CAMS IV final SSS.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR THE

CALIBRATION AND METROLOGY SERVICES (CAMS) IV CONTRACT

NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Solicitation Number 80JSC021R0051

On July 1, 2021, I met with members of the Streamlined Procurement Team (SLPT) appointed to evaluate proposals received in response to the Calibration and Metrology Services (CAMS) IV solicitation (80JSC021R0051) 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 CAMS IV procurement provides for the operation and maintenance of JSC’s Measurement Standards and Calibration Laboratory (MSCL). The MSCL provides calibration operations for Measuring and Test Equipment (MTE) primarily for JSC Organizations, and also supports calibrations for other NASA Centers and Federal Government Agencies. The MSCL also provides for the outsourcing of selected calibrations to outside vendors. Most MTE are commercial off-the-shelf used to measure physical, mechanical, and electrical properties such as torque wrenches, pressure transducers and voltmeters. These services are necessary to calibrate both flight and non-flight hardware in support of NASA programs.

CAMS IV will be a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract with FFP Phase-In and FFP Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Task Orders (TO). The CAMS IV procurement is a small business set-aside, assigned the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541380 – Testing Laboratories, with a Small Business Administration designated small business size standard of $16.5 million (M). The Government anticipates a one (1) year Period of Performance (POP), anticipated to run from September 1, 2021 to August 31, 2022, with four one-year options, for a total possible POP of five (5) years. The IDIQ guaranteed minimum to be ordered under the CAMS IV Contract is $100, and the potential maximum is $1M.

A Sources Sought Synopsis, 80JSC020CAMSIV, was released on May 22, 2020, through the NASA CAMS IV Procurement website and “beta.SAM.gov” website. The SLPT hosted a Virtual Industry Day presentation on August 13, 2020, and held individual one-on-ones with interested parties on August 13, 2020. The draft RFP was posted to beta.SAM.gov on November 13, 2020. Responses to questions concerning the draft RFP were posted to beta.SAM.gov on December 14, 2020. On November 24, 2020, a Pre-Solicitation Synopsis, 80JSC021R0051, was posted on the CAMS IV and beta.SAM.gov websites.

The SLPT posted a Pre-Proposal Bulletin on December 14, 2020. The final RFP 80JSC021R0051 was released through the beta.SAM.gov website on December 14, 2020. The RFP responses were due by January 15, 2021, at 4:30 p.m. Central Time. Four (4) amendments (listed below) were issued for the CAMS IV. None of the amendments warranted an extension of the proposal due date.

• Amendment 1 – December 23, 2020 (Updated Pricing Templates)

• Amendment 2 – December 23, 2020 (Post Questions and Answers)

• Amendment 3 – January 8, 2021 (Post second set of Questions and Answers)

• Amendment 4 – January 11, 2021 (Updating RFP clauses)

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The proposals were evaluated in strict accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Part 1815, and the RFP. Section M of the CAMS IV RFP details the Evaluation factors and criteria. The RFP also provides that the Government will 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.

As stated in the RFP, this procurement is being conducted using a combination of technically acceptable core requirements (Acceptable/Potentially Acceptable/Unacceptable) and a tradeoff of past performance and price. Past performance is more important than price.

An initial review of proposals was conducted to determine acceptability of the proposals in accordance with NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. Remaining proposals were evaluated against the Technical Acceptability Factor. Those proposals determined to be “Acceptable” and “Potentially Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor were further evaluated for Past Performance (Section M.1.2) and Price (M.1.3.)

Technical Acceptability Factor

Technical Acceptability is based on the demonstration of understanding, and level of reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness of the following subfactors such that associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. The Technical Acceptability Factor contained the following four (4) subfactors:

Subfactor A – Management Approach Subfactor B – Specific Technical Understanding and Resources Subfactor C – Contract Phase-In Plan Subfactor D – Safety and Health Plan

Additionally, per Section M of the RFP, the Technical Acceptability volume was also evaluated for consistency with the Price volume of the proposal. The consistency evaluation is distinct from the evaluation of the Price factor. A lack of consistency across a proposal may adversely impact the Government’s evaluation of “reasonableness” under the Technical Acceptability Factor.

Past Performance Factor The Government used past performance information required by Section L.1.5 of the RFP and evaluated offerors in accordance with section M.1.2 of the RFP.

Recency, relevance, and performance, as described in RFP Section M, JSC 52.215-115 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (NOV 2018), were the aspects taken into consideration by the SLPT when determining each offeror’s overall Past Performance confidence rating.

Price Factor Finally, in accordance with RFP Section M.1.3 – Price Factor, the SLPT evaluated proposed prices of Offeror whose proposal was rated either technically “Acceptable” or “Potentially Acceptable.”

Offerors were required to submit a Price Volume that was suitable for evaluation. It was required to:

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

• Provide traceability to the technical/management proposal(s).

• Include a narrative portion that explains all pricing and estimating techniques, including the basis for proposed price estimates.

• Comply with applicable Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), NASA FAR Supplement

(NFS), and statutory requirements.

• Include all templates required in the RFP.

The Government used the above price information required by Section L.1.6 of the RFP and evaluated offerors in accordance with Section M.1.3 of the RFP. With respect to Price, the RFP states “[t]he Government will review proposed prices for Contract Year 1 and Option Years 2 through 5 to determine if they are reasonable. The Government will consider the results of such an analysis in evaluating an offeror’s proposal.” Additionally, the fully-burdened rates for IDIQ, the Phase-In price, and the Option to Adjust Workload Sizing (Section F) were reviewed for reasonableness. The results of the SLPT’s analysis of the proposed prices for the base year, and the four option years were presented for consideration in making the selection.

EVALUATION OF INITIAL PROPOSALS

Timely proposals were received by the due date of January 15, 2021 from the following four (4) offerors, which are listed in order of evaluation:

• Yulista Support Services, Inc. (YSS)

• Rohmann Services, Inc. (RSI)

• Goldbelt Integrated Logistics Services, LLC (GbILS)

• Unified Industries Incorporated (UII)

The SLPT evaluated the proposals received according to the evaluation criteria in Section M of the

RFP.

The SLPT determined that all proposals were acceptable in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70 and thus evaluated in accordance with the evaluation factors contained in the RFP.

COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION

The results of the evaluation were presented to me at the Competitive Range/Award without Discussions briefing on May 26, 2021. Based on the initial evaluation of the SLPT, it was determined that award on the initial proposals was not appropriate and a competitive range of the most highly rated proposals was established. In accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(1), I concurred with the Contracting Officer’s written determination that RSI’s proposal was the most highly rated based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria and should be included in the competitive range. UII, GbILS, and YSS were not among the most highly rated proposals and were not included in the competitive range.

Both proposals for UII and GbILS and were “Unacceptable” under the Technical Acceptability factor.

Each proposal lacked sufficient detail and failed to demonstrate an understanding of the Government’s requirements and failed to demonstrate each offerors’ ability to successfully perform the requirements.

The proposals were rated “Unacceptable” in all four subfactors.

While the YSS proposal was given a “Potentially Acceptable” rating under the Technical Acceptability factor, it did not include sufficient numbers of senior calibration technicians required to perform the necessary calibrations which posed a significant risk that there will not be enough qualified technicians to perform calibrations compliant with the required accreditation standards. Additionally, YSS’s proposal did not address the requirement to monitor the progress of the MTE user in order to ensure completion and disposition of out-of-tolerance MTE. There were no issues identified in YSS’s past performance in which YSS has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Additionally, the SLPT determined the YSS prices proposed were reasonable. However, any discussions that would occur to remedy the Senior Calibration Technicians skill mix would likely result in an increase to its price.

Additionally, any updates affecting Technical Acceptability would not impact the “High” Level of Confidence for Past Performance rating of YSS and the Contracting Officer determined that YSS would not be able to overcome RSI’s “Very High” Level of Confidence for Past Performance. As Past Performance is more important than Price, YSS was not one of the most highly rated proposals.

OFFERORS TECHNICAL

ACCEPTABILITY

PAST

PERFORMANCE

RATING

TOTAL

CONTRACT

PROPOSED PRICE

FOR SELECTION

RSI Acceptable Very High $10.831M YSS Potentially Acceptable High $10.503M

UII, GbILS, and YSS were notified accordingly. On June 3, 2021, RSI was informed of its inclusion in the competitive range.

DISCUSSIONS

The SLPT conducted written discussions with RSI, which required a written response by June 10, 2021 to address any Model Contract Issues and Updates, and Price Issues/Questions. RSI submitted its timely written response on June 9, 2021. Accordingly, on June 16, 2021 the Contracting Officer closed discussions and requested a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) to be submitted on or before June 21, 2021.

RSI submitted a timely FPR on June 21, 2021, including an updated and signed Model Contract reflecting its intent to be contractually bound. The SLPT evaluated RSI’s FPR in accordance with the RFP instructions. After evaluating RSI’s FPR, the SLPT determined that the items addressed during discussions had been sufficiently dispositioned to the satisfaction of the SLPT.

EVALUATION OF FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS (FPRs)

Technical Acceptability Factor

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

RSI was rated Acceptable for all four subfactors and received an overall Acceptable rating for the Technical Acceptability Factor. RSI demonstrated understanding, and a level of reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness such that associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Based on the SLPT’s determination that all subfactors were individually rated acceptable, the SLPT rated RSI’s proposal as “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor.

Past Performance Factor

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

RSI was rated as Excellent on its Very Relevant past performance efforts, and Very Good on its Relevant past performance effort. RSI’s proposed subcontractors, RDI and REI, were rated as Very Good on their Very Relevant past performance efforts. The proposed Program Manager (PM) and the proposed Laboratory Manager/Deputy PM were both rated as Excellent on their support to their Very Relevant past performance efforts. The RSI team received a Satisfactory Safety and Health rating.

Based upon the assessments of the past performance, the SLPT concluded that there is a “Very High Level of Confidence” that the RSI will successfully perform the required effort.

In accordance with the RFP, RSI’s proposed price was evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305, FAR 15.404, NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305, and the RFP. The SLPT performed a price analysis in accordance with the FAR and NFS to ensure that the final agreed-to prices were fair and reasonable.

RSI’s proposed cumulative contract price for the base year and four option years is $10.831M.

While not included in the total price for evaluation purposes, the SLPT also evaluated the prices for the fully-burdened rates for IDIQ, the Phase-In price, and the Option to Adjust Workload Sizing for reasonableness.

In RSI’s initial submission, the SLPT did find a formula error that caused the prices to be overstated.

However, after discussions, RSI’s FPR corrected the formula error which decreased the price of the options in the “Option to Adjust Workload Sizing” clause but did not affect the core contract price.

The option to adjust workload sizing prices were found to be reasonable.

While not considered for selection purposes, the SLPT also determined the proposed Phase-in price to be reasonable based on the SLPT’s assessment of proposed Phase-in resources.

Based on the updated price analysis, all other evaluated proposed price elements, including the fully-burdened rates, were considered to be fair and reasonable based on a comparison with historical rates, the independent government cost estimate, and wage determinations.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

On July 1, 2021, the SLPT presented and discussed with me its evaluation for the remaining offeror in the competitive range. 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. I reviewed the SLPT evaluation, posed questions to the SLPT, expressed my own views and ensured that the SLPT assessments reflected accurately as to what the offeror presented in its FPR.

The SLPT’s observations that were presented to me were consistent with the evaluation criteria in the CAMS IV 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 heard the presentation and who have responsibility relative to the procurement. I am in agreement with the information presented by the SLPT and take no exception to the assessments or observations of the SLPT. 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 Price

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

Technical Acceptability Factor

I reviewed the SLPT’s observations with respect to the Technical Acceptability Factor and the four (4) subfactors: Management Approach, Specific Technical Understanding and Resources, Contract Phase- In Plan, and Safety and Health 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 and for it to be further evaluated against the Past Performance and Price Factors. I reviewed the SLPT’s analysis for RSI and concurred with the SLPT’s findings. I found that RSI’s Management Approach, Specific Technical Understanding and Resources, Contract Phase-In Plan, and Safety and Health 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 RSI had a rational basis and is valid for the purpose of making a selection decision. As a result, I agree with the SLPT that RSI’s proposal is “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor.

Past Performance Factor

For Past Performance, I reviewed the SLPT’s evaluation of RSI’s past performance in accordance with Section M.1.2 of the RFP. In assessing the rating of RSI’s past performance, I reviewed the SLPT’s assessment of RSI, its proposed minor subcontractors, and its proposed PM and Deputy PM/Lab Manager, focusing on recency, relevancy, and performance. I asked the SLPT specific questions to determine whether I agreed with the Past Performance assessments. Based on this review, I concur with the SLPT's assessment of a “Very High” Level Confidence rating for RSI.

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

I then reviewed the individual relevancy ratings and supporting rationale for the prime Offeror and each team member. I agreed with the SLPT on each relevancy 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 RSI’s experience is Very Relevant overall. I found value in the RSI team’s demonstration of relevant to very relevant performance in every element of the CAMS IV SOW, which provides me with confidence that RSI can successfully perform the work.

Next, I reviewed the SLPT’s assessment of RSI’s performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, and safety performance. Based on my review of the information provided, I agree with the SLPT’s assessment that RSI’s performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, and safety performance is Excellent. I find RSI’s Excellent performance on the CAMS III effort, which is Very Relevant to CAMS IV, to be of significance, and it gives me confidence that RSI can successfully perform the requirements of CAMS IV.

In reaching my final decision on the Past Performance rating, I considered the evaluation requirements in the RFP and specifically noted that the past performance of the prime offeror and any team members should be compared to the work proposed to be performed by that prime or team member and weighted accordingly in the overall performance rating. After giving the performance of RSI and each of its proposed team members the required consideration, I agreed with the SLPT’s overall Past Performance Confidence Rating of “Very High” Level of Confidence for RSI.

Finally, I reviewed the SLPT’s price analysis of RSI’s proposal under the Price Factor. I noted the SLPT evaluated RSI’s price per the RFP for reasonableness. I also noted that the SLPT performed its price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.305, FAR 15.404, and NFS 1815.305, to ensure the final agreed-to prices were reasonable. The SLPT explained that the proposed price did not change in the FPR. Based on the information presented to me, I agree with the SLPT that RSI’s price of $10,830,932 for the base and four options years is fair and reasonable.

Conclusion

Having fully reviewed and agreed with the observations of the SLPT, I find that RSI can successfully perform the required CAMS IV effort. I find value in RSI’s “Very High” Level of Confidence rating for past performance in combination with its fair and reasonable price. Keeping in mind that Past Performance is more important than Price, I find that the overall attributes of RSI’s proposal provides the best value to the Government for award of the Calibration and Metrology Services (CAMS IV) 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 Rohmann Services, Inc. (RSI) for award of the CAMS IV contract.

Jessica C. Miller Date Source Selection Authority

07/23/2021