CMIST-II Source Selection Statement.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 Construction Management, Inspection, Surveying, and Testing (CMIST-II) Contract

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Solicitation Number 80GRC023CA001)

On February 8, 2024, the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals for the Construction Management, Inspection, Surveying, and Testing (CMIST-II) procurement under Solicitation Number 80GRC023CA001 presented the results of its evaluation of the 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 acquire Construction Management, Inspection, Surveying, and Testing Services and related services for the Facilities Infrastructure Division (FD). FD at NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) has the responsibility to assure safe, efficient, reliable, and sustainable facilities while complying with all national, state, and local regulations and requirements. FD also ensures the quality of construction and maintenance operations tasks while also supporting the enforcement of applicable environmental and safety regulations at Lewis Field in Cleveland, Ohio, and Armstrong Test Facility (ATF) in Sandusky, Ohio. This work requires the efforts of both NASA civil servants and various support service contractors. The CMIST-II contract will provide support for construction management, inspection, surveying, and testing.

The focus of this acquisition is to provide these services for FD by managing construction projects and maintenance tasks, from the initial concept through completion including requirements development, design, construction, commissioning, activation, and turnover. Several onsite maintenance contracts perform routine, periodic maintenance and testing while construction contracts are awarded through a competitive procurement process. This contract will provide support for these construction and maintenance activities.

This is a follow-on acquisition to Construction, Maintenance, Environmental, & Testing Services (COMETS) contract number 80GRC018C0022. It is noted that all environmental requirements which were previously included in the scope of work of the COMETS contract were not included in the CMIST-II procurement, as this scope of work was found to be better aligned to the Environmental, Safety, Health, and Mission Assurance (ESHMA) requirement. Conversely, Maintenance Management, Building Management, and High Voltage Safety Support services were added to the CMIST-II requirement. This acquisition may support other NASA Centers’ requirements in the future, if needed, in the following scope of work areas: Discrete Tasks IDIQ.

The contract will be a hybrid contract type including Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF), Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), and Cost-Reimbursement (CR) Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs). The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code and Size Standard for this procurement is 541330 - Engineering Services with a Size Standard of $22.5 Million.

A Sources Sought Notices was posted on October 7, 2022 under NAICS 541330 Engineering Services. The Government conducted CMIST-II as an 8(a) small business set-aside competition.

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 Procurement Strategy Meeting (PSM) was held May 9, 2022. A draft Request for Proposals for this procurement was issued on June 23, 2023, followed by an Industry Day on June 26, 2023. The final Request for Proposals (RFP) for the CMIST-II procurement was issued on August 3, 2023, requiring proposals to be submitted by September 4, 2023. Four (4) Amendments to the RFP were subsequently issued. Amendment 1 was posted on August 18, 2023, adding the Box link for proposals. Amendment 2 was posted on August 21, 2023, extending the proposal submission due date from September 4, 2023 to September 11, 2023. Amendment 3 was posted on August 28, 2023, updating certain provisions and information contained in the RFP, but did not change the time or date for submitting timely proposals. Amendment 4 was posted on August 31, 2023, updating additional provisions and information contained in the RFP and providing answers to relevant questions that were received during the Questions and Answers period, but did not change the time or date for submitting timely proposals.

Two (2) proposals were received on-time in response to the CMIST-II RFP. Both proposals were considered initially acceptable and were evaluated by the SEB.

Proposals were submitted by the following offerors:

Firelake-Arrowhead NASA Services 2 JV (FANS 2)

Hana-Procon 8A JV LLC (Hana-Procon)

EVALUATION CRITERIA/PROCEDURES

The proposals were evaluated by the SEB, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3, and the evaluation criteria included in the

CMIST-II RFP.

The CMIST-II RFP stated that the Government “intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussion of such offers” but reserved the Government’s right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. Additionally, the RFP stated that the SSA will select the responsible offeror whose proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation and provides the best value to the Government based on the weighting of the evaluation factors detailed in the RFP.

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 was comprised of the following factors: Mission Suitability, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, and Cost/Price. As individual factors, Mission Suitability, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, and Cost/Price are approximately equal.

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

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

Volume I: Mission Suitability

Subfactor A: Understanding the Requirements (UTR) – 500 Points

UTR1: Facility Management UTR2: Retro-commissioning of Building 3- Sample Task

Subfactor B: Management Approach (MA) – 400 Points

• MA1: Management Plan

• MA2: Organizational Structure/Partnering Approach

• MA3: Staffing, Recruitment, Retention, and Training

Subfactor C: Phase-In Plan (PIP) – 100 Points

• PIP1: Phase-In Plan

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) and NFS 1815.304-70. 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 CMIST-II 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 Factor was not numerically scored and did not receive an adjectival rating. The analysis techniques under FAR 15.404 and NFS 1815.404 were considered to determine a fair and reasonable price. 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 in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), and the proposed costs were adjusted for each offeror, as needed, to establish a probable cost to the Government. A price analysis was also conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b).

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 BRIEFING

On February 8, 2024, 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 the full set of PowerPoint charts with the 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 certain SEB Voting Members, Non-Voting Members, Committee members, and Ex-Officio Members. During the Briefing, the overall evaluation process and the Evaluation Results regarding Mission Suitability, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, and Cost/Price were presented and discussed.

Additionally, during the Briefing, I provided the SEB with my independent judgment relative to the Evaluations Results and asked questions regarding the information presented.

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

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

FANS 2 Hana-Procon

Mission Suitability (1,000 points) 722 560

Total Proposed Cost/Price Lowest Highest

Total Evaluated Price1 Lowest Highest

Total Probable Cost/Price Lowest Highest

Relevant Experience and Past Performance

Very High Level of Confidence

Moderate Level of Confidence

FANS 2

Mission Suitability – 722 Points

In Subfactor A, Understanding the Requirement, the FANS 2 proposal was rated “Good” and assigned 325 points with one (1) Strength.

The proposal received a Strength for:

1. The Offeror’s proposal included an effective approach to the Facility Management (UTR1) that included a detailed and thorough approach to implementing the safety, health, and environmental requirements of the SOW and description of disciplines, skills, and techniques to be used in the performance.

1 Per the RFP, the total evaluated price was the sum of CLIN 1 (Phase-in), CLINS 2, 6, 8, & 10 (PMO for Base services) and CLINS 3, 7, 9 &11 (Base services), and proposed Fee and included any probable cost adjustments. The total evaluated price excluded CLINS 4 and 5 (IDIQ).

In Subfactor B, Management Approach, the FANS 2 proposal was rated "Very Good" and assigned 332 points with two (2) Strengths and one (1) Significant Strength.

1. The Offeror’s proposal contained an effective approach to Management Plan (MA1) that included a detailed and thorough approach to provide management support to manage all work, staff requirements, and fluctuations in workload, as work requirements increase or decrease.

2. The Offeror’s proposal included an effective approach to Organizational Structure/Partnering

Approach (MA2) that included a Program Manager (PM)’s whose qualifications and experience will be used to effectively manage the requirements of the SOW.

The proposal received Significant Strength for:

1. The Offeror’s proposal provided highly effective approach to Staffing, Recruitment, Retention, Training, and Compensation (MA3). The proposal included an exceptionally detailed and thorough staffing plan with rationale on size, skill mix, recruitment, maintaining and retaining staff that included highly-skilled employees and highly effective levels of staffing. The proposal also included a comprehensive approach to recruitment, retention, and identification of employees with skills and competencies that may be in short supply or are critical by including a competitive benefits package as well as other perks, such as training, professional growth, merit raises, etc., to retain employees in a competitive job market.

In Subfactor C, Phase-In Plan, the FANS 2 proposal was rated “Good” and assigned 65 points with one (1) Strength.

The proposal received Strength for:

1. The Offeror’s proposal included an effective Phase-In Plan with a detailed and thorough approach to initial recruitment and hiring.

Cost/Price

FANS 2’s proposal offered the lowest proposed cost/price at $38,879,540, which was lower than the IGCE. A probable cost analysis was conducted, and probable cost adjustments of less than 1% of the proposed cost/price were made consistent with the SEB’s finding that the proposal included an administrative error in relation to the proposed subcontract cost. Additionally, the SEB’s cost analysis identified a cost risk because the proposal did not provide sufficient detail to understand the proposed overtime (e.g., the specific hours or categories incurring the overtime). As evaluated, the FANS 2 proposal’s probable cost/price, at $38,959,392, was the lowest of the two (2) offerors and lower than the IGCE.

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

The FANS 2 proposal received a “Very High Level of Confidence” rating under the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor.

In the PPN evaluation, FANS 2 and its Major Subcontractor (Team Firelake-Arrowhead) submitted four (4) contracts for consideration. The SEB determined that three (3) of the contracts submitted were highly relevant and one (1) of the contracts submitted was somewhat relevant to the CMIST-II requirements. Overall, the SEB found that Team Firelake-Arrowhead’s experience to be very highly pertinent to the CMIST-II requirement, which the SEB considered to greatly enhance the potential of successful contract performance under the anticipated CMIST-II contract. The SEB therefore assigned Team Firelake-Arrowhead with a Significant Strength in this area.

Under the PPQ evaluation, three (3) PPQs were received for Team Firelake-Arrowhead: two (2) PPQs for contracts that the SEB determined to be highly relevant and one (1) PPQ for a contract that the SEB determined to be somewhat relevant. In the PPQs for the highly relevant contracts, Team Firelake-Arrowhead received Excellent (86%) to Very Good (14%) ratings on customer responses regarding the technical rating, schedule rating, cost rating, and business rating on contracts that the SEB found to be highly relevant to the CMIST-II requirements. In the PPQ for the somewhat relevant contract, Team Firelake-Arrowhead received Excellent (8%), Very Good (84%), and Good (8%) ratings on customer responses regarding technical rating, schedule rating, cost rating, and business rating on a contract that the SEB found to be somewhat relevant to the CMIST-II requirements. The comments were reviewed and found to be consistent with the ratings. The SEB found that the PPQ information submitted for Team Firelake-Arrowhead demonstrated exemplary performance on two highly relevant contracts and one somewhat relevant contract, which the SEB considered to greatly enhance the potential for successful contract performance. The SEB therefore assigned Team Firelake-Arrowhead a Significant Strength in this area.

Under the PPD evaluation, the SEB identified eight (8) CPARS evaluations for Team Firelake- Arrowhead for multiple contracts, all of which the SEB determined to be highly relevant to the CMIST-II requirements. In these CPARS evaluations, Team Firelake-Arrowhead received Exceptional (71%), Very Good (24%), and Satisfactory (5%) ratings on customer responses regarding the quality, schedule, cost control, management, and regulatory compliance of its performance on contracts that the SEB found to be highly relevant to the CMIST-II requirements. The comments were reviewed and found to be consistent with the ratings. The SEB found that the PPD information submitted for Team Firelake-Arrowhead demonstrated exemplary performance on multiple highly relevant contracts, which the SEB considered to greatly enhance the potential for successful contract performance. The SEB therefore assigned Team Firelake-Arrowhead a Significant Strength in this area.

Overall, the SEB found Team Firelake-Arrowhead’s relevant past performance to be of exceptional merit and very highly pertinent to the CMIST-II acquisition, indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economic manner. The SEB determined that it had a Very High Level of Confidence that the offeror would successfully perform the required effort.

Hana-Procon

Mission Suitability – 560 Points

In Subfactor A, Understanding the Requirement, the Hana-Procon proposal was rated “Good” and assigned 325 points with one (1) Strength.

1. The proposal contained a detailed, thorough, and effective approach to the Retrocommisioning Sample Task (UTR2) regarding potential technical and/or managerial challenges and critical issues, including risk identification and mitigation.

In Subfactor B, Management Approach, the Hana-Procon proposal was rated “Fair” and assigned 180 points with one (1) Strength and one (1) Weakness.

1. The proposal contained an effective approach to the Organizational Structure/Partnering Approach (MA2) that included a Program Manager (PM)’s whose qualifications and experience will be used to effectively manage the requirements of the SOW.

The proposal received a Weakness for:

1. The proposal contained an ineffective approach to the Organizational Structure/Partnering Approach (MA2).

In Subfactor C, Phase-In Plan, the Hana-Procon proposal was rated “Good” and assigned 55 points with one (1) Weakness.

The proposal received a Weakness for:

1. The proposal contained an ineffective and unrealistic Phase-In Plan (PIP) that lacked adequate detail.

Hana-Procon’s proposal offered the highest proposed cost/price, which was lower than the IGCE. A probable cost analysis was conducted, and probable cost adjustments of approximately 25% of the proposed cost/price were made to the proposed direct labor costs and proposed subcontract cost, consistent with the SEB’s finding in the technical evaluation that the proposal understated the proposed work year equivalents for Facilities and Construction Management. Second, an upward adjustment was made consistent with the SEB’s finding that Hana Procon’s proposal included an administrative error in relation to a subcontractor’s proposed cost. Third, an upward adjustment was made to the proposal’s Other Direct Costs (“ODCs”) for several CLINs, consistent with SEB’s finding in the technical evaluation that the proposed ODCs were determined not to be reasonable.

Additionally, the SEB’s cost analysis identified five (5) costs risks: (1) the proposal did not provide sufficient detail regarding Hana Procon’s indirect rates and the associated costs; (2) the indirect rate template did not disclose the allocation base; (3) Hana Procon’s accounting system has not been reviewed and would need to be reviewed prior to award; (4) Hana Procon’s Joint Venture Agreement (JV) did not appear to be updated for CMIST-II; and (5) it was unclear what the JV member businesses’ base labor rate structures and costs are because the proposal did not include the Joint Venture’s methodology for accounting for all direct and indirect costs. As evaluated, the Hana-Procon proposal’s probable cost/price was the highest of the two (2) offerors and higher than the IGCE.

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

The Hana-Procon proposal received a “Moderate Level of Confidence” rating under Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor.

In the PPN evaluation, Hana-Procon submitted six (6) contracts for consideration. The SEB determined that four (4) of the contracts submitted were somewhat relevant to the CMIST-II requirements and two (2) of the contracts submitted were not relevant because the contracts did not fall within the RFP’s defined period of recency. Overall, the SEB found that Hana-Procon’s experience was pertinent to the CMIST-II requirements, which the SEB considered to adequately address the anticipated CMIST-II contract. The SEB therefore assigned Hana-Procon with a Meets in this area.

Under the PPQ evaluation, one (1) PPQ was received for Hana-Procon for a contract that the SEB determined to be somewhat relevant. In this PPQ, Hana-Procon received Excellent (43%) to Very Good (57%) ratings on customer responses regarding the technical rating, schedule rating, cost rating, and business rating on a contract that the SEB found to be somewhat relevant to the CMIST-II requirements. The comments were reviewed and found to be consistent with the ratings. The SEB found that the PPQ information submitted for Hana-Procon demonstrated effective performance on a somewhat relevant contract, which the SEB considered to enhance the potential for successful contract performance. The SEB therefore assigned Hana-Procon a Strength in this area.

Under the PPD evaluation, the SEB identified nine (9) CPARS evaluations for Hana-Procon, all associated with a contract that the SEB found to be somewhat relevant to the CMIST-II requirements.

In these CPARS evaluations, Hana-Procon received Exceptional (34%), Very Good (59%), and Satisfactory (7%) ratings on customer responses regarding the quality, schedule, management, and regulatory compliance of its performance on a contract that the SEB found to be somewhat relevant to the CMIST-II requirements. The comments were reviewed and found to be consistent with the ratings.

The SEB found that the PPD information submitted for Hana-Procon demonstrated effective performance on a somewhat relevant contract, which the SEB considered to enhance the potential for successful contract performance. The SEB therefore assigned Hana-Procon a Strength in this area.

Overall, the SEB found Hana-Procon’s relevant past performance to be pertinent to the CMIST-II acquisition and to demonstrate effective performance that was fully responsive to contract requirements. The SEB determined that it had a Moderate Level of Confidence that the offeror would successfully perform the required effort.

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 Evaluation Results, including all documentation in the back-up charts. At the Briefing, I questioned the SEB about the qualitative aspects of each offeror’s proposal that generated the SEB’s findings 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 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 its 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.

As the SSA, it is my responsibility to compare the proposals, examine the SEB’s evaluation of each proposal under each evaluation factor, and 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 with, 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.

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 based on the weighting of the evaluation factors detailed in the RFP. 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, Mission Suitability, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, and Cost/Price are approximately equal. When combined, Mission Suitability and Relevant Experience and Past Performance are significantly more important than the Cost/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

Under the Mission Suitability Factor, FANS 2’s proposal presents distinct and material advantages over Hana Procon’s proposal. Both FANS-2 and Hana Procon submitted proposals with some technical merit, especially with respect to Subfactor A: Understanding the Requirements, where each proposal was rated “Good” and each offeror’s proposal received a Strength. However, FANS 2’s proposal presented valuable technical merit across the entire Mission Suitability Factor, receiving at least one Strength under each of the Mission Suitability Subfactors and not receiving a single Weakness, while Hana Procon’s proposal received a Weakness in two of the Subfactors. FANS 2’s proposal also outshines Hana Procon’s proposal in Subfactor B: Management, where Hana Procon’s proposal was rated “Fair,” while FANS 2’s proposal was rated “Very Good.”

In Subfactor A: Understanding the Requirements, both Hana Procon’s and FANS 2’s proposals are relatively strong – notably, FANS 2’s proposal received a Strength in UTR1, and Hana Procon’s proposal received a Strength in UTR2. Neither proposal received a Weakness in any element of this subfactor, which is impressive. I note that FANS 2’s proposal received a Strength for proposing an effective approach to Facility Management, which included a detailed and thorough method to implementing the safety, health, and environmental requirements of the SOW, and a description of disciplines, skills, and techniques to be used during performance. I agree with the SEB that this aspect of FANS 2’s proposal will have a positive impact on the successful performance of the contract, as it enhances efficiency, underscores the offeror’s expertise, and demonstrates its adaptability in addressing changing needs. I note that Hana Procon’s proposal received a Strength for its detailed, thorough, and effective approach to identifying and mitigating potential critical issues and technical and/or managerial challenges in the Retrocommisioning Sample Task, demonstrating a clear understanding of this area of the SOW. I agree with the SEB that this aspect of Hana Procon’s proposal will have a positive impact on the successful performance of the contract value by upholding the project schedule, reducing communication errors, and enhancing overall efficiency. Overall, under Subfactor A: Understanding the Requirements, I find that both FANS 2’s and Hana Procon’s proposals present technical value to the Government, and I agree with the SEB that both proposals merit ratings of “Good.”

With respect to Subfactor B: Management Approach, FANS 2’s proposal, which was rated “Very Good” and received two Strengths and one Significant Strength, presents distinct and material advantages over Hana Procon’s proposal, which was rated “Fair” and received one Strength and one Weakness. In MA1: Management Plan, FANS 2’s proposal received a Strength for identifying accessible resources beyond those that would be necessary for day-to-day operations, as well as proposing an effective approach for providing management support to manage all work, staff requirements, and fluctuations in workload. I agree with the SEB that this aspect of FANS 2’s proposal provides strong technical value, as it could help ensure agile and efficient operations in dynamic environments. With respect to MA2: Organizational Structure/Partnering Approach, I note that FANS 2’s and Hana Procon’s proposals each received a Strength. Specifically, FANS 2’s proposal received a Strength for proposing a Program Manager (PM) who is highly-qualified and has extensive experience in Facility Management/Construction Management at NASA GRC and other federal facilities, which will be used to effectively manage the requirements of the SOW. Similarly, Hana Procon’s proposal received a Strength for offering a PM who is highly-qualified, has extensive experience, and has demonstrated success in serving as the Executive PM across other contracts and programs, which will be used to effectively manage the requirements of the SOW. I agree with the SEB that these aspects of each offeror’s proposal present technical value. I note that Hana Procon’s proposal also received a Weakness in MA2 for failing to include detail required by the RFP – namely, some of the required labor categories and associated all WYEs for each labor category. I agree with the SEB that this aspect of Hana Procon’s proposal increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance, as the lack of details and exclusion of the required labor categories makes it difficult to understand the proposed staffing strategy and levels. In MA3: Staffing, Recruitment, Retention, Training, and Compensation, I am impressed with the Significant Strength that FANS 2’s proposal received for its exceptionally thorough staffing plan and its comprehensive approach to recruitment, retention, and identification of positions with skill and competencies that may be in short supply/critical. I agree with the SEB that this aspect of FANS 2’s proposal demonstrates an exceptional understanding of Staffing, Recruitment, Retention, Training, and Compensation, greatly enhancing the potential for successful contract performance. Overall, I am impressed with the quality of and the advantages provided in the Strengths presented by the FANS 2 proposal under this Subfactor, and I find that Hana Procon’s proposal simply does not rise to the level of FANS 2’s proposal.

In Subfactor C: Phase-In Plan, FANS 2’s proposal, which was rated “Good” and received a Strength, has an advantage over Hana Procon’s proposal, which was rated “Good” and received a Weakness. I am impressed with the Strength that FANS 2’s proposal received for its effective Phase-In Plan, which contained a detailed and thorough approach to initial recruitment and hiring. I agree with the SEB that FANS 2’s proposed staffing strategy for the high-voltage safety requirement was well-thought-out, cost-efficient, and proactive. I note that Hana Procon’s proposal received a Weakness for its ineffective and unrealistic Phase-In Plan because it lacked adequate detail. I agree with the SEB that this Phase-In Plan creates a risk with respect to assumption of full contract responsibility within the time required by the RFP. With its strong Phase-In Plan, I find that FANS 2’s proposal has the advantage over Hana Procon’s proposal under Subfactor C.

Overall, FANS 2’s proposal presents distinct and material advantages over Hana Procon’s proposal in the Mission Suitability Factor. Hana Procon’s proposal, which was rated “Good” for Subfactors A and C and “Fair” for Subfactor B, has some technical merit, as it received two Strengths and two Weaknesses that present value and risks to the successful performance of this contract. However, FANS 2’s proposal provides a thorough and effective approach across all three Mission Suitability Subfactors, particularly in Subfactor B: Management Approach, and it did not receive a single Weakness under any Subfactor. I therefore find that FANS 2’s proposal provides very strong technical value to the Government and is superior to Hana Procon’s proposal under the Mission Suitability Factor.

In the Cost/Price Factor, FANS 2’s proposal has the advantage over Hana Procon’s proposal. In reviewing the SEB’s assessment of each offeror’s Cost/Price proposal, I understand that FANS 2’s proposal presents the lowest proposed, total evaluated, and probable cost/price, all of which are lower than the IGCE.

I agree with the SEB’s probable cost adjustments to both FANS 2 and Hana Procon’s proposals. I understand that, in accordance with Section M.5 of the RFP, the SEB performed a cost realism analysis of both proposals that resulted in upward probable cost adjustments to both FANS 2’s and Hana Procon’s proposed cost and price. I understand the basis for the SEB’s analysis and agree with the rationale for making each adjustment. I also understand that, following this analysis, FANS 2’s probable cost and total evaluated price are the lowest and lower than the IGCE and that Hana Procon’s probable cost/price and total evaluated price are the highest and higher than the IGCE.

Consequently, I find that FANS 2’s proposal has the advantage over Hana Procon’s proposal in this Factor.

In reaching this conclusion, I note that, in the course of conducting its evaluation under the Cost/Price Factor, the SEB also identified certain risks in each proposal, which are summarized above in the Cost/Price Evaluation section for each proposal. I understand the basis for the SEB identifying these risks, without making additional adjustments to either offeror’s total evaluate price and probable cost/price, and agree with the SEB’s analysis. Without discounting these risks, I am confident that the probable cost/price determined by the SEB reasonably reflects the probable cost of performance for each offeror and make my selection decision on the basis of the total evaluated price and probable cost/price assigned to each proposal.

As evaluated by the SEB, FANS 2’s proposal offers a total evaluated price and probable cost/price that is lower than Hana Procon’s. On this basis, I find that FANS 2 has an advantage under the Cost/Price 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 determinations that FANS 2’s proposal merits a Very High Level of Confidence and Hana Procon’s proposal merits a Moderate Level of Confidence. The Evaluation Results under the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor demonstrate that Hana Procon has a track record of effective performance on contracts somewhat relevant to CMIST-II, which provides some confidence they would successfully perform the required effort. However, the Evaluation Results under the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor demonstrate that Team Firelake-Arrowhead has a track record of exemplary performance primarily on contracts that the SEB found to be highly relevant to CMIST-II, which provides immense confidence that it would successfully perform the required effort.

Overall, I find that FANS 2’s proposal stands out and is superior to Hana Procon’s proposal under this evaluation factor.

With respect to relevant experience, FANS 2’s proposal is the strongest. I note that Team Firelake- Arrowhead’s experience is supported by multiple highly relevant contracts and one somewhat relevant contract that collectively pertain to almost every section of the CMIST-II Statement of Work.

I agree with the SEB that this very highly pertinent experience merits a Significant Strength under the PPN evaluation. Furthermore, I agree with the SEB that four of Hana Procon’s referenced contracts are somewhat relevant to CMIST-II based on the considerations identified in the RFP. I agree with the SEB that the experience identified in Hana Procon’s proposal is pertinent to CMIST-II and presents value. While I in no way discount this pertinent experience, I find that the very highly pertinent experience identified in the PPN evaluation of FANS 2’s proposal provides the FANS 2 proposal with an advantage over the pertinent experience presented in the Hana Procon proposal.

With respect to performance, both proposals are relatively strong, but FANS 2’s proposal stands out over Hana Procon’s proposal. In the PPQ ratings for Hana Procon’s somewhat relevant contract, the majority of the ratings were Very Good with the remaining ratings being Excellent, with comments that were consistent with the ratings. I agree with the SEB that this aspect of Hana Procon’s proposal merits a Strength and presents value. I am more impressed with the Significant Strength that FANS 2’s proposal received under the PPQ evaluation, in particular the PPQ ratings for two of FANS 2’s highly relevant contracts, as the ratings were almost all Excellent with the remaining percentage being Very Good, with comments that were consistent with the ratings. I am also impressed with the PPQ ratings on FANS 2’s somewhat relevant contract, as the ratings were almost all Very Good, with a small percentage of Excellent and Good ratings, and comments that were consistent with the ratings. I agree with the SEB’s determination that the PPQ information submitted for Team Firelake- Arrowhead demonstrated exemplary performance on two highly relevant contracts and one somewhat relevant contract, greatly enhancing the potential for successful contract performance. Therefore, I find that FANS 2’s proposal is stronger than Hana Procon’s proposal under the PPQ evaluation.

In the PPD evaluation, I note that Hana Procon’s performance on its somewhat relevant contracts received a majority of Very Good ratings, a third of Exceptional ratings, and a small percentage of Satisfactory ratings, with comments that were consistent with the ratings. I agree with the SEB’s assessment that the PPD information submitted for Hana Procon merited a Strength and demonstrated effective performance on somewhat relevant contracts, which enhances the potential for successful contract performance. Regarding the PPD evaluation for the FANS 2 proposal, I agree with and am impressed by the Significant Strength that Team Firelake-Arrowhead received for the PPD ratings that it received on its highly relevant contracts, with the vast majority of the ratings being Exceptional, a moderate percentage being Very Good, and a small percentage being Satisfactory, with comments that were consistent with the ratings. I agree with the SEB’s determination that the PPD information submitted for Team Firelake-Arrowhead demonstrated exemplary performance on multiple highly relevant contracts, greatly enhancing the potential for successful contract performance. Therefore, I also find that FANS 2’s proposal is stronger than Hana Procon’s proposal under the PPD evaluation.

Overall, I agree with the SEB’s determination that FANS 2’s proposal merits a Very High Level of Confidence and Hana Procon’s proposal merits a Moderate Level of Confidence. I find that Hana Procon has a track record of effective performance on contracts that are somewhat relevant, which provides some confidence they would successfully perform the required effort. However, I find that FANS 2’s proposal is the strongest, given Team Firelake-Arrowhead’s exemplary performance on contracts that are primarily highly relevant to this acquisition, which provides immense confidence that the offeror would successfully perform the required effort. As a result, I determine that the FANS 2’s proposal is superior to Hana Procon’s proposal under the Relevant Experience and Past Performance 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 weighting of the evaluation factors detailed in the RFP. Accordingly, in making my selection decision, I remain mindful that, as individual factors, Mission Suitability, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, and Cost/Price are approximately equal. Further, I consider that, when combined, Mission Suitability and Relevant Experience and Past Performance are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

Under the Mission Suitability Factor, FANS 2’s proposal presents distinct and material technical advantages over Hana Procon’s proposal. While I find that Hana Procon’s proposal has some technical merit, I am particularly impressed with FANS 2’s outstanding response to Subfactor B, which demonstrated superior comprehension, provided an exceptionally thorough staffing plan, and offered an effective approach for providing management support to manage fluctuating workloads and requirements. FANS 2’s approach to Subfactor A also presented value, as its use of cross-trained personnel could help to ensure flexibility to handle changing workloads and needs, its focus on matching personnel qualifications to requirements enhanced efficiency, and its specificity in references underscored their expertise. Similarly, I agree with the SEB’s determination that FANS 2’s approach to Subfactor C presents value by proposing a management team and staff with extensive experience, committed staff, and a well-thought-out and cost-efficient strategy for recruitment and staffing the new high-voltage safety requirement.

Although I do not discount the Strengths in Hana Procon’s proposal that offer some value, its proposal simply did not rise to the level that the FANS 2’s proposal presents. I recognize the Strength that Hana Procon received for its highly qualified and experienced PM in Subfactor B, as well as its solid response to Subfactor A, where it received no Weaknesses and proposed an effective approach to the Recommissioning Sample Task, which merited a Strength. At the same time, I am concerned by the Weaknesses that Hana Procon’s proposal received in Subfactor B, for failing to provide all required labor categories and WYE, because it presents a risk by limiting the Government’s ability to understand Hana Procon’s proposed staffing strategy and levels, which are critical to successful contract performance. Similarly, I am concerned by the Weakness that Hana Procon’s proposal received in Subfactor C, for its inadequately detailed and unrealistic Phase-In Plan, because it presents a risk that Hana Procon may not be able to assume full contract responsibility within the timeframe required by the RFP. I agree with the SEB that these aspects of Hana Procon’s approach indicate risks of unsuccessful contract performance. I do not have the same concerns with FANS 2’s proposal, as it did not contain a single Weakness and received at least one Strength in each of the Mission Suitability Subfactors, which is impressive. While both proposals have some technical merit, I find that FANS 2’s technical proposal presents superior technical value and distinct and material advantages over Hana Procon’s proposal under the Mission Suitability Factor.

I find that FANS 2’s proposal presents a significant advantage over Hana Procon’s proposal in the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor. Hana Procon received a Moderate Level of Confidence and Strengths in the PPQ and PPD evaluation due to its solid track record of effective performance on contracts that are somewhat relevant to the CMIST-II requirements, which I do not discount as they offer some value. However, this performance was not as strong as FANS 2’s proposal in this regard, which received a Significant Strength in each of the three areas of the Relevant Experience and Past Performance evaluation. I am particularly impressed with the fact that FAN 2’s proposal received a Very High Level of Confidence for its track record of exemplary performance on contracts that were primarily highly relevant to the requirements in this acquisition.

As explained above, I find that the FANS 2’s proposal has the advantage over Hana Procon’s proposal under the Cost/Price Factor because FANS 2’s proposal presents the lowest Total Evaluated Price and probable cost/price. Based on this advantage, I find that no tradeoff decision is necessary for my decision.

Accordingly, I find that FANS 2’s proposal, which meets the requirements of the solicitation, presents the best value to the Government. Therefore, I hereby select FANS 2 to perform the CMIST-II contract as outlined in RFP 80GRC023CA001.

Kurt A. Straub Source Selection Authority

Kurt Straub

Digitally signed by Kurt Straub Date: 2024.03.11 13:02:17 -04'00'