SASS Source Selection Statement.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR THE

SIMULATION & ADVANCED SOFTWARE SERVICES (SASS) CONTRACT

NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Solicitation Number 80JSC020R0018

On August 24, 2020, I, along with other key officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC), met with members of the Streamlined Procurement Team (SLPT) appointed to evaluate proposals received in response to the SASS Request for Proposals (RFP) 80JSC020R0018. I posed a variety of questions, solicited the views of the SLPT and my advisors, expressed my own views, and made my selection decision. The final presentation charts, along with the Technical Acceptability and Past Performance Evaluation Worksheets, have been reviewed and represent the final source evaluation report and are herein incorporated by reference.

BACKGROUND

The SASS procurement will consolidate the current Robotics, Vehicle & Graphics Simulation Services (RVGSS) contract and the Software, Robotics, and Space System Services (SRS3) contract, which currently provide support to multiple divisions within the Engineering Directorate at NASA JSC. The SASS Contract will provide specialized space-based robotics, vehicle, and graphics simulation services as well as research, development, and deployment of advanced software development services. These services are necessary to produce software systems, processes, and tools for a variety of end-users across the Agency, including the International Space Station (ISS), Orion, Gateway, and Artemis Programs, flight operations, and other advanced programs for exploration.

SASS will be a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract with Fixed-Price phase-in and Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Task Orders (TO). The SASS procurement is a small business set-aside, assigned the North American Industry Classification System code 541511 – Custom Computer Programming Services, with a Small Business Administration designated small business size standard of $30 million (M). The Government anticipates a five (5) year period of performance, anticipated to run from October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2025. The IDIQ guaranteed minimum to be ordered under the SASS Contract is $100 thousand

(K) and the potential contract value will not exceed $100M.

A Sources Sought Synopsis, 80JSC018SASS, was released on June 14, 2018, through the NASA SASS Procurement website and Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website. The SLPT hosted a Virtual Industry Day presentation on March 27, 2019, and held individual discussions with interested parties on March 27-28, 2019. The SLPT received capability statements from twenty-nine (29) interested parties in response to the Synopsis; this information, along with market research and information from the individual discussions, was used to determine that a small business set-aside was appropriate for the acquisition. The draft RFP was posted to the FBO website on October 16, 2019. No questions were received in response to the draft RFP by the October 30, 2019 deadline. On November 7, 2019, a Pre-Solicitation Synopsis, 80JSC020R0018, was posted on the SASS and FBO websites.

The final RFP 80JSC020R0018 was released through the “beta.SAM.gov” website (which replaced the FBO website) on December 4, 2019. Offerors were informed that the Government intended to award to the offeror whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government that meets all solicitation requirements and is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, Standards. The SLPT held a virtual Pre-Proposal Conference on December 12, 2019. NASA issued a total of five (5) amendments to the RFP prior to the receipt of proposals, which were due by January 31, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. Central Time.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This procurement was conducted using a combination of technically acceptable baseline requirements and a tradeoff of past performance and cost/price. The SLPT evaluated proposals in accordance with Section M of the SASS RFP – Evaluation Factors for Award.

First, the SLPT conducted an initial review of proposals in accordance with NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement (NFS) 1815.305-70 – Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. Any unacceptable proposal was eliminated from further evaluation.

Remaining proposals were then evaluated against the Technical Acceptability Factor. The Technical Acceptability Factor contained the following three (3) subfactors:

Subfactor A – Contract Management Plan Subfactor B – Specific Technical Understanding and Resources of the Sample TOs Subfactor C – Phase-In Plan

The RFP required that Technical Acceptability be assessed by assigning ratings of “Acceptable,” “Potentially Acceptable,” or “Unacceptable” to each Offeror’s Technical Acceptability volume. The ratings were defined as follows:

“Acceptable” Rating – A proposal will be rated “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, where ALL subfactors are individually rated acceptable based on the demonstration of understanding, and level of reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness such that associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

“Unacceptable” Rating – A proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, where ANY subfactor is individually rated unacceptable based on the demonstration of understanding, and level of reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness such that associated risks do jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

“Potentially Acceptable” Rating – A proposal will be rated “Potentially Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, when after the initial evaluation, the proposal does not fully meet the definition for an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” rating and the Government anticipates that additional information obtained during discussions could result in a proposal rating of “Acceptable”.

All proposals rated technically “Acceptable” and “Potentially Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor were further evaluated against the trade-off factors of Past Performance and Cost/Price. Past Performance was more important than cost.

“Acceptable” and “Potentially Acceptable” proposals were then evaluated against the Past Performance Factor.

Here, each proposal received a Past Performance Confidence Rating based on the SLPT's evaluation of available information regarding the Offeror's relevant Past Performance on recent contracts, in accordance with RFP Section M.3.1 – Past Performance Evaluation. The SLPT relied on proposal data required by provisions of RFP Section L; information obtained by the evaluation team based on communications with listed references; data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources, such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) website; and interviews with other sources known to the Government.

Offerors were required to demonstrate past experience in all areas of the Statement of Work (SOW) by submitting past performance information on no more than (3) contracts for offerors and each proposed major/minor subcontractor, teaming arrangement and joint venture partner that best demonstrates their ability to perform the SASS requirements. Only contract period of performances within three (3) years from the date of the SASS original solicitation were considered in the past performance evaluation. (Similarly, only information within three (3) years from the date of the SASS original solicitation was considered in the past performance evaluation of the proposed Program Manager (PM), Advanced Software Technical Lead (ASTL), and Simulation and Graphics Technical Lead (SGTL).) Resumes of proposed key personnel (i.e., the proposed PM, ASTL, and SGTL) were required as well as performance data regarding environmental compliance and safety and health.

Three (3) aspects were taken into consideration by the SLPT in determining an Offeror’s Past Performance Confidence Rating: recency, relevance, and performance.

If the contract was deemed recent, the Government was then required to determine the degree of relevance of the contract based on content, complexity and size of effort. The term “content” considered the contract’s scope of services and work in comparison to the requirements of the SASS solicitation. Contracts that exhibited greater scope under the solicitation SOW were considered more relevant than contracts with more limited scope.

The term “complexity” considered the technical content and combination of elements of the SOW. The term “size” related to estimated dollar value. Relevance was assessed using the following definitions:

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved much of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance contractual effort involved some of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

The SLPT then assessed the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting, and safety performance of the recent and relevant contracts. The quality assessment consisted of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source, and could result in positive or adverse findings. In assessing performance, the SLPT considered the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of corrective actions taken that have resulted in sustained improvements, and the overall record of past performance. The assessment then led the Government to determine the quality of performance as either Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Poor/Unsatisfactory.

After evaluating aspects of an Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance, a Past Performance Confidence Rating was assessed at the overall factor level for past performance. The past performance of the prime Offeror or proposed team member was compared to the work proposed to be performed by that prime or team member, and weighted accordingly in assigning the overall past performance adjectival rating to the Offeror. The past performance effort of proposed minor subcontractors and the proposed PM, ASTL, and SGTL were weighted less heavily than that of the proposed prime Offeror or any proposed major subcontractors. The RFP set out six (6) possible Past Performance Confidence Ratings:

Very High Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Offeror’s past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards.

Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Very Low Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas. Performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, adversely affected overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].

As used in the ratings above, the term “pertinent” is equivalent to the term “relevant.”

Finally, in accordance with RFP Section M.4 – Cost/Price Factor, the SLPT evaluated proposed costs and established the probable cost of doing business with each Offeror whose proposal was rated either technically “Acceptable” or “Potentially Acceptable.” Offerors were required to submit a Cost Volume that was suitable for evaluation. It was required to:

• Account for all resources necessary to complete requirements of this RFP.

• Explain in detail all pricing and estimating techniques.

• Disclose the basis of all projections, rates, ratios, percentages, and factors in sufficient detail to facilitate the SLPT’s understanding.

• Comply with applicable Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), NASA FAR Supplement (NFS), and statutory requirements.

• Include a narrative portion that explains all judgmental elements of cost projections and fee policies.

• Include all templates required in this RFP.

The Government evaluated the proposed cost/price for the validity, realism and adequacy of each cost proposal and the probable cost that would be incurred in the performance of the effort. The evaluation of cost included an assessment of the cost of doing business with the Offeror, predicted growth in proposed cost during the performance of the work, and the features of the Offeror’s situation that would cause its proposed effort to cost more or less than that which was proposed by the Offeror. To ensure that the final agreed-to prices were fair and reasonable, the Government performed the analyses in accordance with FAR 15.305 – Proposal Evaluation, FAR 15.404 – Proposal Analysis, and NFS 1815.305 – Proposal Evaluation.

EVALUATION OF INITIAL PROPOSALS

The Government received three (3) timely proposals in response to the SASS RFP. Proposals were received from the following companies, which are listed in the order they were evaluated:

• Applied Decision Technologies, Inc. (ADecTec)

• S&K Global Solutions, LLC (SKGS)

• MacLean Engineering & Applied Technologies, LLC (DBA METECS)

All proposals were evaluated in accordance with Section M of the SASS RFP, as detailed above. The SLPT first conducted an initial review of the proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70 and RFP Section M.1(a) to determine acceptability. The SLPT also reviewed each proposal for compliance with the RFP instructions in Section L. The proposal submitted by ADecTec was unacceptable as it did not represent a reasonable initial effort to address the essential requirements of the RFP and contained major deficiencies and omissions which discussions could not reasonably be expected to cure. As a result, the SLPT discontinued the initial evaluation of ADecTec’s proposal, in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70.

The remaining two (2) proposals were further evaluated in accordance with the RFP.

COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION

The results of the evaluation were presented to me at the Competitive Range Determination briefing on June, 24, 2020. That same day, I concurred with the Contracting Officer’s written determination that METECS’s proposal was the most highly rated based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(1), and should be included in the competitive range.1 SKGS was not included in the competitive range and was notified accordingly. The SLPT thereafter engaged in discussions with METECS to address issues with its Cost/Price volume.

DISCUSSIONS AND EVALUATION OF FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

METECS was informed of its inclusion in the competitive range on June 26, 2020. The SLPT conducted written and oral discussions with METECS and closed discussions on August 14, 2020. METECS submitted a timely FPR, including an updated and signed Model Contract, reflecting its intent to be contractually bound. The SLPT evaluated METECS’s FPR in accordance with the RFP instructions. After evaluating METECS’s FPR, the SLPT determined that the items addressed during discussions had been sufficiently dispositioned to the satisfaction of the SLPT.

1 METECS’s proposal was the only proposal eligible to receive a Past Performance evaluation and Cost/Price analysis as a result of its Technical Acceptability rating of “Acceptable.”

Technical Acceptability Factor

METECS submitted no changes to its Technical Acceptability volume; the SLPT therefore made no changes to METECS’s initial rating of “Acceptable” for the Technical Acceptability Factor.

Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that METECS’s Technical Acceptability volume was “Acceptable.” Specifically, the SLPT found that METECS’s proposal provided an acceptable response to Subfactor A – Contract Management Plan, which demonstrated understanding of the requirements and was reasonable, feasible, and complete such that associated risks would not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. The SLPT found METECS’s response to Subfactor B – Specific Technical Understanding and Resources of the Sample TOs to be acceptable as it demonstrated an understanding of the requirements and was reasonable, feasible, and complete such that associated risks would not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. Finally, METECS’s response to Subfactor C – Phase-In Plan was found to be acceptable by the SLPT as it was reasonable, feasible, and complete and demonstrated an understanding of the requirements, such that associated risks would not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Based on the SLPT’s determination that all subfactors were individually rated acceptable, the SLPT rated METECS’s proposal as “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor. The SLPT then assessed METECS’s Past Performance.

Past Performance Factor

METECS submitted no changes to its Past Performance volume; the SLPT therefore made no changes to METECS’s initial rating of Very High Level of Confidence for the Past Performance Factor.

METECS submitted three (3) contracts in its Past Performance volume: the RVGSS contract; the SRS3 contract;

and the Mission and Program Integration (MAPI) contract. The RVGSS contract was submitted for METECS, its proposed minor subcontractors (Harmony Lane Solutions (HLS), Spoonbill Services, and VEDO Systems), and the proposed PM and SGTL. The SRS3 contract was submitted for METECS’s proposed major subcontractor (Tietronix) and the proposed ASTL. The MAPI contract was submitted for the proposed PM in addition to the RVGSS contract.

Recency All of the referenced contracts were determined to be within three (3) years from the date of the SASS original solicitation and are considered Recent.

Relevance METECS is the prime contractor performing the RVGSS contract, which currently supports the simulation and graphics portions of the SASS SOW. Under RVGSS, METECS provides support simulation model development, integration, verification, validation, analysis, documentation, maintenance, and troubleshooting support of trick-based non-real-time, and real-time human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulations; Software, Robotics, and Simulation Division-based robotic projects; Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C) of space-based vehicles for all flight phases; simulations and emulation of Flight Software; and systems Astronomical object surface interaction of space-based vehicles. METECS proposed to perform approximately 55.69% of the SASS SOW, but as a prospective prime contractor, METECS would be responsible for managing all sections of the SASS SOW. RVGSS is a CPFF/IDIQ contract with a contract value of $49.7M. Although the past performance effort of RVGSS is smaller in size in comparison to SASS, the effort presented in the RVGSS contract involves much of the content and complexity required under SASS. As a result, the SLPT determined the degree of relevance for METECS’s work under RVGSS is Relevant.

Tietronix is the prime contractor performing the SRS3 contract, which currently supports the advanced software services portion of the SASS SOW. Under SRS3, Tietronix provides advanced software services in the areas of Augmented Reality, Artificial Intelligence, Model Based Systems Engineering, and software engineering process automation. As a proposed major subcontractor, Tietronix is expected to perform approximately 31.32% of the SASS SOW as a major subcontractor. Specifically, Tietronix will perform SOW sections 4.5, Advanced Software Development Technology, 4.6, Advanced Human-Computer Interaction, 4.7, Avionics Flight and Mission Support Software, and 4.8, Advanced Collaborative Engineering and Process Automation. SRS3 is a CPFF/IDIQ contract with a contract value of $24.9M. The size of the SRS3 contract is essentially the same as 31.32% of the SASS contract. The effort performed by Tietronix under SRS3 involves essentially the same size, content, and complexity it is expected to perform as a major subcontractor under SASS. As a result, the SLPT determined the degree of relevance for Tietronix’s work under SRS3 is Very Relevant.

HLS is a minor subcontractor performing under the RVGSS contract. Under RVGSS, HLS provides simulation services, including HITL simulation environments, Dynamics Skills Trainer platforms, and Robotics On-Board Trainer development and maintenance. As a proposed minor subcontractor, HLS is expected to perform approximately 5.69% of the SASS SOW. Specifically, HLS will perform SOW sections 4.1, Robotics and Biomechanics Simulation Services and 4.2, Rendezvous, Proximity Operations, and Docking Simulations Services. The size of effort performed by HLS under RVGSS ($4.5M) is essentially the same as 5.69% of the SASS contract. The effort performed by HLS under RVGSS involves essentially the same size, content, and complexity it is expected to perform as a minor subcontractor under SASS. As a result, the SLPT determined the degree of relevance for HLS’s work under RVGSS is Very Relevant.

Spoonbill Services is a minor subcontractor performing under the RVGSS contract. Under RVGSS, Spoonbill Services provides simulation services to include trick simulation infrastructure, graphical data analysis, robotics simulation and software, and docking. As a proposed minor subcontractor, Spoonbill Services is expected to perform approximately 2.64% of the SASS SOW. Specifically, Spoonbill Services will perform SOW sections 4.1, Robotics and Biomechanics Simulation Services and 4.2, Rendezvous, Proximity Operations, and Docking Simulations Services. The size of effort performed by Spoonbill Services under RVGSS ($2.3M) is essentially the same as 2.64% of the SASS contract. The effort performed by Spoonbill Services under RVGSS involves essentially the same size, content, and complexity it is expected to perform as a minor subcontractor under SASS. As a result, the SLPT determined the degree of relevance for Spoonbill Services’ work under RVGSS is Very Relevant.

VEDO Systems is a minor subcontractor performing under the RVGSS contract. Under RVGSS, VEDO Systems provides simulation services and flight software to include GN&C, spacecraft simulation development, and flight software integration and test. As a proposed minor subcontractor, VEDO Systems is expected to perform approximately 4.64% of the SASS SOW. Specifically, VEDO Systems will perform SOW sections 4.2, Rendezvous, Proximity Operations, and Docking Simulation Services, and 4.7, Avionics Flight and Mission Support Software. The size of effort performed by VEDO Systems under RVGSS ($480K) is approximately half of the 4.64% of the SASS contract it is expected to perform. Although VEDO Systems’ past performance effort under RVGSS is smaller in size in comparison to the size of effort it is expected to perform under SASS, the effort VEDO Systems performs under the RVGSS contract involves essentially the same content and complexity it is expected to perform as a minor subcontractor under SASS. As a result, the SLPT determined the degree of relevance for VEDO Systems’ work under RVGSS is Relevant.

The proposed PM serves as the PM for METECS on the RVGSS contract. As PM for RVGSS, the proposed PM provides technical and programmatic integration for the RVGSS contract, managing fifteen (15) TOs across seven (7) NASA Branches within the Engineering Directorate. The proposed PM previously served as the PM for ARES Corporation (a subcontractor under the MAPI contract). The MAPI contract provides products and services to support mission and program integration and necessary infrastructure operations functions for the ISS. As PM for the MAPI subcontract, the proposed PM was responsible for project control processes, negotiating requirements, providing cost assessments, and developing TOs. The overall MAPI contract value is $387M, of which $144M is performed by the ARES Corporation under the subcontract. Although the MAPI contract involves little to none of the technical content under SASS, the subcontract portion of MAPI performed by the proposed PM is quite similar with respect to management functions involving people, resources, product delivery, and schedules. In addition, the proposed PM’s responsibilities under RVGSS demonstrate experience in managing contracts of similar content and technical complexity as SASS. Although RVGSS is smaller in size in comparison to SASS, the subcontract portion of MAPI performed by the proposed PM is larger in size than SASS. As a result, the SLPT determined the degree of relevance for the proposed PM’s work under RVGSS and MAPI is Very Relevant.

The proposed ASTL previously served as the PM under the SRS3 contract and currently serves as the Chief Technology Officer, supervising the Tietronix team for the development of SRS3 advanced software technologies. The proposed ASTL’s responsibilities under SRS3 demonstrate experience in managing TOs of similar size and complexity to the portion of SASS the proposed ASTL will manage. In addition, the scope of the SRS3 contract is comparable to the advanced software portion of SASS, which will be managed by the proposed ASTL. As a result, the SLPT determined the degree of relevance for the proposed ASTL’s work under SRS3 is Very Relevant.

The proposed SGTL previously served as the PM under the RVGSS contract and currently serves as a Technical Area Expert under the RVGSS contract and President of METECS. The proposed SGTL’s responsibilities under RVGSS demonstrate experience in managing TOs of similar size and complexity to the portion of SASS the proposed SGTL will manage. In addition, the scope of the RVGSS contract is comparable to the simulation and graphics portion of SASS, which will be managed by the proposed SGTL. As a result, the SLPT determined the degree of relevance for the proposed SGTL’s work under RVGSS is Very Relevant.

Performance The SLPT also assessed the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting2, and safety performance of the contracts that were considered recent and relevant.

Past performance information assessed for METECS indicated mostly Very Good to Exceptional performance.

Feedback from the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for METECS rated its performance as Very Good to Exceptional in all areas, and narrative feedback on the PPQs was consistently positive. Performance on a Gateway Core Flight Software development task, however, was described as Marginal, though the PPQ rater indicated that METECS had taken corrective action by providing adequate technical support on that task. All CPARS reports for METECS reflected Exceptional ratings in quality, schedule, cost control, management, and regulatory compliance. METECS has no OSHA-recordable injuries and its Experience Modifier Rates (EMR) are satisfactory.

Tietronix’s past performance indicated mostly Exceptional performance. The PPQ rater assessed Tietronix’s performance as Exceptional in all areas of the PPQ associated with advanced software. A NASA Technical Expert on the SRS3 contract rated Tietronix’s performance as Exceptional for most of the technical and management evaluation criteria and rated the rest of the areas as Very Good. One setback was noted for staffing inadequacies on a project involving the U.S. Air Force, but the rater indicated that Tietronix had taken corrective action which resulted in a rating of Very Good on the task. All CPARS reports for Tietronix reflected Exceptional ratings for quality, cost control, and regulatory compliance. Tietronix received Very Good to Exceptional ratings in CPARS for schedule and management. Tietronix has no OSHA-recordable injuries and its EMRs are very good.

2 METECS and its team members are small businesses. As such, performance related to small business subcontracting was not applicable.

The past performance of METECS’s proposed minor subcontractors indicated Very Good to Exceptional performance. VEDO Systems received Exceptional ratings in all areas of the PPQ associated with rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking simulations; and flight software. With respect to PPQ areas related to robotics, biomechanics, rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking simulations, HLS’s performance was rated as Very Good to Exceptional and Spoonbill Services’ performance was rated as Exceptional. No reports were available in CPARS for the proposed minor subcontractors. In addition, none of the proposed minor subcontractors had OSHA-recordable injuries and they do not meet the eligibility criteria for the application of EMRs. Finally, loss run reports for the proposed minor subcontractors reflected no claims.

Past performance information assessed for the proposed Key Personnel indicated Very Good to Exceptional performance. The proposed PM’s performance was rated as Very Good to Exceptional in all areas of the PPQ associated with contract and task management. Additionally, a PPQ rater stated that the proposed PM has “strong management and technical skills, and is very responsive to customer requests… adept at managing multiple tasks and timely in task completions.” The proposed ASTL’s performance was rated as Exceptional in all areas of the PPQ associated with advanced software. In addition, the PPQ rater stated that the proposed ASTL is “very competent and effective in helping NASA Engineering to execute its mission.” The proposed SGTL’s performance was rated as Very Good to Exceptional in all areas of the PPQ associated with technical simulation and graphics. Exceptional performance was specifically noted for the proposed SGTL’s breadth and depth of knowledge in robotics, dynamics and controls and strength in analysis through data visualization and understanding of simulation Verification & Validation.

Overall, the SLPT found that METECS’s quality of performance was Excellent.

Past Performance Confidence Rating

The SLPT assessed METECS’s past performance as Relevant and Very Relevant with an Excellent performance history. Based on that assessment, the SLPT concluded that METECS’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on METECS’s performance record, there is a Very High Level of Confidence that METECS will successfully perform the SASS contract.

The SLPT then assessed METECS’s Cost/Price.

Cost/Price Factor

In accordance with the RFP, the SLPT performed a price analysis and cost analysis, including a cost realism analysis, in accordance with the FAR and NFS, to ensure that the final agreed-to prices were fair and reasonable.

METECS’s FPR included additional information from its major subcontractor, explaining all judgmental elements of its cost projections and fee policies, and disclosing the basis of all projections, rates, ratios, percentages, and factors used in the Excel Pricing Models (EPM). Based on this additional information, the SLPT updated its cost analysis, including its cost realism analysis, and no probable cost adjustments were made.

The FPR also resolved inconsistencies between the EPMs and narratives submitted by the Offeror and its proposed major subcontractor, and included rate reductions resulting from the proposed major subcontractor’s reduced fee and escalation rates. Finally, at the Government’s request and as required by the FAR in this instance3, METECS included a Certificate of Current Cost and Pricing Data to support the fully burdened rates it provided in its Model Contact.

The proposed Phase-in price was determined fair and reasonable based on the SLPT’s assessment of proposed Phase-in resources.

Based on the updated cost/price analyses, the SLPT determined the final cost/price proposed by METECS was valid, adequate, fair, reasonable, and realistic.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

On August 24, 2020, the SLPT presented and discussed with me its evaluation observations. Based on the information presented, I fully understand the evaluation process and the SLPT observations. I noted that, per the RFP, past performance is more important than cost.

The SLPT’s observations that were presented to me were consistent with the evaluation criteria in the SASS RFP. I inquired further into the SLPT’s basis for its evaluation conclusions and associated ratings in order to be certain I fully understood its rationale and the underlying qualitative aspects of the remaining proposal in the competitive range. I considered the inputs and opinions of key personnel and advisors who had heard the presentation and who have responsibility relative to the procurement. Finally, I expressed my own views and made the selection. I based my decision on selecting the proposal offering the best overall value to the Government in accordance with the RFP’s stated criteria for award.

Having previously concurred with the Contracting Officer that METECS’s proposal was the most highly rated, I reviewed the SLPT’s observations with respect to its evaluation of METECS.

Technical Acceptability Factor

I reviewed the SLPT’s observations with respect to the Technical Acceptability Factor and the three (3) subfactors: Contract Management Plan, Specific Technical Understanding and Resources of the Sample TOs, and Phase-In Plan. I noted that all subfactors had to be individually rated acceptable in order for the proposal to receive an overall “Acceptable” rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor. I also noted that pursuant to the terms of the RFP, a FPR needed to be rated “Acceptable” to be evaluated against the Past Performance and Cost/Price Factors and proposals rated “Unacceptable” would be eliminated from further evaluation. I reviewed the SLPT’s analysis for METECS and concurred with the SLPT’s rationale. I found that METECS’s Contract Management Plan, Specific Technical Understanding and Resources of the Sample TOs, and Phase-In Plan are acceptable based on the demonstration of understanding, and level of reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness such that associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. I determined that the SLPT’s evaluation record and its “Acceptable” rating for METECS had a rational basis and is valid for the purpose of making a selection decision. As a result, I agree with the SLPT that METECS’s proposal is “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor.

Past Performance Factor

Having concluded that METECS’s proposal was technically “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, I reviewed the SLPT’s evaluation of METECS’s past performance under the Past Performance Factor. In assessing the value of METECS’s past performance, I reviewed the SLPT’s assessment of METECS; its

3 In accordance with FAR 15.403-1, the Government is required to obtain certified cost or pricing data when only one (1) offer satisfies the Government’s expressed requirements and no exception to the requirement for certified cost and pricing data applies to the acquisition.

proposed major subcontractor; its proposed minor subcontractors; and its proposed PM, ASTL, and SGTL. I noted that three (3) aspects were taken into account by the SLPT in assigning a Past Performance Confidence Rating : recency, relevance, and performance. I understand that, in accordance with the SASS RFP, only performance within three (3) years from the date of the SASS original solicitation was considered in the past performance evaluation. Further, I noted that each METECS team member received a relevance rating of either Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, or Not Relevant, based on the SLPT’s assessment of the size, content, and complexity of the submitted performance in comparison to SASS. I also considered the SLPT’s assessment of the METECS team’s performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting, and safety performance. In addition, I noted that performance quality was assessed as either Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Poor/Unsatisfactory. Finally, I reviewed the SLPT’s overall Past Performance Confidence Rating.

I accepted the SLPT’s evaluation that all of METECS’s referenced contracts were recent.

I then reviewed the individual relevance ratings and supporting rationale for the prime Offeror and each team member. I agreed with the SLPT on each relevance rating based on my review of the RFP and the SLPT’s detailed evaluation. Based on my review of the information provided, I agreed with the SLPT’s assessment that METECS’s experience is Very Relevant overall. I found value in the METECS team’s demonstration of relevant to very relevant performance in every element of the SASS SOW, which provides me with confidence that METECS can successfully perform the work.

Next, I reviewed the SLPT’s assessment of METECS’s performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting, and safety performance. I solicited input from a key official regarding safety performance to ensure METECS and its team demonstrated that it could perform the work safely. The official advised that the safety and health data evaluated by the SLPT for METECS and its team demonstrated very good safety performance. Based on my review of the information provided, I agree with the SLPT’s assessment that METECS’s performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting, and safety performance is Excellent.

After agreeing with the SLPT’s ratings of Very Relevant and Excellent for METECS, I considered the weighting requirements specified in the RFP. I noted that the past performance of a prime Offeror and any team members needed to be compared to the work proposed to be performed by that prime or team member and be weighted accordingly in the overall past performance confidence assessment. I also noted that the past performance effort of minor subcontractors and the proposed PM, ASTL, and SGTL were required to be weighted less heavily than that of the proposed prime Offeror and its proposed major subcontractor. Taking into consideration all of the information provided to me by the SLPT, and applying the RFP’s stated past performance evaluation criteria, I agreed with the SLPT’s overall Past Performance Confidence Rating of Very High Level of Confidence for METECS.

Cost/Price Factor

I next reviewed the SLPT’s cost and price analyses of METECS’s proposal under the Cost/Price Factor. I noted the SLPT evaluated METECS’s cost/price per the RFP for validity, realism, adequacy, and the cost that would be incurred in the performance of this effort. I also noted that the SLPT performed price analysis, cost analysis, and cost realism analysis, in accordance with FAR 15.305, FAR 15.404, and NFS 1815.305, to ensure the final agreed-to prices are fair and reasonable.

During the presentation, a key official advised that discussions had been held to address questions related to the Offeror’s Cost/Price volume. I asked the SLPT to provide an overview of NASA’s objectives during discussions and the results thereof. The SLPT advised that NASA’s primary objectives during discussions were to obtain additional data to further support the SLPT’s cost/price analyses and to obtain certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4 – Contract Pricing. As a result of discussions, the SLPT obtained a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data from the prime Offeror, along with additional information from the proposed major subcontractor which explained all judgmental elements of its cost projections and fee policies, and disclosed the basis of all projections, rates, ratios, percentages, and factors used in the EPMs. The SLPT updated its cost analysis and cost realism analysis based on the additional information received from the proposed major subcontractor. I noted that discussions also provided the SLPT with an opportunity to confirm the wages and benefits (total compensation) proposed by the prime Offeror and its proposed major subcontractor for retaining qualified personnel, to negotiate an alternative to the Time and Materials (T&M) contract proposed as the contract type between the prime Offeror and its proposed major subcontractor, and to negotiate the proposed major subcontractor’s escalation rates and fee. The SLPT advised that, as a result of these negotiations, it was able to confirm that the wages and benefits offered by the prime Offeror were comparable to those proposed by its major subcontractor, which will mitigate any negative impacts to morale and contract performance. I also noted that the SLPT was able to negotiate a change with METECS in contract type from T&M to CPFF between METECS and its proposed major subcontractor. This change in contract type caused the proposed major subcontractor to lower its fee, resulting in substantial cost savings to the Government. Finally, I noted that the SLPT negotiations and additional information it obtained as a result of discussions greatly contributed to a significant overall reduction in proposed cost/price. I commended the SLPT for its efforts during discussions which resulted in a lower overall cost/price to the Government.

Next, I reviewed the SLPT’s evaluation of the proposed Phase-in price and agreed with the SLPT that it was fair and reasonable. I then proceeded to review the SLPT’s price analysis, cost analysis, and cost realism analysis and noted that no probable cost adjustments had been made. I found value in METECS’s reduced overall cost/price. Based on the information presented to me, I agreed with the SLPT that METECS’s proposed cost/price was valid, adequate, fair, reasonable, and realistic.

Conclusion

Having fully reviewed and agreed with the evaluation observations of the SLPT, I find that METECS can successfully perform the required SASS effort. I find value in METECS’s Very High Level of Confidence rating for past performance in combination with its fair, reasonable, and realistic price. Keeping in mind that Past Performance is more important than cost, I find that the overall attributes of METECS’s proposal provides the best value to the Government for award of the Simulation & Advanced Software Services (SASS) contract. My selection is based solely on and is wholly consistent with the selection criteria and evaluation framework set out in the RFP and supported by the SLPT’s evaluation.

I therefore select MacLean Engineering & Applied Technologies, LLC (DBA METECS) for award of the SASS contract.

Donna Shafer Date Source Selection Authority