Source_Selection_Decision_Statement.pdf

Source Selection Statement

Western Regional Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)

RFP: 80AFRC18R0007

On October 10, 2018, I met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals for the Western Regional Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC). Prior to this meeting and in preparation thereof, the SEB provided me with access to all proposals and consensus findings of all offerors. During this meeting, the SEB Chairperson presented the initial findings resulting from the evaluation process. I discussed the relative merits of each proposal with the SEB members, as well as the other attendees, to assure I had a full understanding of the

SEB’s evaluation.

This document summarizes the procurement, the evaluation process, the results of that process, and the basis of my selection of the offerors for award.

Procurement Description

NASA has a need for a Western Regional Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC). The

MACC provides a critical in-place contractual mechanism through a regionalized Multiple

Award, Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract to support general construction, alteration, modification, maintenance and repair, demolition, design-build, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Building Information Modeling (BIM), and new construction of buildings, and facilities at Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC), Ames

Research Center (ARC), and Edwards Air Force Base. Other NASA Centers and Federal Tenants at NASA facilities including Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, CA; Goldstone Deep

Space Communications Complex in Fort Irwin, CA; and Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Simi

Valley, CA may utilize the MACC with AFRC Procurement Officer Approval. The MACC is not a requirements contract and therefore not mandatory. The MACC is intended to provide a highly flexible construction contracting vehicle for participating Centers.

This acquisition was issued as unrestricted and structured in such a manner to allow a possible selection of a sufficient amount (two (2) or more) of Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) contractors; a sufficient amount (two (2) or more) of Historically Underutilized Business Zone

(HUBZone) contractors; a sufficient amount (two (2) or more) of Service Disabled Veteran

Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) contractors; a sufficient amount (two (2) or more) of 8(a) contractors; a sufficient amount (two (2) or more) of small business contractors; and two (2) contractors under the full and open category. The acquisition allowed for the award of up to fourteen (14) MACC contracts.

The solicitation stated this procurement will be conducted utilizing the Price Performance

Tradeoff process. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

RFP: 80AFRC18R0007

Multiple awards will be made as a result of this solicitation. Pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2), if discussions are to be conducted, the competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency.

The Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Procurement History

The Request for Proposal (RFP) 80AFRC18R0007 was issued on May 10, 2018 via the Federal

Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps). Site visits were held at each Center as follows:

Armstrong Flight Research Center, 1:30 PM on May 21, 2018

Ames Research Center, 10:00 AM on May 22, 2018

These site visits included an overview of the structure of the MACC to include an explanation of the selection process. This was followed by a tour of each Center’s seed project.

Over 40 attendees attended each Center’s site visit representing over 28 different prospective firms.

Four contract amendments were issued as follows:

Amendment No 1: Issued May 30, 2018 to post the site visit sign-in sheets and presentation slides.

Amendment No 2: Issued June 05, 2018 to extend the proposal due date to June 28, 2018.

Amendment No 3: Issued June 14, 2018 to update and incorporate clauses, update provisions, incorporate General Wage Determination updates and drawing changes for AFRC seed project, incorporate General Wage Determination updates for ARC, change SF 30 for Amendment 1, change Small Business slides in Amendment 1, extend proposal due date to July 12, 2018, and respond to questions.

Amendment No 4: Issued June 28, 2018 to incorporate General Wage Determination updates and make specification and drawing changes for AFRC seed project, incorporate General Wage

Determination updates and make specification and drawing changes for ARC seed project, update provisions, revise response to a question in Amendment 3, and respond to questions.

On July 12, 2018, the SEB received twenty-two (22) proposals in response to the RFP.

Section M of the solicitation addresses the evaluation process and identifies the evaluation factors for award along with their relative order of importance. An abbreviated statement of the evaluation criteria and the weights are as follows:

Factor 1: Technical Acceptability

Sub Factor 1 – Bonding Capacity (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

• Requirements:

• Small business awards: $10M per project and $30M aggregate

• Unrestricted/ full and open awards: $15M per project and $45M aggregate

Sub Factor 2 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

(Large Business Only)

• Plan will be compared with FAR requirements and Contracting Officer’s assessment of appropriate subcontracting goals for this procurement

Factor 2: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate relevant Past Performance to assess how well recently performed work, relevant to the types of effort and types of requirements in the solicitation, was performed and will use the information received as an indicator of the offeror’s ability to perform under the contract. NASA will utilize the information submitted in response to instructions in Section L, PAST PERFORMANCE

INFORMATION – VOLUME II, including any additional sources of information available to it.

Using performance information submitted by the offeror and performance information independently obtained by the Government, the SEB integrated the recency, relevancy and quality of all efforts evaluated for the offeror. The SEB rating represented an integrated assessment of (1) the offeror’s recent, relevant, and quality of performance;

and (2) the recent, relevant, and quality of performance of any teaming partner(s) or joint venture participant whose efforts will meaningfully influence performance of the contract.

Recent is defined as a contract/task order for work either completed or started within the past three years (from the date this solicitation is issued).

Relevant is comprised of projects of similar Size, Scope, and Complexity.

Size is described as projects exceeding $500,000.00.

Scope includes General Construction Contracts involving aspects of Design Build, LEED, BIM within the Mechanical, Civil, and Electrical Engineering Disciplines.

Complexity involves management of multiple subcontractors in multiple engineering disciplines in a particular contractual effort, as well as involvement in multiple contractual efforts performed concurrently.

Past Performance will only be assessed on recent and relevant projects exceeding $500,000.00. Assessment terms are defined and considered as follows:

Past Performance Relevancy Assessment Terms

Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same size, scope, and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar size, scope, and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the size, scope, and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the size, scope, and complexities this solicitation requires.

Past Performance Quality Assessment Terms

Exceptional: Contractor's performance meets contractual requirements and consistently exceed (or exceeded) many of them. The contractual performance of requirements being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good: Contractor's performance meets contractual requirements and consistently exceed (or exceeded) some of them. The contractual performance of requirements being assessed was accomplished with no more than some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory: Contractor's performance meets (or met) contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the requirements contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal: Contractor's performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the requirements being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. Customer involvement required.

Unsatisfactory: Contractor's performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the requirements contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. Extensive customer oversight and involvement was required.

Neutral: Contractor performance was not observed or not applicable to the current effort being reported against.

Each individual project will not be individually rated; however, the information for each project will be considered and that data will be consolidated into a single level of confidence rating in accordance with the following table:

CONFIDENCE

RATING

DEFINITIONS

Very High Level of

Confidence The offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Level of

Confidence The offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition;

demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Offeror’s past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of

Confidence The offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of

Confidence The offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards. Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Very Low Level of

Confidence The offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas. Performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, adversely affected overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)).

Factor 3: Price

The SEB would evaluate proposed prices based on total of the proposed pricing for all the “Model” task orders attached to the solicitation. The contracting officer would separately determine whether the total prices are fair and reasonable prior to award.

With regard to order of importance, the solicitation provided “Technical acceptability will be assessed on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. Past Performance is significantly more important than Price.”

An abbreviated statement of the methodology used for the proposal evaluation is shown as follows:

Step 1: Review for Responsiveness

The Government will review all proposals to determine if each offeror has submitted a responsive proposal and that all required documentation complies with the solicitation instructions. Review of the System for Award Management (SAM) will be conducted to determine if an offeror has an active exclusion, as well as a review of the offeror’s

Representations and Certifications to determine eligibility for award under each of the six award categories.

Step 2: Categorize and list by lowest price first:

For Evaluation purposes only for the award of the maximum fourteen (14) IDIQ contracts, the proposals will be placed into all categories for which they are eligible for further evaluation. Offerors’ price proposals for the total for all CLINS 0002 through

0003 will then be recorded and sorted based on price, using the total for all CLINS

(lowest priced proposal first and highest priced proposal last).

Step 3: Evaluate Technical Acceptability and Past Performance:

Evaluation and Selection will use the following order: Women-Owned Small Business

(WOSB) category, then moving on to HUBZone, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small

Businesses (SDVOSB), 8(a), Small Business (SB) and concluding with the unrestricted / full and open category.

Evaluation of Technical Acceptability and Past Performance will start with the WOSB category. The lowest-priced proposals will be evaluated for Technical Acceptability and

Past Performance. Any technically unacceptable proposal will be eliminated and their past performance will not be evaluated. All responsive proposals eligible in that category will be listed, by price, from lowest to highest.

If a sufficient amount (two or more) of lowest-priced proposals in the WOSB category are rated Technically Acceptable, and receive a Past Performance rating of Very High

Level of Confidence, the evaluation ceases for the WOSB category. The past performance of all remaining offerors in the WOSB category will not be evaluated.

Once the past performance evaluation for the WOSB category is completed, the evaluation will shift to the HUBZone category. The team will carry over the evaluation results of offerors eligible in subsequent categories. Evaluations will continue until a sufficient amount (two or more) of offerors not previously evaluated in earlier categories receive a “Very High Level of Confidence” rating or until evaluation of all proposals within that category has been completed.

This procedure will continue category-by-category. The team will continue to evaluate performance for each category until a sufficient amount (two or more) of proposals, not previously evaluated, are rated as Technically Acceptable and receive a past performance rating of Very High Level of Confidence, or all proposals in that category have been evaluated, whichever comes first. Once the evaluation within any given category ceases, the past performance of all remaining offerors in that category will not be evaluated.

There is a potential some Past Performance proposals will not be evaluated. Proposals will only be evaluated once. Those evaluation results will be used in any subsequent categories for which the offeror is eligible.

Step 4: Selection Decision for IDIQ Contracts

The evaluation results will be forwarded to the SSA to conduct a price performance trade-off within each category and to make a best value award decision resulting in awards in each of the six (6) categories, for a potential maximum total of fourteen (14) awards which represent the best value for the government. The SSA will use the order stated in Step 3. The SSA may award what is considered a sufficient amount in a specific category or request further evaluation from the SEB before proceeding to the next category identified in Step 3.

Step 5: Process IDIQ Awards

Award a maximum of fourteen (14) IDIQ Contracts based on the Source Selection

Authority’s decision. Offerors can only receive one contract award.

Step 6: Selection for award of the Initial Task Orders (CLINS 0002 through CLIN

0003)

Only offerors selected for one of the fourteen (14) IDIQ awards will be eligible to receive a task order for the various centers’ projects included on the Bid Schedule. If a Center awards its initial task order, it will be to the lowest price offeror from among the fourteen

(14) IDIQ contract holders. Initial task orders will be awarded based on Lowest Price.

Each center will process their own task order award subject to the Availability of Funds.

Award of CLINS 0002 through CLIN 0003 are subject to 52.232-18 Availability of

Funds included within this solicitation.

Source Selection Decision

Up to twelve (12) small business contract awards and two (2) Unrestricted / Full and

Open Contract Awards may be made. The award of multiple IDIQ Contracts will be based on a “Price Performance Tradeoff” process. For those responsive offerors determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs will be made between past performance and price. Therefore, subjective judgment by the government is implicit in the evaluation process. As individual factors, Past Performance is significantly more important than price. However, if an offeror does not have relevant past performance history, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will be given a neutral rating. The Source Selection Authority, exercising prudent business judgment, will make the source selection decisions based on the proposals representing the best value to the Government.

SEB Findings

Step one of the evaluation involved the SEB reviewing all proposals to determine if each offeror submitted a responsive proposal, and whether the proposals complied with the solicitation instructions.

Twenty-one (21) offerors complied with all requirements by submitting all required documents as required (Volumes I, II, and III). Review of the System for Award Management (SAM) was conducted to determine if any active exclusions existed, as well as to review each offeror’s

Representations and Certifications to determine eligibility for award under each of the six award categories.

• One offeror submitted a proposal with no safety and health plan and was rejected as being non responsive.

Step two of the evaluation involved reviewing the certifications submitted by each offeror to identify offerors’ eligibility for the six (6) categories of award. The offerors’ price proposals for

CLINS 0002 through 0003 were recorded and sorted based on price using the total for all

CLINS. Below is the entire listing containing twenty-one (21) offerors that submitted a responsive proposal identifying the category for which each offeror is eligible sorted from lowest priced proposal to the highest price proposal. All offerors were small businesses.

Offeror Number

Name WOSB HZ SDVOSB 8(a) SB

Southwestern Dakotah, Inc.

22 Sayers Construction

11 PS-ACC JV

4 Sea Pac Engineering, Inc.

6 Bilbro Construction

13 Insight Pacific

18 Patriot Construction, Inc.

Sergent Construction

Services

3 Lead Builders, Inc.

Bayview Engineering &

Construction Company

1 Optimum Operations

Herman Construction

Group, Inc.

10 CJW Joint Venture

Ironwood Commercial

Builders, Inc.

20 I.E.-Pacific, Inc.

Anderson Burton

Construction, Inc.

Fed Con-VC Joint

Venture

Heffler Contracting

Group

Anna Lisa Luna

Construction, Inc.

Cutting Edge Concrete

Services, Inc.

15 Tri-Technic, Inc.

Step three of the process involved evaluating Technical Acceptability and Past Performance.

The solicitation required offerors demonstrate sufficient bonding capability. The solicitation also required businesses that were other than small submit an acceptable small business subcontracting plan as part of technical acceptability. No businesses other than small proposed.

Some of the small business offerors had a higher bonding capability that would make them eligible in the unrestricted/full and open category, but it was determined to be most advantageous to the offerors to be evaluated and potentially selected in the five (5) small business categories since the “Rule of Two” applies to the task ordering procedures as explained in the Fair

Opportunity section of the solicitation. It must be proven at least two (2) small businesses are not capable to perform the requirement before soliciting an unrestricted/ full and open procurement. Since all task orders under this MACC will always be awarded to small businesses, because all offerors are small businesses, the maximum fourteen (14) IDIQ awards would then be selected from the small business categories.

The SEB found all the offerors it evaluated technically acceptable. The following SEB findings, therefore, are limited to findings regarding the offerors’ Past Performance.

WOSB Category

Starting with the WOSB category, the lowest-price proposed was evaluated first for Technical

Acceptability and Past Performance. Below is a listing of the offerors in the WOSB category listed from the lowest to the highest by price proposed.

Name WOSB

Te ch n ic al A cc ep ta b ili ty

A

A cc ep ta b le

U

U n ac ce p ta

Past Performance Level of Confidence

VH = Very High H= High Level

M = Moderate Level L = Low Level VL = Very Low

N = Neutral

7 Southwestern Dakotah, Inc. A H

6 Bilbro Construction A M

Ironwood Commercial Builders, Inc.

A

H

20 I.E.-Pacific, Inc. A H

16 Anderson Burton Construction, Inc. A M

2 Anna Lisa Luna Construction, Inc. A H

Cutting Edge Concrete Services, A H

The solicitation states, “If a sufficient amount of lowest-priced proposals in the WOSB category are rated Technically Acceptable, and receive a Past Performance rating of Very High Level of

Confidence, the evaluation ceases for the WOSB category. The past performance of all remaining offerors in the WOSB category will not be evaluated.” Sufficient amount was identified as two (2) or more. The offerors in the WOSB Category were rated as follows:

Southwestern Dakotah, Inc.

Southwestern Dakotah, Inc received a Past Performance rating of High Level of Confidence. The projects were found to be Relevant with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work product exhibited an Exceptional level of quality with respect to the contractual requirements of the projects.

Bilbro Construction

Bilbro Construction received a Past Performance rating of Moderate Level of Confidence. The and the work product exhibited a Satisfactory level of quality with respect to the contractual

Ironwood Commercial Builders, Inc.

Ironwood Commercial Builders, Inc. received a Past Performance rating of High Level of

Confidence. The projects were found to be Relevant with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work product exhibited a Very Good level of quality with respect to the contractual requirements of the projects.

I.E.-Pacific, Inc.

I.E.-Pacific, Inc. received a Past Performance rating of High Level of Confidence. The projects were found to be Very Relevant with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work product exhibited a Very Good level of quality with respect to the contractual

Anderson Burton Construction, Inc.

Anderson Burton Construction, Inc. received a Past Performance rating of Moderate Level of

Confidence. The projects were found to be Very Relevant with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work product exhibited a Satisfactory level of quality with respect to the contractual requirements of the projects.

Anna Lisa Luna Construction, Inc.

Anna Lisa Luna Construction, Inc. received a Past Performance rating of High Level of

Cutting Edge Concrete Services, Inc.

Cutting Edge Concrete Services, Inc. received a Past Performance rating of High Level of

All offerors in the WOSB category were evaluated.

HUBZone Category

Once the past performance evaluation for the WOSB category was completed, the evaluation shifted to the HUBZone category. The team carried over the evaluation results of offerors eligible in subsequent categories. The evaluations continued until a sufficient amount (two (2) or more) of offerors, not previously evaluated in earlier categories, received a “Very High Level of

Confidence” rating or until evaluation of all proposals within that category were evaluated. This procedure continued category-by-category in the order stated in Step 3.

The offerors in the HUBZone Category were rated as follows:

Name HUBZone

Te ch n ic al A cc ep ta b

A cc ep ta

U n ac ce p ta

VH = Very High H= High Level

M = Moderate Level L = Low Level VL = Very Low

N = Neutral

7 Southwestern Dakotah, Inc. A H*

22 Sayers Construction A N

4 Sea Pac Engineering, Inc. A VH

18 Patriot Construction, Inc. A VH

5 Sergent Construction Services A L

10 CJW Joint Venture A H

20 I.E.-Pacific, Inc. A H*

19 Heffler Contracting Group A VH

Cutting Edge Concrete Services, Inc.

A H*

15 Tri-Technic, Inc. A M

* Southwestern Dakotah, Inc. was evaluated in WOSB.

Sayers Construction

Sayers Construction received a Past Performance rating of Neutral Level of Confidence. The and the work product exhibited a Neutral level of quality with respect to the contractual

Sea Pac Engineering, Inc.

Sea Pac Engineering, Inc. received a Past Performance rating of Very High Level of Confidence.

The projects were found to be Very Relevant with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work product exhibited an Exceptional level of quality with respect to the contractual requirements of the projects.

Patriot Construction, Inc.

Patriot Construction, Inc. received a Past Performance rating of Very High Level of Confidence.

The projects were found to be Very Relevant with respect to the requirements identified in the

Sergent Construction Services

Sergent Construction Services received a Past Performance rating of Low level of Confidence.

The projects were found to be Somewhat Relevant with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work product exhibited a Satisfactory level of quality with respect to the

CJW Joint Venture

CJW Joint Venture received a Past Performance rating of High Level of Confidence. The

* I.E. Pacific, Inc. was evaluated in WOSB.

Heffler Contracting Group

Heffler Contracting Group received a Past Performance rating of Very High Level of identified in the solicitation, and the work product exhibited an Exceptional level of quality with

* Cutting Edge Concrete Services, Inc. was evaluated in WOSB.

Tri-Technic

Tri-Technic received a Past Performance rating of Moderate Level of Confidence. The projects were found to be Somewhat Relevant with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work product exhibited a Very Good level of quality with respect to the

All offerors, not previously evaluated, were evaluated in the HUBZone category. The SEB determined it was most beneficial to the Government to evaluate all offerors in the HUBZone category.

The team continued to evaluate performance for each category subsequent to the HUBZone category until a sufficient amount (two (2) or more) of proposals, not previously evaluated, were rated as Technically Acceptable, and received a past performance rating of “Very High Level of

Confidence”, or, all proposals in that category had been evaluated, whichever occurred first.

SDVOSB Category

Name SDVOSB

Te ch n ic al A cc ep ta b

A cc ep ta

U n ac ce p ta

VH = Very High H= High Level

M = Moderate Level L = Low Level VL = Very Low

N = Neutral

18 Patriot Construction, Inc. A

VH*

5 Sergent Construction Services A L*

17 Herman Construction Group, Inc. A

VH

* Patriot Construction, Inc. was evaluated in HUBZone.

* Sergent Construction Services was evaluated in HUBZone.

Herman Construction Group, Inc.

Herman Construction Group, Inc. received a Past Performance rating of Very High Level of identified in the solicitation, and the work product exhibited an Exceptional level of quality with

All offerors, not previously evaluated, were evaluated in the SDVOSB category.

8(a) Category

Name 8(a)

Te ch n ic al A cc ep ta b

A cc ep ta

U n ac ce p ta

VH = Very High H= High Level

M = Moderate Level L = Low Level VL = Very Low

N = Neutral

22 Sayers Construction A N*

11 PS-ACC JV A L

18 Patriot Construction, Inc. A VH*

3 Lead Builders, Inc. A H

1 Optimum Operations A H

17 Herman Construction Group, Inc. A VH*

19 Heffler Contracting Group A VH*

2 Anna Lisa Luna Construction, Inc. A H*

* Sayers was evaluated in HUBZone.

PS-ACC JV

PS-ACC JV received a Past Performance rating of Low Level of Confidence. The projects were found to be Somewhat Relevant with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work product exhibited a Satisfactory level of quality with respect to the contractual

Lead Builders, Inc.

Lead Builders, Inc. received a Past Performance rating of High Level of Confidence. The

Optimum Operations

Optimum Operations received a Past Performance rating of High Level of Confidence. The

* Herman Construction Group, Inc. was evaluated in SDVOSB.

* Heffler Contracting Group was evaluated in HUBZone.

* Anna Lisa Luna Construction, Inc. was evaluated in WOSB.

All offerors, not previously evaluated, were evaluated in the 8(a) category.

SB Category

As stated in the solicitation, the evaluation of Technical Acceptability and Past Performance moved to the SB category. Eighteen (18) offerors’ evaluation results carried over from prior categories to Small Business as follows:

WOSB: Offerors 7, 21, 20, 2, and 8 with a High Level of Confidence and Offerors

6 and 16 with a Moderate Level of Confidence carried over from the WOSB Category.

HUBZone: Offerors 4, 18, and 19 with a Very High Level of Confidence, Offeror 10 with a High Level of Confidence, Offeror 15 with a Moderate Level of Confidence, Offeror 5 with a Low Level of Confidence, and Offeror 22 with a Neutral Level of

Confidence carried over from the HUBZone Category.

SDVOSB: Offeror 17 with a Very High Level of Confidence carried over from the

SDVOSB Category.

8(a): Offerors 3 and 1 with a High Level of Confidence and Offeror 11 with a Low Level of Confidence carried over from the 8(a) Category.

* Southwestern Dakotah, Inc. was evaluated in WOSB.

Number

Name SB

Te ch n ic al A cc ep ta b

A cc ep ta

U n ac ce p ta

VH = Very High H= High Level

M = Moderate Level L = Low Level VL = Very Low

N = Neutral

7 Southwestern Dakotah, Inc. A H*

22 Sayers Construction A N*

11 PS-ACC JV A L*

4 Sea Pac Engineering, Inc. A VH*

6 Bilbro Construction A M*

13 Insight Pacific A VH

18 Patriot Construction, Inc. A VH*

5 Sergent Construction Services A L*

3 Lead Builders, Inc. A H*

Bayview Engineering &

Construction Inc.

A M

1 Optimum Operations A H*

17 Herman Construction Group, Inc. A VH*

10 CJW Joint Venture A H*

Ironwood Commercial Builders, Inc.

A H*

20 I.E.-Pacific, Inc. A H*

16 Anderson Burton Construction, Inc. A M*

9 Fed Con-VC Joint Venture A H

19 Heffler Contracting Group A VH*

2 Anna Lisa Luna Construction, Inc. A H*

Cutting Edge Concrete Services, Inc.

A H*

15 Tri-Technic, Inc. A M*

* Sayers Construction was evaluated in HUBZone.

* PS-ACC JV was evaluated in 8(a).

* Sea Pac Engineering, Inc. was evaluated in HUBZone.

* Bilbro Construction was evaluated in WOSB.

Insight Pacific

Insight Pacific received a Past Performance rating of Very High Level of Confidence. The projects were found to be Very Relevant with respect to the requirements identified in the

* Sergent Construction Services was evaluated in HUBZone.

* Lead Builders, Inc. was evaluated in 8(a).

Bayview Engineering & Construction Inc.

Bayview Engineering & Construction Inc. received a Past Performance rating of Moderate Level of Confidence. The projects were found to be Relevant with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work product exhibited a Satisfactory level of quality with

* Optimum Operations was evaluated in 8(a).

* Herman Construction Group, Inc. was evaluated in SDVOSB.

* CJW Joint Venture was evaluated in HUBZone.

*Ironwood Commercial Builders, Inc. was evaluated in WOSB.

* I.E. Pacific, Inc. was evaluated in WOSB.

* Anderson Burton Construction, Inc. was evaluated in WOSB.

Fed Con-VC Joint Venture

Fed Con-VC Joint Venture received a Past Performance rating of High Level of Confidence. The

* Heffler Contracting Group was evaluated in HUBZone.

* Anna Lisa Luna Construction, Inc. was evaluated in WOSB.

* Cutting Edge Concrete Services, Inc. was evaluated in WOSB.

* Tri-Technic, Inc. was evaluated in HUBZone.

All offerors, not previously evaluated, were evaluated in the SB category.

DECISION

During the presentation, I questioned the SEB on the material presented and carefully considered the detailed findings the SEB presented. I concluded that the evaluation of proposals by the SEB was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. In addition, key Center representatives attended the final presentation and provided me with their insights. These key personnel have responsibility related to this procurement and understood the application of the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP.

I recognized this procurement was a streamlined Price Performance Tradeoff as described in the first section of the Source Selection Statement. The findings the SEB presented involved those offerors that were evaluated and deemed to be technically acceptable. This step of the process required me to make a tradeoff between Price and Past Performance. In determining which proposal offered the best value to NASA, I relied on the order of importance in the RFP, which specified “As individual factors, Past Performance is significantly more important than price.”

Technical Acceptability was assessed on an acceptable or unacceptable basis based on the offerors’ bonding ability to meet the minimum single and aggregate project bonding capacity and an evaluation of a Small Business Subcontracting Plan for large businesses.

Past Performance evaluation was an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform the solicitation requirements.

Using performance information submitted by the offeror, and performance information independently obtained by the Government, the SEB integrated the recency, relevancy and quality of all efforts evaluated for the offeror. The SEB rating represented an integrated assessment of (1) the offeror’s recent, relevant, and quality of performance; and (2) the recent, relevant, and quality of performance of any teaming partner(s) or joint venture participant whose efforts will meaningfully influence performance of the contract. This factor indicated the relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of each offeror’s record of performing projects similar in size, scope and complexity with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation.

There were two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first was to evaluate the relevancy of the offeror’s recently performed work, relevant to the types of effort and types of requirements in the solicitation that met the recency criteria. Relevant performance included performance similar or greater in size, scope and complexity described in the solicitation. The evaluation team reviewed the offeror’s Past Performance and made an overall determination of the relevancy of the recent performance to the requirements of the solicitation, then assigned a

Past Performance Relevancy Rating based on the ratings and definitions found in the solicitation and Factor 2 section of this document.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation was to determine how well the contractor performed on the recently performed work. Past performance information was obtained on relevant, similar recent projects listed by the offeror in Volume II—Past Performance to assist in the determining the quality level of past performance. The Government also used past performance information obtained from the Government wide Past Performance Information

Retrieval System (PPIRS), other agencies, questionnaires or personal knowledge. The evaluation team reviewed the offeror’s quality of past performance and assigned a Quality Assessment

Rating based on the ratings and definitions found in the solicitation and Factor 2 of this document.

Each individual project was not individually rated, however the information for each project was considered and that data was consolidated into a single level of confidence rating in accordance with the table found in the solicitation, Factor 2 of this document, and NFS 1815.305(a)(2).

Pricing evaluation was an assessment of proposed prices based on total of the proposed pricing for all the “Model” task orders attached to the solicitation. The contracting officer will separately determine whether the total prices are fair and reasonable prior to award.

My selection was based on a comparative assessment of each proposal against each of the source selection factors.

Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB) Awards

As the SSA, I select Southwestern Dakotah, Inc., Ironwood Commercial Builders, Inc., and I.E.-

Pacific as the awardees under the WOSB category. My decision is based on an integrated assessment of all three factors and a trade-off between Past Performance and Price to determine which offeror provides the greatest value to the Government. The following details the integrated assessment of the three factors.

Following the prescribed methodology in the RFP, the SEB evaluated all seven proposals that qualified for the WOSB category because the SEB team did not rate any offerors higher than

High Level of Confidence.

Southwestern Dakotah, Inc., Bilbro Construction, Ironwood Commercial Builders, Inc., I.E.-

Pacific, Inc., Anderson Burton Construction, Inc., Anna Lisa Luna Construction, Inc., and

Cutting Edge Concrete Services, Inc. were rated technically acceptable.

Southwestern Dakotah’s total evaluated price of $6,460,000.00 was the lowest priced proposal.

No tradeoff analysis was required in selecting Southwestern Dakotah, Inc. under the WOSB category since it had the lowest price proposal and a “High” Past Performance Confidence rating which is the highest confidence rating in WOSB. The rating is a reflection of the information provided in “Volume II - Past Performance Information” of the offeror’s proposal and is supported by the offeror’s “Very Good” to “Exceptional” ratings in all Contractor Performance

Assessment Report (CPAR) Quality information ratings. The projects were found to be relevant with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation and the work product exhibited an overall exceptional level of quality with respect to the contractual requirements of the projects.

Bilbro’s total evaluated price was lower than Ironwood’s total evaluated price of $9,331,000.00 and notably lower than I.E.-Pacific’s total evaluated price of $10,020,000.00. Ironwood received a “High” Past Performance Confidence rating based on the relevant project information provided in “Volume II - Past Performance Information” of the offeror’s proposal supported by the offeror’s “Very Good” rating in the CPAR Quality information ratings. I.E.-Pacific received a

“High” Past Performance Confidence rating based on the very relevant project information provided in “Volume II - Past Performance Information” of the offeror’s proposal and supported by the offeror’s “Satisfactory” to “Exceptional” ratings in all CPAR Quality information ratings exhibiting an overall very good level of quality with respect to the contractual requirements of the projects. Bilbro’s rating of “Moderate” is based on relevant project information provided in

“Volume II - Past Performance Information” of the offeror’s proposal supported by the offeror’s

“Satisfactory” to “Very Good” ratings in all CPAR Quality information ratings exhibiting an overall satisfactory level of quality with respect to the contractual requirements of the projects. As the SSA, I have determined that the benefits gained from selecting the higher prices and higher confidence levels for Ironwood and I.E.-Pacific outweigh the risk associated with awarding to the lower priced, lower confidence level offeror.

Anderson Burton’s total evaluated price was slightly higher than Ironwood’s total evaluated price of $9,331,000.00 and slightly higher than I.E.-Pacific’s total evaluated price of

$10,020,000.00. Ironwood and I.E.-Pacific received a “High” Past Performance Confidence ratings compared to Anderson Burton’s rating of “Moderate”. Anderson Burton’s rating is a reflection of the very relevant project information provided in “Volume II - Past Performance

Information” of the offeror’s proposal and supported by the offeror’s “Satisfactory” to “Very

Good” ratings in all CPAR Quality information ratings exhibiting an overall satisfactory level of quality with respect to the contractual requirements of the projects. No tradeoff decisions are required.

Anna Lisa Luna Construction and Cutting Edge’s total evaluated prices were higher than

Ironwood’s total evaluated price of $9,331,000.00 and were higher than I.E.-Pacific’s total evaluated price of $10,020,000.00. Ironwood, I.E.-Pacific, Anna Lisa Luna and Cutting Edge all received “High” Past Performance Confidence ratings. Anna Lisa Luna’s rating is a reflection of the relevant project information provided in “Volume II - Past Performance Information” of the offeror’s proposal and supported by the offeror’s “Satisfactory” to “Exceptional” ratings in all

CPAR Quality information ratings exhibiting an overall very good level of quality with respect to the contractual requirements of the projects. Cutting Edge’s rating is a reflection of the relevant project information provided in “Volume II - Past Performance Information” of the offeror’s proposal and supported by the offeror’s “Very Good” to “Exceptional” ratings in all

CPAR Quality information ratings exhibiting an overall very good level of quality with respect to the contractual requirements of the projects. No tradeoff decisions are required.

Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business Awards

The SEB evaluated seven of the ten offerors qualifying for HUBZone. The seven new offerors were Sayers Construction, Sea Pac Engineering, Patriot Construction, Inc., Sergent Construction

Services, CJW Joint Venture, Heffler Contracting Group, and Tri-Technic, Inc. Additionally, the evaluation of this category involved three offerors carried over from the WOSB category:

Southwestern Dakotah, Inc., I.E.-Pacific, Inc. and Cutting Edge Concrete Services, Inc. I could not consider Southwestern Dakotah, Inc. or I.E.-Pacific under this category, because I already selected them for award under WOSB.

As the SSA, I select Sea Pac Engineering and Patriot Construction as the awardees under the

HubZone category. My decision is based on an integrated assessment of all three factors and a trade-off between Past Performance and Price to determine which offeror provides the greatest value to the Government. The following details the integrated assessment of the three factors.

Sayers, Sea Pac, Patriot, Sergent, CJW, Heffler, Cutting Edge, and Tri-Technic were rated technically acceptable.

Sayers’ total evaluated price was slightly lower than Sea Pac’s total evaluated price of

$6,920,704.00 and slightly lower than Patriot’s total evaluated price of $7,305,706.00. Sea Pac and Patriot received “Very High” Past Performance Confidence ratings which were reflected in the very relevant project information provided by both in the “Volume II – Past Performance

Information” of each of their proposals supported by exhibits of exceptional level of quality with respect to the contractual requirements of the projects compared to Sayers’ rating of “Neutral” reflected in the relevant project information provided in the “Volume II – Past Performance

Information” of their proposal which had no sources located to observe quality of any past performance. As the SSA, I have determined that the benefits gained from selecting the higher prices and “Very High” level of confidence for Sea Pac and Patriot outweigh the risk associated with awarding to the lower priced, “Neutral” level of confidence offeror.

Sergent’s total evaluated price was somewhat higher than Sea Pac’s total evaluated price of

$6,920,704.00 and somewhat higher than Patriot’s total evaluated price of $7,305,706.00. Sea

Pac and Patriot received “Very High” Past Performance Confidence ratings compared to

Sergent’s rating of “Low”. Sergent’s rating is a reflection of the somewhat relevant project information provided in “Volume II-Past Performance Information” of the proposal with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation supported by the offeror’s “Satisfactory” to

“Very Good” ratings in all CPAR Quality information ratings exhibiting an overall satisfactory level of quality with respect to the contractual requirements of the projects. No tradeoff decisions are required.

CJW’s total evaluated price was higher than Sea Pac’s total evaluated price of $6,920,704.00 and higher than Patriot’s total evaluated price of $7,305,706.00. Sea Pac and Patriot received “Very

High” Past Performance Confidence ratings compared to CJW’s rating of “High”. CJW’s rating is a reflection of the relevant project information provided in “Volume II - Past Performance

Information” of the offeror’s proposal supported by the offeror’s “Satisfactory” to “Exceptional” ratings in all CPAR Quality information ratings exhibiting an overall very good level of quality with respect to the contractual requirements of the projects . No tradeoff decisions are required.

Heffler’s total evaluated price was notably higher than Sea Pac’s total evaluated price of

$6,920,704.00 and notably higher than Patriot’s total evaluated price of $7,305,706.00. Sea Pac and Patriot received “Very High” Past Performance Confidence ratings. Heffler also received a

“Very High” Past Performance Confidence rating which was reflected in the very relevant project information provided by the offeror in the “Volume II – Past Performance Information” of their proposal supported by exhibits of exceptional level of quality with respect to the contractual requirements of the projects. No tradeoff decisions are required.

Cutting Edge’s total evaluated price was significantly higher than Sea Pac’s total evaluated price of $6,920,704.00 and significantly higher than Patriot’s total evaluated price of $7,305,706.00.

Sea Pac and Patriot received “Very High” Past Performance Confidence ratings compared to

Cutting Edge’s rating of “High”. No tradeoff decisions are required.

Tri-Technic’s total evaluated price was significantly higher than Sea Pac’s total evaluated price of $6,920,704.00 and significantly higher than Patriot’s total evaluated price of $7,305,706.00.

Sea Pac and Patriot received “Very High” Past Performance Confidence ratings compared to Tri-

Technic’s rating of “Moderate”. Tri-Technic’s rating is a reflection of the somewhat relevant project information provided in “Volume II - Past Performance Information” of the offeror’s proposal supported by the offeror’s “Satisfactory” to “Exceptional” ratings in all CPAR Quality information ratings exhibiting an overall very good level of quality with respect to the contractual requirements of the projects. No tradeoff decisions are required.

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Awards

The SEB evaluated one of the three offerors qualifying for SDVOSB. The new offeror was

Herman Construction Group. Additionally, the evaluation of this category involved two offerors carried over from HUBZone category: Patriot Construction, Inc., and Sergent Construction

Services. I could not consider Patriot Construction, Inc. under this category, because I already selected them for award under HUBZone.

As the SSA, I select Herman Construction Group as the awardee under the SDVOSB category.

My decision is based on an integrated assessment of all three factors and a trade-off between Past

Performance and Price to determine which offeror provides the greatest value to the

Government. The following details the integrated assessment of the three factors.

Sergent Construction Services and Herman Construction were rated technically acceptable.

Sergent’s total evaluated price was somewhat lower than Herman’s total evaluated price of

$9,208,300.00. Herman received “Very High” Past Performance Confidence rating which was reflected in the very relevant project information provided in the “Volume II – Past Performance

Information” of the offerors proposal and supported by the offeror’s “Very Good” to

“Exceptional” ratings in all CPAR Quality information ratings exhibiting an overall exceptional level of quality with respect to the contractual requirements of the projects compared to

Sergent’s rating of “Low”. As the SSA, I have determined the benefits gained from selecting the higher price and higher level of confidence…