Final SpaceDOC III Source Selection Statement for Sam.gov.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration John H. Glenn Research Center Lewis Field Cleveland, OH 44135-3191

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

SPACE FLIGHT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS

CONTRACT III (SpaceDOC III)

Solicitation 80GRC022R0016

Procurement History/Description The NASA John H. Glenn Research Center (GRC) implements several space-related programs and projects within the Space Flight Systems Directorate (SFSD). GRC has space flight development responsibilities that range from the Space Launch System (SLS) program, Orion service module, Gateway, numerous microgravity research investigations on the International Space Station (ISS) and launch vehicles, ISS power system, electric propulsion systems, human research projects, space flight technology developments and demonstrations of advanced power, propulsion, communications and other systems, and the potential for space science instrumentation packages. In addition, NASA works with other government agencies and organizations to develop technologies and space flight hardware and software. The SpaceDOC III contract will be responsible for the definition, design, development, analysis, fabrication, assembly, test, verification, delivery, and/or operation of space flight systems, associated support systems and equipment, and related ground development activities, that include research and technology developments and demonstrations.

SpaceDOC III is a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Core with a CPFF and Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The Period of Performance consists of a 90-day Phase-In period, a three (3)-year Base period, two (2) 2-year Option periods, and an option for a six (6)-month extension.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code and Size Standard for the procurement is 541715 - Engineering Research and Development sector (except for nanotechnology and biotechnology) and 1,000 employees, respectively. This procurement was issued as a small business set-aside.

The Government developed an Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) prior to the release of the SpaceDOC III Request for Proposals (RFP). The IGCE is the Government’s estimate of projected costs that a contractor could incur in the performance of the contract.

A Sources Sought Notice was issued on April 25, 2022, to identify potentially qualified interested parties through sam.gov. A Procurement Strategy Meeting (PSM) was held December 20, 2022. A Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) for this procurement was issued on January 26, 2023, followed by an Industry Day on February 8-9, 2023 at NASA GRC. The purpose of Industry Day was to present an overview of the DRFP to potential Offerors and solicit feedback, allow Offerors to meet individually with NASA and discuss questions about the DRFP, and to provide tours of facilities at GRC that were mentioned in the DRFP for possible use by Offerors. Industry Day presentation charts and the Industry Day attendees list were added to the DRFP posting on February 09, 2023. Reponses to industry’s DRFP questions were posted on February 22, 2023.

The final RFP for the SpaceDOC III procurement was issued on March 16, 2023, requiring proposals to be submitted by May 3, 2023. There were four (4) amendments to the RFP with the final amendment issued April 19, 2023. None of the four (4) amendments resulted in a change to the proposal due date.

Two (2) proposals were received in a timely fashion in response to the SpaceDOC III RFP by May 3, 2023. Both proposals were considered initially acceptable and included in the evaluation.

Proposals were submitted by the following Offerors (listed in alphabetical order):

• Sierra Lobo, Inc. (SLI)

• ZIN Technologies, Inc. (ZIN)

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 SpaceDOC III RFP stated the Government intended “to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a))” but “reserved the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary”. Additionally, the RFP stated, “the Government intends to award a contract or contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and subfactors in the solicitation”.

The RFP allowed Offerors to take exception to the terms, conditions, and requirements of Sections A through J of this solicitation, to the Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors or Respondents (Section K) or to the information requested in Section L. However, the RFP also cautioned Offerors that exceptions or new terms, conditions, or clauses may result in a determination of proposal unacceptability (NFS 1815.305-70), may preclude award to an Offeror if award is made without discussions, or may otherwise affect an Offeror’s competitive standing. Neither Offeror submitted any exceptions to the terms, conditions, or requirements of the solicitation.

The RFP evaluation criteria comprised the following Factors: Mission Suitability, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Regarding the relative importance of each Factor, the RFP stated that as individual factors, the Mission Suitability Factor is more important than the Cost/Price Factor, which is more important than the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor. When combined, Mission Suitability and Relevant Experience and Past Performance are significantly more important than the Cost/Price Factor alone.

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

Subfactor 1 - Understanding Technical Requirements (UR) 400 points UR1 Representative Base Orders UR2 Coordination between Government, Contractor, and PIs UR3 Understanding the Approach to Meeting the Technical and Engineering Requirements

Subfactor 2 - Product Assurance (PA) 200 points PA1 Safety, Health, and Environmental Management PA2 Product Assurance

Subfactor 3 - Management Plan and Approach (MP) 400 points MP1 Phase-In Plan MP2 Organizational Structure and Relationships MP3 Project Management MP4 Property Management MP5 Staffing, Recruitment, Retention, and Compensation MP6 Off-site Facilities and On-site Staffing Support MP7 Risk Management

Total 1000 points

In accordance with the RFP, evaluation of the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.3 and NFS 1815.3. The SEB did not numerically score Relevant Experience and Past Performance but evaluated the Factor using Level of Confidence ratings to assess the SEB’s confidence in each Offeror’s ability to perform the SpaceDOC III requirements 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) in the Offeror’s proposal Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) submitted by the Offerors’ customers Past Performance Databases (PPD) utilized by the Government

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.

Pursuant to the RFP, and in accordance with FAR 52.217-5, “Evaluation of Options,” the total proposed cost/price was evaluated. The total proposed cost/price consisted of phase-in period, base and option periods, IDIQ Max, and fee. The cost evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1), NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3)(B).

A cost realism analysis was conducted to ensure a realistic cost was determined and considered by the Government. The Government derived a probable cost, which was determined by adjusting each Offeror’s proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analyses performed. A price analysis was also performed to determine reasonableness by comparison of Offerors to each other and to the IGCE. Cost/Price was not numerically scored and did not receive an adjectival rating.

Evaluation Process The evaluation process utilized by the SEB consisted of each SEB member independently reviewing each Offeror’s proposal and generating comments reflecting on how well the proposals met the requirements of the RFP. Committees were formed during the evaluations, and the committees provided their consolidated comments to the SEB for consideration. The SEB voting members then met to establish consensus findings, adjectival ratings, level of confidence ratings, and scoring for each Offeror’s proposal.

Mission Suitability was evaluated by SEB consensus. Each member of the SEB (voting members and technical non-voting team members) independently evaluated each proposal. Mission Suitability comments were collected and evaluated by two (2) committees, Technical (UR and PA Subfactors) and Management (MP Subfactor). Each committee was chaired by an SEB voting member. These committees provided the consolidated comments to the SEB for review and consideration. The SEB voting members then met to establish and document consensus findings, adjectival ratings, and scoring for each proposal.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance was also evaluated by SEB consensus. A Past Performance Committee, chaired by an SEB voting member, assembled and evaluated past performance information in the three (3) areas listed above for relevancy and performance. The committee provided the results of their evaluation 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/Price was evaluated by the SEB with the assistance of a Cost/Price Committee, chaired by the 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 the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. The RFP further stated that, if discussions were conducted, the Government would seek Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) from Offerors whose proposals are determined to be within the competitive range.

On August 10, 2023, 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.

At the conclusion of the briefing, it was determined discussions were necessary and in the best interest of the Government, and I concurred with the Contracting Officer’s determination that the proposals of SLI and ZIN comprised the competitive range of most highly rated proposals. The Contracting Officer notified both Offerors of these determinations on September 1, 2023. In their respective notification letters, each Offeror was provided with (1) all weakness and significant weakness findings that the proposal received under the Mission Suitability Factor, (2) all cost concerns identified with respect to the proposal, and (3) any past performance topics identified related to the proposal.

Discussions with SLI and ZIN began on September 1, 2023, and were closed on September 22, 2023, giving the Offerors a three-week period to ask the Government questions regarding the information identified in their competitive range notification letters. Additionally, each Offeror was provided with an in-person discussions meeting on September 18, 2023. On September 22, 2023, the Government notified the Offerors that discussions were closed and requested that Offerors submit their FPRs no later than October 6, 2023. The FPRs from each Offeror were timely received and evaluated using the criteria detailed in the preceding sections.

Evaluation Results – Final Proposals Below is a summary of the final evaluation results of each Offeror in the competitive range:

Offeror Name Mission Suitability

Proposed Cost Probable Cost*

Level of Confidence Rating

Sierra Lobo, Inc.

878 2nd Lowest 2nd Lowest Very High

ZIN

Technologies, Inc

842 Lowest Lowest Moderate

*There were no probable cost adjustments necessary for either Offeror. Final proposed cost equaled Probable cost.

In the Management Plan and Approach (MP) Subfactor, the proposal received 384 points and was rated “Excellent”. The proposal contained two (2) significant strengths and four

(4) strengths:

MP1 Phase-In Plan Strength

MP2 Organizational Structure and Relationships

Strength

MP3 Project Management Significant Strength

MP4 Property Management Meets*

MP5 Staffing, Recruitment, Retention, and Compensation

Significant Strength

MP6 Off-site Facilities and On-site Staffing Support

Strength

MP7 Risk Management Strength

*An aspect of the proposal that is neither a strength nor a weakness but adequately addresses the requirement.

In MP1, the proposal received a strength for a thorough and effective approach for a Phase-In Plan. In MP2, the proposal received a strength for an effective multi-contractor integrated team with highly qualified key personnel in the Program Management positions. In MP3, the proposal received a significant strength for highly thorough and effective management tools and approaches for developing and controlling costs and schedule for the Base Orders/Delivery Orders (BO/DOs). In MP5, the proposal received a significant strength for an excellent, highly effective approach to recruitment and retention of employees. In MP6, the proposal received a strength for proposing the use of its two operational facilities as well as the establishment of a local facility, just outside the back gate at GRC, all with capacity for growth. In MP7, the proposal received a strength for an overall effective transition of incumbent risks into their risk system.

Cost/Price Factor

SLI’s total proposed cost/price of $282,159,744 was the 2nd lowest of the Offerors within the competitive range and substantially below the IGCE. A probable cost analysis was conducted, and no probable cost adjustments were made. The SEB did not identify any cost risks in the FPR.

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

Team SLI submitted five (5) contracts for consideration and NASA also identified a sixth contract for Team SLI that was located in CPARS. All six (6) contracts were determined

UR1 Representative Base Orders and UR3 Understanding the Approach to Meeting the Technical and Engineering Requirements

Weakness

*An aspect of the proposal that is neither a strength nor a weakness but adequately addresses the requirement.

In UR1, the proposal received a strength for a comprehensive and effective approach for communication and coordination with key interfaces in Representative Base Order #3. In UR1, the proposal received a strength for a comprehensive approach and understanding of the Representative Base Order #1 trade study. In UR1, the proposal received a strength for an effective approach for evaluating the drawings and documentation in Representative Base Order #4 (Build to Print). In UR1, the proposal received a strength for proposing effective risk mitigation strategies for Representative Base Order #2. In UR1, the proposal received a significant strength for a comprehensive and highly effective approach to identifying skill mix and organizing the teams for Representative Base Orders #1, #2, and #3. In UR3, the proposal received a strength for an effective approach for implementing Systems Engineering principles utilizing Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE). In UR3, the proposal received a weakness for an ineffective approach to managing the Change Control Board (CCB). In UR1 and UR3, the proposal received a combined weakness for demonstrating a lack of understanding of risk mitigation in Representative Base Orders #1 and #2, and a lack of understanding for use of qualification and/or prototype units for risk mitigation by not substantiating the phasing of these different units.

In the Product Assurance Subfactor, the proposal received 122 points and was rated “Good”. The proposal contained one (1) strength:

PA1 Safety, Health, and Environmental Management

Meets

PA2 Product Assurance Strength

In PA2, the proposal received a strength for an effective approach for providing product assurance support for programs and projects.

In the Management Plan and Approach Subfactor, the proposal received 360 points and was rated “Very Good”. The proposal contained one (1) significant strength, five (5) strengths, and one (1) weakness:

MP1 Phase-In Plan Strength

MP2 Organizational Structure and Relationships

Strength

MP3 Project Management Strength

MP3 Project Management Weakness

MP4 Property Management Strength

MP5 Staffing, Recruitment, Retention, and Compensation

Strength

MP6 Off-site Facilities and On-site Staffing Support

Significant Strength

MP7 Risk Management Meets

In MP1, the proposal received a strength for a thorough and effective approach for Phase- In Plan. In MP2, the proposal received a strength for a complete organization staffed with personnel with well-suited experience and certifications. In MP3, the proposal received a strength for an effective discussion of the tools utilized to develop cost and schedules. In MP3, the proposal received a weakness for a description of Government access to ZIN Data Management System (ZDMS) tools that was not realistic. In MP4, the proposal received a strength for an effective property management plan. In MP5, the proposal received a strength for effective approach to staffing, recruiting, and retaining employees. In MP6, the proposal received a significant strength for proposing the highly beneficial use of its existing and fully operational office and manufacturing and assembly facilities located near GRC.

Cost/Price Factor

ZIN’s total proposed cost/price was the lowest of the Offerors within the competitive range and substantially below the IGCE. A probable cost analysis was conducted, and no probable cost adjustments were made.

The SEB noted four (4) cost risks for ZIN. First, the ZIN accounting system has been restructured and the changes have not been reviewed by the appropriate cognizant office.

Second, ZIN’s indirect rates in the FPR were based on provisional billing rates but ZIN provided no rationale supporting this approach as identified in the Government’s competitive range notification letter and requested in the FPR letter. Third, ZIN’s FPR did not address the basis of its proposed attrition rate as identified in the Government’s competitive range notification letter and requested in the FPR letter, which impacted realized escalation rates in year three (3) of the Base period and beyond for direct labor.

Fourth, there was a noted discrepancy in ZIN’s FPR between the Mission Suitability Volume and the cost forms where the labor hours for two (2) labor categories were inconsistent, but enough information was not available to determine ZIN’s intended approach and resolve the conflict.

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

ZIN submitted four (4) contracts for consideration and NASA also identified a fifth contract for ZIN that was located in CPARS. All five (5) of the contracts were determined to be relevant to the solicitation. Overall, the SEB found ZIN’s past performance to be very highly pertinent to the SpaceDOC III requirements. The performance of the five (5) relevant contracts was then reviewed under the PPQ and PPD evaluations and found to be predominantly Satisfactory and Very Good. Under the PPQ evaluation, ZIN received mostly Satisfactory and Very Good ratings, with a smaller portion of Neutral ratings. Under the PPD evaluation, ZIN received mostly Satisfactory and Very Good ratings as well as a small percentage of Exceptional and a smaller percentage of Marginal ratings. Further, the SEB reviewed all comments provided with the PPQ and PPD ratings and determined that the comments and ratings were consistent throughout the evaluation information. Overall, the SEB found that ZIN demonstrated effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance and, therefore, assigned ZIN a Moderate Level of Confidence.

Source Selection Briefing – Final

On November 17, 2023, the SEB made its Source Selection Briefing (Briefing) to me in my capacity as the SSA that detailed the SEB’s evaluation. Prior to the Briefing, I was provided with a full set of PowerPoint charts with the final set of evaluation results for both Offerors (the “Evaluation Results”) for me to review before making my selection. In addition to myself, the Briefing was attended by the SEB Voting Members and SEB Ex- Officio Members. During the meeting, the overall evaluation process and findings on Mission Suitability, Cost/Price, and Relevant Experience and Past Performance were presented and discussed. Additionally, during the Briefing, I provided the SEB with my independent judgment relative to the findings and asked questions regarding the information presented.

Selection Decision

I agree with the information presented by the SEB and take no exception to the actions of the SEB or the Evaluation Results. Prior to the Briefing, I reviewed the full set of Evaluation Results for each of the Offerors. During the 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 Evaluation Results as the basis for my selection.

In making this selection, I followed 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, Cost/Price, and Relevant Experience and Past Performance. Regarding the relative importance of each Factor, the RFP stated that as individual factors, the Mission Suitability Factor is more important than the Cost/Price Factor, which is more important than the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor. When combined, Mission Suitability and Relevant Experience and Past Performance are significantly more important than the Cost/Price Factor alone. 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 Evaluation Results to identify discriminators for determining which proposal presents the best value to the Government.

Mission Suitability

Under the most important Mission Suitability Factor, SLI’s proposal stands out and presents a distinct advantage over ZIN’s proposal. While ZIN is to be commended for submitting a proposal with very strong technical merit, I find that SLI’s proposal provides exceptional technical merit and am impressed by the well-rounded nature of the proposal under this Factor, receiving either a strength or significant strength in eleven (11) of the twelve (12) elements within the Factor and receiving only one very minor weakness.

In the Understanding the Technical Requirements Subfactor, I find both SLI’s and ZIN’s proposals to be very strong in their technical merit.

SLI’s proposal, which was rated Excellent, provided an exemplary response under this Subfactor, receiving a strength in each of the Subfactor’s three elements, including a significant strength in the UR3 element of this Subfactor. Under the Representative Base Order element of the Subfactor, I note that SLI’s proposal received multiple strengths, and I find the weakness that SLI received under this element for the skill mix that it proposed under Representative Base Order #2 to be very minor. I was impressed that SLI received a strength under the UR2 element of this Subfactor for proposing an effective means for interaction between the Contractor and the Government. I was especially impressed by the significant strength that the SLI proposal received under the UR3 element for proposing a highly effective implementation of Systems Engineering principles. Ultimately, I find the strengths that SLI’s proposal received under each element of this Subfactor to be strong and impactful, providing a comprehensive and well-rounded response.

ZIN’s proposal, which was rated Very Good, provided a very strong response under this Subfactor, receiving a significant strength and multiple additional strengths under the UR1 element of the Subfactor, a strength and a weakness in UR3, and a combined weakness in UR1 and UR3. Under the Representative Base Order element (UR1) of the Subfactor, I note that ZIN’s proposal received multiple strengths and a significant strength for the skill mix and team organization. Additionally, ZIN’s proposal also received a strength under UR3 for proposing an effective approach for implementing systems engineering principles utilizing MBSE. I find the two weaknesses that ZIN’s proposal received under this Subfactor for demonstrating an ineffective approach to managing the Change Control Board and for demonstrating a lack of understanding of risk mitigation in Representative Base Orders #1, and #2, and for use of qualification and/or prototype units for risk mitigation by not substantiating the phasing of these different units to be relatively minor and not to materially detract from ZIN’s proposal under this Subfactor. While I find ZIN’s proposal to be very strong due to its thorough response under the Representative Base Order element, I determine that SLI’s proposal has a slight advantage over ZIN’s proposal under this Subfactor due to the comprehensive nature of SLI’s proposal, receiving strengths in each of the Subfactor’s three elements, including a significant strength in understanding the approach to meeting the technical and engineering requirements.

With respect to the Product Assurance Subfactor, both ZIN’s and SLI’s proposals are sound, each receiving an adjectival rating of Good. Both proposals received a strength under the Product Assurance element of this Subfactor and SLI’s proposal also received a strength under the Safety, Health, and Environmental Management element. I do not discern any material discriminators between the proposals under this Subfactor, and, therefore, I determine that neither proposal has an advantage under this Subfactor.

In the Management Plan and Approach Subfactor, ZIN’s proposal is again strong, receiving the rating of Very Good. Of the many strengths that ZIN’s proposal received in this Subfactor, I was most impressed by the significant strength that ZIN’s proposal received under MP6 for proposing the highly beneficial use of its existing and fully operational office and manufacturing and assembly facilities located near GRC. I find the weakness that ZIN received under this Subfactor for proposing unrealistic Government access to its data management system to be minor.

SLI’s proposal excels most in the Management Plan and Approach Subfactor, where it received no weaknesses and was again rated Excellent. SLI’s proposal is supported by two significant strengths in the Project Management and Staffing, Recruitment, Retention, and Competition elements of this Subfactor. I am especially impressed with SLI’s significant strength in Project Management, which it received for proposing highly thorough and effective management approaches utilizing a robust toolset that will be applied to develop and control cost and schedules down to the delivery order level. I find that these approaches are of exceptional merit and will be significantly impactful to the Government during contract performance and constitute a material discriminator in favor of SLI’s proposal under this Subfactor. In combination with the significant strength that SLI’s proposal received for proposing an excellent, highly effective approach to recruitment and retention of employees as well as the multiple additional strengths that SLI’s proposal received under this Subfactor, I find that SLI’s proposal provides exceptional technical merit and has a distinct and material advantage over ZIN’s proposal under the Management Plan and Approach Subfactor.

Overall, in the Mission Suitability Factor, SLI’s proposal stands out and presents a distinct advantage over ZIN’s proposal. ZIN’s proposal, which was rated Very Good in the two most heavily weighted Mission Suitability Subfactors, presents multiple strengths in the Understanding the Technical Requirements and Management Plan and Approach Subfactors, and received three weaknesses overall. SLI’s proposal was rated Excellent in the two most heavily weighted Mission Suitability Subfactors, is supported by either a strength or significant strength in eleven (11) of the twelve (12) elements within the Factor, and only received one very minor weakness. Ultimately, I find that SLI’s proposal demonstrates a well-rounded understanding of the requirements and presents outstanding value to the Government, in particular under the Management Plan and Approach Subfactor. For these reasons, I find that SLI’s proposal stands out and presents a distinct advantage over ZIN’s proposal under the Mission Suitability Factor.

Cost/Price

In the Cost/Price Factor, ZIN’s proposal presents a very slight quantitative advantage over SLI’s proposal however with certain risks as noted by the SEB and summarized above in the Cost/Price Factor section for ZIN. In reviewing the SEB’s assessment of each Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal, I understand that ZIN proposed the lowest cost/price and that SLI proposed a slightly higher cost/price. 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 substantially lower than the IGCE. Thus, ZIN’s proposal presents a very slight quantitative advantage over SLI’s proposal under the Cost/Price Factor.

While the SEB did not make any adjustments to either 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. I agree with the SEB’s analysis of SLI’s proposal and the rationale for not identifying risks in or making adjustments to it. I also acknowledge that the SEB identified certain risks with respect to ZIN’s proposal, which are summarized above in the Cost/Price Factor section for ZIN. After discussions with the SEB, I understand the basis for the analysis and agree with the rationale for identifying these risks, but note that I make my selection decision on the basis of ZIN’s probable cost, which was equal to the proposed cost.

The probable cost and price of each proposal is substantially below the IGCE and thus, to a certain extent, represents fair and reasonable value. Therefore, ZIN’s proposal presents a very slight advantage over SLI’s proposal under this evaluation Factor.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance

In the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor, I understand the rationale for and agree with the SEB’s determination that Team SLI’s relevant experience and performance merit a Very High Level of Confidence and that ZIN’s relevant experience and past performance merit a Moderate Level of Confidence. Both Offerors have a record of past performance that is very highly pertinent to the acquisition and demonstrates at least effective performance, fully responsive to contract requirements.

With respect to relevancy, both ZIN’s and Team SLI’s experience are very strong, evidencing past performance that is very highly pertinent to this acquisition. ZIN’s experience was supported by five contracts, all of which were determined to be relevant by the SEB. Similarly, Team SLI’s experience was supported by six contracts, all of were determined to be relevant by the SEB. I agree with the SEB that both Offerors’ past performance records are very highly pertinent to the SpaceDOC III requirements, and I am impressed by the relevancy of each Offeror’s experience.

With respect to performance, ZIN’s record is varied, receiving mostly Satisfactory and Very Good ratings in the PPQ and PPD evaluations and receiving a small percentage of Exceptional and a smaller percentage of Marginal ratings under the PPD evaluation.

Further, the SEB found that the comments and ratings are consistent throughout the evaluation information. However, the record of performance of Team SLI was exemplary, receiving predominately Very Good and Exceptional ratings in the PPQ and PPD evaluations and no ratings lower than Satisfactory. Significantly, in the PPD evaluation, Team SLI received only Exceptional and Very Good ratings, with a vast majority of the ratings being Exceptional. Further, the SEB found that the comments and ratings are consistent throughout the evaluation information. I am especially impressed with the high percentage of Exceptional ratings that Team SLI received under both the PPQ and PPD evaluations.

Overall, I agree with the SEB’s determinations that ZIN’s relevant experience and past performance merit a Moderate Level of Confidence and Team SLI’s relevant experience and past performance merit a Very High Level of Confidence under this Factor. I am impressed that both Offerors have a record of relevant past performance that is very highly pertinent to the acquisition. Ultimately, I find that Team SLI’s exceptional record of past performance is superior to ZIN’s record and determine that SLI’s proposal has a significant advantage over ZIN’s proposal under this 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 the Mission Suitability Factor is more important than the Cost/Price Factor, which is more important than the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor. Further, I consider Mission Suitability and Relevant Experience and Past Performance, when combined, significantly more important than the Cost/Price Factor alone.

As previously discussed, I find that SLI’s proposal presents a distinct advantage over ZIN’s proposal under the most important Mission Suitability Factor. The excellent and comprehensive response that SLI’s proposal demonstrates across the three Mission Suitability Subfactors, and in particular in the Management Plan and Approach Subfactor, presents well-rounded and outstanding technical value. To be sure, I am impressed by ZIN’s proposal, which was rated Very Good in the two most heavily weighted Subfactors, and presented two significant strengths, many strengths across the Subfactors, and only three relatively minor weaknesses overall. However, I am more impressed by the strengths and significant strengths that SLI’s proposal received in eleven (11) of the twelve (12) areas of consideration across the Mission Suitability Subfactors and by the significant strength that SLI’s proposal received in the Project Management element, which I find will be significantly impactful to the Government during contract performance. Therefore, in the most important Mission Suitability Factor, I find that SLI’s proposal stands out as exemplary and presents a distinct advantage over ZIN’s proposal.

Under the less important Cost/Price Factor, I find that ZIN’s proposal presents a very slight advantage over SLI’s proposal. At the same time, I note that the probable cost of each proposal is substantially lower than the IGCE and presents a fair and reasonable cost.

Under the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor, which is the least weighted Factor when standing alone, I find that SLI’s proposal presents a significant advantage over ZIN’s proposal. I am impressed by Team SLI’s exceptional record of performance on its cumulative record of very highly pertinent contracts covering every area of the SpaceDOC III SOW, which instills great confidence that it could successfully perform the contract. While I am also impressed by the very highly pertinent contracts that make up ZIN’s record and find that ZIN has a solid record of effective performance, I find that ZIN’s record of past performance does not rise to the level demonstrated by Team SLI, which is reflected in the differences in the SEB’s confidence ratings for each proposal.

Therefore, I find that SLI’s proposal has a significant advantage over ZIN’s proposal under this Factor based on its performance record.

In trading off between the qualitative advantages presented by SLI’s proposal in the Mission Suitability and Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factors and the quantitative advantage presented by ZIN’s proposal in the Cost/Price Factor, I remain mindful that Mission Suitability and Relevant Experience and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Under this framework, I find that the very slight cost savings that ZIN’s proposal presents over SLI’s proposal does not justify foregoing the exceptional technical value and superior record of past performance presented by SLI’s proposal. While ZIN’s proposal presents a very slight cost advantage over SLI’s, this advantage is relatively modest. At the same time, the distinct advantage of SLI’s technical proposal, particularly with the significant strengths that it received under the Management Plan and Approach Subfactor and the proposal’s comprehensive and well-rounded response under the entire Mission Suitability Factor, fully justifies its relatively modest cost premium. Additionally, SLI’s proposal is rated two levels of confidence higher than ZIN’s because of Team SLI’s outstanding record of performance. When SLI’s distinct technical advantage is combined with the significant advantage that SLI’s proposal also presents in the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor, the qualitative superiority of SLI’s proposal substantially outweighs the relatively modest cost savings that ZIN’s proposal presents.

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

Kathleen E. Schubert

NASA Glenn Research Center

Space Flight Systems Directorate, Deputy Director

Source Selection Authority (SSA)