

ARES as a subcontractor on a very highly relevant contract. The strengths were assessed for: (1) the exceptional performance of CGI Federal as the prime contractor on a very highly relevant contract; and (2) the very good performance of Astrion as a prime contractor on a relevant contract. I noted that the referenced contracts demonstrated relevant performance of ARES as a prime contractor, with relevancy demonstrated across all seven applicable PWS elements across the four relevant contracts.

The Aerodyne proposal was assessed an adjectival rating of “Moderate Level of Confidence” resulting from one strength. The strength was assessed for the exceptional performance of Aerodyne as a subcontractor on a relevant contract.

I also considered whether the performance demonstrated by each offeror in relation to the requirements of the PWS demonstrated relevant performance across the full breadth of the applicable PWS areas. First, I noted that the ARES proposal demonstrated relevant coverage across seven of seven applicable PWS areas (i.e., PWS 3.0, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, and 6.0). I also noted that the Aerodyne proposal demonstrated relevant coverage across only three of seven applicable PWS areas (i.e., PWS 4.1.1, 4.1.6, and 6.0). While the ARES proposal demonstrated relevant performance as a prime contractor, I noted that the Aerodyne proposal did not demonstrate relevant performance as a prime contractor. Upon reviewing the findings, I concurred with the “Very High Level of Confidence” assigned to the ARES proposal (which demonstrated relevant performance across the full breadth of applicable PWS areas) and the “Moderate Level of Confidence” assigned to the Aerodyne proposal (which demonstrated relevant performance across only three of seven applicable PWS areas and lacked relevant performance as a prime contractor). Thus, in consideration of the above, I determined the ARES proposal to have a significant advantage over the Aerodyne proposal under the Past Performance factor.

I then determined to ascertain whether the slight advantage of the Aerodyne proposal under the least important Cost factor was worth the minor cost premium associated with the ARES proposal (i.e., whether the significant advantages of the ARES proposal under the Mission Suitability and Past Performance factors were worth the slightly higher total probable cost of the ARES proposal).

a. First, I noted under the Mission Suitability factor that the ARES proposal was assigned two significant strengths and three strengths versus a single significant weakness for the Aerodyne proposal. The significant strengths were assessed for

(1) the comprehensive approach to attract and retain specialized personnel which should improve the likelihood of uninterrupted service delivery and help to safeguard institutional knowledge, thereby significantly enhancing mission continuity and operational success and (2) for the approach to effectively and efficiently perform PP&C disciplines which should suitably position the offeror to drive and achieve consistent and exceptional outcomes across the Agency programs and projects that will be supported by this contract. The strengths were assessed for (1) the offeror’s integrated teaming and organizational structure which should result in increased overall operational organizational and managerial efficiency and effectiveness; (2) the proposed organizational strategy

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 16 for adapting to short- and long-term workload fluctuations which should help to ensure the offeror is suitably positioned to optimize resource allocation resulting in uninterrupted mission performance; and (3) the proposed Process Improvement Working Group centralizing standardization framework which should provide an effective, well-structured, and iterative process improvement framework throughout the contract workforce to improve overall contract performance.

b. Conversely, the Aerodyne proposal was assessed a single significant weakness for the adequately demonstrated ability to perform critical and diverse PWS efforts, which require a wide range of expertise across many task orders supporting a variety of programs/projects and institutional customers, across the totality of the NASA enterprise, and therefore could appreciably increase the risk of unsuccessful performance of key PWS activities.

c. Under the Past Performance factor, I noted the “Very High Level of Confidence” assigned to the ARES proposal based on the assessment of two significant strengths and two strengths. I noted that the referenced contracts demonstrated relevant performance of ARES as a prime contractor, with relevancy demonstrated across all seven applicable PWS elements across the four relevant contracts. Conversely, I noted the “Moderate Level of Confidence” assigned to the Aerodyne proposal for a single strength, lack of demonstrated relevant performance as prime contractor, and coverage for only three of seven applicable PWS elements.

In consideration of the significant advantages of the ARES proposal under the Mission Suitability and Past Performance factors and of the relative importance of all three factors (i.e., Mission Suitability and Past Performance are considered essentially equal to each other. Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost), I considered the significant advantages of the ARES proposal sufficient to warrant the minor cost premium of the ARES proposal.

As a result, based on the significant advantages of the ARES proposal over the Aerodyne proposal under both the Mission Suitability and Past Performance factors, I determined the ARES proposal had a significant advantage over the Aerodyne proposal.

ARES vs BCF

In comparing the ARES proposal to the BCF proposal under the Mission Suitability the BCF proposal (i.e., 382 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, the ARES

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 17 proposal was assessed two significant strengths and three strengths. The BCF proposal was assessed one significant weakness and one weakness.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, which was the most heavily weighted subfactor, I reviewed the findings and noted that the ARES proposal was a comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit. The significant strength for the comprehensive approach to attract and retain specialized personnel should improve the likelihood of uninterrupted service delivery and help to safeguard institutional knowledge, thereby significantly enhancing mission continuity and operational success.

The strength for the proposed integrated teaming and organizational structure should result in increased overall operational organizational and managerial efficiency and effectiveness. The strength for the proposed organizational strategy for adapting to short and long-term workload fluctuations should help to ensure the offeror is suitably positioned to optimize resource allocation resulting in uninterrupted mission performance.

Also under the Management Approach subfactor, I noted the BCF proposal had one or more weaknesses. The significant weakness for the inadequately described organizational structure could impede successful contract management of the multi-center, multi-faceted workforce and task order contract requirements, thereby appreciably increasing the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

In comparing the ARES proposal with the BCF proposal under the most heavily weighted Management Approach subfactor, I noted that ARES proposal had a significant strength for the comprehensive approach to attract and retain specialized personnel, a strength for the offeror’s integrated teaming and organizational structure, and a strength for the offeror’s organizational strategy for adapting to short and long-term workload fluctuations. Conversely, the BCF proposal had a single significant weakness for the inadequately described organizational structure. As a result, I considered the ARES proposal to have a significant advantage over the BCF proposal under the most heavily weighted Management Approach subfactor.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, which was the least heavily weighted subfactor, I reviewed the findings and noted that the ARES proposal was a comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit. The significant strength for the approach to effectively and efficiently perform PP&C disciplines should suitably position the offeror to drive and achieve consistent and exceptional outcomes across the Agency programs and projects that will be supported by this contract. Likewise, the strength for the proposed Process Improvement Working Group centralizing standardization framework should provide an effective, well-structured, and iterative process improvement framework throughout the contract workforce to improve overall contract performance.

Also under the Technical Approach subfactor, I noted the BCF proposal had one or more weaknesses. The weakness was assessed for the inadequately described approach to perform three PP&C PWS elements which increases the risk of unsuccessful performance of these PWS requirements.

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 18

In comparing both proposals under the least heavily weighted Technical Approach subfactor, I noted that the ARES proposal was assessed a significant strength for the approach to effectively and efficiently perform PP&C disciplines and a strength for the proposed Process Improvement Working Group centralizing standardization framework.

Conversely, the BCF proposal was assessed a weakness for the inadequately described approach to perform three PP&C PWS elements. As a result, I considered the ARES proposal to have a significant advantage over the BCF proposal under the Technical Approach subfactor.

In comparing the ARES proposal with the BCF proposal across both subfactors, the ARES proposal had a significant advantage over the BCF proposal under the most heavily weighted Management Approach subfactor and a significant advantage over the BCF proposal under the least heavily weighted Technical Approach subfactor. Based on this, I determined that the ARES proposal had a significant advantage over the BCF proposal under the Mission Suitability factor.

In comparing the ARES proposal with the BCF proposal under the Cost factor in consideration of all option periods, the ARES proposal had the second lowest total probable cost, which was also determined to be fair and reasonable, while the BCF proposal had the fifth…