TEST3 Redacted SSS.pdf

Source Selection Statement Test, Evaluation, and Support Team 3 (TEST3) Procurement

NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) – White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) Solicitation Number 80JSC020R0026

On June 11, 2021, I, the Source Selection Authority (SSA), along with other key officials of the Johnson Space Center (JSC), met via Microsoft Teams with members of the Test, Evaluation, and Support Team (TEST3) Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals received in response to the TEST3 Request for Proposals (RFP) 80JSC020R0026. At this meeting, the TEST3 SEB presented its final evaluation findings. I posed a variety of questions to the SEB members and solicited their views as well as those of the key officials who were present. This statement details the SEB’s final evaluation and my source selection determination.

BACKGROUND

NASA requires continued test and operations support at the JSC’s White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) and other locations identified in the performance work statement (PWS). Specifically, TEST3 will provide expertise and infrastructure in the areas of propulsion testing; propellants, aerospace fluids, materials, and components testing; hypervelocity impact testing; flight hardware processing; technical services; training; safety; quality assurance; facility maintenance and operation; construction management; and emergency services. This acquisition is a follow on to the current Test, Evaluation, and Support Team 2 (TEST2) contract.

TEST3 is a hybrid Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract with Cost-Plus Award-Fee (CPAF) and Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) task orders. This acquisition has a single five-year period of performance (POP), from October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2026 with no options.

The contract has a clause allowing for conversion from CPAF to Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) and vice-versa. The ceiling not-to-exceed value is $400,000,000.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

Request for Information (RFI)/Sources Sought Synopsis (SSS) On October 28, 2019, NASA issued an RFI/SSS to solicit comments from industry regarding acquisition strategies through Beta.sam.gov under notice ID TEST3_Sources_Sought to provide industry with the anticipated elements of the TEST3 PWS and the TEST3 PWS Subcontracting Template. These documents were provided as part of the Government’s request for capabilities statements from interested parties.

Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)/RFI On December 18, 2019, NASA issued an OCI/RFI for TEST3. The Government provided the TEST3 Draft PWS for industry to consider when identifying any potential OCI.

Industry Day On March 3-5, 2020, NASA held in-person Industry Days including tours and in-person one-on one meetings with interested parties for the TEST3 acquisition.

• March 3, 2020 – Industry Day and Site Tour

• March 4-5, 2020 – One-on-One Meetings with Interested Parties

Posting of Industry Day Questions and Answers On May 7, 2020, NASA provided official responses to questions received during the TEST3 Industry Day and One-on-One Meetings.

Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) On June 12, 2020, NASA posted the TEST3 Draft RFP.

Draft RFP Question and Answers Posted Industry Questions and Answers for TEST3’s Draft RFP were posted on:

• July 17, 2020

• August 12, 2020

Pre-solicitation Synopsis On July 22, 2020, NASA posted a pre-solicitation synopsis.

Request for Proposal On August 17, 2020, NASA released the TEST3 RFP and associated documents. The RFP responses were due on September 21, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time (MDT). Five

(5) amendments (listed below) were issued for the TEST3 RFP. None of the amendments warranted an extension of the proposal due date.

• Amendment 1 – September 09, 2020 (Responding to questions and incorporating changes to

RFP)

• Amendment 2 – September 15, 2020 (Updating RFP clauses)

• Amendment 3 – October 13, 2020 (Updating past performance rating definitions)

• Amendment 4 – January 28, 2021 (Updating period of performance and related dates)

• Amendment 5 – March 11, 2021 (Correcting Non-Labor Related values and updating phase in period; only issued to offerors included in the competitive range)

Pre-Proposal Conference On August 24, 2020, NASA held a virtual pre-proposal conference via Microsoft Teams to discuss and highlight the RFP requirements. All interested parties were encouraged to attend and to participate in one-on-one meetings.

• Jacobs

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The proposals were evaluated in strict accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Part 1815, and the TEST3 RFP evaluation criteria. The evaluation factors and criteria are contained in Section M of the TEST3 RFP.

As stated in the RFP, the Government plans to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. This evaluation is being conducted utilizing a combination of Mission Suitability, Past Performance and Cost/Price evaluation factors.

As stated in Section M.3, Source Evaluation Board Evaluation Factors For Award, the order of importance of the evaluation factors is as follows:

• Mission Suitability and Past Performance when combined are more important than Cost.

• Mission Suitability is approximately equal to Past Performance.

• Mission Suitability is more important than Cost.

The SEB evaluated each Offeror’s proposal using the factors and subfactors identified in the RFP. Although proposals are organized by factors and subfactors, the SEB evaluated the proposals for consistency among proposal information, including each Offeror’s proposed Model Contract.

Mission Suitability Factor

The Government used Mission Suitability information required by Sections L.22 and evaluated offerors in accordance with section M.4 of the TEST3 RFP. The Mission Suitability Factor was only numerically scored. The Mission Suitability Subfactors below were rated with an adjective and also numerically scored.

Mission Suitability Subfactors Weight Subfactor 1. Overall Management Approach 425 Points Subfactor 2. Technical Approach 350 Points Subfactor 3. Innovations and Efficiencies Approach 125 Points Subfactor 4. Small Business Utilization 100 Points

TOTAL 1000 Points

Mission Suitability Subfactor 1, Management Approach, evaluated each offeror’s Contract

Management Approach, Safety and Health Approach, Total Compensation Plan, Staffing and Critical Skills Plan, and Phase-in Plan for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonableness, and completeness.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 2, Technical Approach, evaluated each offeror’s response to the Base Work Task Order (TA1) and two (2) sample task orders, NASA Human Landing System Commercial Lunar Descent Stage – Vacuum Hot Fire Test (TA2) and Mars Ascent Vehicle Flow Control Valve Test Support (TA3), for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonableness, and completeness.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 3, Innovations and Efficiencies, evaluated each offeror’s response for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonableness, and completeness.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 4, Small Business Utilization, evaluated each offeror’s small business subcontracting and commitment to the Small Business Program.

Past Performance Factor

The Government used past performance information required by Section L.23 and evaluated offerors in accordance with section M.5 of the TEST3 RFP.

Recency, relevance, and performance, as described in RFP Section M.5(c), were the aspects taken into consideration by the SEB when determining each offeror’s overall Past Performance confidence rating.

Cost / Price Factor

The Government used cost and price information required by Section L.24. The Government evaluated the proposed costs and established the probable cost of doing business with each offeror as required by Section M.6 of the TEST3 RFP. The cost and price evaluation considered the base work price, phase-in price, and IDIQ costs, fees and rates.

EVALUATION OF INITIAL PROPOSALS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE

COMPETITIVE RANGE

On September 21, 2020, the following Offerors submitted timely proposals in response to the TEST3 RFP (listed in order of evaluation):

• SLI

• Jacobs

• PAE

Upon receipt of the proposals, the SEB conducted an initial review of the proposals to determine acceptability in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals.

The SEB found all proposals were acceptable in accordance with the solicitation and were evaluated in accordance with the evaluation factors contained in the RFP. On February 10, 2021, the initial results of the TEST3 SEB’s evaluation were presented to me at the Competitive Range/Award without Discussions briefing, which was held via Microsoft Teams.

On March 10, 2021, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(1), Competitive range, I concurred with the Contracting Officer’s written determination that SLI’s and Jacobs’ proposals were the most highly-rated based on all evaluation criteria and should be included in the competitive range.

PAE’s proposal was not one of the most highly-rated proposals; therefore, PAE was not included in the competitive range. Thereafter, and as described below, the SEB only engaged in discussions with the Offerors included in the competitive range.

On March 11, 2021, both SLI and Jacobs were informed of their inclusion in the competitive range. On the same day, PAE was notified of its exclusion from the competitive range. PAE requested a pre-award debriefing, which the Contracting Officer conducted virtually via Microsoft Teams on March 13, 2021.

DISCUSSIONS

In the March 11, 2021 competitive range notification letters to SLI and Jacobs, each Offeror was provided the SEB’s findings for its proposal and notified that discussions would be conducted in two (2) phases. Phase I, written discussions, required written responses from each Offeror to address any Model Contract Issues and Updates, Cost/Price Issues/Questions, and Weaknesses/Significant Weaknesses/Deficiencies for Mission Suitability findings. Both Offerors were notified that the written responses would be used by the SEB to promote full and open discussions during Phase II, oral discussions.

On March 19, 2021, both SLI and Jacobs submitted their written responses to the Contracting Officer. Phase II oral discussions were conducted virtually via Microsoft Teams with SLI on April 05, 2021, and Jacobs on April 06, 2021. Accordingly, on April 23, 2021, the Contracting Officer closed discussions and requested FPRs to be submitted before April 30, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. MDT.

EVALUATION OF FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS (FPRs)

Both offerors in the competitive range submitted FPRs. No FPRs were received late. Once again, upon receipt of the FPRs, the SEB conducted an initial review of the proposals to determine acceptability in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals.

The SEB found SLI’s and Jacobs’ proposals were acceptable, in accordance with the solicitation, and were evaluated in accordance with the evaluation factors contained in the RFP.

The results of the final evaluation were presented to me on June 11, 2021 and are summarized below:

Summary

The following is a summary of the SEB’s evaluation of the Offerors’ FPRs:

Offeror Mission Suitability Score

(1000 points)

Past Performance Confidence Rating

Total Contract Cost / Price

Proposed / Probable ($M)

SLI 847 Very High $244.81 / $246.92

Jacobs 794 Very High

SLI

The following is an overview of the SEB’s evaluation of SLI’s FPR:

Offeror Mission Suitability

Past Perf Confidence

Rating Total Contract

Cost/ Price

Score (1000 pts)

MA

Mgmt

Approach

TA

Tech

Approach

IE

Innovations & Efficiencies

SBU

Small

Business Utilization

SLI 847

Very Good

Excellent

Good

Excellent

100 Very High $244.81 / $246.92

In Mission Suitability, Management Approach (Subfactor MA), after evaluating SLI’s FPR, the SEB found one (1) Significant Strength, two (2) Strengths, and two (2) Weaknesses. The Significant Strength was for SLI’s comprehensive and thorough critical skills plan to recruit, hire, develop, and retain personnel. One of the Strengths was for the organizational structure, focus on project management, and approach to key personnel in the management plan. The second Strength was for the detailed and well-planned phase-in approach. The Weaknesses were limited to specific, focused areas related to missing details in the Safety and Health Plan and SLI’s minimizing of its effective escalation rate through a voluntary turnover approach which introduces some risk to employee retention. These findings resulted in an adjectival rating of “Very Good” for this subfactor.

In Mission Suitability, Technical Approach (Subfactor TA), after evaluating SLI’s FPR, the SEB found two (2) Significant Strengths and one (1) Strength. The first Significant Strength was for SLI’s comprehensive approach related to mechanical, structural, and safety design related to the TA2 sample task order. The second Significant Strength was for SLI’s project planning, test system design, and test system operations related to the TA3 sample task order. The Strength was for SLI’s business system and its TA1 task order (FFP Base Work) approach to providing a uniform set of tools and processes which would enable successful project management on TEST3. These findings resulted in an adjectival rating of “Excellent” for this subfactor.

In Mission Suitability, Innovations and Efficiencies (Subfactor IE), after evaluating SLI’s FPR, the SEB found one (1) Strength. The Strength was for the labor relations plan, project leader training curriculum, expanded training content, and knowledge-sharing initiative in the human capital innovation approach. There were no findings associated with the reliability centered maintenance (RCM) innovation. These findings resulted in an adjectival rating of “Good” for this subfactor.

In Mission Suitability, Small Business Utilization (Subfactor SBU), after evaluating SLI’s FPR, the SEB found two (2) Significant Strengths. The first Significant Strength was for proposing work to be done by the prime small business and first-tier small business subcontractor which ensures the RFP small business goal would be exceeded. The second Significant Strength was for SLI’s approach which ensures high-technology work would be performed by a small business and included a robust subcontracting approach. These findings resulted in an adjectival rating of “Excellent” for this subfactor.

In Past Performance, the SEB evaluated Team SLI’s proposal, any past performance information provided with Team SLI’s FPR, and any additional CPARs data submitted since the SEB’s initial review. The six (6) provided contracts (four (4) for SLI and two (2) for WCFSI) were found to all be Recent and Relevant. Team SLI’s overall performance was determined to be Excellent.

In assigning a Past Performance confidence rating, the SEB determined Team SLI’s relevant Past Performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on Team SLI’s performance record, there is a Very High Level of Confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

In Cost/Price, after evaluating SLI’s FPR, the SEB reviewed SLI’s $244.81 million proposal and made probable cost adjustments in accordance with the TEST3 RFP and the information submitted in the FPR. NASA’s probable cost adjustment increased SLI’s overall cost by $2.11 million to an adjusted cost of $246.92 million.

Jacobs

The following is an overview of the SEB’s final evaluation of Jacobs’ FPR:

Offeror Mission Suitability

Past Perf Confidence

Rating Total Contract

Cost/ Price

Score (1000 pts) MA

Mgmt Approach

TA

Tech

Approach

IE

Innovations & Efficiencies

SBU

Small

Business Utilization

Jacobs 794 Good

Very Good

Good

Excellent 100 Very High

In Mission Suitability, Management Approach (Subfactor MA), after evaluating Jacobs’ FPR, the SEB found four (4) Strengths and one (1) Weakness. The Strengths included a thorough approach to the organizational structure and key personnel; applicable initiatives related to safety and health behaviors; actionable methods for developing and maintaining a highly skilled workforce; and a strong approach to TEST3 phase-in. The Weakness was for a lack of compliance related to wage determination labor rates in two (2) TEST3 SLCs. These findings resulted in an adjectival rating of “Good” for this subfactor.

In Mission Suitability, Technical Approach (Subfactor TA), after evaluating Jacobs’ FPR, the SEB found one (1) Significant Strength and two (2) Strengths. The Significant Strength was for detailed project planning, thorough application of requirements for project execution, and risk reduction identification. The first Strength was for the TA2 sample task order approach to test stand mechanical and electrical system analysis and design approach. The second Strength was for the TA3 sample task order approach to test system design and test media environmental considerations and hazards. There were no findings associated with the Firm-Fixed-Price Task Order TA1. These findings resulted in an adjectival rating of “Very Good” for this subfactor.

In Mission Suitability, Innovations and Efficiencies (Subfactor IE), after evaluating Jacobs’ FPR, the SEB found two (2) Strengths. The first Strength was for a project lead talent pipeline and a project management certification program in the human capital innovation approach. The second Strength was for improvements to WSTF’s maintenance and operations by introducing multiple technology options and committing subject matter experts for the RCM program of the Tier 1 assets. These findings resulted in an adjectival rating of “Good” for this subfactor.

In Mission Suitability, Small Business Utilization (Subfactor SBU), after evaluating Jacobs’ FPR, the SEB found two (2) Significant Strengths. The first Significant Strength was for Jacobs’ proposed small business and subcategory goals which exceeded the RFP small business requirements. The second Significant Strength was for Jacobs’ small business plan which proposed high-technology work be performed by small businesses with a robust subcontracting approach, including a dynamic support process. These findings resulted in an adjectival rating of “Excellent” for this subfactor.

In Past Performance, the SEB evaluated Jacobs Team’s proposal, any past performance information provided with FPR, and any additional CPARs data submitted since the SEB’s initial review. The five (5) provided contracts and the one (1) contract added by the TEST3 SEB for Jacobs Team were found to all be Recent. Five (5) contracts were determined to be Somewhat Relevant to Very Relevant. The one (1) remaining contract (OMIMS) was determined to be Neutral, since no documentation could be found to provide an evaluation of Past Performance.

Jacobs Team’s overall performance was determined to be Excellent.

In assigning a confidence rating, the SEB evaluated all of Jacobs Team’s relevant Past Performance efforts. After evaluating Jacobs Team’s Past Performance, the SEB determined Jacobs Team’s relevant Past Performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on Jacobs Team’s performance record, there is a Very High Level of Confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

In Cost/Price, after evaluating Jacobs’ FPR, the SEB reviewed Jacobs’ million proposal and made probable cost adjustments in accordance with the TEST3 RFP and the information submitted in the FPR. NASA’s probable cost adjustment increased Jacobs’ overall cost by million to an adjusted cost of million.

SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY ASSESSMENT

MISSION SUITABILTY

In examining the SEB’s findings and the relative rankings of the Offerors under the Mission Suitability factor, I made a qualitative value assessment of the benefits to the Government arising from the Significant Strengths and Strengths, as well as the risks to successful contract performance represented by any Weaknesses or Significant Weaknesses.

Management Approach Subfactor

My comparison of each Offerors’ proposals began with the Management Approach subfactor. As a framework for my deliberations, I initially noted that from a quantitative standpoint, the SEB assessed SLI as “Very Good” and Jacobs as “Good.”

Significant Strengths and Strengths

In understanding the qualitative value of the proposals under this subfactor, I examined each Offeror’s Significant Strengths: SLI received one (1) Significant Strength and Jacobs received no Significant Strengths. I also noted the Strengths where the SEB assigned two (2) Strengths to SLI and four (4) Strengths to Jacobs.

SLI received a Significant Strength for its proposed approach to MA4, Staffing and Critical Skills Plan, while Jacobs received a Strength. I wanted to ensure my understanding of the substantive differences that had resulted in the Offerors receiving different ratings in this area.

The SEB explained that, while both Offerors provided reasonable programs for recruiting, hiring, developing and retaining critical skills, SLI’s approach provided a better-defined program with more explicit details. Specifically, SLI proposed a comprehensive staffing process that would exceed the requirements in DRD-TEST3-CM-07 by allowing SLI to predict where gaps might occur and quickly ensuring the filling of critical positions to minimize schedule and operational risks. Additionally, SLI’s detailed approach for motivating unionized employees would increase productivity across the workforce. An expansive awards and bonus program keenly focused on WSTF’s core values and acknowledged the significance of recognizing the achievements of a highly skilled workforce performing high-technology tasks. I agreed with the SEB that SLI’s overall approach to critical skills demonstrated a thorough understanding of the importance of a highly-skilled workforce while also providing a highly-viable approach to ensuring the availability of necessary staffing resources. I agreed with the SEB’s assessment of SLI’s MA4 as a Significant Strength.

In comparison, Jacobs was assigned a Strength for its proposed approach to MA4. The SEB found that Jacobs demonstrated an understanding of critical skills and an effective staffing process, but that Jacobs' proposal lacked some level of detail in how the plan would be executed.

The SEB cited positive elements in the proposal, such as an approach supporting employee engagement throughout an individual’s career which would positively impact the retention of existing personnel while also developing new employees. Additionally, Jacobs' planned bonus structure for specific critical skills would reduce the risk to critical missions due to the loss of those employees. I agreed with the SEB’s assessment of Jacobs' proposed approach as a Strength. I noted that Jacobs' proposal provided value and offered a solid approach to critical skills, but I found greater value in SLI’s Significant Strength due to the level of detail provided that significantly increased my confidence that critical skills at WSTF would be effectively recruited, hired, developed and retained. I agreed that SLI’s overall approach would greatly enhance the likelihood of mission success and was properly assigned a Significant Strength.

I next noted that Jacobs received a Strength for its specific safety initiatives, recognition of Federal and Center policies, and encouragement of positive safety behavior under MA2, Safety and Health Approach. Beyond simply recognizing the minimum safety standards, Jacobs provided other initiatives, such as a corporate program to promote safe practices in the workplace, as well as at home. Additionally, Jacobs proposed a method for implementing a non-reprisal safety culture that would encourage employees to report hazards, close calls and mishaps which increases the likelihood that potential hazards will be identified prior to an incident occurring. I found Jacobs' overall approach to MA2 to be of solid value to the Government and agreed with the SEB’s assessment of this Strength.

Finally, I noted that SLI and Jacobs each received a Strength under MA1, Contract Management Approach. I reviewed the SEB’s findings and concluded that each MA1 proposal offered equal qualitative value to the Government and, thus, the Contract Management Approaches were not a discriminator in my decision. I also noted that each Offeror received a Strength for its Phase-In Plan under MA5 and concluded that each Offeror’s plan provided equal qualitative value to the Government and, thus, the Phase-In Plans were not a discriminator in my decision.

Significant Weaknesses and Weaknesses

To further understand the qualitative aspects of each proposal under this subfactor, I next examined any Significant Weaknesses or Weaknesses. Neither Offeror was assigned a Significant Weakness under this subfactor; however, the SEB assigned two (2) Weaknesses to SLI and one (1) Weakness to Jacobs.

Given SLI’s Significant Strength in MA4 relating to the recruitment and retention of employees, I asked the SEB to provide more insight into how that compared to their assignment of a Weakness to SLI in MA3, Total Compensation Plan (TCP). The SEB explained they evaluated each subfactor element under MA within the confines of that subfactor element, per Section M.4.1 of the RFP. The SEB’s adherence to the RFP meant their evaluation of one MA subfactor element did not influence the rating under a separate MA subfactor element; therefore, MA3 and MA4 were evaluated independently of one another. I noted that both Offerors received a Weakness under MA3 and encouraged more discussion on this topic. The SEB found that the Jacobs’ FPR proposed rates were below those required by the Service Contract Act (SCA) for two (2) covered positions. This oversight, while relatively minor, did relate to labor rates which are a contract requirement and the error resulted in an increased risk of noncompliance with a Federal regulation. SLI’s FPR contained an approach to compensation for 9 out of 40 SLCs that focused on hiring replacement personnel with minimal qualifications, which could risk the long-term capabilities of the workforce. SLI’s approach would rely on voluntary employee turnover in those 9 SLCs to allow for significantly lower escalation rates for employee direct labor costs.

Although the concern was raised with SLI during discussions, the FPR reflected little change on the approach. The SEB determined this remained a Weakness due to the lingering concern related to whether those positions would be adequately compensated and, therefore, maintained.

While the SEB found this to be a flaw that drove them to assign a Weakness to SLI’s proposal, I found the concern was tempered by SLI’s available flexibilities in the overall management of its personnel which offset these compensation concerns. Also, I noted that the concern could easily be mitigated through various contract administration tools. The definition of Weakness “is a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance” and, after hearing from the SEB and other advisors on both proposals, agreed that each Offeror’s proposal contained a flaw and should be assigned a Weakness for MA3.

I then noted SLI also received a Weakness for MA2, Safety and Health Approach. Since the protection of NASA personnel and missions is important to me, I asked the SEB to help me better understand the potential risks related to SLI’s approach to safety and health. The main concerns cited by the SEB included: an OSHA-compliant process safety plan that fell short of specific application to TEST3 operations; a lack of details regarding the review and approval of hazardous operations procedures beyond the test and readiness review process; and mishap investigation team membership that did not align with JPR 1700.1. Overall, the FPR only provided a general discussion of process safety and hazardous operations and lacked a level of detail to fully understand how those activities would be applied to TEST3. I asked other individuals at the meeting to weigh in; in particular, I wanted to hear from the Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) representative. The S&MA representative validated the concerns raised by the SEB but assured me that such issues are commonplace for new, onsite contractors and usually pose little risk to the Government since compliance with all requirements would be mandatory prior to initiating any onsite work. Following my interaction with the SEB and other individuals, I felt comfortable that the safety and health of NASA personnel and missions would be protected, but the flaws in SLI’s MA2 proposal still warranted a Weakness.

Conclusions Under the Management Approach Subfactor

After reviewing the assessments of each proposal under the Management Approach subfactor and taking into account the qualitative value found in the Significant Strength and Strengths, as well as the risks presented in the Weaknesses, I reached the same conclusion as the SEB regarding the relative merit of the proposals under the Management Approach subfactor, for the reasons stated above. Per the definitions articulated in NFS 1815.305(a)(3), I agree with the adjectival rating of “Very Good” for SLI and “Good” for Jacobs. Both SLI and Jacobs' proposals were reasonable and complete and demonstrated the Offerors’ understanding of the necessary TEST3 management activities. The SEB assessed SLI a higher point score than Jacobs and I agree with that assessment. Specifically, and more importantly, I find greater qualitative value in SLI’s Management Approach over that of Jacobs. When reviewing SLI’s Significant Strength under MA4, I recognize SLI’s thorough explanation went beyond providing the minimum or simply meeting requirements. The higher level of detail in SLI’s planned approach greatly increases my confidence that SLI has a comprehensive understanding of contract management and is fully capable of achieving success on TEST3. On the other hand, Jacobs submitted a solid contract management plan, but the level of detail left the SEB unclear on the full breadth of Jacobs' plans for contract management, resulting in a finding that did not rise to the level of a Significant Strength for that subfactor element. While factoring in SLI’s assigned Weakness related to salary and benefits, I believe SLI’s approach to critical skills greatly outweighs those concerns. Namely, the breadth of the program described in SLI’s approach to MA4 and the level of detail clearly depicts a strong system for recruiting, developing and retaining personnel. For instance, I find great value in SLI’s multi-faceted, well-defined plan that successfully describes each phase in SLI’s development of employees from the time an individual is hired through mentoring and the identification of growth opportunities. SLI’s proposal paints a clear picture of the Offeror’s understanding of how it plans to successfully recruit, develop, and retain personnel.

In contrast, the Weakness in MA3 is much more limited in scope and pertains mostly to pay and benefits without factoring in the other advantages offered by SLI’s contract management plan which would be attractive to existing as well as potential employees. In my opinion, these considerations, in addition to the assigned Significant Strength, warrant the higher score for SLI under this subfactor and provide greater qualitative merit to the Government.

Technical Approach Subfactor

Next, I compared the two Offerors’ proposals in the Technical Approach (TA) subfactor. As a framework for my deliberations, I initially noted that from a quantitative standpoint, the SEB assessed SLI as “Excellent” and Jacobs as “Very Good.

Significant Strengths and Strengths

To better understand the qualitative value of each proposal under this subfactor, I first examined each Offerors’ Significant Strengths. SLI received two (2) Significant Strengths and Jacobs received one (1) Significant Strength. Then I turned my attention to the Offerors’ respective Strengths. I noted that the SEB assessed two (2) Strengths to Jacobs and one (1) Strength to SLI.

Both Offerors were assigned Significant Strengths under TA2, NASA Human Landing System (HLS) Commercial Lunar Descent Stage – Vacuum Hot Fire Test (22JDLLDM). Additionally, Jacobs also received a Strength for TA2. Since the substance of SLI’s TA2 Significant Strength correlated to Jacobs' TA2 Strength, I examined those two findings and encouraged discussion by the SEB on the differences they found. The SEB explained that SLI presented a thorough and highly-detailed approach to test stand mechanical analysis and design whereas the breadth of Jacobs' approach was more limited and provided fewer details. Both Offerors properly addressed a mismatch between the current diffuser and the exhaust plume from the test article.

Additionally, they each demonstrated an understanding of the risk related to personnel working at height and recommended proper practices for protecting personnel.

SLI’s proposed test stand modification addressed multiple design facets for accommodating the test article, dampening impacts to the stand vacuum due to test article firing and decreasing vacuum leakage. SLI’s proposal demonstrated an in-depth understanding of the difficulties associated with measuring thrust for a test article that includes propellants, which increases the complexity of these measurements. SLI’s thrust structure design would allow for the collection of data to calculate the test article thrust and addressed the rotational induced forces and vibrations, allowing for more accurate test results. Furthermore, SLI provided a narrative discussion of its analysis of several options related to critical altitude system performance characteristics with a final selection that would not only meet test requirements, but would reduce test stand and test article contamination risk due to blowback and reduce down-time between test runs by decreasing altitude recovery. I agreed with the SEB that SLI’s overall approach to TA2 greatly increases confidence that SLI has the requisite technical expertise to address the breadth of challenges related to test stand operations.

Jacobs offered a solid approach to mechanical and electrical design under TA2, although I agreed with the SEB that the level of detail was lacking. Jacobs proposed a method for addressing the weight-bearing limitations of the current diffuser and turning elbow and also provided options and modifications for decreasing vacuum leakage. In general, Jacobs identified work requirements within the current test stand and facility capabilities and provided major work steps to prepare for tests. I agreed Jacobs had demonstrated a strong technical understanding that would reduce the risk of poor test capability execution, but that Jacobs' approach did not rise to the level of a Significant Strength due to the lack of detail provided.

In addition to the Strength discussed above, Jacobs also received a Significant Strength for TA2 with regards to project planning and risk reduction. The SEB explained that each Offeror’s approach to project planning was analyzed separately from the previously discussed TA2 approach which examined each Offeror’s specific technical knowledge related to test stand analysis and design. In support of the Significant Strength, Jacobs' detailed set of assumptions for the sample task order demonstrated an understanding of the factors that can impact the complexity of a hot fire test. Specifically, Jacobs provided an accurate application of required job numbers to the work breakdown, the impact of test article requirements on test stand configuration, a correct assessment of NASA requirements and impacts to test article operations, and a comprehensive understanding of test system capabilities, including a detailed description of the altitude system operation and limitations, which is critical to accurately planning a large scale vacuum test. The proposed approach provided a clear set of requirements early in the schedule which would allow adequate time for a test customer to avoid costly changes later in the test cycle. Overall, Jacobs' approach to risk reduction in project planning under TA2 was well-planned and detailed which would decrease the risk to the Government of missed requirements, personnel mischarges, lost funding traceability, insufficient funding, and schedule impacts. I agreed that Jacobs’ overall approach would greatly enhance the likelihood of mission success and was properly assigned a Significant Strength.

I then examined the SEB’s findings for TA3, Mars Ascent Vehicle Flow Control Valve Test Support (21JFMFCV). I noted that SLI received a Significant Strength for its approach to the sample task order while Jacobs was assigned a Strength. I again invited the SEB to provide additional detail on their analysis of each proposal. SLI proposed a forward-thinking approach during the test system build-up phase that would significantly decrease schedule and cost risk in the face of any delays. Furthermore, the proposal included a notable test system design discussion that recognized how propellants and testing conditions could potentially be impacted by the high temperatures at WSTF. SLI also presented a creative approach to building portions of the test system which would facilitate build-up and final test system integration, as well as, posttest system teardown and storage. With regards to project planning, SLI’s proposal included notable approaches and solutions, such as the identification of long-lead procurements of specialty equipment; a trade analysis offering a productive solution for reducing schedule and cost risks; a discussion of the risks related to an aggressive test schedule and risk mitigation strategies for minimizing schedule and cost delays; a safety hazards training class related to unique oxidizers and propellants; and a recognition of the challenges associated with software development, especially in the field of safety critical software. I agreed that SLI’s overall approach would greatly enhance the likelihood of mission success and was properly assigned a Significant Strength.

Jacobs also offered a complete and reasonable approach to the TA3 sample task order, although I agreed that it lacked a level of detail. Jacobs’ TA3 proposal provided a well-thought out approach to a nitrous oxide test system, including an evaluation of the safety hazards associated with two potential test configurations. Jacobs also described a test system layout for the protection of personnel, facilities, and test articles and included a discussion of the up-front environmental coordination tasks. Additionally, Jacobs’ well thought out test approach would reduce the conditioning time and lower the potential energy release during qualification test runs.

Overall, Jacobs’ TA3 proposal was reasonable, complete and demonstrated an understanding of the sample task order, but I agreed with the SEB that the lack of detail limited the finding to a Strength.

Finally, I noted that SLI had been assigned a Strength for TA1, Base Work Task Order (21JABASE). Specifically, the SEB found notable SLI’s proposed approach which included an integrated business system capable of providing useful data at the fidelity required by the Base Work task order, using the data elements provided in the RFP. SLI’s business system would link task order management, timekeeping, project and contract accounting, purchasing, contract required and customized reporting, and the risk register system. The system would assist NASA in meeting financial funds accountability and reporting obligations, as well as enabling project managers to successfully manage projects. SLI’s approach also included an oversight office responsible for assisting project leads and supporting new project leads in developmental stretch assignments, reducing the risk of poor project performance while also developing new project leaders. In contrast, the SEB explained that Jacobs’ proposal met RFP requirements, but did not result in any specific strengths. I found SLI’s overall approach to TA1 to be of solid value to the Government and agreed with the SEB’s assessment of this Strength.

Significant Weaknesses and Weaknesses

Neither of the Offerors received a Significant Weakness or Weakness for their Technical Approach.

Conclusions Under the Technical Approach Subfactor

I reviewed the assessments of both proposals for the Technical Approach subfactor and considered the qualitative value in the assigned Significant Strengths and Strengths. Per the definitions articulated in NFS 1815.305(a)(3), I agreed with the adjectival rating of “Excellent” for SLI and “Very Good” for Jacobs. Both SLI and Jacobs' proposals were reasonable and complete and demonstrated the Offerors’ abilities to manage a robust test program at WSTF. The SEB assessed SLI a higher point score than Jacobs and I agree with that assessment. Specifically, and more importantly, I find greater qualitative value in SLI’s Technical Approach over that of

Jacobs. When reviewing both of SLI’s Significant Strengths under this subfactor, SLI’s proposal clearly demonstrates a fully-developed understanding of test stand operations and exhibits a high level of knowledge and reasonableness. I also find value in SLI’s Strength related to its business systems, since such a system serves as the underpinning of the overall contract and test program, as well as being critical for managing multiple customers and ensuring the traceability of funding and costing on Task Orders. Jacobs demonstrated an in-depth understanding of project planning related to TA3 and a solid approach to test stand design elements under both TA2 and TA3;

however, the lack of detail does not provide me with the same level of assurance I find in SLI’s proposal for similar task. I also note the lack of any finding for Jacobs’ TA1 proposal which, while not a Weakness, also did not provide reassurance regarding Jacobs’ approach to managing the Base Work under TEST3. Based on this rationale and on the totality of both proposals under this subfactor, I determined that the Significant Strengths, in addition to the assigned Strength, warrant the higher score for SLI under this subfactor and provide greater qualitative merit to the Government.

Innovations & Efficiencies Subfactor

As a framework for my comparison of each Offeror under this subfactor, I noted that from a quantitative standpoint, the SEB assigned each Offeror a “Good” rating.

Significant Strengths and Strengths

In understanding the qualitative value of the proposals under this subfactor, I noted that neither Offeror received a Significant Strength while Jacobs received two (2) Strengths and SLI received one (1) Strength.

First, I noted that SLI and Jacobs each received a Strength under IE1, Human Capital. I reviewed the SEB’s findings and concluded that each IE1 proposal offered equal qualitative value to the Government and, thus, the proposed innovations and efficiencies related to human capital were not a discriminator.

Jacobs also received a Strength under IE2, Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), for a well-researched, practical, and actionable approach applying multiple technology options, as well as committing a group of subject matter experts to the RCM program of Tier1 assets. Additionally, Jacobs provided a detailed basis of estimate for each technique and technology proposed which would allow the Government to budget and seek the necessary funding for any investments. In contrast, the SEB explained that SLI’s proposal met the requirements but did not result in any specific strength. Overall, I agreed that Jacobs' solid approach to RCM innovations and efficiencies warranted a Strength.

Significant Weaknesses and Weaknesses

Neither of the Offerors received a Significant Weakness or Weakness under the Innovations & Efficiencies subfactor.

Conclusion for Innovations & Efficiencies Subfactor

After reviewing the SEB’s results and the underlying findings in support of those results, I agree with the SEB’s assessment of these Strengths and find both IE proposals to be of value. Jacobs held a slight advantage in this area due to its innovations and efficiencies related to RCM;

however, the additional qualitative merit is minor. I, therefore, determined that this subfactor was not a discriminator in my decision.

Small Business Utilization Approach Subfactor

As a framework for my comparison of each Offeror under this subfactor, I noted that from a quantitative standpoint SLI and Jacobs were each rated as “Excellent” and received identical numerical scores.

Significant Strengths and Strengths

Under this subfactor, the SEB assigned two (2) Significant Strengths to each Offeror.

SLI and Jacobs received similar Significant Strengths for their respective plans to exceed all categories of the recommended Small Business Utilization (SBU) goals in the RFP. The distinction I noted between the Offerors was that SLI’s plan relied on itself as a small business, as well as the status of its subcontractor, WCFSI. In contrast, Jacobs relied on a large team of small business teammates. The SEB explained that each Offeror ultimately provided a solid approach to successfully meeting and exceeding small business goals, albeit via different methods. Following my discussion with the SEB, I agreed with the assigned Significant Strengths.

I next noted the Significant Strengths assigned to each Offeror for their identification and allocation of highly-technical work for small businesses. Although the Offerors used different methods for achieving SBU goals, both Offerors demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting and developing small businesses. I found value in both approaches, since they each would greatly enhance WSTF’s ability to successfully meet agency small business goals.

Therefore, I agreed with the assigned Significant Strengths.

I found value to the Government in both SBU plans and determined they were essentially of equal value as both approaches were realistic and proposed to exceed the SBU goals while also committing high-technology work to small businesses. Since I viewed these as essentially the same, they were not discriminators in my decision.

Conclusion for Small Business Utilization Approach

I agree with the SEB’s findings under this subfactor and conclude that, from a qualitative value standpoint, SLI and Jacobs are properly rated as “Excellent”.

After reviewing the SEB’s results and the underlying findings in support of those results, I determined that this subfactor was not a discriminator in my decision.

PAST PERFORMANCE

Under the Past Performance factor, based on recent, relevant experience and performance, the SEB assigned both Offerors a Very High Level of Confidence. I examined the SEB’s Past Performance findings in detail, focusing on recency, relevancy, and performance. I asked the SEB specific questions to determine whether I agreed with the SEB’s Past Performance assessments. After my assessment of the full breadth of the Past Performance data and inquiries to the SEB, I agreed with the SEB’s assessment of the overall Very High Level of Confidence ratings for both SLI and Jacobs.

The SEB evaluated four (4) contracts for SLI and two (2) contracts for its subcontractor, WCFSI.

Of the six (6) evaluated contracts, the SEB assessed all six as Recent and Relevant. Additionally, the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting, and safety performance were evaluated for each contract. The overall merit was assessed as generally Excellent on every contract rated. Of particular note to me was SLI’s demonstration of a broad range of experience as a Prime contractor in activities highly pertinent to the TEST3 RFP.

The SEB evaluated five (5) contracts for Jacobs and one (1) for , its major subcontractor. Of the six (6) evaluated contracts, the SEB assessed all six as Recent. Two of the contracts evaluated were rated as Very Relevant; two as Relevant; and two as Somewhat Relevant.

Additionally, the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting, and safety performance were evaluated for each contract. The overall merit was assessed as generally Excellent on every contract rated. I particularly found value in Jacobs’ highly pertinent experience as the incumbent on the TEST2 contract.

I found it particularly noteworthy that both Offerors possessed experience in the core capability areas identified in Section 3, Test & Evaluation Services, of the PWS and that each had managed relevant contracts as the Prime contractor. I also valued that each Offeror had significant experience in the areas of project and contract management, as discussed in Sections 1 and 2 of the PWS. I considered these aspects of the Offerors’ past performance to be strong indicators of each Offeror’s ability to successfully manage the TEST3 effort. Since the core capabilities areas of the PWS are critical to testing activities at WSTF, I wanted to ensure the TEST3 contractor had the requisite experience with these types of tasks. As the incumbent on both TEST and TEST2, Jacobs demonstrated a solid foundation of direct experience with the core capabilities as they apply at WSTF. Team SLI demonstrated strong experience in the core capabilities areas and, although not specific to WSTF, still showed Team SLI’s ability to successfully manage and conduct the type of testing performed at WSTF.

Additionally, each Offeror was consistently rated as generally either Very Good or Excellent, indicating that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient and economical manner for the most part which, in…