CHARLES SSS_final - Sanitized.pdf

Source Selection Statement

CompreHensive Aircraft Readiness, Lifecycle, Engineering, and Support (CHARLES) Contract (Solicitation Number 80JSC022R0014) -

On November 16, 2022, I, along with other key officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC), met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate the proposals submitted in response to the CHARLES 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 SEB, and concluded the meeting with my selection decision.

BACKGROUND

CHARLES is a total small business set-aside and has been assigned the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 488190, Other Support Activities for Air Transportation, with a size standard of $35M

The CHARLES procurement is a single award Indefinite-Delivery-Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Cost-Plus Award Fee/Cost-Plus Fixed Fee contract with a Firm-Fixed-Price phase-in.

CHARLES has a seven-year and seven-month period of performance that will begin on March 1, 2023, and end on September 30, 2030. The guaranteed minimum for the CHARLES contract is $1M and the maximum not-to-exceed (NTE) is $540M.

The purpose of CHARLES is to provide support for aircraft at JSC based at Ellington Field in Houston and at El Paso, Texas; Langley Research Center (LaRC), Hampton, Virginia; Goddard Space Flight Center, Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), Wallops Island, Virginia; and other remote sites, domestic and foreign, where services are required. The proposed services will include aircraft maintenance, flight operations, engineering, lifecycle, quality, safety, and other related support for a variety of airframes, engines, appliances, and support equipment at the various locations.

A sources sought synopsis was published to sam.gov on May 11, 2021, to identify potential sources and to determine the appropriate set-aside decision. On March 24, 2022, a draft request for proposal (RFP) was released to industry for comment. The CHARLES RFP was issued on April 29, 2022, with proposals originally due on June 1, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. Central Time. The Pre-Proposal Conference was held with industry on May 18, 2022. The following amendments were issued to the RFP.

Amendment 1 was posted on May 6, 2022, to revise the date of the Pre-Proposal Conference from May 10th to May 18th, the due date of questions from May 12th to May 20th, the optional early submission from May 16th to May 23rd.

Amendment 2 was posted on May 19, 2022, to revise the date of the proposal due date from June 1st to June 9th and to provide revisions to the RFP because of questions received in response to the Final RFP.

Amendment 3 was posted on June 2, 2022, to revise the proposal due date from June 9th to June 15th, and to provide revisions to the RFP.

Amendment 4 was posted on June 3, 2022, to issue the first set of Questions and

Responses for the CHARLES RFP.

Amendment 5 was posted on June 10, 2022, to issue the second set of Questions and

Responses for the CHARLES RFP.

Amendment 6 was posted on June 14, 2022, to revise the date of the proposal due date from June 15th to June 21st and to issue the third set of Questions and Responses for the

CHARLES RFP.

Amendment 7 was provided on June 30, 20221, informing Offerors that the Government determined that an unintentional ambiguity may have existed in the CHARLES solicitation that warrants a clarification in the description of the page limitation of the Management Approach.

EVALUATION PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA

Timely submitted proposals received in response to this RFP were evaluated by the SEB in accordance with the evaluation procedures set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, the NASA FAR Supplement 1815.3 and Section M of the RFP. The SEB based its evaluations on the material presented in the individual Offeror’s proposal. As stated in FAR 15.215-1 (f)(4), the Government intended to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions with Offerors.

The SEB conducted an initial review of proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals and RFP Section M.2.

All proposals deemed acceptable were subsequently evaluated by the SEB against the three evaluation factors for award: Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. In accordance with Section M.2 of the RFP, “Mission Suitability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Mission Suitability is approximately equal to Past Performance. Individually, Mission Suitability and Past Performance are each more important than Cost/Price.”

Mission Suitability Factor

The Mission Suitability factor and associated subfactors were evaluated in accordance with section M.3 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, 1 Which was after the receipt of proposals and provided only to those offerors who proposed.

and percentile ranges specified in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A).

Mission Suitability Subfactors

Weight

Overall Management Approach

600 points

Technical Approach 250 points Safety & Health Approach 150 points

TOTAL 1000 points

For each Mission Suitability subfactor, the SEB identified “findings” of Significant Strengths, Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies. The SEB 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.

Past Performance Factor

Past Performance indicates how well an Offeror performed on earlier work and can be a significant indicator of how well it can be expected to perform the work at hand. The evaluation team evaluated the past performance of the Offeror, major subcontractors, and proposed Key Personnel (Executive Manager) as defined in L.33.5. Three (3) aspects were taken into consideration by the SEB when determining the Past Performance confidence rating: recency, relevance, and performance. The SEB assessed each Offeror’s recent, relevant work that was similar in size, content, and complexity to CHARLES. More recent performance received greater consideration than that with more distant performance, assuming all other considerations to be equal. Prior contracts encompassing work like the scope of CHARLES, where workers were unionized were more relevant than prior contracts where workers were not unionized.

Additionally, past performance contracts supporting military aircraft encompassing work like the scope of CHARLES were considered more relevant than work on non-military aircraft. The SEB evaluated performance on contracts determined to be recent and relevant. The overall performance evaluation considered prior performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, and safety performance. The SEB considered information provided by the Offerors and their references, as well as information independently gained from Government and commercial sources. Each 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

To ensure that the final agreed-to prices were fair and reasonable the Government performed these analyses in accordance with FAR 15.305 - Proposal Evaluation, FAR 15.404 – Proposal

Analysis, and NFS 1815.305 - Proposal Evaluation In accordance with Section M.5 of the RFP, the SEB evaluated proposed costs and established the probable cost of doing business with each 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.

For the CPAF IDIQ Task Order Evaluation, the SEB performed price analysis, cost analysis and cost realism analysis of all proposed IDIQ prices to include cost elements such as direct labor rates, indirect rates, Non-Labor resources (NLRs), and fee. Price and cost analysis also included the total proposed cost and fee for the Task Order and the TO’s projected costs over all contract years. For the CPFF IDIQ RFP specified level of resources, the SEB performed price analysis, cost analysis and cost realism analysis of all proposed IDIQ Fully Burdened Rate (FBRs) including the direct labor rate, indirect rates, and fee components. The probable cost for the sum of all contract years was used for purposes of evaluation and selection.

The SEB also performed a price analysis of the proposed phase-in costs.

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

Timely submitted proposals were received from the following companies (in order of evaluation) on or before the proposal due date:

Arrow’s Edge JV Yulista Solutions, LLC Albers Aerospace Tyonek Worldwide Services, Inc Craig Technologies

All proposals evaluated were determined to be acceptable in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70 and presented the required Facility Clearance in accordance with RFP Section M.2. All proposals were subsequently evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15, NFS Part 1815, and Section M of the RFP. The results of the evaluation were presented to the SSA at a Competitive Range/Award Without Discussions meeting on November 16, 2022.

The results as presented at the Competitive Range/Award Without Discussions meeting are summarized below:

Offeror Mission

Suitability Score

1,000 points

Past Performance Confidence Rating

Total Contract Cost/Price Proposed/ Probable ($M)

Phase-in Cost($K)

Arrow’s 654 High $383.30 / $395.20 $0

Edge

Yulista Solutions

898 Very High $436.47 / $441.63 $109

Albers Aerospace

621 Low $444.15 / $444.35 $113

Tyonek WorldWide Services

514 Low $419.01 / $440.52 $63

Craig Technologies

522 Low $442.82 / $440.93 $0

Arrow’s Edge (AE)

Mission Suitability Factor Under the mission suitability factor, Arrow’s Edge received 654 points out of the available 1,000 points. Across the three (3) Mission Suitability subfactors, Arrow’s Edge received two (2) Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths, one (1) Weakness, and one (1) Significant Weakness.

Under the Overall Management Approach subfactor, Arrow’s Edge received two (2) strengths and one (1) Significant Weakness, which resulted in an adjectival rating of “Good.”

The first strength was for proposing a reasonable and feasible Management Plan, demonstrating understanding of CHARLES management requirements. Arrow’s Edge proposed an organizational structure which aligned with the Government structure at all levels providing detailed descriptions of lines of communication which will increase effective communications.

Arrow’s Edge proposed feasible mitigations for identified contract management risks which will reduce disruption to missions and operations, proposed reasonable incentives which will contribute to workforce retention, and proposed greater procurement authority than required by the SOW which will streamline acquisitions. Collectively, these proposed elements will increase the probability of successful management of the CHARLES requirements. The second strength was for proposing a Contract Phase-in Approach that described a feasible plan that increases the probability of fully transitioned and successful operations at the contract start date ensuring continuity of performance of critical functions such as Commercial Crew and Airborne Science mission support. Arrow’s Edge proposed effective mitigation strategies that minimize impact to NASA activities during Phase-in, reducing the risk of interruptions to critical operations at JSC, LARC, and WFF.

The Significant Weakness was for not including out-year wage escalation for union represented employees which greatly increases the risk of non-harmonious labor relations with union personnel. Zero wage escalation for the life of the contract is unreasonable and is inconsistent with the identified escalation rate provided in the Total Compensation Package.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, Arrow’s Edge received one (1) Significant Strength, which resulted in an adjectival rating of “Very Good.”

The Significant Strength was for proposing a complete, feasible, and reasonable approach to planning and executing a Guppy brake replacement project, demonstrating understanding of the sections of the CHARLES Statement of Work (SOW) as it relates to the Guppy Brake Scenario.

Arrow’s Edge proposed reasonable processes and provided a very detailed, multi-stage approach to the scenario that leverages corporate knowledge and technical understanding to assure that the effort will be successfully completed safely and efficiently, minimizing the risk of schedule overrun.

Under the Safety and Health Approach subfactor, Arrow’s Edge received one (1) Significant Strength and one (1) Weakness, which resulted in an adjectival rating of “Very Good.”

The Significant Strength was for proposing a Safety and Health Plan containing feasible elements that exceed requirements in the areas of safety, health, and environmental practices, which reflect proactive management and employee involvement. These elements include a specific safety training program for supervisors, a “Red Card” process, and other tool sets that will establish safety accountability, encourage safe behavior, and greatly increase employee involvement, which will significantly reduce risk of injury, OSHA reportable events, lost workdays, and property damage.

The Weakness was for proposing an approach that demonstrates a lack of understanding of some elements of JPR 1700.1, JSC Safety and Health Requirements, by omitting two important references: asbestos control, and physical exams, from the Offeror’s submitted Safety and Health Plan. These incomplete elements increase the risk of injury or illness due to missing requirements and noncompliance of the safety and health program. Understanding and following the JSC Safety and Health requirements is essential to implementing an effective Safety and Health Plan.

Past Performance Factor

Under the Past Performance Factor, Arrow’s Edge received a “High” level of confidence rating.

All contracts submitted were considered recent. In assigning an overall relevancy assessment, the Government considered the five contracts provided for the joint venture. The Government noted that two of the contracts submitted on behalf of the JV mentor partner Amentum were performed by DynCorp International (DI). The two contracts were considered very relevant. The two contracts encompassed essentially the same scope required in the Statement of Work. In addition, the Government noted that both contracts involved much of the size of effort and essentially the same complexity this solicitation requires. However, DI is not listed as team member on the proposal, nor is there any evidence that DI will provide direct work on any of the scope of Section C on CHARLES in support of Arrow’s Edge efforts. However, there was evidence that DI shares corporate personnel, processes, and resources, with Amentum demonstrating some meaningful involvement. Of the remaining three contracts, two were evaluated as Very Relevant and one was considered Relevant. When considered together in aggregate against proposed work responsibilities, these contracts encompassed essentially the same scope required in the Statement of Work. The Government noted that the remaining three contracts involved much of the same or essentially the same size of effort that the solicitation requires. Of these three contracts, two of the contracts involved essentially the same level of complexity, whereas one involved much of the same level of complexity this solicitation requires. Further, based on the submitted Key Personnel resume, the EM’s experience is considered Somewhat Relevant to the requirements on CHARLES. Therefore, the overall relevancy assessment is Very Relevant.

Overall, the CPARS data, past performance questionnaire responses, interviews, and other sources of performance data of the submitted contracts for Amentum Services demonstrated very effective performance, which was fully responsive to contract requirements, in a timely manner.

In addition, the safety performance was considered satisfactory based on the provided OSHA and EPA data. After considering the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, and safety performance of the contracts which are recent and relevant, the Government determined the overall quality of the aggregate of Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture Arrow’s Edge past performance to be Very Good.

All five contracts submitted were for Amentum Services. No contracts were submitted for the Joint Venture Arrow’s Edge; therefore, the JV was not evaluated favorably or unfavorably. No contracts were submitted for the managing partner Seabrook Solutions. However, per 13 CFR §

125.8 since the JV does not demonstrate past performance, the Government looked to the past performance of the JV partners in the aggregate. Taking these factors into account in assigning the overall confidence rating, the Government considered the aggregate of the Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture Arrow’s Edge team’s past performance highly pertinent to this acquisition;

demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, including the consideration of the performance on AMOS, and the provided analysis, the Government determined there is a High Level of Confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort of CHARLES.

Cost/Price Factor

Under the Cost/Price factor, the SEB conducted a cost analysis and a price analysis and evaluated AE’s proposed cost/price of $383.3M for validity, realism, and adequacy to develop a probable cost of performance. Based on this analysis, and in determining AE’s probable cost of performance, the SEB made probable cost adjustments in accordance with the CHARLES RFP.

NASA’s probable cost adjustment increased AE’s overall cost by $11.9M to an adjusted probable cost of $395.2M. AE’s evaluated probable cost/price was determined to be fair and reasonable. Additionally, AE’s proposed price for phase-in was determined to be reasonable.

Yulista Solutions, LLC (Yulista)

Mission Suitability Factor Under the mission suitability factor, Yulista Solutions, LLC received 898 points out of the available 1,000 points. Across the three (3) Mission Suitability subfactors, YS received four (4) Significant Strengths, four (4) Strengths, no Weaknesses, and no Significant Weaknesses.

Under the Overall Management Approach subfactor, YS received two (2) Significant

Strengths and three (3) Strengths, which resulted in an adjectival rating of “Excellent.”

The first Significant Strength was for proposing a complete, reasonable, and feasible Management Plan demonstrating understanding of CHARLES management requirements.

Yulista aligned their organizational structure with the Government structure at all levels providing detailed descriptions of lines of communication and leadership team roles and responsibilities, which will greatly increase effective communication. Yulista proposed a complete description of teaming relationships which will contribute to continuity of operations.

Yulista also proposed feasible mitigations for identified contract management risks which will reduce disruption to missions and operations. Yulista proposed a feasible local HR role which will greatly increase efficiencies with the touch labor workforce and proposed reasonable incentives which will contribute to workforce retention. They also proposed greater procurement authority than required by the Statement of Work which will streamline acquisitions.

Collectively, these proposed elements will significantly increase the probability of successful management of the CHARLES requirements. The second Significant Strength was for proposing a complete and feasible business management and communication process which included comprehensive methods to ensure accurate labor charging, tracking, and reporting.

Yulista’s demonstrated understanding of CHARLES requirements will significantly enhance the overall fiscal management and will be highly effective in communicating the in-depth level of reporting required by the Government to execute programmatic cost controls.

The first Strength was for proposing a complete and feasible plan to manage surge demands which includes elements that can be used individually or collectively. Yulista provided reasonable approaches to planning, communicating, and executing surge methods. Yulista demonstrated understanding of CHARLES mission requirements to support surge demands and workloads dictated by missions, operations, or maintenance, which will increase the ability to meet dynamic periods of increased need due to mission critical support in a safe and efficient manner. The second Strength was for proposing a Management Plan that includes efficiencies to move the aircraft records management office and create a documentation development office under the Offeror’s quality control section. They properly identified the changes that are required in the Statement of Work (SOW) to implement their recommended changes demonstrating understanding of NASA requirements. This approach will make positive contributions in the implementation of aircraft data and documentation management, enabling efficiencies in the execution of the contract requirements. The third Strength was for proposing a Contract Phase-In Approach describes a reasonable and feasible plan that increases the probability of fully transitioned and successful operations at the contract start date. Yulista’s experienced Phase-In Manager, detailed timeline, and comprehensive training plan demonstrates understanding of the Phase-in requirements for CHARLES. Yulista proposed reasonable mitigation strategies that minimize impact to NASA activities during Phase-in and will reduce the risk to critical operations at JSC, LARC, and WFF.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, YS received one (1) Significant Strength and one (1) Strength, which resulted in an adjectival rating of “Very Good.”

The Significant Strength was for proposing a complete, feasible, and reasonable approach to planning and executing a Guppy brake replacement project, demonstrating understanding of the sections of the CHARLES SOW as it relates to the Guppy Brake Scenario. The proposed processes were reasonable and provided a very detailed, multi-stage approach to the scenario that leverages corporate knowledge and technical understanding to assure that the effort will be successfully completed safely and efficiently, minimizing the risk of schedule overrun.

The Strength was for proposing a Technical Approach that was feasible, reasonable, and demonstrated understanding of the technical areas, necessary skills, and lines of communication to effectively accomplish the technical requirements of the CHARLES contract. The proposed modifications to the notional staffing will increase communication of managers, supervisors, and technical leads at lower levels, increasing issue resolution and communication efficiencies.

Under the Safety and Health Approach subfactor, YS received one (1) Significant Strength, which resulted in an adjectival rating of “Excellent.”

The Significant Strength was for proposing a complete Safety and Health Plan that contains feasible and reasonable approaches in the areas of safety, health, and environmental practices, and which exceeds expectations in the areas of management and employee involvement. This exceptionally enhanced plan includes employee wellbeing, employee involvement, trend analysis, identification of potential emergencies, and other mitigating actions that will encourage safe behavior, greatly increase employee safety awareness and involvement, which will significantly reduce the risk of injury, OSHA reportable events, lost workdays, and property damage.

Past Performance Factor

Under the Past Performance Factor, Yulista received a “Very High” level of confidence rating.

The contract submitted was considered recent. In assigning an overall relevancy assessment, the Government considered the contract to be Very Relevant for Yulista Solutions, Yulista Tactical, and Quality Technical Services. When considered together in aggregate against proposed work responsibilities, this contract encompassed essentially the same scope required in the Statement of Work. In addition, the Government noted that the contract was the same as the anticipated size of CHARLES and that the contract was essentially the same level of complexity this solicitation requires. Further, based on the submitted Key Personnel resume, the EM’s past performance experience as a NASA AOD contractor on work essentially the same as the scope of CHARLES, the EM’s experience is considered Very Relevant. Therefore, the overall relevancy assessment is Very Relevant.

Overall, the CPARS data, past performance questionnaire responses, interviews, and other sources of performance data of the submitted contract for Yulista Solutions, Yulista Tactical, and Quality Technical Services demonstrated performance of exceptional merit, which was fully responsive to contract requirements, in a timely manner. In addition, the safety performance was considered satisfactory based on the provided OSHA and EPA data. After considering the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, and safety performance of the contracts which are recent and relevant, the Government determined that the quality of performance for the Yulista Team to be Excellent.

In assigning an overall Confidence Rating, the Government considered the contract provided by the Yulista team, which includes all task orders that were issued at the various locations under the predecessor ALICE contract, to be very highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating performance of exceptional merit that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Based on the Offeror’s performance record and the analysis provided above, there is a Very High Level of Confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort of CHARLES.

Cost/Price Factor

Under the Cost/Price factor, the SEB conducted a cost analysis and a price analysis and evaluated Yulista’s proposed cost/price of $436.47M for validity, realism, and adequacy to develop a probable cost of performance. Based on this analysis, and in determining Yulista’s probable cost of performance, the SEB made probable cost adjustments in accordance with the CHARLES RFP. NASA’s probable cost adjustment increased Yulista’s overall cost by $5.16M to an adjusted probable cost of $441.63M. Yulista’s evaluated probable cost/price was determined to be fair and reasonable. Additionally, Yulista’s proposed price for phase-in was determined to be reasonable.

Albers Aerospace (Albers)

Mission Suitability Factor

Under the mission suitability factor, Albers Aerospace received 621 points out of the available 1,000 points. Across the three (3) Mission Suitability subfactors, Albers Aerospace received no Significant Strengths, three (3) Strengths, one (1) Weakness, and no Significant Weakness.

Under the Overall Management Approach subfactor, Albers received two (2) Strengths, which resulted in an adjectival rating of “Good.”

The first Strength was for proposing a feasible Management Plan, demonstrating understanding of CHARLES management requirements. Albers Aerospace proposed feasible mitigations for identified contract management risks which will reduce disruption to missions and operations.

Albers proposed reasonable incentives which will contribute to workforce retention. Albers also proposed greater procurement authority than required by the Statement of Work which will streamline acquisitions. Collectively, these proposed elements will increase the probability of successful management of the CHARLES requirements. The second Strength was for proposing a Contract Phase-In Approach that describes a complete plan that benefits employees and NASA in a seamless transition. Albers’ proposed Contract Phase-in Approach describes a feasible strategy that increases the probability of fully transitioned operations at the contract start date.

Albers also proposed mitigation strategies that minimize impact to NASA activities during Phase-in and will reduce the risk to critical operations at JSC, LARC, and WFF.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, there were no material findings identified, which resulted in an adjectival rating of “Good.”

Under the Safety and Health Approach subfactor, Albers received one (1) Strength and one (1)

Weakness, which resulted in an adjectival rating of “Good.”

The Strength was for proposing a Safety and Health Plan containing elements that demonstrate understanding of safety and health and providing a feasible approach in establishing goals on awareness and employee investment in addition to injuries. The proposed Safety and Health Plan will reasonably reduce the risk of injury, illness, and property damage on the contract.

The Weakness was for demonstrating a lack of understanding of the elements of JPR 1700.1, JSC Safety and Health Requirements, in two important areas of the Safety and Health Plan:

inspections, and employee hazard reporting. These incomplete elements increase the risk of injury, illness, and property damage due to missing requirements and noncompliance of the safety and health program.

Past Performance Factor

Under the Past Performance Factor, Albers received a “Low” level of confidence rating.

All contracts submitted were considered recent. In assigning an overall relevancy assessment, the Government considered the three contracts provided for the Prime and the three contracts provide for the Major Subcontractor. Of the three contracts for the proposed Prime, Albers, all were considered Somewhat Relevant. Of the three contracts for the proposed major subcontractor, Vertex, two were considered Very Relevant and one was considered Relevant.

When considered together in aggregate against the specific work responsibilities for which the prime and the subcontractor are proposed to perform, these contracts encompassed some of the scope required in the Statement of Work. In addition, the Government noted three of the contracts involved much of the same size of effort, one involved essentially the same size of effort, one involved some of the size of effort, and one of the contracts involved little or none of the same size of effort that this solicitation requires. Of the six contracts, three involved much of the complexity, two involved some of the complexity, and one involved little or none of the complexity this solicitation requires. Further, based on the submitted Key Personnel resume, the EM’s experience is considered Relevant to the requirements on CHARLES. Therefore, the overall relevancy assessment is Somewhat Relevant.

Although much of the CPARS data, past performance questionnaire responses, interviews, and other sources of performance data of the submitted contracts for Albers Aerospace and Vertex demonstrated effective performance, there were some reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance at another NASA facility. In addition, the safety performance was considered satisfactory based on the provided OSHA and EPA data. After considering the available data on performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, and safety performance of the contracts which are recent and relevant, the Government determined that the quality of performance for Offeror’s contract to be Satisfactory.

In assigning an overall confidence rating, the Government considered the Albers team’s past performance somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, achieving adequate results. Based on the Offeror’s performance record and the analysis provided above, there is a Low Level of Confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort of CHARLES.

Cost/Price Factor

Under the Cost/Price factor, the SEB conducted a cost analysis and a price analysis and evaluated Albers’ proposed cost/price of $444.15M for validity, realism, and adequacy to develop a probable cost of performance. Based on this analysis, and in determining Albers’ probable cost of performance, the SEB made probable cost adjustments in accordance with the CHARLES RFP. NASA’s probable cost adjustment increased Albers’ overall cost by $200Kto an adjusted probable cost of $444.35M. Albers’ evaluated probable cost/price was determined to be fair and reasonable. Additionally, Albers’ proposed price for phase-in was determined to be reasonable.

Tyonek Worldwide Services, Inc. (Tyonek)

Mission Suitability Factor

Under the mission suitability factor, Tyonek received 514 points out of the available 1,000 points. Across the three (3) Mission Suitability subfactors, Tyonek received no Significant Strengths, four (4) Strengths, no Weaknesses, and two (2) Significant Weaknesses.

Under the Overall Management Approach subfactor, Tyonek received two (2) Strengths and two (2) Significant Weaknesses, which resulted in an adjectival rating of “Fair.”

The first Strength was for proposing a feasible Management Plan, demonstrating understanding of CHARLES management requirements. Tyonek proposed feasible mitigations for identified contract management risks which will reduce disruption to missions and operations. They also proposed reasonable incentives which will contribute to workforce retention. Together, these elements will increase the probability of successful management of the CHARLES requirements.

The second Strength was for proposing a Contract Phase-In Approach which describes a feasible plan that benefits employees and NASA in a seamless transition and increases the probability of fully transitioned operations at the contract start date. Tyonek proposed feasible mitigation strategies that minimize impact to NASA activities during Phase-in and will reduce the risk to critical operations at JSC, LARC, and WFF.

The first Significant Weakness was for proposing a management approach that includes several processes which require reach back for approvals and oversight to the corporate level which increases risk of process delays and undermines the authority of the Executive Manager. The proposed management approach does not demonstrate understanding of the CHARLES requirements of tasks driven by critical mission demands and will adversely impact the probability of successful execution of the contract requirements by decreasing efficiency and increasing schedule risk. The second Significant Weakness was for not proposing a complete Total Compensation Plan as required by DRD-M15 “Total Compensation Plan” which is not feasible, demonstrates a lack of understanding of requirements, and leaves the Government unable to determine if the benefits being proposed would be reasonable to recruit and retain a qualified workforce.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, Tyonek received one (1) Strength, which resulted in an adjectival rating of “Good.”

The Strength was for proposing a feasible approach to planning and executing a Guppy brake replacement project, demonstrating understanding of the sections of the CHARLES Statement of Work (SOW) as it relates to the Guppy Brake Scenario, exhibiting reasonable engineering processes. Tyonek proposed a detailed approach to this project that leverages their experience in industrial engineering processes to assure that the effort will be successfully completed safely and efficiently, minimizing the risk of schedule overrun.

Under the Safety and Health Approach subfactor, Tyonek received one (1) Strength, which resulted in an adjectival rating of “Good.”

The Strength was for proposing a Safety and Health Plan that demonstrates understanding of safety and health and provides a feasible approach in areas of employee participation, training management, and coverage of safety and health issues, which will reasonably reduce the risk of injury, illness, and property damage on the contract.

Past Performance Factor

Under the Past Performance Factor, Tyonek received a “Low” level of confidence rating.

All contracts submitted were considered recent. In assigning an overall relevancy assessment, the Government considered the three contracts provided on behalf of the Prime and the three contracts provided on behalf of the Subcontractors. The Government noted that two of the contracts submitted on behalf of the prime were performed by Tyonek Global Services (TGS).

The two contracts were considered relevant and somewhat relevant. One of the contracts submitted on behalf of subcontractor, L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, was performed by L3Harris Integrated Aerospace Systems (IAS). The contract was considered very relevant.

One of the contracts submitted on behalf of subcontractor, Zenetex, was performed by Vectrus.

The contract was considered somewhat relevant. TGS, IAS, and Vectrus are not listed as team members on the proposal, nor is there any evidence that TGS, IAS, or Vectrus will provide direct work on any of the scope of Section C on CHARLES in support of Tyonek WorldWide Services’ efforts. However, there was evidence that TGS, IAS, and Vectrus share corporate personnel, processes, and resources, with TWS, L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, and Zenetex, demonstrating some meaningful involvement. The remaining contract for the Prime Offeror was considered somewhat relevant. The contract for Zenetex was considered somewhat relevant.

When considered together, the two contracts encompassed some of the scope required in the Statement of Work. In addition, the Government noted that one of the contracts involved much of the size of effort, while one involved some of the size of effort this solicitation requires. In addition, it was documented that one of the contracts involved some of the complexity, whereas one of the contracts involved much of the complexity that this solicitation requires. Further, based on the submitted Key Personnel resume, the EM’s experience is considered Relevant to the requirements on CHARLES. When considered in the aggregate, the overall relevancy assessment is Somewhat Relevant.

Overall, the CPARS data, past performance questionnaire responses, interviews, and other sources of performance data of the submitted contracts for the Tyonek Team, as well as the contracts for which the prime contractor whose past performance was evaluated is proposed to have meaningful involvement in the performance of the CHARLES contract, demonstrated very effective performance, which was fully responsive to contract requirements, in a timely manner.

However, the safety performance was considered marginal based on the provided OSHA and EPA data. After considering the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, and safety performance of the contracts which are recent and relevant, as well as the recent and relevant contracts for which the prime contractor whose past performance was evaluated is proposed to have meaningful involvement in the performance of the CHARLES contract, the Government determined that the aggregate quality of performance for the Offeror’s contracts to be Satisfactory.

In assigning an overall confidence rating, the Government considered the Tyonek WorldWide team’s past performance somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, achieving adequate results.

Based on the Offeror’s performance record and the analysis provided above, there is a Low Level of Confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort for

CHARLES.

Cost/Price Factor

Under the Cost/Price factor, the SEB conducted a cost analysis and a price analysis and evaluated Tyonek’s proposed cost/price of $419.01M for validity, realism, and adequacy to develop a probable cost of performance. Based on this analysis, and in determining Tyonek’s probable cost of performance, the SEB made probable cost adjustments in accordance with the CHARLES RFP. NASA’s probable cost adjustment increased Tyonek’s overall cost by $21.51M to an adjusted probable cost of $440.52M. Tyonek’s evaluated probable cost/price was determined to be fair and reasonable. Additionally, Tyonek’s proposed price for phase-in was determined to be reasonable.

Craig Technologies

Mission Suitability Factor

Under the mission suitability factor, Craig Technologies received 522 points out of the available 1,000 points. Across the three (3) Mission Suitability subfactors, Craig Technologies received no Significant Strengths, three (3) Strengths, one (1) Weakness, and one (1) Significant Weakness.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, Craig received two (2) Strengths and one (1) Significant Weakness, which resulted in an adjectival rating of “Good.”

The first Strength was for proposing a feasible Management Plan, demonstrating understanding of CHARLES management requirements. Craig proposed feasible mitigations for identified contract management risks which will reduce disruption to missions and operations. Craig proposed reasonable incentives which will contribute to workforce retention. They also proposed detailed cost reporting processes which will contribute to cost reporting accuracy. Collectively, these proposed elements will increase the probability of successful management of the CHARLES requirements. The second Strength was for proposing a Contract Phase-In Approach which describes a reasonable plan that reduces the risk of time and resources lost with a change in contractor. Craig’s proposed Contract Phase-in Approach demonstrates understanding that increases the probability of fully transitioned operations at the contract start date. Craig proposed feasible mitigation strategies that minimize impact to NASA activities during Phase-in and will reduce the risk to critical operations at JSC, LARC, and WFF.

The Significant Weakness was for not including out-year wage escalation for union represented employees and SCA labor categories which greatly increases the risk of non-harmonious labor relations with union personnel. Zero wage escalation for the life of the contract is unreasonable and is inconsistent with the identified escalation rate provided in the proposed Total Compensation Package. In addition, union fringe benefits were excluded from the benefits and compensation structure, therefore the Government is unable to determine if the benefits being proposed would be reasonable to recruit and retain a qualified workforce.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, there were no material findings identified, which resulted in an adjectival rating of “Good.”

Under the Safety and Health Approach subfactor, Craig received one (1) Strength and one (1) Weakness, which resulted in an adjectival rating of “Good.”

The Strength was for proposing a Safety and Health Plan that demonstrates understanding of safety and health and provides a feasible approach in the areas of goals, safety self-assessments, and employee involvement. The proposed Safety and Health Plan will reasonably reduce the risk of injury, illness, and property damage on the contract.

The Weakness was for demonstrating a lack of understanding of elements of JPR 1700.1, JSC Safety and Health Requirements, in four important areas of the Safety and Health Plan: hazard reporting, asbestos control, hazard correction and tracking, and emergency preparedness. These incomplete elements increase the risk of injury, illness, and property damage due to missing requirements and noncompliance of the safety and health program.

Past Performance Factor

Under the Past Performance Factor, Craig Technologies received a “Low” level of confidence rating.

All contracts submitted were considered recent. In assigning an overall relevancy assessment, the Government considered the three contracts provided for the Prime and the three contracts provide for the Major Subcontractors. Of the three contracts provided for the proposed Prime, Craig, all were considered Somewhat Relevant. Three contracts provided for the major subcontractors, one was considered Relevant and two were considered Somewhat Relevant.

When considered together in aggregate against proposed work responsibilities, these contracts encompassed some of the scope required in the Statement of Work. In addition, the Government noted that three of the contracts involved little or none of the size of effort, two involved essentially the same size of effort, and one involved some of the size of effort that this solicitation requires. The Government noted that four of the contracts involved some of the complexity and two of the contracts involved little or none of the complexity that this solicitation requires. Further, based on the submitted Key Personnel resume, the EM’s experience is considered Somewhat Relevant to the requirements on CHARLES. Therefore, the overall relevancy assessment is Somewhat Relevant.

Overall, the limited CPARS data, past performance questionnaire responses, interviews, and other sources of performance data of the submitted contracts for the Craig team demonstrated effective performance, which was responsive to contract requirements, in a timely manner. In addition, the safety performance was considered satisfactory based on the provided OSHA and EPA data. After considering the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, and safety performance of the contracts which are recent and relevant, the Government determined that the quality of performance for Offeror’s contract to be Satisfactory.

In assigning an overall confidence rating, the Government considered the Craig team’s past performance somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, achieving adequate results. Based on the Offeror’s performance record and the analysis provided above, there is Low Level of Confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort of CHARLES.

Cost/Price Factor

Under the Cost/Price factor, the SEB conducted a cost analysis and a price analysis and evaluated Craig’s proposed cost/price of $442.82M for validity, realism, and adequacy to develop a probable cost of performance. Based on this analysis, and in determining Craig’s probable cost of performance, the SEB made probable cost adjustments in accordance with the CHARLES RFP. NASA’s probable cost adjustment decreased Craig’s overall cost by $1.89M to an adjusted probable cost of $440.93M. Tyonek’s evaluated probable cost/price was determined to be fair and reasonable. Additionally, Tyonek’s proposed price for phase-in was determined to be reasonable.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

My decision is based on selecting the proposal that represents the best overall value for the Government in accordance with the RFP’s stated criteria for contract award. I reviewed the SEB evaluation, posed questions to the SEB, and expressed my own views. I also requested and considered the comments of the senior officials in attendance at the Source Selecting meeting.

The information presented at the meeting by the SEB provided an excellent summary of its analysis of the five proposals.

Prior to the Source Selection meeting, I carefully examined the SEB's detailed report describing the Mission Suitability findings together with the analysis of past performance and pricing. As the Source Selection Authority (SSA), I examined the SEB's evaluation of each factor and subfactor and I carefully considered all five proposals. I recognized that it was my responsibility to make an independent judgment of the SEB's evaluation results and to determine if I agreed with that evaluation. I determined that the SEB performed a careful and thorough job of evaluating all five proposals. The SEB did an excellent job documenting their evaluation, identifying, and substantiating their findings, including all the Strengths and Weaknesses in each of the proposals. Additionally, the SEB provided detailed answers to the follow-up questions I had during the meeting. I agree with the information presented by the SEB and take no exception to the actions or assessments of the SEB. I hereby adopt their findings as my own.

In making my selection decision, I reviewed the relative importance of evaluation factors. For this solicitation, of the three evaluation factors, Mission Suitability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Mission Suitability is approximately equal to Past Performance. Individually, Mission Suitability and Past Performance are each more important than Cost/Price. Pursuant to section M.2 of the RFP. I also understand that award should be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal meets the requirements of the RFP and provides the “best value” to the Government and that, in accordance with the RFP Section 52.215-1(f)(4) the Government intended to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)).

I first turned my attention to the evaluation of each of the Offerors’ mission suitability proposal.

Mission suitability

At the outset I observed a notable quantitative and adjectival differences in the proposal evaluation in favor of Yulista over the other Offerors.

Offeror Mission Suitability Score 1,000 Points

Subfactor 1 Overall Management Approach 600 Points

Subfactor 2 Technical Approach 250 Points

Subfactor 3 Safety & Health Approach 150 Points

Arrow’s Edge

654 GOOD VERY GOOD VERY GOOD

Yulista Solutions

898 EXCELLENT VERY GOOD EXCELLENT

Albers Aerospace

621 GOOD GOOD GOOD

Tyonek WorldWide Services

514 FAIR GOOD GOOD

Craig Technologies

522 GOOD GOOD GOOD

I also noted…