Source_Selection_Statement.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

For the

Armstrong Flight Research Center Protective Services

This Source Selection Statement documents the Procurement History, Source Evaluation Team (SET) Findings, and Source Selection Decision (SSD) for the Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) Protective Services (APS) requirement. All information contained in this document complies with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) guidance.

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

The APS effort encompasses Protective Services operations and services at the NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center, located on Edwards Air Force Base; Building 703 located in Palmdale, CA; and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) NASA Management Office located in Pasadena, CA, and other locations designated by the Government. Operations and services include:

(1) Security Operations (Security Officers and Security Police Officers, Visitor Control, Protective Services Control Center (PSCC) and PSCC Annex operations, armory, and locksmith services);

(2) Physical Security Specialist;

(3) Personnel Security Specialist;

(4) Information and Industrial Security Specialist;

(5) Emergency Management Assistant;

(6) Alternate Communications Security (COMSEC) Account Manager (ACAM); and

(7) NMO (JPL) Security Specialist.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) “80AFRC18R0017” for the AFRC Protective Services was released on October 12, 2017 with a proposal due date of November 8, 2017. The RFP was issued as a Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) set-aside.

There were two Amendments to the RFP:

1) Amendment No. 1 was released on November 6, 2017, and provided Offerors with the Industry Day charts and attendee list as well as extended the proposal due date to November 21, 2017; and

2) Amendment No. 2 was released on November 9, 2017, and provided Offerors with answers to questions submitted in response to the RFP as well as revisions to the RFP.

These revisions included a revised PWS, added a Key Personnel Qualifications attachment and a Current Labor Skill Mix attachment.

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 with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part with only minor problems with 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; fully responsive to contract requirements;

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;

adequate results; 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 required in one or more areas;

problems in one or more areas which, adversely affect 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)].

Per FAR 15.305(a)(2) and the solicitation, “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”. Offerors who proposed present/past performance on contracts that were assessed as Not Relevant under the relevancy aspect did not receive a quality assessment rating.

Price

The total evaluated price will be determined by adding the evaluated price of the phase-in, base effort and all options to include the “Option to Extend Services”. The T&M CLIN proposed rates will be evaluated in terms of reasonableness for selection purposes and will not be included in the total price.

Initial Evaluation Findings

Each proposal was evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15, NFS 1815 and the evaluation criteria identified in the ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2, Evaluation -- Commercial Items of the solicitation. The initial findings of the Source Evaluation Team were presented to me, the Source Selection Authority (SSA), on March 6, 2018. Based on these findings, I determined that award on initial proposals was not appropriate. The Contracting Officer recommended the establishment of a competitive range of the two most highly rated proposals, and I concurred with that recommendation. The Offerors determined to be within the competitive range included:

Galaxy Protection Management, LLC [Joint Venture between Progressive F.O.R.C.E. Concepts (PFC) and Excalibur] and Golden Services, LLC.

AMTEX Security was not included in the competitive range because it did not have a reasonable chance of being selected for award. The AMTEX Security proposal did not demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the technical complexities required to accomplish the requirements identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS); failed to provide a Total Compensation Plan; and failed to provide resumees for certain key personnel that met the qualification and requirements of the solicitation. Because the Offeror was rated Unacceptable under the Technical Consideration evaluation factor, as stated in the RFP, all technically unacceptable rated proposals were eliminated from further evaluation and were not considered for award.

National Protective Services (NPS) was not included in the competitive range because it did not have a reasonable chance of being selected for award. The NPS proposal did not provide sufficient information to demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements in the PWS; did not provide interchangeability of the Officer force; did not propose a Total Compensation Plan;

and did not propose the appropriate number of Key Personnel or any Key Personnel resumes.

Because the Offeror was rated Unacceptable under the Technical Consideration evaluation factor, as stated in the RFP, all technically unacceptable rated proposals were eliminated from further evaluation and were not considered for award.

Whitehawk Worldwide was not included in the competitive range because it did not have a reasonable chance of being selected for award. The Whitehawk proposal did not provide interchangeability of the Officer force; did not propose a Total Compensation Plan; and did not provide the appropriate Key Personnel resumes for certain required Key Personnel. Because the Offeror was rated Unacceptable under the Technical Consideration evaluation factor, as stated in the RFP, all technically unacceptable rated proposals were eliminated from further evaluation and were not considered for award.

Evaluation of Final Proposal Revisions

Written discussions were held with each Offeror within the competitive range. Offerors were informed of any aspects of their submitted proposal that could alter potential for award. Offerors were instructed to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) incorporating all changes to their proposal resulting from discussions and provide clear traceability from the initial proposal.

Offerors were also instructed to include their most favorable and realistic price proposal. In accordance with FAR 15.307, the established common due date and time for the FPR was no later than March 30, 2018, 4:00 p.m. PT. FPRs from both Offerors within the competitive range were received on time.

The SET evaluated each Offeror’s FPR in accordance with FAR Part 15, NFS 1815 and the evaluation criteria identified in the ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2, Evaluation -- Commercial Items of the solicitation and documented the following findings.

FINDINGS OF FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

Galaxy Protection Management

Galaxy received an overall Technical Considerations rating of Acceptable.

Technical Considerations

The offeror proposed using a software program called "SeeSOR Management Tool “as part of their Quality Management Plan. SeeSOR is a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) web-based quality monitoring and management tool used to manage the day-to-day implementation of the quality management program. SeeSOR is a collaborative platform that assesses our compliance with the performance standards found in the PWS. This application exceeds the PWS requirements and is beneficial to the effort.

The Offeror provided evidence of having a comprehensive understanding of the technical approach required to effectively perform the work stipulated within the PWS.

The proposed Safety and Health Plan provided meets the requirements in the PWS. The offeror proposed using a software "winteam" to assist in managing and documenting the reportable safety incidents and managing the PWS requirements as a whole.

Offeror's Phase-in Plan is detailed and thorough, ensuring mission continuity.

Offeror demonstrates how they will fulfill the uniform requirement for each security officer in accordance with Attachment 02.

Offeror proposed appropriate Key Personnel Résumés.

Offeror proposed information such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional personnel, meeting the requirement set forth in FAR 52.222-46, “Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees”.

Offeror proposed information that met the criteria for salaries and fringe benefits set forth in

FAR 52.222-46.

The Offeror’s overall proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation and the PWS and is determined to be technically acceptable.

Past Performance

Relevancy Assessment

One of the Galaxy Protection Management Joint Venture’s firms provided two current or past contracts whose efforts involved some of the size, content, and complexities this solicitation requires.

The other Joint Venture firm provided one current or past contract effort that involved essentially the same size, content, and complexities; however, the firm provided two contracts where the effort involved was little or none of the size, content, and complexities, and neither were evaluated for Quality.

An overall assessment of the Galaxy Protection Management past performance relevancy has determined that previous efforts involved similar size, content, and complexities, and is therefore rated as “Relevant” to this requirement.

Quality Assessment

Both firms involved in the Galaxy Protection Management Joint Venture exhibited performance on previous contracts considered “Exceptional” based on a review of the submitted past performance questionnaires.

There were no PPIRS reports retrieved for either Galaxy Protection Management JV or Progressive F.O.R.C.E. Concepts, LLC; one report was retrieved for Excalibur, receiving a rating of “Exceptional”. Two contracts were deemed NOT RELEVANT and therefore were not given a Quality rating.

An overall assessment of the Galaxy Protection Management past performance quality was rated as “Exceptional”.

Confidence Assessment

Galaxy received a High Level of Confidence past performance confidence rating. This rating was based on a Quality Assessment Rating of Exceptional performance history and Past Performance Relevancy Rating of Relevant past performance.

Price

Galaxy Protection Management’s adjusted evaluated price and its T&M rates was determined to be reasonable in comparison to the FPRs received from the Offerors within the competitive range.

Golden Services, LLC

Golden received an overall Technical Considerations rating of Acceptable.

Technical Considerations

Offeror has proposed redundancy recruiting and corporate level reach-back capabilities to ensure a fully qualified staff occupied.

The Offeror proposed Total Compensation Plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits for the professional employees who will work under the contract that meets the requirements of FAR 52.222-46.

The Offeror's Phase-in Plan is very detailed and comprehensive.

Offeror demonstrated and provided a detailed uniform plan that exceeds the requirements of the

PWS.

Offeror proposed appropriate Key Personnel Résumés.

Offeror successfully proposed a seamless interchangeability of employees.

The Offeror’s overall proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation and the PWS and is determined to be technically acceptable.

Past Performance

Relevancy Assessment

Golden Services, LLC provided current or past contract effort that involved a mix of ratings from “Relevant” to “Very Relevant” in size, content, and complexities this solicitation requires.

The Prime contractor provided one current or past contract effort that involved similar size, content and complexities.

The subcontractor’s firm provided one current or past contract effort that involved essentially the same size, content, and complexities, two current or past contracts involving similar size, content and complexities; however, they provided one contract where the effort involved was little or none of the size, content, and complexities and was NOT evaluated for Quality.

An overall assessment of the Offeror's past performance relevancy determined that the effort involved similar size, content, and complexities, and is therefore rated as “Relevant” to this requirement.

Quality Assessment

The Offeror’s performance on previous contracts is a mix of ratings from “Very Good” to “Exceptional” based on a review of the submitted past performance questionnaires and the PPIRS database.

The Prime contractor received “Exceptional” ratings on both the PPIRS report and the submitted questionnaire for one contract.

The Offeror’s subcontractor received a rating of “Very Good” on the three reviewed contracts and questionnaires. Additionally, one contract was deemed NOT RELEVANT and was therefore not given a Quality rating.

An overall assessment of the Golden Services LLC past performance quality was rated as “Very Good”.

Confidence Assessment

Golden received a High Level of Confidence past performance confidence rating. This rating was based on a Quality Assessment Rating of Very Good performance history and Past Performance Relevancy Rating of Relevant past performance.

Price

Golden’s adjusted evaluated price and its T&M rates were determined to be reasonable in comparison to the FPRs received from the Offerors within the competitive range.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

The SET evaluated each proposal using the following factors as defined in the solicitation

1. Technical Considerations

2. Past Performance

3. Price

All evaluation criteria other than Cost or Price when combined are significantly more important than Cost or Price.

The SET evaluated the FPRs and presented their finding to me, as the SSA, on April 25, 2018.

Following the SET presentation, each SET voting member confirmed that the process was consensus-based, that there were no dissenting opinion and that, indeed each member concurred with the findings contained in the briefing. All members acknowledged full consensus. I thanked them for their respective time commitment and complimented them for their thorough, detailed assessment of the proposals. The findings presented support the Technical Considerations and Past Performance confidence ratings, and I accepted them in their entirety.

Galaxy received an Acceptable technical consideration rating. The Offeror’s proposed approach and existing capability met or exceed the various requirements identified within the PWS and the solicitation. Galaxy’s current and past contracts were considered overall Relevant and their quality of past performance was rated Exceptional based on a review of the questionnaires received and the PPIRS reports.

Golden received an Acceptable technical consideration rating. The Offeror’s proposed approach and existing capability met or exceeded the various requirements identified within the PWS and the solicitation. Golden’s current and past contracts were considered overall Relevant and their quality of past performance was rated Very Good based on a review of the questionnaires received and the PPIRS reports.

Galaxy and Golden both received a High Level of Confidence rating for past performance.

Comparative Assessment of Proposal