Source Selection Statement - IMOR SAM Upload.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

John H. Glenn Research Center Lewis Field Cleveland, OH 44135-3191

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

INSTITUTIONAL MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS AND REPAIR (IMOR)

Solicitation 80GRC021R0023

Procurement History/Description NASA requires continued test and operations support at the John H. Glenn Research Center (GRC) Lewis Field (LF) and Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility (GRC-ATF) campuses. Specifically, the Institutional Maintenance Operations and Repair (IMOR) contract will provide all labor, supervision, tools, materials, equipment, transportation, and management necessary for the operation, maintenance and repairs of Institutional Systems and Central Process Systems (CPS).

This includes operations, maintenance and repair of CPS equipment, high voltage electrical substations, cryogenic systems, institutional buildings, systems, structures, grounds, and paved surfaces at the NASA GRC, Lewis Field Campus and selected services at Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility. It also includes certification services for all pressurized vessels & systems at LF and Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility campuses.

IMOR is a Hybrid Firm Fixed Price and Cost-Plus Fixed Fee contract with a combination of Base work plus indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) work. To accomplish this requirement, the Government intends to award one contract. The full Period of Performance (POP) will be 5 years from contract effective date, tentatively from Oct 1, 2023, through Sep 30, 2028, consisting of a two (2) year POP with three (3) one (1) – year options. This acquisition is a follow-on consolidation to the current Facilities Operations Repair & Maintenance 2 (FORM 2) and Central Process Systems Recertification Operations & Maintenance (CROM) contracts.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and small business size standard are 561210 – Facilities Support Services, $41,500,000, respectively. This procurement was issued as a total small business set-aside.

The Government developed an Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) prior to the release of the IMOR Request for Proposals (RFP), which the Government updated prior to requesting Final Proposal Revisions, as discussed below.

A Sources Sought Synopsis (SSS) was issued on May 01, 2020, to solicit comments from industry to support the Government’s market research in identifying potentially qualified interested parties through sam.gov. On September 16, 2021, NASA posted the IMOR Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP). Industry Day Charts were added to the DRFP posting on October 08, 2021; an Interested Parties List was added to the DRFP posting on October 27, 2021; Reponses to industry’s DRFP questions were posted on November 03, 2021. On October 07, 2021 NASA GRC held a virtual industry day. The purpose of industry day was to provide an overview of the GRC Campus, the current GRC maintenance contracts, GRC’s Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Organizational Structure and provide an overview of the IMOR RFP.

On December 29, 2021, NASA released the IMOR RFP and associated documents. The RFP responses were due on January 10, 2022, at 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). Amendment 001 was issued on January 26, 2022; no change was made to the due date/time. Responses to industry RFP questions were posted on January 26, 2022, as part of the Amendment 001 posting.

Four (4) proposals were timely received by 4:30 PM EDT January 10, 2022.

Proposals were submitted by the following Offerors and all four were determined to be initially acceptable (listed in alphabetical order):

- Akima Intra-Data LLC (Akima)

- Chugach Solutions Enterprises (Chugach)

- Mainthia Technologies, Inc. (MTI)

- Yang Enterprises, LLC (Yang)

Evaluation Criteria/Procedures The proposals were evaluated by a Source Evaluation Board (SEB) in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, “Source Selection,” NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3, “Source Selection,” and the evaluation criteria included in the RFP.

The RFP provided that the Government may award a contract based on initial offers received without discussions. The RFP also notified offerors that discussions would be held if award on the basis of initial offers was determined not to be in the Government’s best interest. Additionally, the RFP stated that award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation and provides the best value to the Government.

The RFP evaluation criteria consisted of the following factors: Mission Suitability, Cost and Price, and Relevant Experience and Past Performance.

Mission Suitability and Relevant Experience & Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost and Price.

As individual factors, the Mission Suitability factor is more important than the Cost and Price factor, which is more important than the Relevant Experience and Past Performance factor.

In accordance with the RFP, each proposal received a Mission Suitability score based on the following subfactors and associated numerical weights:

- Mission Suitability Subfactor A, Management Approach (400 points).

MA1: Organizational Structure MA2: Business Management and Work Control MA3: Key Personnel & Staffing MA4: Quality Control Plan

MA5: Phase-In Plan MA6: Union Negotiations MA7: Safety, Health, Environmental & Sustainability MA8: Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)

- Mission Suitability Subfactor B, Technical Capability (300 points).

TEC1: Central Process Systems (CPS) TEC2: Pressure Vessel Systems (PVS) TEC3: Cryogenic Systems TEC4: Institutional Systems

- Mission Suitability Subfactor C, Understanding the Requirements (300 points).

UTR1: IDIQ Service Request Sample Task UTR2: Recertification Sample Task UTR3: Integration Sample Task

In accordance with the RFP, the Cost and Price evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR

15.4 (price analysis) and FAR 15.305(a)(1), FAR 15.404-1, NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3)(B), and NFS 1815.404 (cost analysis). The Cost and Price evaluation was not numerically scored and did not receive an adjectival rating. A cost realism analysis was performed, and the proposed costs were adjusted for each offeror, as needed, to establish a probable cost to the Government. A price analysis was also performed.

In accordance with the RFP, the Relevant Experience and Past Performance factor was not numerically scored but was evaluated using the Level of Confidence ratings as outlined in the RFP and NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A). The Government evaluated three (3) areas of relevant experience and past performance of the Offeror and any Major Subcontractors/Teaming Partners:

Past Performance Narrative (PPN) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) Past Performance Databases (PPD)

Each area above was evaluated for relevancy and performance. Only contracts the Government considered relevant, as compared with the overall requirements of the RFP, were considered.

The results of the PPN, PPQ, and PPD evaluations were combined into an overall, single, Level of Confidence rating.

Evaluation Process

Mission Suitability was evaluated by each member of the SEB (voting members and technical non-voting team members) independently. Non-voting members provided their evaluations and comments to the SEB voting members for review and consideration. The voting members then met to establish and document consensus findings, adjectival ratings, and scoring for each proposal.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance was evaluated by the SEB with the assistance of a Past Performance subteam. The Past Performance subteam assembled and evaluated past performance information in the three areas listed above. The subteam reported its findings to the SEB voting members for review and consideration. As stated in the RFP, a consensus Level of Confidence rating was then assigned by the SEB voting members to each offeror.

Cost and Price was evaluated by the SEB with the assistance of a Cost/Price analyst. The proposal costs and prices were reviewed for compliance with the RFP instructions, consistency with the proposed technical approach, mathematical errors, and overall cost and price reasonableness. A cost-realism analysis was performed to establish the probable cost for each proposal.

COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION AND DISCUSSIONS

As noted above, the RFP notified offerors that discussions would be held if award on the basis of initial offers was determined not to be in the Government’s best interest. The RFP further stated that, if discussions were conducted, the Government would seek Final Proposal Revisions from offerors within the competitive range.

On September 1, 2022, a briefing was made to me in my capacity as the Source Selection Authority (SSA). In addition to myself, the briefing was attended by SEB voting members, SEB nonvoting members, and SEB Ex Officio members. During the briefing, the overall evaluation process and results were presented and discussed. A summary of the evaluation results is set forth below:

Offeror Name Mission Suitability

Proposed Cost

Probable Cost

Level of Confidence Rating

MTI 465 2nd lowest 2nd lowest Moderate Yang 155 3rd lowest 3rd lowest Neutral Chugach 494 lowest lowest High Akima 186 4th lowest 4th lowest Neutral

At the conclusion of the briefing, I determined that award on the basis of initial proposals was not in the Government’s best interest and concurred with the Contracting Officer’s determination that the proposals of MTI and Chugach comprised the competitive range of most highly rated proposals. The Contracting Officer notified all offerors of these determinations on November 8, 2022.

understanding of the RFP requirements. In MA8, the proposal received a Strength for including a comprehensive approach, demonstrating strong understanding of the RCM requirements of the

SOW.

In the Technical Capability Subfactor, the proposal was rated “Very Good.” The proposal contained 1 significant strength, 2 strengths, and 1 meets:

TEC1: Central Process Systems Significant Strength

TEC2: Pressure Vessel Systems Strength

TEC3: Cryogenic Systems Meets

TEC4: Institutional Systems Strength

In TEC1, the proposal received a Significant Strength for including a comprehensive and thorough response to the requirements of the SOW and the RFP in all areas of CPS, demonstrating a very strong overall technical understanding of the contract requirements as they pertain to CPS. In TEC2, the proposal received a Strength for including a complete and thorough response to the requirements of the SOW and RFP in the areas of NASA policy requirements, certification process, fit for service methods and codes and standards, demonstrating a strong understanding in these areas. In TEC4, the proposal received a Strength for including a detailed and thorough response to the requirements of the RFP for TEC4, demonstrating a strong overall technical understanding of the contract requirements as it pertains to Institutional Systems, and proposing the utilization of several unique technology, training and collaboration tools to increase contract safety, improve performance and reduce risk.

In the Understanding the Requirements – Sample Tasks Subfactor, the proposal was rated “Very Good.” The proposal contained 1 significant strength and 2 strengths:

UTR1: IDIQ Service Request Sample Task Strength

UTR2: Recertification Sample Task Significant Strength UTR3: Integration Sample Task Strength

In UTR1, the proposal received a Strength for including a detailed response to the requirements of the SOW and the RFP in the areas of design support, safety requirements, RCM innovations and project implementation, demonstrating a thorough level of understanding in these areas. In UTR2, the proposal received a Significant Strength for including a comprehensive and detailed response to the Recertification Sample task, demonstrating a very strong overall understanding of the SOW and RFP requirements. In UTR3, the proposal received a Strength for including a detailed approach with good understanding of the SOW requirements for the Integration Sample Task.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor was rated: “High Level of Confidence.”

The MTI team submitted 3 contracts for consideration. All of the contracts evaluated by the Government were deemed relevant. The contracts deemed relevant were determined to be mostly of Annual Work Plan (AWP) and RCM approach and including a plan to incorporate the CPS assets.

In the Technical Capability Subfactor, the proposal was rated “Good.” The proposal contained 4 meets:

TEC1: Central Process Systems Meets

TEC2: Pressure Vessel Systems Meets

TEC3: Cryogenic Systems Meets

TEC4: Institutional Systems Meets

In the Understanding the Requirements – Sample Tasks Subfactor, the proposal was rated “Good.” The proposal contained 2 meets and 1 weakness:

UTR1: IDIQ Service Request Sample Task Meets

UTR2: Recertification Sample Task Weakness

UTR3: Integration Sample Task Meets

In UTR2, the proposal received a Weakness for lacking reasonableness and understanding of the requirements pertaining to the recertification sample task.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor was rated: “High Level of Confidence.”

The Chugach team submitted 5 contracts for consideration. 1 of the contracts evaluated by the Government was deemed not relevant. The remaining contracts were deemed relevant and were determined to be mostly highly pertinent to IMOR contract requirements. The performance of the relevant contracts was then evaluated and found to be mostly either Very Good or Exceptional.

Cost/Price Factor

Chugach’s total proposed cost and price was the lowest of the offerors within the competitive range and significantly lower than the IGCE. A probable cost analysis was conducted and no probable cost adjustments were made. As evaluated, Chugach’s total probable cost and price was the lowest of the offerors within the competitive range and significantly lower than the

IGCE.

Selection Briefing - Final

A Source Selection Briefing was made to me in my capacity as the Source Selection Authority (SSA) on March 6, 2023, detailing the results of the SEB findings. Prior to the briefing I was provided a full set of findings for both offerors for review. Attendance at the briefing included the SSA, SEB voting members, SEB nonvoting members, and SEB Ex-Officio members. During the meeting, the overall evaluation process and findings on Mission Suitability, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, and Cost/Price were presented and discussed. At the conclusion of this meeting, I informed the attendees of my decision and my rationale for selection.

Selection Decision

I am in agreement with the information presented by the SEB and take no exception to the actions or findings of the SEB. Prior to the March 6, 2023 briefing, I was provided and reviewed a full set of findings for each of the offerors. During the March 6, 2023 briefing, the SEB members responded to my questions and questions of others attending the briefing. It is my assessment that the SEB conducted their evaluation, and created their resultant findings, adjectival ratings, and numerical scores in accordance with the procedures and evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. I have independently reviewed this evaluation and conclude that each finding, rating, and numerical score has a rational basis, is well documented, and provides sufficient information regarding the qualitative merits and drawbacks of each offeror’s proposal to support my selection. Accordingly, I fully concur with the SEB’s evaluation as documented in the briefing charts as the basis for my selection.

In making this selection, I follow the criteria set forth in the RFP, which provides that award is to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation and provides the best value to the Government. As stated in the RFP, the evaluation factors are Mission Suitability, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, and Cost and Price. Mission Suitability is more important than Cost and Price, which is more important than Relevant Experience and Past Performance. Mission Suitability and Relevant Experience and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost and Price. In applying these criteria, I am not simply tabulating the number of strengths or weaknesses, adjectival ratings, or numerical scores each offeror received, but am qualitatively assessing the substance of the proposals to identify discriminators for determining which proposal presents the best value to the Government.

Mission Suitability

In the Mission Suitability Factor, MTI’s proposal presents a distinct advantage over Chugach’s proposal. I am impressed by Chugach’s proposal, which was rated Good in each of the three Mission Suitability subfactors, and presents multiple strengths in the Management Approach subfactor. At the same time, however, MTI’s proposal, which was also rated Good in the Management Approach subfactor, while being rated Very Good in the other two subfactors, presents multiple strengths in each of the three subfactors, without any weaknesses. In the Mission Suitability Factor, MTI’s proposal stands out and presents a distinct advantage over Chugach’s proposal.

With respect to the Management Approach subfactor, both Chugach’s and MTI’s proposals are relatively strong. In the MA2, MA3, MA4, MA5, and MA8 areas, each offeror provided detailed responses to the RFP, demonstrating strong understanding of requirements in those areas.

Chugach also provided a detailed response to area MA7, demonstrating a strong understanding of safety and health requirements. I note that, in MA1, Chugach’s proposal received a Weakness, for lacking a detailed response to the requirements of the SOW and the RFP, demonstrating a lack of understanding regarding overall contract structure and the required skill necessary to support contract requirements, which presents some risk, but is largely outweighed by the proposal’s strong responses in six of the other eight areas. MTI’s proposal did not receive a weakness in any area of this subfactor, which is impressive. Overall, both Chugach’s and MTI’s proposals are relatively strong with respect to the Management Approach subfactor.

In the Technical Capability Subfactor, where MTI’s proposal was rated Very Good and Chugach’s proposal was rated Good, MTI’s proposal stands out. Neither proposal received a single weakness in this subfactor, which is impressive. I am also impressed that MTI’s proposal received a Significant Strength and two Strengths, respectively, in three of the four elements of this subfactor. By demonstrating a very strong and strong technical understanding, respectively, of these areas of the Government’s requirements, MTI’s proposal offers outstanding technical value. Albeit in ways that did not meet the criteria for assigning either strengths or weaknesses, Chugach’s proposal nonetheless met the requirements of the RFP in all areas of this subfactor, which itself presents value. With its very strong response to the Central Process Systems requirements, along with its strong responses to the Pressure Vessel Systems and Institutional Systems requirements, however, MTI’s proposal stands out.

MTI’s proposal also stands out in the Understanding the Requirements – Sample Tasks Subfactor, where, again, MTI’s proposal was rated Very Good and Chugach’s proposal was rated Good. MTI’s responses to the three sample tasks received a Significant Strength and two Strengths, respectively, without a single weakness. Again, MTI’s proposal provides outstanding technical value by affirmatively demonstrating strong understanding of the Government’s requirements. Chugach’s proposal received a Weakness for its response to the Recertification Sample Task, which presents some risk with respect to the offeror’s understanding of the requirements in this area. Chugach’s proposal met the RFP’s requirements for the other two sample tasks, which presents some value, but it does not rise to the level of MTI’s proposal, whose response to this subfactor is outstanding.

Overall, in the Mission Suitability Factor, MTI’s proposal stands out and presents a distinct advantage over Chugach’s proposal. Chugach’s proposal, which was rated Good in each of the three Mission Suitability subfactors, presents multiple strengths in the Management Approach subfactor, and received only two weaknesses overall, is quite impressive. The thorough understanding that MTI’s proposal demonstrates across all three evaluation subfactors, however, presents outstanding value. In the Mission Suitability Factor, MTI’s proposal stands out and presents a distinct advantage over Chugach’s proposal.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance

Both Chugach’s and MTI’s proposals are relatively strong in the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor, where each merits a High Level of Confidence. Each offeror appears to have a similar amount of relevant experience, with the SEB finding three of MTI’s referenced contracts relevant, four of Chugach’s, and both offerors’ relevant contracts mostly highly pertinent to the requirements being competed. Each offeror’s performance of its relevant contracts also appears to be similar, with the vast majority of MTI’s PPQ and PPD ratings being Exceptional or Very Good, and the vast majority of Chugach’s PPQ and PPD ratings also being Exceptional or Very Good. Both proposals present a solid track record of mostly exceptional and very good performance on relevant contracts that are highly pertinent to the present requirements. I agree with the SEB that both proposals merit a High Level of Confidence.

Cost and Price

In the Cost and Price Factor, Chugach’s proposal presents a significant advantage over MTI’s.

In reviewing the SEB’s assessment of each offeror’s Cost and Price proposal, I understand that Chugach proposed the lowest cost and price, and that both proposals’ proposed costs and prices are significantly lower than the IGCE. I also understand that the SEB made no adjustments to any offeror’s proposed costs, such that each proposal’s probable cost and price is the same as the proposed cost and price, and significantly lower than the IGCE. Thus, Chugach’s proposal presents a significant advantage over MTI’s proposal under this Factor.

While the SEB did not make any adjustments to any offeror’s proposed cost or price, the SEB did evaluate each offeror’s proposal, in accordance with Section M of the RFP, to assess the realism of the proposed costs and, in accordance with section M.5(c) of the RFP, potential risks in relatively low proposed prices. This assessment identified certain risks with respect to Chugach’s proposed price. Specifically, the SEB determined that (a) Chugach’s proposed rates for PMO personnel in CLIN 1 are substantially lower than expected and (b) Chugach’s proposed price for CLIN 2 is substantially lower than expected despite the offeror proposing more WYE, whose rates are set by collective bargaining agreements, than expected. After discussions with the SEB, I understand the basis for the analysis and agree with the rationale for identifying these risks. I also agree with the SEB’s analysis of MTI’s proposal and the rationale for not identifying risks in or making adjustments to it.

The probable cost and price of each proposal is significantly below the IGCE and thus, to a certain extent, represents fair and reasonable value. As noted, there is some technical risk apparent in Chugach’s probable cost and price. Even with these considerations, however, Chugach’s proposal presents a distinct advantage over MTI’s proposal under this evaluation factor.

Best Value

Per the RFP, award is to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation and provides the best value to the Government based on the evaluation factors detailed in the RFP. Accordingly, in making my selection decision, I remain mindful that Mission Suitability is more important than Cost and Price, which is more important than Relevant Experience and Past Performance. Further, I consider Mission Suitability and Relevant Experience and Past Performance, when combined, significantly more important than Cost and Price.

As discussed, MTI’s proposal stands out and presents a distinct advantage over Chugach’s proposal in the most important Mission Suitability Factor. The thorough understanding that MTI’s proposal demonstrates across all three evaluation subfactors presents outstanding technical value. To be sure, I am impressed by Chugach’s proposal, which was rated Good in each of the three Mission Suitability subfactors, presents multiple strengths in the Management Approach subfactor, and received only two weaknesses overall. I am more impressed, however, by MTI’s proposal, which not only received no weaknesses, but also strengths or significant strengths in eleven of the fifteen areas of consideration across the three subfactors, which is outstanding. Chugach’s proposal, particularly in the Technical Capability and Understanding the Requirements – Sample Tasks subfactors, simply does not rise to the level of MTI’s proposal, which is outstanding. In the most important Mission Suitability Factor, MTI’s proposal stands out and presents a distinct advantage over Chugach’s proposal.

I find no material discriminators in the Relevant Experience and Past Performance factor. Both proposals, which each received a High Level of Confidence, present a solid track record of mostly exceptional and very good performance on relevant contracts that are highly pertinent to the present requirements. Under this evaluation factor, they are essentially equal. Thus, when Mission Suitability and Relative Experience and Past Performance are combined, MTI’s proposal still presents a materially significant non-cost/price advantage over Chugach’s proposal.

In trading off between the qualitative advantages of MTI’s proposal and the quantitative advantages of the lower probable cost and price of Chugach’s proposal, I find that MTI’s proposal constitutes the better value. MTI’s proposal provides a stronger across-the-board response to the Government’s requirements, especially in the Technical Capability and Understanding the Requirements – Sample Tasks subfactors, and presents no technical risks.

This strong and relatively comprehensive, affirmative demonstration of the offeror’s understanding of the government’s requirements presents substantial value, which fully justifies the significant price premium it presents when compared to Chugach’s proposal. Chugach’s proposal presents solid technical value at a significantly lower probable cost and price, but it presents some risk, such as was found in the Weakness it received for its response to the Recertification Sample Task, and the risks identified in the analysis of its proposed price. I do not have the same concerns with MTI’s proposal, for which no weaknesses or risks were identified. Furthermore, while the probable cost and price of MTI’s proposal is significantly higher than Chugach’s proposal, it is still significantly lower than the IGCE. In this acquisition, where non-cost/price factors are significantly more important than Cost and Price, MTI’s proposal offers the better value.

Accordingly, I find that MTI’s proposal, which meets the requirements of the solicitation, presents the best value to the Government. Therefore, I hereby select MTI to perform the IMOR contract as outlined in the RFP.

Laurence A. Sivic Associate Center Director, Glenn Research Center Source Selection Authority (SSA)