ESES IV Source Selection Statement Signed.pdf

Source Selection Statement For

Electrical Systems Engineering Services IV (ESES IV)

Solicitation Number 80GSFC21R0051

On April 10, 2024, I, along with senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to hear findings based on the evaluation of the proposals for the Electrical Systems Engineering Services (ESES) IV procurement. As a result of this meeting, I made an initial selection decision.

On May 15, 2024, the ESES IV Contracting Officer (CO) informed the ESES IV offerors of my selection. Following that notification, one of the offerors submitted a timely small business size status protest of the selected offeror. As a result of the protest, the Small Business Administration (SBA) determined that the selected Offeror was other than small, and therefore ineligible for award. On August 23, 2024, the selected Offeror appealed this decision to the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). On December 4, 2024, OHA denied the appeal.

On October 30, 2024, I, along with senior officials from NASA GSFC, held a follow-up meeting with the SEB as a result of the SBA’s determination that the original selected offeror was ineligible for award. This meeting was held to make progress and tentatively select a new Offeror, pending the outcome of the SBA OHA appeal decision. This memorandum documents my new selection decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The principal purpose of this contract is to acquire electrical/electronic engineering support services for the following NASA GSFC technical organizations: Electrical Engineering Division (EED), Instrument Systems and Technology Division (ISTD), Software Engineering Division (SED), Mission Engineering and Systems Analysis Division (MESA); related organizations and other NASA Centers and locations specified in task orders. The contractor shall provide study, design, development, fabrication, integration, testing, verification, and operations of space flight, airborne, and ground system hardware, including development and validation of new technologies to enable future space and science missions.

The ESES IV requirement was issued as a small business set-aside procurement under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 541715 (Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)), with a small business size standard of 1000 employees.

The resultant contract will be a Single Award, Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF), Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) task order contract with an effective ordering period of five (5) years.

A 60-day phase-in period will be accomplished under a separate Firm Fixed Price contract vehicle issued at contract award. The maximum ordering value for this contract, inclusive of fee, is $1.1B.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) was released on April 20, 2023. Four (4) amendments were issued to the RFP answering questions, making various changes, and extending the proposal due date.

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

Proposals were due on June 2, 2023. The following companies submitted timely proposals (excluding the Offeror that was determined to be other than small by the SBA):

• Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc

• Electrical Engineering and Space Solutions (E2S2), LLC – (Joint Venture (JV)

Partners: Lentech, Inc and ZIN Technologies, Inc)

• Vantage Analytical (VAL), LLC – (JV Partners: Vantage Systems, Inc and Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc)

• Science Systems and Applications, Inc (SSAI)

The RFP stated that the Government intended to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions with Offerors. The RFP also stated that the Government reserved the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer (CO) later determined them to be necessary.

Based on the initial evaluations, the CO found that establishing a competitive range was not necessary, a determination with which I concurred.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The SEB included a team of technical members, business members and consultants from appropriate disciplines, to assist in proposal evaluations.

The ESES IV SEB evaluated proposals in accordance with the source selection procedures identified in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15.3 “Source Selection” and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3. The SEB procedures at NFS 1815.370, NASA Source Evaluation Boards, were applied.

The RFP listed three (3) evaluation factors for award: Mission Suitability, Cost, and Past Performance. The RFP specified the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors as follows:

The Cost Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual factors, the Mission Suitability Factor is more important than the Cost Factor which is more important than the Past Performance Factor.

The RFP established that only the Mission Suitability Factor would be point scored in the evaluation process. The Mission Suitability Factor consisted of the following two (2) subfactors with assigned points as indicated:

Mission Suitability Factor Points

Subfactor A: Technical Approach 400

Subfactor B: Management Approach 600

TOTAL: 1,000

The Mission Suitability Factor was evaluated using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The SEB first reviewed each proposal and generated consensus findings (i.e., significant weaknesses, weaknesses, strengths, and significant strengths) within each subfactor. Next, the SEB considered the findings under each subfactor and applied the adjectival rating definitions set forth in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A) to assign a rating based on the merit of the proposal within the subfactor. After assigning the adjectival rating for the subfactor, the SEB determined the associated percentile score with the range set forth in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The maximum points available for each subfactor were then multiplied by the assigned percent for each subfactor to derive the score for the particular subfactor. For example, if a subfactor has a possible 400 points and receives a percent rating of 80, then the score of that subfactor would be 320 points.

Regarding the Cost Factor, the proposed costs of the Government Pricing Model (GPM), and the rates proposed in Attachment B, DIRECT LABOR RATES, INDIRECT RATES AND FEE MATRICES, were assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism. As stated in the RFP, the cost evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B). Offerors were referred to FAR 2.101(b) for a definition of “cost realism” and to FAR 15.404-1(d) for a discussion of “cost realism analysis” and “probable cost.” The proposed costs, including direct labor, other direct costs, and indirect rates, were assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism. Both the “proposed and probable” costs reflected the Offeror’s proposed fee amount. The proposed fee was not adjusted in the probable cost assessment. The proposed and probable costs were presented to the SSA, along with any issues and risks associated with the proposed costs.

For the Past Performance Factor, the Past Performance evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 and provision M.5 of the solicitation. Each Offeror’s contract references were evaluated to determine the degree of relevance based on size, content, and/or complexity. In evaluating Past Performance, the SEB relied on the Government-wide Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) database and customer feedback, in addition to the narrative on relevant past/current contracts provided by the Offerors. The Past Performance factor was not point scored but was assigned an adjectival rating of “Very High Level of Confidence,” “High Level of Confidence,” “Moderate Level of Confidence,” “Low Level of Confidence,” “Very Low Level of Confidence,” or “Neutral.”

The following evaluation determination is based on the extensive information presented to me on October 30, 2024, and documented in the accompanying initial evaluation presentation materials.

MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

The Mission Suitability factor has two (2) subfactors as follows: Subfactor A, Technical Approach and Subfactor B, Management Approach.

Each subfactor was evaluated in accordance with the weights delineated in the RFP. The table below provides the adjectival rating assigned in each Mission Suitability subfactor for the four

(4) ESES IV proposals received and evaluated.

Offeror Subfactor A -

Technical Approach

Subfactor B – Management

Approach

Mission Suitability

Points Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc

Good Excellent 826

Electrical Engineering and Space Solutions

(E2S2), LLC

Good Good 682

Vantage Analytical, LLC (VAL) Good Good 700

Science Systems and Applications, Inc (SSAI)

Good Good 588

The substance of the SEB’s evaluation of Mission Suitability for the Offerors is presented below.

Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, Columbus received an adjectival rating of “Good,” with no Significant Strengths, three (3) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Columbus received three (3) Strengths in the following areas:

(1) Columbus proposed to leverage the use of an existing Goddard Bus for the development of the RTO CubeSat system, which would reduce the work required for the hardware to reach the required Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as well as reduce the Non- Recurring Engineering (NRE) required to develop new hardware.

(2) Columbus proposed a well-defined systems approach to develop the CubeSat subsystems.

(3) Columbus demonstrated a robust technical approach for the analysis of the CubeSat

Electrical Power System (EPS).

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, Columbus received an adjectival rating of “Excellent,” with one (1) Significant Strength, four (4) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Columbus received one (1) Significant Strength in the following area:

(1) Columbus proposed an excellent collection of facilities, certifications, and financial resources to support the ESES IV contract. The corporate funded approach will have a significant impact on the development of new designs and is provided to the contract at no cost to the Government. Columbus also brings an ISO9001 certification, exceeding the contract compliance requirement; and a Top-Secret (TS) clearance, exceeding the RFP requirement. This clearance level enables the immediate transfer of existing tasks requiring TS clearance to the ESES IV contract.

Columbus received four (4) Strengths in the following areas:

(1) Columbus has a wide-reaching Workforce Development Program (WDP).

(2) Columbus’ selection of subcontractors brings value to the contract for their parts storage, manufacture/fabrication, and environmental test capabilities. The proximity of these resources to Goddard minimizes shipping costs and risks, enables quick turnaround to process and test PCB modifications and enables access to a large number of Electrical, Electronic and Electromechanical (EEE) components.

(3) Columbus offers an end-to-end process to manage the manufacturing of hardware from design through delivery called Managed Manufacturing Approach.

(4) Columbus proposed the use of a well-developed and integrated suite of tools that support contract management. The use of their management tool will enable an integrated view of the contract and will improve overall efficiency and effectiveness to manage, monitor and execute multiple task orders simultaneously.

E2S2 JV

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, E2S2 received an adjectival rating of “Good,” with no Significant Strengths, three (3) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

E2S2 received three (3) Strengths in the following areas:

(1) E2S2 identified two well-defined trade studies to best support the development of the Field Programmable Gate Array Digital Card (FDC).

(2) E2S2 presented a detailed overview of CubeSat technology and applications, demonstrating a deep and detailed knowledge of issues and developmental challenges.

(3) E2S2 demonstrated an in-depth technical understanding of the development of CubeSat subsystems. This is reflected in their proposal of robust and very detailed trade studies and trade study outcomes to develop major components of the CubeSat architecture.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, E2S2 received an adjectival rating of “Good,” with no Significant Strengths, three (3) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

E2S2 received three (3) Strengths in the following areas:

(1) E2S2 proposed a strong workforce development program (WDP) designed to ensure that ESES IV staff remain current in technical skills needed for missions throughout the life of the contract.

(2) E2S2 proposed their Management Information System, a well-developed, integrated, and comprehensive toolset to effectively manage the contract. This capability enables bi-directional communication with the Government, offers the ability to track task performance, and provides insight into various areas of contract management.

(3) E2S2 program management office includes a dedicated Supply Chain and Manufacturing Lead (SCML), who works with contractor task personnel to provide responses to Government manufacturing task orders. The SMCL utilizes two electronic based tools to manage and track manufacturing tasks.

VAL JV

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, VAL received an adjectival rating of “Good,” with no Significant Strengths, three (3) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

VAL received three (3) Strengths in the following areas:

(1) VAL proposed a very thorough and varied set of trade studies to evaluate the main technical aspects of their technical approach. VAL’s proposal explains the trade developments in a coherent form, using numerous tables to record various options with impacts, benefits, and disadvantages clearly noted.

(2) VAL baselines Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) hardware to minimize risk and provide a cost savings to the Government. VAL’s proposal demonstrates a well-defined architecture embedded with COTS components for the Avionics, ACS, Power, and RF subsystems. In addition to identifying COTS products, VAL performs a detailed and comprehensive assessment of the capabilities of each COTS component for its ability to meet the RTO technical requirements.

(3) VAL proposed a sound technical approach to the development of the CubeSat communication system.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, VAL received an adjectival rating of “Good,” with no Significant Strengths, five (5) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

VAL received five (5) Strengths in the following areas:

(1) VAL proposed a robust set of employee acquisition and development programs to support the ESES IV contract via well-developed and corporate funded programs. By doing so, they demonstrate an understanding of the importance of training and developing personnel.

(2) VAL proposed the use of local manufacturing and test facilities to support the ESES IV contract. The Offeror also brings to the contract Top-Secret facilities that exceed

RFP requirements and will enable the immediate transfer of existing tasks requiring this clearance level to the new contract.

(3) VAL proposed a NASA compliant Parts Lifecycle Management (PLM) system to provide centralized parts management. This comprehensive system has the capability to provide end-to-end support from parts procurement to board assembly, negating the need to utilize multiple systems.

(4) VAL proposed the Manufacturing Support Center (MSC) for the oversight of hardware procurement and manufacturing. Supported by dedicated personnel, the MSC enables visibility throughout the production process from design through fabrication and delivery providing end-to-end manufacturing monitoring to ensure accurate designs, mitigate vendor bottlenecks and avoid schedule delays.

(5) VAL developed a well-integrated and effective contract management system that is comprehensive in scope and offers the Government deep insight into many areas of the contract.

SSAI

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, SSAI received an adjectival rating of “Good,” with no Significant Strengths, no Strengths, one (1) Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

SSAI received one (1) Weakness in the following area:

(1) SSAI’s 7-month Period of Performance (PoP) activity flow and timeline does not adequately address the RFP requirement. The lack of detail in the PoP activity flow does not adequately demonstrate SSAI’s understanding of the RFP requirement and does not give the Government confidence that the tasks will be properly monitored and executed within the schedule constraints required by the RTO 2.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, SSAI received an adjectival rating of “Good,” with no Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

SSAI received two (2) Strengths in the following areas:

(1) SSAI proposed a comprehensive program to meet current and future contract staffing requirements. By offering this program, SSAI shows their commitment to the continuous growth and enrichment of their workforce. As a result, this program increases the chances of attracting and maintaining the talent required for the successful staffing and performance of the ESES IV contract.

(2) SSAI proposed a comprehensive and detailed supply chain management approach to administer, demand, plan and negate disruptions. As part of this strategy, a dedicated Supply Chain Manager (SCM) is designated to provide management of manufacturing and procurement activities and manage a group of qualified fabrication vendors.

COST EVALUATION

The SEB evaluated the total proposed cost (including the proposed fee and the fixed price phase-in, if proposed), and determined the Government’s probable cost for the four Offerors. The following chart shows the relative order of proposed and probable cost for all Offerors, from lowest to highest, including any phase-in costs:

Proposed Cost Probable Cost

Columbus Technologies ($691,189,964) VAL

VAL Columbus Technologies ($707,345,503)

E2S2 E2S2

SSAI SSAI

Val had the lowest probable cost, while Columbus Technologies had the lowest proposed and second lowest probable cost. VAL and Columbus Technologies had probable costs within one percent of each other. E2S2 and SSAI provided higher costs, both of which were more than $50M higher than the lowest Offerors. All Offerors had probable cost adjustments that resulted in increases. All Offerors received cost adjustments related to direct labor rates (including escalation, where applicable). Columbus Technologies also received a cost adjustment related to an unrealistic indirect rate. Cost risks/concerns for each Offeror were also documented.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

As a result of the evaluation process, the ESES IV SEB’s Past Performance Level of Confidence rating for each Offeror is as follows:

Offeror Level of Confidence Rating

Columbus Technologies High

E2S2 High

VAL High

SSAI High

Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc

Columbus was assigned an overall level of confidence rating of High based on the combination of High overall relevance and High overall performance.

E2S2

E2S2 was assigned an overall level of confidence rating of High based on the combination of High overall relevance and High overall performance.

VAL

VAL was assigned an overall level of confidence rating of High based on the combination of High overall relevance and Very High overall performance.

SSAI

SSAI was assigned an overall level of confidence rating of High based on the combination of Very High overall relevance and High overall performance.

SELECTION DECISION

As the SSA for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the SEB’s evaluation briefing document entitled, “Electrical Systems Engineering Services (ESES) IV Procurement Presentation to the Source Selection Authority,” and the associated Cost Report. On October 30, 2024, I met with the ESES IV SEB, to hear the SEB’s evaluation presentation.

I determined that the findings presented by the SEB, as documented in its presentation and the accompanying “ESES IV Cost Evaluation Report,” were detailed, consistent with the evaluation criteria in the ESES IV RFP, and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal. I discussed with the SEB its rationale for the findings, adjectival ratings, and scores for the Mission Suitability Subfactors. In addition, I specifically discussed with the SEB its reasoning for the Significant Strengths as well as the substantive content of these significant findings relative to other Strengths. I also discussed the rationale for the evaluation of Cost and Past Performance.

I noted that the SEB assessed the Mission Suitability point scores consistently with the assigned adjectival ratings for each subfactor which, in turn, were justified by the SEB’s underlying findings. I found the Past Performance evaluation to be detailed and clearly documented. Within the Cost factor, I similarly found that the cost adjustments made by the SEB were logical and sound, and that cost risks were specifically identified. I observed that the evaluation of proposals by the SEB was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. I concluded that the SEB’s evaluation under each of the evaluation factors was reasonable and consistent with evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, and I accepted the SEB’s evaluation results in their entirety.

After hearing the results of the evaluation, I first considered whether a competitive range should be established to allow the SEB to enter into discussions with the Offerors. Given the improbability that discussions would significantly alter the relative standing of the most competitive proposal, the Contracting Officer and I concurred that the establishment of a competitive range was not necessary.

In determining which proposal offered the best value to NASA, I referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP:

The Cost Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual factors, the Mission Suitability Factor is more important than the Cost Factor which is more important than the Past Performance Factor.

My selection was based on the comparative assessment of each proposal against each RFP evaluation factor to determine which proposal represented the best value.

Based on the summary results and the detailed supporting documentation, I determined that one Offeror stood out as the most competitive overall for the Mission Suitability Factor. Columbus Technologies received the only Excellent rating in Subfactor B, Management Approach, which was the most heavily weighted subfactor, along with a competitive Good rating in Subfactor A, Technical Approach. This resulted in the highest score of 826 points, based on the findings and ratings. The remaining three Offerors (VAL, E2S2 and SSAI), received Good ratings for both Subfactors A and B, with overall Mission Suitability Factor scores ranging from 588 – 700.

For Mission Suitability Subfactor A, Columbus Technologies, E2S2, and VAL were all rated Good with similarly high scores and overall benefits. Each of the three Offerors had a combination of three Strengths and no weaknesses in this subfactor. In contrast, while SSAI was also rated Good, they were scored lower given their lack of strengths and one weakness for lack of details in the activity flow and timeline for RTO2, resulting in SSAI being less competitive in this subfactor.

For Mission Suitability Subfactor B, Columbus Technologies excelled with an Excellent rating.

Columbus Technologies was the only Offeror that received a Significant Strength finding, for its strong collection of corporate resources and several additional Strengths including its workforce programs, manufacturing and test facilities, approach to manufacturing management, and task management tools. In addition to their manufacturing and test facilities Strength, which was similar to VAL’s Strength in this area, Columbus Technologies also had the only significant strength. This significant Strength for excellent corporate resources included a state of the art Engineering Innovation Center supporting design and development, substantial space co-located near GSFC with high security clearance, certifications, and corporate funds to encourage innovation and other initiatives/incentives that will yield great benefits to schedule and cost efficiency, maximizing overall contract performance. Columbus Technologies was superior to the remaining proposals, which were all rated Good in this Factor.

Overall, Columbus Technologies provided the best Mission Suitability proposal, receiving a superior Excellent rating in the most heavily weighted Management subfactor and a competitive Good rating in the Technical Approach subfactor.

Regarding the Cost factor, VAL had the second lowest proposed cost and lowest probable cost, while Columbus Technologies had the lowest proposed cost and second lowest probable cost.

E2S2 and SSAI had moderately higher costs and were less competitive in the Cost Factor. There were minor cost risks/concerns identified for all Offerors. I reviewed these risks/concerns and concluded they were not significant. In particular, based on my review and discussion of these issues with the SEB, the risks/concerns identified would not likely displace VAL and Columbus Technologies as the most competitive cost proposals. Given the very minor probable cost difference of less than one percent between VAL and Columbus Technologies, I considered this cost difference to be negligible and determined that both VAL and Columbus Technologies had a notable cost advantage compared to the E2S2 and SSAI cost proposals.

Regarding the Past Performance factor, all Offerors received High Past Performance Level of Confidence ratings. I noted the rationale supporting these ratings varied between Offerors, with some Offerors limited by a lack of size relevance comparable to ESES IV, whereas other Offerors had minor performance issues on one or more of their past contract references. Given the High rating for all Offerors, the Past Performance Factor was not a discriminator in my selection decision.

Based on my analysis of the SEB evaluation results and the RFP evaluation criteria, I have determined that the Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc proposal offers the best value to the Government based on their superior Mission Suitability proposal, highly competitive proposed and probable cost, and their competitive past performance rating. The performance benefits associated with their Mission Suitability proposal, which was the highest weighted factor, outweigh the very minor probable cost advantage from VAL. Accordingly I have selected Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc for contract award.

Cynthia Simmons Date Source Selection Authority