Source_Selection_Statement.pdf

Source Selection Statement

Force Measurement Support Services (FMSS)

RFP: 80LARC18R0002

On September 6, 2018, the Source Evaluation Team (SET) for the FMSS procurement presented its findings to me in a formal source selection briefing.

Background

The purpose of the FMSS contract is to provide high quality force and strain measurement capabilities for various programs and projects by providing services to produce, calibrate, repair and develop force and strain measurement capabilities, that incorporate technological advancements to meet current and future aerospace research challenges at Langley Research

Center (LaRC) and other NASA centers.

Market research was conducted in order to determine the level of existing small business capabilities. A sources-sought synopsis was issued on January 12, 2018 seeking capability statements from potential sources under NAICS code 334511, Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing with a size standard of 1,250 Employees. Based on the responses received, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Small Business Specialist, determined that an adequate number of small business concerns did not exist to allow the LaRC contract to be competed as a Small Business set aside.

The LaRC SET was appointed by me via letter dated March 14, 2018, for the purpose of evaluating proposals received in response to the solicitation. A Procurement Strategy Meeting was held on April 11, 2018. A Pre-Solicitation conference was held on May 2, 2018. The

Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on June 5, 2018. Three amendments to the RFP were issued to respond to questions received from the potential Offerors and to make minor corrections.

The RFP contemplated the award of a Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity

(IDIQ) effort with a 5-year period of performance. Task Orders issued against awarded contracts will be awarded on a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) or Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee (CPFF) basis. The total maximum cumulative value of the Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts is

$9,000,000.

Timely proposals were received on or before the due date of July 23, 2018 from the following small business Offerors (listed in alphabetical order):

Calspan Systems Corporation (Calspan)

Modern Machine and Tools Company, Inc. (Modern)

Evaluation Factors and Process

This Price Past Performance Tradeoff (PPTO) source selection was conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 and NASA FAR Supplement Part

1815.3. An initial review of each proposal was conducted to identify any unacceptable proposals in accordance with FAR 1815-305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals; and both proposals were determined to be acceptable.

Evaluation of Technical Proposal (Technical Considerations): The SET performed a detailed evaluation of the Offerors’ technical proposals for technical acceptability. Under Technical

Considerations (Section M.3), the following was evaluated:

1 – Quality Demonstration that quality systems were compliant with ISO 9001 or AS9100 standards

2 – Facility and Equipment Demonstration that offeror has facility/equipment needed to perform the contract

3 – Facility Clearance Proof that offer has facility clearance at the level identified in the RFP

4 – Staffing Capability Demonstration that offeror has (or will have) the labor skills as set forth in Attachment 3 to the RFP

Past Performance and Price Evaluation: The SET then performed a detailed evaluation of the

Offerors’ past performance and price proposals to assess for the two evaluation factors.

Factor 1 – Past Performance: Under the Past Performance factor, the SET performed a detailed individual review of each Offeror’s Past Performance proposal, feedback from telephone interviews and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports to evaluate the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance for similar work in content, size, and complexity to the requirement of the acquisition.

The RFP stated that each of the past performance confidence ratings has a “performance” component and a “pertinence” component. The offerors must meet the requirements of both components to achieve a particular rating, and the lowest rated component is the highest rating that can be achieved.

In assessing pertinence, the SET considered the degree of similarity of work performed in terms of content, size, and complexity of each relevant contract of the prime and each subcontractor considering the amount and type of work each firm is proposed to perform to the requirements in the solicitation (Section L.15(b), as well as the recency and duration of the past performance.

The Technical Performance Elements (TPEs) included SOW areas 2.2 Engineering Design;

Evaluation, and Analysis of Single- and Multi-Axis Force Transducers; 2.3 Conventional

Fabrication Services; 2.4 Force Transducer Instrumentation Service; 2.5 Material and Structures

Strain Instrumentation Services; 2.6 Single- and Multi-Axis Force Transducer Calibration

Services; and 2.7 Force Transducer and Strain Instrumentation LaRC Facility Support and

Troubleshooting Services.

The SET then met and discussed all the past performance findings of the individual voting members for each offeror. The SET used its collective judgment to develop consensus findings for the past performance factor and arrived at its consensus ratings for pertinence, performance, and level of confidence rating for each Offeror.

Factor 2 – Price: The evaluation of the price factor was conducted in accordance with RFP

Section M 4(b). The Government performed a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-

1(b) by evaluating the prices proposed in response to the solicitation to determine if the prices were fair and reasonable. The price analysis included, but was not limited to, comparing all proposed prices received in response to the solicitation and comparing each proposed price to the

Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). The Government analyzed the total proposed price and other pricing data requested in Section L.15(d) for fair and reasonableness. In addition, the Government evaluated the Offeror’s Pre-Priced Schedules of Rates and Labor Categories for the IDIQ support, Wage Determination (WD), and Limitations on Subcontracting (FAR 52.219-

14).

Evaluation Findings

Evaluation of Technical Proposal (Technical Considerations): The SET conducted its evaluation of both Offerors’ technical proposals, and assigned its ratings as stated below.

OFFEROR TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

Calspan Acceptable

Modern Acceptable

Factor 1 Past Performance:

The SET evaluated the Offerors’ past performance in accordance with Section M.4(a) of the RFP and a confidence rating was assigned in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2). Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance confidence ratings for the two (2) evaluated Offerors:

Offeror Pertinence Rating Performance

Rating

Level of

Confidence

Calspan Very Highly Pertinent Very Effective High Level of

Confidence

Modern Very Highly Pertinent Very Effective High Level of

Confidence

Calspan:

The SET determined that there is a “High Level of Confidence” that Calspan would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the FMSS effort based on its past performance. Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance Findings for Calspan:

Size Complexity Overall Overall Confidence

OFFEROR Pertinence

SO

W

.2

E n gi n ee ri n g

D es ig n

, E va lu at io n

, a n d

A al ys is o f Si n gl e-a

SO

W

.3

C o n ve n ti o al

Fa b ri ca ti o n S er vi ce s

SO

W

.4

F o rc e

Tr an sd u ce r

In st ru m en ta ti o n S er vi ce s

SO

W

.5

M at er ia l a

St ru ct u re s

St ra in

In st ru m en ta ti o n S er vi ce s

SO

W

.6

Si n gl e-a

M u lt i-

A xi s Fo rc e

Tr an sd u ce r

C al ib ra ti o

SO

W

.7

Fo rc e

Tr an sd u ce r an d

S tr ai ru m en ta ti o n L aR C ci lit y

Su p p o rt a

Overall

Content Pertinence Pertinence Performance Level

Calspan VHP VHP VHP VHP DNA VHP P HP VHP VHP VE High

Content Pertinence

*Note: Overall Content rating was derived from an overall review of the ratings for the six

(TPEs)

The SET determined the relevant experience to be in accordance with the RFP. Calspan demonstrated performance based on its contracts at NASA Ames Research Center, NASA

Marshall Space Flight Center, Arnold Engineering Development Complex (Air Force), NASA

Glenn Research Center, and NASA Langley Research Center. Calspan demonstrated “Very

Highly Pertinent (VHP) content experience in four of the six TPEs, “Pertinent” in one TPE area and “Did Not Address” in one TPE area. The SET assigned a Highly Pertinent rating for overall content. The SET assigned pertinence ratings of “Very Highly Pertinent” in terms of size, and complexity to the FMSS effort. The SET assigned a Very Highly Pertinent rating for the overall pertinence rating.

The SET assigned a “Very Effective” overall performance rating for Calspan. Of the five referenced contracts, one was rated as “Exemplary”, and one was rated at “Very Effective”, and three were rated as “Effective”. The SET determined from all performance information that

Calspan’s performance to be Very Effective.

In accordance with the level of confidence definition in the RFP, the SET assigned an overall rating “High Level of Confidence” based on the overall pertinence rating of Very Highly

Pertinent experience and Very Effective performance.

Modern:

The SET determined that there is a “High Level of Confidence” that Modern would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the FMSS effort based on its past performance. Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance Findings for Modern:

Size Complexity Overall Overall Confidence

OFFEROR Pertinence

SO

W

.2

En gi n ee ri n g

D es ig n

, E va lu at io n

, a

A al ys is o f Si n gl e-a n d

M u lt i-

SO

W

.3

C o n ve n ti o al b ri ca ti o n S er vi ce s

SO

W

.4

F o rc e Tr an sd u ce r

In st ru m en ta ti o n S er vi ce s

SO

W

.5

M at er ia l a

St ru ct u re s

St ra in ru m en ta ti o n S er vi ce s

SO

W

.6

: S in gl e-a n d M u lt i-

A xi s Fo rc e

Tr an sd u ce r

C al ib ra ti o n S er vi ce s

SO

W

.7

: F o rc e

Tr an sd u ce r an d

S tr ai n

In st ru m en ta ti

La R

C F ac ili ty S u p p o rt a

Tr u b le sh o o ti n g Se rv ic es

Overall

Content Pertinence Pertinence Performance Level

Modern VHP VHP VHP VHP VHP VHP VHP VHP VHP VHP VE High

Content Pertinence

*Note: Overall Content rating was derived from an overall review of the ratings for the six

(TPEs)

The SET determined the relevant experience to be recent in accordance with the RFP. Modern demonstrated performance based on its contracts for Jacobs Technology Group, Dynetics, Inc., The

Boeing Company, NASA Langley Research Center and Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation. Modern demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent (VHP) content experience in all of the TPEs. The SET assigned an overall pertinence rating of “Very Highly Pertinent” in terms of size, content and complexity to the FMSS effort.

The SET assigned a “Very Effective” overall performance rating for Modern. Of the five referenced contracts, two were rated as “Exemplary”, and one was rated as “Very Effective”, and one was rated as “Effective”. The SET determined from all performance information that

Modern’s performance to be Very Effective.

In accordance with the level of confidence definition in the RFP, the SET assigned an overall rating “High Level of Confidence” based on the overall pertinence rating of Very Highly

Pertinent experience and Very Effective performance.

Factor 2 – Price:

The SET analyzed the total proposed price and other pricing data requested in Section L.15(c) for fair and reasonableness.

In accordance with FAR 15.402, the Contracting Officer determined that all of the Offeror’s proposed prices were fair and reasonable based on the comparison of the proposed prices, comparison of the proposed prices to the IGCE, and the fact that adequate price competition was obtained.

Calspan: The SET determined the price proposal to be fair and reasonable, reflected a clear understanding of the FMSS effort, and was consistent with the elements of the technical proposal. Calspan had no pricing concerns that would preclude an award of a contract.

Modern: The SET determined the price proposal to be fair and reasonable, reflected a clear understanding of the FMSS effort, and was consistent with the elements of the technical proposal. Modern had no pricing concerns that would preclude an award of a contract.

Basis for Selection

The SET presented its findings to me on September 6, 2018 and I am convinced that the SET conducted a thorough, fair, and objective evaluation of all proposals in accordance with the established evaluation criteria in the RFP. I asked questions about aspects of the price and the past performance evaluations to enhance my understanding. After all questions were answered, I fully understood the SET’s findings.

I comparatively assessed the proposals against the evaluation factors in the RFP. I considered all factors, and their relative importance, in the selection of the Offeror(s) that can perform the contract in a manner most advantageous to the Government. Given that the RFP states that the past performance and price factors are of approximately equal in importance, I reviewed the information presented to me using past performance and price as indicators of which Offeror(s) provides the best value to the Government. Calspan’s High Level of Confidence rating for past performance consisted of a Very High Level of pertinence and Very Effective performance. I did note that Calspan received a content pertinence rating of High, however, had an overall pertinence rating of Very High based on size and complexity. Modern’s High Level of

Confidence rating for past performance consisted of Very High Level of pertinence and Very

Effective performance. Modern had ratings of Very High pertinence for overall content, size and complexity. Both Calspan and Modern received High Level of Confidence ratings and both provided me assurance that they will deliver above satisfactory performance in fulfilling the requirements for the FMSS contract. The price analysis indicated that both Calspan and

Modern’s prices were fair and reasonable, and the anticipation of competition at the task order level provided me additional confidence that task order pricing will be fair and reasonableness. I have no concern that the proposed pricing is not the most advantageous and reasonable for the

Government to fulfill the requirements for the FMSS contract.

Source Selection Decision

In conclusion, based on the determinations above for Factor 1, Past Performance and Factor 2, Cost/Price, I find that each Offeror’s proposal was reasonable, realistic, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Therefore, I hereby direct the Contracting Officer to award to Calspan Systems Corporation and Modern

Machine and Tool Company, Inc. based on the findings documented.

Liliana J. Richwine

Source Selection Authority