Source_Selection_Statement_-_Ventilation_Loop_Fans_for_the_xPLSS.pdf

Source Selection Statement for the Ventilation Loop Fans for the Exploration Portable Life Support System (xPLSS) Contract

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (Solicitation Number 80JSC018R0036)

On February 27, 2019, the members of the Evaluation Team appointed to evaluate proposals for the Ventilation Loop Fans for the Exploration Portable Life Support System (xPLSS), Solicitation 80JSC018R0036, presented its final evaluation to me and other key officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Procurement Requirements

The purpose of this contract is to design, develop, manufacture, and test the Ventilation Loop Fans for the xPLSS in support of NASA's next generation space suit, the Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU). The xPLSS, being developed for the xEMU, will offer many significant advantages over the current EMU PLSS, such as additional safety features, improvements in performance, and two fans that circulate 100 percent oxygen throughout the ventilation loop of the xPLSS.

The Ventilation Loop Fans for the xPLSS contract is a multiple award, Firm-Fixed-Price Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity with FFP Delivery Orders. The period of performance is 2 years and 11 months, from March 2019 through February 2022. There is no phase-in period for this contract. The contract guaranteed minimum units to be ordered per contract is 2 units and the contract Not to Exceed (NTE) units which may be ordered per contract is 9 units. Each contract includes a Cumulative Value for Firm-Fixed-Price Delivery Order clause that will be updated to reflect the value of issued delivery orders.

Evaluation Process and Criteria

A Sources Sought Synopsis (SSS), 80JSC018EVASUIT, was released on October 16, 2017, through the Government-Wide Point of Entry (GPE), FedBizOpps (FBO). The SSS was identified as a market research tool used to assist NASA’s continuing development of an Exploration Extravehicular Activity (EVA) space suit. The SSS required interested parties to submit industry information on components that could be used to assemble the next generation space suit by December 15, 2017. The responses to the SSS were expected to: (1) gather market research for NASA to make decisions regarding the capability and interest of a commercial offeror(s) to provide specific components to be integrated into the space-suit system, (2) assist NASA to establish its vendor supply chain and to explore alternative solutions for key components, (3) determine industry capabilities to manufacture the key components that will be needed for the near-term flight demonstration hardware, and (4) determine the availability and adequacy of potential small business sources prior to determining the method of acquisition. A pre-solicitation synopsis was issued on August 7, 2018, to notify industry of the anticipated release date of the Request for Proposal (RFP) on or about August 28, 2018, with an anticipated offer due date of on or about October 12, 2018.

The RFP was issued on August 29, 2018. Amendment P00001 was issued on October 4, 2018 to provide Offerors with responses to questions received for the solicitation and issue revisions to the RFP. Amendment P00002 was issued on October 11, 2018 to provide Offerors with responses to additional questions received for the solicitation.

The RFP included a combination of Technical Approach, Past Performance, Delivery of Data and Price evaluation factors.

• Technical Approach, Past Performance and Delivery of Data when combined is significantly more important than Price.

• Delivery of Data is more important than Technical Approach

• Technical Approach is more important than Past Performance

The entire proposal was due on October 15, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. Central Time. Two proposal were received from the following companies.

• Barber-Nichols Inc. (BNI)

• Hamilton Sundstrand Space Systems International Inc., A UTC Aerospace Systems

(UTAS)

The initial review of proposals was conducted to determine acceptability of the proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. The BNI proposal was determined to be acceptable and the evaluation team performed the initial evaluation of the proposal. However, UTAS’s proposal was determined to be unacceptable and no further evaluation was conducted for the following reasons:

• UTAS did not provide the entire model contract (Sections A-J) as required by RFP, L.9 Model Contract – Section VI

• UTAS did not provide Compliance Matrix (L-1, Firm Fixed Price Delivery Order (FFP DO) Attachment 1, Compliance Matrix) as required by RFP, L.4 Technical Approach, Section I

• UTAS did not provide a Technical Schedule (L-1, FFP DO, Attachment 3, Ventilation Loop Fan Major Contract Milestones and Deliverables), as required by RFP, L.4 Technical Approach, Section I

• UTAS did not provide Attachment J-6, Limited Rights in Data and Restricted Computer Software in accordance with FAR 52.227-15, Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software as required by RFP, L.6 Delivery of Data, Section III.

(Refer to L.6, Subfactor A)

• UTAS did not detail the level of piece part engineering drawings set and level of CAD model set that will be provided to the Government in the DO as required by RFP, L.6 Delivery of Data, Section III. (Refer to L.6, Subfactor B)

UTAS was notified on November 26, 2018 (Letter BT-18-083) that their proposal was determined to be unacceptable and no further evaluation would be conducted. In addition, the notification offered UTAS a Preaward or Postaward debrief in accordance with FAR 15.505 and 15.506, respectively. UTAS requested a Preaward Debrief. During the Preaward debrief, UTAS stated their record indicated that all of their documents were uploaded. The Contracting Officer (CO) requested substantiating evidence that proved the records were uploaded into FBO prior to the solicitation deadline. Additionally, the CO conducted an investigation to determine the acceptability of the UTAS proposal. The CO received notification from FBO that UTAS submitted all documents listed above in a timely manner, but the FBO system itself failed to attach the documents to the electronic offer reviewed by NASA. The CO determined in accordance with FAR 15.208, the Government received acceptable evidence that the UTAS proposal attachment was received at the Government point of entry and was under the Government’s control prior to the time set for receipt of proposal. As such, the UTAS proposal was evaluated for the subject procurement.

Technical Approach: In accordance with Section M.2, the evaluation team evaluated the proposals to determine the Offerors’ technical understanding of the requirements. Additionally, the team evaluated the Offerors’ FFP DO - Specific Understanding and Resources response for demonstrated comprehensive understanding, effectiveness, reasonableness, and completeness.

The evaluation team considered ratings of “High Confidence”, “Moderate Confidence”, and “Low Confidence (defined in Section M.2) as the Technical Approach ratings.

Past Performance: In accordance with Section M.3, the evaluation team evaluated the past performance of each Offeror and major subcontractors as defined in Section L.5(a).

The evaluation team assessed performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control and safety performance on the contracts that were considered to be recent and relevant. In accordance with the RFP, contracts with a period of performance within 5 years from the date of the Ventilation Loop Fans for the xPLSS solicitation were considered to be recent, and contracts similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the Ventilation Loop Fans requirement were considered relevant. More recent past performance received greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than those with more distant performance.

The evaluation team considered past performance information from proposal data required by provisions of Section L, including information obtained by the evaluation team based on communications with listed references, as well as data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System and similar systems of other governmental departments and agencies, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with client program managers and Contracting Officers, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. The evaluation of Past Performance was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 5.305(a)(2) “Proposal Evaluation” and the RFP. Each proposal was assigned an overall level of confidence rating for Past Performance using the definitions in M.3 of the RFP: Very High, High, Moderate, Low, Very Low, or Neutral.

Delivery of Data: In accordance with Section M.4, the evaluation team considered ratings of “High Confidence”, “Moderate Confidence”, and “Low Confidence as the Delivery of Data ratings. The team evaluated the Offeror’s intellectual property and technical data rights assertions including FAR 52.227-15, Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software and Attachment J-6 Limited Rights in Data and Restricted Computer Software Table. The evaluation team assessed whether Offerors proposed to deliver technical data/computer software with less than unlimited rights, to determine the impact on the Government’s ability to use, modify, release, or disclose such technical data and computer software. Use of technical data or computer software with less than unlimited rights will be evaluated based on the extent to which they affect the Government’s overall goal and ability to acquire and support the Ventilation Loop Fan design. In accordance with Section M.4, proposals that assert less than unlimited rights at any level may result in the assignment of a lower confidence rating. Additionally, the evaluation team assessed the Offeror’s proposed level of Drawings Set and CAD Model Set that to determine that it meets the Government’s needs.

Price: In accordance with Section M.5, the evaluation team evaluated the proposals to ensure that the final agreed to prices were fair and reasonable. The Government performed price analysis in accordance with FAR Part 15.305 - Proposal Evaluation, FAR Part 15.404, - Proposal Analysis, and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Part 1815.305 – Proposal Evaluation.

In accordance with Section M.5, the evaluation team evaluated proposed rates and prices for all contract years to determine if they were realistic in response to this solicitation.

The evaluation team performed price analysis for the proposed fixed prices by evaluating the Offerors’ proposed labor, non-labor resources, and fully burdened labor rates, for Contract years 1 through 3.

Evaluation of Initial Proposals and Competitive Range

After preliminary review of all proposals, both proposals were determined to be acceptable and evaluated in accordance with the evaluation factors set out in the RFP. The results of the initial evaluation were presented to me on February 7, 2019 and a competitive range determination was made by the Contracting Officer.

Barber-Nichols, Inc.

For Technical Approach factor, BNI’s proposal rated a Moderate Confidence rating with two exceptional merits and one unfavorable observation. The exceptional merits were (1) BNI identified the selection of an appropriate bearing grease and provided performance bearing testing data to validate their choice of grease for an oxygen enriched environment. Providing the test data is above and beyond the requirements of the solicitation and served as validated engineering test data rather than thoughts and opinions, and (2) BNI provided a detailed list of proposed materials for its design solution and explained the importance of choosing material compatible with oxygen. Providing a detailed list of material was not required in the response to the solicitation. This additional insight was highly significant, enabling the evaluation team to better assess the solution and feasibility of the design. The initial material choices indicated a superior understanding of the fan design and the requirements. This level of detail provided the Government with high confidence that BNI understands the importance of oxygen compatibility in this specific application because the space suit uses 100% oxygen as the operating gas.

Materials exposed to 100% oxygen can become very flammable, so material choices are of utmost importance to achieve a safe design.

The unfavorable observation included not providing sufficient detail for the evaluation team to thoroughly understand if the number of hours proposed for the Program Manager and Engineer 4 were reasonable for this effort.

Overall, BNI’s technical approach demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the Ventilation Loop Fan technical requirement that was effective, reasonable, complete, and consistent with other portions of the proposal. BNI strongly addressed the requirements of the

Statement of Work (SOW) and FFP DO, which provided the evaluation team with an overall Moderate Level of Confidence that their proposed Technical Approach would satisfy the technical requirements of the Ventilation Loop Fans for the xPLSS.

For the Past Performance factor, BNI received a High Level of Confidence rating. BNI’s recent and relevant past performance was highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to the Ventilation Loop Fan requirement.

BNI’s past performance indicated that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner by their ratings of Very Good to Excellent for the recent/relevant past performance. BNI had no OSHA reports of inspections/violations. Based on BNI’s performance and safety record, there was a High Level of Confidence that Barber- Nichols would successfully perform the required effort.

For the Delivery of Data factor, there was a High level of Confidence that BNI’s would successfully perform the work.

For Subfactor A: Limited Rights in Data and Restricted Computer Software, BNI included Attachment J-6 Limited Rights in Data and Restricted Computer Software Table. BNI included the limited rights data in accordance with FAR 52.227-15 and specified there is no technical data to be furnished with restriction. BNI certified and signed the list of data items.

Additionally, BNI completed the Limited Rights in Data and Restricted Computer Software Table. BNI’s Limited Rights in Data table included no restrictions of the data deliverables of this proposal. Additionally BNI stated the proposal does not include computer software, design codes or proprietary analysis codes.

For Subfactor B: Engineering Drawings Set and CAD Model Set Requirements, BNI’s Model Contract, included the Drawing and Models Deliverable Clause. BNI specified they would deliver the Drawing Set for the fan assembly and each piece part with associated bill of material in accordance with SOW Section 2.4.5, Engineering Drawing Set.

Additionally, BNI specified they would deliver a Full CAD Model set of all assembly and piece parts in accordance with SOW Section 2.4.5, CAD Models. BNI stated “the deliverables provided to NASA would be the same drawings and CAD models that BNI will utilize in the engineering, design, and manufacture of the xPLSS Ventilation Loop Fan”. Materials, process, analysis results, and other design deliverables are also included.

Also, there were no unfavorable observations noted for Subfactor A and Subfactor B that would reduce the evaluation team’s confidence that BNI will satisfy the technical requirements identified in the solicitation.

For the Price factor, the evaluation team determined that the skill mix proposed by BNI was adequate. However, BNI did not provide sufficient detail for the evaluation team to thoroughly understand if the number of hours proposed for two of the labor categories were reasonable for this effort. The evaluation team determined that discussions were needed to better understand BNI’s proposed hours for these labor categories.

UTAS

For Technical Approach factor, UTAS’s proposal was rated a Moderate Confidence rating with no areas of exceptional merit and one unfavorable observation. The requirement for DO-1 was to deliver the Ventilation Loop Fans within 14-months of Authorization to Proceed (ATP).

Instead, UTAS proposed 18 months in the technical schedule and 19 months in the Basis of Estimate. No specific assumptions were recorded in the technical approach section of the proposal that provided justification for this discrepancy. The Ventilation Loop Fans are a critical path item for the xEMU project; therefore, this schedule would negatively impact the Government by delaying the xEMU project. In reviewing the proposed technical schedule, the Government noticed UTAS failed to utilize the appropriate amendment in response to the solicitation. UTAS acknowledged the amendments issued to the solicitation, however, the UTAS proposal, Attachment 2, Payment Milestones, and Attachment 3, Contract Milestones and Deliverables, did not include the changes executed on amendment P00001. Instead, the Offeror utilized the templates provided in the initial RFP, which allowed the Offeror to provide an Offer Fill in Due Date. It appears that this error was clerical in nature; therefore, the reviewers rated the overall technical approach as Moderate. The Government determined it was in the best interest to investigate this discrepancy.

Overall, UTAS’s technical approach demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the Ventilation Loop Fan technical requirement that was effective. UTAS addressed the requirements of the SOW and FFP DO. The approach described the various phases of the program and explained UTAS’s previous experience with other similar programs. UTAS provided a thorough technical approach, which discussed the workflow to achieve a successful design. This provided the evaluation team with an overall Moderate Level of Confidence that their proposed Technical Approach would satisfy the technical requirements of the Ventilation Loop Fans for the xPLSS.

For the Past Performance factor, UTAS received a Moderate Level of Confidence rating.

UTAS’s recent and relevant past performance was pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating effective performance that would be fully responsive to the Ventilation Loop Fan requirement.

UTAS’s past performance was fully responsive to contract requirements by their ratings of Very Good to Exceptional for the recent/relevant past performance. UTAS had no OSHA reports of inspections/violations for the proposed location. Based on UTAS’s performance and safety record, there was a Moderate Level of Confidence that UTAS will successfully perform the required effort.

For the Delivery of Data factor, there was a Moderate level of Confidence that UTAS would successfully perform the work.

For Subfactor A: Limited Rights in Data and Restricted Computer Software, the UTAS proposal narrative stated UTAS did not claim any data rights related to the proposed work, however, attachment J-6, Limited Rights in Data and Restricted Computer Software Table did not address 52.227-15, Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software.

Additionally, UTAS did not sign attachment J-6, Limited Rights in Data and Restricted Computer Software Table, as required by FAR 52.227-15. The inconsistencies for Subfactor A in the UTAS proposal narrative and attachment J-6 made UTAS’s intentions unclear. As such, the Government determined it was in the Government’s best interest to investigate this inconsistency.

For Subfactor B: Engineering Drawings Set and CAD Model Set Requirements, the UTAS Model Contract, included the Drawing and Models Deliverable Clause. UTAS specified they would deliver the Drawing Set for the fan assembly and each piece part with associated bill of material, in accordance with SOW Section 2.4.5, Engineering Drawing Set.

Additionally, UTAS specified they would deliver a Full CAD Model set of all assembly and piece parts, in accordance with SOW Section 2.4.5, CAD Models.

Overall, there was one unfavorable observation noted for Subfactor A and no unfavorable observation for Subfactor B that would reduce the evaluation team’s confidence UTAS will satisfy the technical requirements identified in the solicitation.

For the Price factor, the evaluation team determined that the skill mix proposed by UTAS was adequate. However, the UTAS overall price appeared to be high based on previous motor development experience. The evaluation team determined that discussions were needed to better understand UTAS’s proposed price.

Competitive Range

At the completion of the initial evaluation, the CO determined that BNI and UTAS offered the most highly rated proposals and, therefore, were the Offerors included in the competitive range.

The evaluation of the initial proposals submitted in response to the Ventilation Loop Fans for the xPLSS solicitation did not lend itself to making an award without discussions. In order to maximize the Government’s potential for best value, discussions were considered necessary. I concurred with the CO’s determination that the proposals from BNI and UTAS should be included in the competitive range, and that discussions should be held to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain best value, prior to award.

BNI and UTAS were notified of their inclusion in the competitive range on February 7, 2019 and informed that discussions would be conducted in phases, with an initial written response phase to be followed by an oral phase, if necessary. As part of discussions, BNI was offered an opportunity to address the unfavorable observation and provide sufficient detail for the evaluation team to thoroughly understand if the number of hours proposed for the two labor categories is reasonable for this effort. Additionally, UTAS was offered an opportunity to address the proposed technical schedule, inconsistencies with the Delivery of Data in the narrative and model contract, Offeror’s requested edits to terms and conditions in the model contract, discrepancies with attachments and typographical errors included in the model contract.

The Government also requested UTAS to provide sufficient detail for the evaluation team to thoroughly understand if the number of hours proposed for two labor categories is reasonable for this effort. Discussions concluded on February 13, 2019, with the issuance of the request for final proposal revision and model contract. The model contract included updates to FAR and NFS clauses and adjusted the period of performance.

Evaluation of Final Proposals

Barber-Nichols

For the Technical Approach factor, there were no changes to the previously identified 2 exceptional merits and BNI adequately addressed the unfavorable observation. The additional rationale provided by BNI resulted in BNI’s Confidence Rating for this factor to improve from a “Moderate” to “High.”

For the Past Performance factor, an updated review of the PPIRS database was conducted and no substantive information affected the Evaluation Team’s overall assessment. Therefore, BNI retained a High Level of Confidence rating.

For the Delivery of Data factor, BNI’s confidence rating of “High” did not change. There were no changes to the 2 exceptional merits for Subfactor A, Limited Rights in Data and Restricted Computer Software and the 2 exceptional merits for Subfactor B, Full Drawings set and CAD Models Requirements.

For the Price factor, BNI’s proposed price was $1.65M. The proposed price was determined to be fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404 Price Analysis.

For the Model Contract, BNI had no issues or errors to address in the model contract.

UTAS

For the Technical Approach factor, UTAS partially addressed the unfavorable observation by providing the contractual agreement in FFP DO 1 that reflects a 14-month delivery schedule for the Ventilation Loop Fan requirement. While UTAS corrected the contractual agreement in DO 1 to reflect the 14-month delivery schedule, the UTAS proposal still included inconsistencies with the technical program schedule section of the proposal. Based on this inconsistency in the proposal, the Government determined the UTAS Confidence Rating for this factor remained a “Moderate”.

For the Past Performance factor, an updated review of the PPIRS database was conducted and no substantive information affected the Evaluation Team’s overall assessment. Therefore, UTAS retained a Moderate Level of Confidence rating.

For the Delivery of Data factor, UTAS addressed the unfavorable observations for Subfactor A, Limited Rights in Data and Restricted Computer Software and there were no changes for the 2 exceptional merits for Subfactor B, Full Drawings set and CAD Models Requirements.

Changes made to the proposal for Subfactor A resulted in UTAS’s confidence rating to improve from “Moderate” to “High.” UTAS retained a “High” confidence rating for Subfactor B.

For the Price factor, UTAS’s proposed price was $1.73M. The proposed price was determined to be fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404 Price Analysis.

For the Model Contract, UTAS addressed the issues and discrepancies in the model contract.

There were no issues or concerns with the model contract provided with the FPR.

Selection Decision

My decision is based on selecting the proposal(s) offering the best overall value to the Government in accordance with the RFP’s stated criteria for award. During the final evaluation presentation on February 27, 2019, I questioned the evaluation team on their evaluation and I carefully considered the material presented. The charts presented at the meeting provided an excellent summary of the evaluation team’s proposal analysis.

Prior to the meeting, I carefully reviewed the team’s evaluation of Technical Approach, Delivery of Data, and analysis of Past Performance and Pricing. As the Source Selection Authority (SSA), I examined the evaluation of each factor and subfactor and I considered the two proposals in the competitive range. I recognized the fact that it was my responsibility to make an independent judgement of the teams’ evaluation results and to determine if I agreed with that evaluation. I determined that the evaluation team performed a careful and thorough job of evaluating the two proposals in the competitive range. The evaluation team did an excellent job documenting the evaluation, identifying and explaining the exceptional merits of the proposals.

The evaluation team’s presentation carefully explained how the initial evaluation had changed based on BNI’s and UTAS’s final proposal submission. The evaluation team provided detailed answers to follow-up questions I had during the meeting.

The evaluation team presented me with the detailed briefing of BNI’s and UTAS’s proposals.

The exceptional merits assessed by the evaluation team for BNI’s technical approach demonstrated BNI’s comprehensive technical understanding of the requirement. BNI strongly addressed the requirements of the SOW and the FFP DO. BNI provided ideas and solutions for keep out speeds; bearing lubricant; electrical motor design, material selections, fan impeller design, manufacturing details, and schedule details. As previously noted, the first exceptional merit is for the selection of an appropriate bearing grease in which BNI provided performance bearing testing data to validate their choice of grease for an oxygen enriched environment which was above and beyond the requirements of the solicitation and served as validated engineering test data rather than thoughts and opinions.

I found value in the second exceptional merit noted by the evaluation team for BNI’s technical approach: BNI provided a detailed list of proposed materials for its design solution and explained the importance of choosing materials compatible with oxygen. This additional insight was highly significant, enabling the evaluation team to better assess the solution and feasibility of the design. The initial material choices indicated a superior understanding of the fan design and the requirements. This level of detail provided the Government with High Confidence that BNI understood the importance of oxygen compatibility in this specific application.

I was also briefed on the unfavorable observation in BNI’s technical approach and am satisfied that the observation was adequately resolved.

Next, we discussed BNI’S Past Performance. The evaluation team explained its rationale for giving BNI a High Level of Confidence rating in the area of Past Performance and I agreed with this rating. BNI’s past performance had two example contracts that were very relevant and one example contract that was relevant. All three contracts were within the recency requirement of the Ventilation Loop Fan for the xPLSS RFP. BNI’s recent and relevant past performance was highly pertinent to this acquisition; which demonstrated very effective performance that they would be fully responsive to the Ventilation Loop Fan requirement. BNI’s past performance indicated that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner by their ratings of Very Good to Excellent for the recent/relevant past performance.

I found value in the first exceptional merit for Delivery of Data (Subfactor A, Limited Rights in Data and Restricted Computer Software) where BNI provided the limited rights data in accordance with 52.227-15, Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software and specified there is no technical data to be furnished with restriction. BNI certified and signed the list of data items. In addition, I also found value in the second exceptional merit for Subfactor A: BNI completed the Limited Rights in Data and Restricted Computer Software Table and stated no restriction of the data deliverables of this proposal are made.

Additionally, I found value in the first exceptional merit for Delivery of Data (Subfactor B, Engineering Drawings Set and CAD Model Set Requirements) where BNI included the Drawing and Models Deliverable Clause. BNI specified they would deliver the Drawing Set for the fan assembly and each piece part with associated bill of material in accordance with SOW Section 2.4.5, Engineering Drawing Set. I also find value in the second exceptional merit for Subfactor B: BNI specifying they would deliver a Full CAD Model set of all assembly and piece parts in accordance with SOW Section 2.4.5, CAD Models.

The UTAS’s technical approach demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the ventilation loop fan technical requirement that was effective. I found the approach valuable as it described the various phases of the program and explained UTAS’s previous experience with other similar programs. UTAS provided a thorough technical approach, which discussed the workflow to achieve a successful design.

I was also briefed on the unfavorable observation in UTAS’s technical approach and was satisfied that the observation was adequately resolved by correcting the contractual agreement in DO1 to reflect a 14-month delivery schedule for the Ventilation Loop Fans.

Next, we discussed UTAS’S Past Performance. The evaluation team explained its rationale for giving UTAS a Moderate Level of Confidence rating in the area of Past Performance and I agree with this rating. UTAS’s past performance had two example contracts that were somewhat relevant. Both contracts were within the recency requirement of the Ventilation Loop Fan for the xPLSS RFP. UTAS’s recent and relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition;

demonstrating effective performance that they would be fully responsive to the Ventilation Loop Fan requirement. UTAS’s past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner by their ratings of Very Good to Exceptional for the recent/relevant past performance.

I also discussed the first exceptional merit for Delivery of Data (Subfactor B, Engineering Drawings Set and CAD Model Set Requirements) where UTAS included the Drawing and Models Deliverable Clause in the model contract. UTAS specified they would deliver the Drawing Set for the fan assembly and each piece part with associated bill of material in accordance with SOW Section 2.4.5, Engineering Drawing Set. The second exceptional merit for Subfactor B included UTAS specifying they would deliver a Full CAD Model set of all assembly and piece parts in accordance with SOW Section 2.4.5, CAD Models.

Also, I discussed the unfavorable observations for Delivery of Data (Subfactor A, Limited Rights in Data and Restricted Computer Software) where, in its initial proposal, the UTAS Delivery of Data narrative stated they do not claim data rights related to the proposed work; however, UTAS did not complete model contract Attachment J-6, Limited Rights in Data and Restricted Computer Software Table The initial proposal reflected inconsistencies with the Offerors claim to Rights in Data and Computer Software. In accordance with 52.227-15, Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software the Offeror was required to complete the remainder of the paragraph and certify to the statement with a signature. During the presentation, I was briefed and concur that the unfavorable observation was adequately resolved and the FPR contained the appropriate information.

The level of detail provided within BNI’s and UTAS’s final proposals clearly demonstrated a comprehensive technical understanding of the work and the resource required to efficiently and effectively develop and design the Ventilation Loop Fans for the xPLSS. The solicitation stated the Government reserved the right to award the fully executed FFP DO at contract start based on the Offeror’s proposed price. Both Offerors submitted Delivery Order 1, which included the contractual agreement to deliver the Ventilation Loop Fans within the 14-month delivery date.

As such, I am confident that we can rely upon both Offerors’ commitment to meeting the delivery schedule requirement within the proposed price. I therefore, determine BNI’s and UTAS’s proposal to be the best value for the Government and select them for award of the Ventilation Loop Fans for the xPLSS contract under Solicitation Number 80JSC018R0036.

Jeremy Pierre Source Selection Authority