NPP-2 Source Selection Statement.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR

NASA POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAM-2

(NPP-2)

SOLICITATION NUMBER 80HQTR20R0013

On September 29, 2021, along with other senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Headquarters and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), I met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals for the NASA Postdoctoral Program-2 (NPP-2) acquisition. A full briefing of the results of the evaluation conducted by the SEB was presented. This memorandum documents my decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY

The purpose of the NPP-2 contract is to procure program management support and coordinate research-related opportunities primarily for the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) that are hosted or performed at NASA Centers; the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and select host organization locations in order to provide postdoctoral level or equivalent early career researchers (ECR) and more senior researchers the opportunity a) to conduct NASA-related research and/or b) to gain research management or research management policy development experience. Other non-SMD Mission Directorates and Offices at NASA Headquarters also may sponsor NPP Fellows.

The NPP-2 contract will provide the following: 1) Program-Level Services, 2) Website and Knowledge Management Services, 3) Soliciting Applicants, 4) Receiving and Reviewing Applications, 5) Enrolling New Fellows, 6) Supporting Fellows during their Tenure, 7) Financial Reporting and Program Effectiveness, 8) Operational Performance Plan and Metrics, and 9) Phase-In and Phase-Out Activities.

The NPP-2 requirement was issued as a full and open competition procurement under NAICS Code 541612 - Human Resources Consulting Services. The resultant contract is a Completion Cost Plus Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Contract. The base period is one (1) year from the effective date of the contract with four (4) one (1) year options.

I appointed the SEB, which included a team of technical and business members and consultants from appropriate disciplines, to evaluate proposals.

NASA issued the Request for Proposal (RFP) on September 21, 2020. Amendment one was issued to the RFP on October 14, 2020, amendment two was issued March 23, 2021, and amendment three was issued April 26, 2021.

The following companies submitted timely proposals by October 22, 2020:

Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) Universities Space Research Association (USRA)

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. After evaluating proposals, the CO found that establishment of a competitive range was not necessary, a determination with which I concurred.

On May 6, 2021, along with other senior officials from NASA Headquarters and NASA GSFC, I met with the SEB appointed to evaluate proposals for the NPP-2 acquisition. At the conclusion of that meeting I selected ORAU as the best value proposal for contract award.

USRA filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on June 18, 2021, and subsequently a stop work order was issued to ORAU on June 21, 2021. GAO dismissed the USRA protest on July 12, 2021 based on NASA’s corrective action plan. NASA’s corrective action included a review of all evaluation factors. This selection statement documents NASA’s corrective action evaluation results and new selection decision based on those results.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The RFP defined three evaluation factors, 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 is more important than the Past Performance Factor which is more important than the Cost Factor.

The RFP established that each offeror’s Mission Suitability proposal would be evaluated and point scored. This procedure required proposals be evaluated under each subfactor identifying Significant Strengths, Strengths, Significant Weaknesses, Weaknesses, Deficiencies, or no findings; be assigned an adjectival rating for each subfactor based on the findings; be assigned a percentile score for each subfactor based on the findings; and have calculated a total point score for the Mission Suitability factor using the weighted sum of subfactor scores. In accordance with the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NFS) 1815.304-70(b)(1), the Mission Suitability Factor was weighted and scored on a 1,000-point scale. As stated in the RFP, the points associated with each Mission Suitability Subfactor are as follows:

Mission Suitability Subfactor Points

Subfactor A Technical Approach 700

Subfactor B Management Approach 300

Total 1000

The Mission Suitability Factor was evaluated using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The maximum points available for each subfactor were multiplied by the assessed percent rating for each Subfactor to derive the score for the particular subfactor.

The Cost Factor was evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B), and solicitation provision M.5 – Cost Evaluation Factor. The proposed costs were assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism. Both the proposed and probable costs assessments were presented, along with the proposed Phase-in price. Both the proposed and probable costs reflected the offeror’s proposed fee amount. Proposed fee was not adjusted in the probable cost assessment. The Past Performance Factor was evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15 and solicitation provision M.6 – Past Performance Evaluation Factor. In evaluating past performance, the SEB evaluated each offeror’s record (including the record of significant subcontractors as defined in the RFP, of which there were none) for performing services that are similar in size and content to the requirements of the RFP in terms of relevance and performance.

The SEB also relied on narratives of relevant past and current contracts provided by the offerors, past performance evaluation input provided via customer interviews, and on information retrieved from the government-wide Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) database.

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.”

MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

The table below provides the adjectival ratings assigned in each Mission Suitability subfactor after evaluating each subfactor in accordance with RFP section M.2.

Offeror Subfactor A Subfactor B

ORAU Very Good Good

USRA Good Good

The ORAU proposal received the highest Mission Suitability total point score. The substance of the SEB’s evaluation of Mission Suitability for each offeror is represented below.

ORAU

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, ORAU received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with no Deficiencies, one Significant Strength, three Strengths, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Weaknesses.

ORAU received the following Significant Strength:

ORAU received a Significant Strength for its multi-faceted approach to attracting NPP applicants and plans for retaining NPP Fellows. Examples included an annual virtual symposium where fellows can present their research amongst their peers, memberships in the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA), and recruitment approaches focused on attracting America’s historically underrepresented groups to NPP. ORAU proposes to utilize Society for Human Resources

Management (SHRM)-certified recruiters and identified a designated, part-time Diversity Advocate position who will promote NPP to the 23-member ORAU HBCU/MEI Council. Additionally, the Diversity Advocate will work in conjunction with a near-full-time Recruiting and Retention Coordinator. ORAU proposes to provide fellows with learning licenses for LinkedIn Learning to provide on-demand training in a variety of relevant topics and proposes to provide an assistance program to benefit both the fellows and their families. ORAU’s proposed assistance program for the fellows and their families is in addition to the NASA-mandated Participant Support requirements.

ORAU received the following three Strengths:

1. ORAU received a Strength for its comprehensive approach to performance measures based upon principles of quality assurance, assessment, and evaluation. ORAU proposed both a designated Quality Assurance Manager (QAM) and an evaluation lead.

2. ORAU received a Strength for Risk Management, including an online “Risk Register” available to all team members as a shared management tool.

3. ORAU received a Strength for its unique capabilities and innovations proposed to address Scenario #1.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, ORAU received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Deficiencies, no Significant Strengths, one Strength, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Weaknesses.

ORAU received the following strength:

1. The NPP-2 Program Manager will have access to additional corporate resources necessary to address increased activity that the NPP-2 may experience, without additional higher corporate approval.

USRA

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, USRA received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Deficiencies, no Significant Strengths, four Strengths, no Significant Weaknesses, and no

USRA received the following four Strengths:

1. USRA received a Strength for the proposed approach to support other visa types than J-1.

2. USRA received a Strength for its approach to attracting NPP applicants and plans for retaining NPP Fellows. USRA proposes to host a symposium where fellows can present their research amongst their peers and will provide memberships in the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA). Additionally, USRA proposes to provide training, FAQs, and recruitment materials to advisors to recruit more effectively among populations that are traditionally under-represented.

3. USRA received a Strength for its approach to Performance Measures, including making metrics available in real time to the Host Org Representatives via USRA’s on-line and/or cloud services and database used to manage NPP program operations. Also, URSA proposes to capture each fellow’s progress and final reports, which allows the Host Org Representatives near-real time access for assessment.

4. USRA received a Strength for its unique capabilities and innovations proposed to address Scenario #1.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, USRA received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Deficiencies, no Significant Strengths, one Strength, no Significant Weaknesses, and no

1. USRA’s proposed matrixed organization both effectively and efficiently supports the complex and changing needs of the NASA Postdoctoral Program-2 by being able to reasonably pull human resources as needed from across the organization.

COST EVALUATION

The SEB evaluated the total proposed cost (including the 90-day fixed price phase-in period and proposed fee) and determined the Government’s probable cost for all offerors. The following chart shows the relative order of proposed and probable cost for both offerors, from lowest to highest, including the phase-in price:

Proposed Cost Probable Cost

USRA USRA

ORAU ($129,738,128) ORAU ($129,738,128)

USRA had the lowest proposed and probable cost. There were no probable cost adjustments for either Offeror. The total proposed and probable cost difference between Offerors was minor.

When considered without the non-proposed cost figure that was provided in the RFP, the cost percentage difference calculation was much larger. The SEB did not make any probable cost adjustments or identify any cost risks for either offeror.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

As a result of the evaluation process, the NPP-2’s Past Performance Level of Confidence rating for each offeror is as follows:

Offeror Level of Confidence Rating

ORAU Very High

USRA Very High

Both offerors were assigned an overall level of confidence of Very High based on the combination of Very High Overall Relevance and Very High Overall Performance.

DECISION

As the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the SEB’s evaluation documentation. Following my review, on September 29, 2021, I met with the NPP-2 SEB to hear the SEB’s evaluation presentation. I observed that the evaluation of proposals by the SEB was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented.

Specifically, the findings presented by the SEB, as documented in its presentation and the accompanying “NPP-2 Cost Report” were detailed, consistent with the evaluation criteria in the NPP-2 RFP and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal. 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. I concluded that the SEB’s evaluation under each of the evaluation factors was reasonable and in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, and I accepted the SEB’s evaluation results in their entirety.

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 is more important than the Past Performance Factor which is more important than the Cost Factor.

My selection was based on a comparative assessment of each proposal against each of these source selection evaluation factors.

I began with the Mission Suitability Factor. I noted that ORAU received a Very Good adjectival rating in Subfactor A, while USRA received a lower adjectival rating of Good in Subfactor A.

Both offerors received a Good adjectival rating in Subfactor B.

ORAU received the only Significant Strength in Subfactor A for its approach to attracting and retaining applicants and fellows. I was particularly impressed by ORAU’s effective and creative approach to attracting and retaining highly qualified applicants and fellows from historically underrepresented groups. ORAU has proposed to create a part-time designated Diversity Advocate (DA) position that reports directly to the NPP Program Manager and works in conjunction with a Recruiting and Retention Coordinator. Their proposed approach, which utilizes dedicated positions with defined responsibilities, will ensure high visibility of diversity and inclusion efforts within the overall management of NPP. Additionally, ORAU proposed to utilize Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM)-certified recruiters, a certification which will ensure ORAU’s recruiters are apprised of appropriate recruitment techniques. ORAU will also be providing fellows with learning licenses for LinkedIn Learning and a NPP Fellow’s Assistance Program that exceed the NASA-mandated Participant Support requirements, which will help locate local resources to ease relocation and address other needs not only for the fellow, but for the fellow’s family. Recognizing that the fellows and their families are under significant stress, e.g., due to relocation, I believe the Assistance Program will help to retain highly skilled fellows. Overall, ORAU’s approach provides several significant benefits to NASA that stood out within the Mission Suitability evaluation.

While less beneficial than the ORAU Significant Strength described above, the USRA proposal received a Strength finding for its well-rounded and broad approach to attracting potential fellows. USRA’s approach included a symposium where fellows can present their research amongst their peers and provided fellows with memberships to the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA).

Both offerors also received other Strength findings in Subfactor A, including Strengths for their approaches to performance measures and Strengths for their approaches to addressing Scenario #1. ORAU also received a unique Strength for its risk management approach while USRA received a unique Strength for its approach to supporting visas. In total, I found the Technical Approach Strength findings for both offerors provided benefits of approximately equal value to the government.

For Subfactor B, both offerors were rated Good, and I found no discriminators. Both offerors received a similarly beneficial Strength for their management structure and approach, resulting in Good adjectival ratings for both offerors in this Subfactor.

In accordance with the relative weighting contained in the NPP-2 RFP Subfactor A, Technical Approach was worth significantly more than Subfactor B, Management Approach. ORAU was the only offeror to receive a Very Good adjectival rating in Subfactor A, based on the only Significant Strength, as described above. Both offerors received similar findings and ratings in Subfactor B, Management Approach. Therefore, I found ORAU’s proposal to be the most competitive in the Mission Suitability Factor.

I next considered the Cost Factor. I reviewed the proposed and probable costs and phase-in prices, recognizing that USRA had the lowest proposed and probable cost and neither Offeror had probable cost adjustments. However, the difference in overall cost between USRA and ORAU was minor, with ORAU also having a very competitive proposed and probable cost.

During the briefing, the SEB highlighted the fact that the RFP’s non-proposed cost figure was a significant portion of the overall proposed cost and the percentage cost advantage for USRA was much larger if calculated without the RFP’s non-proposed costs. I noted that cost was the least important factor in the RFP and it was significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor.

For the Past Performance Factor, I noted that ORAU and USRA each received a Very High Level of Confidence rating and demonstrated comparable past performance relative to each other. Both proposals had one or more references that demonstrated Very High overall relevance and Very High performance on past contracts and performance ratings on all contract references for both offerors was Very High. I observed that both Offerors have performed the NPP requirements successfully in the past, with USRA being the current incumbent contractor and ORAU being the prior NPP contractor. Therefore, I found both offerors to be approximately equal in the Past Performance Factor.

In performing my overall selection analysis, I first considered Mission Suitability, as the RFP specified the most weight was to be given to this Factor. ORAU was the most competitive in this area based on its aforementioned Significant Strength related to retaining and attracting applicants and fellows. For past performance, ORAU and USRA both received a Very High Level of Confidence.

In the least heavily weighted Factor, Cost, USRA clearly had the lowest proposed and probable cost. I also recognized that the percentage cost difference between the Offerors was much higher if the NASA non-proposed costs were removed from the calculation. However, the RFP required both the proposed and probable cost assessment to be presented, which includes the non-proposed Other Direct Costs. Along with being consistent with the plain language of the RFP, including the non-proposed costs as part of the overall proposed cost is consistent with my belief that, as the SSA, I should consider the total cost investment to be made by the government over the life of the NPP-2 Contract. Therefore, in my judgment and consistent with the RFP, I found that the overall cost difference between the offerors was not substantial.

Giving the appropriate weight to each of the selection factors and the fact that the RFP stated that the Cost Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor, I concluded that ORAU’s superior Mission Suitability proposal and Very High Past Performance Level of Confidence rating clearly outweighed the cost advantage provided by USRA and therefore represented a better value to the government.

Accordingly, based on my analysis of the SEB evaluation results and the RFP evaluation criteria, I have determined that the ORAU proposal offers the best value to the Government, and I have selected ORAU for contract award.

Sandra E. Connelly Date Source Selection Authority