COMET Source Selection Statement.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR THE CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS,

MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING, AND TEST (COMET) CONTRACT

On February 7, 2023, I, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the COMET contract, along with other senior officials of the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC), met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals. I have set forth in this source selection statement relevant portions of the SEB’s evaluation of proposals and my decision on selection of the successful offeror.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The objective of this procurement is to obtain engineering; ground system development; flight vehicle/spacecraft processing; and launch, landing, and recovery operations in support of the following Exploration Systems Development (ESD) programs: Exploration Ground Systems (EGS), Space Launch System (SLS), and Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). The COMET contract will support the International Space Station (ISS) Program, Launch Services Program (LSP), and other NASA programs, commercial ventures, and partnerships at KSC. The COMET contract will be a cost-plus-incentive-fee/award fee contract, with an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) ordering mechanism providing for obtaining additional services via task orders. The contract period of performance consists of a 3-year, 5-month base period, followed by two 2-year option periods, and one 2-year and 7-month option period.

BACKGROUND

On January 19, 2021, the acquisition development process for the COMET contract commenced with the appointment of the Requirements Development Team (RDT). The RDT conducted market research, defined requirements for the work to be performed, released a draft performance work statement for industry comment, met with industry representatives to discuss COMET requirements, prepared an acquisition plan, released a draft solicitation for industry comment, held a presolicitation conference and one-on-one meetings with interested offerors, provided a site tour to industry representatives, and conducted a virtual preproposal conference.

On March 23, 2022, the COMET SEB was appointed for the purpose of evaluating proposals received in response to the COMET solicitation. Following review and consideration of industry comments on the draft solicitation, the Contracting Officer established the North American Industry Classification System code for the COMET procurement as 541715, Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology), with a corresponding size standard exception of 1,250 employees for Guided Missiles and Space Vehicles, their Propulsion Units and Propulsion Parts. The Contracting Officer issued the Request for Proposal (RFP) on February 16, 2022. During the course of the procurement, the Contracting Officer issued a total of seven amendments to make corrections and other administrative changes; update solicitation terms, conditions, and provisions; respond to questions; and revise the period of performance.

In response to the COMET RFP, the Government received four timely proposals on or before the due date of April 25, 2022, from the following companies (listed in alphabetical order):

ASRC Federal System Solutions, LLC (AFSS) Jacobs Technology, Inc. (Jacobs) KBR Wyle Services, LLC (KBR) Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (NGSC)

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

The SEB evaluated proposals in accordance with the RFP and the source selection procedures provided in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3 Source Selection and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Subpart 1815.3 Source Selection. The RFP advised offerors that the Government would use a trade-off process, as described in FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, in making its source selection.

The RFP prescribed three evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost, which the SEB evaluated using the applicable procedures, adjectival ratings, levels of confidence, definitions, and percentile ranges specified in the RFP, FAR, and NFS. The RFP advised offerors of the relative order of importance of the factors, stating the following: “The Mission Suitability and Past Performance factors, when combined, are approximately equal to the Cost factor. As individual factors, the Cost factor is more important than the Mission Suitability factor, which is more important than the Past Performance factor.”

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the SEB evaluated each offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the Mission Suitability subfactor requirements and proposed approach for accomplishing those requirements, the appropriateness of the offeror’s proposed resources, and associated programmatic risk. The RFP further identified three subfactors, which the SEB was to weight and consider in evaluating Mission Suitability, as follows:

Management Approach: 500 points Technical Approach: 400 points Small Business Utilization: 100 points Total Mission Suitability: 1,000 points

With regard to the Management Approach subfactor, the RFP described in detail the areas the SEB would evaluate, including program management and integration, organizational structure and key positions, COMET insight approach, management information system, contract phase-in, and total compensation plan. The RFP also described in detail the areas the SEB would evaluate under the Technical Approach subfactor, including staffing approach, basis of estimate, engineering approach, operations approach, safety and health, and quality approach. Finally, under the Small Business Utilization subfactor, the RFP described in detail the areas the SEB would evaluate, namely, small business subcontracting and commitment to small businesses.

Under the procedures established in the RFP and the applicable acquisition regulations, the SEB evaluated Mission Suitability proposals under each subfactor to identify significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. As a result of these findings, the SEB assigned an adjectival rating and percentile score for each subfactor using the adjective ratings and percentile ranges at NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The total Mission Suitability point score is the sum of the points assigned for each subfactor. When determining the appropriate adjectival ratings for the offerors’ proposals under each subfactor, the SEB considered the significance of each finding and its relation to successful performance of the contract and the definitions of the adjectival ratings.

Under the Past Performance factor, the SEB evaluated each offeror’s past performance and assigned one of the following levels of confidence ratings in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2), Past Performance Evaluation: very high, high, moderate, low, very low, and neutral. The RFP advised that the Government would evaluate the offeror’s and its major subcontractor(s)’, individual partners’, or parent/affiliate(s)’ recent performance of relevant work similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the solicitation, as well as the management, technical, schedule, cost, small business, and safety and health performance.

Recent was defined as performance within the last 5 years of proposal due date, with a minimum of 12-months of performance performed within the 5-year period (excluding phase-in). The RFP advised that the Government could supplement the information contained in the proposal with information obtained from Government organizations and personnel, commercial sources, public information sources, and, if applicable, data gathered during the discussion phase of the evaluation. Further, the RFP advised that the evaluation would consider the scope of work the offeror and its major subcontractor(s) are proposing to perform to determine the relevancy of their past performance information, and that the Government would consider the resources of a parent/affiliate in its evaluation if the parent/affiliate participates meaningfully in the resultant contract. For purposes of the Past Performance evaluation, a major subcontractor was defined as a subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, and a parent/affiliate was defined as a parent or affiliate company, corporation, division, business unit or segment.

The SEB verified that all contracts identified in the proposal met the RFP’s requirement for recency and that contracts were consistent with the performance areas identified in the RFP. The SEB evaluated each offeror’s and its major subcontractor(s)’, individual partners’, or parent/affiliate(s)’ recent past performance by assessing the relevancy of work performed under prior contracts to the Government’s requirements in the COMET solicitation. The SEB also considered the scope of work that each offeror proposed its major subcontractors, individual partners, and parent/affiliates to perform to determine the relevancy and applicability of the past performance information. Further, the SEB assessed the management, technical, schedule, cost, small business, and safety and health performance on contracts that it determined to be recent and relevant. After the SEB assessed each contract for relevancy and past performance, the SEB assigned a level of confidence rating.

Under the Cost factor, the RFP advised offerors that the Government would perform a cost analysis and a cost realism analysis on each proposal to evaluate the realism and reasonableness of the proposed costs in accordance with FAR 15.404. The RFP also advised that both the cost analysis and cost realism analysis will be used to determine the most probable cost to the Government for each proposal including ensuring proposal costs are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s proposal. For purposes of source selection, the RFP advised that the total evaluated cost/price would be the summation of the phase-in (if proposed), contract line item number (CLIN) 0001 baseline content for the base and all option periods, the cost for FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services (calculated using the formula provided in the solicitation, as amended), CLIN 0002 IDIQ labor rates multiplied by the best estimated quantities for the base and all option periods, and CLIN 0003 pre-priced work units for all increments for the base and all option periods. The SEB reviewed each proposal to ensure there were no revisions of formulas within the Microsoft Excel cost/price templates. The SEB also reviewed each proposal for obvious errors or omissions and to ensure that each offeror priced all CLINs. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(c)(2), the SEB evaluated proposed elements of cost by assessing direct labor;

reviewing and comparing proposed escalation rates with NASA labor escalation rate guidelines;

performing a trend analysis for fringe benefit, overhead, and general and administrative indirect rates; and evaluating proposed fee. The SEB also assessed each proposal for realism.

The SEB conducted all evaluations using the above-described evaluation criteria as specified in the RFP. The SEB was comprised of consultants and evaluators in appropriate disciplines to provide specific expertise needed in the evaluation process and to provide findings and requests for clarification to the SEB voting members. Using the analysis of the consultants and evaluators, the SEB generated initial evaluation consensus findings that identified and assessed strengths and weaknesses and rated and scored each proposal accordingly. In addition to the evaluation of the factors and subfactors identified above, the SEB ensured that each proposal met all solicitation requirements established by the RFP.

INITIAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS, COMPETITIVE RANGE

DETERMINATION, AND DISCUSSIONS

The SEB conducted the initial evaluation of the four proposals received in response to the RFP.

The resulting mission suitability rating, past performance rating, and cost evaluation of each offeror’s proposal provided the basis for making a competitive range determination. On November 8, 2022, the SEB presented the results of its evaluation to me. The evaluation record and presentation included a complete and detailed evaluation of each proposal against all evaluation criteria for each evaluation factor. The evaluation record and presentation documented the findings, adjectival ratings, point scores, past performance confidence rating, and evaluated cost for each proposal. For each offeror, I reviewed the mission suitability finding, past performance assessments, and cost reports.

In accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Contracting Officer determined that discussions were necessary. Pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(1), the Contracting Officer, with my concurrence, established a competitive range consisting of only Jacobs’ proposal. Proposals from AFSS, KBR, and NGSC were not among the most highly rated; therefore, the Contracting Officer did not include them in the competitive range.

The SEB conducted written and oral discussions with Jacobs during the period of December 21, 2022, through January 20, 2023. The SEB focused discussions on the findings that the SEB identified during the initial evaluation. Upon the conclusion of the discussions, the Contracting

Officer requested a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) from Jacobs with a due date of January 26, 2023. Jacobs submitted a timely FPR. Following the same procedures that the SEB followed in the initial evaluation, the SEB then completed a final evaluation of Jacobs’ FPR and reported its findings to me as discussed below.

FPR MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

Under the Management Approach subfactor, the SEB found no significant strengths, two strengths, and no weaknesses. The first strength was for proposing an effective approach to support continuous improvement, and for proposing innovative and transformational initiatives.

The second strength was for areas of its compensation approach that demonstrated its ability to maintain program continuity and provide uninterrupted, high-quality work. Based on these findings, the SEB rated Jacobs’ proposal under the Management Approach subfactor as “Good.”

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the SEB found no significant strengths, four strengths, and no weaknesses. The first strength was for efficient use of requirements management software to manage subsystem requirements. The second strength was for an effective methodology to streamline and improve processing activities for operational efficiencies. The third strength was for an effective and proactive approach to managing and implementing safety, mission assurance, and environmental requirements. The fourth strength was for an effective approach to managing multi-disciplinary engineering functions through the product lifecycles. Based on these findings, the SEB rated Jacobs’ proposal under the Technical Approach subfactor as “Good.”

Under the Small Business Utilization subfactor, the SEB found one significant strength and no weaknesses. The significant strength was for demonstrating a strong commitment to utilization of small businesses and exceeding the Government’s recommended small business goals. Based on this finding, the SEB rated Jacobs’ proposal under the Small Business Utilization subfactor as “Excellent.”

As a result of the SEB’s evaluation and rating of the Management Approach, Technical Approach, and Small Business Utilization subfactors, the overall Mission Suitability score for Jacobs was 708 out of 1,000 points available.

FPR PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Jacobs received an overall level of confidence rating of “Very High,” meaning the Government has a very high level of confidence that Jacobs will successfully perform the required effort based on the assessed past performance records. Jacobs demonstrated very relevant and extensive experience performing work similar in content and complexity to all areas of the COMET performance work statement. Jacobs’ experience is highlighted by its performance as the incumbent contractor on the current Test and Operations Support Contract (TOSC).

Similarly, various other contracts submitted by Jacobs involved diverse work scopes, similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of COMET. Based on the foregoing, the SEB determined Jacobs’ past performance is very highly pertinent to this acquisition. With respect to performance on relevant contracts, Jacobs demonstrated exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner in the areas assessed with any reportable problems being addressed and having little identifiable effect on overall performance.

FPR COST/PRICE EVALUATION

Jacobs’ total proposed cost was $2,728,316,957 and the most probable cost to the Government was $2,730,502,664. The SEB made five probable cost adjustments, totaling $2,185,707 (0.08 percent increase to the proposed cost), to minimally increase the base labor rates proposed by five of Jacobs’ subcontractors as a result of cost realism analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d). Overall, the SEB determined that Jacobs’ proposed cost was reasonable, realistic, and consistent with the various elements of its proposal, reflecting a clear understanding of requirements.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

During the presentation, I questioned the SEB on the material presented and carefully considered the detailed findings presented by the SEB. I concluded that the SEB’s evaluation was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. In addition, I solicited and considered the views of key senior personnel at KSC. These key senior personnel have responsibility related to this procurement and understood the application of the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP.

In determining the best value to the Government, I referred to the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors specified in the RFP (i.e., Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost); specifically that Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Cost; and that Cost is more important than Mission Suitability, which is more important than Past Performance. Using these evaluation factors, I have reached the following conclusions.

With regard to Mission Suitability, I noted that Jacobs received a rating of “Good” in Management Approach, “Good” in Technical Approach, and “Excellent” in Small Business Utilization. I concur with the SEB’s evaluation in these areas and find that the aforementioned strengths and their relative merits is reflected in the subfactor ratings and scores. Overall, I find that Jacobs proposed a sound approach to accomplishing the management and technical requirements of the contract, and a strong commitment to utilization of small businesses.

With regard to Past Performance, I noted that Jacobs has an extensive breadth of experience with contracts similar in size, content, and complexity to the COMET requirements, worthy of a Very High Level of Confidence rating.

With regard to Cost, the most important factor, the SEB found that Jacobs’ proposal satisfied the requirements of cost realism and price reasonableness. I agree with the SEB’s evaluation of the Cost factor and find that the probable cost adjustments made to Jacobs’ proposal were negligible.

Considering the three evaluation factors and their relative order of importance, I find that Jacobs’ proposal represents the best value to the Government. I am confident, based on the SEB’s evaluation, that Jacobs will be successful in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Accordingly, I select Jacobs Technology, Inc. for award of the Consolidated Operations, Management, Engineering, and Test contract.

Kelvin Manning Source Selection Authority

KELVIN

MANNING

Digitally signed by

KELV N MANNING

Date: 2023.02.13 15 04:12 -05'00'