JETS II Source Selection Statement_Redacted.pdf

Source Selection Statement for the JSC Engineering, Technology, and Science II Contract National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Solicitation Number

80JSC022R0003)

On November 29, 2021, the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) was appointed to evaluate proposals for the JSC Engineering, Technology, and Science (JETS) II Contract, under Solicitation Number 80JSC022R0003. On May 3, 2022, the SEB presented its evaluation to me as the Source Selection Authority (SSA), and other senior officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). I considered the information presented, requested and received the opinions of the present, accepted the findings of the SEB, and concluded the meeting with my selection decision.

Procurement Requirements

The purpose of the JETS II contract is to acquire engineering and scientific products and technical services and related services for the JSC Engineering (EA) and Exploration Integration and Science Directorates (XA). The contractor shall provide engineering design, development, sustaining engineering, analysis, assessment, technology development, test services, and laboratory/facility operation and maintenance for the JSC Engineering Directorate (EA); and planetary missions research, physical science research, astromaterial curation, and laboratory/facility operation and maintenance for the JSC Exploration Integration and Science Directorate (XA) as well as engineering and related services for JSC, other NASA centers and Government Agencies. The JETS II contract will support the following activities: the International Space Station (ISS), Gateway, Orion, and other Programs, projects and mission directives.

The JETS II contract will be the successor to the current JSC Engineering, Technology, and Science (JETS) contact NNJ13HA01C. The current JETS contract is a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF), Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) single award contract. It expires on September 30, 2022. initial period of performance began on May 1, 2013 and ran through April 30, 2022. The contract has been extended through September 30, 2022, for a total potential contract value of $1,934,700,000.

JETS II is anticipated to be a single-award Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract, with cost reimbursable and fixed-price (FFP) task orders with a phase-in period of 60 days, for a total of 10 years (excluding phase-in). The cost reimbursable components of JETS II will be Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF), with the option to convert to Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee

(CPFF).

Period of Performance: October 1, 2022 to September 30, 2032

Phase-in: August 1, 2022 September 30, 2022 Base: October 1, 2022 September 30, 2027

Option 1: October 1, 2027 September 30, 2029 Option 2: October 1, 2029 September 30, 2031 Option 3: October 1, 2031 September 30, 2032

Chronology

Sources Sought Synopsis (SSS)/Request for Information (RFI)

On November 18, 2020, NASA issued an RFI 80JSC021JETSII to solicit comments from industry regarding acquisition strategies and request capability statements from all interested parties. Additionally, NASA also requested information from industry regarding potential organizational conflicts of interest (OCI). On March 16, 2021, NASA issued Modification 2 to RFI 80JSC021JETSII to request additional information from industry regarding how to incentivize a potential JETS II prime contractor to introduce new suppliers and subcontractors to NASA through the JETS II contract.

Industry Day

On May 10, 2021, NASA held a virtual Industry Day (via Microsoft Teams) and conducted virtual One-on-One meetings with Industry on May 10-12, 2021. On June 18 July 8, 2021 NASA held virtual Question and Answer sessions with each of the EA and XA divisions pertinent to the JETS II acquisition. On August 19, 2021, NASA issued Modification 9 to RFI 80JSC021JETSII, which provided official responses to questions received during the JETS II Industry Day and also provided virtual tour information.

Draft RFP and Draft RFP Q&A Session

On October 7, 2021, NASA posted Modification 11 to the RFI 80JSC021JETS II which provided the Draft RFP and information for a virtual Draft RFP Questions and Answers Session, which was held on October 13, 2021.

Pre-solicitation Synopsis

On October 29, 2021, NASA posted pre-solicitation notice 80JSC021R0003.

RFP

On November 15, 2021, NASA released the JETS II RFP 80JSC022R0003 and the JETS II RFP responses were due on December 15, 2021, at 4:00 p.m. Central Time. On December 6, 2021, JETS II RFP Amendment 3 was issued to extend the receipt of proposal due date to December 21, 2021 in response to provide additional time to complete proposals.

Pre-Proposal Pricing Conference

On November 23, 2021, NASA held a Microsoft Teams Virtual Pre-Proposal Pricing Conference to discuss the SEB pricing process, the Government Resource Estimate (GRE), Specified Resources, templates, common cost/price volume errors, and to highlight the requirements in the RFP and SOW requirements.

RFP Questions and Answers

On December 10, 2021, NASA posted Modification 5/Amendment 4 to synopsis/solicitation 80JSC022R0003 which provided JETS II RFP Questions and Answers and a change matrix detailing the changes made to the RFP in Amendment 4.

Receipt of Proposals

As of the deadline of December 21, 2021, the following Offerors submitted proposals in response to the JETS II RFP 80JSC022R0003 and the SEB determined the order of evaluation in accordance with the evaluation plan. The order in which the offerors were evaluated is shown below:

OFFEROR 1 - Jacobs

OFFEROR 2 - SAIC

OFFEROR 3 - Joint Range Solutions, LLC (JRS) doing business as National Engineering & Test Solutions (NETS)

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 Supplement (NFS) 1815.305-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.

Evaluation Process and Criteria

The proposals were evaluated in strict accordance with the FAR Part 15, NFS Part 1815, and the JETS II 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. RFP Section M.2 states, in part As provided for in FAR 52.215-without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)).

price and mission suitability standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

This source evaluation was conducted utilizing a combination of Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price evaluation factors. Of the three evaluation factors, the Mission Suitability factor and the Past Performance factor when combined are significantly more important than the Cost or Price factor. As individual factors, Past Performance is equal to Mission Suitability, which is more important than Cost/Price.

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

MISSION SUITABILITY (FACTOR 1)

SUB-FACTOR POINTS

1. Management Approach (MA) 600

2. Technical Approach (TA) 300

3. Small Business Utilization (SBU) 100

TOTAL 1000

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. Contract Management Plan and

Approach, as identified in M.4.1, for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonability, feasibility, and completeness and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government (Subfactor MA1).

b. , as identified in M.4.1, for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonability, feasibility, and completeness and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government as

c. , as identified in M.4.1, for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonability, feasibility, and completeness and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government

MA3).

d. The Government eval , as identified in M.4.1, for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonability, feasibility, and completeness and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government as proach (Subfactor MA4).

e. -in Plan, as identified in M.4.1, for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonability, feasibility, and completeness and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government as provided in the

3. Technical Approach a.

requirements (with supporting rationale) specific to Efficiencies, Innovations, and Technology Infusion, as identified in M.4.2, for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonability, feasibility, and completeness and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government as provided Technical Approach (Subfactor TA1).

b. The Government evaluat requirements (with supporting rationale) specific to Development of Aerospace Economy, as identified in M.4.2, for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonability, feasibility, and completeness and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government (Subfactor TA2).

c.

requirements (with supporting rationale) specific to Approach to Project Management and Development, as identified in M.4.2, for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonability, feasibility, and completeness and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government Technical Approach (Subfactor TA3).

d.

requirements (with supporting rationale) specific to Approach to Telework and Remote Work, as identified in M.4.2, for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonability, feasibility, and completeness and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government (Subfactor TA4).

e.

requirements (with supporting rationale) specific to Approach to Manufacturing, as identified in M.4.2, for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonability, feasibility, and completeness and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government

4. Small Business Utilization

a. Small Business Subcontracting

(subfactor SBU1), as identified in M.4.3, for reasonableness and soundness of the subcontracting goals for this procurement. The Offeror's Small Business Subcontracting Plan was also evaluated in terms of meeting the requirements of FAR 19.704, Subcontracting Plan Requirements.

b.

Program (subfactor SBU2), as identified in M.4.3, to the extent to which any technology the extent of commitment of the use of its subcontractor(s) (enforceable vs. non-enforceable commitments). The Government also evaluated the potential risks or impacts to performance throughout the site when subcontracting out such efforts and the associated mitigations of those risks. The Government evaluated the extent to which the identity and involvement of the small business subcontractor is specified in the proposal as well as the extent of the commitment to use small businesses and to support their development.

PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 2)

The Government evaluated past performance information as required by provisions of Section L.23 of the JETS II RFP.

COST AND PRICE FACTOR (FACTOR 3)

The Government evaluated the proposed costs/price including IDIQ cost and FFP Phase-in cost for validity, realism, and adequacy of each cost proposal and the probable cost that will be incurred in the performance of this effort. The evaluation of cost included an assessment of the cost of doing business with each Offeror, predicted growth in proposed cost during the performance of th proposed effort to cost more or less than that, which was proposed by the Offeror. To ensure that the final agreed-upon prices are fair and reasonable, the Government performed these analyses in accordance with FAR 15.305 Proposal Evaluation, FAR 15.404 Proposal Analysis, and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305 Proposal Evaluation.

Evaluation of Proposals

The SEB evaluated that was determined to be acceptable in response to the JETS II solicitation. The results of the evaluation were presented to me on May 3, 2022 and the highlights are summarized below:

Jacobs

Mission Suitability (Factor 1)

Jacobs received a total Mission Suitability score of 931 out of 1,000 points after a quantitative and qualitative review of their proposal. Jacobs received an Excellent rating for Management Approach (two significant strengths, five strengths, and one weakness), an Excellent rating for

Technical Approach (two significant strengths and one strength), and a Very Good rating for Small Business Utilization (one significant strength and one strength). The two significant strengths in the Management Approach highlight their strategies for workforce planning and their safety and health plan. The significant strengths in this area will greatly enhance contract performance by ensuring the availability of a workforce with critical skills, thereby enabling uninterrupted operations, continuity of services and a proactive safety and health program which will significantly reduce the risk to the Government of injury, illness, and property damage. In Technical Approach, the two significant strengths received in this area demonstrate an understanding of the technical requirements of the contract through their Technology, Innovations, and Process Improvements (TIPI) plan and project management approach. These significant strengths will greatly enhance the performance of the JETS II requirements by efficiently and effectively incorporating new technology, innovations and improvements across the contract that will significantly enhance contract performance as well as improve the quality and quantity of qualified project managers. This will greatly strengthen the overall project management capability to allow contract performance with significantly lower risk, and

For Small Business Utilization, the significant strength in this area demonstrates a reasonable and sound approach to maintain a strong commitment to small business that includes providing high technology work to small businesses across various areas of the contract. Jacobs detailed small business plan greatly decreases the risk of not meeting

Past Performance (Factor 2)

The SEB evaluated the four past performance narratives, key personnel resumes, references in the Award Fee Evaluation System (AFES) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Past Performance Questionnaires, safety assessment, and phone interviews in developing a Confidence Rating in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A). In determining a the Excellent category on its two very relevant, one relevant and two somewhat relevant past performance efforts. The SEB specifically noted that the submitted JETS reference is for the predecessor contract, which is the same content, size and complexity of effort as JETS II. Also, all of Jacobs relevant contracts received excellent performance ratings. The SEB considered the performance of essentially the same content, size, and complexity as the proposed efforts on JETS II and were all found to have Very Good to Excellent performance. The SEB determined acquisition; indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor, if any, performance record, there is a Very High Level of Confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Cost/Price (Factor 3)

Within the proposal, under the Cost/Price Factor, Jacobs proposed $2.91 billion. After price/cost and cost realism analyses were conducted, adjustments from the analyses accounted for an increase in the fringe cost for Health and Welfare under SOW 1.0 and SOW 2.0. The SEB determined Jacobs probable cost to be $2.92 billion. is lower than the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). Phase-In price was deemed to be fair and reasonable.

SAIC

Mission Suitability (Factor 1)

SAIC received a total Mission Suitability score of 754 out of 1,000 points after a quantitative and qualitative review of the proposal. SAIC received a Good rating for Management Approach (one significant strength, three strengths, one significant weakness, and two weaknesses), a Very Good rating for Technical Approach (one significant strength, two strengths, and two weaknesses), and a Very Good rating for Small Business Utilization (one significant strength, one strength, and one weakness). The significant strength in the Management Approach demonstrates a reasonable and feasible approach that greatly to transition to Digital Engineering (DE) techniques efficiently and effectively on a broad scale and significantly reduces risk to the Government of unsuccessful adoption of DE techniques. In Technical Approach, the significant strength in this area demonstrates an understanding of the JETS II technical requirements through their Technology, Innovations, and Process Improvements (TIPI) plan. This significant strength for the TIPI plan greatly enhances the performance of the JETS II requirements by efficiently and effectively incorporating new technology, innovations and improvements and decreases the risk of inefficient contract performance. For Small Business Utilization, the significant strength demonstrates a reasonable and sound approach to maintaining a commitment to their small business program by providing high technology work to their small business teaming partners across various areas of the contract. detailed small business plan greatly decreases the risk of not meeting goal of developing small business capabilities.

Past Performance (Factor 2)

The SEB evaluated the six past performance narratives, key personnel resumes, references in AFES and CPARS, Past Performance Questionnaires, safety assessment, and phone interviews in developing a Confidence Rating in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A). The six contracts were determined by the SEB to be somewhat relevant to very relevant; and overall, SAIC and its proposed subcontractors have performed in the Very Good to Excellent category on their six referenced contracts.

and noted that although it was very relevant with excellent performance, it is approximately half the size of the JETS II effort with essentially the same complexity and most of the scope of the JETS II effort, except for much of the science effort in the SOW that is approximately 15% of the total JETS II effort. The SEB noted that that covers the science effort reflected in SOW sections 2.5.2-2.5.7. The past performance on was rated as relevant with excellent performance; however, the science effort on JETS II is more than ten times larger than the work proposed to be performed by SETI (based on the -5 submission). Therefore, it was not as heavily weighted based on the size and scope of effort that is proposed to be performed by SETI on JETS II.

and all three proposed key personnel were found to have Excellent performance. The SEB noted that none of the key personnel had recent (within 5 years) past performance experience on contracts of essentially the same content, size and complexity as their proposed efforts on JETS II. Per RFP M.5.1, the SEB gave greater consideration to more recent past performance than less recent.

T but less relevant past performance experience, more heavily than less recent but more relevant past performance in the overall confidence assessment.

pertinent to this acquisition, demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements.

requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall contract performance.

Based on the Offer High Level of Confidence that SAIC will successfully perform the required effort.

Cost/Price (Factor 3)

Within the proposal, under the Cost/Price Factor, SAIC proposed $2.72 billion. After Price/cost and cost realism analyses were conducted, a probable cost adjustment was made for the use of NASA direct labor escalation rates and the SAIC baseline (with uncompensated overtime adjustment) labor category bid rates were deemed appropriate. The SEB determined probable cost to be $2.81 billion. The Phase-In price was deemed fair and reasonable.

NETS

Mission Suitability (Factor 1)

NETS received a total Mission Suitability score of 511 out of 1,000 points after a quantitative and qualitative review of the proposal. NETS received a Good rating for Management Approach (one strength and five weaknesses), a Good rating for the Technical Approach (two weaknesses), and a Poor rating for Small Business Utilization (one strength, one significant weakness, and one weakness). The strength in the Management Approach enhances contract performance by promoting early career engineer recruitment and retention by proposing increased salaries to be competitive with market rates in the Engineer I and II categories. This strength will reduce the risk of ineffective contract transition and execution. In the Technical Approach, the two weaknesses in this area demonstrate an incomplete understanding of the JETS II requirements.

These weaknesses highlight an increased risk to the programs that will impact contract performance due to the inadequate training and development of project managers and inappropriate categorization of employees as teleworking/remote that will be unable or inefficiently performing their job function/responsibilities. For Small Business Utilization, the strength in this area demonstrates a commitment to small business programs (SBP) by proposing that small businesses will on JETS II.

However, this strength was offset by a significant weakness in that the small business plan neither proposed to meet the recommended small business goals in the RFP nor did it provide adequate rationale as to why the goals could not be met. This represents a significant risk to the Government of not providing the maximum practicable opportunities for small business on the contract.

Past Performance (Factor 2)

The SEB evaluated the five past performance narratives, references in AFES and CPARS, Past Performance Questionnaires, safety assessment, and phone interviews in developing a Confidence Rating in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A). In determining a confidence rating, the SEB first considered the relevant contracts. The SEB noted NETS did not have relevant past performance as the existing NETS Joint Venture (JV), but did have two references Arnold Engineering Development Complex Test Operations & Sustainment (AEDC) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Maintenance & Operations (LLNL), both rated relevant, from populated JVs in which the managing partner of NETS, Bechtel National, Inc.

(BNI), also served as managing partner. In evaluating these contract references, the SEB noted that while most of the engineering disciplines and many of the science disciplines were covered by these two references, the scope of work was similar but not essentially the same as the JETS II effort. AEDC is focused on test and operations without development and build of spaceflight hardware; LLNL is focused on primarily non-aerospace research and science whereas JETS II is focused on human spaceflight and associated engineering, research and science. NETS did submit one reference (ETIS II) that was determined to be very relevant but was less heavily weighted in the overall confidence rating pursuant to the RFP because only 10 months of performance fell within the recency period (completed 9/30/2019); also, the ETIS II contract contained only a small portion of the overall JETS II effort (test and facilities operations & maintenance).

ratings on the relevant ML2 contract. However, the ML2 contract is a systems contract for the design and build of a large system, whereas JETS II is a support services contract. The ML2 contract is less complex than the JETS II effort based on supporting a single system/program versus managing multiple systems/support for multiple programs like JETS II. Additionally, ML2 is not developing spaceflight hardware, which is a primary function of JETS II. Based on these dissimilarities, ML2 was not as heavily weighted in the confidence assessment as the AEDC and LLNL contracts that are both engineering and science support services contracts similar to JETS II. NETS proposed two key personnel with recent and very relevant experience performance, in accordance with the RFP. The SEB determined that performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. NETS past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on performance record, there is a High Level of Confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Cost/Price (Factor 3)

Within the proposal, under the Cost/Price Factor, NETS proposed billion. After Price/cost and cost realism analyses were conducted, adjustments were made to account for the most recent technical library composite labor rates that were not incorporated into NETS proposal, which utilized the initial version of the rates. The SEB determined NETS billion, which was the lowest evaluated cost of the JETS II offerors.

lower than the IGCE. Based on the analyses performed, NETS phase-in price was deemed reasonable due to uncertainty with the proposed indirect rates.

Selection Decision

On May 3, 2022, I met with the SEB to review initial findings and engaged the SEB in a detailed discussion of the material reviewed and presented. I commended the SEB on their thorough evaluation of the three proposals. I requested and received the opinions of the senior present; asked for any comments or concerns with the material presented during the meeting. I then accepted the SEB and incorporate them by reference in my decision.

Prior to the meeting, I carefu findings describing the Mission Suitability findings, together with the analysis of past performance evaluations and cost/price analysis. I reviewed th the evaluations of all three of the proposals. I found that the evaluation and findings are in accordance with the RFP and its evaluation criteria. I recognize the fact that it is my responsibility to make an indepe uation results and to determine if I agree with the evaluation. I determined that the SEB performed a careful and thorough review in evaluating all three proposals. The SEB did an excellent job documenting their evaluation by identifying and explaining the rationale for the findings of the strengths and weaknesses, past performance evaluations, and cost/price analysis. The SEB provided detailed answers to the 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:

Jacobs

Under the Mission Suitability Factor, the SEB found 5 Significant Strengths, 7 Strengths, and 1 Weakness. Jacobs had no Significant Weaknesses under the Mission Suitability Factor. Cost adjustments were made to account for an increase in the fringe cost for Health and Welfare under SOW 1.0 and SOW 2.0 related to its Total Compensation Plan per Section M.6 of the RFP. I agreed with and hereby adopt the findings of the Board as my own. Of note was Jacobs Significant Strengths in the Management Approach Subfactor, the most heavily weighted of the Subfactors in Mission Suitability. The Significant Strengths demonstrated through their proposal an ability to recruit, retain employees with critical skills and ensuring a good safety and health plan. orce management that reflects an understanding of the contract workforce requirements that will efficiently recruit, develop and retain employees with critical skills that can be deployed to successfully meet contract requirements throughout the period of contract performance. The proposed Safety and Health Plan demonstrates a thorough understanding of safety and health through its proactive approach to its Program that will significantly reduce the risk to the Government of injury, illness, and property damage during execution of the contract requirements. I also note that there is value in the Strength of Jacobs proposed approach to process Task Orders will prevent schedule risk to the requirements. In considering the Weakness in s a Health and Welfare benefit lower than the required rate stated on the Wage Determination for non-exempt, non-union employees, the proposal clearly expressed their commitment for compliance with the Service Contract Labor Standards, any other applicable laws, regulations, statutes, and guidance and all wage determinations, which includes any applicable collective bargaining agreements. This indicates that Jacobs agrees to be bound by and comply with the Service Contract Act (SCA) requirements. Therefore, I find that not fully following the SCA fringe benefit requirement in this instance is an easily correctable oversight that does not undercut the strength of Jacobs proposal overall under the Management Approach Subfactor.

Utilization Plan.

This signifies a strong commitment to develop small business capabilities. I agreed with the Significant Strength finding for the Plan.

In its Past Performance Assessment, the SEB rated Jacobs with a Very High Level of Confidence. I agree. Jacobs has experience in all areas of the JETS II SOW. Jacobs received Excellent performance ratings on all relevant contracts. The proposed Program Manager and as well as the all received Very

Good ratings. Jacobs has past performance that is Very Highly Pertinent, in that they performed on the predecessor contract with the same content, size and complexity of JETS II SOW. Very minor issues with no adverse effect on overall performance was reported. All referenced contracts were within the RFP recency requirements.

performance is of exceptional merit and very highly pertinent to the acquisition, and in consideration of all of the past performance data that was presented to me, which I thoroughly reviewed, I have a Very High Level of Confidence that Jacobs will successfully perform the

JETS II SOW.

Jacobs had a cost adjustment to account for an increase in the fringe cost for Health and Welfare of $2.92 billion was deemed to be fair and reasonable. Although Jacobs has the highest evaluated cost of the JETS II offerors, -In price was also deemed to be fair and reasonable.

SAIC

Under the Mission Suitability Factor, the SEB found 3 Significant Strengths, 6 Strengths, 1 Significant Weakness, and 5 Weaknesses. I noted that a probable cost adjustment was made for the use of NASA direct labor escalation rates and the SAIC baseline (with uncompensated overtime adjustment) labor category bid rates that were deemed appropriate by the SEB. I agreed with the findings of the Board and hereby adopt them as my own. Of note was the Significant Strength SAIC received under the Management Approach Subfactor for a proposed Digital Engineering (DE) demonstration that would cover the full engineering life cycle that aligns ould be a potential long-term benefit to adopt DE techniques at a broad scale within NASA on JETS II. I also noted a the Significant Weakness in the Management Approach Subfactor related to the proposed Total Compensation Plan (TCP).

My concern stems from recruitment and retention of employees with critical skills and institutional knowledge to successfully perform contract requirements. This Significant Weakness do not involve the Service Contract Labor Standards or the Service Contract Act requirements in a manner that would render them an easily correctable oversight. The Significant Strength for Digital Engineering

Therefore, I find that the Significant Weakness undercuts the overall strength of proposal under the Management Approach Subfactor.

I also found value in SAIC s Small Business Utilization Plan. The proposed Plan has established a Mentor-Protégé agreement. This signifies a strong commitment to develop small business capabilities.

In its Past Performance Assessment, the SEB rated SAIC with a High Level of Confidence. I agree. Team SAIC collectively had experience in all areas of the JETS II SOW. Although SAIC did not have direct experience in all areas of the SOW as the prime, its subcontractors, Peraton and SETI, had past performance to support and cover the areas where the subcontractors would perform the corresponding work on the JETS II SOW that represents only a small amount of the overall effort.

One contract was submitted for each of the SAIC subcontractors, Peraton and SETI. SETI is proposed to perform SOW Sections 2.5.2-2.5.7 that primarily supports work for the Exploration Integration and Science Directorate, which is most of the science effort in the JETS II SOW.

However, the science effort on JETS II is more than ten times larger than the work proposed to be performed by SETI on the contract. Therefore, I agree that it should not be as heavily weighted based on the size and scope of effort that is proposed to be performed by SETI on JETS II. Both submitted subcontractor contracts were evaluated as Relevant based on the content, complexity, and size of effort compared to the JETS II requirements proposed to be performed by the subcontractors. four submitted contracts as the Prime contractor were evaluated as Very Relevant, Relevant, and two as Somewhat Relevant and all Key Personnel experience was deemed Relevant to this acquisition. Team SAIC quality of performance ranged from Excellent to Very Good in performance of its relevant contracts and Excellent ratings for Key Personnel. All referenced contracts were within the recency requirements of the JETS II RFP.

acquisition and its performance was very effective, and in consideration of all the past performance data that presented to me, which I thoroughly reviewed and discussed extensively with the advisors, I have a High Level of Confidence that SAIC will successfully perform the JETS II SOW.

SAIC had a probable cost adjustment made for the use of NASA direct labor escalation rates and the SAIC baseline (with uncompensated overtime adjustment) labor category bid rates that were of $2.81 billion was determined to be fair and reasonable. The probable cost is lower than the IGCE. The Cost was the second highest evaluated of the JETS II offerors. The Phase-In price was deemed fair and reasonable.

NETS

Under the Mission Suitability Factor, the SEB found 2 Strengths, 8 Weaknesses, and 1 Significant Weakness. Cost adjustments were made to account for the incorporation of the most recent technical library rates that were not incorporated into NETS proposal. As the findings relate to NETS, I agree with the findings of the SEB and hereby adopt them as my own. Of note was the Strength NETS received under the Management Approach Subfactor for the recruitment and retention of early career engineers by increasing. the salaries of the Engineer I and II labor categories. The recruitment and retention of these levels of Engineer is important in the contract transition and execution of JETS II. However, there are a lot of concerns noted in the weaknesses of the NETS proposal. One is the excessive processing time of the Task Orders in 30 days despite the RFP requirement of 5 days, which is not reasonable or feasible to maintain

Health Plan, and Total Compensation Plan were all incomplete and do not demonstrate an understanding of the JETS II contract requirements.

Although I found value in NETS commitment to Small Business

Plan outweigh that value. The NETS Small Business Subcontracting Plan proposed goals significantly lower than the recommended small business goals in the RFP without a reasonable or sound justification.

In its Past Performance Assessment, the SEB rated NETS with a High Level of Confidence. I agree. Although NETS JV did not have relevant past performance, the managing partner of NETS, BNI submitted two contract references that were both determined to be Relevant. Most, but not all, of the engineering and science disciplines were covered by the submitted reference contracts that were of comparable size and complexity to JETS II and similar scope. The SEB had information regarding ratings on the relevant KSC Mobile Launcher 2 contract but distinguished the contract by not weighing it as heavily in its assessment due to the dissimilarities in content. NETS proposed two Key Personnel with recent and very relevant experience that the SEB weighted less heavily than th All except one referenced contract fell into the recency requirements of the JETS II RFP. The SEB reported that performed Very Effectively on the evaluated contracts that were assessed as highly pertinent to the acquisition that were performed in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor issues that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. In consideration of all of the past performance data that was presented to me, which I thoroughly reviewed, I have a High Level of Confidence that NETS JV will successfully perform the JETS II SOW.

Cost adjustments were made to the NETS JV to account for the update of the most recent technical library rates that were not incorporated into NETS proposal. NETS probable cost of billion was deemed to be fair and reasonable, which was the lowest evaluated cost of the er than the IGCE. Based on the SEB analyses performed, NETS phase-in price could not be deemed reasonable due to uncertainty with the proposed indirect rates.

Award Without Discussions

The Contracting Officer determined that discussions were not necessary for this procurement in accordance with M.2. Award Without Discussions of the JETS II RFP. After careful consideration of the SEB presentation, feedback provided to me by the advisors and my independent assessment of the proposals based on the evaluation factors in the solicitation- Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price, I concurred in the Contracting Officer determination that discussions were not warranted. NETS JV had a demonstrably lower overall quantitative score in Mission Suitability factor than Jacobs and SAIC. Since I determined that discussions would not be held, I limited my comparison of proposals to Jacobs and SAIC as NETS JV would not have an opportunity to revise or modify its proposal to resolve the weaknesses in its initial proposal that would allow for award to the Offeror with the gap in one of the most important evaluation factors for selection.

Comparison of Proposals:

Regarding Section M.3, SEB Evaluation Factors for Award:

Of the three evaluation factors, the Mission Suitability factor and Past Performance factor when combined are significantly more important than the Cost or Price factor. As individual factors, Past Performance is equal to Mission Suitability which is more important than Cost/Price.

Mission Suitability:

I first considered the two remaining proposals under the Mission Suitability factor, one of the most important factors for consideration. Mission Suitability is broken down into the 3 subfactors of Management Approach, Technical Approach, and Small Business Utilization (SBU) with Management Approach being the most important and SBU being the least. In comparing the relative Mission Suitability factor of the two proposals, I noted that Jacobs quantitatively received a higher overall Mission Suitability score than SAIC. The point difference was most noticeable in the Management Approach subfactor, the most important of the Mission Suitability subfactors.

My assessment then turned to the qualitative review of the proposal content in this area.

reflects a difference in the proposals that corresponds with the quantitative scoring. First, there was a difference between the proposals in Jacobs recruitment and retention of employees with critical skills to perform on the JETS II contract. Jacobs received a significant strength for its approach to workforce management

I found significant value in this area as it is a means to ensure uninterrupted operations to support NASA Programs and Projects with employees with the appropriate skills to handle the JETS II work.

I also found value in Jacobs proposed Safety and Health Plan, which the Board assessed as a significant strength under Jacobs Management Approach. I particularly appreciated that Jacobs Safety and Health Plan greatly exceeds the JETS II contract requirements and utilizes a more proactive approach to its safety and health program that will significantly reduce the risk of injury to JETS II personnel as well as damage to NASA property

I find this will instill a safety-first culture. In contrast, Health Plan was assessed as a strength by the Board. While both Plans requirements, I find that Jacobs has a slight advantage in this area with the direct supervisory involvement with the employees to reinforce safe behavior. This all contributes to a good safety culture that NASA strives to continue in the conduct of all support to NASA Programs and Projects.

Although the Board gave Jacobs a strength for its proposed Task Order processing I found more value in this strength. that will decrease schedule risk on NASA Programs and Projects. Schedule delays on NASA Programs and Projects continue to be an issue for the Agency. Any gain of an advantage in this area of time reduction will increase the chances of timely mission success.

I then compared The Board assessed a significant strength in SAIC proposed digital engineering demonstration that th for its I also found value in the adoption of digital the use of these techniques more effectively on a broad scale.

In contrasting the proposals, I noted in (TCP) that would have a impact on recruitment and retention of employees with the critical skills necessary to execute the JETS II contract. The SEB assessed this as a significant weakness, and I agree.

I am also concerned that in execution of the JETS II contract requirements. There is increased competition in the job market for highly skilled employees with the critical skills necessary to perform the requirements of JETS II. This contract supports some mission critical programs and projects. I find this significant weakness a material discriminator between the two proposals in the Management Approach subfactor. Overall, I find that Jacobs has an advantage in its Management Approach due to its ability to recruit and retain employees with the critical skills necessary to perform JETS II.

I then moved to the Technical Approach subfactor. Both proposals were closer in point score in this subfactor. This required a closer analysis of any qualitative differences between the proposals.

I found value in the two significant strengths identified by the Board in this area for proposal. The two identified significant strengths ensure that there are trained, effective project managers available and allows for infusion of new technology, innovations, and process improvements across the contract. In contrast, I found the same significant strength in its plan to incorporate new technology, innovations, and process improvements across the JETS II contract and its assessed strength to appropriately staff the contract with effective project managers. Both Offerors proposed different yet effective technical approaches that will successfully fulfill the JETS II requirements. Although SAIC also received two weaknesses in the Technical Approach subfactor, both issues that were identified could easily be resolved if discussions were held. I find that there is equivalent value to Government in both proposals and did not find a meaningful, material discriminator in the Technical Approach subfactor between the proposals.

Finally, I turned to the least weighted subfactor of Small Business Utilization. In this area, I noted that both Offerors received equivalent quantitative scores. Both Jacobs and SAIC received adjectival ratings of very good and received a significant strength and a strength for small business utilization on high technology work across the JETS II SOW, engaging in small business teaming with enforceable agreements, and exceeding JETS II RFP small business goals. All of which demonstrates a very strong commitment by both Jacobs and SAIC to the importance of small business subcontracting and reduces the risk of NASA not achieving its small business goals. I, therefore, did not find Small Business Utilization to be a discriminator.

Overall, in Mission Suitability, I find that Jacobs has an advantage given its stronger Management Approach, the most heavily weighted of the Mission Suitability subfactors.

Past Performance:

After completing my analysis under the Mission Suitability factor, I considered the Past Performance Factor. The SEB rated Jacobs past performance as I questioned the SEB to make sure that its evaluation was fair and assessed both Offerors accordingly to account for the difference in confidence levels. Overall, Jacobs past performance was rated as very high on two very relevant, one relevant, and two somewhat relevant contracts with excellent performance on all of them while Team SAIC, including its proposed subcontractors, was rated as high on their six somewhat relevant to very relevant contracts with very good to excellent performance. The SEB pointed out that both Jacobs and SAIC had recent and relevant past performance that reflects that either one can perform the JETS II contract.

between the proposals. I specifically asked the SEB questions regarding the coverage of the science effort of the JETS II contract that represents approximately 15% of the total JETS II effort.

relevant contract reference I found that the contract was appropriately rated as relevant with excellent performance considering the science effort on JETS II is more than ten times larger than the work proposed to be performed by SETI.

Therefore, I concluded that the difference in size and complexity of the only relevant contract covering the science effort of JETS II was a discriminator between the two proposals that gives a slight advantage to Jacobs in the Past Performance factor.

Cost/Price:

I discussed the area of Cost/Price of the proposals with the SEB. Both Jacobs and SAIC had probable cost adjustments to their proposals. The delta in probable cost represents a difference of 3.8% between the proposals, which I did not find to be material or significant. The apparent explanation for the difference in the probable cost was the noted differences in the management approach subfactor.

Of the three evaluation factors, the Mission Suitability factor and Past Performance factor when combined are significantly more important than the Cost or Price factor. As individual factors, Past Performance is equal to Mission Suitability which is more important than Cost/Price.

s, it is my decision that has an advantage in Mission Suitability and a slight advantage in Past Performance, the most heavily weighted evaluation factors, over SAIC. I determined that the additional 3.8% difference in price, which is the least important of the three evaluation factors, is not a discriminator between the proposals.

and I select them for award of the JETS II Contract under Solicitation Number 80JSC022R0003.

Donna M. Shafer Source Selection Authority