Facilities 80JSC020R0034 Source Selection Statement_Redactions.pdf

Source Selection Statement for the

Facilities Contract National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(Solicitation Number 80JSC020R0034)

On September 25, 2020, the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) was appointed to evaluate proposals for the Facilities Contract (FC), under Solicitation Number 80JSC020R0034. On June 10, 2021, the SEB presented its final evaluation to me and other senior officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). I considered the information presented and contemplated my decision. I met with advisors, including the Contracting Officer (CO) and SEB Chairman, and announced my selection decision during the meeting on June 10, 2021.

Procurement Requirements

The purpose of the FC is to provide maintenance, operations, engineering, and construction of facilities, as well as other similar facilities-related services, supporting the Johnson Space

Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) work for external customers, which includes other NASA Centers and Government agencies throughout the United States. The FC will support the following activities:

Central Plant/Facilities Operations distribution of electrical power, chilled water, steam, potable water, compressed air, natural gas, and nitrogen delivery. The contractor will maintain and operate Energy Management and Controls Systems.

Maintenance and Repair Operations repair site facility infrastructure, including mechanical, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, plumbing, electrical, architectural, civil/structural, roads, parking lots, replacing lighting, mitigating hot/cold calls, and remediating interior mold issues. Contractor shall provide Predictive Testing and Inspection and Reliability-Centered Maintenance services.

Engineering Services ovide engineering design, study, estimating, Computer-Aided Design and Drafting, configuration control, and troubleshooting services.

Construction Services (Facility Modifications Normally Under $1 Million Per Project) tion support services to include special projects such as: rehabilitation, repair, modification, or other projects designated by the Government.

Rigging and Heavy Hauling Services provide rigging and heavy hauling services.

Wildlife Management wildlife management and animal control support to monitor and mitig

Real Property Administration ide administrative and data entry support, to include real property accounting, historic preservation records, and property management.

Other Services sk and dispatch services (e.g., Work Control Center and Operations Control Center) and the contractor shall conduct quarterly mechanical and equipment room inspections and provide hurricane preparation and recovery support.

Facility Operational Technology (OT) Control and Maintenance Services operations and maintenance field support work for all Center OT, portions of which were formerly provided under the Energy Support Services Contract (ESSC).

The FC will be the successor to the current JSC Facility Support Services (FSS) contact NNJ08JA02C and will provide facilities support services for JSC, Ellington Field, and Sonny Carter Training Facility. The current JSC FSS contract was awarded via full and open competition as a cost-plus fixe Technology Division (CSC-ATD). CSC-ATD was later acquired by Pacific Architects and Engineers Incorporated and the CSC-ATD contract was novated to PAE Applied Technologies LLC (hereafter PAE), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pacific Architects and Engineers Incorporated, in July 2013, and the contract is currently being perfo initial period of performance began on January 1, 2008 and ran through February 28, 2018. The contract has been extended through August 31, 2021, for a total potential contract value of $865 million.

The scope of the FC is similar to the JSC FSS contract, except that it includes two new requirements: energy management and controls maintenance and badging services, which were added to consolidate commonalities and decrease duplicative efforts at JSC. Previously, both the controls maintenance and construction management/professional engineering services were awarded to large businesses. The Consolidation Determinations and Findings (Federal Acquisition Regulation [FAR] 7.107-2[a] was approved by NASA Headquarters on December 7, 2018, to consolidate two new contracts for controls maintenance and construction management/professional engineering services. The JSC FSS contract, part of the scopes of ESSC, and Construction Management and Professional Engineering Services requirements are consolidated into one contract, the FC.

The FC is anticipated to be a single-award, cost-plus award-fee with a 2-year base, one 2-year option period, and one 1-year option period, with a phase-in period of 62 days, for a total of 5 years (excluding phase-in).

62-Day Phase-In:

Chronology

Sources Sought Synopsis (SSS)/Request for Information (RFI) On May 25, 2016, NASA issued an SSS #NNJ16588264L to solicit comments from industry regarding acquisition strategies and request capability statements from all interested parties. On June 10, 2016, NASA issued Modification 2 to SSS #NNJ16588264L to provide industry with the FC Draft Statement of Work (SOW).

The follow-on procurement was delayed several years due to the need to reassess the budget and requirements. Therefore, a combined SSS/Requirements RFI #80JSC019RRFIFC, along with a revised Draft SOW, was issued on May 30, 2019, to obtain updated market research information and solicit more recent comments from industry.

Industry Day On June 15, 2016, NASA held an Industry Day and conducted One-on-One meetings with Industry on June 16-17, 2016. On July 18, 2019, NASA held a Virtual Industry Day for the FC acquisition due to the time lapse from initial Industry Day until Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) release. On July 31, 2019, NASA issued Modification 3 to SSS #80JSC019RRFIFC, which provided official responses to questions received during the FC Industry Day.

Sources Sought Synopsis On October 24, 2019, SSS #80JSC019RRFIFC was issued to provide more current market research data on Inspection Services.

Pre-solicitation Synopsis and Draft RFP On June 15, 2020, NASA posted a pre-solicitation synopsis and the Draft RFP

#80JSC020R0034.

Pre-solicitation Synopsis Questions and Answers On July 17, 2020, NASA posted a FC Draft RFP Questions and Answers to pre-solicitation synopsis #80JSC020R0034.

RFP

On August 3, 2020, NASA released the FC RFP #80JSC020R0034 and the FC RFP responses were due on September 2, 2020, at 1:00 p.m. Central Time. On September 2, 2020, FC RFP Amendment 1 was issued to extend the receipt of proposal due date to September 16, 2020 and request the Proposal Past Performance Factor - Volume I early by September 2, 2020. However, the Past Performance Volume was not officially due until the proposal submittal date of

September 16, 2020, as specified in the FC RFP Section L.16.2, Proposal Due Dates, Arrangement, Page Limitations, Formatting, and Copies. On September 11, 2020, FC RFP Amendment 3 was issued to again extend the receipt of proposal due date to September 23, 2020.

Pre-Proposal Conference On August 12, 2020, NASA held a Microsoft Teams Virtual Pre-proposal Conference to discuss safety, security, small business, cost/pricing, labor relations, and to highlight the requirements in the RFP and SOW requirements.

RFP Questions and Answers On the following dates below, NASA posted FC RFP Questions and Answers:

September 2, 2020 - Amendment 2 September 17, 2020 - Amendment 4

Receipt of Proposal As of the deadline of September 23, 2020, the following Offerors submitted proposals in response to the FC RFP #80JSC020R0034 and the SEB reviewed the proposals in the order in which they were received:

OFFEROR 1 - DynCorp International LLC (DI) OFFEROR 2 - Amentum Services, Inc.

OFFEROR 3 - PAE Applied Technologies LLC (PAE)

Upon receipt of the proposals, the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) conducted an initial review of the proposals to determine acceptability in accordance with the RFP and the NASA FAR identify any unacceptable proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70. The SEB determined all proposals were acceptable in accordance with the solicitation. No late proposals were received. All proposals were then evaluated in accordance with the evaluation factors contained in the RFP.

Competitive Range Presentation The Competitive Range/Award without Discussions Presentation to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) was held on March 2, 2021.

Competitive Range Determination Letters The Competitive Range Determination Letters were issued on March 11, 2021, to:

OFFEROR 1 - DynCorp International LLC OFFEROR 2 - Amentum Services, Inc.

OFFEROR 3 - PAE Applied Technologies LLC

It was at this time that DynC was eliminated from further competition as DynCorp In ined to not be one of the most highly rated when evaluated in accordance with the stated solicitation evaluation criteria in received a moderate Past Performance Confidence Rating (Moderate Level of Confidence), had the highest total evaluated cost/price, and had the lowest points Past Performance Confidence Rating was m

Performance Confidence Rating of high.

The Competitive Range Determination Letters issued on March 11, 2021, notified Amentum Services, Inc. and PAE Applied Technologies LLC that their proposals were included in the competitive range, which was comprised of the most highly rated proposals. As such, the SEB held discussions (Phase One written responses) with the Offerors comprising the Competitive Range to address certain Cost/Price Issues including the pricing of pre-priced items, Weaknesses in Mission Suitability, Identified Strengths for Mission Suitability, and potential adverse Past Performance, not previously responded to.

Competitive Range Letters, Interim Model Contracts Competitive Range Letters, Interim Model Contracts were issued via Amendment 5 on March 30, 2021, to Amentum Services, Inc. and PAE Applied Technologies LLC.

itten Response Part II Letters Part II Letters were issued on April 6, 2021, to Amentum Services, Inc. and PAE Applied Technologies LLC, requiring further Phase One - Written Response discussions.

Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) and Model Contracts On April 21, 2021, NASA issued the FC RFP #80JSC020R0034 and the Model Contracts (via Amendment 6) and the FC RFP responses, including the Model Contract, were due no later than noon, local time, April 29, 2021.

Receipt of FPRs and Model Contracts As of the deadline of no later than noon, local time, April 29, 2021, the following Offerors submitted final proposals and Model Contracts in response to the FC RFP #80JSC020R0034:

OFFEROR 2 - Amentum Services, Inc.

OFFEROR 3 - PAE Applied Technologies LLC

Upon receipt of the proposals, the SEB conducted an initial review of the proposals to determine acceptability in accordance with the RFP fy any unacceptable proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70. The SEB determined all submitted proposals were acceptable in accordance with the solicitation. No late proposals were received. All proposals were then evaluated in accordance with the evaluation factors contained in the RFP.

Evaluation Process and Criteria

The proposals were evaluated in strict accordance with the FAR Part 15, NFS Part 1815, and the FC RFP. The RFP details the SEB Evaluation factors and criteria contained in Section M of the RFP. The SEB carried out the evaluation activities and reported its findings to the SSA who is responsible for making the source selection decision.

As stated in the RFP, the Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. This source evaluation shall be conducted utilizing a combination of past performance, cost/price, and mission suitability evaluation factors.

Of the three evaluation factors, Past Performance and Mission Suitability, when combined, are more important than Cost/Price. Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price.

Cost/Price is more important than Mission Suitability.

al using the factors and subfactors below as indicated in section M of the RFP. Although proposals are organized by factors and subfactors, the Government has evaluated the proposals for consistency among proposal information, including each O

PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 1)

The Government used past performance information as required by provisions of Section L.17 of the FC RFP.

COST AND PRICE FACTOR (FACTOR 2)

The Government evaluated the proposed costs/price including Core cost, IDIQ cost, Pre-priced cost, and Phase-in cost; then established the probable cost of doing business with each Offeror.

MISSION SUITABILITY (FACTOR 3)

SUBFACTORS POINTS

MA. Management Approach 450 TA. Technical Approach 300 SA. Safety & Health Approach 150 SBU. Small Business Utilization 100

TOTAL 1,000

1. Only the subfactors for Mission Suitability are rated with an adjective and numerically weighted; overall Mission Suitability is only numerically scored.

2. Management Approach:

a. Overall Management Approach as identified in Section L.19.1(a) for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonableness, and feasibility as pr Approach (Subfactor MA).

b. The Government evaluated the Offe identified in Section L.19.1(b) for overall demonstrated understanding, c.

identified in Section L.19.1(c) for overall demonstrated understanding,

d. Contract Phase-in and Phase-out

Approach as identified in Section L.19.1(d) for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonableness, and feasibility as provided Management Approach (Subfactor MA).

3. Technical Approach:

a. The Government evaluated the Offero hnical Understanding and Resources for the Core Contract areas identified in Section L.19.2(a) for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonableness, and feasibility, as well as technical completeness and Technical Approach (Subfactor TA). For the proposed improvements and innovations, the Government evaluated the appropriateness and potential for effective and efficient implementation to the Contract.

b. The Government evaluated the Offero identified in Section L.19.2(b) for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonableness, and feasibility, as provided in the O Approach (Subfactor TA).

4. Safety and Health Approach:

a. The Government evaluated the Offero response as identified in Section L.19.3 for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonableness, and feasibility, as provided Technical Approach (Subfactor SA).

5. Small Business Utilization:

a. The Government evaluated the Offe response as identified in Section L.19.4 for reasonableness and soundness as siness Utilization (Subfactor SBU).

Evaluation of Initial Proposals and Competitive Range

In making my Competitive Range recommendation to the Contracting Officer, I relied on the detailed information containing t/Price, and Mission Suitability evaluations, which was presented to me. I reviewed and assessed the evaluation findings in making my recommendation to the Contracting Officer and considered Past Performance, Cost/Price and Mission Suitability factors as identified in the RFP. I was convinced that the evaluation team conducted a thorough, fair and objective evaluation of all proposals in accordance with the established evaluation criteria in the RFP. FAR Part 15.306(c)(1) provides that based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the Contracting Officer shall establish a competitive range comprised of all the most highly rated proposals. The RFP includes that Past Performance and Mission Suitability, when combined, are more important than Cost/Price. Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price. Cost/Price is more important than Mission Suitability.

rated and to be included in the competitive range. Both proposals received high Past Performance Confidence Rating (High Level of Confidence), had the lowest total evaluated cost/price, and the highest points for Mission Suitability.

I did not recommend for Offeror 1 in the competitive range, as it was not the most highly rated (see Evaluation Su moderate Past Performance Confidence Rating (Moderate Level of Confidence), had the highest total evaluated cost/price, and had the lowest points for Mission Suita Performance Confidence Rating was moderate ance Confidence Rating of high.

Offeror Number* Offeror

Past Performance Confidence

Rating

Total Contract Cost/Price / Proposed/

Probable ($M)

Mission Suitability Score

(Max 1,000 Points)

DynCorp

International, LLC (DI)

Moderate $323.0 / $320.0 729

2 Amentum High $251.0 / $256.8 805

PAE Applied Technologies

LLC (PAE)

High $281.5 / $281.1 900

Minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance were reported, including a staffing issue during a four-month period on the JSC FSS contract, a GFE operator and damage issue during a four-month period on the Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center (AUTEC) contract N66604-05-C-1277, and a cost issue on the Synergy Achieving Consolidated Operations and Maintenance (SACOM) contract NNS15AA01C. Thus, the FC SEB maintains its High Level of Confidence that PAE Applied Technologies LLC can successfully perform the Facilities Contract.

Cost and Price Factor (Factor 2) Within the final proposal, under the Cost/Price Factor, PAE proposed $276.5 million, which was the highest evaluated cost when compared to the IGCE. PAE submitted an updated Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR) that confirmed how Business Area Management and Business Line Management overhead rates were properly allocated, resulting in no probable cost t/price equals the probable cost.

Mission Suitability (Factor 3) PAE received 917 points for the Mission Suitability Factor after a quantitative and qualitative review of the final proposal.

This involved Excellent ratings in the Management Approach (one significant strength and nine strengths), the Technical Approach (one significant strength and eight strengths), and the Safety and Health Approach (one significant strength). PAE also received a Good rating in Small Business Utilization (no findings). Under Management Approach, PAE received a significant strength for its proposed upgradi tion Exchange (PIE) as their StoreFront (a scope required web-based management information system described more fully below). This upgraded version called PIE+ will:

Use machine learning and data analytics to forecast trends in order to predict which equipment or components are likely to fail, Provide information from Maximo on work status, Provide an interface to Costpoint for Contract accounting information, Provide access to eTime for employee time reporting and work resource analysis, Store information on inspections and audits, Track employee training and certifications, including automated notification when training is required, and Provide a place for PAE staff to find the current revision of the Contract.

This will greatly reduce the risk to the Government of being unable to locate information in a timely manner and will improve internal communications for the Contractor. The Technical approach significant strength involved using a Corporate copy of Maximo as the working copy and duplicating the data to the G copy. By doing this, they will:

Utilize the most recent version of Maximo, which the Government is not currently using, providing more functionality, Make the system cloud based therefore more accessible during disasters, such as hurricanes.

Expand the use of EZMaxMobile and smart devices to reduce data copying and paper use, Use Maximo to perform Asset Performance Management analyses to reduce maintenance costs and decrease equipment downtime, Add a tool allowing field technicians to order parts and other materials using mobile devices from pre-negotiated vendors with approved pricing.

This will greatly reduce the risk to the Government of more equipment downtime or inaccurate monstrates understanding of the importance of

Plan provides a reasonable and feasible approach that would greatly reduce the risk to the Government of injury or illness to employees or property damage.

Selection Decision

During the final evaluation presentation on June 10, 2021, I questioned the SEB on their evaluation and I carefully considered the material presented. I also requested and considered the comments of the senior officials who attended the briefing. The charts presented at the meeting evaluation of the proposals and I incorporate those by reference.

Prior to that meeting, I carefu findings report describing the Mission Suitability findings, together with the analysis of past performance evaluations and cost/price analysis. As the SSA, I examined th and I considered the evaluations of both the proposals. I found that the evaluation and findings are in accordance with the RFP and its evaluation criteria. I recognized the fact that it was my responsibility to make an indepe uation results and to determine if I agreed with that evaluation. I determined that the SEB had performed a careful and thorough review in evaluating both proposals. The SEB did an excellent job documenting their evaluation, identifying and explaining the reasons for their findings of the strengths and weaknesses, past performance evaluations, and cost/price analysis. The SEB provided detailed answers to the

Offeror Number Offeror

Past Performance Confidence

Rating

Total Contract Cost/Price / Proposed/

Probable ($M)

Mission Suitability Score

(Max 1,000 Points)

2 Amentum High $253.8 / $253.8 848

PAE Applied Technologies

LLC (PAE)

High $276.5 / $276.5 917 follow-up questions I had during the meeting. As Source Selection Official, I understand the merits, technical and otherwise, and the qualitative aspects of each proposal.

Consideration of Individual Proposals:

Amentum

Under the Mission Suitability Factor, the SEB found 4 Significant Strengths, 13 Strengths, and 1 Weakness. Amentum had no Significant Weaknesses under the Mission Suitability Factor. I noted there were no cost adjustments for either Offeror made per Section M.4 of the RFP. I agreed with and hereby adopt the findings of the Board as my own with one exception discussed rengths in the Technical Approach Subfactor of Mission Suitability. I found Integrated Data Management System (IDMS) which consisted of a data warehouse for facilities data and software tools for evaluating analyzing data. The use of IDMS de understanding of the importance of data collection and analysis in improving facilities management. This improvement would reduce the risk to the Government of missing opportunities for improvement and inefficient operation of the Contract. Additionally, I de several improvements to maintenance engineering processes would provide value to the Government if implemented. These included extensive use of Predictive Testing and Inspection (PT&I), technological innovations, creative mixing of engineering and maintenance personnel to perform Facility Condition Assessments (FCA), and the expansion of several programs in new and innovative ways. I did; however, make note of the Weakness in Suitability proposal which misidentified the Energy Management and Control System even after discussions where the Government pointed out the mistake. However, this Weakness was echnical narrative that it understood the requirement. I also noted that Amentum was proposing manager or supervisor for every personnel, which is at the upper end of industry standard, in conjunction with an aggressive proposal to minimize staffing from a Government estimated level of 294 Work Year Equivalents (WYEs) to WYEs. Industry standards for management staffing is one manager or supervisor for every 10 to 15 personnel. Accordingly, Amen ng is at the very upper end of the acceptable range, while conflictingly proposing to save on labor costs through innovative work management potentially requiring additional management.

s. I found their proposed approach to be aggressive but feasible. This demonstrates a very strong commitment by Amentum to the importance of Small Business subcontracting and reduces the risk to the Government of not achieving its subcontracting goals. I agreed with the Significant Strength given for this approach.

and health plan demonstrates understanding, reasonableness, and feasibility in its approach to safety and health, and will greatly reduce the risk to the Government of injury to contractor and JSC personnel and the risk of damage to JSC property.

In its Past Performance Assessment, the Board rated Amentum with a High Level of Confidence.

I agree. The Amentum Team had experience in all areas of the Facilities SOW. Specifically, Amentum had experience in all areas of the SOW while its subcontractors had experience in some, but not all, of the SOW. Amentum combined relevancy is assessed as Very Relevant to this acquisition. The team has past performance that is Highly Pertinent, in that they have operated facilities management contracts for the Government on similar facilities of a similar size, including performing work similar to almost all parts of the FC statement of work. All referenced contracts were within the recency requirements of the FC RFP. Amentum has performed Effectively to Very Effectively on the evaluated contracts, with overall evaluated performance ranging between Satisfactory to Excellent, with the Satisfactory ratings being on the least relevant contracts. Minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall perfo overall past performance is Very Relevant and its Performance was Very Effective, and in consideration all of the past performance data that was presented to me and which I thoroughly reviewed, I have a High Level of Confidence that Amentum will successfully perform the Facilities SOW.

Amentum had no cost adjustments and its propo Independent Government Cost Estimate. I dete st of the two Offerors and had no cost/price adjustments.

PAE

Under the Mission Suitability Factor, the SEB found 3 Significant Strengths, 17 Strengths and no Weakness or Significant Weaknesses. I noted there were no cost adjustments made per Section M.4 of the RFP. As the findings relate to PAE, I agreed with the findings of the Board and hereby adopt them as my own. Of note was the Significant Strength PAE received under the Management Approach Subfactor; the most heavily weighted of the subfactors in Mission Suitability. Specifically, PAE proposes to utilize an upgraded version of their existing PIE as their StoreFront. This upgraded version will provide a one stop shop for the Facilities Management Division, other JSC organizations, and PAE employees to access data about work being performed, contract management, and other key information. PIE+ ties NASA into PAE databases, cost/accounting and time and reporting systems, training tracking records. This access will help NASA have better insight into and track understanding of the criticality of complete, consistent data gathering and communication, and will reduce the risk of delay associated with proposed use of Maximo, where they will use a corporate version as the working copy and duplicate the data to the Govern copy. By doing this, they propose utilizing the most recent version of Maximo, which the Government is not currently using, providing more functionality, and making the system cloud based therefore more accessible during disasters, such as hurricanes. Additionally, they proposed adding several features to Maximo to improve its functionality, including field ordering of common materials. I also found that PAE was proposing strong management staffing having manager or supervisor for every personnel which is near the lower end of the industry standard of 10-15 employee per manager or supervisor and are proposing a moderately aggressive reduction in staffing from the Government estimate of 294 WYEs to WYEs. As is the case here, this level of management staffing is appropriate when the Offeror is simultaneously proposing to utilize innovative work management techniques to increase productivity and reduce staffing levels resulting in savings.

This also improves communications with the Government about the changes being implemented and reduces the safety risk that is inherent in all change.

In its Past Performance Assessment, the Board rated PAE with a High Level of Confidence. I agree. The PAE Team had experience in all areas of the Facilities SOW. Specifically, PAE had experience in all parts of the SOW while its subcontractors had experience in some, but not all, combined relevancy is assessed as Very Relevant to this acquisition. The proposing team has past performance that is Highly Pertinent, in that they have operated facilities management contracts for the Government, including the predecessor to FC, JSC FSS contract. All referenced contracts were within the recency requirements of the FC RFP.

Overall, PAE has performed Very Effectively on all the evaluated contracts, including the FC predecessor (JSC FSS contract), with overall performance on evaluated contracts of Very Good or Excellent. Minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance were st performance is Very Relevant and its Performance was very effective, and in consideration all of the past performance data that was presented to me and which I thoroughly reviewed, I have a High Level of Confidence that PAE will successfully perform the Facilities SOW.

PAE had no cost adjustments and its proposed Independent Government Cost Estimate. I dete cost was slightly higher.

Comparison of Proposals:

Regarding Section M.2, SEB Evaluation Factors for Award:

Of the three evaluation factors, Past Performance and Mission Suitability, when combined, are more important than Cost/Price. Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price. Cost/Price is more important than Mission Suitability.

Past Performance:

In looking at these three evaluation factors I noted that Past Performance was the most important factor for evaluation. Both I and the SEB had and PAE could perform the Facilities SOW. While both Amentum and PAE received an overall high level of confidence rating, I understood that the two companie identical. As such, I closely examined and consid note important discriminators. ) (1) by itself and with its subcontractors covered the entire SOW and (2) referenced contracts were recent and, overall, s Very Relevant, I did not find either of those elements to be a discriminator. Regarding performance, I overall performance evaluation on evaluated contracts ranged between Satisfactory and Excellent. On two of its relevant contracts, Amentum received only a Sa performance evaluation was Very Good and Excellent and had a higher number of Very Relevant contracts, for which it received ratings of Very Good to Excellent. I noted the same confidence level in Past Performance for each O past performance. When I looked closer at the performance of each Offeror, I did find some differences which gave PAE an advantage in past performance.

Under the Past Performance Factor, performance was comprised of Quality, Schedule Performance, Cost Performance, Small Business Performance and Safety Performance. At the outset, I did note that PAE had a minor problem reported to JSC. The CO on the JSC FSS contract found there was a four-month period in 2019 where PAE had difficulty recruiting and retaining design staff, which resulted in numerous design projects being delivered late during that time. During discussions, PAE responded by stating that the lack of design staff was due to a 3-month period where the Government did not issue new design tasks due to little design requirements and more closely tied to the 2018-2019 Government Shutdown, followed by a 1-month period of significantly increased design work post furlough. Staff was decreased during the furlough and then immediately needed again. gn firms to help with fed within 3 months, but it took a few more months to catch up with all the design rted challenge, I find the s control. Prior to the Government Shutdown, there was little design work and PAE appropriately down staffed. After the furlough, JSC significantly increased the design work. Given the length of the furlough, I believe it was wise of PAE not to rehire during the furlough and, subsequently, by accounts of the Contracting de every effort to recruit staff to meet the influx of design work post furlough. Based on this, I do not believe this minor reportable issue to be a problem at all and I did not consider it to be a problem du performance.

on the Very Relevant and Relevant evaluated contracts as reported in CPARS and on Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), ranged from s ranged from Satisfactory to Exceptional.

ory ratings in quality were received on the Very Relevant

MSFC FOMS contract and on both Relevant Chemical Defense Training Facility Operations & Maintenance CDTF (W911S716C0005; W911S719C0003) contracts. I did note that for the CDTF contracts, Amentum may not have been able to receive a higher rating than satisfactory difference in ratings between the two Offerors gave a slight advantage to PAE. Upon conducting a qualitative assessment of the information provided via CPARS and the PPQs, I noted that for the JSC FSS contract (the current JSC Facilities contract), the Contracting Officer stated in the exceptional job of fulfilling the vast requirements of the JSC Facilities [Support Services] co

AE successfully scaled up their design, estimating, and construction departments in a few days to ontract, AUTEC, PAE was commended for its work efforts in response to Hurricane Dorian, where the CO stated that while the additional hurricane repair workload presented challenges for both the contractor and exceeding work load factors by processing daily loading well ed that in both its CPARS and PPQ ratings, PAE received very positive feedback concerning its record of communication, which I find to be of value to the Government. One PPQ evaluator st on several occasions, to highlight areas of concern with problem notifications to assist to

I noted separately that in its performance of JSC FSS contract, PAE has held daily meetings with JSC and PAE management staff to ensure communication of critical information and that on a separate non-JSC contract, PAE was quick to communicate problems it had discovered with fire suppression systems used at JSC, allowing for corrections that possibly prevented injury and death. I did also note; however, that PAE had a minor reportable problem where PAE operator negligence resulted in damage to some Government-furnished vehicles over a four-month period on AUTEC. But the CO also noted that PAE had since implemented an annual vehicle safety requirement. I did not find this to be determinative in

I recognize Amentum, generally, received positive feedback on its past performance in the area of quality. For example, Amentum was found to be responsive to ing to the PPQ for the Range Support Services (RSS) II contract FA8240-17-D-4651, the Director stated that the contr program that leads to numerous thereby also demonstrating experience in providing quality communications. However, there were some notable minor problems reported on some contracts.

For instance, on the MSFC FOMS contract, a very relevant contract, th e AQL [Acceptable Quality Level] finding for 4 action plan for that project was created to resolve the issue, Also of note to me, given the proposed reliance upon subcontractors for FC, on the KSC ISC, a very relevant contract, the casions when the subcontractor failed to perform in ways that was not AECOM's [Amentum's] fault, but they were held accountable [as the k, explaining that the failure [to perform] was not adhering to the welding spec and thus performing the welds improperly on a specific project causing rework." I note that Amentum did take corrective action to provide additional management oversight in response. Given the overall higher evaluations and in consideration of the minor reportable problems, I gave a slight advantage in quality to

PAE.

CPARS ratings ranged from Very good to Exceptional. On the JSC FSS contract (a very relevant contract), after Hurricane Harvey damage, ed up their design, estimating, and construction e to handle an approximate quintupling of IDIQ ous schedule slips. According to its CPARS ranged from Satisfactory to Exceptional. The contracts evaluated demonstrated that Amentum was experienced with activities being in constant flux and being reprioritized with short notice. Amentum was able to adjust work priorities so they could react quickly to Government driven schedule changes. However, on the Very Relevant KSC ISC, the CO noted that while later resolved, Amentum did not meet scheduled objectives on one project by a substantial margin. I gave a slight advantage to PAE in schedule given the results reported from its PPQs and its schedule adherence on its relevant and very relevant contracts; including the JSC FSS contract.

Next, I considered the cost performance element of past performance. Amentum received PPQ and CPARS ratings ranging from Satisfactory to Exceptional. One of the Technical actor worked well together in the negotiation of al management to targ always seek the best value. Per the latest CPARS, the CO stated that identify innovative ways to control spending received performance PPQ and CPARS ratings of Marginal to Exceptional. The Marginal rating given within CPARS was on the AUTEC contract where the Offeror strugg caused multiple cost deficiencies including fluctuations in cost accounting and de-obligation accuracy problems. The CO stated that initiative and an eagerness to address these issues by actively engaging Government personnel for guidance, they remained unresolved at the conclusion of the mented multiple cost savings methods such as energy savings projects, self-initiated projects, and a maintenance team called Cycle Maintenance and Repair Teams (CMART). On another CPARS evaluation, the Contractor accomplished a number of major maintenance activities in house, which reduced time out of service and cost. PAE also incorporated financial efficiencies in the execution of daily operations oversight of subcontractors supporting hurricane repa ctor management oversight for the facilities ll, based on all the cost performance data presented to me and summarized above and which I reviewed, including CPARS and PPQ results, I gave a very slight advantage to Amentum.

I did not find Small Business Subcontracting Performance to be a discriminator.

I did; however, even with similar adjectival scores, find safety performance to be a differentiator.

rating as assessed by the SEB was Very Good and injury rates and EMRs were in the Very Good to Excellent l safety performance the Excellent range with a few in the Very Good range. While there was not much difference between the adjectival ratings within safety performance, I did find noteworthy a reported incident from a PAE contract that was not at JSC, where there was a reported fatality. PAE was determined, by PAE corporate headquarters and by the Government, to not be at fault for the fatality as it involved a faulty system, over which PAE had no control. PAE promptly informed JSC about the incident, even though not required, and the lessons learned. This prompted a review of JSC systems, which resulted in the discovery and correction of identical issues with JSC systems and prevention of potentially similar incidents. Given the importance of safety on this contract and at JSC, I found value to the e approach of alerting the Government upon conducting its own review of the issues when they had no contractual obligation to do so, thereby allowing the Government to then identify and correct additional systems possibly preventing further injury or death. Also important, a review of safety records provided proposed subcontractors, which will be conducting work in the areas of maintenance and repair, operations and hurricane preparation, showed Rothe experienced some losses and injuries, resulting in a marginal safety performance rating for Rothe. For the above reasons, I gave a slight advantage to PAE in safety performance.

Based on the discussion above, I gave an overall advantage to PAE in Past Performance. While ce, my review of the entire record revealed discrete differentiators in sub-elements of Past Performance. Under the performance element of Past Performance, both PAE and Amentum were equal in Small Business contracting, Amentum had a slight advantage in Cost performance and PAE had an advantage in Quality, Schedule, and Safety performance. For the reasons stated above, I gave an overall advantage to PAE in Past Performance.

Cost/Price:

I also discussed the area of cost/price of the proposals with the SEB. I noted that neither Offeror had a probable cost adjustment. A Cost/Price analysis was also performed per FAR §15.404 to fair and reasonable. PA ich amounts $22.7 million or $4.5 million per year over the life of the contract.

Mission Suitability:

I turned my attention next to Mission Suitability; the least important Factor. Mission Suitability is broken further into the subfactors of Management Approach, Technical Approach, Safety and Health and Small Business Utilization with Management being most important and SBU being least important. At the outset, I noted that PAE, quantitatively, earned a higher score than Amentum. Additionally, most of that point difference was in the Management Approach subfactor, where of the two Offerors PAE received the higher score. I did not only conduct a review of the numerical scoring, but also conducted a qualitative Mission Suitability proposals.

Under the Management Approach (MA) Subfac approaches in this area appropriately corresponded to the quantitative advantage I noted in een the two proposals in proposed use of an upgraded version of their existing PAE Information Exchange (PIE) as their StoreFront, for which it received a significant strength. This was the only significant strength by either Offeror in MA, the most heavily weighted subfactor. This upgraded version called PIE+ provides a one stop shop for the Facilities Management Division, other JSC organizations, and PAE employees to access data about work being performed, contract management, and other key information. Much of the cost reporting is currently being performed in manually in Excel which is labor intensive. PIE+ in addition to Maximo automates this process. I find there is significant value to the Government in having access to this data system and the ability to look at critical data in real time, a capability that does not presently exist. This continuous access will lead to better cost control and tracking of real-time contractor performance, provide Contractor staff access to the current Contract, and to the timecard system, and track employee training and certifications, including notifications of approaching expiration dates.

Also under the MA subfactor, Amentum and PAE received 6 and 9 strengths, respectively. For Amentum I found value in its proposed phase in plan, which involves the hiring of highly experienced key management personnel, and a strong plan for employee training and certification tracking. Additionally, I found good Quality Assurance/Quality Control, and Environmental Management report to the corporate Safety, Health & Environmental (SH&E) and Quality Office instead of to the Program Manager.

This demonstrated to me that Amentum understood the need for independence and objectivity when addressing safety issues. For PAE, I found value in its Continuous Improvement Plan and Service, Operation and Maintenance Management Approach, which will allow the Government to take advantage of successful technologies used on other PAE contracts. PAE also proposes using corporate resources for surge support, recruiting, union negotiations, and global vendor contracts. Utilizing corporate resources is a reasonable and feasible approach to providing expertise for complex issues that are not performed frequently on any single contract and will reduce the risk to the Government of poor outcomes due to lack of specialized knowledge. Also, PAE proposed to have daily meetings with their management team and JSC Facilities Management and Operations Division personnel further demonstrating their commitment to ensuring continuous oversight of contract activity, regular communication with the Government and the timely resolution of any issues. This reduces the risk to the Government of misunderstandings over what work is being accomplished and of work being done without proper planning resulting in rework, reduced productivity, personnel injury, or property damage.

Also, of note to me in this area was the difference between each Offero supervisor ratio. I noted that PAE proposed a ratio of 10.7 to 1 and Amentum, a ratio of 14.8 to 1, which just meets the industry standard for adequate supervisory staffing. For an effort where safety is very important and where both Offerors propose use of multiple subcontractors, I find will also note that PAE received a separate strength for its plan to have all its subcontractors a tration, policies, and procedures, and that the subcontractors will be embedded within the PAE organization to improve lines of communication. While each Offeror proposed several innovative proposals and feasible approaches to management, the major strength for its proposed use of PIE+ and its proposed plan for strong supervisory oversight including its employee-supervisory ratio and its embedding and management of subcontractor staff. I gave the advantage to PAE in Management Approach.

Next, I turned my attention to Technical Approach, the second most important subfactor. I noted that from a purely quantitative perspective, Amentum had a very slight edge. Amentum received 2 significant Strengths, 7 strengths, and 1 weakness. But as was noted above, I did not consider this weakness in my evaluation. PAE received 1 significant strength and 8 strengths. My review was not limited to an assessment of the Offero technical approach. I found significa operate an IDMS, consisting of a data warehouse for facilities data and software tools for evaluating and analyzing the data. This improvement has a high potential of being efficiently and effectively implemented in the Contract and will greatly reduce the risk to the Government of missing opportunities for improvement and inefficient operation of the Contract. Also, of proposed improvements to maintenance engineering process.

These include:

More extensive use of PT&I, Develop, maintain, and enhance the maintenance program and database, Using mixed teams of engineering and maintenance personnel to perform FCA, Using System Health and Readiness Program (SHARP) teams to analyze and report on the health of systems, recommend corrective actions, assess project priorities, and optimize preventive maintenance scheduling, Use the Facility Asset Management and Operations Services (FAMOS) program to share best practices and lessons learned between Amentum contracts, creating benchmarks and assessing improvement initiatives, Expanding the use of Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) met cost-effective strategies to manage failure modes and

These proposed improvements demonstrated to me that Amentum understood the importance of maintenance engineering on this contract. I also found value in a number of proposals for which Amentum received strengths. These include the improvement of the utilization of the Work Control Center and Maximo, the inclusion of maintenance personnel (both engineering and crafts persons) as part of their design review teams, higher standards of construction management than is required by the Statement of Work, using Microsoft Power BI tool suite to allow managers to capture and analyze data, improve processes, and if necessary implement corrective actions, dedicating and equipping Rapid Response Teams in advance to support Emergency and Urgent repair requests, equip vehicles with Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking devices to track vehicle locations and the speeds at which they are driven, and the establishment of a duty team of managers and supervisors who will be assigned to provide oversight and other support for issues that arise during off hours and weekends, ensuring that management oversight is always available.

PAE received a significant strength for its proposed use of a Corporate copy of Maximo as the working copy and downloading data to the Government copy as the copy of record. The use of a corporate copy of Maximo will save money and time and will have additional features listed above, including paper reduction, online ordering, and making managing the system cloud based, which provides significant expanded capability. I find great value in this proposed use of Maximo as it will greatly reduce the risk to the Government of more equipment downtime or inaccurate data, since the PAE version will have more capabilities for work development and tracking, and equipment tracking and information. I also found value in several proposals for which PAE received strengths. These include on time for skilled workforce and to reduce vehicle fleet size, utilize smart devices with GPS and Push-to-Talk capabilities for communication and tracking of field personnel, use drones for roof inspections and damage assessments after hurricanes and similar events, embedding Customer Service Concierges in the Work Control Center to track service delivery to performance, adjust work processes, and follow up with clients on projects, using CMART to provide teams of varied crafts to perform all required work in a geographically limited area together before moving on to another, having three linemen on staff instead of the two required by the RFP, and utilizing a body camera during quality inspections to allow others to remotely view the inspection as well as to maintain a visual record for future reference.

is very sound. Either would effectively do the job.