KOIS Source Selection Statement Posting.pdf

Page 1 of 10 KOIS

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR THE

KENNEDY OPERATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT (KOIS)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 80KSC023R0001

INTRODUCTION

On October 13, 2023, I, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA), met with the Evaluation Team that evaluated the proposals for award of the KOIS contract at the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC). During this meeting, the Evaluation Team presented the procurement history and resulting evaluation. I discussed the relative merits of each proposal with the Evaluation Team, as well as with other attendees, to ensure I had a full understanding of the evaluation.

This document summarizes the KOIS procurement, the evaluation process, the results of the process, and the basis of my selection of an Offeror for award. My decision is based on the Source Selection Presentation and the associated evaluations, which included the Technical Acceptability Evaluation, the Price Analysis Evaluation, and the Past Performance Evaluation.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The objective of this procurement is to acquire a broad range of operational and institutional support services for KSC’s Human Resources, Spaceport Integration Office, and Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity. KSC previously acquired these services under the Kennedy Institutional Support Services (KISS I, III, III) and currently acquires these services under the KISS IV contract. The awardee will accomplish services in the areas of internal controls (property) support, logistics support, American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter support, institutional training and development support, as well as export control support. Places of performance will be onsite at KSC and offsite (through remote work agreements), Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, and other locations authorized by the contracting officer (CO), including other NASA Centers if the need arises, to the maximum extent practicable.

This acquisition is 100 percent competitive 8(a) set-aside, and the services will be provided under an Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ), Level of Effort (LOE) contract with fixed-price LOE task orders and fixed labor rates. Additionally, it will include not-to-exceed ceilings for straight time, overtime, travel, and material such as personal protective equipment.

The period of performance is five years which includes a 24-month base period and three one-year option periods.

Page 2 of 10 KOIS

BACKGROUND

The CO established the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the KOIS procurement as 541990, All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, with a corresponding revenue size standard of $17 million annually, and issued a Sources Sought Synopsis on August 19, 2022, seeking potential sources for the performance of KOIS. This Sources Sought Synopsis defined the scope of the KOIS acquisition and sought information from capable sources to determine industry interest and capability, and to facilitate consideration of small business set-aside potential. The Government received 17 company capability packages and found six companies to be capable of meeting the Government’s requirement, five of which were small businesses under NAICS code 541990. The CO, with concurrence of the KSC Small Business Specialist and KOIS Evaluation Team, determined that an adequate number of capable 8(a) small business concerns existed to justify setting aside the acquisition for 8(a) small disadvantaged business concerns. The Evaluation Team conducted market research, defined requirements for work to be performed, developed an acquisition strategy plan, and developed the KOIS Request for Proposal (RFP) and applicable determination and findings.

On March 10, 2023, a special notice was posted to the federal System for Award Management (www.SAM.gov) advising industry of KSC’s intent to conduct the KOIS procurement. A draft RFP was not issued. However, NASA issued the KOIS solicitation on March 29, 2023. The KOIS RFP sought proposals from 8(a) small disadvantaged businesses and anticipated award of an IDIQ, LOE contract with fixed-priced LOE task orders and firm fixed-priced fully burdened labor rates. The contract period of performance will consist of a 24-month base period and three one-year option periods, for a total potential performance period of five years. During the course of the procurement, the CO issued three RFP amendments to incorporate minor changes to the solicitation and answer questions submitted by Offerors.

In response to the KOIS RFP, NASA received five timely proposals on or before the due date of May 1, 2023, 4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) from the following companies:

Alexton Incorporated Chiricahua-Logical Joint Venture (JV) Goldbelt Integrated Logistics Services, LLC (GbILS) Tatra Solutions, Incorporated Team Po`okela LLC

NASA received no late proposals.

EVALUATION PROCESS

The KOIS procurement utilized the price performance trade-off (PPTO) source selection process.

Section 6.1 of the RFP prescribed three evaluation factors: Technical Acceptability, Price, and Past Performance, which the KOIS Evaluation Team evaluated using the best value source selection specified in the RFP, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, FAR

Page 3 of 10 KOIS subpart 15.1, and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Subpart 1815.305. Additionally, the RFP states that, “Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9; whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements, and is determined, by an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria to represent the Best Value to the Government, consistent with PPTO procedures.”

Section 6.1 of the RFP advised offerors of the three evaluation factors and their importance, stating, “Technical Acceptability will be assessed on a pass (acceptable)/fail (unacceptable) basis. Past Performance is significantly more important than Price.” RFP section 6.1 also indicates that an initial review of proposals would be conducted to determine acceptability of the proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals, with any unacceptable proposals eliminated from further evaluation and acceptable proposals evaluated for technical acceptability.

In RFP sections 5.10.3 and 6.1.4, Offerors were advised that the Government reserves the right to award without discussions but may conduct discussions if the Government determines they are necessary. The RFP further states that the Government may make a final determination as to whether the Offeror’s proposal is acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal submitted. Accordingly, Offerors were advised to submit initial proposals that were fully and clearly acceptable without additional information.

The Evaluation Team evaluated proposals using the applicable procedures and levels of confidence definitions specified in the RFP, FAR subparts 15.3 and 15.4, and NFS subpart 1815.3, as applicable. The RFP laid out the following steps for evaluation:

(a) Step 1: Technical Acceptability.

Initially, the Government will evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability. If an offer receives an “Unacceptable” rating, that Offeror will no longer be considered for award.

(b) Step 2: Price/Past Performance.

Next, the Government will rank the technically acceptable proposals by price from lowest to highest. Next the Government will evaluate price fairness and reasonableness of the three lowest technically “Acceptable” proposals. Next the government will evaluate the three Offeror’s past performance. If the first three Offerors are assigned a confidence rating of “Very High Level of Confidence” the evaluation will be complete and the SSA proceeds with an integrated best value assessment of all evaluated offers. Award shall be made to the Offeror that represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process is complete without further consideration of any other offers.

Therefore, the remaining Offeror’s past performance proposal will not be evaluated.

If all three of the lowest price Offeror’s past performance are not assigned a confidence rating of “Very High Level of Confidence” the Government will then evaluate the next lowest priced Offeror’s price for fairness and reasonableness and past performance. The

Page 4 of 10 KOIS

Government will continue evaluating the next lowest priced Offeror’s price for fairness and reasonableness and past performance until three Offerors are assigned a confidence rating of “Very High Level of Confidence”. At that point, the evaluation is complete and the SSA proceeds with an integrated best value assessment of all evaluated offers. Award shall be made to the Offeror that represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process is complete without further consideration of any other offers. Therefore, the remaining Offeror’s past performance proposal will not be evaluated.

If, after all offers have been evaluated, three Offerors are not assigned a confidence rating of “Very High Level of Confidence”, the SSA proceeds with an integrated best value assessment of all offers. Award shall be made to the Offeror that represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process is complete.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract to a higher priced Offeror if a lower priced Offeror has a lower or equal performance confidence assessment rating.

Under the Technical Acceptability factor, the Evaluation Team evaluated each offeror’s proposed approach to accomplishing the KOIS requirements. The RFP identified two technical acceptability subfactors:

(1) Phase-in Plan

(2) Management Operating Plan and Technical Approach

Under the procedures established in the RFP and the applicable acquisition regulations, the Evaluation Team evaluated Technical Acceptability on a pass/fail basis. With regard to the Technical Approach, the RFP described the areas the Evaluation Team would evaluate, including the offeror’s methodology and the actions it will take to ensure a timely and successful phase-in;

and the offeror’s approach to managing a qualified workforce to provide the requirements as outlined in the RFP.

For the Price factor, the Evaluation Team evaluated each offeror’s proposal in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4, Contract Pricing, to ensure a fair and reasonable price. The RFP advised Offerors to submit a price proposal suitable for price analysis evaluation, to consist of a completed price template indicating the Offeror’s fully burdened labor rates, and the Offeror’s phase-in price.

The solicitation advised that the Government would perform price analysis based on the offeror’s total price. Per FAR 15.404-1(b), price analysis is the process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit. The total evaluated price consisted of the sum of the contract phase-in price in addition to the proposed total firm-fixed price. Section 6.1.3 of the solicitation stated that if a proposed price corresponded to a level of resources other than those specified in the solicitation, it might result in the proposal being non-responsive.

If the Evaluation Team reached the Past Performance evaluation for a given offeror following the evaluation steps outlined above, the Government evaluated the offeror’s past performance and assigned level of confidence ratings in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2). Offerors with no recent relevant past or present performance history would be assigned a “Neutral” level of

Page 5 of 10 KOIS confidence rating, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The RFP advised that the Government would evaluate recent and relevant performance of work similar in size, scope, and complexity to the KOIS requirements. Areas of performance included quality performance, schedule, cost control, management, regulatory compliance, and other areas. To demonstrate recent and relevant performance, provision 5.10.3.2 of the solicitation instructed offerors to submit past performance information on prior contracts and to provide, among other requirements, rationale that described how those efforts were similar in size, scope, and complexity to the KOIS requirements. “Recent” was defined as past or current performance within three years of the proposal due date.

The RFP instructed offerors to submit relevant/pertinent past/current performance on no more than three contracts performed by the offeror’s organization and no more than two contracts performed by the major subcontractor(s) or teaming agreement. The solicitation defined “major subcontractor” as a subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement. If the offeror did not propose any subcontractor(s) or teaming agreements, it could submit five of its own past performance references. The solicitation also provided that, for Offerors that are subsidiaries or affiliates of other business entities, the Government would consider the resources of the other business entities in its evaluation only to the extent that the proposal clearly demonstrates that the resources (e.g., financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the other companies will meaningfully affect the performance of the proposed contract. Offerors were advised that the Government could supplement the information contained in the proposal with information independently obtained by the Contracting Officer/Evaluation Team. The Evaluation Team also considered results from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System when applicable, as well as responses to Past Performance Questionnaires.

The Evaluation Team conducted all evaluations using the above-described criteria as specified in the RFP. In addition to the evaluation of the factors identified above, the Evaluation Team ensured each proposal met all solicitation requirements established by the RFP.

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY EVALUATION

The Evaluation Team evaluated each offeror to determine acceptability for each technical acceptability subfactor. An “Acceptable” proposal meant that when evaluating for reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness/associated risks, the proposal does not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance, and the offeror’s technical acceptability volume is sufficiently consistent with the price volume.

Under the Technical Acceptability factor, Alexton, Chiricahua-Logical JV, GbILS, and Team Po’okela received “Acceptable” ratings.

The Evaluation Team rated Tatra Solutions’ proposed Management Operating Plan and Technical Approach as “Unacceptable.” As stated in the solicitation, an “Unacceptable” rating in any of the technical areas resulted in an overall proposal being rated “Unacceptable.” Therefore, the Technical Acceptability factor for Tatra was rated “Unacceptable,” which eliminated the proposal

Page 6 of 10 KOIS from further consideration and made Tatra Solutions ineligible for award. On August 8, 2023, NASA received a Protest to the CO challenging Tatra’s elimination from the KOIS competition. On August 30, 2023, NASA provided Tatra the CO’s Final Decision denying the protest.

PRICE EVALUATION

The Evaluation Team performed price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-l(b) to determine that the offeror’s proposed price is fair and reasonable. As part of its evaluation, the Evaluation Team determined that each offeror complied with the RFP’s pricing instructions and that the proposed levels of resources corresponded to the solicitation. The solicitation’s price template included the incumbent weighted average direct labor “pay rate” (unburdened) for each labor category. Additionally, it included labor hours for each labor category. Differences in price among the Offerors are based on the individual Offerors’ proposed burdens (e.g., General and Administrative, Overhead, fringe, profit).

The Evaluation Team utilized each offeror’s total evaluated price to conduct its price analysis. GbILS had the lowest overall total evaluated price. Chiricahua-Logical JV had the next lowest price, which was slightly higher than GbILS. Team Po’okela, LLC had the next lowest price which was slightly higher than Chiricahua-Logical JV. The Alexton, Inc. total evaluated price was higher than Team Po’okela.

The total evaluated prices for GbILS, Chiricahua-Logical JV, Team Po’okela, LLC, and Alexton, Inc.

were all determined fair and reasonable.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

After the Technical Acceptability and Price evaluation, the Evaluation Team evaluated the three lowest priced technically “Acceptable” offerors. From lowest to highest price, those offerors were:

GbILS, Chiricahua-Logical JV, and Team Po’okela, LLC. Contracts submitted by the offerors were evaluated to determine whether each contract was similar in size, scope, and complexity that the KOIS solicitation requires, and each offeror was assessed a Level of Confidence rating based on the contracts it submitted. GbILS received a “Low” confidence rating, Chiricahua-Logical JV received a “Very High” confidence rating, and Team Po’okela, LLC received a “Low” confidence rating.

In accordance with the RFP, because all three offerors did not receive a “Very High” rating, the Evaluation Team evaluated the remaining offeror, Alexton. Alexton received a “Low” confidence rating.

Page 7 of 10 KOIS

Goldbelt Integrated Logistics Services, LLC (GbILS):

GbILS submitted three affiliate past performance references and two references for its major subcontractor. However, the Evaluation Team was only able to evaluate the two subcontractor references because GbILS did not clearly demonstrate that the affiliates’ resources would meaningfully affect the performance of the proposed contract as required by the RFP.

GbILS, as the prime contractor for the KOIS effort, did not demonstrate past performance relevance in any area of the KOIS PWS requirements. However, the two contracts submitted by GbILS for its major subcontractor were evaluated and demonstrated very relevant experience in three areas of the KOIS PWS requirements: 5.1 Internal Controls (Property) Support, 5.2 Logistics Support, and 5.5 Export Control Support. However, neither contract demonstrated relevance in KOIS PWS Section

5.4 Institutional Training Support, which represents 41 percent of the IGCE and 48 percent of the WYEs and is, therefore, considered a significant portion of the KOIS component. In addition, neither contract demonstrated relevance in KOIS PWS Section 5.3 ASL Interpreting support, which represents 25 percent of the IGCE and 19 percent of the WYEs. The Evaluation Team determined that GbILS and its major subcontractor’s overall relevant past performance was somewhat pertinent but not fully responsive to the KOIS requirements. With respect to performance on the two relevant contracts and three PWS areas, GbILS’ major subcontractor demonstrated overall exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance in the areas assessed. Because the prime contractor did not demonstrate relevance in any KOIS PWS areas and its major subcontractor only demonstrated relevance in some areas, the GbILS’ overall experience was rated as “Low.” As such, the Evaluation Team determined there is a “Low Level of Confidence” that the GbILS will successfully perform the required effort under KOIS.

Chiricahua-Logical JV:

Chiricahua-Logical JV submitted four past performance references for the JV partners. Based on its performance under these four contracts, it demonstrated very relevant experience in all five areas of the KOIS PWS requirements: 5.1 Internal Controls (Property) Support, 5.2 Logistics Support, 5.3 ASL Interpreting Support, 5.4 Institutional Training and Development Support, and 5.5 Export Control Support. Chiricahua-Logical JV demonstrated extensive experience across a variety of contracts, which included the KISS IV incumbent contract. The Evaluation Team determined the Offeror’s overall relevant past performance was very highly pertinent to the KOIS requirement.

With respect to performance on relevant contracts, Chiricahua-Logical JV demonstrated overall exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance in the areas assessed. As a result, the Evaluation Team determined there is a “Very High Level of Confidence” that Chiricahua- Logical JV will successfully perform the required effort under KOIS.

Page 8 of 10 KOIS

Team Po’okela, LLC:

Team Po’okela, LLC submitted two past performance references for the JV partners, one reference for an affiliate, and two references for its major subcontractor. However, the Evaluation Team did not evaluate the affiliate past performance reference because Team Po’okela, LCC did not clearly demonstrate that the affiliate’s resources would meaningfully affect the performance of the proposed contract as required by the RFP. Additionally, the Evaluation Team evaluated a government obtained follow-on contract to one of the Offeror’s cited contracts.

Of the contracts evaluated, Team Po’okela demonstrated very relevant experience in three KOIS PWS Sections: 5.1 Internal Controls Analysis (Property) Support, 5.2 Logistics Support, and 5.4 Institutional Training Support. The Offeror also demonstrated relevant experience in KOIS PWS Section 5.5 Export Controls Support. However, the Evaluation Team determined the Offeror did not demonstrate relevant past performance in the area of ASL Interpreting, which represents 25 percent of the IGCE and 19 percent of the WYEs. Although Team Po’okela, LLC had three very relevant areas for the contracts evaluated, the Offeror’s overall experience was rated as “Low” based on the Government obtained follow-on contract, which was not cited in the Offeror’s past performance proposal but still considered a relevant contract. Team Po’okela, LLC was not fully responsive to the follow-on contract requirements and had “Satisfactory” and “Marginal” performance with several problems adversely affecting the overall performance in the areas of Internal Controls (Property) Support, Logistics Support, Training, and also regulatory compliance (Export Controls). As a result, the Evaluation Team determined that there is a “Low Level of Confidence” that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort under KOIS.

Alexton Incorporated:

Alexton submitted five of its own past performance references; Alexton did not propose any major subcontractors or teaming agreements. Collectively, contracts submitted by Alexton demonstrated very relevant experience in two areas of the KOIS PWS requirements: 5.1 Internal Controls (Property) Support and 5.2 Logistics Support. It also demonstrated somewhat relevant experience in

5.4 Institutional Training and Development Support. However, the Evaluation Team determined that Alexton did not demonstrate relevant past performance in KOIS PWS Section 5.4 Institutional Training Support, which represents 41 percent of the IGCE and 48 percent of the WYEs and is, therefore, considered a significant portion of the KOIS. In addition, the Offeror did not demonstrate relevance in KOIS PWS Section 5.3 ASL Interpreting support, which represents 25 percent of the IGCE and 19 percent of the WYEs. The Evaluation Team determined that Alexton’s overall past performance was somewhat pertinent to the KOIS acquisition because it only demonstrated relevance in two KOIS PWS sections. With respect to performance on relevant contracts, the Offeror demonstrated overall exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner. As a result, the Evaluation Team determined that there is a “Low Level of Confidence” that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort under KOIS.

Page 9 of 10 KOIS

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

On October 13, 2023, the KOIS Evaluation Team presented the results of its initial evaluation to me as the SSA. The evaluation team informed me that in accordance with the KOIS solicitation, I had the option to either award based on initial proposals or conduct discussions with the offerors.

During the presentation, I was fully briefed on the procurement process and given detailed evaluation materials concerning the proposals submitted. I questioned the Evaluation Team on the material presented and carefully considered the detailed findings presented. I concluded that the evaluation criteria had been followed and the evaluation of the proposals was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. As the SSA, I concurred with the findings of the Evaluation Team (summarized in the table below) and adopted those findings without exception.

Offeror Overall

Technical Acceptability

Past Performance

Level of Confidence

Rating GbILS Acceptable Low Chiricahua-Logical JV Acceptable Very High Team Po`okela, LLC Acceptable Low Alexton, Inc. Acceptable Low Tatra Solutions Unacceptable Not Evaluated

With regard to Technical Acceptability, I noted that four Offerors were rated as “Acceptable,” with the fifth Offeror being eliminated from the competition early on in the evaluation process for its “Unacceptable” technical proposal. I concur with the Evaluation Team’s technical acceptability evaluation. With regard to Past Performance, I noted that Chiricahua-Logical JV has an extensive breadth of experience with contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to the KOIS requirements, worthy of a “Very High Level of Confidence” rating. Whereas the remaining three Offerors (Alexton, GbILS, and Team Po’okela) had a “Low Level of Confidence” rating. I concur with the Evaluation Team’s evaluation of this factor. With regard to the Price factor, the Evaluation Team found that each of the four technically “Acceptable” offerors proposed a fair and reasonable price. I concur with the Evaluation Team’s evaluation of this factor. However, I noted that, although Chiricahua-Logical JV’s was the second lowest priced offeror at $12,122,657.38, its price is lower than the Government estimate and only slightly higher than the lowest priced proposal.

In summary, based on my integrated assessment of all proposals received, and in accordance with the evaluation criteria and their relative importance established for this acquisition, it is my decision that the proposal submitted by Chiricahua-Logical JV represents the best overall value to the Government. In my selection decision, I referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors for award specified in the RFP. As established in Section 6.1 of the RFP, Technical Acceptability would be assessed on a pass/fail basis. Then, “Acceptable” offerors were to be evaluated on Price and Past Performance. The RFP states that Past Performance is significantly more important than Price. Of the four technically “Acceptable” offerors, I noted

Page 10 of 10 KOIS that Chiricahua-Logical JV is the only offeror to receive a “Very High Level of Confidence” rating for Past Performance, whereas all other offerors received a “Low Level of Confidence” rating. In addition, Chiricahua-Logical JV was the only offeror to demonstrate relevant performance in each of the KOIS PWS areas. For the Price factor, I noted that Chiricahua-Logical JV’s was the second lowest priced offeror, but its price was only slightly higher than the lowest priced proposal. Of importance, the RFP states that Past Performance is significantly more important than Price and that the Government reserves the right to award a contract to a higher priced Offeror if a lower priced Offeror has a lower or equal performance confidence assessment rating. Because Chiricahua-Logical JV is the highest rated offeror and is rated substantially higher than the other technically acceptable offerors, and because Chiricahua-Logical JV’s price is only slightly higher than the lowest priced offeror, Chiricahua-Logical JV’s minimally higher price will provide the best value to the government as the Government has a very high level of confidence that Chiricahua-Logical JV will successfully perform the required effort. Therefore, I determine that Chiricahua-Logical JV represents the best value to the Government.

For the above-stated reasons, I select Chiricahua-Logical JV for award of the NASA KOIS contract.

Date

Burton R. Summerfield KOIS Source Selection Authority