Final NOIS2 Source Selection Statement.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR THE NOIS II CONTRACT

NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Solicitation Number 80JSC020R0030

On May 6, 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 for the NASA Open Innovation Services 2 (NOIS2) solicitation (80JSC020R0030). Relevant portions of the SLPT’s evaluation of proposals, and my decision on selection of the successful Offerors, is set forth in this Source Selection Statement. The final presentation charts represent the final source evaluation report and are herein incorporated by reference.

I. BACKGROUND

The NASA JSC Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation (CoECI) office is seeking to expand the capabilities and expertise it provides to NASA in the successful use of crowdsourcing. The NOIS2 acquisition is a follow-on procurement, which will provide an expanded set of crowdsourcing tools and methodologies to support NASA and other federal agencies. NOIS2 contractors are expected to execute public, crowd-based projects on their existing platforms and provide support services to administer those projects.

The NOIS2 acquisition was conducted under full and open competition and was assigned the North American Industry Classification System code 541990 - All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, with a Small Business Administration designated small business size standard of $16.5M. NOIS2 will result in multiple awards of Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts with Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Task Orders (TO). NOIS2 awardees will be given a fair opportunity to compete for FFP TOs during the 5-year base period of performance. No phase-in period is required. The IDIQ guaranteed minimum is $3,000 per awardee and the maximum to be awarded across all NOIS2 contracts is $24.9 million.

A Sources Sought Synopsis, 80JSC019NOISII, was released on April 9, 2019, through the Federal Business Opportunities website. A Requirements Request for Information was issued on May 28, 2019, to conduct market research. The SLPT hosted a Virtual Industry Day presentation on June 5, 2019, followed by individual discussions with interested parties on June 6-7, 2019. The SLPT received capability statements from thirty-three (33) 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 not appropriate for the acquisition. However, TOs placed under the NOIS2 contract will be considered for small business set-asides, as appropriate. The deadline for submitting questions regarding the draft Request for Proposals (RFP) was October 25, 2019. In total, sixty-two (62) questions were received in response to the draft RFP. Answers were provided via Modification 8 to the Sources Sought Synopsis on November 26, 2019.

The NOIS2 final RFP 80JSC020R0030 was issued on December 3, 2019, via the beta.sam.gov website, with a proposal due date of January 10, 2020. A Virtual Preproposal Conference was held on December 10, 2019. Amendment 1 to the RFP was issued on December 19, 2019, to update the proposal submission instructions, extend the due date for RFP questions to December 23, 2019, and extend the proposal due date to January 22, 2020. RFP Amendment 2 was posted on January 9, 2020, to release the RFP Questions and Answers (Q&A) and update the RFP in response to the Q&A. A total of two (2) amendments were released prior to receipt of proposals on January 22, 2020, at 1:30 PM Eastern Time.

II. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Pursuant to the NOIS2 RFP’s evaluation scheme, and in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.504(c), NASA intends to award multiple NOIS2 base contracts to each and all qualifying Offerors. As provided in Section 6 of the NOIS2 RFP, a qualifying Offeror is one who is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically “Acceptable” proposal under the Technical Acceptability Factor, whose proposal conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and provides the Contracting Officer with no reason to believe it would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.

The RFP indicated that the SLPT would perform an initial evaluation to determine the acceptability of the proposals in accordance with NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. Following the initial review, the RFP indicated that all remaining proposals would be evaluated solely against the Technical Acceptability Factor.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii), the Contracting Officer determined that past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the NOIS2 base contracts. Rather, per FAR 9.104-1, the Contracting Officer would assess Offerors’ performance records as part of the required responsibility determination. Past performance may be considered as an evaluation factor for future Requests for Task Plans under the NOIS2 base contracts. Additionally, in accordance with Section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and NASA Procurement Class Deviation 18-02, the Contracting Officer determined that price would not be considered as an evaluation factor. Rather, NOIS2 base contract holders’ pricing will be considered in a competitive environment for future Requests for Task Plans under the NOIS2 base contracts.

Under the Technical Acceptability Factor, Offerors were required to provide a response to the Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan. As part of its response to the Technical Understanding of Requirements, an Offeror was required to provide an overview of its business model, identify the specific crowdsourcing method(s) used to successfully deliver the products and services identified in the Statement of Work (SOW), describe the end product(s) and service(s) from the SOW that the Offeror could successfully deliver, and provide a detailed description of how the Offeror’s specific crowdsourcing method(s) would meet each of the thirteen (13) TO execution elements listed in Section 3.5 of the SOW. Offerors were also required to provide a detailed Sample Project Plan that demonstrated the Offeror’s standard delivery approach.

Technical Acceptability was assessed in accordance with Section 6 of the RFP by assigning ratings of “Acceptable,” “Potentially Acceptable,” or “Unacceptable” to each Offeror’s Technical Acceptability volume. To be considered “Acceptable,” the Offeror’s Technical

Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan would be at a level of understanding, reasonableness, feasibility and completeness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. A proposal would be rated “Unacceptable” where any area of the proposal was 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. A proposal would be rated “Potentially Acceptable” when after the initial evaluation, the proposal did 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.”

The NOIS2 RFP stated that the Government may elect to award contract(s) without discussions to the technically “Acceptable” responsible Offeror(s) or elect to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with the most highly rated Offeror(s). If discussions were held and Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) were received, all proposals remaining in the competitive range would receive a final rating against the Technical Acceptability Factor as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” only.

Offerors were also required to demonstrate present responsibility to be considered for award, in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in FAR Subpart 9.1. Offerors were required to provide Organizational Conflict of Interest Information, information demonstrating a satisfactory performance record, and any additional information considered necessary to demonstrate an offeror’s status as a responsible offeror under FAR 9.104.

III. EVALUATION OF INITIAL PROPOSALS

The Government received twenty-seven (27) timely proposals in response to the NOIS2 RFP.

Proposals were received from the following companies and are listed in alphabetical order:

1. AEXA Aerospace LLC

2. Agorize Innovation Inc.

3. Appirio Inc.

4. Assisted Development LLC

5. Black Ink Creative Partners LLC

6. Business Talent Group LLC

7. Carahsoft Technology Corp.

8. The Common Pool LLC

9. Crowdplat Inc.

10. Driven Data, Inc.

11. Ensemble Government Services, LLC

12. Ezassi Inc.

13. Freelance Labs Inc.

14. Freelancer International PTY LTD

15. Grant Thornton Public Sector LLC

16. Guidehouse LLP

17. HeroX PBC

18. Luminary Labs LLC

19. Maven Research Inc.

20. NSTI LLC (dba TechConnect)

21. SciArt Exchange

22. Sensis Inc.

23. Submittable Holdings, Inc.

24. Tech7 Consulting LLC

25. V3Main Technologies Inc.

26. Vanguard Solutions LLC

27. Zylter Inc.

The SLPT evaluated proposals in accordance with Section 6 of the NOIS2 RFP, Evaluation - Streamlined Procurement Evaluation Factors for Award. All proposals were determined to be acceptable under NFS 1815.305-70. All proposals were then reviewed for compliance with Section 5.1, Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitations, Copies, and Due Dates. The SLPT noted that Zylter’s Technical Acceptability volume contained forty-five (45) pages, which exceeded the 15-page limit identified in Table 5-1 in the solicitation. The SLPT determined that the Offeror exceeded the overall page limit for the Technical Acceptability Factor by thirty (30) pages. As a result, the last thirty (30) pages were removed from the proposal and returned to the Offeror and no evaluation was conducted on those pages. All proposals were subsequently evaluated in accordance with the Technical Acceptability Factor, as stated in the RFP. In determining the appropriate Technical Acceptability rating for each Offeror, the SLPT engaged in a holistic assessment of each Offeror’s proposal with meaningful consideration of the demonstration of understanding, reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness in the Offeror’s response to the Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan.

IV. COMPETITIVE RANGE

The results of the initial evaluation were presented to me at the Competitive Range meeting on March 3, 2020. The results as presented at the Competitive Range meeting are summarized below:

OFFEROR TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

AEXA Aerospace LLC Unacceptable

Agorize Innovation Inc. Acceptable

Appirio Inc. Acceptable

Assisted Development LLC Unacceptable

Black Ink Creative Partners LLC Unacceptable

Business Talent Group LLC Acceptable

Carahsoft Technology Corp. Acceptable

The Common Pool LLC Acceptable

Crowdplat Inc. Acceptable

Driven Data, Inc. Acceptable

Ensemble Government Services, LLC Acceptable

Ezassi Inc. Unacceptable

Freelance Labs Inc. Acceptable

Freelancer International PTY LTD Acceptable

Grant Thornton Public Sector LLC Unacceptable

Guidehouse LLP Acceptable

HeroX PBC Acceptable

Luminary Labs LLC Acceptable

Maven Research Inc. Acceptable

NSTI LLC (dba TechConnect) Acceptable

SciArt Exchange Acceptable

Sensis Inc. Acceptable

Submittable Holdings, Inc. Unacceptable

Tech7 Consulting LLC Acceptable

V3Main Technologies Inc. Unacceptable

Vanguard Solutions LLC Acceptable

Zylter Inc. Unacceptable

All Offerors rated as technically “Acceptable” submitted a proposal that demonstrated a level of understanding, completeness, feasibility and reasonableness where there were no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

I concurred with the Contracting Officer’s Determination that the proposals submitted by the following Offerors were not the most highly rated in accordance with the evaluation criteria and were excluded from the competitive range:

• AEXA Aerospace

• Assisted Development

• Black Ink Creative Partners

• Ezassi Inc.

• Grant Thornton Public Sector LLC

• Submittable Holdings, Inc.

• V3Main Technologies Inc.

• Zylter Inc.

I also concurred with the Contracting Officer’s Determination that the remaining nineteen (19) Offerors’ proposals were the most highly rated and were included in the competitive range:

• Agorize Innovation Inc.

• Appirio Inc.

• Business Talent Group LLC

• Carahsoft Technology Corp.

• The Common Pool LLC

• Crowdplat Inc.

• Driven Data Inc.

• Ensemble Government Services, LLC

• Freelance Labs Inc.

• Freelancer International PTY LTD

• Guidehouse LLP

• HeroX PBC

• Luminary Labs LLC

• Maven Research Inc.

• NSTI LLC (dba TechConnect)

• SciArt Exchange

• Sensis Inc.

• Tech7 Consulting LLC

• Vanguard Solutions LLC

I considered awarding without discussions; however, multiple Offerors had informalities in their model contracts, which, although minor, were necessary to clarify during discussions. To ensure complete coverage of the NOIS2 scope of work and in order to increase competition and achieve best value by awarding to multiple vendors, I agreed with the SLPT that it would be in the best interest of the government to enter into discussions with Offerors whose proposals were the most highly rated.

I noted that the NOIS2 RFP mandates that the solicitation remain open during the life of the contract and anticipates that the Agency may make additional awards at any time through an “on-ramp” process. The on-ramp process allows NASA, at its discretion, to add vendors in the future as a way to ensure robust competition across all areas of the NOIS2 SOW during the period of performance of the contract. Through this on-ramp process, potential Offerors would be evaluated under the same factors outlined in Sections 4-6 of the NOIS2 RFP.

All Offerors were informed individually of their inclusion in or exclusion from the competitive range on March 18, 2020. The SLPT conducted written discussions with each Offeror in the competitive range and provided the opportunity for verbal discussions, upon request. At the conclusion of discussions on April 22, 2020, each Offeror was provided an opportunity to submit its FPR. All nineteen (19) Offerors in the competitive range provided complete and timely FPRs by the delivery due date of April 28, 2020.

V. EVALUATION OF FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

The SLPT evaluated each FPR in accordance with the RFP instructions. After evaluating all submitted FPRs, the SLPT determined that all Offerors had sufficiently dispositioned all of the items addressed during discussions to the satisfaction of the SLPT. In addition, none of the Offerors submitted changes in their Technical volumes. The SLPT therefore made no changes to the Offerors’ initial ratings for the Technical Acceptability Factor. As a result, all nineteen (19) Offerors’ ratings for the Technical Acceptability Factor remained “Acceptable.” A summary for each Offeror is provided below:

A. Technical Acceptability

Agorize Innovation Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that Agorize Innovation’s rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that Agorize Innovation’s Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan demonstrated a level of understanding, completeness, feasibility and reasonableness where there were no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Appirio Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that Appirio’s rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that Appirio’s Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan demonstrated a level of understanding, completeness, feasibility and reasonableness where there were no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Business Talent Group Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that Business Talent Group’s rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that Business Talent Group’s Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan demonstrated a level of understanding, completeness, feasibility and reasonableness where there were no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Carahsoft Technology Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that Carahsoft Technology’s rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that Carahsoft Technology’s Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan demonstrated a level of understanding, completeness, feasibility and reasonableness where there were no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

The Common Pool Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that The Common Pool’s rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that The Common Pool’s Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan

Crowdplat Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that Crowdplat’s rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that Crowdplat’s Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan demonstrated a level of understanding, completeness, feasibility and reasonableness where there were no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Driven Data Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that Driven Data’s rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that Driven Data’s Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan demonstrated a level of understanding, completeness, feasibility and reasonableness where there were no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Ensemble Government Services Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that Ensemble Government Services’ rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that Ensemble Government Services’ Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan demonstrated a level of understanding, completeness, feasibility and reasonableness where there were no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Freelance Labs Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that Freelance Labs’ rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that Freelance Labs’ Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan demonstrated a level of understanding, completeness, feasibility and reasonableness where there were no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Freelancer International Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that Freelancer International’s rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that Freelancer International’s Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan demonstrated a level of understanding, completeness, feasibility and reasonableness where there were no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Guidehouse Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that Guidehouse’s rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that Guidehouse’s Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan demonstrated a level of understanding, completeness, feasibility and reasonableness where there were no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

HeroX Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that HeroX’s rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that HeroX’s Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan demonstrated a level of understanding, completeness, feasibility and reasonableness where there were no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Luminary Labs Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that Luminary Labs’ rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that Luminary Labs’ Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan demonstrated a level of understanding, completeness, feasibility and reasonableness where there were no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Maven Research Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that Maven Research’s rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that Maven Research’s Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan demonstrated a level of understanding, completeness, feasibility and reasonableness where there were no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

NSTI

Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that NSTI’s rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that NSTI’s Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan demonstrated a level of understanding, completeness, feasibility and reasonableness where there were no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

SciArt Exchange Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that SciArt Exchange’s rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that SciArt Exchange’s Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan demonstrated a level of understanding, completeness, feasibility and reasonableness where there were no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Sensis Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that Sensis’ rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that Sensis’ Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan demonstrated a level of understanding, completeness, feasibility and reasonableness where there were no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Tech7 Consulting Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that Tech7 Consulting’s rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that Tech7 Consulting’s Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan

Vanguard Solutions Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that Vanguard Solutions’ rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor was Acceptable. The SLPT found that Vanguard Solutions’ Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan

B. Contractor Responsibility

In accordance with FAR 9.103(b) and 9.104, and in accordance with the NOIS2 RFP, the Contracting Officer affirmatively determined that all nineteen (19) Offerors are responsible prospective contractors.

C. Summary

OFFEROR

R es po ns ib ili ty

Technical Acceptability

Agorize Innovation Inc. √ Acceptable

Appirio Inc. √ Acceptable

Business Talent Group LLC √ Acceptable

Carahsoft Technology Corp. √ Acceptable

The Common Pool LLC √ Acceptable

Crowdplat Inc. √ Acceptable

Driven Data Inc. √ Acceptable

Ensemble Government Services, LLC √ Acceptable

Freelance Labs Inc. √ Acceptable

Freelancer International PTY LTD √ Acceptable

Guidehouse LLP √ Acceptable

HeroX PBC √ Acceptable

Luminary Labs LLC √ Acceptable

Maven Research Inc. √ Acceptable

NSTI LLC (dba TechConnect) √ Acceptable

SciArt Exchange √ Acceptable

Sensis Inc. √ Acceptable

Tech7 Consulting LLC √ Acceptable

Vanguard Solutions LLC √ Acceptable

VI. SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

On May 6, 2020, the SLPT presented and discussed with me its evaluation observations for each Offeror. Based on the information presented, I fully understand the evaluation process and the SLPT observations. I noted that, per the RFP, the Government intends to make an award to each and all qualifying Offerors, and that a qualifying Offeror is one who is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically “Acceptable” proposal under the Technical Acceptability Factor, whose proposal conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and provides the Contracting Officer with no reason to believe it would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing. The SLPT’s observations that were presented to me were consistent with the evaluation criteria in the NOIS2 RFP. I questioned the SLPT with regard to key aspects of its evaluation methodology in order to be certain I fully understood this rationale and the underlying qualitative aspects of the Offerors’ proposals. Finally, I considered the inputs and opinions of key personnel and advisors who had heard the presentation and who have responsibility relative to the procurement.

I reviewed the SLPT’s observations with respect to the Technical Acceptability Factor for each Offeror and I questioned the SLPT with respect to whether all nineteen (19) Offerors in the competitive range provided a Technical volume that fully addressed both the Technical Understanding of Requirements and the Sample Project Plan, as required by the RFP. I agree with the SLPT that all issues noted in the competitive range discussions were resolved and all nineteen (19) Offerors fully addressed all aspects of the Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan in their proposals. The SLPT also indicated that each proposal rated “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor fully addressed all thirteen

(13) TO execution elements, as required by the RFP, and demonstrated that they understood the government’s minimum requirements for public, crowd-based methodologies. Further, the SLPT stated that it identified no risks in the Technical volumes of these Offerors’ proposals.

The fact that all nineteen (19) Offerors fully and completely addressed all RFP requirements shows me that they all understand the requirements, and provides me with confidence that all tasks will be completed successfully. I concur with the SLPT for each Offeror’s respective Technical Acceptability rating, finding that each of the nineteen (19) Offerors provided a Technical Understanding of Requirements and Sample Project Plan, which demonstrated a level of understanding, completeness, feasibility, and reasonableness where there were no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. I determined that the SLPT’s evaluation record and its “Acceptable” rating for all nineteen (19) Offerors had a rational basis and were valid for the purpose of making a selection decision.

The SLPT found that all nineteen (19) proposals conform to the requirements of the solicitation, and I agree with that assessment. In addition, the Contracting Officer has determined that these Offerors are responsible sources, in accordance with FAR Part 9, and I have no reason to question that determination. I understand that part of the responsibility determination is verifying a company’s financial resources to perform, integrity and business ethics, and accounting/operations controls. Those things, coupled with the fact that all TOs issued under these contracts will be awarded in a competitive environment, gives me further confidence that prices obtained during the TO competitions will be fair and reasonable. Per Section 6 of the RFP, NASA intends to award to each and all “qualifying offerors.” A qualifying offeror is “one who is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically “Acceptable” proposal under the Technical Acceptability Factor, whose proposal conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and provides the Contracting Officer with no reason to believe it would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing. I hereby agree that all nineteen (19) of the Offerors in the competitive range are qualifying offerors.

Based upon the evaluation results, my own independent judgment and assessment, and the terms of the RFP, I consider it to be in the Agency’s best interest to make award to all nineteen (19) Offerors in the competitive range. Cumulatively, these nineteen (19) firms offer coverage across all methodologies specified in Section 3.2 and all end products and services specified in Section 3.2.1 of the NOIS2 RFP. NASA has estimated that these firms have over one hundred million community members among them, dramatically increasing the likelihood that CoECI will be able to expand the capabilities and expertise it provides to NASA through crowdsourcing.

In light of NASA’s desire to utilize crowdsourcing more broadly, and consistent with the RFP’s preference for multiple awards, I find that the award of NOIS2 base contracts to these nineteen

(19) firms will greatly increase competition and will provide NASA with access to a larger, more diverse online community, thereby increasing the likelihood that NASA will obtain needed services, ideas, and content through crowdsourcing.

Thus, I select for award the following firms for NOIS2 base contracts:

Agorize Innovation Inc.

Appirio Inc.

Business Talent Group LLC Carahsoft Technology Corp.

The Common Pool LLC Crowdplat Inc.

Driven Data, Inc.

Ensemble Government Services, LLC Freelance Labs Inc.

Freelancer International PTY LTD Guidehouse LLP HeroX PBC Luminary Labs LLC Maven Research Inc.

NSTI LLC (dba TechConnect) SciArt Exchange Sensis Inc.

Tech7 Consulting LLC Vanguard Solutions LLC

Stephen H. Janney Source Selection Authority