NOIS3 Source Selection Statement (Enclosure).pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR THE NOIS3 CONTRACT

NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Request for Proposal 80JSC024R0004

On March 6, 2025, the NASA Open Innovation Services 3 (NOIS3) Streamlined Procurement Team (SLPT) along with key officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC), met to discuss the evaluations of proposals received in response to the NOIS3 Request for Proposal (RFP) 80JSC024R0004. During this meeting, I solicited the views of the SLPT, as well as those of my advisors, and expressed my own views.

The SLPT presentation charts have been reviewed, represent the final source selection evaluation report, and are herein incorporated by reference.

I. BACKGROUND

The NASA JSC Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation (CoECI) office is seeking to expand the capabilities and expertise it provides to NASA in the successful use of crowdsourcing. The NOIS3 acquisition is a follow-on procurement, which will provide an expanded set of crowdsourcing tools and methodologies to support NASA and other federal agencies. NOIS3 contractors are expected to execute public, crowd-based projects on their existing platforms and provide support services to administer those projects.

The NOIS3 acquisition was conducted under full and open competition and was assigned the North American Industry Classification System code 541990 - All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, with a Small Business Administration designated small business size standard of $19.5M. NOIS3 will result in multiple awards of Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts with Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Task Orders (TO). NOIS3 awardees will be given a fair opportunity to compete for FFP TOs during the 2-year base period of performance followed by a 3-year option period 1 and a 5-year option period 2. No phase-in period is required. The IDIQ guaranteed minimum is $500 per awardee and the maximum to be awarded across all NOIS3 contracts is $475 million.

A Sources Sought Synopsis/Request for Information, 80JSC025NOIS3, was released on February 15, 2024, through the Federal Business Opportunities website (SAM.gov), to conduct market research. The SLPT hosted a Virtual Industry Day presentation on March 27, 2024, and no individual discussions with interested parties were held. The SLPT received capability statements from 38 interested parties in response to the Sources Sought Synopsis/Request for Information; this information, along with market research was used to determine that a small business set-aside was not appropriate for the acquisition. However, TOs placed under the NOIS3 contract will be considered for small business set-asides, as appropriate. A draft RFP was released on August 18, 2024 via Modification 4 to the Sources Sought Synopsis/Request for Information. The deadline for submitting questions regarding the draft RFP was August 28, 2024. In total, 23 questions were received in response to the draft RFP. Answers were provided via Modification 5 to the Sources Sought Synopsis/Request for Information on September 18, 2024.

The NOIS3 final RFP 80JSC024R0004 was issued on September 30, 2024, via the sam.gov website, with an initial proposal due date of November 1, 2024. Modification 1 to the RFP posting was issued on October 2, 2024, to provide instructions for attending the Virtual Pre-proposal Conference. Modification 2 to the RFP posting was issued on October 9, 2024 to update the Interested Parties List. A Virtual Pre-proposal Conference was held on October 9, 2024.

Modification 3 to the RFP posting was issued on October 30, 2024 to add Amendment 1 of the RFP and to provide a copy of the NOIS2 Sample Request for Task Plan (RFTP). Amendment 1 moved FAR 52.222-18 from section 1 of the RFP to section 4, and included the full text of the provision;

removed section 6.3.1.2 of the RFP; revised the formatting on the link in section 5.1.12.2; changed the Contracting Officer; and changed the proposal due date in section 5.1.1 of RFP from November 1, 2024 to November 8, 2024.

Modification 4 to the RFP posting was issued on November 4, 2024 to add Amendment 2 of the RFP, which provided responses to the questions submitted in response to the RFP and Pre-proposal Conference, as well as revised the language in section 5.1.2. Modification 5 to the RFP posting was issued on November 5, 2025 to add Amendment 3 to the RFP, which changed the Contracting Officer, revised the language on question 90 of the Q&A for the RFP/Pre-proposal Conference, and noted Amendment 2 should have stated it was Amendment 2 instead of Amendment 1. A total of 3 amendments to the RFP were released prior to receipt of proposals on November 8, 2024, at 1:00 PM Central Time.

II. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES

Proposals were evaluated in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS), and the RFP. Pursuant to the NOIS3 RFP’s evaluation scheme, and in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.504(c), NASA intends to award multiple NOIS3 contracts to each Offeror who meets the requirements of the RFP.

The RFP indicated that the SLPT would perform an initial review to determine the acceptability of the proposals in accordance with NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals.

Following the initial review, the RFP indicated that all acceptable proposals would be evaluated solely against the Technical Acceptability Factor. In accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii), the Contracting Officer determined that past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the NOIS3 contracts. Additionally, as detailed in RFP Section 6.1.2 and in accordance with Section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and NASA Procurement Class Deviation 18-02, the Contracting Officer determined that price would not be considered as an evaluation factor. Rather, NOIS3 contract holders’ pricing will be considered in a competitive environment for future task orders under the NOIS3 contracts.

Under the Technical Acceptability Factor, the following were evaluated:

• Offeror Proposed Methodologies and End Products and Services

• Technical Understanding of the Requirements

• Sample Project Plan

Technical Acceptability was assessed in accordance with Section 6 of the RFP by assigning ratings of “Acceptable,” or “Unacceptable” to each Offeror’s Technical Acceptability volume. To be considered “Acceptable,” the Offeror Proposed Methodologies and End Products and Services, Technical Understanding of Requirements, and Sample Project Plan would show a demonstration of understanding, and level of reasonableness, feasibility and completeness such that associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. A proposal would be rated “Unacceptable” where any area of the proposal was unacceptable based on the demonstration of understanding, and level of reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness such that associated risks do jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

The NOIS3 RFP stated that the Government may elect to award contract(s) without discussions to the technically “Acceptable” responsible Offeror(s).

Offerors were also required to demonstrate responsibility to be considered for award, in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in FAR Subpart 9.1. Offerors were encouraged to provide Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Information, information demonstrating a satisfactory performance record, and any additional information considered necessary to demonstrate an offeror’s status as a responsible offeror under FAR 9.104.

III. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The Government received 53 timely proposals in response to the NOIS3 RFP. Proposals were received from the following companies and are listed in alphabetical order:

1. Aditi, LLC

2. Blue Clarity, LLC

3. Blueprint Creative Group

4. Brainstorm Technologies, LLC

5. Capital Consulting Corporation

6. CGI Federal, Inc.

7. Challenge Works

8. Charles F. Bolden Group

9. CrowdPlat, Inc.

10. Datalite, LLC

11. Design Interactive, Inc.

12. Driven Data, Inc.

13. Ensemble Government Services, LLC

14. FedTech

15. FedWriters, Inc.

16. Floor23 Digital, LLC

17. Freelancer International Pty Ltd

18. Govbidpro, Inc.

19. HeroX, PBC

20. Hybas International, LLC

21. HyerTek, Inc.

22. HYVE Innovate GMBH

23. Indiana University

24. Innoget, LLC

25. inQ, LLC

26. Institute of Competition Services

27. JAAW Group, LLC

28. Logical Innovations, Inc.

29. Loyal Source Government Services (LSGS)

30. Luminary Labs, LLC

31. Network Runners, Inc. (NRI)

32. National Institute of Aerospace Associates (NIAA)

33. NineSigma North America, Inc.

34. Opis Support Services GP

35. Pabulum Consulting, LLC

36. Polaron Technologies

37. Proteams Europe LTD

38. Ranstad Federal, LLC & Torc, LLC

39. RAZRWING, Inc.

40. Rios Partners, LLC

41. SAATEK Solutions

42. SecondMuse, LLC

43. Sensis, Inc.

44. Shoshin Works

45. TechConnect, LLC

46. The Outpost, LLC

47. Toffler Associates, Inc.

48. Tongal, Inc.

49. Topcoder, LLC

50. US Infotech Solution, LLC

51. Xrathus, Inc.

52. yet2.com, Inc.

53. ZataData, LLC

The SLPT evaluated proposals in accordance with Section 6.1 of the NOIS3 RFP, Evaluation - Streamlined Procurement Evaluation Factors for Award. Forty-six (46) proposals were determined to be acceptable under NFS 1815.305-70. The SLPT noted that the following proposals were determined to meet the conditions of an “Unacceptable” proposal and no further evaluation was conducted. Each offeror and the rationale as to why their proposal was determined to be “Unacceptable” are listed below:

Govbidpro, Inc

• Proposal was in PDF format instead of Word as required by section 5.2.7 of the RFP.

• Proposal did not follow the format or content required by section 5.3 of the RFP.

• No Responsibility Information was include as required by section 5.4 of the RFP.

• No Model Contract was included as required by section 5.5 of the RFP.

NineSigma North America, Inc

• All three required documents: technical acceptability, responsibility information, and the model contract, were in PDF format instead of Word as required in section 5.2.7 of the

RFP.

• Technical acceptability document was over the page count limit of 15 (21 pages in that document) as required in Table 5-1 of the RFP, and discussed in section 5.2.5.

Pabulum Consulting, LLC

• The majority of the model contract, was in PDF format instead of Word as required by section 5.2.7 of the RFP.

Polaron Technologies

• The model contract, was “snipped” and pasted into Word making it unsearchable, as required by Section 5.1.2 of the RFP.

RAZRWING, Inc

• Proposal did not follow the format or content required by section 5.3 of the RFP.

• No Responsibility Information was include as required by section 5.4 of the RFP.

• No Model Contract was included as required by section 5.5 of the RFP.

Sensis, Inc.

The Outpost, LLC

• The model contract, was “snipped” and pasted into Word making it unsearchable, as required by Section 5.1.2 of the RFP.

All remaining proposals were subsequently evaluated in accordance with the Technical Acceptability Factor, as stated in the RFP.

A. Technical Acceptability

The results of the technical acceptability evaluation are summarized below. In determining the appropriate Technical Acceptability rating for each Offeror, the SLPT engaged in a holistic assessment of each Offeror’s proposal with meaningful consideration of the demonstration of understanding, and level of reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness in the Offeror’s response to the Offeror Proposed Methodologies and End Products and Services, Technical Understanding of Requirements, and Sample Project Plan.

OFFEROR TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

Aditi, LLC Unacceptable

Blue Clarity, LLC Acceptable

Blueprint Creative Group Unacceptable

Brainstorm Technologies, LLC Unacceptable

Capital Consulting Corporation Acceptable

CGI Federal, Inc. Unacceptable

Challenge Works Acceptable

Charles F. Bolden Group Unacceptable

CrowdPlat, Inc. Acceptable

Datalite, LLC Unacceptable

Design Interactive, Inc. Acceptable

Driven Data, Inc. Acceptable

Ensemble Government Services, LLC Acceptable

FedTech Acceptable

FedWriters, Inc. Unacceptable

Floor23 Digital, LLC Acceptable

Freelancer International Pty Ltd Acceptable

HeroX, PBC Acceptable

Hybas International, LLC Unacceptable

HyerTek, Inc. Unacceptable

HYVE Innovate GMBH Acceptable

Indiana University Unacceptable

Innoget, LLC Acceptable inQ, LLC Unacceptable

Institute of Competition Sciences Acceptable

JAAW Group, LLC Unacceptable

Logical Innovations, Inc. Unacceptable

Loyal Source Government Services (LSGS) Acceptable

Luminary Labs, LLC Acceptable

Network Runners, Inc. (NRI) Unacceptable

National Institute of Aerospace Associates (NIAA) Acceptable

Opis Support Services GP Unacceptable

Proteams Europe LTD Unacceptable

Randstad Federal LLC & Torc, LLC Acceptable

Rios Partners, LLC Acceptable

SAATEK Solutions Unacceptable

SecondMuse, LLC Acceptable

Shoshin Works Unacceptable

TechConnect, LLC Acceptable

Toffler Associates, Inc. Acceptable

Tongal, Inc. Acceptable

Topcoder, LLC Acceptable

US Infotech Solution, LLC Unacceptable

Xrathus, Inc. Unacceptable yet2.com, Inc. Acceptable

ZataData, LLC Unacceptable

All Offerors rated in the table above as technically “Acceptable” submitted a proposal where each area of the proposal showed a demonstration of understanding, and level of reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness such that associated risks did not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

For Offerors rated in the table above as technically “Unacceptable” submitted a proposal where identified risks would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. Specific risks for each Offeror are identified below.

Aditi LLC

Based upon the evaluation, Aditi LLC’s proposed response to the 5.3.2 Technical Understanding of Requirements was determined to be Unacceptable. The SLPT noted the following risks related to the Technical Understanding of Requirements:

• Aditi LLC’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding or provide reasonable detail of the Government’s RFP requirement in 5.3.2 Technical Understanding of Requirements.

• Aditi LLC’s proposed overview of their business model did not demonstrate understanding of the SOW requirements.

• Aditi LLC’s proposal did not provide a feasible description on how they can successfully deliver crowd-based solutions.

• Aditi LLC’s proposal did not provide a feasible description of how its specific crowdsourcing methods meet each of the elements listed in the SOW. Specifically, Aditi LLC’s proposal did not provide reasonable detail in its response to elements a b, c, d, e, g, h, j, k, and l required by SOW Section 3.5 Task Order Execution.

• Aditi LLC’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding as it provided no unique processes, novel approaches, or innovations relevant to the SOW, nor a narrative detailing how the offeror can be successful while meeting the SOW requirements.

Blueprint Creative Group

Based upon the evaluation, Blueprint Creative Group’s Proposed Methodologies and End Products and Services was determined to be Unacceptable. Blueprint Creative Group’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding as it did not provide at least one of the five end products and services (Ref. RFP SOW, section 3.2.1 a. through e.), for at least one of the crowdsourced methodologies (Ref. RFP SOW, section 3.2) as required per RFP, Section 5.3.1.

Brainstorm Technologies, LLC

Based upon the evaluation, Brainstorm Technologies’ proposed response to the 5.3.2 Technical Understanding of Requirements was determined to be Unacceptable. The SLPT noted the following risks related to the Technical Understanding of Requirements:

• Brainstorm Technologies’ proposal did not demonstrate understanding or provide reasonable detail of the Government’s RFP requirement in 5.3.2 Technical Understanding of Requirements.

• Brainstorm Technologies’ proposed overview of their business model did not demonstrate understanding of the SOW requirements.

• Brainstorm Technologies’ proposal did not provide a feasible description on how they can successfully deliver crowd-based solutions.

• Brainstorm Technologies’ proposal did not provide a feasible description of how its specific crowdsourcing methods meet each of the elements listed in the SOW. Specifically, Brainstorm Technologies’ proposal did not provide reasonable or relevant detail in its response to elements a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, and l required by SOW Section 3.5 Task Order Execution.

• Brainstorm Technologies’ proposal did not demonstrate understanding as it provided no unique processes, novel approaches, or innovations relevant to the SOW, nor a narrative detailing how the offeror can be successful while meeting the SOW requirements.

CGI Federal, Inc.

Based upon the evaluation, CGI’s proposed response to the 5.3.2 Technical Understanding of

• CGI’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding or provide reasonable detail of the

• CGI’s proposed overview of their business model did not demonstrate understanding of the SOW requirements.

• CGI’s proposal did not provide the specific crowdsourcing method or methods that will be used to successfully deliver the products and services outlined in Section 3.2 of the SOW.

• CGI’s proposal did not provide a feasible description of how its specific crowdsourcing methods meet each of the elements listed in the SOW. Specifically, CGI’s proposal did not provide reasonable detail in its response to elements a, b, c, d, g, h, i, j, k, and l required by SOW Section 3.5 Task Order Execution.

Charles F Bolden Group

Based upon the evaluation, Charles F Bolden Group’s Proposed Methodologies and End Products and Services was determined to be Unacceptable. Charles F Bolden Group’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding as it did not provide at least one of the five end products and services

Datalite, LLC

Based upon the evaluation, Datalite’s proposed response to the 5.3.2 Technical Understanding of

• Datalite’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding or provide reasonable detail of the

• Datalite’s proposed overview of their business model did not demonstrate understanding of the SOW requirements.

• Datalite’s proposal did not provide a feasible description on how they can successfully deliver crowd-based solutions.

• Datalite’s proposal did not provide a feasible description of how its specific crowdsourcing methods meet each of the elements listed in the SOW. Specifically, Datalite’s proposal did not provide reasonable detail in its response to elements a, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, and m required by SOW Section 3.5 Task Order Execution.

• Datalite’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding as it provided no unique processes, FedWriters, Inc.

Based upon the evaluation, FedWriters’ proposed response to the 5.3.2 Technical Understanding of

• FedWriters’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding or provide reasonable detail of the

• FedWriters’ proposal did not provide a feasible description of how its specific crowdsourcing methods meet each of the elements listed in the SOW. Specifically, FedWriters’ proposal did not provide reasonable detail in its response to elements d, e, f, h, and j required by SOW Section 3.5 Task Order Execution.

HyerTek, Inc.

Based upon the evaluation, HyerTek’s proposed response to the 5.3.2 Technical Understanding of

• HyerTek’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding or provide reasonable detail of the

• HyerTek’s proposal did not provide a feasible description of how its specific crowdsourcing methods meet each of the elements listed in the SOW. Specifically, HyerTek’s proposal did not provide reasonable detail in its response to elements d, e, h, and j required by SOW Section 3.5 Task Order Execution.

Hybas International, LLC

Based upon the evaluation, Hybas International's proposed response to the 5.3.2 Technical Understanding of Requirements was determined to be Unacceptable. The SLPT noted the following risks related to the Technical Understanding of Requirements:

• Hybas International's proposal did not demonstrate understanding or provide reasonable detail of the Government’s RFP requirement in 5.3.2 Technical Understanding of Requirements.

• Hybas International's proposal did not provide a feasible description of how its specific crowdsourcing methods meet each of the elements listed in the SOW. Specifically, Hybas International's proposal did not provide reasonable detail in its response to elements a, b, c, d, f, g, h, i, j, k, and m required by SOW Section 3.5 Task Order Execution.

• Hybas International’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding as it provided no unique processes, novel approaches, or innovations relevant to the SOW, nor a narrative detailing how the offeror can be successful while meeting the SOW requirements.

Indiana University

Based upon the evaluation, Indiana University’s proposed response to the 5.3.2 Technical

• Indiana University’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding or provide reasonable

Requirements.

• Indiana University’s proposed overview of their business model did not demonstrate understanding of the SOW requirements.

• Indiana University’s proposal did not provide a feasible description on how they can successfully deliver crowd-based solutions.

• Indiana University’s proposal did not provide a feasible description of how its specific crowdsourcing methods meet each of the elements listed in the SOW. Specifically, Indiana University’s proposal did not provide reasonable detail in its response to elements a, b, d, e, g, h, i, j, k, and l required by SOW Section 3.5 Task Order Execution.

• Indiana University’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding as it provided no unique inQ LLC

Based upon the evaluation, inQ LLC’s proposed response to the 5.3.2 Technical Understanding of Requirements were determined to be Unacceptable. The SLPT noted the following risks related to

• inQ LLC’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding or provide reasonable detail of the

• inQ LLC’s proposed overview of their business model did not demonstrate understanding of the SOW requirements.

• inQ LLC’s proposal did not provide a feasible description on how they can successfully deliver crowd-based solutions.

• inQ LLC’s proposal did not provide a feasible description of how its specific crowdsourcing methods meet each of the elements listed in the SOW. Specifically, InQ LLC’s proposal did not provide reasonable detail in its response to elements a, b, d, g, h, j, k, and m required by SOW Section 3.5 Task Order Execution.

• inQ LLC’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding as it provided no unique processes, JAAW Group, LLC

Based upon the evaluation, JAAW Group, LLC’s proposed response to the 5.3.2 Technical

• JAAW Group, LLC’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding or provide reasonable

Requirements.

• JAAW Group, LLC’s proposed overview of their business model did not demonstrate understanding of the SOW requirements.

• JAAW Group, LLC’s proposal did not provide a feasible description on how they can successfully deliver crowd-based solutions.

• JAAW Group, LLC’s proposal did not provide a feasible description of how its specific crowdsourcing methods meet each of the elements listed in the SOW. Specifically, JAAW Group, LLC’s proposal did not provide reasonable detail in its response to elements a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, and m required by SOW Section 3.5 Task Order Execution.

• JAAW Group, LLC’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding as it provided no unique

Logical Innovations, Inc.

Based upon the evaluation, Logical Innovations’ proposed response to the 5.3.2 Technical

• Logical Innovations’ proposal did not demonstrate understanding or provide reasonable

Requirements.

• Logical Innovations’ proposal did not provide a feasible description on how they can successfully deliver crowd-based solutions.

• Logical Innovations’ proposal did not provide a feasible description of how its specific crowdsourcing methods meet each of the elements listed in the SOW. Specifically, Logical Innovations’ proposal did not provide reasonable detail in its response to elements b, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, and k required by SOW Section 3.5 Task Order Execution.

• Logical Innovations’ proposal did not demonstrate understanding as they provided no unique processes, novel approaches, or innovations relevant to the SOW, nor a narrative detailing how the offeror can be successful while meeting the SOW requirements.

Network Runners

Based upon the evaluation, Network Runners’ proposed Offeror Proposed Methodologies and End Products and Services was determined to be Unacceptable. Network Runners’ proposal did not demonstrate understanding as it did not provide at least one of the five end products and services

Opis Support Services

Based upon the evaluation, Opis Support Services' proposed response to the 5.3.2 Technical

• Opis Support Services' proposal did not demonstrate understanding or provide reasonable

Requirements.

• Opis Support Services’ proposed overview of their business model did not demonstrate understanding of the SOW requirements.

• Opis Support Services’ proposal did not provide a feasible description on how they can successfully deliver crowd-based solutions.

• Opis Support Services’ proposal did not provide a feasible description of how its specific crowdsourcing methods meet each of the elements listed in the SOW. Specifically, Opis Support Services’ proposal did not provide reasonable detail in its response to elements a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, and m required by SOW Section 3.5 Task Order Execution.

• Opis Support Services’ proposal did not demonstrate understanding as it provided no unique

Proteams Europe LTD

Based upon the evaluation, Proteams Europe LTD’s response to the 5.3.2 Technical Understanding of Requirements was determined to be Unacceptable. The SLPT noted the following risks related to

• Proteams Europe LTD’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding or provide reasonable

Requirements.

• Proteams Europe LTD’s proposal did not provide a feasible description of how its specific crowdsourcing methods meet each of the elements listed in the SOW. Specifically, Proteams Europe LTD’s proposal did not provide reasonable detail in its response to elements a, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, and m required by SOW Section 3.5 Task Order Execution.

SAATEK Solutions

Based upon the evaluation, SAATEK Solutions’ proposed response to the 5.3.2 Technical

• SAATEK Solutions’ proposal did not demonstrate understanding or provide reasonable

Requirements.

• SAATEK Solutions’ proposed overview of their business model did not demonstrate understanding of the SOW requirements.

• SAATEK Solutions’ proposal did not provide a feasible description on how they can successfully deliver crowd-based solutions.

• SAATEK Solutions’ proposal did not provide a feasible description of how its specific crowdsourcing methods meet each of the elements listed in the SOW. Specifically, SAATEK Solutions’ proposal did not provide reasonable detail in its response to elements a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, and m required by SOW Section 3.5 Task Order Execution.

• SAATEK Solutions’ proposal did not demonstrate understanding as it provided no unique

Shoshin Works

Based upon the evaluation, Shoshin Works’ response to the 5.3.2 Technical Understanding of

• Shoshin Works’ proposal did not demonstrate understanding or provide reasonable detail of the Government’s RFP requirement in 5.3.2 Technical Understanding of Requirements.

• Shoshin Works’ proposal did not provide a feasible description of how its specific crowdsourcing methods meet each of the elements listed in the SOW. Specifically, Shoshin Works’ propsal did not provide reasonable detail in its response to elements a, b, c, e, f, g, h, i, and j required by SOW Section 3.5 Task Order Execution.

US Infotech

Based upon the evaluation, US Infotech’s proposed response to the 5.3.2 Technical Understanding of Requirements was determined to be Unacceptable. The SLPT noted the following risks related to

• US Infotech’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding or provide reasonable detail of the Government’s RFP requirement in 5.3.2 Technical Understanding of Requirements.

• US Infotech’s proposed overview of their business model did not demonstrate understanding of the SOW requirements.

• US Infotech’s proposal did not provide a feasible description on how they can successfully deliver crowd-based solutions.

• US Infotech’s proposal did not provide a feasible description of how its specific crowdsourcing methods meet each of the elements listed in the SOW. Specifically, US Infotech’s proposal did not provide reasonable detail in its response to elements a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, and m required by SOW Section 3.5 Task Order Execution.

• US Infotech’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding as they provided no unique

Xrathus

Based upon the evaluation, Xrathus’ proposed response to the 5.3.2 Technical Understanding of

• Xrathus’ proposal did not demonstrate understanding or provide reasonable detail of the

• Xrathus’ proposed overview of their business model did not demonstrate understanding of the SOW requirements.

• Xrathus’ proposal did not provide a feasible description of the specific crowdsourcing method or methods that will be used to successfully deliver the products and services outlined in Section 3.2 of the SOW.

• Xrathus’ proposal did not provide a feasible description of how its specific crowdsourcing methods meet each of the elements listed in the SOW. Specifically, Xrathus’ proposal did not provide reasonable detail in its response to elements b, c, d, g, h, j, k, l and m required by SOW Section 3.5 Task Order Execution.

• Xrathus’ proposal did not demonstrate understanding as they provided no unique processes, ZataData, LLC

Based upon the evaluation, ZataData, LLC’s proposed response to the 5.3.2 Technical

• ZataData, LLC’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding or provide reasonable detail of the Government’s RFP requirement in 5.3.2 Technical Understanding of Requirements.

• ZataData LLC’s proposed overview of their business model did not demonstrate understanding of the SOW requirements.

• ZataData LLC’s proposal did not provide a feasible description on how they can successfully deliver crowd-based solutions.

• ZataData, LLC’s proposal did not provide a feasible description of how its specific crowdsourcing methods meet each of the elements listed in the SOW. Specifically, ZataData, LLC’s proposal did not provide reasonable detail in its response to elements a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, and m required by SOW Section 3.5 Task Order Execution.

• ZataData, LLC’s proposal did not demonstrate understanding as it provided no unique

B. Contractor Responsibility

In accordance with FAR 9.1, NASA FAR Supplement 1809.19.103(b), and in accordance with the NOIS3 RFP, the Contracting Officer affirmatively determined that all 25 technically acceptable Offerors are responsible prospective contractors.

C. Summary

Offeror

R es po ns ib le

O ffe ro r?

Technical Acceptability

Blue Clarity, LLC Yes Acceptable

Capital Consulting Corporation Yes Acceptable

Challenge Works Yes Acceptable

CrowdPlat, Inc. Yes Acceptable

Design Interactive, Inc. Yes Acceptable

Driven Data, Inc. Yes Acceptable

Ensemble Government Services, LLC Yes Acceptable

FedTech Yes Acceptable

Floor23 Digital, LLC Yes Acceptable

Freelancer International PTY LTD Yes Acceptable

HeroX, PBC Yes Acceptable

HYVE Innovate GMBH Yes Acceptable

Innoget, LLC Yes Acceptable

Institute of Competition Sciences Yes Acceptable

Loyal Source Government Services

(LSGS)

Yes Acceptable

Luminary Labs, LLC Yes Acceptable

National Institute of Aerospace Associates (NIAA)

Yes Acceptable

Randstad Federal, LLC & Torc, LLC Yes Acceptable

Rios Partners, LLC Yes Acceptable

SecondMuse, LLC Yes Acceptable

TechConnect, LLC Yes Acceptable

Toffler Associates, Inc. Yes Acceptable

Tongal, Inc. Yes Acceptable

Topcoder, LLC Yes Acceptable yet2.com, Inc. Yes Acceptable

IV. SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

On March 6, 2025, the SLPT presented and discussed with me its evaluation observations for each Offeror. Based on the information presented, I fully understand the evaluation process and the SLPT findings. I have independently and thoroughly studied the information presented to me and base my decision on the culmination of information reviewed during the course of this selection process.

I noted that, per the RFP, the Government intends to make an award to any Offeror who is determined to be a responsible source and submits a technically “Acceptable” proposal under the Technical Acceptability Factor. The SLPT’s observations that were presented to me were consistent with the evaluation criteria in the NOIS3 RFP. I questioned the SLPT with regard to key aspects of its evaluation methodology in order to be certain I fully understood this rationale and the underlying qualitative aspects of the Offerors’ proposals. Finally, I considered the inputs and opinions of key personnel and advisors who have responsibility relative to the procurement.

I concurred with the SLPT that the proposals submitted by the following Offerors were Technically Unacceptable:

• Aditi, LLC

• Blueprint Creative Group

• Brainstorm Technologies, LLC

• CGI Federal, Inc.

• Charles F. Bolden Group

• Datalite, LLC

• FedWriters, Inc.

• Hybas International, LLC

• HyerTek, Inc.

• Indiana University

• inQ, LLC

• JAAW Group, LLC

• Logical Innovations, Inc.

• Network Runners, Inc. (NRI)

• Opis Support Services GP

• Proteams Europe LTD

• SAATEK Solutions

• Shoshin Works

• US Infotech Solution, LLC

• Xrathus, Inc.

• ZataData, LLC

For the remaining 25 proposals, I reviewed the SLPT’s observations with respect to the Technical Acceptability Factor for each Offeror and I questioned the SLPT with respect to whether all 25 Offerors provided a Technical volume that fully addressed the Offeror Proposed Methodologies and End Products and Services, Technical Understanding of Requirements, and the Sample Project Plan, as required by the RFP. The SLPT also indicated that each proposal rated “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor fully addressed all 13 TO execution elements, as required by the RFP, and demonstrated that they understood the government’s minimum requirements for public, crowd-based methodologies. Further, the SLPT stated that it identified no risks in the Technical volumes of these Offerors’ proposals.

The fact that 25 Offerors fully and completely addressed all RFP requirements shows me that they all understand the requirements, and provides me with confidence that all tasks will be completed successfully. I concur with the SLPT for each Offeror’s respective Technical Acceptability rating, finding that each of the 25 Offerors provided an Offeror Proposed Methodologies and End Products and Services, Technical Understanding of Requirements, and Sample Project Plan, where each area of the proposal showed a demonstration of understanding, and level of reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness such that associated risks did not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. I determined that the SLPT’s evaluation record and its “Acceptable” rating for 25 Offerors had a rational basis and were valid for the purpose of making a selection decision.

The SLPT found that all 25 proposals conform to the requirements of the RFP, and I agree with that assessment. In addition, the Contracting Officer has determined that these Offerors are responsible sources, in accordance with FAR Part 9, and I have no reason to question that determination. I understand that part of the responsibility determination is verifying a company’s financial resources to perform, integrity and business ethics, and accounting/operations controls. Those things, coupled with the fact that all TOs issued under these contracts will be awarded in a competitive environment, gives me further confidence that prices obtained during the TO competitions will be fair and reasonable.

Based upon the evaluation results, my own independent judgment and assessment, and the terms of the RFP, I consider it to be in the Agency’s best interest to make award to all 25 Offerors with Technically Acceptable proposals. Cumulatively, these 25 firms offer coverage across all methodologies specified in Section 3.2 and all end products and services specified in Section 3.2.1 of the NOIS3 RFP. I find that the award of NOIS3 contracts to these 25 firms will greatly increase competition and will provide NASA with access to a larger, more diverse online community, thereby increasing the likelihood that NASA will obtain needed services, ideas, and content through crowdsourcing.

I noted that the NOIS3 RFP mandates that the RFP remain open during the life of the contract and anticipates that the Agency may make additional awards at any time through an on-ramp process.

The on-ramp process allows NASA, at its discretion, to add vendors in the future as a way to ensure robust competition across all areas of the NOIS3 SOW during the period of performance of the contract. Through this on-ramp process, potential Offerors would be evaluated under the same factors outlined in Sections 4-6 of the NOIS3 RFP.

Thus, I select for award the following firms for NOIS3 contracts:

Blue Clarity, LLC Capital Consulting Corporation Challenge Works CrowdPlat, Inc.

Design Interactive, Inc.

Driven Data, Inc.

Ensemble Government Services, LLC FedTech Floor23 Digital, LLC Freelancer International Pty LTD HeroX, PBC HYVE Innovate GMBH Innoget, LLC Institute of Competition Sciences Loyal Source Government Services (LSGS) Luminary Labs, LLC National Institute of Aerospace Associates (NIAA) Randstad Federal, LLC & Torc, LLC Rios Partners, LLC SecondMuse, LLC TechConnect, LLC Toffler Associates, Inc.

Tongal, Inc.

Topcoder, LLC yet2.com, Inc.

Donna M. Shafer Source Selection Authority