CSUP2_SourceSelectionStatementandBrandNameJustification.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC) Compressor Station Upgrades, Phase 2 (CSUP2)

Request For Proposal (RFP): 80LARC18R0005

On September 26, 2018, I, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the subject acquisition, met with the Source Evaluation Team (SET) appointed to evaluate proposals for the LaRC CSUP2 effort, and the SET presented its findings to me in a formal source selection briefing.

Procurement History

The NASA LaRC CSUP2 is a comprehensive project to construct a complex compressor system to supply LaRC’s wind tunnels and test facilities with 8 lb. /sec high pressure air @ 6,000 psi and -80degF dewpoint. In coordination with the NASA LaRC Project Manager, the contractor shall perform all project tasks including managing, furnishing, installing, integrating, verifying, and validating this new compressor system at the LaRC Compressor Station per specifications and design developed under task order number CTN1205 of the Center Maintenance, Operations, and Engineering (CMOE) contract, NNL13AA14C. The overall scope includes removal of the 6000 psi (8lbs/sec) High Pressure Air Compressor 4 and Dryer 3 System, procurement and installation of a new 6000 psi (8lbs/sec) High Pressure Air Compressor 8 system (with integral Dryer), modifications to all ancillary systems required to operate the new Compressor 8 system, and integration of the new Compressor 8 system into all B1247E systems per project specifications. All work must also be completed with minimal interruptions to the Compressor Station operations.

Market research was conducted to determine the existing small business capabilities and assessed how well they compare with the LaRC CSUP2 requirements. A sources-sought synopsis was issued on March 8, 2018, seeking capability statements from potential sources under NAICS code 236210, Industrial Building Construction, with a size standard of $36.5M annually. Based on the responses received, the Contracting Officer determined, with the concurrence of the Small Business Specialist, that there was no reasonable expectation that offers would be received from two or more small businesses. Therefore, this single award source selection was conducted through full and open competition.

The SSA appointed the LaRC SET on May 21, 2018, for the purpose of evaluating proposals received in response to the solicitation. A Procurement Strategy Meeting was held on April 23, 2018. A Draft RFP was posted on May 16, 2018 with a Pre-Solicitation Conference conducted on May 30, 2018. The final RFP was posted on June 19, 2018 with three (3) amendments issued.

Amendments 0001 and 0003 were extensions to the proposal due date. Amendment 0002 provided answers to industry questions and updated RFP documents in response to the questions received.

2 | P a g e

The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed price contract with a period of performance expected to be 730 Calendar Days from issuance of the Notice to Proceed (NTP) with no option periods.

Timely proposals were received on or before the due date of August 2, 2018 from the following four Offerors (listed in alphabetical order):

Greenland Enterprises, Inc. (Greenland) Riggins Company, LC (Riggins) The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company (Whiting-Turner) W.M. Schlosser Co., Inc. (W.M. Schlosser)

Evaluation Factors and Process

This Price-Performance Tradeoff (PPTO) source selection was conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Part 1815.3 and the solicitation. Initially, the Contracting Officer, Contract Specialist and SET Chair reviewed each proposal in sufficient depth to identify any proposals that were unacceptable in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. Proposals were then evaluated by the SET in accordance with RFP Section M as follows:

Step 1 – The Government will rank all proposals based on price, from lowest to highest price. An offeror’s proposed price will be determined by the proposed price in Exhibit D, Contracting Pricing Schedule, and “TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE – INCLUDING OPTIONAL CLINS.”

Step 2 - An initial review of proposals will be conducted of the four (4) lowest priced offerors identified in Step 1 for the purpose of identifying unacceptable proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. At any point during the initial evaluation if the CO determines the proposal to be unacceptable in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, the Government will discontinue the evaluation of that proposal. All unacceptable proposals will be eliminated from further evaluation.

Step 3 – The four (4) lowest priced proposals from Step 1 and those that were identified as acceptable in Step 2 will be evaluated against the Technical Considerations (M.2) for technical acceptability. Proposals will be rated as “acceptable,” “potentially acceptable,” or “unacceptable.” Proposals rated as “not acceptable” will be eliminated from further consideration and notified accordingly.

Step 3(a): If during the technical acceptability evaluation process in Step 3, the Government determines that any of the initial four (4) lowest priced proposals are rated “unacceptable”, the Government will include the next lowest priced Offeror not originally included, starting with the 5th-lowest priced remaining offer. The process to include additional proposals may continue until four (4) proposals are rated “acceptable” or “potentially acceptable” (or until all Offerors are considered).

3 | P a g e

Step 4 – The Government will only evaluate Price and Past Performance Factors for the offerors remaining from Step 3. The Price evaluation will be conducted in accordance with Section M.3(a) and the Past Performance evaluation will be conducted in accordance with Section M.3(b).

Step 4(a): If during the evaluation process the Government determines that none of the remaining offeror’s proposals has received at least a “High” Level of Confidence for the Past Performance Factor rating, the Government will include the next lowest priced offeror of the proposals not originally included, starting with the 5th-lowest priced remaining offer, until a proposal meets the requirements in Step 4, with at least a “High” Level of Confidence for Past Performance.

Step 5 – Following any discussions, if held, the SSA, after consultation with the SET and other advisors, will select the offeror that can perform the contract in a manner most advantageous to the Government, all factors considered. The SSA will make an integrated assessment of each offer evaluated in Step 4 and comparatively evaluate competing offers, considering input from the SET. The SSA will consider past performance confidence ratings assigned by the SET;

however, the SSA will base selection on substantive proposal differences that are reflected by the past performance confidence ratings as opposed to basing selection on mere differences in ratings.

Evaluation Results

Step 1 – The Government ranked all proposal based on price, from lowest to highest, to establish the four (4) lowed priced offerors. The four (4) proposals received also represent the four (4) lowest priced offerors.

Step 2 – The SET then conducted an initial review of the four (4) proposals received for the purpose of identifying unacceptable proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. No proposals were determined to be “Unacceptable” during in this step.

Step 3 – The SET then evaluated the four (4) proposals from Step 2 for technical acceptability.

The SET determined two (2) proposals from Greenland and Whiting-Turner to be rated as “Acceptable” and one (1) proposal from W.M. Schlosser to be rated as “Potentially Acceptable”. During the technical acceptability evaluation, the SET determined the Riggins proposal to be “Unacceptable” and it was notified of the determination and eliminated from further consideration. The assigned ratings are outlined below:

OFFEROR TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

Greenland Acceptable

Riggins Unacceptable Whiting-Tuner Acceptable W.M. Schlosser Potentially Acceptable

Since no other proposals were received, Step 3(a) did not apply

4 | P a g e

Step 4 – The SET then evaluated the three (3) remaining proposals from Step 3 against the price and past performance factors in accordance with the RFP.

Factor 1 - Price: The evaluation of the price factor was conducted in accordance with RFP Section M.3(a). The Government performed a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 by evaluating the prices proposed in response to this solicitation to determine if the prices are fair and reasonable. The price analysis included, but was not limited to, comparing all proposed prices and comparing each proposed price to the independent Government cost estimate (IGCE). No adjectival rating were utilized for evaluating price. The Government analyzed the total proposed price and any other pricing data requested in Section L.17(b) for fair and reasonableness and unbalanced pricing. The total proposed price is the amount proposed in Exhibit D, Contracting Pricing Schedule, and “TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE – INCLUDING

OPTIONAL CLINS.”

The SET evaluated the pricing data requested in Section L.17(b) to determine if the offeror’s price was realistic and reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and to measure/assess benefits and risks associated with the offeror’s proposed approach. Accordingly, the government evaluated the price proposal to ensure that the price proposal was consistent with the technical proposal and that it was in compliance with the Davis Bacon Wage Determination requirements.

Factor 2 – Past Performance: Under the Past Performance factor and in accordance with RFP M.3(b) the SET performed a detailed individual review of each Offeror’s past performance proposal to evaluate the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance of work similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirement of the acquisition.

The SET members considered the degree of similarity of work performed in terms of size, content and complexity of each referenced contract for the prime and each significant subcontractor considering the amount and type of work each firm is proposed to perform to the requirements in this solicitation, as well as the recency and duration of the past performance. In addition, the Government evaluated the Offerors’ RFP Attachment 9, Performance Work Matrix for which teaming partner (prime and/or significant subcontractor(s)) proposed to perform work in the Technical Performance Elements provided in Attachment 1, Past Performance Questionnaire and the percentage of work each was proposed to perform. RFP Section M.3(b) stated that each of the past performance confidence rating has a "performance" component and a "pertinence" component. The offeror 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.

The SET met and discussed all of the past performance findings of the individual voting members and used its collective judgment to develop consensus findings for the past performance factor and arrived at their consensus pertinence, performance, and level of confidence rating for each Offeror using the table below:

5 | P a g e

In accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2) past performance shall be evaluated for each offeror using the following levels of confidence ratings:

Very High Level of Confidence

The offeror’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.

High Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition;

demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Offeror’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 the offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards. Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Very Low Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas. Performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, adversely affected overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].

6 | P a g e

The Contracting Officer carefully reviewed the facts from the initial findings and discussed the findings with the SET. RFP Section L.16 D(1) stated the Government anticipated award would be made without discussions in accordance with FAR 52.215-1. Based on the evaluation by the SET, it was evident that the potential for an award without discussions existed. Therefore, no Competitive Range was determined by the Contracting Officer and the SET met with me on September 26, 2018 to present its findings.

Evaluation Findings

The following is a summary of the results of the SET evaluation:

Offeror Total Proposed Price

Past Performance Level of

Confidence

Greenland Lowest High Level of Confidence (HLC)

Whiting-Turner Second Lowest Moderate Level of Confidence (MLC)

W.M. Schlosser Highest Moderate Level of Confidence (MLC)

Factor 1 - Price

The SET analyzed the price proposals to determine price reasonableness. Offerors’ price proposals were evaluated in accordance with RFP Section M.3(a), Price Factor. A summary of the total proposed price (Lowest to Highest) for each offeror is shown in the table below:

Offeror Total Proposed Price

Greenland Lowest Whiting-Turner Second Lowest W.M. Schlosser Highest

In accordance with FAR 15.402, the Contracting Officer determined that all of the Offeror’s proposed prices were fair and reasonable and balanced 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.

7 | P a g e

Greenland:

The SET determined the price proposal to be fair and reasonable, reflected a clear understanding of the CSUP2 effort, and was consistent with the elements of the technical proposal.

Whiting-Turner:

The SET determined the price proposal to be fair and reasonable, reflected a clear understanding of the CSUP2 effort, and was consistent with the elements of the technical proposal.

W.M Schlosser:

The SET determined the price proposal to be fair and reasonable, reflected a clear understanding of the CSUP2 effort, and was consistent with the elements of the technical proposal. However, if the SSA determines this Offeror may present the best value, clarifications or discussion may be necessary as pricing concerns were identified during the price evaluation.

Factor 2 - Past Performance

The SET evaluated the Offerors’ past performance in accordance with Section M.3(b) of the RFP and a confidence rating was assigned in accordance with NFS 1815.305. Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance confidence ratings and findings for the three (3) evaluated Offerors:

Offeror Pertinence Rating Performance Rating

Level of Confidence

Greenland Highly Pertinent Exemplary High Level of Confidence

(HLC)

Whiting-Turner Pertinent Very Effective Moderate Level of Confidence

(MLC)

W.M. Schlosser Highly Pertinent Effective Moderate Level of Confidence

(MLC)

Greenland:

The SET determined that there is a “High Level of Confidence” that Greenland would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the CSUP2 effort based on its past performance. Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance Findings for Greenland:

8 | P a g e

*Note: Overall Content rating was derived from an overall review of the ratings for the five (5) Technical Performance Elements outlined above.

The SET assigned an overall pertinence rating of “Highly Pertinent,” (HP) in terms of size, content, and complexity to the CSUP2 effort. Greenland and its Significant Subcontractors demonstrated “Very Highly Pertinent” (VHP) content experience in one (1) of the Technical Performance Element (TPE) and HP content experience in four (4) of the TPEs (in accordance with L.17(c)2.)).

The SET assigned an “Exemplary” overall performance rating for Greenland. The Prime had three (3) references rated as “Exemplary” and the subcontractors had four (4) references rated as “Exemplary” and one (1) rated as “Very Effective. “The SET determined the relevant experience to be recent and of a meaningful duration to judge performance. The SET’s assessment also considered feedback from Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports.

In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SET assigned an overall “High Level of Confidence.”

Whiting-Turner:

The SET determined that there is a “Moderate Level of Confidence” that Whiting-Turner would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the CSUP2 effort based on its past performance. Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance Findings for Whiting- Turner:

O

FF

ER

O

R

Pe rt in en ce

1.

D em ol is hi ng in du st ri al eq ui pm en t in o pe ra ti ng fa ci lit y

2.

In st al lin g co m pl ex a nd sp ec ia liz ed in du st p.

/m ac hi ne ry

3.

T es ti ng a nd v er ify in g co m pl ex an d sp ec ia liz ed e qu ip /m ac hi ne ry

4.

E xp er ie nc e w it h ai r pr es su re sy st em s w it h pr es su re r at in gs o f

6, ps i

5.

In te gr at in g au to m at ed em s in to e xi st in g pl an t-w id e co nt ro l s ys te m

O ve ra ll

Co nt en t

Pe rt in en ce

Pe rt in en ce

Pe rf or m an ce

Le ve l

Size Complexity Overall

Pertinence Overall

Performance Confidence

Rating Greenland Enterprises VHP HP HP HP VHP HP HP VHP HP EX High

Content Pertinence

9 | P a g e

The SET assigned an overall pertinence rating of “Pertinent,” in terms of size, content, and complexity to the CSUP2 effort. Whiting-Turner and its Significant Subcontractors demonstrated HP content experience in two (2) TPEs, P content experience in two (2) TPEs, and NP in one (1) TPE (in accordance with L.17(c)2.)).

The SET assigned a “Very Effective” overall performance rating for Whiting-Tuner. The Prime had three (3) references; one (1) rated as “Exemplary,” one (1) rated as “Very Effective”, and one (1) rated as “Effective”. The subcontractors had six (6) rated references; three (3) were rated as “Exemplary,” two (2) were rated as “Very Effective,” and one (1) was rated as “Effective.”

The SET determined the relevant experience to be recent and of a meaningful duration to judge performance. The SET’s assessment also considered feedback from PPQs and CPARS reports.

In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SET assigned an overall “Moderate Level of Confidence.”

W.M. Schlosser:

The SET determined that there is a “Moderate Level of Confidence” that W.M. Schlosser would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the CSUP2 effort based on its past performance. Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance Findings for W.M.

Schlosser:

O

FF

ER

O

R

Pe rt in en ce

1.

D em ol is hi ng in du st pm en t in o pe ra ti ng fa ci lit y

2.

In st al lin g co m pl ex ia liz ed in du st p.

/m ac hi ne ry

3.

T es ti ng a nd v er ify in g co m sp ec ia liz ed e qu ip /m ac hi ne ry

4.

E xp er ie nc e w it h ai r pr es em s w it h pr es su re r at in gs o f

6, ps i

5.

In te gr at in g au to m em s in to e xi st in g pl an t-w id e co nt ro l s ys te m

O ve ra ll

Co nt en t

Pe rt in en ce

Pe rt in en ce

Pe rf or m an ce

Le ve l

Size Complexity Overall

Pertinence Overall

Performance Confidence

Rating Whiting-Turner VHP P HP P NP HP P VHP P VE Moderate

10 | P a g e

The SET assigned an overall pertinence rating of “Highly Pertinent” in terms of size, content, and complexity to the CSUP2 effort. W.M. Schlosser and its Significant Subcontractors demonstrated HP content experience in four (4) TPEs and P content experience in one (1) TPE (in accordance with L.17(c)2.)).

The SET assigned an “Effective” overall performance rating for W.M. Schlosser. The Prime had three (3) references; the performance rating for the three (3) references was “unable to be assigned.” The subcontractors had five (5) references; three (3) were rated as “Exemplary,” one

(1) was rated as “Very Effective,” and one (1) was” unable to assign a rating.” The SET determined the relevant experience to be recent and of a meaningful duration to judge performance. The SET’s assessment also considered feedback from PPQs and CPARS reports.

In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SET assigned an overall “Moderate Level of Confidence.”

O

FF

ER

O

R

Pe rt in en ce

1.

D em ol is hi ng in du st pm en t in o pe ra ti ng fa ci lit y

2.

In st al lin g co m pl ex ia liz ed in du st p.

/m ac hi ne ry

3.

T es ti ng a nd v er ify in g co m sp ec ia liz ed e qu ip /m ac hi ne ry

4.

E xp er ie nc e w it h ai r pr es em s w it h pr es su re r at in gs o f

6, ps i

5.

In te gr at in g au to m em s in to e xi st in g pl an t-w id e co nt ro l s ys te m

O ve ra ll

Co nt en t

Pe rt in en ce

Pe rt in en ce

Pe rf or m an ce

Le ve l

Size Complexity Overall

Pertinence Overall

Performance Confidence

Rating W.M. Schlosser VHP P HP HP HP HP HP HP HP E Moderate

11 | P a g e

BASIS FOR SELECTION

The SET presented its findings to me on September 26, 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 considered SET findings and I asked questions about aspects of both 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. Given that the RFP states that the past performance and price factors are of approximately equal importance, I evaluated the offers using past performance and price as indicators of which Offeror provides the best value to the Government.

I began by comparing all proposed Total Proposed Prices (TPP), with Greenland being the lowest TPP, followed by Whiting-Turner, and W.M. Schlosser as the highest TTP. I then compared the past performance ratings for each offeror with Greenland being rated “High Level of Confidence,” Whiting-Turner being rated “Moderate Level of Confidence,” and W.M.

Schlosser being rated “Moderate Level of Confidence.” When I compared W.M. Schlosser to other Offerors, Greenland had a lower price with a higher confidence level of “High Level of Confidence” and Whiting-Turner had a lower price with the same confidence level of “Moderate Level of Confidence.” Therefore, I determine that W.M. Schlosser did not represent the best value to the Government because of its higher price and “Moderate Level of Confidence.”

Next, I continued my comparative assessment between Greenland, the lowest price offeror, and Whiting-Turner, the 2nd lowest priced Offeror. I noted Greenland received a performance confidence rating of a “High Level of Confidence,” which is one level above Whiting-Turner’s confidence rating of “Moderate Level of Confidence.” For Content Pertinence, Greenland received Very Highly Pertinent and Highly Pertinent ratings, while Whiting-Turner received a mix of Highly Pertinent, Pertinent, and Not Pertinent ratings in the evaluated TPEs. Greenland received superior ratings in three (3) TPEs including, demolition (TPE #1), Testing and Verifying (TPE #3), and Air Pressure Systems (TPE #4). Of particular impact to my analysis, Greenland received a Very Highly Pertinent in air pressure systems with pressure ratings of 6,000 psi or greater (TPE #4), while Whiting-Turner received a rating of Not Pertinent. Whiting- Turner’s Not Pertinent rating in TPE #4 is especially concerning, since a lack of experience with high pressure systems could result in damage to Government property or catastrophic injuries.

For Overall Pertinence, I compared Greenland and Whiting-Turner on Size, Content and Complexity. Both Offerors received Very Highly Pertinent ratings for Size and Complexity. As a result, Greenland received a Pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent, one level superior than Whiting-Turner’s Pertinent rating. I noted concerns with Whiting-Turner’s past cost and schedule issues, as identified by the SET during its past performance analysis. Next, I compared the offeror’s performance ratings. While both Greenland and Whiting-Turner performed well, Greenland’s performance rating of “Exemplary” was superior to Whiting-Turner’s “Very Effective” rating. After my Past Performance assessment, I continued my comparative assessment of Price. I noted, Greenland’s TPP is significantly lower than Whiting-Turner’s. The significantly lower price would provide a considerable and beneficial savings to the Government.

12 | P a g e

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

In making the selection decision, I have considered the relative weight of the evaluation factors as indicated within the RFP, which states that price and past performance are of approximately equal importance. Based on my integrated assessment, it is my conclusion that Greenland’s proposal provides the greater benefit to the Government, in accordance with the specified evaluation criteria. First, Greenland’s significantly lower Price compared to Whiting-Turner’s or W.M. Schlosser’s Price is a significant savings that is beneficial to the Government. In addition, I have high confidence in Greenland’s ability to perform the Compressor Station Upgrades, Phase 2 effort based upon its past performance record. Greenland has a considerably lower price and a more superior Past Performance Confidence Level rating identified above. Therefore, based on my integrated assessment of the proposals against the specified evaluation criteria, it is my decision that Greenland’s proposal provides the best overall value to the Government, thus I hereby select Greenland Enterprises, Inc. for award of the NASA Langley Research Center’s Compressor Station Upgrades, Phase 2 contract with a Total Proposed Price of $10,777,565.00.

Erik Weiser Date Source Selection Authority

ERIK WEISER

Digitally signed by ERIK WEISER Date: 2018.10.22 15:31:58 -04'00' 10/22/2018