IMOC III SSS- FINAL. - Medata Removed.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

INTEGRATED MISSION OPERATIONS CONTRACT III (IMOC III)

SOLICITATION 80JSC023R0017

On June 21, 2023, I, along with other key officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC), met with the Source Evaluation Board (Board) appointed to evaluate the proposals submitted in response to the IMOC III solicitation. As the source selection authority (SSA), I considered the information presented and requested and received the opinions of those present, accepted the findings of the Board, and concluded the meeting with my selection decision.

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

IMOC III is a full and open competition and has been assigned the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541715, Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology).

The IMOC III procurement is a single-award Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract with Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) type task orders with the option to transition to Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF), and the option to transition back to CPAF. The guaranteed minimum for IMOC III is $1M and the maximum not-to-exceed (NTE) is $1.93B. The IMOC III period of performance is the following:

Contract Phase-In:

August 1, 2023 – September 30, 2023 Base Period:

October 1, 2023 – September 30, 2028 Option 1:

October 1, 2028 – September 30, 2030 Option 2:

October 1, 2030 – September 30, 2032 Extension of Services:

October 1, 2032 – March 31, 2033

The purpose of IMOC III is to acquire critical Plan, Train, Fly (PTF) mission support services, operational expertise, and related services for JSC’s Flight Operations Directorate (FOD).

IMOC III will also provide support and products for spaceflight operations capability development and execution for the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD), the NASA Headquarters Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate, the Space Operations Mission Directorate, and the International Space Station (ISS) Program Avionics and Software Office, as well as current and future NASA strategic initiatives.

Three (3) Requests for Information/Sources Sought Synopses were issued to gather industry input:

• RFI addressing Capabilities and Organizational Conflict of Interests opened to the public on March 23, 2022 (11 responses)

• RFI addressing Small Business Goals was posted on June 9, 2022 (4 responses)

• RFI addressing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility was posted on

June 10, 2022 (3 responses)

A hybrid (in-person and virtual) Industry Day was held on May 18, 2022, with 34 companies in attendance. One-on-One Meetings were held with 12 companies on May 18, 2022, and May 19, 2022.

On September 23, 2022, the Contracting Officer (CO) issued a draft Request for Proposal (RFP). Following the release of the draft RFP, a Pre-solicitation Synopsis was issued on October 17, 2022, followed by a Virtual Pricing Workshop held on October 27, 2022, and a Hybrid Pre-Proposal Conference held on November 9, 2022.

The IMOC III final RFP 80JSC023R0017 was issued on November 2, 2022, via SAM.gov and the IMOC III website, with a proposal due date of December 12, 2022. Four (4) modifications were issued to the RFP. The purpose of Modification 1, posted on November 8, 2022, was to post the IMOC III Pre-proposal Charts in the "Attachments" section. Modification 2, posted on November 18, 2022, included Amendment 1 of the Final RFP, which provided the Final RFP Virtual Workshop Questions and Answers, an updated Section C – Statement of Work, Attachment J-1 Applicable Documents, Attachment J-24 Contract Phase-In Plan, Section L.16 Security Requirements and Instructions to Offerors, Section L.19 Proposal Formatting Instructions, and updates to the Technical Library. Modification 3, posted on December 1, 2022, included Amendment 2 of the Final RFP, which provided a clarification related to Small Business subcontracting and referenced Attachment L-8 Small Business Subcontracting Tables for instructions on how to complete the fill-in table. Modification 4, posted on December 4, 2022, included Amendment 3 which provided minor corrections to the RFP cover letter, Pre- Proposal Conference Charts, Section K.2 - FAR 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (MAY 2022), and page numbers in Amendment 2.

On December 12, 2022, the Government received a timely submitted proposal from KRB Wyle Services, LLC. (KBR). No other proposals were received.

EVALUATION PROCESS AND CRITERIA

The IMOC III RFP included three (3) evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. In accordance with Section M.3 of the RFP, “The Cost factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability factor and Past Performance factor. As individual factors, the Mission Suitability factor is approximately equal to Past Performance factor.”

Mission Suitability Factor

The Mission Suitability factor and associated subfactors were evaluated in accordance with Section M.4 of the RFP. Mission suitability was weighted and scored on a 1,000-point scale and included three (3) subfactors. Subfactors were scored using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges specified in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A).

Mission Suitability Subfactors Weight

Management Approach 500 points Technical Approach 300 points Small Business Participation 200 points TOTAL 1000 points

For each Mission Suitability subfactor, the Board identified “findings” of Significant Strengths, Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies. The Board then determined a consensus adjectival rating and percentile score for each subfactor using the definitions and percentile ranges in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The adjectival ratings for each of the three (3) Mission Suitability subfactors were Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor. The overall Mission Suitability factor received a total numerical score using the weighted sum of the subfactor scores but did not receive an overall adjectival rating. Mission Suitability is the only evaluation factor that was numerically scored. The point scores and adjectival ratings below were developed by the Board. While I used the Board’s evaluation as a guide, I performed my own analysis and then concurred with the findings of the Board. My analysis and the value and risk that I identified with the proposal is included in the decision portion of this document.

Past Performance Factor

The Board evaluated the Past Performance of the Offeror, its major subcontractors, and its proposed Key Personnel (Program Manager) as defined in L.21. Three (3) aspects were taken into consideration by the Board when determining the Past Performance confidence rating: recency, relevance, and performance. The Board assessed the Offeror’s recent, relevant work that was similar in size, content, and complexity to IMOC III. Recent performance was evaluated including only contract period of performances within five (5) years from the date of the IMOC III original solicitation. Within this five-year period, more recent performance received greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than those with more distant performance, assuming all other considerations to be equal. The IMOC III original solicitation was released on November 2, 2022, so only performance from November 3, 2017, to November 02, 2022, was considered. If a past performance contract’s period of performance overlapped with this period, only work performed during this period was evaluated.

The Board considered information provided by the Offeror and its references, as well as information independently gained from Government and commercial sources. The proposal was assigned an overall level of confidence rating using the definitions in NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A):

Very High, High, Moderate, Low, Very Low, or Neutral.

Cost and Price Factor

In accordance with Section M.6 of the RFP, the Board performed a price analysis. Additionally, the Board evaluated proposed costs and established the probable cost of doing business with the Offeror. The Offeror’s cost/price was evaluated for the validity, realism, and adequacy of each cost proposal and the probable cost that will be incurred in the performance of this effort.

The probable cost includes adjustments to the Offeror’s proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of cost realism analysis and/or mathematical corrections to the application of formulas and/or rates to either hours or Non-Labor Rates (NLR).

INITIAL EVALUATION AND COMPETITIVE RANGE

A timely submitted proposal was received from the following company on or before the proposal due date:

KBR Wyle Services, LLC. (KBR)

The following is a summary of the initial evaluation of the proposal:

Offeror

Mission

Suitability Score

1,000 points

Past Performance Confidence Rating

Cost/Price

(Probable Cost ($M))

KBR 943 Very High $1,835.7

In accordance with NFS 1815.305-71(a), if only one proposal was received in response to the solicitation, the Contracting Officer shall determine if the solicitation was flawed or unduly restrictive and determine if the single proposal is an acceptable proposal. Based on these findings, the SSA shall direct the Contracting Officer to one of the following: (1) Award without discussions provided the Contracting Officer determined that adequate price competition exists; (2) Award after negotiating an acceptable contract; or (3) Reject the proposal and cancel the solicitation.

Evaluation of a Single Proposal

1. The IMOC III Solicitation was not flawed or unduly restrictive:

In accordance with NFS 1815.305-71(a), the Contracting Officer re-reviewed the RFP and determined the solicitation was not flawed or unduly restrictive. During the extensive communication/pre-solicitation activities between NASA/JSC and potential Offerors, as noted above, no prospective Offerors intimated or claimed that the RFP was flawed or unduly restrictive. Based on the thorough efforts by the Contracting Officer to solicit wide competition described above, the Government had every indication there was vibrant competition and was expecting multiple offers.

2. KBR’s proposal was acceptable

In accordance with Section M, Provision M.3 Source Evaluation Board Evaluation Factors for Award of the RFP and the IMOC III Evaluation Plan, the Source Evaluation Board conducted an initial review of the proposal to determine acceptability of the proposal in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. The initial review resulted in a determination that the KBR proposal was acceptable and represented a reasonable initial effort to address the essential requirements of the RFP and clearly demonstrates that the Offeror does understand the requirements.

Competitive Range

On April 20, 2023, the results of the initial evaluation were presented to me, the Source Selection Authority, and senior JSC officials. This presentation included detailed evaluation results for the KBR proposal, including Mission Suitability, Past Performance and Cost/Price. I thoroughly discussed with the Board the associated value and risks related to the proposal.

Because there was only one proposal, I also discussed with the Contracting Officer the basis of the determination that the solicitation was not flawed or unduly restrictive. Based on my analysis and those discussions, I concurred that the solicitation was not flawed or unduly restrictive, and in accordance with NFS 1815.305-71, I directed the Contracting Officer to award after negotiating an acceptable contract. I also concurred that KBR qualified as the most highly rated proposal, and therefore should be included in the competitive range.

DISCUSSIONS AND EVALUATION OF FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS (FPR)

On May 2, 2023, KBR was notified of its inclusion in the competitive range. The Board conducted written and oral discussions with KBR from May 2, 2023, through May 19, 2023, with oral discussions held May 12, 2023, May 18, 2023, and May 19, 2023. As part of discussions, KBR was provided an opportunity to address any Significant Weaknesses, Weaknesses, or aspects of the proposal requiring further clarification, in writing, orally, and through proposal change pages. KBR timely submitted its cost/price volume on May 25, 2023, and the remainder of its FPR on May 26, 2023. Subsequently, the L-12 Prime/Sub ID and SOW Division of Work was submitted on June 1, 2023, at the request of the Board. Upon the receipt and review of the FPR and supplemental information, IMOC III discussions were closed June 8, 2023, and a Certificate of Current or Pricing Data was requested. The Certificate of Current or Pricing Data was timely submitted by KBR on June 15, 2023.

The evaluation of the FPR provided the following results:

Offeror

Mission

Suitability Score

1,000 points

Past Performance Confidence Rating

Cost/Price

(Probable Cost ($M))

KBR 953 Very High $1,924.1

KBR Wyle Services, LLC

Mission Suitability Factor

Under the Mission Suitability factor, KBR received 943 points out of the available 1,000 points for the initial evaluation, and 953 points out of the available 1,000 points for the final evaluation.

Across the three (3) Mission Suitability subfactors, KBR received six (6) Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, one (1) Weakness, zero (0) Significant Weaknesses, and zero (0) Deficiencies for both the initial and final evaluations.

Management and Staffing Approach Subfactor

Under the Management and Staffing Approach subfactor, KBR received three (3) Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, one (1) Weakness, zero (0) Significant Weaknesses, and zero (0) Deficiencies which resulted in an adjectival rating of “Excellent” for the initial evaluation. There were no changes in the final evaluation.

The first Significant Strength was for proposing a reasonable, feasible, and complete Contract Management Plan and overall management approach, in which team KBR dramatically increases the likelihood that it will achieve highly efficient and effective management of IMOC III through shared administrative resources, extensive experience, and direct communication, thus reducing the risk to the Government of negatively impacting crew safety, vehicle safety, or mission success.

The second Significant Strength was for proposing a reasonable, feasible, and complete response to the Evolution of Management and Staffing Approach scenario, in which Team KBR demonstrated an understanding of the current and future environment with competing programs and a willingness to address current and future IMOC III challenges, which significantly reduces the risk to the Government that the contractor will be unable to meet the Government's requirements for multi-program support, both before and after the end of the ISS program. The third Significant Strength was for proposing a complete safety and health plan which exceeds JSC’s expectations in areas such as its safety programs, goals, and approach to hazardous operations, in which team KBR demonstrated a strong commitment to safety. This reasonable and feasible approach reduces the likelihood of injury and illness on the contract, which reduces the risk to the Government. There were no changes to the Significant Strengths from the initial evaluation to the final evaluation.

The Strength was for proposing a reasonable and feasible plan for retaining employees, which includes financial incentives for multiple certifications, special assignments, and critical skills, and will evolve through the life of the contract. Therefore, team KBR mitigates risk to the Government by increasing the likelihood of being able to retain the highly skilled, certified workforce necessary to meet the requirements of IMOC III and ensure crew safety, vehicle safety, and mission success. There were no changes to the Strength from the initial evaluation to the final evaluation.

The Weakness in the initial evaluation was for proposing an inconsistent Team of Teams philosophy to enable the IMOC III workforce to be treated consistently. The proposed Total Compensation Plans received from the Prime and two Major Subcontractors were incomplete in some areas and also showed inconsistencies between team member companies in the areas of Paid Time Off (PTO) and recognized Federal Holidays. By not providing a complete plan regarding fringe benefits and pay incentives, it was difficult to determine whether incentives would be administrated consistently and fairly, what impact this would have on employee morale and retention, or what the full cost impact may be to the Government. Additionally, inconsistencies between the team member companies PTO and recognized Federal Holidays may negatively affect contractor employee morale and retention of employees with critical skills, increasing the risk to the Government of negatively impacting crew safety, vehicle safety, or mission success.

Upon the receipt of the FPR, this Weakness was updated to remove the areas of this Weakness associated with incompleteness. The Government was able to evaluate the Total Compensation Plan with the details submitted as part of the FPR, therefore, the mission suitability factor points increased by 10 points. However, the proposed Total Compensation Plans received from the Prime and two Major Subcontractors as part of the FPR still showed inconsistencies between team member companies in the areas of Paid Time Off (PTO) and recognized Federal Holidays, therefore that aspect of the weakness remained. The Board found that these inconsistencies may negatively affect contractor employee morale and retention of employees with critical skills, increasing the risk to the Government of negatively impacting crew safety, vehicle safety, or mission success.

Technical Approach Subfactor

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, KBR received one (1) Significant Strength with zero (0) other findings, which resulted in an adjectival rating of “Excellent” for the initial evaluation.

There were no changes from the initial evaluation to the final evaluation.

The Significant Strength was for proposing a reasonable and feasible approach to meeting contract requirements for the Flight Operations Division and the ISS Avionics and Software Office that far exceeds expectations by taking into account the complexity of the challenges and proposing solutions that are nuanced and recognize the multifaceted impacts of these decisions. Team KBR’s proposal contributes greatly to NASA's goal of Commercializing Low Earth Orbit by providing flexibility while minimizing adverse mission impacts. Team KBR's overall response to the Technical Scenarios demonstrated an understanding of the ever-changing environment throughout the performance of the contract. The identification of multiple supportable options and a recommendation of an option that provides flexibility to the Government and team KBR signifies both a reasonable and feasible approach, and the identification of OCI risks and means to mitigate demonstrates an understanding of the complexities associated with Commercial LEO support. Team KBR demonstrated the understanding necessary to significantly reduce the risks to the Government that the contractor will be unable to meet the demands of a dynamic multi-program environment and the changes required as NASA transitions to the end of the ISS program and refocuses on Commercial LEO and other endeavors. There were no changes to the Significant Strength from the initial evaluation to the final evaluation.

Small Business Utilization Subfactor

Under the Small Business Utilization subfactor, KBR received two (2) Significant Strengths with zero (0) other findings, which resulted in and adjectival rating of “Excellent” for the initial evaluation. There were no changes to the Significant Strength from the initial evaluation to the final evaluation.

The first Significant Strength was for proposing a sound and reasonable subcontracting plan that greatly exceeds all categories of the recommended Small Business Utilization goals outlined in the RFP, in which KBR provides significant opportunities to develop numerous small businesses, increases their ability to compete with other small and large businesses, and decreases the risk to the Government of not meeting NASA's overall Small Business Goals. The second Significant Strength was for proposing a sound and reasonable commitment to the small business program, which includes having subcontractors perform work across the statement of work in areas of high technology, a small business network, and two Mentor Protégé agreements, through which Team KBR demonstrates an impressive assurance to advance and mentor small businesses and the approach decreases the risk to the Government of not meeting NASA's commitment to use small businesses and to support their development. There were no changes to the Significant Strengths from the initial evaluation to the final evaluation.

Past Performance Factor

Under the Past Performance Factor, KBR received a “Very High” level of confidence rating for the initial evaluation. There were no changes in the final evaluation.

For the initial evaluation of KBR’s referenced contracts IMOC II, Mission Systems Operations Contract (MSOC), Human Health and Performance Contract (HHPC) and the Government-identified Ground Systems and Mission Operations (GSMO)-2, the magnitude of effort is respectively Very Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, Somewhat Relevant and Relevant to the scope of their proposed responsibility in the IMOC III SOW. The IMOC II is essentially the same complexity and of the same magnitude as IMOC III. Thus, KBR’s past performance efforts are considered Very Relevant for their proposed responsibilities for the IMOC III. KBR’s major subcontractor, Leidos, referenced contract IMOC II, of which the magnitude of effort is Very Relevant to the scope of their proposed responsibility in the IMOC III SOW. IMOC II is essentially the same complexity and of the same magnitude as IMOC III. Thus, Leidos’s performance efforts are considered Very Relevant for their proposed responsibilities for the IMOC III. KBR’s major subcontractor, Barrios, referenced contracts Human Spaceflight Technical Integration Contract (HSFTIC) and Mission and Program Integration (MAPI), of which the magnitude of effort is Somewhat Relevant and Somewhat Relevant to the scope of their proposed responsibility in the IMOC III SOW. HSFTIC involved some of the content, complexity, and size of effort magnitude as IMOC III. Thus, Barrios’s performance efforts are considered Somewhat Relevant for their proposed responsibilities for the IMOC III. There were no changes from the initial evaluation to the final evaluation.

The initial evaluation of the proposed Program Manager (PM) indicated the proposed PM has recent experience as the current PM for IMOC II after serving as the Deputy Program Manager for IMOC II. IMOC II is essentially the same in size, content, and complexity as the work function and requirements of the Program Manager for IMOC III. Thus, the proposed Program Manager’s performance efforts are considered Very Relevant for his proposed responsibilities for the IMOC III. There were no changes from the initial evaluation to the final evaluation.

The initial evaluation of team KBR’s safety, health, and environmental past performance based on the combination with rates, Experience Modifier Rates (EMRs), and missing data is considered Very Good and a very strong indicator that the offeror has the ability to perform the contract in a safe manner. There were no changes from the initial evaluation to the final evaluation.

Based on the evaluations described above, team KBR’s recent and relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition. Team KBR has indicated exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and has demonstrated very minor problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on team KBR’s performance record, there is a Very High Level of Confidence that team KBR will successfully perform the required effort. There were no changes from the initial to the final evaluation.

Cost/Price Factor

Under the Cost/Price factor, the Board conducted a price analysis and a cost analysis and evaluated KBR’s initial and final proposed cost/price for validity, realism, and adequacy to develop a probable cost of performance. Based on this analysis, and in determining KBR’s probable cost of performance, the Board made adjustments to KBR’s proposed cost. The adjustments incorporated more current subcontractor indirect rates and reflected escalation for the 6-month Option to Extend period of performance.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

As the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the IMOC III acquisition, I agree with the Contracting Officer's determination that the solicitation was not flawed or unduly restrictive. This conclusion is supported by the extensive and public communications including pre-solicitation activities between NASA/JSC and potential Offerors, the posting of Requests for Information starting in March of 2022, Industry Day, One-On-One Meetings, the draft RFP release in September of 2022, through the proposal due date in December of 2022. In that time, from March 2022 until December 2022 (approximately nine months), no prospective offerors notified me or the Contracting Officer they believed the RFP was flawed or unduly restrictive.

Additionally, I find the Contracting Officer had a reasonable expectation that two or more responsible offerors would submit proposals in response to the IMOC III RFP. Potential offerors submitted multiple questions and the Government publicly answered those questions in response to the RFI/Sources Sought Synopsis, Industry Day, the Draft RFP, Pre-proposal Conference, and the Final RFP. Potential Offerors made input relative to procurement strategy and multiple potential

Offerors explicitly expressed to the IMOC III Board an intent to propose in a Prime Contractor role to the IMOC III procurement. Industry participation in the IMOC III pre-solicitation events were well attended. It is my understanding that thirty-four (34) companies attended the Industry Day, and twelve (12) companies participated in One-On-One meetings. For these reasons, I agree with the Contracting Officer that this acquisition was conducted in a competitive environment, and the Government reasonably concluded the ultimate single offeror had every reason to believe it was proposing in a competitive environment.

Having agreed with the Contracting Officer and determined the solicitation was not unduly flawed or restrictive and that there was a reasonable expectation that two or more responsible offerors, competing independently, would submit offers in response to the IMOC III solicitation even though the Government received and evaluated only one, I turned to the evaluation of the KBR proposal.

In making my selection decision, I first reviewed the relative importance of evaluation factors. The IMOC III solicitation stated “The Cost factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability factor and Past Performance factor. As individual factors, the Mission Suitability factor is approximately equal to Past Performance factor.”

MISSION SUITABLITY

First, I reviewed Mission Suitability. At the outset I noted that KBR received a total of 953 points (increased by 10 points from initial evaluation) out of a possible 1000. This signaled to me the Board believed KBR’s proposal was of a very high quality.

Under the Management and Staffing Approach subfactor, the Board found, and I agreed that KBR’s approach was excellent. KBR described a lean management structure, a stellar communications plan and operating rhythm which provided me assurance that KBR will be able to manage the contract, leading to the successful execution of IMOC III and reducing the risk to the Government of negatively impacting crew safety, vehicle safety, or mission success. Additionally, KBR clearly demonstrated an understanding of the management and staffing requirements for the dynamic multi-program environment and changes required as NASA transitions to the end of the ISS program, and the expanding Artemis program and Commercial Low-Earth Orbit (Comm Leo) work. Its proposal detailed a phased approach to meeting the requirements based on the shifting needs of the contract. I found that KBR demonstrated an understanding that each of the multiple programs have different life cycles, skills, needs, and risks, and it describes the plan to create flexibility to handle increases and decreases in the programs, the overlapping of missions, and the goal of encouraging commercialization. Team KBR's proposed approaches further demonstrate the ability to look for new solutions and adapt over the life of the contract, thus reducing the risk of negatively impacting crew safety, vehicle safety, or mission success which I found to be a significant asset. Furthermore, KBR’s approach demonstrated an understanding of the importance of retaining quality employees for meeting the requirements of IMOC III. I took note that KBR outlined a complete plan for retaining employees that includes monitoring industry compensation and offering retention bonuses, particularly to support ISS during ramp-down. The proposal demonstrates how adjustments will need to be made during the life of the contract due to shifts in schedules, changes in priorities, and requirements changes during the life cycle of the programs. As well, KBR proposes a complete safety and health plan which exceeds JSC’s expectations in areas such as its safety programs, goals, and approach to hazardous operations.

I noted that after the final proposal revision submission, the weakness remained, but was limited to inconsistent paid time off and recognition of Federal holidays among the KBR team companies.

Although this may lead to a morale issue, it was a low risk to impacting successful contract performance. The elimination of the noted concerns related to fringe benefits and pay incentives, led the board to increase KBR’s mission suitability score by 10 points, and I concur with that increase, as I find that their revised proposal provides the additional details that assure the Government that KBR’s plan to have a team of teams where the IMOC III workforce is treated consistently and fairly is achievable to ensure critical skills are retained. I find that the Management and Staffing Approach overall provides great value to the Government.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor the Board found, and I agreed that KBR’s approach was “excellent”. This excellent rating was based, in part on KBR demonstrating an understanding of the complexities involved in changing assignments by including assessment of capable and available skill sets, OCI considerations/mitigations, morale impacts of the decision, and inefficiencies resulting from transitioning tasks. Of particular importance, I found great value in KBR’s understanding of the many secondary factors that influence the implementation of any technical solutions it implements in performance of IMOC III, in addition to understanding the technical issues presented in the Flight Operations Directorate Training Scenario.

Finally, under the Mission Suitability factor, I turned my attention to KBR's Small Business Utilization. I agreed with the Board's adjectival rating of "excellent" under this subfactor. KBR’s subcontracting plan greatly exceeded all categories of the recommended Small Business Utilization goals outlined in the RFP during the entire period of performance. KBR provides significant opportunities to develop numerous small businesses, increases their ability to compete with other small and large businesses, and decreases the risk to the Government of not meeting NASA's overall Small Business Goals. Additionally, I noted that KBR demonstrated an impressive assurance to advance and mentor small businesses and the approach decreases the risk of Team KBR not meeting NASA's commitment to use small businesses and support their development.

PAST PERFORMANCE

Next, I turned my attention to the Past Performance, as it is approximately equal to Mission Suitability. I agree with the Board's Past Performance evaluation as set out above. I noted KBR’s and its major subcontractor, Leidos’s, recent referenced contracts were considered Very Relevant for their proposed responsibilities for IMOC III, while Barrios, another major subcontractor was Somewhat Relevant for its proposed responsibilities for IMOC III. The experience of the key personnel was essentially the same in size content, and complexity as the work functions and requirements of the Program Manager for IMOC III, therefore the PM’s past performance is Very Relevant for his proposed responsibilities for the IMOC III. Team KBR’s past performance rating for safety and health is Very Good.

Considering the demonstration of the KBR team’s past performance on a number of very relevant and somewhat relevant contracts, including those of its proposed subcontractors, as well, I have a Very High Level of Confidence that KBR will successfully perform IMOC III.

COST/PRICE

I agree with the adjustments made by the Board to KBR’s proposed cost/price, and that the probable cost is fair and reasonable in comparison to the independent government estimate.

SELECTION DECISION

In reaching my decision, I considered the Board's evaluations and recommendations and the inputs of my advisors. In accordance with NFS 1815.305-71(a), having already determined the solicitation to not be flawed or unduly restrictive, and subsequently directing the Contracting officer to award after negotiating an acceptable contract, I find that it is in the best interest of the Government to award the IMOC III to KBR. KBR submitted an excellent proposal which demonstrates good value to the Government at a fair and reasonable price. My selection decision is based solely on, and is wholly consistent with, the selection criteria and evaluation framework set out in the RFP including the relative importance of evaluation factors and subfactors as explained in the solicitation and is supported by the findings I identified as relevant and material to my decision.

I, therefore, select KBR for the award of the IMOC III.

Donna Shafer Date Source Selection Authority

DONNA SHAFER

Digitally signed by DONNA

SHAFER

Date: 2023.07.10 08:44:06 -05'00'