MTIC SSS.pdf

Source Selection Statement for the

Mission Technical Integration Contract (MTIC) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

(Solicitation Number 80JSC025R7002)

On May 28, 2025, the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals for the Mission Technical Integration Contract (MTIC), under Solicitation Number 80JSC025R7002, presented its final evaluation to me and other senior officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The SEB held a series of previous meetings with me on April 30, 2025, May 1, 2025, and May 7, 2025, to present its evaluation progress and answer my questions. As the Source Selection Authority (SSA), I am responsible for making the source selection decision. I considered the information presented and contemplated my decision. I met with advisors, including the Contracting Officer and SEB Chairman, and announced my selection decision during the meeting on May 28, 2025.

Procurement Requirements

The MTIC is a Total Small Business Set-Aside under Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)

19.5 for technical integration services including Program Management, Business Management, Configuration Management and Data Management, Information Technology, Systems Engineering and Integration, Mission Planning and Integration, Operations, Safety and Mission Assurance/Program Risk, and Program Research and Communication/Strategic Collaboration support services for multiple human space flight programs. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code is 541715 for Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (Exception 3) (Guided Missiles and Space Vehicles, Their Propulsion Units and Propulsion Parts) and the small business size standard is 1,300 employees.

This competitive acquisition will result in a Hybrid Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) and Cost- Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF) Core Requirement with the ability to issue CPAF & CPIF Indefinite- Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Task Orders. The contract includes the option for the Government to unilaterally transition from CPAF to Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee (CPFF) and the option to unilaterally transition back to CPAF. The contract will have a total potential period of performance of 6 years, including a 2-year Base Period, a 1-year Option Period 1, a 1-year Option Period 2, a 1-year Option Period 3, and a 1-year Option Period 4. The contract also includes FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services clause to allow for an additional 6-months of services if exercised. The effective IDIQ ordering period will align with the above period of performance.

The total potential period of performance of this contract is identified in increments as follows:

Date Duration Contractual Coverage 08/17/2025 – 9/30/2025 45 Days Phase-In 10/01/2025 – 09/30/2027 2 Years Base Period

10/01/2027 – 09/30/2028 1 Years Option 1 10/01/2028 – 09/30/2029 1 Years Option 2 10/01/2029 – 09/30/2030 1 Years Option 3 10/01/2030 – 09/30/2031 1 Years Option 4 10/01/2031 – 03/31/2032 6 Months Option to Extend Services, FAR 52.217-8

Chronology

Sources Sought Synopsis:

On May 16, 2024, NASA issued a Sources Sought Synopsis (SSS) to solicit comments from industry regarding acquisition strategies under synopsis notice ID 80JSC024MTIC. The synopsis provided a historical scope of work of the current Human Space Flight Technical Integration Contract (HSFTIC) contract, announced the scheduling of an Industry Day, and allowed for reserving slots for one-on-one meetings with the Government.

Industry Day:

On June 18, 2024, NASA held an in-person and online (via Microsoft Teams) Industry Day for the MTIC acquisition. One-on-one meetings were held in person on June 18, 2024, and virtual one-on-one meetings were held on June 20, 2024.

Posting of Industry Questions and Answers (Q&A):

On August 6, 2024, NASA provided official responses to questions received during the MTIC Industry Day and one-on-one Meetings.

Industry Update:

On September 6, 2024, NASA held an Industry Update meeting (via Microsoft Teams) to facilitate open communication with industry and provide additional details on changes from the HSFTIC contract, MTIC’s predecessor. This allowed interested parties the opportunity to ask questions to representatives from multiple NASA programs that the MTIC will support.

Draft Request for Proposal (RFP):

On December 13, 2024, NASA posted the draft RFP.

Pre-solicitation Synopsis:

On January 13, 2025, NASA posted a pre-solicitation synopsis on www.sam.gov.

Draft RFP Q&A:

On January 24, 2025, NASA provided official responses to questions received on the draft RFP.

RFP:

On January 30, 2025, NASA released the MTIC RFP and associated documents on sam.gov.

Proposals were due on March 4, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. (Central Time). The following modifications to the solicitation were issued:

• Modification 1 – February 7, 2025; Posted MTIC Pre-Proposal Conference Presentation.

http://www.sam.gov/

• Modification 2 – February 14, 2025; Released RFP Amendment 1.

• Modification 3 – February 19, 2025; Posted RFP Questions and Answers.

• Modification 4 – February 25, 2025; Released RFP Amendment 2.

Pre-Proposal Conference:

On February 7, 2025, NASA held a pre-proposal conference (via Microsoft Teams) to discuss and highlight RFP requirements. All interested parties were encouraged to attend.

Receipt of Proposal:

Proposals were received by the due date of March 4, 2025. All proposals were received timely, prior to the proposal deadline. The following Offerors submitted proposals in response to the

MTIC RFP:

• Cimarron-MORI Space Integrators (CMSI) (Joint Venture)

• Aerodyne Industries, Inc

• Barrios Technology, LLC

Upon receipt of the proposals, the SEB conducted an initial review of the proposals to determine acceptability in accordance with NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. Per NFS 1815.305-70(a)(1), the contracting officer shall not complete the initial evaluation of any proposal when it is determined that the proposal is unacceptable because it does not represent a reasonable initial effort to address the essential requirements of the RFP or clearly demonstrates that the offeror does not understand the requirements.

No proposals were determined to be unacceptable in accordance with NFS 1815.305- 70(a)(1).

Evaluation Process and Criteria

The proposals were evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15, NFS Part 1815, the MTIC RFP, and the MTIC Evaluation Plan. At Section M.2 of the RFP, it states that NASA “intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors” and that the “Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and mission suitability standpoint.”

The RFP further details the SEB evaluation factors and criteria contained in Section M of the RFP. As a Total Small Business Set-Aside, no Small Business scoring is required.

The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. This procurement shall be conducted utilizing a combination of Price, Mission Suitability, and Past Performance evaluation factors. The lowest price proposals may not necessarily receive an award; likewise, the highest technically rated proposals may not necessarily receive an award. In accordance with the RFP Section M.3 – Source Evaluation Board Evaluation Factors for Award:

“Mission Suitability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Mission Suitability is approximately equal to Past

Performance. Mission Suitability and Past Performance when separately evaluated are each approximately equal to Cost/Price.”

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 across proposal information, including the Offeror’s proposed model contract.

Mission Suitability Factor

Mission Suitability Subfactors Weight Subfactor A Management Approach 400 Points Subfactor B Technical Approach 600 Points

TOTAL 1000 Points

The Mission Suitability subfactors below were rated with an adjective and numerically weighted and scored. Mission Suitability, overall, was numerically scored.

Mission Suitability Subfactor A, Management Approach The SEB evaluated each Offeror’s proposed Management Approach (per Data Requirement Document (DRD) MTIC PM-01, Contract Management Plan, sections A-D, F-H, and L-N), Phase-in Plan (per DRD MTIC PM-08, Phase-In Plan, sections A thru C, L, N, and O) and Total Compensation Plan for overall demonstrated understanding for reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness, and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government.

Mission Suitability Subfactor B, Technical Approach The SEB evaluated each Offeror’s proposed Technical Understanding of Requirements of specific Statement of Work (SOW) sections defined in L.19B Technical Approach, Mission Suitability (Sub-factor B) TA1 for overall demonstrated understanding for reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness, and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government.

Past Performance Factor

The Government evaluated past performance as required by Provisions L.20 and M.5 of the

MTIC RFP.

Recency, relevance, and performance, as described in RFP Provision M.5(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 performed a price analysis of the proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all proposals received in response to this solicitation. In accordance with Section M.6 – Factor 3, Cost and Price (Volume III) of the RFP, the Government performed these analyses in accordance with FAR 15.305 - Proposal Evaluation, FAR 15.404 - Proposal Analysis, and NFS 1815.305 - Proposal Evaluation. The Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) for this acquisition is $500,858,844. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only and is comprised of the summation of MTIC Contract Line Items (CLINs):

• CLIN 1 - Phase-In Firm Fixed Price (FFP) not exceeding 45 days

• CLIN 2 - Base Period, Core Contract - Cost Plus Award Fee/Cost Plus Incentive

Fee (CPAF/CPIF) by Government Fiscal Year (GFY)

• CLIN 2 - Option Periods 1 - 4, Core Contract CPAF/CPIF by GFY

• CLIN 2 - Option to Extend Services, Core Contract CPAF/CPIF by GFY

• CLIN 2 - IDIQ CPAF/CPIF by GFY

The SEB used a comparison of proposed prices for all offerors and a comparison of the proposed prices to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) to assess whether the prices are fair and reasonable. For any outliers, the SEB considered the driving factors resulting in price disparities.

Evaluation of Proposals

All proposals were evaluated in accordance with the evaluation factors set out in the RFP. The results of the evaluation were presented to me and other senior officials on May 28, 2025. I made my award decision on May 28, 2025, after considering all of the information presented at the meetings and in the evaluation package. I relied on the detailed information containing the SEB’s Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Price evaluation presentation and documents.

The offerors are listed in the order they were evaluated, as established in accordance with the Evaluation Plan.

CMSI

The evaluation of CMSI’s proposal rated an overall score of 520 out of 1,000 points for the Mission Suitability Factor. In accordance with the RFP, the Government evaluated Mission Suitability for overall demonstrated understanding for reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness, and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government.

Mission Suitability Subfactor A, Technical Approach: CMSI provided a proposal having three Weaknesses. There were no Strengths, no Significant Strengths, no Significant Weaknesses and no Deficiencies noted. For this Subfactor A evaluation, CMSI’s proposal received a rating of "Fair" with no Strengths and three Weaknesses identified, attributing to a score of 264 points.

Mission Suitability Subfactor B, Management Approach: CMSI provided a reasonably sound response to Subfactor B, and received a rating of "Good" with one Strength and one Weakness identified, attributing to a score of 256 points. There were no Significant Strengths, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies noted.

Past Performance Factor: CMSI is a newly formed Joint Venture and has an overall Neutral Rating. The Past Performance evaluation consists of the Joint Venture (JV) members evaluated individually, as well as teaming partners.

The CMSI JV Partners are Cimarron Software Services, LLC and MORI Associates. Cimarron Software Services, LLC’s past performance is Recent and Somewhat Relevant to the scope of their proposed responsibility in implementing the MTIC SOW, as it involved some of the same content, complexity, and size as the MTIC. MORI Associates’ past performance is Recent and Relevant to the scope of their proposed responsibility in implementing the MTIC SOW, as it involved much of the same content, complexity, and size as the MTIC. Team Member Leidos, Inc.’s past performance is Recent and Very Relevant to the scope of their proposed responsibility in implementing the MTIC SOW, as it involved essentially the same content, complexity, and size as the MTIC. The proposed Program Manager’s past performance is Recent and Relevant to the MTIC as it involved much of the same content, complexity, and size of effort. The CMSI combined relevancy is assessed as highly pertinent to this acquisition. Overall, the CMSI team’s past performance is determined to be Relevant.

The SEB has evaluated the CMSI team’s overall past performance to be Excellent, and the CMSI team’s overall Safety Assessment is evaluated to be Excellent. Therefore, the SEB has found the CMSI team’s overall Performance to be Excellent.

Based upon the above assessments of the CMSI team’s relevant past performance and the overall Excellent performance on those efforts, to include safety, there is a “High” level of confidence that the CMSI team will successfully perform the required effort.

Cost and Price Factor: The CMSI TEP is more than 9% higher than the lowest offeror’s TEP and approximately 8% lower than the IGCE, primarily due to discretely estimated non-labor resources. The SEB notes Technical Evaluators could not review the Non-Labor Resources (NLRs) to determine if the kinds and quantity of items were sufficient to support the offeror’s unique approach as the NLRs details were not provided. The SEB notes the NLRs represent approximately 3% of the offeror’s overall proposed cost, and as a result are overall low risk. The SEB reviewed CMSI proposed direct labor hours and determined adjustments were likely required. However, due to the limited data within the offeror’s Basis of Estimate (BOE), analysis of the offeror’s unique approach could not be completed. As a result, a probable cost adjustment to direct labor hours could not be determined.

Aerodyne Industries (Aerodyne) The evaluation of Aerodyne’s proposal rated an overall score of 418 out of 1,000 points for the Mission Suitability Factor. In accordance with the RFP, the Government evaluated Mission Suitability for overall demonstrated understanding for reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness, and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government.

Mission Suitability Subfactor A, Technical Approach: Aerodyne provided a proposal having one Strength, two Weaknesses, and one Significant Weakness. There were no Significant Strengths and no Deficiencies noted. For this Subfactor A evaluation, the proposal has a Significant Weakness that resulted in Aerodyne’s proposal received a rating of "Poor", corresponding to a score of 162 points.

Mission Suitability Subfactor B, Management Approach: Aerodyne provided a reasonably sound response to Subfactor B, and received a rating of "Good" with one Strength and one Weakness identified, attributing to a score of 256 points. There were no Significant Strengths, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies noted.

Past Performance Factor: Aerodyne is the Prime contractor with no Major Subcontractors.

Aerodyne’s past performance is Recent and overall Relevant to the scope of their proposed responsibility in implementing the MTIC SOW. The past performance contracts evaluated ranged from Somewhat Relevant to Relevant. In comparison to the scope of their proposed responsibility in implementing the MTIC SOW, evaluated contracts had “some of the same” and “much of the same” content, complexity, and size as the MTIC. The proposed Program Manager’s past performance is Recent and Very Relevant to the MTIC as it involved essentially the same work as his proposed role on the MTIC contract. Aerodyne’s combined relevancy is assessed as highly pertinent to this acquisition. Overall, the Aerodyne proposal’s past performance is determined to be Relevant.

The SEB has evaluated the Aerodyne overall past performance to be Excellent, and the Aerodyne overall Safety Assessment is evaluated to be Very Good. Therefore, the SEB has found Aerodyne’s overall Performance to be Excellent.

Based upon the above assessments of Aerodyne’s relevant past performance and the overall Excellent performance on those efforts, to include safety, there is a “High” level of confidence that Aerodyne will successfully perform the required effort.

Cost and Price Factor: The Aerodyne TEP is more than 7% higher than the lowest offeror’s TEP and more than 9% lower than the IGCE, primarily due to direct labor hours. The Technical Evaluators reviewed Aerodyne’s proposed direct labor hours and determined adjustments were likely required. However, due to the limited data within the proposal’s BOE, an analysis of Aerodyne’s unique approach could not be completed. As a result, a probable cost adjustment could not be determined.

Barrios Technology (Barrios)

The evaluation of Barrios’ proposal rated an overall score of 676 out of 1,000 points for the Mission Suitability Factor. In accordance with the RFP, the Government evaluated Mission Suitability for overall demonstrated understanding for reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness, and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government.

Mission Suitability Subfactor A, Technical Approach: Barrios provided a reasonably sound response to Subfactor A, and received a rating of "Good" with one Strength identified, attributing to a score of 408 points. There were no Significant Strengths, no Significant Weaknesses, no Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies noted.

Mission Suitability Subfactor B, Management Approach: Barrios provided a reasonably sound response to Subfactor B, and received a rating of "Good" with two Strengths identified, attributing to a score of 268 points. There were no Significant Strengths, no Significant Weaknesses, no Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies noted.

Past Performance Factor: Barrios is the Prime contractor with ARES Technical Services (ARES) as a Major Subcontractor.

Barrios’ past performance is Recent and overall Very Relevant to the scope of their proposed responsibility in implementing the MTIC SOW. The past performance contracts evaluated ranged from Somewhat Relevant to Very Relevant. In comparison to the scope of their proposed responsibility in implementing the MTIC SOW, the evaluated contracts had “some of the same” and “essentially the same” content, complexity, and size as the MTIC. ARES’ past performance is Recent and overall Very Relevant to the scope of their proposed responsibility in implementing the MTIC SOW. The past performance contracts evaluated ranged from Somewhat Relevant to Very Relevant. In comparison to the scope of their proposed responsibility in implementing the MTIC SOW, the evaluated contracts had “some of the same” and “essentially the same” content, complexity, and size as the MTIC. The proposed Program Manager’s past performance is Recent and Very Relevant to the MTIC as it involved essentially the same work as his proposed role on the MTIC contract. The Barrios team’s combined relevancy is assessed as very highly pertinent to this acquisition and overall considered Very Relevant.

The SEB has evaluated Barrios’ overall past performance to be Excellent, and Barrios’ overall Safety Assessment is evaluated to be Very Good. Therefore, the SEB has found the Barrios team’s overall Performance to be Excellent.

Based upon the above assessments of the Barrios team’s relevant past performance and the overall Excellent performance on those efforts, to include safety, there is a “Very High” level of confidence that the Barrios team will successfully perform the required effort.

Cost and Price Factor: Barrios’ proposed cost is the lowest proposed cost and more than 16% lower than the IGCE due to direct labor hours, which have a cascading effect on the overall cost proposed. Barrios has the lowest TEP. The Technical Evaluators reviewed the offeror’s proposed direct labor hours and determined adjustments were not required. As a result, the SEB can make an assertion that Barrios’ proposal demonstrates a realistic cost, as proposed.

Selection Decision

During the final evaluation presentation on May 28, 2025, I questioned the SEB on their 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 did an excellent job of summarizing the SEB’s evaluation of the proposals.

Prior to that 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 performed a careful and thorough job of evaluating all three proposals. They had done an excellent job documenting their evaluation: identifying and explaining the reasons for their 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.

Consideration of Individual Proposals

CMSI

In considering each proposal individually, I find that CMSI’s Mission Suitability has been evaluated as having one Strength and four Weaknesses. There were no Significant Strengths, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. I consider it a benefit to the Government that CMSI proposed a feasible and reasonable Program workforce retention plan to support the International Space Station and retain the necessary skillset to provide continuous and complete services for the lifespan of the Program. This reduces the risk to the Government of a loss of critical skills as the International Space Station nears retirement. However, CMSI’s proposed approach to Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I), Mission Planning and Integration (MP&I), and Operations is written at a high level and does not demonstrate understanding of the SOW requirements. It is not a complete or reasonable approach as it does not specifically outline how CMSI will apply NASA standards to existing practices for each Program, based on its lifecycle. Without the necessary details to understand how the CMSI teams, data architecture, and tools will specifically support each section of the SOW, there is a risk of mistakes or omissions that could negatively impact crew and vehicle safety and the mission success of NASA Programs. In addition, CMSI’s proposed use of a specific tool for Russian Services Information Technology (IT) support is neither feasible nor reasonable as it would require the development of a mixed reality interface that would impact multiple locations in Russia and the United States. The development risks the expenditure of large amounts of resources without corresponding guarantees of future savings. Furthermore, CMSI’s proposal was incomplete as it did not provide sufficient detail for the necessary specific labor resources, which creates a risk that CMSI has incorrect labor resources to perform the entirety of the MTIC requirements.

Finally, the CMSI contingency plan for facilities lacks Phase-in detail and the CMSI baseline proposal does not meet the listed RFP requirement for six large conference rooms, creating a risk that NASA may experience a gap in facility services and lack required conference room space.

In its Past Performance assessment, when combined, the CMSI team had experience in all areas of the MTIC SOW with its proposed team having much of the same or essentially the same experience in each aspect of the SOW. Overall, CMSI’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition, demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. CMSI’s 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

CMSI’s performance record, there is a High level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

CMSI’s TEP was the highest of the three offerors. Due to the limited data within the CMSI BOE details, specific probable cost adjustments to direct labor hours could not be determined.

However, the SEB confirmed that the RFP requirements for the cost/price analysis were followed and the presented cost/price is the TEP for selection purposes. I concur with the SEB assessment and rely on it for evaluation for contract award, despite the proposal’s lack of BOE details and NASA’s inability to make specific, potential probable cost adjustments.

Aerodyne

In my specific consideration of Aerodyne’s proposal, I find that Aerodyne’s Mission Suitability has been evaluated as having two Strengths, three Weaknesses, and one Significant Weakness.

There were no Significant Strengths and no Deficiencies. It is a benefit to the Government that Aerodyne proposed an IT Service Level Agreement that will enhance user support and clearly establish expectations for resolution times. This will benefit the Government by prioritizing critical issues and establishing response metrics. In addition, Aerodyne proposes a reasonable and feasible approach to retaining critical skills throughout the life of the contract, particularly considering the pending International Space Station retirement. This benefits the Government by reducing the risk of high turnover rates or the loss of critical skills, which may impact the continuity of operations.

Aerodyne’s proposal also presents several weaknesses. First, Aerodyne proposes the use of technology that cannot be assessed as feasible in that the proposal lacks the details required to demonstrate an understanding of the implementation of the proposed tools. Second, Aerodyne’s proposed BOE was incomplete and did not provide sufficient detail for the specific labor resources required to demonstrate its understanding of the technical approach for successfully performing the requirements of the contract. This increases the risk to the Government that Aerodyne has incorrect labor resources to perform the entirety of the MTIC requirements. This may impact the human spaceflight programs and projects, schedules and critical services, creating risk to mission success. Third, Aerodyne’s proposed conference facility plan creates the risk of an operational gap in capabilities and is not a reasonable or complete approach to transitioning to a new facility. Finally, the Aerodyne proposal’s Significant Weakness is for an incomplete plan for meeting SOW requirements for SE&I, MP&I, and Operations, which cannot be assessed as feasible. Aerodyne’s proposal includes out-of-scope work, which would require modifications to existing spacecraft and control centers. Without a feasible approach to perform SOW requirements, there is a risk of duplicative and redundant products, resulting in incomplete critical tasks, increased use of resources, and complications with NASA partners.

In its Past Performance assessment, when combined, the Aerodyne proposal has experience in all areas of the MTIC SOW with its proposed team having some of the same, much of the same, or essentially the same experience in each aspect of the SOW. Overall, Aerodyne’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition, demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Aerodyne’s 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 Aerodyne’s performance record, there is a High level of confidence that they will successfully perform the required effort.

Aerodyne’s TEP was the second highest of the three offerors. Due to the limited data within the Aerodyne BOE details, a probable cost adjustment to direct labor hours could not be determined.

However, the SEB confirmed that the RFP requirements for the cost/price analysis were followed and the presented cost/price is the TEP for selection purposes. I concur with the SEB assessment and rely on it for evaluation for contract award, despite the proposal’s lack of BOE details and potential associated probable cost adjustments.

Barrios

In individually considering Barrios’ proposal, I find that Barrios’ Mission Suitability has been evaluated as having three Strengths. There were no Significant Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. First, Barrios offers a complete and reasonable plan for meeting SE&I, MP&I, and Operations requirements. The Barrios plan outlines how their teams, data architecture, and tools will specifically support each program and outlines how NASA standards and Program practices will be applied to each program based on its lifecycle.

This strongly benefits the Government in that it reduces the risk of mistakes or omissions that could negatively impact safety and mission success. Second, Barrios proposes a reasonable and feasible method of providing payment to Russia, demonstrating an understanding of the SOW and benefitting NASA by reducing the risk of disruption to our operations in Russia. Finally, Barrios proposes a reasonable and feasible plan that will allow the government to continue operations and meet RFP conference facility requirements by reconfiguration and use of the existing Conference Facility while preparations are made for the occupation of a successive Conference Facility.

In its Past Performance assessment, the Barrios team has essentially the same experience in all areas of the MTIC SOW. The Barrios team’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, 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 the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Barrios’ TEP was the lowest of the three offerors. The Technical Evaluators reviewed the offeror’s proposed direct labor hours and determined adjustments were not required. A minor cost realism adjustment was made to Barrios’ proposed price. One proposed direct labor rate was lower than the historical data released with the RFP and the SEB Economic Research Institute Salary Survey data for the same category by 20% or more, resulting in a SEB probable cost adjustment. Even with this upward probable cost adjustment, Barrios’ cost is still lower than the other two offerors’ proposed prices. As a result, I concur with the SEB and find that Barrios’ proposal demonstrates a realistic cost, as proposed.

Award Without Discussions

As stated previously, the MTIC RFP indicated that NASA intended to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Given the fact that Barrios’ is the only proposal without weaknesses, as well as the proposal with the highest past performance and lowest cost, I spoke with the Contracting Officer, the SEB, and other senior officials at the meeting about the potential for awarding to Barrios without discussions with all three competitors. As a result of these deliberations and my own assessment, in accordance with section M.2 of the RFP, I have determined that to Award Without Discussions is in the best interest of the government. First, as outlined below, I do not foresee that discussions will result in an appreciable difference in offers or that another round of 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. I am cognizant of the costs incurred by contractors to enter into discussions and the costs associated with resubmitting proposals. I am also aware of the value of streamlining selection and making our procurement process more efficient. With these factors in mind, it is appropriate to Award Without Discussions.

Comparison of Proposals

Under RFP Section M.3 – Source Evaluation Board Evaluation Factors for Award:

“Mission Suitability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Mission Suitability is approximately equal to Past Performance. Mission Suitability and Past Performance when separately evaluated are each approximately equal to Cost/Price.”

Mission Suitability Past Performance Cost/Price CMSI 520 High Highest Aerodyne 418 High Second Highest Barrios 676 Very High Lowest

In looking at these three evaluation factors, CMSI has the second highest Mission Suitability score, with Aerodyne scoring lower. CMSI has a Past Performance evaluation of High Level of Confidence, meaning that one other Offeror has a higher confidence rating. CMSI also has a TEP that is the highest of all the offerors.

Aerodyne has the lowest Mission Suitability score, a Past Performance evaluation of High Level of Confidence, and the second highest TEP.

Barrios has the highest Mission Suitability score, the highest past performance confidence rating of Very High, and the lowest TEP of all the offerors.

While two of the offerors provided unique Strengths in their proposals, no offeror presented a Significant Strength. Likewise, two offerors had multiple Weaknesses, one offeror had a Significant Weakness (but none of the offers were assessed as having a Deficiency).

I am grateful that three proposals were compiled for NASA’s consideration and appreciate the active contractor community that is able to offer its services and expertise to support our important mission directives. NASA benefits from the skilled, technical services offered and I am confident that the competitive procurement process has challenged all offerors to refine their approaches and pricing to present us with proposals that will benefit our continuing work in Human Space Flight.

I find value in Barrios proposal’s complete and reasonable plan for meeting SE&I, MP&I, and Operations requirements. The details in the Barrios plan regarding their teams, data architecture, and tools gives me confidence in Barrios’ ability to successfully complete the work for this contract. I value Barrios’ reasonable and feasible method of providing payments into Russia and recognize the importance of this issue when managing NASA operations in Russia.

The SEB explained its rationale for giving Barrios a Very High Level of Confidence rating in the area of Past Performance and I agree with this rating. As a whole, my analysis of the Barrios team’s recent and relevant past performance gives me confidence that the team is capable and possesses the necessary experience to perform the work under MTIC.

I also discussed at length the SEB’s probable cost analysis of all the Offerors. Ample time was spent understanding the proposals and I ultimately determined that Barrios was the better value to the Government. A Price analysis was also performed per FAR §15.404 to determine if Barrios’ price is fair and reasonable. Barrios’ probable cost adjustment was 16% lower than the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) and the lowest priced offeror. Even so, I determine that Barrios’ TEP is fair and reasonable.

While I appreciate the approaches that each proposal presented, as outlined above, I find that Barrios offers the best value to NASA. Barrios offers the highest Mission Suitability, the highest Past Performance rating, and the lowest TEP. In this evaluation, mission suitability and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than cost. Mission Suitability is approximately equal to Past Performance. Mission Suitability and Past Performance when separately evaluated are each approximately equal to Cost/Price. Given these factors, Barrios offers the best value and is the clear awardee.

The amount of detail provided in Barrios’ proposal demonstrates an appropriate understanding of the MTIC SOW, NASA Program requirements, and safety issues under this contract and gives me confidence that Barrios can perform the work efficiently and effectively. I, therefore, determine that the Barrios Technology, LLC., proposal is the best value for the Government and I select them for award of the Mission Technical Integration Contract (MTIC), under Solicitation Number 80JSC025R7002.

Dina E. Contella Source Selection Authority