SMAEC_II_Source_Selection_Statement.pdf

1 | P a g e

SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE ENGINEERING CONTRACT II (SMAEC II)

SOURCE SELECTION DETERMINATION

SOLICITATION 80JSC018R0006

On February 28, 2019, I, along with other key officials of the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC), met with the Source Evaluation Board

(Board) appointed to evaluate proposals submitted in response to the SMAEC II solicitation. I made my selection decision at this meeting.

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

SMAEC II is a single award Cost-Plus-Award Fee (CPAF) contract. This acquisition was conducted as a full and open competition. The contract includes Core, Indefinite-

Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ), and Level of Effort (LOE) elements. The phase-in effort will be Firm Fixed Price. Additionally, the contract includes the option to transition from award fee to fixed fee, and vice-versa. SMAEC II has a 5-year period of performance (2-year base period, 2-year option period, and a 1-year option period). SMAEC II is the follow-on contract to the Safety and Mission Assurance Engineering Contract (SMAEC) (NNJ13RA01B).

The purpose of SMAEC II is to provide programmatic support to NASA’s International Space

Station Program (ISSP), Orion Program, Commercial Crew Program, Extravehicular Activity

(EVA) Project Office, and future Programs and Projects through safety engineering; reliability, availability, maintainability, and supportability assessments; quality engineering; quality assurance; software assurance; risk management; and technology assurance disciplines. Real time support to the ISSP is provided in the Mission Evaluation Room (MER) by the NASA JSC

Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) directorate. In addition, SMAEC II will provide quality assurance engineering support for all JSC Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) associated with this contract. The majority of the work is performed at JSC in Houston, Texas. Resident support is required at the White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) located in Las Cruces, New Mexico.

Contractor resident support may be required at other NASA centers, other U.S. Government facilities, contractor or subcontractor locations, or supplier facilities.

On September 14, 2017, the Contracting Officer (CO) issued the draft Request For Proposals

(RFP). The final RFP was issued on January 18, 2018 with a proposal receipt due date of

February 22, 2018. Four (4) amendments were issued to the RFP. The purpose of Amendment 1 was to post Question and Answers (part 1 of 2), revise the RFP, and extend the proposal due date from February 22, 2018 to March 1, 2018. The purpose of Amendment 2 was to post Question and Answers (part 2 of 2) and revise the RFP. The purpose of Amendment 3 was to revise the

RFP to better communicate proposal requirements. The purpose of Amendment 4 was to revise the RFP to provide minor clarifications to the SMAEC II Section L, Excel Pricing Model instructions.

2 | P a g e

EVALUTION PROCESS AND CRITERIA

The SMAEC II RFP included three (3) evaluation factors for award: Mission Suitability, Past

Performance, and Cost/Price. In accordance with Section M.1 of the RFP, “[o]f the three evaluation factors, Mission Suitability is more important than Cost and Price. Cost and Price is approximately equal to Past Performance. Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost and Price.”

Mission Suitability was weighted and scored on a 1,000 point scale, and included four (4) subfactors:

Mission Suitability Subfactors

Technical Approach 425 points

Management Approach 375 points

Safety & Health Approach 100 points

Small Business Participation 100 points

TOTAL 1000 points

For each Mission Suitability subfactor, the Board identified “findings” of Significant Strengths, Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies. The Board then determined an adjectival rating and percentile score for each subfactor using the definitions and percentile ranges in section 1815.305(a)(3)(A) of the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

Supplement (NFS). The adjectival ratings for each of the four (4) Mission Suitability subfactors were Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor. The overall Mission Suitability factor received a total numerical score using the weighted sum of the subfactor scores, but did not receive an overall adjectival rating. The point scores and adjectival ratings below were developed by the Board. While I used the Board’s evaluation as a guide, I performed my own analysis and then concurred with the findings of the Board. My analysis and the particular value and risk that

I identified with each of the proposals is included in the decision portion of this document.

Past Performance: The Board evaluated the Past Performance of each Offeror and its subcontractors. Three (3) aspects were taken into consideration by the Board when determining the Past Performance confidence rating: recency, relevance, and performance. The Board assessed each Offeror’s recent, relevant work that was similar in size, content and complexity to the requirements of SMAEC II. More recent performance received greater consideration than that with more distant performance, assuming all other considerations to be equal. The Board only evaluated performance on contracts determined to be recent and relevant. The overall performance evaluation considered prior performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting, and safety performance. The Board considered information provided by the Offerors and their references, as well as information independently gained from

Government and commercial sources. The evaluation of Past Performance was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) “Proposal Evaluation” and the RFP. Each proposal was assigned an overall level of confidence rating using the definitions in NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A):

Very High, High, Moderate, Low, Very Low, or Neutral. I used the Board’s evaluation as a guide and again, performed my own analysis of the findings provided by the Board.

3 | P a g e

Cost/Price: The Board performed a Cost and Price analysis, which included a cost realism analysis in accordance with FAR 15.305 – Proposal Evaluation, FAR 15.404 – Proposal

Analysis, and NFS 1815.305 – Proposal Evaluation, to ensure that the final agreed-to prices were fair and reasonable. As part of the Cost and Price analysis, the Board assessed the proposed Cost for Core Technical Requirements and Core Management Requirements, including cost elements such as direct labor Work Year Equivalents and/or direct labor hours, direct labor rates, indirect rates, subcontract costs, Non-Labor Resources (NLRs), and fee, including fee rates. As part of the cost realism analysis, the Board evaluated proposed resources for all Task Orders, including any cost impacts resulting from proposed innovations, and all rates proposed for Task Orders;

the Board then developed a probable cost estimate. The Board also performed a cost analysis and cost realism analysis of all proposed Fully Burdened Rates (FBRs), including the direct labor rate, indirect rates, and fee components. The proposed cost calculated from the application of an

Offeror’s FBRs to the Government-provided labor profile, plus the application of the Not To

Exceed (NTE) fee rate to the aforementioned labor resources, were evaluated in total for all contract years. The evaluation of the cost factors resulted in a probable cost which could differ from an Offeror’s proposed cost and reflected the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract that was likely to result from an Offeror’s proposal. The Board also performed a price analysis of the proposed Phase-In effort. The proposed and probable costs of Core Technical

Requirements, Core Management Requirements, Sample Task Orders, and Specified Resources, and the proposed FFP Phase-in, were summed up and presented to me. I thoroughly reviewed the

Board’s analysis, asked various questions related to Cost/Price, and reached my own independent conclusions.

INITIAL EVALUATION AND COMPETITIVE RANGE

Timely submitted proposals were received from the following companies (listed in alphabetical order) on or before the proposal due date:

Engility Corporation (Engility)

ManTech SRS Technologies, Inc. (ManTech)

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

The following is a summary of the initial evaluation of the proposals:

Initial Evaluation

Mission Suitability

Score

1,000 Points

Past Performance

Confidence Rating

Cost/Price

(Probable Cost)

Engility 891 High $158.3M

ManTech 627 Very High $156.2M

SAIC 930 High $166.3M

All of the proposals were determined to be acceptable and were evaluated in accordance with

FAR part 15, NFS part 1815, and the RFP. On November 1, 2018, the results of the initial evaluation were presented to me, the Source Selection Authority (SSA), and senior JSC officials.

4 | P a g e

This presentation included detailed evaluation results for each proposal, including Mission

Suitability, Past Performance and Cost/Price. I thoroughly discussed with the Board the associated value and risks related to each of the proposals. Based on my analysis and those discussions, the CO determined, and I concurred, that all three (3) Offerors qualified as the most highly-rated proposals and, therefore, should be included in the competitive range.

DISCUSSIONS AND EVALUATION OF FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS (FPR)

On November 5, 2018, Offerors were informed of their inclusion in the competitive range. The

Board conducted written and oral discussions with the Offerors from November 5, 2018 through

November 27, 2018, with oral discussions held on November 15, 2018. As part of discussions, each Offeror was provided an opportunity to address any Significant Weaknesses, Weaknesses, or aspects of the proposal requiring further clarification, in writing, orally, and through proposal change pages. All three (3) Offerors timely submitted their FPRs on December 4, 2018. The evaluation of the FPRs provided the following results, which are listed in alphabetical order:

Final Evaluation

Mission Suitability

Score

1,000 Points

Past Performance

Confidence Rating

Cost/Price

(Probable Cost)

Engility 932 High $158.9M

ManTech 726 Very High $154.6M

SAIC 942 High $162.2M

Engility

Under the Mission Suitability factor, Engility received an overall score of 932 points (out of a possible 1,000 points). Across the four (4) Mission Suitability subfactors, Engility received four

(4) Significant Strengths, eight (8) Strengths, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Weaknesses.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor Engility received an adjectival rating of “Excellent.”

Engility received one (1) Significant Strength and four (4) Strengths. The Significant Strength was assigned for its response to Technical Scenario L-2-2 Habitat Module Safety Review Panel which demonstrated a highly-comprehensive understanding and a highly-effective approach to supporting an expedited Safety Review Panel for a new commercial module. This approach benefits the Government by providing a thorough, early review of the hazards and mitigations to ensure a safe flight and on-orbit integration, and significantly increases the success of the schedule and integration of the new module. The four (4) Strengths were assigned for: (1) proposing Quick Reference Products that exceed the RFP requirements which benefits the

NASA community’s ability to identify risks and share flight safety knowledge; (2) proposing an innovative and effective approach for internal pressure vessel inspections which reduces the risk to Government personnel; (3) proposing an effective suite of innovative tools in support of

Sample Task Order L-1-1 MPCV Vehicle Systems Engineering and Probablistic Risk

Assessments, which demonstrates a high likelihood of successful execution of the defined tasks for Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) and Vehicle System Engineering (VSE) support; and

5 | P a g e

(4) demonstrating a comprehensive understanding and an effective approach to addressing the real-time on-orbit anomaly decision-making process for Technical Scenario L-2-1 ISS Mission

Commercial Crew Vehicle Anomaly which decreases the potential for safety risks resulting in potential harm to the crew or the vehicle.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, Engility received an adjectival rating of

“Excellent.” Engility received one (1) Significant Strength and four (4) Strengths. The

Significant Strength was assigned for Engility’s proposed Total Compensation Plan (TCP) which includes a number of highly-effective fringe benefits and incentives to motivate and reward performance that would be attractive to potential employees and would contribute to employee recruitment and retention, thus significantly increasing an effective transition and execution of the contract requirements. Engility received four (4) Strengths under this subfactor for: (1) proposing an effective and complete External Customer Plan (ECP) which encourages commercial providers to utilize SMA expertise and capabilities; (2) proposing an effective

Quality Management System (QMS), which enhances Engility’s performance by providing consistent validated processes; (3) proposing a Continual Improvement Plan (CIP) that demonstrates an effective approach and a comprehensive understanding of implementing processes to identify, develop, implement, and monitor process improvements; and (4) proposing an effective Management Plan that includes several effective management tools and approaches, which increases the likelihood of successful contract performance and quick turnaround on high-priority task orders.

Under the Safety and Health Approach subfactor, Engility received an adjectival rating of

“Excellent.” Engility received one (1) Significant Strength for proposing a very complete and highly-effective Safety and Health (S&H) program which will significantly reduce the risk of hazard exposure and significantly increase safety and health awareness under the SMAEC II contract.

Under the Small Business Utilization Approach subfactor, Engility received an adjectival rating of “Excellent.” Engility received one (1) Significant Strength for proposing a highly-effective and very well-defined strategy which exceeds all categories of the recommended Small

Business Utilization (SBU) goals outlined in the RFP. The Small Business approach and subcontracting plan proposes a highly-effective strategy for identifying highly-technical work for each of their small business teammates.

Under the Past Performance factor, Engility received a “High” Level of Confidence rating.

Team Engility’s recent and relevant Past Performance involved much of the same content, complexity, and size of effort that this solicitation requires based on demonstrating multiple examples of contracts with very relevant content, complexity, and size of effort to that of

SMAEC II. Team Engility’s Past Performance was determined to be highly pertinent to the proposed contract functions required on SMAEC II. Considering the entirety of Past

Performance demonstrated by all contracts, team Engility has relevant performance in all areas of the SMAEC II Statement of Work (SOW). The overall merit of their performance, including prior performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting, and safety performance, was rated very good to exceptional and was highly pertinent to this acquisition.

6 | P a g e

Under the Cost/Price factor, the Board conducted a cost analysis and a price analysis, and evaluated Engility’s proposed cost/price for validity, realism, and adequacy to develop a probable cost of performance. Based on this analysis, and in determining Engility’s probable cost of performance, the Board made no adjustment to Engility’s proposed cost. Engility’s evaluated probable cost/price was the second lowest of the three (3) Offerors in the competitive range. The

CO determined that Engility’s evaluated probable cost/price was fair and reasonable.

ManTech

Under the Mission Suitability factor, ManTech received an overall score of 726 points (out of a possible 1,000 points). Across the four (4) Mission Suitability subfactors, ManTech received one

(1) Significant Strength, nine (9) Strengths, no Significant Weaknesses, and one (1) Weakness.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, ManTech received an adjectival rating of “Good.”

ManTech received four (4) Strengths and one (1) Weakness. The four (4) Strengths were assigned for: (1) proposing to implement a new and complete suite of PRA software tools with the potential to provide quick risk assessments for trade studies and evaluations; (2) proposing to enhance the Chief SMA Officer Quick Reference Guides by utilizing new, innovative presentation media; (3) proposing a unique approach to produce Knowledge Management case studies, interviews, and lessons learned, which benefits the training of the NASA community to help reduce repeating errors; and (4) proposing to utilize innovative new tools for EVA safety analysis which will enhance the Government’s ability to predict EVA failure rates and would contribute to the reduction of risks to the crew during on-orbit EVA operations. The one (1)

Weakness was assigned for not providing a Basis of Estimate (BOE) for Sample Task Order L-1-

2 Quality Assurance and Quality Engineering – JSC and Glenn Research Center.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, ManTech received an adjectival rating of “Good.”

ManTech received four (4) Strengths. The four (4) Strengths were assigned for: (1) proposing an effective Management Plan which increases the likelihood of successful Management of

SMAEC II; (2) proposing an effective and reasonable QMS approach that enables efficient contract execution with minimal risk; (3) proposing an effective and complete TCP which increases the likelihood of successful phase-in, retention of critical skills, and minimizes interruption of products and services for SMAEC II; and (4) proposing an effective and complete

ECP which increases the likelihood of exceeding the target goal for SMAEC II.

Under the Safety and Health Approach subfactor, ManTech received an adjectival rating of

“Excellent.” ManTech received one (1) Significant Strength for proposing a highly-effective

S&H Plan which demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of NASA’s safety and health requirements and demonstrates ManTech’s S&H commitment. The proposed plan would significantly reduce the risk of hazard exposure and significantly increase safety and health awareness.

Under the Small Business Utilization Approach subfactor, ManTech received an adjectival rating of “Good.” ManTech received one (1) Strength proposing to provide early identification of highly-technical subcontract work and ensuring that certain measures are in place which will

7 | P a g e increase the likelihood of reaching the proposed small business goals.

Under the Past Performance factor, ManTech received a “Very High” Level of Confidence rating. Team ManTech’s recent and relevant Past Performance involved essentially the same content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires based on demonstrating multiple examples of contracts with very relevant content, complexity, and size of effort to that of

SMAEC II. Team ManTech’s Past Performance was determined to be very highly pertinent to the proposed contract functions required on SMAEC II. Considering the entirety of Past

Performance demonstrated by all contracts, team ManTech has very relevant performance in all areas of the SMAEC II SOW. The relevant Past Performance is rated as exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition.

evaluated ManTech’s proposed cost/price for validity, realism, and adequacy to develop a probable cost of performance. Based on this analysis, and in determining ManTech’s probable cost of performance, the Board made no adjustment to ManTech’s proposed cost. ManTech’s evaluated probable cost/price was the lowest of the three (3) Offerors in the competitive range.

The CO determined that ManTech’s evaluated probable cost/price was fair and reasonable.

SAIC

Under the Mission Suitability factor, SAIC received an overall score of 942 points (out of a possible 1,000 points). Across the four (4) Mission Suitability subfactors, SAIC received four (4)

Significant Strengths, eight (8) Strengths, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Weaknesses.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor SAIC received an adjectival rating of “Excellent.”

SAIC received one (1) Significant Strength and four (4) Strengths. The Significant Strength was assigned for their proposed approach to Technical Scenario L-2-1, ISS Mission Commercial

Crew Vehicle Anomaly which demonstrates a very comprehensive understanding and a highly-effective application of the SMA processes and assessments required to recommend real-time options with risk considerations. This approach benefits the Government by ensuring SMA personnel provide the necessary data for real-time risk-informed decisions, which decreases the risk to the crew and vehicle. The four (4) Strengths were assigned for: (1) proposing an effective approach for Pressure Vessel field reporting and documentation which decreases the current processing time for inspectors and improves efficiency; (2) proposing innovative data tools which provide an effective approach to improving data collection and research tasks for hazard identification, and for assessing the probability of human errors; (3) proposing to develop and implement two innovations in support of the EVA Sample Task Order L-1-3 EVA Support which demonstrates an effective approach to increasing the SMA shared knowledge of the EVA suit operations, and providing tracking tools for quick reference access to operational EVA safety data; and (4) proposing an effective approach for providing on-site support and prioritization of issues, and achieving an expedited commercial module certification, which decreases the risk to the Government by ensuring SMA requirements are met for Technical

Scenario L-2-2, Habitat Module Safety Review Panel.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, SAIC received an adjectival rating of “Excellent.”

8 | P a g e

SAIC received one (1) Significant Strength and four (4) Strengths. The Significant Strength was assigned for their ECP which demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the overall SMA objectives by describing a highly-comprehensive and well-organized approach to growing the

SMA External Customer (EC) base. The approach outlined in the ECP significantly increases the likelihood of maximizing the use of the Receiving and Inspection Test Facility (RITF) and successfully executing the EC requirements. SAIC received four (4) Strengths under this subfactor for: (1) proposing an effective QMS approach which reduces process variation, improves process quality, and reduces schedule risks; (2) proposing management initiatives and tools and systems which enhances the ability to quickly access experienced subject matter experts for addressing short-term and critical task requests; (3) proposing a complete and effective approach to continuous improvement and provides improved cost estimating, process efficiencies, and higher-quality products; and (4) proposing a TCP that provides an effective, reasonable and attractive set of fringe benefits which increases the likelihood of recruiting and retaining the necessary skills to execute the SMAEC II requirements.

Under the Safety and Health Approach subfactor, SAIC received an adjectival rating of

“Excellent.” SAIC received one (1) Significant Strength for proposing a very complete and highly-effective S&H Plan which demonstrates an understanding of JSC’s and WSTF’s requirements. The plan would significantly reduce the risk of hazard exposure and significantly increase safety and health awareness.

Under the Small Business Utilization Approach subfactor, SAIC received an adjectival rating of “Excellent.” SAIC received one (1) Significant Strength for proposing a highly-effective and well-defined strategy which exceeds all categories of the recommended SBU goals outlined in the RFP. SAIC also proposes a very effective approach for identifying highly-technical work for each of their small business teammates, and ensuring certain measures are in place, which will increase the likelihood of reaching the proposed small business goals

Under the Past Performance factor, SAIC received a “High” Level of Confidence rating.

SAIC’s recent and relevant Past Performance involved essentially the same content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires based on demonstrating multiple examples of contracts with very relevant content, complexity, and size of effort to that of SMAEC II. SAIC’s Past

Performance was determined to be very highly pertinent to the proposed contract functions required on SMAEC II. Considering the entirety of experience demonstrated by all contracts, SAIC has very relevant performance in all areas of the SMAEC II SOW. The relevant Past

Performance is rated as very good to exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition.

evaluated SAIC’s proposed cost/price for validity, realism, and adequacy to develop a probable cost of performance. Based on this analysis, and in determining SAIC’s probable cost of performance, the Board made no adjustment to SAIC’s proposed cost. SAIC’s evaluated probable cost/price was the highest of the three (3) Offerors in the competitive range. The CO determined that SAIC’s evaluated probable cost/price was fair and reasonable.

9 | P a g e

SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY ASSESSMENT

MISSION SUITABILTY

In examining the Board’s findings and the relative rankings of the Offerors under the Mission

Suitability factor, I made a qualitative value assessment of the benefits to the Government arising from the Significant Strengths and Strengths, as well as the risks to successful contract performance represented by any Weaknesses or Significant Weaknesses.

Technical Approach Subfactor

My comparison of the three Offerors’ proposals began with the Technical Approach subfactor.

As a framework for my deliberations, I initially noted that from a quantitative standpoint, the

Board assessed Engility and SAIC as “Excellent”; however, SAIC was rated in the higher end of the Excellent range. The Board rated ManTech as “Good”.

Significant Strengths and Strengths

In seeking to understand the qualitative value of the three (3) proposals under this subfactor, I examined each Offeror’s Significant Strengths: Engility received one (1) Significant Strength;

SAIC received one (1) Significant Strength; and ManTech did not receive any Significant

Strengths. I also noted the Strengths. Overall, I noted that the Board assessed four (4) Strengths each to Engility, Mantech, and SAIC.

SAIC was assessed a Significant Strength for its proposed approach to Technical Scenario L-2-1, ISS Mission Commercial Crew Vehicle Anomaly. The Board explained that SAIC’s approach demonstrated a very comprehensive understanding and a highly-effective application of the

SMA processes and assessments required to recommend real-time options with risk considerations. SAIC’s assumptions are very reasonable and all-encompassing, showing thorough consideration of the relative priorities of crew safety, Commercial Crew Program

(CCP) vehicle safety, and overall mission success needed to inform Government leadership and enable difficult decision-making. Of particular note was SAIC’s proposed plan to examine next worst-case failures for the possible management options, including consideration of additional on-orbit vehicle checkout, which conveys an extensive knowledge of how to perform risk assessments to ensure all probable failure scenarios are considered and that Program leaders are well-informed of the risks prior to proceeding with any perceived straight-forward solutions. I agreed with the Board that SAIC’s approach ensures SMA personnel are provided the necessary data for making real-time risk-informed decisions, which ultimately decreases the risk to the crew and vehicle; this approach is of great value to the Government in achieving its goals for maximizing safety while using commercial vehicles. SAIC demonstrates in-depth technical understanding and would ensure not only the analysis of a known anomaly, but would also ensure that other potential risks were examined and assessed.

In comparison, I noted that Engility was assessed a Strength for its proposed approach to the same Technical Scenario. The Board found that Engility possessed a comprehensive understanding and demonstrated an effective approach to addressing the real-time on-orbit

10 | P a g e anomaly decision-making process through its identification of the applicable safety requirement and utilizing the requirement to discuss impacts to time-constrained decisions; use of existing approved software development plans; understanding its role on the Anomaly Resolution team to provide an assessment of the plans and make recommendations to NASA; and effectively communicating risks for each option to the leadership teams. The proposed approach benefits the

Government by ensuring the necessary information will be provided to the appropriate personnel to make risk-informed decisions, thereby decreasing the potential for safety risks that could result in potential harm to the crew or vehicle. I agreed with the Board’s assessment of Engility’s proposed approach as a Strength. I noted that Engility’s approach provided value in specific areas, but I found greater value in SAIC’s Significant Strength, as compared to Engility’s

Strength, due to the increased in-depth risk mitigation considerations, such as next worst-case failures, and additional real-time checkouts that will provide an even greater benefit to the

Government.

In continuing to review the Significant Strengths, I then noted Engility was assessed a

Significant Strength for its proposed approach to Technical Scenario L-2-1, Habitat Module

Safety Review Panel. Engility’s approach demonstrated a highly-comprehensive understanding and highly-effective approach to supporting an expedited safety review panel for a new commercial module. Engility demonstrated that it understood the NASA ISS Safety Review

Panel (ISRP) processes and associated schedule review requirements by identifying an effective tailored process for meeting the intent of the ISRP processes while addressing the need for successfully achieving the goal of expedited review. I agreed with the Board that this approach benefits the Government by providing a thorough early review of hazards and mitigations to ensure safe flight and on-orbit integration, and significantly increases the success of the schedule and integration of the new module.

In comparison, I noted that SAIC was assessed a Strength for its proposed approach to the same

Technical Scenario. The Board found that SAIC demonstrated an effective approach for providing on-site support and prioritization of issues and achieving an expedited commercial module certification, which decreases the risk to the Government by ensuring SMA requirements are met. SAIC proposed a multi-step approach for expediting the safety review process for a new commercial module to ensure that the commercial providers received feedback early in the process regarding the adequacy of their data, assessments, and information. Additionally, SAIC proposed a process for identifying the high-priority areas that require Government support to ensure that top priorities meet a challenging and compressed schedule. I agreed with the Board’s assessment of SAIC’s proposed approach as a Strength. Although SAIC’s approach provided value in specific areas, I found greater value in Engility’s Significant Strength, compared to

SAIC’s Strength, due to its extremely-comprehensive and highly-effective nature.

Moreover, all three Offerors were assessed a Strength for their proposed approach to the Sample

Task Order for Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) and Vehicle System Engineering (VSE) support. I noted that Engility proposed an effective suite of innovative tools, demonstrating a high likelihood of successful execution of the defined tasks. The proposed approach increases the potential for early identification of risks related to the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) human spaceflight program, using improved tools for risk identification, communication, and engineering support during design and operations of human spaceflight. Similarly, ManTech

11 | P a g e proposed to implement a new and complete suite of PRA software tools, demonstrating the potential to provide quick risk assessments for trade studies and evaluations. This approach would provide the Government with schedule and resource savings in model integration time, improved risk communications to customers, and would assist in achieving the SMA

Directorate’s strategic objective to provide high-quality analyses. Likewise, SAIC proposed a data mining and integration tool innovation which provides an effective approach to improving data collection and research tasks for hazard identification, and a reliability tool for assessing the probability of human errors. The use of these tools increases efficiencies in the VSEs’ support of the MPCV Program and reduces the time required to identify SMA products and systems safety impacts; this approach also increases the value to the MPCV PRA products in accounting for human error events when performing mission success probability calculations for human-in-the-loop events. I found value in each of the Offerors’ proposed innovations, but found greater value in that of SAIC due to the additional benefit of being able to improve data collection and research tasks for hazard identification along with assessing the probability of human errors, since this approach would provide Government decision makers the necessary information for making risk-informed decisions. I agreed with the Board’s assessment of these Strengths and their relative value, but did not find them to be discriminators in my decision.

I then took note of the Strengths related to the Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Sample Task

Order. I noted that ManTech received a Strength for its innovative approach for enhancing the

Government’s ability to predict EVA failure rates that will reduce risks to the crew during on-orbit EVA operations. I also noted that SAIC received a Strength for its innovative approach to increase the in-house knowledge of the EVA suit operations for cross training and providing electronic tracking tools of operational EVA safety data for quick reference access and early identification of risk for real-time decision-making. I agreed with the Board’s assessment of these Strengths and found both of them to be of great value, since they each provide innovative approaches for enhancing the Government’s ability to reduce the inherent risks associated with

EVAs.

I noted that Engility and ManTech each received a Strength for their proposed quick reference guides and that ManTech also received a Strength for its knowledge management videos. I agreed with the Board’s assessment of these Strengths and their relative value, but did not find them to be discriminators in my decision.

I next took note of the Strength Engility received for its innovative and effective approach that takes advantage of a remote visual approach during internal pressure vessel inspections. The proposed approach would mitigate the hazards and reduce the risk to personnel entering confined entry spaces and elevated platforms.

I noted that SAIC received a Strength for its proposed web-based portal for storing all end-to-end

Pressure Vessel/System (PV/S) documents, and the documents will be integrated with the

Government’s existing application, in conjunction with an expanded mobile device capability which will decrease the processing time for inspections and improves efficiency by eliminating the need to maintain hard copies of PV/S data, thereby reducing the risk of inaccurate PV/S data.

I found this system to be innovative and of great benefit to the Government.

12 | P a g e

Significant Weaknesses and Weaknesses

To better understand the qualitative aspects of each proposal under this subfactor, I next examined any Significant Weaknesses or Weaknesses, of which there was only one Weakness.

The Board assessed Engility and SAIC no Significant Weaknesses or Weaknesses. The Board assessed ManTech no Significant Weaknesses and one Weakness. I asked the Board about

ManTech’s Weakness related to the Task Order BOE; the Board explained that ManTech’s proposal did not provide an adequate BOE for the subtasks identified in the SOW for Sample

Task Order L-1-2. The Board found that this demonstrated a lack of comprehensive understanding of how to apply the labor resources to the tasks which created a risk that the necessary resources would not be available. I noted that the definition of Weakness “is a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance” and agreed with the Board that this flaw should be assessed as a Weakness.

Conclusions Under the Technical Approach Subfactor

After reviewing the assessments of each proposal under the Technical Approach subfactor and taking into account the qualitative value found in the Significant Strengths and Strengths, as well as the risks presented in the Weakness, I reached the same conclusion as the Board regarding the relative merit of the proposals under the Technical Approach subfactor, for the reasons stated above. I agree with the adjectival rating of “Excellent” for Engility and SAIC and with the

“Good” rating for ManTech. Both Engility and SAIC’s proposals were comprehensive and thorough and of exceptional merit; each proposal’s Technical Approach had one Significant

Strength and no Significant Weaknesses, Weaknesses or Deficiencies. The Board assessed SAIC a higher point score than Engility and I agree with that assessment. Specifically, I find greater overall qualitative value in SAIC’s Technical Approach over that of Engility and ManTech.

When comparing the Significant Strengths under this subfactor, I find greater value in the ISS

Mission Commercial Crew Vehicle Anomaly approach, as it demonstrates the use of a broad skillset and exhibits an ability to work in high-risk situations involving human life and real-time mission support. In contrast, Engility’s Significant Strength related to the Habitat Module Safety

Review Panel and does not involve real-time decision-making, but rather is related to adhering to very comprehensive processes and achieving certifications—which is valuable. Additionally, I took note of the innovations proposed by SAIC which were assessed Strengths and the resultant efficiencies, including the following: its approach for improving data collection and research tasks for hazard identification; its approach for reducing the time required for recording and processing data which will increase the accuracy of documentation of PV/S data; its innovative approach to increasing the SAIC employees’ SMA shared knowledge of the EVA suit operations; and its electronic tracking of operational EVA safety data for quick reference access which will ensure risks are identified early and are accessible for real-time decision-making. In my opinion, these Strengths, in addition to the assigned Significant Strength, warrant the higher score for SAIC under this subfactor.

Management Approach Subfactor

Next, I compared the three Offerors’ proposals in the Management Approach subfactor. As a framework for my deliberations, I initially noted that from a quantitative standpoint, the Board

13 | P a g e assessed Engility and SAIC as “Excellent”; however, SAIC was rated in the higher end of the

Excellent range. The Board rated ManTech as “Good”.

To better understand the qualitative value of each proposal under this subfactor, I first examined each Offerors’ Significant Strengths. Engility received one (1) Significant Strength; SAIC received one (1) Significant Strength; and ManTech did not receive any Significant Strengths.

Then I turned my attention to the Offerors’ respective Strengths. Overall, I noted that the Board assessed four (4) Strengths each to Engility, Mantech, and SAIC.

Engility received a Significant Strength for its TCP, while ManTech and SAIC each received a

Strength in this category. I agreed that Engility’s TCP offered greater qualitative value than that of ManTech and SAIC. Engility’s TCP included a number of highly-effective fringe benefits and incentives to motivate and reward performance that I believed would be attractive to potential employees and would contribute to employee recruitment and retention, thus significantly increasing an effective transition and future execution of the contract requirements. I agreed with the Board’s assessment for all of the Offerors in this area and considered Engility’s TCP a discriminator in favor of Engility.

SAIC was assessed a Significant Strength for its ECP, while ManTech and Engility each received a Strength in this category. I agreed that SAIC’s ECP offered greater qualitative value than that of ManTech and Engility. SAIC’s ECP demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the overall objectives of the ECP by describing a highly-comprehensive and well-organized approach to growing the SMA EC base and exceeding the RITF target goals. SAIC’s approach significantly increases the likelihood that the use of the RITF will be maximized and the EC requirement will be met. I agreed with the Board’s assessment for all of the Offerors in this area and considered SAIC’s ECP a discriminator in favor of SAIC.

Next, I noted that Engility, ManTech, and SAIC each received a Strength for their Management

Plans and concluded that each offered equal qualitative value to the Government and, thus, the

Management Plans were not a discriminator in my decision. I also noted that each Offeror received a Strength for its Quality Management System (QMS) Approach and concluded that each Offeror’s approach provided equal qualitative value to the Government and, thus, the QMS approaches were not a discriminator in my decision. Finally, I noted that Engility and SAIC each received a Strength for their CIPs. I concluded that the CIPs offered equal qualitative value to the

Government and, thus, were not a discriminator in my decision.

Significant Weaknesses and Weaknesses

None of the Offerors received any Significant Weaknesses or Weaknesses for their Management

Approach.

14 | P a g e

Conclusions Under the Management Approach Subfactor

I reviewed the assessments of the three proposals for the Management Approach subfactor and considered the qualitative value in the assigned Significant Strengths and Strengths. For the reasons cited above, I agreed with the adjectival rating of “Excellent” for Engility and SAIC and concluded that they provide essentially the same value. I also agreed with the adjectival rating of

“Good” for ManTech. I found value in Engility’s TCP, which I believed would substantially contribute to employee recruitment and retention. Similarly, I found value in SAIC’s ECP, which

I believed would substantially increase the likelihood of maximizing the RITF and successfully executing the EC requirement. Based on this rationale and on the totality of each proposal under this subfactor, I found that Engility and SAIC offered equal qualitative value which was higher than that of ManTech.

Safety and Health Approach Subfactor

As a framework for my comparison of each Offeror under this subfactor, I noted that from a quantitative standpoint, the Board assigned all three Offerors the same score with an “Excellent” rating.

Conclusion for Safety and Health Approach Subfactor

After reviewing the Board’s results and the underlying findings in support of those results, I determined that this subfactor was not a discriminator in my decision.

Small Business Utilization Approach Subfactor

As a framework for my comparison of each Offeror under this subfactor, I noted that from a quantitative standpoint Engility and SAIC were each rated as “Excellent”; however, Engility was rated higher within the Excellent range. The Board assigned ManTech a rating of “Good”.

Under this subfactor, the Board assessed Engility and SAIC each one Significant Strength and assigned ManTech one Strength.

Engility and SAIC received similar Significant Strengths for their respective plans to exceed all categories of the recommended SBU goals in the RFP. Additionally, both Offerors proposed effective approaches for identifying highly-technical work for their small business teammates.

The distinction I noted between the two Offerors was that Engility’s strategy proposed a reasonable and realistic plan to exceed the SBU goals by a higher percentage than SAIC. I agreed with the Board’s assigned Significant Strengths. I found value to the Government in both of these plans and, despite the higher score assigned to Engility, I determined they were essentially of equal value since both approaches were realistic and proposed to exceed the SBU goals. Since I viewed these as essentially the same, they were not discriminators in my decision.

I next noted the Strength assigned to ManTech for its plan to meet the SBU goals. ManTech also

15 | P a g e proposed a strategy for identifying highly-technical work and also proposed binding agreements with each of its small business subcontractors. I agreed with the Board’s finding of this approach as a Strength, since it was not as robust as that proposed by Engility or SAIC.

Conclusion for Small Business Utilization Approach

I agreed with the Board’s findings under this subfactor and concluded that, from a qualitative value standpoint, Engility and SAIC were rated “Excellent”. The value for the slightly higher score assigned to Engility by the Board was negligible in my analysis and, therefore, I considered both Offerors essentially equal. I agreed with ManTech’s assigned rating of “Good”.

After reviewing the Board’s results and the underlying findings in support of those results, I determined that this subfactor was not a discriminator in my decision.

PAST PERFORMANCE

Under the Past Performance factor, based on recent, relevant experience and performance, the

Board assessed ManTech’s team a Very High Level of Confidence, and Engility and SAIC’s teams each a High Level of Confidence. I examined the Board’s Past Performance findings in detail, focusing on recency, relevancy, and performance. I asked the Board specific questions to determine whether I agreed with the Board’s Past Performance assessments. After my assessment of the full breadth of the Past Performance data and inquiries to the Board, I agreed with the Board’s assessment of the overall Level of Confidence ratings for ManTech and

Engility, and independently assessed SAIC a Very High Level of Confidence.

The Board evaluated seven (7) contracts for Engility and its subcontractors. Of the seven (7) evaluated contracts, the Board assessed all seven(7) as Recent; two (2) as Very Relevant; three

(3) as Relevant; and two (2) as Somewhat Relevant. Additionally, the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting, and safety performance were evaluated for each contract. The overall merit was assessed as Very Good to Excellent on every contract rated. The proposed Program Manager (PM) demonstrated an array of experience in the aerospace industry, directly related to the skills needed to manage the work on SMAEC II, but lacked more recent experience managing a large workforce. The Board reviewed the Electronic

Procurement Data Warehouse (EPDW) to determine whether there were any additional JSC contracts for Engility and did not find any recent, relevant contracts for inclusion in the past performance evaluation. Based on my review of the information presented, I agreed with the

Board’s assessment. Of particular note to me was that, although team Engility possessed experience in all areas of the SOW, Engility did not have experience working as a prime contractor in the pressure systems area and the RITF operational support area and would have to rely on the experience of its minor subcontractors. The minor subcontractor with experience in pressure systems was rated Very Relevant, while the minor subcontractor with experience in

RITF operational support was rated Somewhat Relevant. Thus, although relevant, I give less weight to this experience because it is not the past work of Engility who will be responsible for managing the work on SMAEC II.

The Board evaluated eight (8) contracts for ManTech and its subcontractors, as well as for the

16 | P a g e

PM. Of the eight (8) evaluated contracts, the Board assessed all eight (8) as Recent; three (3)

Very Relevant; two (2) Relevant; and three (3) Somewhat Relevant. Additionally, the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting, and safety performance were evaluated for each contract. The overall merit was assessed as Excellent on every contract rated. The proposed PM demonstrated an array of experience in the aerospace industry, directly related to the skills needed to manage the work on SMAEC II. The Board also reviewed EPDW for any additional JSC contracts for team ManTech and did not find any recent, relevant contracts for inclusion in the past performance evaluation. Based on my review of the information presented, I agreed with the Board’s assessment. I particularly found value in team

ManTech possessing Very Relevant experience in all areas of the SOW, whether by ManTech itself, serving as a prime contractor, or its major subcontractor serving as a prime contractor on contracts reviewed, and in SOW areas proposed to be performed.

Of the four (4) evaluated contracts for SAIC, the Board assessed all four (4) as Recent; two (2)

Very Relevant; one (1) Relevant; and one (1) as Somewhat Relevant. Additionally, the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting, and safety performance were…