SST III Source Selection Statement 21 August 2023.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Source Selection Statement Simulation and Software Technology III

Solicitation 80JSC022R0009 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

On August 17, 2023, I met with members of the Simulation and Software Technology (SST) III team and spoke with them about the final evaluation for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on the SST III contract, under Solicitation 80JSC022R0009, dated February 24, 2022. I met with advisors, including the Contracting Officer, and made my selection decision on August 17, 2023.

BACKGROUND

NASA requires continued SST support and related services primarily for NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Engineering Directorate's Software, Robotics, and Simulation Division (ER), Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Division (EG), Propulsion and Power Division (EP), and Avionics Systems Division (EV) but is available to other directorates at JSC and other centers throughout NASA.

SST III is an Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract with Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee and Firm Fixed Priced Task Orders. The stated Period of Performance (POP) for this acquisition is 5 years. The ceiling not-to-exceed value is $150 million. This acquisition is a follow-on to the current SST II contract.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

Request for Information (RFI)/Sources Sought Synopsis (SSS) On February 24, 2021, NASA issued an RFI/SSS to solicit capability statements from Industry through sam.gov under notice ID 80JSC021SSTIII. The SST II Statement of Work (SOW) was posted to provide Industry with the anticipated elements of the SST III SOW.

Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)/RFI On June 25, 2021, NASA issued an OCI/RFI for SST III. The Government provided the SST II SOW for Industry to consider when identifying any potential OCI.

Industry Day On June 29-30, 2021, NASA held a virtual Industry Day including virtual one-on-one meetings with interested parties for the SST III acquisition.

Posting of Industry Day Questions and Answers On November 30, 2021, NASA provided official responses to questions received during the SST III Industry Day.

Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) On December 8, 2021, NASA posted the SST III DRFP.

DRFP Question and Answers Posted Industry Questions and Answers for SST III DRFP were posted on January 31, 2022, and February 7, 2022.

Pre-solicitation Synopsis On January 26, 2022, NASA posted a pre-solicitation synopsis.

Request for Proposal (RFP) On February 24, 2022, NASA released the SST III RFP and associated documents. The RFP responses were due on March 28, 2022, at 4 p.m. Central Time. The following SST III RFP amendments were issued:

Amendment 1 – March 21, 2022 Amendment 2 – March 24, 2022 Amendment 3 – March 28, 2022

The proposal due date was extended by Amendment 1 and Amendment 3 to April 4, 2022 and April 11, 2022, respectively.

Pre-Proposal Conference On March 3, 2022, NASA posted Pre-Proposal Bulletin Charts to discuss and highlight the RFP requirements. In addition, on March 7, 2022, NASA held a virtual pre-proposal pricing conference to review the Excel Pricing Model (EPM) workbook with Industry.

RFP Questions and Answers On March 24, 2022, and March 28, 2022, NASA posted RFP Questions and Answers.

Receipt of Proposals Proposals were received by the due date of April 11, 2022. No proposals were received late.

The following Offerors submitted proposals in response to the SST III RFP (listed in order of evaluation):

Leidos, Inc.

Aegis Aerospace, Inc.

CACI, Inc.-Federal Engineering Research and Consulting (ERC) CAE USA, Inc.

Initial Presentation of Competitive Range to Source Selection Authority (SSA) On December 7, 2022, the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) presented its evaluation to the SSA.

Bid Protest On February 21, 2023, Aegis Aerospace, Inc. filed a bid protest before the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Corrective Action On March 22, 2023, NASA requested that the Bid Protest be dismissed so that corrective action could be taken. On April 5, 2023, the GAO dismissed the protest based on corrective action being taken by NASA. As of the date of signing this decision, NASA will have completed corrective action. NASA has reviewed Aegis Aerospace Inc.’s protest allegations, including assertions contained in its initial and first supplemental protests and Aegis’ allegations referred to as a ‘supplemental protest.’ NASA also considered the issues raised in CACI, Inc. - Federal’s March 3, 2023, Intervenor’s Request for Partial Dismissal. NASA reevaluated all offerors’ SST III proposals. NASA reevaluated the language in the Request for Proposals and determined it was unnecessary to amend the solicitation to address alleged ambiguities raised by the protester.

NASA also reevaluated all relevant factors and determined it was not necessary or beneficial to conduct discussions as part of the reevaluation of proposals. During re-evaluation, NASA considered the actions demanded by the protestor and took appropriate actions to update the proposal evaluations, award decision, source selection statement, and updated any documentation that was affected by the changes in corrective action documentation. Additionally, NASA took other appropriate corrective action to consider updated past performance information and to further evaluate Total Compensation Plans. With this Source Selection Statement, NASA is making a new contract award decision. After completion of the corrective action, NASA will inform all offerors of the specific actions taken during corrective action.

Presentation of Competitive Range to Source Selection Authority (SSA) On August 17, 2023, members of the Source Evaluation Board presented its corrective action and updated proposal evaluations to the SSA.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The proposals were evaluated in strict accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Part 1815, and the SST III RFP. The RFP details the SEB Evaluation factors and criteria contained in Section M of the RFP.

Upon receipt of the proposals, the SEB conducted an initial review of the proposals to determine acceptability in accordance with NASA FAR NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. The SEB determined all proposals were acceptable in accordance with the solicitation.

Proposals were evaluated by the SEB in accordance with applicable regulations which include the FAR and the NFS. Subfactors were evaluated in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A).

The SEB carried out the evaluation activities in order to report its findings to the SSA, who is responsible for making the final source selection decision.

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. This procurement is being conducted utilizing a combination of Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price evaluation factors. The lowest price proposals may not necessarily receive an award; likewise, the highest technically rated proposals may not necessarily receive an award. The evaluation factors were weighed in accordance with the criterion in the RFP:

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

As individual factors, the Mission Suitability factor is more important than the Past Performance factor which is more important than the Cost factor.

The Government evaluated each Offeror’s proposal using the factors and subfactors below.

Although proposals are organized by factors and subfactors, the Government evaluated the proposals for consistency among proposals information.

MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR

Mission Suitability Subfactors Weight Management Approach 400 Points Technical Approach 500 Points Small Business Utilization 100 Points

TOTAL 1000 Points

The Government evaluated Mission Suitability as required by Sections L.23.1 through L.23.3 and Section M.5. The Mission Suitability Subfactors below were rated with an adjective and numerically weighted. Overall Mission Suitability was only numerically scored.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 1, Management Approach, evaluated each Offeror’s Contract Management Plan (CMP), Staffing and Critical Skills and Total Compensation Approach, Contract Phase-in Plan, Key Personnel Approach for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonability, feasibility, and completeness.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 2, Technical Approach, evaluated each Offeror’s response to the Technology, Innovations, and Process Improvement (TIPI) Plan and three Sample Task Orders (STOs) for demonstrated understanding, reasonability, feasibility, and completeness.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 3, Small Business Utilization, evaluated each Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting and commitment to the Small Business Program.

PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

The Government evaluated Past Performance as required by Sections L.23.4 and M.6 of the SST

III RFP.

Recency, relevance, and performance, as described in RFP Section M.6(c), were the aspects taken into consideration by the SEB when determining each Offeror’s Past Performance confidence rating.

COST AND PRICE FACTOR

The Government evaluated proposed costs and established the probable cost of doing business with each Offeror as required by Section L.23.5 and M.7 of the SST III RFP. The cost and price evaluation considered the pricing for IDIQ RFP Level of Specified Resources (SR), IDIQ STOs, and Phase-in Price.

The Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (“IDIQ”) NTE value is distinct from the RFP pricing methodology, which was established for evaluation purposes only. Proposals were not rejected if the price proposal value was higher than the Not To Exceed (NTE) value of the contract. The RFP does not mandate or condone such a rejection.

The RFP established this as an IDIQ contract (Section B.3 of RFP) with a guaranteed minimum of $100,000 and an NTE of $150,000,000 (Section B.9 of RFP). The contract awardee is only assured of work up to the minimum ordering value and is not guaranteed work up to the full value of the NTE ceiling. The pricing methodology established in RFP Section L.23.5.C specifically stated that Offeror pricing is for “proposal evaluation purposes only.” This provision goes on to state that because “of the uncertainties involved with IDIQ work, Offerors are cautioned that this estimate is not a guarantee of future work.” To understand binding contractual values, the RFP directed Offerors to the minimum and maximum ordering limits established in Section B.9. The RFP Section M.7 outlined these cost and price factors and articulates that the standards are “[f]or purposes of proposal evaluation and source selection” and specifically explains that the probable cost analysis “will be used for purposes of evaluation and selection.”

The hypothetical pricing methodology under the SST III RFP Sample Task Orders was not intended to be the basis of an actual task order under the contract. (RFP TA.2(c)) (“The Sample Task Orders are hypothetical scenarios that give Offerors an opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of the requirements. The Government does not intend to award the Sample Task Orders at contract start.”) Furthermore, the RFP at Section M.7 described the evaluation of the Cost and Price Factor and identified the evaluation of the Specified Resources as “the Government’s best estimate of the cost of the contract.” The RFP was clear that the Offeror’s proposal pricing will not be the awarded contract’s dollar value. The RFP directed Offerors to rely on pricing associated with the IDIQ guaranteed minimum and NTE ceiling for future task order work, but the RFP language did not indicate that such limits were placed on the RFP’s proposal pricing methodology.

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

In making my decision, I considered the Mission Suitability score, Past Performance level of confidence, and Cost/Price, as well as the proposal in its entirety. I also considered the content of the SEB findings. This determination is made on the basis of the evaluation criteria specified in the solicitation.

With regard to each proposal, I concluded the following:

Leidos, Inc.

Offeror MS Mission

Suitability

1000 Points

MA

Management

Approach

400 Points

TA

Technical Approach

500 Points

SBU

Small Business

Utilization

100 Points

Past Performance Confidence

Rating

Total Contract Cost/Price

Leidos 585 240 Good

Good

Good Moderate Second Highest

Leidos, Inc. proposal received 585 points for the overall Mission Suitability Factor score.

In Mission Suitability Subfactor 1 (Management Approach), the SEB found one Strength and one Weakness and determined that the Weakness is not offset by the Strength but does not significantly detract from the Offeror’s response. The Strength was for Leidos, Inc. proposing a Chief Software Architect (CSA) key personnel position above and beyond the RFP requirement for the Program Manager (PM) key personnel position, which is beneficial to the successful execution of the SST III SOW technical requirements. The Weakness was related to Leidos, Inc.

not adequately addressing the critical skills necessary for implementation as required by DRD-11 of the SST III SOW and therefore did not demonstrate understanding of the critical skills needed for the SST III contract.

In Mission Suitability Subfactor 2 (Technical Approach), the SEB found two Strengths, three Weaknesses, and one Significant Weakness and determined that the Weaknesses are not offset by the Strengths but does not significantly detract from the Offeror’s response. The first Strength was for Leidos, Inc. proposing a feasible and reasonable set of innovations and efficiencies to improve the project management and development of NASA delivered products.

The second Strength was for proposing a complete and feasible approach to the STO1 Part 1:

Simulation Tools General Use Nodal Network (GUNNS) subtask by proposing an extension of the GUNNS capabilities to apply to traffic flow. The three Weaknesses pertained to incomplete approaches proposed for STO1 Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. The Weakness for STO1 Part 1 was related to the Offeror not demonstrating an understanding of how to implement STO1 Simulation Tools requirements by proposing an inadequate Simplified Wrapper Interface Generator (SWIG) replacement solution and providing insufficient detail for robotics math models for the robotics subtask. The STO1 Part 2 Weakness was a result of the Offeror not addressing interactions with the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate (ESDMD) to coordinate the products, processes, and services to conduct the Mars exploration study. The last Weakness for STO1 Part 3 was related to the Offeror not providing sufficient discussion to demonstrate understanding of how the Augmented Reality (AR) view of surrounding terrain is integrated with the Virtual Reality (VR) Lander Trainer, as well as how the Mixed Reality Mars Rover (MRMR) products and technologies are implemented and integrated. The Significant Weakness was related to the Offeror providing an incomplete solution to STO3 by proposing it as an implementation task rather than providing Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) support for NASA oversight, as defined in STO3 requirements.

In Mission Suitability Subfactor 3 (Small Business Utilization), the SEB found one Strength and shows a reasonably sound response. Leidos, Inc. proposed a small business subcontracting approach that demonstrates a commitment to meeting or exceeding the SST III small business goals.

The SEB evaluated Leidos, Inc. its proposed major subcontractors, and proposed Program Manager Key Personnel for Past Performance in accordance with the criteria defined in L.23.4 and M.6 of the RFP. All evaluated contracts were found to be Recent. Leidos, Inc. provided four contracts (two for Leidos, Inc., one for Metis, and one for Implemetrics); the two contracts provided for Leidos Inc. and the one contract for Implemetrics were determined to be Somewhat Relevant. The contract that was provided for Metis was determined to be Relevant. The proposed Program Manager’s past performance was determined to be Somewhat Relevant and the candidate’s performance was determined to be Excellent. When considered together in aggregate against the specific work responsibilities for which the prime, the subcontractor, and the proposed Program Manager Key Personnel are proposed to perform, this past performance encompassed some of the content, complexity, and size of effort required by the SST III SOW and was determined to be Somewhat Relevant.

Leidos, Inc. team’s overall performance was determined to be Excellent.

In assigning a confidence rating, the SST III SEB evaluated all of Leidos, Inc.’s Past Performance efforts in accordance with the RFP. After evaluating Leidos, Inc.’s Past Performance, the SST III SEB determined that Leidos, Inc.’s Past Performance is pertinent to this acquisition, demonstrating effective performance. Leidos past performance indicates there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance.

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a Moderate Level of Confidence that Leidos will successfully perform the SST III required effort.

NASA reviewed Leidos Inc.’s proposal costs. In accordance with information gathered from the proposal, the SST III RFP, and associated documents, NASA made probable cost adjustments.

NASA’s probable cost adjustment increased Leidos, Inc.’s overall cost by less than 3%. The adjusted cost represents the second highest probable cost of the five Offerors.

Considering all three evaluation factors and their relative importance as stated in Section M.4 of the RFP, I determined that Leidos, Inc. had the third highest Mission Suitability score and was one of the lowest rated Offerors in Past Performance (which are the two most important evaluation factors). Leidos, Inc. had the second highest probable cost (which is the least important evaluation factor).

Aegis Aerospace, Inc.

Offeror MS Mission

Suitability

1000 Points

MA

Management

Approach

400 Points

TA

Technical Approach

500 Points

SBU

Small Business

Utilization

100 Points

Past Performance Confidence

Rating

Total Contract Cost/Price

Aegis Aerospace 635 180

Fair

Very Good

Good High Third Highest

Aegis Aerospace, Inc. proposal received 635 points for the overall Mission Suitability Factor score.

In Mission Suitability Subfactor 1 (Management Approach), the SEB found one Weakness and one Significant Weakness. The Weakness was related to Aegis Aerospace, Inc. not adequately addressing the critical skills necessary for implementation as required by DRD-11 of the SST III SOW and therefore did not demonstrate understanding of the critical skills needed for the SST III contract. Aegis Aerospace, Inc. received a Significant Weakness as a result of proposing an incomplete, unreasonable, and infeasible CMP by not providing an efficient and effective interface to the Government.

In Mission Suitability Subfactor 2 (Technical Approach), the SEB found one Significant Strength, three Strengths, and two Weaknesses and determined that the strengths outbalance any Weaknesses that exist. The Significant Strength was for Aegis Aerospace, Inc.’s proposed implementation for STO2. The Offeror demonstrated an understanding of Core Flight Executive (CFE)/Core Flight Software (CFS), Time Triggered Ethernet (TTE), and software development practices as well as developing CFS-based systems that use Real-Time Operating Systems (RTOS) used by NASA spacecraft. The first Strength was for Aegis Aerospace, Inc.’s proposed approach to STO1 Part 2: Simulation Architecture which demonstrates an understanding of simulation architecture requirements and offers a characterization library that benefits simulation products by enhancing engineering analysis and crew training. The second Strength was for Aegis Aerospace, Inc.’s reasonable and complete plan that demonstrates understanding of the STO2 requirements by articulating it’s Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) level 3 rating. The third Strength was for Aegis Aerospace, Inc.’s proposed technical approach to STO3 requirements which demonstrates understanding of the Orion Flight Software (FSW) oversight support task by providing insightful details above and beyond the STO3 requirements for the Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) plan and the Oversight Surveillance plan (OSP) and proposed to analyze potential workarounds to uphold system quality and integrity in oversight support work. Aegis Aerospace, Inc. received a Weakness for proposing an incomplete solution to the STO1 Part 3: Virtual Reality (VR) Mixed-Reality Mars Rover (MRMR) application demonstrating a lack of understanding by not addressing any method of tracking or fusing the real-world environment with the virtual environment, as well as not addressing shortcomings of the proposed commercial off-the-shelf game engine. In addition, Aegis Aerospace, Inc. received a Weakness for proposing an unreasonable and incomplete approach to STO2 requirements demonstrating a lack of understanding by not addressing the role of the Spacecraft Software Engineering Team (SSET) as the Engineering Directorate's Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) umbrella organization.

In Mission Suitability Subfactor 3 (Small Business Utilization), the SEB found one Weakness and showed a reasonably sound response which did not significantly detract from the proposal.

Aegis Aerospace, Inc. received a Weakness because the proposal did not use the Total Contract

Value while developing the subcontracting dollars, per the RFP instructions, L.23.3(g), requiring goals to be defined based on Total Contract Value.

The SEB evaluated Aegis Aerospace, Inc., its proposed major subcontractors, and proposed Program Manager Key Personnel for Past Performance in accordance with the criteria defined in L.23.4 and M.6 of the RFP. All evaluated contracts were found to be Recent. Aegis Aerospace, Inc. provided eight contracts (three for Aegis Aerospace, Inc., three for Odyssey, and two for Red Canyon); the three contracts provided for Aegis Aerospace Inc. were determined to be Somewhat Relevant. Two of the contracts for Odyssey were determined to be Very Relevant and one contract was determined to be Relevant. One contract for Red Canyon was determined to be Relevant, and one contract was determined to be Not Relevant. The proposed Program Manager’s past performance was determined to be Somewhat Relevant and the candidate’s performance was determined to be Very Good. When considered together in aggregate against the specific work responsibilities for which the prime, the subcontractor, and the proposed Program Manager Key Personnel are proposed to perform, this past performance encompassed much of the content, complexity, and size of effort required by the SST III SOW and was determined to be Relevant.

Aegis Aerospace, Inc. team’s overall performance was determined to be Very Good.

In assigning a confidence rating, the SST III SEB evaluated all of Aegis Aerospace, Inc.’s Past Performance efforts in accordance with the RFP. After evaluating Aegis Aerospace, Inc.’s Past Performance, the SST III SEB determined that Aegis Aerospace, Inc.’s Past Performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition, demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Aegis 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 the Offeror’s performance record, there is a High Level of Confidence that Aegis will successfully perform the SST III required effort.

NASA reviewed Aegis Aerospace Inc.’s proposal cost. In accordance with information gathered from the proposal, the SST III RFP, and associated documents, NASA made probable cost adjustments. NASA’s probable cost adjustment increased Aegis Aerospace, Inc.’s overall cost by less than 1% to an adjusted cost which represents the third highest probable cost of the five Offerors.

Considering all three evaluation factors and their relative importance as stated in Section M.4 of the RFP, I determined that Aegis Aerospace, Inc. had the second highest Mission Suitability score and was one of the highest rated Offerors in Past Performance (which are the two most important evaluation factors). Aegis Aerospace, Inc. had the third highest probable cost (which is the least important evaluation factor).

CACI, Inc.-Federal

CACI, Inc.-Federal’s proposal received 885 points for the overall Mission Suitability Factor score.

In Mission Suitability Subfactor 1 (Management Approach), the SEB found one Significant Strength and one Strength and demonstrated overall competence. CACI, Inc.-Federal received the Significant Strength for proposing a reasonable and complete management approach to identification of critical skills required to meet the SST III SOW, demonstrating understanding of all critical skills needed to accomplish the totality of the SOW. The Strength was for CACI, Inc.-Federal proposing key personnel which demonstrated understanding above and beyond the RFP requirement for the PM key personnel position by proposing a Technical Area Lead, Spacecraft Software (TAL/SS), Software Development Lead, Trick Simulation Environment (SDL/TSE), and Software Development Lead, General Use Nodal Network Solver (SDL/GUNNS) (CSA) key personnel positions above and beyond the RFP requirement for the Program Manager (PM) key personnel position.

In Mission Suitability Subfactor 2 (Technical Approach), the SEB found three Significant Strengths and three Strengths and presented a comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit. CACI, Inc.-Federal received the first Significant Strength for proposing a complete and reasonable approach to STO1 Part 1: Simulation Tools by demonstrating understanding of the STO1 Simulation Tools requirements, with an innovative solution to the GUNNS traffic modeling subtask, addressing technical challenges with modeling robotic systems, and offering a comprehensive solution to the replacement of SWIG in Trick. The second Significant Strength was a result of CACI, Inc.-Federal’s understanding of the Government’s software process document requirements and Agile development methodology, including a test-driven development approach and continuous integration solution, which demonstrates a complete understanding of the software development practices required in STO2.

CACI, Inc.-Federal also received a Significant Strength for demonstrating a complete understanding of the scope of the STO3 System Management task by addressing the Software System Manager role, knowledge of the task requirements, and skills to accomplish the work and providing details of the oversight support surveillance task that are far beyond the specification of the RFP STO3 requirements. One Strength was received for proposing a feasible and reasonable set of innovations and efficiencies to improve the robustness and performance of NASA delivered products. Two Strengths were related to STO1, one Strength for proposing a feasible and reasonable approach to STO1 Part 2: Simulation Architecture by demonstrating

Offeror MS Mission

Suitability

1000 Points

MA

Management

Approach

400 Points

TA

Technical Approach

500 Points

SBU

Small Business

Utilization

100 Points

Past Performance Confidence

Rating

Total Contract Cost/Price

CACI 885 340

Very Good

Excellent

Good Very High Highest knowledge of the model packages, simulation tools, testing technologies, and management processes required to address all Architecture elements of STO1 Part 2 and the other strength for proposing a complete and reasonable approach to STO1 Part 3: VR by demonstrating a complete understanding of the STO1 Virtual Reality simulations.

In Mission Suitability Subfactor 3 (Small Business Utilization), the SEB found one Strength which resulted in a reasonably sound response. CACI, Inc.-Federal proposed a small business subcontracting approach that demonstrates a commitment to meeting or exceeding the SST III small business goals.

The SEB evaluated CACI, Inc.-Federal, its proposed major subcontractors, and proposed Program Manager Key Personnel for Past Performance in accordance with the criteria defined in L.23.4 and M.6 of the RFP. The evaluated contract was found to be Recent. CACI, Inc.-Federal provided one contract (one for CACI, LTZ and QTS) which was determined to be Very Relevant for CACI and LTZ and Relevant for QTS. The proposed Program Manager’s past performance was determined to be Very Relevant and the candidate’s performance was determined to be Excellent. When considered in aggregate against the specific work responsibilities for which the prime, subcontractors, and proposed Program Manager Key Personnel are proposed to perform, this past performance encompassed essentially the same content, complexity, and size of effort required by the SST III SOW and was determined to be Very Relevant.

CACI, Inc.-Federal team’s overall performance was determined to be Excellent.

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

NASA reviewed CACI, Inc.-Federal’s proposal cost. In accordance with information gathered from the proposal, the SST III RFP, and associated documents, NASA made no probable cost adjustments. CACI, Inc.-Federal’s proposal represents the highest probable cost of the five Offerors.

Considering all three evaluation factors and their relative importance as stated in Section M.4 of the RFP, I determined that CACI, Inc.-Federal’s had the highest Mission Suitability score and was the highest rated Offeror in Past Performance (which are the two most important evaluation factors). CACI, Inc.-Federal had the highest probable cost (which is the least important evaluation factor).

ERC

Offeror MS Mission

Suitability

1000 Points

MA

Management

Approach

400 Points

TA

Technical Approach

500 Points

SBU

Small Business

Utilization

100 Points

Past Performance Confidence

Rating

Total Contract Cost/Price

ERC 490 180

Fair

Fair

Good High Lowest

ERC’s proposal received 490 points for the overall Mission Suitability Factor score.

In Mission Suitability Subfactor 1 (Management Approach), the SEB found one Weakness and one Significant Weakness. The Weakness was due to ERC proposing an incomplete and unreasonable organizational structure in the Systems Engineering and VR and Graphics aspects of the SST III SOW, by deemphasizing simulation and flight software development. The Significant Weakness was related to ERC’s management approach being incomplete and unreasonable as a result of deferring assessment of critical skills until after contract award. ERC did not adequately address the critical skills necessary for implementation as required by DRD- 11 of the SST III SOW and therefore did not demonstrate understanding of the critical skills needed for the SST III contract.

In Mission Suitability Subfactor 2 (Technical Approach), the SEB found two Weaknesses. The first Weakness was related to ERC proposing an incomplete approach to STO1 Part 3: VR demonstrating a lack of understanding by not providing sufficient implementation details for the VR Lander Trainer subtask or the Mixed Reality Mars Rover (MRMR) subtask. The second Weakness was due to ERC proposing an incomplete approach to STO2 demonstrating a lack of understanding by not providing sufficient detail for the required STO2 products: Project Management Plan (PMP) and Software Development Plan (SDP).

In Mission Suitability Subfactor 3 (Small Business Utilization), the SEB found one Strength and one Weakness, showed a reasonably sound response, and as a whole, the weakness not off-set by the strength does not significantly detract from the offeror’s response. ERC received a strength for proposing a small business subcontracting approach that demonstrates a commitment to meeting or exceeding the SST III small business goals. ERC received a Weakness for not using the Total Contract Value while developing the subcontracting dollars, per the RFP instructions, L.23.3(g), requiring goals to be defined based on Total Contract Value.

The SEB evaluated ERC, its proposed major subcontractors, and proposed Program Manager Key Personnel for Past Performance in accordance with the criteria defined in L.23.4 and M.6 of the RFP. All evaluated contracts were found to be Recent. ERC provided four contracts (three for ERC and one for ARES); two of the contracts provided for ERC were determined to be Very Relevant and one contract was determined to be Relevant. The contract that was provided for ARES was determined to be Somewhat Relevant. No contract was provided for the other proposed major subcontractor, Noetic. The proposed Program Manager’s past performance was determined to be Relevant and the candidate’s performance was determined to be Excellent.

When considered together in aggregate against the specific work responsibilities for which the prime, the proposed subcontractor, and the proposed Program Manager Key Personnel are proposed to perform, this past performance encompassed much of the content, complexity, and size of effort required by the SST III SOW and was determined to be Relevant.

ERC team’s overall performance was determined to be Excellent.

In assigning a confidence rating, the SST III SEB evaluated all of ERC’s Past Performance efforts in accordance with the RFP. After evaluating ERC’s Past Performance, the SST III SEB determined that ERC’s Past Performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition, demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. ERC 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 the Offeror’s performance record, there is a High Level of Confidence that ERC will successfully perform the SST III required effort.

NASA reviewed ERC’s proposal cost. In accordance with information gathered from the proposal, the SST III RFP, and associated documents, NASA made probable cost adjustments.

The NASA probable cost adjustment increased ERC’s overall cost by less than 7% to an adjusted cost which represents the lowest probable cost of the five Offerors.

Considering all three evaluation factors and their relative importance as stated in Section M.4 of the RFP, I determined that ERC’s proposal was the fourth highest Mission Suitability score and was one of the highly rated Offerors in Past Performance (which are the two most important evaluation factors). ERC had the lowest probable cost (which is the least important evaluation factor).

CAE USA, Inc.

Offeror MS Mission

Suitability

1000 Points

MA

Management

Approach

400 Points

TA

Technical Approach

500 Points

SBU

Small Business

Utilization

100 Points

Past Performance Confidence

Rating

Total Contract Cost/Price

CAE USA 410 120

Poor

Fair

Good Moderate Fourth Highest

CAE USA, Inc.’s proposal received 410 points for the overall Mission Suitability Factor score.

In Mission Suitability Subfactor 1 (Management Approach), the SEB found two Weaknesses and one Deficiency, that would require a major proposal revision to correct. The first Weakness was related to CAE USA, Inc. proposing an unreasonable Abbreviated Compensation Plan (ACP) with issues related to uncompensated overtime, seniority, vacation time, and length of service which creates a risk for employee retention and morale. The second Weakness was related to CAE USA, Inc. not adequately addressing the critical skills necessary for implementation as required by DRD-11 of the SST III SOW and therefore did not demonstrate understanding of the critical skills needed for the SST III contract. CAE USA, Inc. received a Deficiency as a result proposing an incomplete CMP within the Mission Suitability Volume 1 of the proposal by not addressing multiple areas of DRD-05, CMP.

In Mission Suitability Subfactor 2 (Technical Approach), the SEB found two Strengths, one Weakness, and two Significant Weaknesses and determined that weaknesses outbalanced strengths. The first Strength was related to CAE USA, Inc. proposing a complete and feasible approach to STO1 Part 1: Simulation Tools GUNNS subtask by proposing an approach to calibrating the GUNNS subtask. The second Strength was related to CAE USA, Inc. proposing a reasonable approach to elements of STO1 Part 2: Simulation Architecture by proposing a unique approach to model rough surfaces, craters and other complex shapes superimposed on the base terrain model. The Weakness was a result of the CAE USA, Inc. proposing an unreasonable approach to STO1 Part 1: Simulation Tools by proposing a solution that complicates the structure of the Trick-based simulation as well as not adequately addressing robotics math models. CAE USA, Inc. received one Significant Weakness for proposing an incomplete approach that did not address all of the requirements defined in STO2 by mistaking STO2 as a modeling and simulation task instead of a flight software development task, misapplying governing flight software development reference documents, and not demonstrating understanding of the oversight role of the NASA Spacecraft Software Engineering Team (SSET). The second Significant Weakness was a result of CAE USA, Inc. proposing an incomplete approach that did not address all of the requirements defined in STO3 flight software oversight support by misapplying the referenced STO3 governing documents, failing to address the review responsibilities of the STO3 oversight support task, adding additional work not required of the STO3 task, and failing to identify notable risks to the STO3 task implementation.

In Mission Suitability Subfactor 3 (Small Business Utilization), the SEB found one Weakness and showed a reasonably sound response which did not significantly detract from the proposal.

CAE USA, Inc. received a Weakness because the proposal did not use the Total Contract Value while developing the subcontracting dollars, per the RFP instructions, L.23.3(g), requiring goals to be defined based on Total Contract Value.

The SEB evaluated CAE USA, Inc., its proposed major subcontractors, and proposed Program Manager Key Personnel for Past Performance in accordance with the criteria defined in L.23.4 and M.6 of the RFP. All evaluated contracts were found to be Recent. CAE USA, Inc. provided eight contracts (three for CAE USA, Inc., three for Cimmaron and two for JST). Two contracts provided for CAE USA, Inc. were determined to be Relevant and one contract was determined to be Somewhat Relevant. The contracts provided for Cimmaron were all determined to be Somewhat Relevant. For JST, both contracts were determined to be Not Relevant. The proposed Program Manager’s past performance was determined to be Relevant and the candidate’s performance was determined to be Satisfactory. When considered together in aggregate against the specific work responsibilities for which the prime, the proposed subcontractors, and the proposed Program Manager Key Personnel are proposed to perform, this past performance encompassed some of the content, complexity, and size of effort required by the SST III SOW and was determined to be Somewhat Relevant.

CAE USA, Inc. team’s overall performance was determined to be Very Good.

In assigning a confidence rating, the SST III SEB evaluated all of CAE USA, Inc. Past Performance efforts in accordance with the RPF. After evaluating CAE USA, Inc. Past Performance, the SST III SEB determined that CAE USA, Inc. Past Performance is pertinent to this acquisition, demonstrating effective performance. CAE USA, Inc. past performance indicates that Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a Moderate Level of Confidence that CAE USA, Inc. will successfully perform the SST III required effort.

NASA reviewed CAE USA, Inc.’s proposal cost. In accordance with information gathered from the proposal, the SST III RFP, and associated documents, NASA made probable cost adjustments. NASA probable cost adjustment increased CAE USA, Inc. overall cost by less than one half of1% to an adjusted cost which represents the fourth highest probable cost of the five Offerors.

Considering all three evaluation factors and their relative importance as stated in Section M.4 of the RFP, I determined that CAE USA, Inc. had the lowest Mission Suitability score and was one of the moderately rated Offerors in Past Performance (which are the two most important evaluation factors). CAE USA, Inc. had the fourth highest probable cost (which is the least important evaluation factor).

DETERMINATION

As stated above, FAR 15.306(c)(1) states, “Agencies shall evaluate all proposals in accordance with 15.305(a), and, if discussions are to be conducted, establish the competitive range. Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the Contracting Officer shall establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section.”

Based upon the evaluation of proposals received in response to the SST III solicitation it is in the Government’s best interest to award without discussions. Given the weaknesses articulated by the SEB, I spoke with the Contracting Officer about the potential for creating a Competitive Range to allow the appropriate Offerors to enter discussions and refine their proposals. As a result of these deliberations, my own assessment, and in accordance with the RFP, I have determined that to award without discussions is in the best interest of the government. First, there are no weaknesses present in the Awardee’s proposal. Additionally, I do not foresee discussions resulting in an appreciable difference in offers or that another round of proposal submissions will create new discriminators for contract award. I do not think that discussions will result in proposals that create an appreciably better value for the government. The probable cost assessment between the highest costing proposal and the lowest cost proposal is less than 9%. I am cognizant to the costs incurred by contractors to enter into discussion and the costs associated with resubmitting proposals. With these factors in mind, it is appropriate to award without discussions.

SELECTION DECISION

During the initial presentation on December 7, 2022, I questioned the SEB on its evaluation and I carefully considered the material presented. I also requested and considered the comments of the senior officials who attended the briefing. The charts presented at the meeting appropriately summarized the SEB’s evaluation of the proposals. During the August 17, 2023, meeting, I reviewed the updated evaluations and spoke with the Contracting Officer about the corrective action process and considerations. The revised charts appropriately summarized the corrective action updates and the SEB’s evaluation of the proposals. Based on the information provided to me, I am confident the SEB did the necessary due diligence required of corrective action and proposal evaluations, Prior to the August 17, 2023, meeting, I carefully examined the SEB’s detailed findings report describing the Mission Suitability findings, together with the analysis of past performance evaluations and cost/price analysis. As the Source Selection Authority (SSA), I examined the SEB’s evaluation of each factor and subfactor and I considered the evaluations of all the proposals. I found that the evaluation and findings are in accordance with the RFP and its evaluation criteria. I recognized the fact 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 had systematically evaluated all five proposals in accordance with the RFP. The SEB had documented its evaluation, identifying and explaining the reasons for its findings of the strengths and weaknesses, past performance evaluations, and cost /price analysis.

The SEB provided detailed answers to the follow-up questions I had during the meeting. As Source Selection Official, I understand the merits, technical and otherwise, and the qualitative aspects of each proposal and take no exception to the SEB’s evaluation

CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL PROPOSALS

Leidos, Inc.

In considering each proposal individually, I find that Leidos, Inc.’s Mission Suitability has been evaluated as having four Strengths, four Weaknesses, and one Significant Weakness. In addition, Leidos, Inc. has performance that is pertinent to this acquisition, demonstrating effective performance. Leidos, Inc.’s overall performance was determined to be Excellent.

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, I agree with the SEB that there is a Moderate Level of Confidence that Leidos could successfully perform the SST III required effort. In evaluating Leidos, Inc.’s cost, NASA’s probable cost adjustment increased Leidos, Inc.’s overall cost by less than 3%. I concur with the SEB evaluation that the appropriately adjusted cost represents the second highest probable cost of the five Offerors.

I note that Leidos, Inc. proposes a Chief Software Architect (CSA) as a key personnel position.

This exceeds the RFP requirement for key personnel position, which I value as beneficial. I recognize that Leidos, Inc. proposes a feasible and reasonable set of innovations and efficiencies to improve the project management and development of NASA delivered products. The proposal had a Strength and multiple Weaknesses in the evaluation of its responses to Sample Task Orders. I find it significant that Leidos Inc. did not address interactions with the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate (ESDMD) to coordinate the products, processes, and services to conduct the Mars exploration study because this could have an impact on efficient and successful completion of SOW requirements. Leidos also had a Significant Weakness for failing to identify the need for SE&I support for NASA oversight, which risks feasible completion of SOW requirements.

Aegis Aerospace, Inc.

I find that Aegis Aerospace, Inc.’s Mission Suitability has been evaluated as having one Significant Strength, three Strengths, four Weaknesses, and one Significant Weakness. In addition, Aegis Aerospace Inc. has performance that is highly pertinent to this acquisition, demonstrating very effective performance. Aegis Aerospace, Inc.’s overall performance was determined to be Very Good. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, I agree with the SEB that there is a High Level of Confidence that Aegis Aerospace, Inc. could successfully perform the SST III required effort. In evaluating Aegis Aerospace, Inc.’s cost, NASA’s probable cost adjustment increased Aegis Aerospace, Inc.’s overall cost by less than 1%. I concur with the SEB evaluation that the appropriately adjusted cost represents the third highest probable cost of the five Offerors.

I recognize that Aegis Aerospace, Inc.’s proposal responded to STO2 with a demonstrated understanding of CFE/CFS, TTE, and software development practices that increases my confidence that these portions of the SOW could be performed successfully and efficiently. I also find value in the proposal’s stated development of CFS-based systems that use RTOS VxWorks and RTEMS, as these are used by NASA spacecraft. I also find value in the proffered CMMI level 3 rating. I find it significant that Aegis Aerospace Inc.’s proposal’s response to STO1 part 3 did not address any method of tracking or fusing the real-world environment with the virtual environment, or address shortcomings of the proposed commercially available game engine. In addition, Aegis Aerospace Inc.’s proposal did not address the role of SSET as the CMMI umbrella organization, which could risk feasible completion of SOW requirements. The Aegis Aerospace Inc. proposal’s CMP also creates risk, as it has not provided an efficient and effective interface to the Government.

CACI, Inc.-Federal

I find that CACI, Inc.-Federal’s Mission Suitability has been evaluated as having four Significant Strengths and five Strengths. In addition, CACI Inc.-Federal has performance that is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, demonstrating exemplary performance. CACI Inc.-Federal’s overall performance was determined to be Excellent. Based on the offeror’s performance record, I agree there is a Very High Level of Confidence that CACI, Inc.-Federal will successfully perform the

SST III required effort. In evaluating CACI Inc.-Federal’s cost, NASA had no probable cost adjustment. I concur with the SEB evaluation that CACI, Inc.-Federal’s cost represents the highest probable cost of the five Offerors.

I recognize and find value that CACI, Inc.-Federal proposes key personnel beyond the RFP requirement and includes three new key personnel position: TAL/SS, SDL/TSE, and SDL/GUNNS.