Source Selection Statement - ESHMA.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

John H. Glenn Research Center Lewis Field 21000 Brookpark Road Cleveland, OH 44135-3191

Source Selection Statement for the

Environmental, Safety, Health, and Mission Assurance (ESHMA) Contract

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Solicitation Number 80GRC022R0017)

On January 23, 2024, the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals for the Environmental, Safety, Health, and Mission Assurance (ESHMA) procurement under Solicitation Number 80GRC022R0017 presented the results of its evaluation of offerors’ initial proposals to me as Source Selection Authority (SSA), as well as other senior officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA or Government).

PROCUREMENT HISTORY/DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this acquisition is to obtain support services in four broad technical areas:

Environmental, Institutional Operational Safety, Occupational Health, Aero/Space Systems and Ground Support Equipment Mission Assurance. Services will be required at NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC), which includes Lewis Field (LF) and Armstrong Test Facility (ATF), and at NASA Headquarters (HQ). Services may be required at any other NASA facility once approved and placed on the contract. These services will enable participating centers to comply with NASA policies and Federal regulations in each of the technical areas.

The Contractor shall provide support services for Environmental, Institutional Operational Safety, Occupational Health, and Mission Assurance support services at GRC, and Institutional Operational Safety and Occupational Health support services at NASA HQ. GRC services shall support all institutional facilities and the Mission Assurance aspects of space flight and aeronautics activities at GRC’s LF in Cleveland, Ohio, and ATF in Sandusky, Ohio. HQ services shall support safety and health requirements of NASA HQ located in Washington DC.

This is a consolidated follow-on acquisition to contract number 80GRC018C0028 (Glenn Research Center) with Leidos, Inc., 80GRC018C0054 (Glenn Research Center) with HSG, LLC (D/B/A Herndon Solutions Group), and 80GRC018C0022 (Glenn Research Center) with Firelake-Arrowhead NASA Services.

The Contract will be Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) and include Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) task orders.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code and Size Standard for the procurement is 541715 - Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology) with a Size Standard of 1,000 employees.

The Government used historical cost information to develop an Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) in order to evaluate offerors’ costs for this procurement. The IGCE is the Government’s estimate of projected cost/price for the contract.

A Sources Sought Notice was issued on May 31, 2022. A Procurement Strategy Meeting (PSM) was held September 12, 2022. A draft solicitation (Solicitation or Request for Proposals (RFP)) for this procurement was issued on October 13, 2022, followed by an Industry Day on October 20, 2022, and October 21, 2022. A Notification to the public of consolidation of contract requirements was posted on April 28, 2023. A second Industry Day was held on June 22, 2023.

The final RFP for the ESHMA procurement was issued on July 21, 2023, requiring proposals to be submitted by August 21, 2023. One amendment to the final RFP was issued on August 4, 2023. The amendment updated certain provisions and information contained in the final RFP and provided answers to relevant questions received regarding the final RFP, but did not change the time or date for submitting timely proposals.

Two (2) proposals were received on-time in response to the ESHMA Final RFP. All proposals were considered initially acceptable and included in the evaluation.

Proposals were submitted by the following offerors:

Aerodyne Industries, LLC (Major Subcontractors: A-P-T Research, Inc., JES Tech) Bastion Technologies Inc. (Major Subcontractors: Leidos Inc., HSG, LLC d/b/a Herndon Solutions Group)

EVALUATION CRITERIA/PROCEDURES

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

The ESHMA RFP stated that the Government “may award a Contract based on the initial offers received, without discussion of such offers” but reserved the Government’s right to conduct discussions if it determined that discussions would be in the best interest of the Government. Additionally, the RFP stated that the 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 allowed offerors to take exception to any required clauses. However, the RFP also stated that taking exception to any required clauses may be evaluated as a weakness or a deficiency.

The RFP evaluation criteria were comprised of the following factors: Mission Suitability, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, and Cost/Price. As individual factors, Mission Suitability is more important than Relevant Experience and Past Performance, which is approximately equal to Cost. Mission Suitability factor and Relevant Experience and Past Performance factor when combined are significantly more important than the Cost factor.

In accordance with the RFP, within the Mission Suitability Factor, the maximum numerical score each sub-factor may receive is as follows:

Volume I: Mission Suitability Factor

Subfactor A. Overall Understanding of the Requirements (UR) 550 points

UR1 - Technical Approach to Meeting the Requirements of the SOW

UR2 - Risk Management Plan

UR3- Health and Safety Plan Overview, Health and Safety Program

Self Evaluation

UR4- Sample Tasks (4)

Subfactor B. Management Plan (MP) 450 points

MP1 - Organizational Structure and Management Plan

MP2 - Subcontractor Management

MP3 - Recruitment, Retention, Staffing and Compensation

MP4 - Phase-In Plan

MP5 - Key Personnel

Total 1,000 points

As stated in the RFP, evaluation of the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2). Only contracts the Government considered relevant, as compared with the overall requirements of the RFP, were considered. The results were combined into an overall, single, Level of Confidence rating to assess the SEB’s confidence in each offeror’s ability to perform the ESHMA requirements. These evaluations focused on three areas: the Past Performance Narratives (PPN) of the offeror’s proposal, Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) submitted by the offerors’ customers, and Past Performance Databases (PPD) utilized by the Government.

Pursuant to the RFP, the Cost/Price evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.4 (price analysis) and FAR 15.305(a)(1), NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3)(B) (cost analysis).

Cost 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.

The SEB evaluated the proposals by consensus. The evaluation process utilized by the SEB consisted of each SEB member first independently reviewing each offeror’s proposal. The SEB voting members then met to establish consensus findings, adjectival ratings, scoring, and level of confidence ratings for each offeror’s proposal. These consensus findings constitute the evaluation presented to me in my capacity as the SSA.

SOURCE SELECTION MEETINGS

On January 23, 2024, the SEB made its Source Selection Briefing (Briefing) to me in my capacity as the SSA. Prior to the Briefing, I was provided with a full copy of the SEB’s consensus findings for both offerors. In addition to myself, the Briefing was attended by certain SEB Voting Members, SEB Committee members, and SEB Ex-Officio Members. During the meeting, SEB members presented to me and discussed with me the overall evaluation process and findings on Mission Suitability, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, and Cost/Price.

Additionally, during the Briefing, I provided the SEB with my independent judgment relative to the findings and asked questions regarding the information presented. As a result of the Briefing held, I informed the attendees of my determination to make a selection decision. This source selection statement results from the Briefing and my determination.

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

Below is a summary of the evaluation results of each offeror:

Volume Aerodyne Industries, LLC

Bastion Technologies Inc.

Mission Suitability 464 821 Proposed Cost Lowest Highest Probable Cost Lowest Highest Relevant Experience and Past Performance

High Level of Confidence

Very High Level of Confidence

Aerodyne Industries, LLC

Mission Suitability – 464 Points SUBFACTOR A - Overall Understanding of the Requirements (UR): Fair / 248 points UR1 - Technical Approach to Meeting the Requirements of the Statement of Work

2 Strengths and 2 Significant Weaknesses

UR2 - Risk Management Plan 1 Significant Strength and 1 Weakness UR3 Health and Safety Plan Overview, Health and Safety Program Self Evaluation

Meets

UR4 - Sample Tasks (4) 1 Strength and 2 Weaknesses

The proposal received a significant strength for:

1. The Offeror's proposal included an exceptional understanding and well-defined Risk management process to address and mitigate NASA GRC risks and proposes a unique approach to risk mitigation, which includes a feedback loop to continually improve, and address lessons learned for each major activity.

The proposal received strengths for:

The fferor proposed several approaches to requirements that demonstrated not only an understanding of the requirements but additional thoughts or processes that add value in the areas of Reliability Analysis, tailoring Space Assurance Requirements as an important and effective tool and risk management and (PRA).

The Offeror proposes benchmarking and potential relationships to provide benefits such as best practices to GRC.

Offeror’s proposal demonstrates complete understanding of requirements to evaluate the Environmental sample task responding to a release to a waterway and presented the timely resourcing needs accurately and demonstrated a realistic understanding of "the IH/Facility/Clinical” knowledge to perform a detailed investigation.

The proposal received weaknesses for:

1. The proposed Risk Management Plan (RMP) doesn't adequately describe key decision points for risks and was not complete in its response to a risk management and audit item mentioned in the SOW 2.1 Base Effort: “Institutional Risk Management” and “Institutional Audit Support” was not mentioned, specifically in the proposal.

2. The Offeror’s proposal did not demonstrate a thorough technical understanding of the requirements, key elements, or considerations for conducting a delta-PDR and did not demonstrate a thorough technical distinction and relationship between Software Assurance (SA) and Quality Assurance (QA).

3. Offeror’s proposal lacked completeness in that it did not discuss the risks to health and safety in the Environmental task, did not provide a sufficient basis-of-estimates (BOE) for their labor estimates in the MA task, and did not demonstrate a solid discussion of engineering controls within the safety sample task.

The proposal received significant weaknesses for:

1. The Offeror’s proposal lacked completeness and did not provide a detailed or correct discussion of several significant technical requirements across several disciplines that make it clear what all the proposed actions are pertaining to SOW sections 3.1., 3.2, 3.3. and 3.5.

2. The Offeror’s proposal does not demonstrate complete understanding of the Occupational Health and Operational Safety technical requirements.

SUBFACTOR B - Management Plan (MP) : Fair / 216 points MP1 - Organizational Structure and Management Plan

1 Strength and 1 Significant Weakness

MP2 - Subcontractor Management 1 Strength and 1 Weakness

MP3 - Recruitment, Retention, Staffing and 1 Strength and 1 Significant Weakness

Compensation

MP4 - Phase-In Plan 1 Strength

MP5 - Key Personnel 1 Strength

The proposal received strengths for:

1. The Offeror's proposal presents a sound plan for experienced on-site management.

2. The Offeror proposes to leverage an Integrated Team approach to managing subcontractors.

3. The Offeror has proposed to establish relationships with HBCU's and MSI's and to use performance goals in individual plans for the purpose of capturing/retaining knowledge.

4. Offeror’s proposal demonstrates ability to assume full contract responsibility within 45 days and shows its ability to manage phase-in team, schedule and staffing.

5. The Offeror’s proposal presented a clear discussion of the important value for identifying Key

Position(s), proposes to designate a Team Lead or high-potential leader within the organization as a backup Program Manager and will designate backup team leads for succession planning and to create opportunities.

The proposal received a weakness for:

1. The Percentage of work described in Figure 36 (p. 64) and Appendix A does not adequately provide clarity and details on the type of the SOW work that the subs will perform and the identification of all interfaces to offeror’s organizational structure lacks detail.

The proposal received significant weaknesses for:

1. The Offeror’s proposed organizational structure does not adequately respond to Section 3.5 of the SOW. The offeror's proposal aligns their organization to the GRC management structure and does not account for NASA defining a contract management plan.

2. The Offeror’s proposed approach to staffing and retention includes unrealistic labor rates and inadequately addresses certification issues.

Cost/Price

Aerodyne Industries, LLC’s proposal offered the lowest proposed cost/price, which was lower than the IGCE. A probable cost analysis was conducted, and a probable cost adjustment of approximately 1.8% was made due to labor rate adjustments. Additionally, the SEB's cost analysis identified four (4) risks: (1) rates proposed for five (5) professional labor categories were significantly lower than the IGCE and historical rates; (2) escalation was not applied to seven (7) non-exempt labor categories; (3) proposal included provisional billing rates not intended for proposal purposes; and (4) proposed escalation over the duration of the contract was slightly lower than recommended. As evaluated, Aerodyne Industries, LLC’s probable cost/price was the lowest of the two (2) offerors and lower than the IGCE.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance – “High Level of Confidence”

Aerodyne and its major subcontractors’ (Team Aerodyne) 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. Team Aerodyne received a Strength for Relevance and a Strength for Past Performance. Based on Team Aerodyne’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that Team Aerodyne will successfully perform the required effort.

Aerodyne and its major subcontractors (Team Aerodyne) overall were considered to have highly relevant experience to the ESHMA statement of work (SOW) and overall requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP), which was determined to be a Strength. There were 7 contracts from the submitted Past Performance Narratives (PPNs), Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), and Past Performance Database (PPD) search that were determined to be relevant based on the considerations identified in the RFP (contract scope, type of client, contract type, contract size, type of services provided, recency of the contract, and length of the contract).

PPQs were received for 4 contracts and were determined to be relevant. The SEB found that the Team Aerodyne’s PPQ ratings were 56% exceptional, 25% very good, and 19% satisfactory.

In its review of the PPD, the SEB identified four (4) CPARS evaluations for contracts which were determined to be relevant. The SEB found that Team Aerodyne’s PPD ratings were 70% exceptional and 30% very good.

The comments provided by reviewers in the PPD and on the PPQs aligned with the ratings provided. Team Aerodyne’s successful record of past performance indicates the potential for some positive impact on the successful performance of the Contract.

Bastion Technologies Inc.

Mission Suitability – 821 Points SUBFACTOR A - Overall Understanding of the Requirements (UR): Very Good / 402 points UR1 - Technical Approach to Meeting the Requirements of the Statement of Work

1 Significant Strength, 4 Strengths, and 3 Weaknesses

UR2 - Risk Management Plan 1 Significant Strength and 2 Weaknesses UR3 Health and Safety Plan Overview, Health and Safety Program Self Evaluation

Meets

UR4 - Sample Tasks (4) 1 Significant Strength, 1 Strength, and 1 Weakness

The proposal received significant strengths for:

1. The Offeror provided a robust proposal on pressure and process system safety and Gas liquefied Gas Safety Program.

2. The Offeror's proposal provides a Risk Management Plan RMP that clearly describes an understanding of the Agency's risk management procedure (NPR 8000.4).

3. The Offeror's proposal provided robust responses to the Sample Safety and OH tasks and a detailed approach to the Environmental task.

The proposal received strengths for:

1. The Offeror's proposal demonstrates a good understanding of the elements of Mission

Assurance, their application in NASA projects, work products needed, and supplying them.

2. The Offeror's proposal demonstrates complete understanding of what is required for 3.1.4

Implementation Small Scale Environmental Sampling and 3.1.7 Storm Water/Wastewater.

3. The Offeror's proposal demonstrates a thorough understanding of the scope of the education, training, and certification section and has implemented improvements resulting in efficiencies.

4. The Offeror's proposal provided good responses in 3.4.2.1 Industrial Hygiene Services, 3.4.2.2

Chemical Management Programs, 3.4.2.5 Institutional Operational Safety Support, 3.4.3.2 Electronic Health Records (EHRS) and the IDIQ task.

5. The Offeror's proposal indicated a sound technical understanding of the risks and mitigations associated with their approach to a comprehensive exposure investigation.

The proposal received weaknesses for:

1. Offeror’s proposal lacked a detailed and technical discussion on some of the sections of SOW

3.1.

2. The Offeror’s proposal does not provide a complete response on implementation of SOW elements 3.3.1.4 and 3.3.1.5 and did not provide complete information on how to leverage the safety data collected from NMIS and STAR.

3. The Offeror’s proposal was not complete in its response to 3.4.1.2 GRC Health Management Resources and 3.4.2.6 Occupational Health Equipment and Laboratory Coordination.

4. The Risk Management Plan (RMP) doesn't adequately describe “key decision” points for risks with GRC impacts (i.e., status reporting, escalate/transfer, requesting direction or concurrence at the appropriate authority/decision level including acceptance/closure).

5. The Offeror’s proposal was not complete in its response to the SOW 2.1 Base Effort:

“Institutional Audit Support”, which lacked details.

6. The Offeror's response did not thoroughly address the artifacts required by GLPR 7120.5.30 for a PDR and did not adequately address resource estimates for the Mission Assurance - Sample Task 2.

SUBFACTOR B - Management Plan (MP) : Excellent / 419 points MP1 - Organizational Structure and Management Plan

1 Significant Strength, 1 Strength, and 1 Weakness

MP2 - Subcontractor Management 1 Significant Strength

MP3 - Recruitment, Retention, Staffing and Compensation

1 Strength

MP4 - Phase-In Plan 1 Strength

MP5 - Key Personnel Meets

The proposal received significant strengths for:

The Offeror proposed a well-designed practical management approach for effectively managing the ESHMA contract effort.

The Offeror's proposal provides detailed teaming arrangements, ensures how ESHMA SOW requirements are met/performed, provides clear rationale supporting any contractual arrangements and discusses details of all interfaces to the offeror’s organizational structure.

The proposal received strengths for:

1. The Offeror's proposal recognized and presented several key factors in support of an effective organizational structure and Management plan including strong management structure, a plan for buildup challenges and talent acquisition, QC needs and cost control for contract efficiency.

2. The Offeror's proposal discussed a plan for staffing including any changes, with the goal of 97% incumbent staffing retention and includes a description of the Bastion Academy framework to support job satisfaction and employee retention.

3. The Offeror's proposal provides detailed information on how to perform phase-in.

The proposal received a weakness for:

1. It is unclear how the FL identified for CLIN1 relates to the Env. Services Director identified later in the proposal.

Cost/Price

Bastion Technologies Inc’s proposal offered the highest proposed cost/price, $125,435,394.24, which was lower than the IGCE. A probable cost analysis was conducted, and no probable cost adjustments were made. Additionally, the SEB's cost analysis identified two (2) risks: (1) rates proposed for six (6) professional labor categories were significantly lower than the IGCE and historical rates; and (2) proposed escalation over the duration of the contract was slightly lower than recommended. As evaluated, Bastion Technologies Inc’s probable cost/price of $125,435,394.24 was the highest of the two (2) offerors and lower than the IGCE.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance – “Very High Level of Confidence”

Bastion and its major subcontractors’ (Team Bastion) relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition; indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Team Bastion received a Significant Strength for Relevance and a Significant Strength for Past Performance. Based on Team Bastion’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that Team Bastion will successfully perform the required effort.

Bastion and its major subcontractors (Team Bastion) overall were considered to have very highly relevant experience to the ESHMA statement of work (SOW) and overall requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP), which was determined to be a Significant Strength. There were 11 contracts and 3 task orders from the submitted Past Performance Narratives (PPNs), Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), and Past Performance Database (PPD) search that were determined to be relevant based on the considerations identified in the RFP (contract scope, type of client, contract type, contract size, type of services provided, recency of the contract, and length of the contract).

PPQs were received for seven (7) contracts and were determined relevant. The SEB found that the Team Bastion’s PPQ ratings were 94% exceptional and 6% very good.

In its review of the PPD, the SEB identified twenty (20) CPARS evaluations for contracts and task orders which were determined to be relevant. The SEB found that Team Bastion’s PPD ratings were 85% exceptional, 12% very good, and 3% satisfactory.

The comments provided by reviewers in the PPD and on the PPQs aligned with the ratings provided. Team Bastion’s highly successful record of past performance greatly enhances the potential for successful Contract performance.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

During the Source Selection Briefing described above, I discussed the scores and adjectival ratings for each offeror's proposal with the SEB. I had reviewed, in advance of the Briefing, the SEB’s detailed consensus findings. At the Briefing, I questioned the SEB about the qualitative aspects of each offeror’s proposal that generated the SEB’s findings, in order to determine how each offeror’s approach would impact contract performance. I also questioned the SEB regarding its evaluation methodology under each factor, its assessments, and its rationales for its assessments. Finally, I requested input and considered comments from the other senior officials who attended the Briefing.

I find that the SEB’s findings are detailed, consistent with the stated evaluation factors, and fairly describe the merits and risks of each proposal. The final charts the SEB presented summarize the SEB’s results for each of the offerors under each stated evaluation criterion. The SEB members also answered follow-up questions posed by myself and others attending the Briefing regarding its evaluation.

As the SSA, it is my responsibility to compare the proposals, to examine the SEB’s evaluation of each proposal under each factor and subfactor, and to consider the merits of the proposals in their entirety. It is also my responsibility to form an independent judgment as to the SEB’s evaluation results and to determine with which aspects of the evaluation I concur, and which aspects of the offerors’ proposals are discriminators for determining best value. I agree with the SEB’s findings but exercise my own judgment as to the significance to place upon those findings and the impact the qualitative aspects of each proposal addressed in the findings would have on each offeror’s performance of the contract.

I determine that the SEB’s findings, as documented in the Briefing, are supportable and have a rational basis, and are therefore valid for purposes of making my source selection decision. I am in agreement with the information the SEB presented and take no exception to the SEB’s actions or findings.

In examining the SEB's evaluation of each offeror under each evaluation factor, I do not simply tabulate the number of strengths or weaknesses each offeror received for selection purposes.

Rather, I undertake a qualitative assessment of each offeror’s proposal in an effort to understand the merits and drawbacks of each and to identify discriminating aspects of each offeror’s proposed approach.

Mission Suitability

In the most important Mission Suitability Factor, Bastion’s proposal stands out and presents distinct and substantial advantages over Aerodyne’s proposal. Aerodyne’s proposal, which had strengths in all but one of the elements of both subfactors, presents good technical merit across the board. I agree with the SEB, however, that these strengths are outbalanced by the weaknesses the proposal received, which include Significant Weaknesses under each subfactor.

Bastion’s proposal, which received multiple Significant Strengths under each subfactor, and no Significant Weaknesses under either subfactor, stands out under Mission Suitability.

In Subfactor A, Overall Understanding of the Requirements, Bastion’s proposal, which was rated Very Good, presents distinct advantages over Aerodyne’s proposal, which was rated Fair.

I am impressed by Bastion’s robust proposal on pressure and process system safety and gas and liquified gas safety program, its Risk Management Plan’s clear demonstration of an understanding of NASA’s risk management procedure, and its very solid responses to the sample Safety, Occupational Health, and Environmental tasks. I agree with the SEB that these aspects of Bastion’s proposal, which each received a Significant Strength, each significantly increases the likelihood of successful contract performance. I also find value in Bastion’s proposal’s strong demonstration of an understanding of the elements of Mission Assurance and their application in NASA projects; its demonstration of a complete understanding of Implementation Small Scale Environmental Sampling and Storm Water/Wastewater requirements; its demonstration of a thorough understanding of the scope of education, training, and certification requirements; its good responses in Industrial Hygiene Services, Chemical Management Programs, Institutional Operational Safety Support, Electronic Health Records, and the IDIQ task; and its sound technical understanding of the risks and mitigations associated with the proposed approach to a comprehensive exposure investigation. On the other hand, I am impressed by Aerodyne’s exceptional understanding of and well-defined process and unique approach to risk management and mitigation. I agree with the SEB that this aspect of Aerodyne’s proposal, which received a Significant Strength, significantly increases the likelihood of successful contract performance. I also find value in Aerodyne’s proposal of several approaches that demonstrate not only an understanding of the requirements but additional thoughts or processes that add value; its proposal of benchmarking and potential relationships to provide benefits such as best practices; and its appropriate and timely technical response to both the Environmental sample task and the Occupational Health sample task. I am concerned, however, with Aerodyne’s proposal’s lack of completeness and detailed or correct discussion of several significant technical requirements across several disciplines and not demonstrating a complete understanding of the Occupational Health and Operational Safety technical requirements. I agree with the SEB that this aspect of the proposal significantly increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.1 I also note the Weaknesses that

Aerodyne’s proposal received for the proposed Risk Management Plan not adequately describing key decision points for risks and not completely responding to a risk management and audit item mentioned in the SOW; the proposal not demonstrating a thorough technical understanding of the requirements, key elements or considerations for conducting a delta-PDR and did not demonstrate a thorough technical distinction and relationship between Software Assurance and Quality Assurance; and the proposal’s lack of completeness in certain aspects of the Environmental, Mission Assurance, and Safety sample tasks. I note, too, the Weaknesses that Bastion’s proposal received. Like Aerodyne, Bastion also proposed a Risk Management Plan that does not adequately describe key decision points. Additionally, I note that Bastion’s proposal lacked a detailed and technical discussion on some of the sections of SOW 3.1; did not provide a complete response on implementation of SOW elements 3.3.1.4 and 3.3.1.5 and did not provide complete information on how to leverage the safety data collected from NMIS and STAR; did not provide a complete response to SOW elements 3.4.1.2 and 3.4.2.6; was incomplete in its response to the SOW 2.1 Base Effort: “Institutional Audit Support”, which lacked details; and did not adequately address the artifacts required by GLPR 7120.5.30 for a PDR and resource estimates for the Mission Assurance sample task. Without discounting these weaknesses, I find them outbalanced by the proposal’s strengths, particularly Bastion’s robust proposal on pressure and process system safety and gas and liquified gas safety program, its Risk Management Plan’s clear demonstration of an understanding of NASA’s risk management procedure, and its very solid responses to the sample Safety, Occupational Health, and Environmental tasks. Without discounting the strengths in Aerodyne’s proposal, I find them outbalanced by the proposal’s weaknesses, particularly the lack of completeness and detailed or correct discussion of several significant technical requirements across several disciplines. I agree with the Very Good and Fair ratings that the SEB assigned to each proposal under this Subfactor.

In Subfactor B, Management Plan, Bastion’s proposal, which was rated Excellent, stands out and again presents advantages over Aerodyne’s proposal, which was rated Fair. I am impressed with Bastion’s well-designed and practical management approach and its detailed teaming arrangements. I agree with the SEB that these aspects of Bastion’s proposal, which each received Significant Strengths, significantly increase the likelihood of successful contract performance. I also find value in Bastion’s proposal of several key factors in support of an effective organizational structure and management plan; plan for staffing and framework to support job satisfaction and employee retention; and provision of detailed information on how to perform phase-in. With Aerodyne’s proposal, I am impressed that it received a Strength in each of the five elements of this Subfactor, including for presenting a sound plan for experienced on-site management; proposing to leverage an Integrated Team approach to managing subcontractors; proposing to establish relationships with HBCU's and MSI's and to use performance goals in individual plans for the purpose of capturing/retaining knowledge;

demonstrating ability to assume full contract responsibility within 45 days and showing ability to manage phase-in team, schedule, and staffing; and presenting a clear discussion of the important value for identifying key position(s), proposing to designate a team lead or high-potential leader within the organization as a backup Program Manager, and proposing to designate backup team leads for succession planning and to create opportunities. However, I am concerned that Aerodyne’s proposed organizational structure does not adequately respond to Section 3.5 of the SOW and does not account for NASA defining a contract management plan and also that Aerodyne’s proposed approach to staffing and retention includes unrealistic labor rates and inadequately addresses certification issues. I agree with the SEB that these aspects of Aerodyne’s proposal significantly increase the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

I also note that Aerodyne’s proposal does not adequately provide clarity and details on the type of the SOW work that the proposed subcontractors will perform or all interfaces to Aerodyne’s organizational structure, which also creates some risk. I agree with the SEB that these weaknesses outbalance Aerodyne’s proposal’s strengths. With respect to Bastion’s proposal, I agree with the SEB that the lack of clarity regarding how the Functional Lead (FL) proposed for CLIN 1 relates to the Environmental Services Director identified later in the proposal also introduces some risk. I note, however, that this is the only weakness that Bastion’s proposal received under this Subfactor, and that it is grossly outbalanced by the proposal’s strengths, particularly its well-designed and practical management approach and its detailed teaming arrangements. I agree with the Excellent and Fair ratings that the SEB assigned to each proposal under this Subfactor.

Overall, in the most important Mission Suitability Factor, Bastion’s proposal presents distinct and substantial advantages over Aerodyne’s proposal. Each of the proposals presents some good technical merit along with some weaknesses. I am impressed, however, with the Significant Strengths in Bastion’s proposal under both Subfactors and the absence of any Significant Weaknesses under either Subfactor. Bastion’s robust proposal on pressure and process system safety and gas and liquified gas safety program; its Risk Management Plan’s clear demonstration of an understanding of NASA’s risk management procedure; its very solid responses to the sample Safety, Occupational Health, and Environmental tasks; its well-designed and practical management approach; and its detailed teaming arrangements each significantly increases the likelihood of successful performance and these Significant Strengths are not offset by any Significant Weaknesses. In considering this along with the proposal’s other strengths and weaknesses, I find that Bastion’s proposal presents very strong technical value. Aerodyne’s proposal presents some good technical merit, but it does not rise to the level of Bastion’s. I do not discount the value in Aerodyne’s Significant Strength for its exceptional understanding of and well-defined process and unique approach to risk management and mitigation or its other Strengths. I agree with the SEB, however, that these strengths are outbalanced by the weaknesses in Aerodyne’s proposal, particularly the Significant Weaknesses it received for a lack of completeness and detailed or correct discussion of several significant technical requirements across several disciplines; a proposed organizational structure that does not adequately respond to Section 3.5 of the SOW and does not account for NASA defining a contract management plan; and also a proposed approach to staffing and retention that includes unrealistic labor rates and inadequately addresses certification issues. In this Factor, Bastion’s proposal presents distinct and substantial advantages over Aerodyne’s proposal.

Cost/Price

In the Cost/Price Factor, Aerodyne’s proposal presents a slight advantage over Bastion’s proposal. The proposed costs and prices of both proposals are relatively close to each other and slightly lower than the IGCE. Aerodyne’s proposed cost and price is slightly lower than Bastion’s. In accordance with Section M.5 of the RFP, the SEB performed a cost realism analysis of both proposals, which resulted in a very slight upward adjustment to Aerodyne’s proposed cost and price while no adjustments were made to Bastion’s proposed cost and price. I understand the basis for the SEB’s analysis and agree with the rationale for making the adjustment to Aerodyne’s proposed cost and price and not making an adjustment to Bastion’s. I also understand that, following this analysis, Aerodyne’s probable cost and price is slightly lower than Bastion’s probable cost and price and that both proposals’ probable costs and prices are slightly lower than the IGCE. Consequently, I find that Aerodyne’s proposal presents a slight advantage over Bastion’s proposal in this Factor.

In reaching this conclusion, I note that, in the course of conducting its cost realism analysis, the

SEB also identified certain risks in each proposal. Specifically, in both proposals, the SEB determined that rates proposed for some professional labor categories – five (5) in Aerodyne’s proposal and six (6) in Bastion’s – were significantly lower than the IGCE and historical rates;

and that proposed escalation over the duration of the contract was slightly lower than recommended. Additionally, the SEB also determined that, in Aerodyne’s proposal, escalation was not applied to seven (7) non-exempt labor categories and that the proposal included provisional billing rates not intended for proposal purposes. I understand the basis for the SEB identifying these risks, without making adjustments to either offeror’s probable costs and prices and agree with the SEB’s analysis. Without discounting these risks, I am confident that the probable costs and prices determined by the SEB reasonably reflect the probable cost of performance for each offeror.

As evaluated by the SEB, Aerodyne’s proposal offers a probable cost and price that is slightly lower than Bastion’s. On this basis, I find that Aerodyne has a slight advantage under this Factor. I further find, however, that Bastion’s probable cost and price is relatively close to Aerodyne’s and also lower than the IGCE and, thus, is nonetheless still fair and reasonable.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance

In the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor, Bastion’s proposal has a slight edge. I understand the rationale for and agree with the SEB’s determinations that Bastion’s proposal merits a Very High Level of Confidence and that Aerodyne’s proposal merits a High Level of Confidence. Both offerors have a track record of relevant experience and effective performance, providing good confidence that they would successfully perform the required effort. Although Aerodyne’s proposal is strong in Relevant Experience and Past Performance, Bastion’s proposal slightly outshines it.

With respect to relevant experience, Bastion’s proposal is slightly stronger than Aerodyne’s. I am impressed that the Aerodyne team has seven contracts determined to be relevant and that this experience collectively pertains to aspects of every section of the Statement of Work. I agree with the SEB that this highly pertinent experience is a Strength. At the same time, I find that Bastion’s relevant experience, consisting of eleven relevant contracts and three relevant task orders that also collectively pertain to aspects of every section of the Statement of Work, has slightly more depth and breadth than Aerodyne’s. I agree with the SEB that this very highly pertinent experience is a Significant Strength. In no way do I discount Aerodyne’s proposal for having less experience than Bastion’s or for any lack of experience in any particular area. The Bastion team simply has slightly more experience that is slightly more pertinent than the Aerodyne team’s experience.

With respect to past performance, Bastion’s proposal is again slightly stronger than Aerodyne’s.

I agree with the Strength that the SEB assigned Aerodyne’s proposal for past performance.

Over 80% of Aerodyne’s Past Performance Questionnaire ratings are Exceptional (56%) and Very Good (25%), with no rating lower than Satisfactory (19%), and comments consistent with these ratings. The ratings in the Past Performance Database are even more impressive, with 100% being either Exceptional (70%) or Very Good (30%) and the comments again consistent with these ratings. Bastion’s Past Performance Questionnaire ratings, the vast majority (94%) of which are Exceptional, with the small remainder (6%) being Very Good, and comments consistent with these ratings, are simply outstanding. Bastion’s Past Performance Database ratings, which were 85% Exceptional, 12% Very Good, and 3% Satisfactory, with comments consistent with the ratings, are also outstanding. I agree with the SEB that Bastion’s record of past performance merits a Significant Strength. With respect to past performance, Bastion’s proposal is slightly stronger than Aerodyne’s.

Overall, in the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor, Bastion’s proposal has a slight advantage over Aerodyne’s. Both offerors present a strong track record of largely exceptional and very good performance of relevant contracts that are highly pertinent to the ESHMA Statement of Work and RFP. Based on its track record alone, I have no doubt that Aerodyne could perform the contract capably. I agree with the High Level of Confidence the SEB determined for Aerodyne’s proposal. Bastion’s proposal presents slightly more experience and a slightly more outstanding record of past performance. I agree with the Very High Level of Confidence the SEB determined for Bastion’s proposal. Accordingly, I find that Bastion’s proposal has a slight advantage over Aerodyne’s under this Factor.

Best Value

In comparing the qualitative advantages presented by Bastion’s proposal with Aerodyne’s lower cost/price proposal, I find that Bastion’s proposal presents the better value. Again, Bastion’s robust proposal on pressure and process system safety and gas and liquified gas safety program;

its Risk Management Plan’s clear demonstration of an understanding of NASA’s risk management procedure; its very solid responses to the sample Safety, Occupational Health, and Environmental tasks; its well-designed and practical management approach; and its detailed teaming arrangements each significantly increases the likelihood of successful performance and these Significant Strengths are not offset by any Significant Weaknesses. In considering this along with the proposal’s other strengths and weaknesses, I find that Bastion’s proposal presents superior technical value over Aerodyne’s proposal, whose weaknesses, particularly its Significant Weaknesses, outbalance its strengths. This technical superiority of Bastion’s proposal, on its own, justifies the slight cost and price premium that it presents when compared to Aerodyne’s proposal. When I combine this technical superiority with the slight advantage that Bastion’s proposal also presents under the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor, where Bastion was evaluated as having slightly more relevant experience and a slightly stronger record of past performance, the qualitative advantages of Bastion’s proposal more than justify its slight cost premium. This is especially true in the context of this procurement where, as stated in the RFP, Mission Suitability and Relevant Experience and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

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

Konstantinos S. Martzaklis, Date Source Selection Authority

KONSTANTINOS

MARTZAKLIS

Digitally signed by

KONSTANTINOS MARTZAKLIS

Date: 2024.02.26 12:07:39 -05'00'