MCHFSS SSD.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC)

Mechanical and Composites Hardware Fabrication Support Services (MCHFSS) Request For Proposal (RFP): 80LARC19R0004

On November 21, 2019, 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 MCHFSS effort, and the SET presented its findings to me in a formal source selection briefing.

Background

The MCHFSS contract provides for the design and fabrication of research-oriented, one-of–a-kind flight test articles and assemblies. This includes ground support equipment, aircraft articles, spaceflight articles, laboratory materials, and other instrumentation requirements for science research. These services encompass functional fabrication work areas with support services in Government-provided facilities on-site at NASA LaRC.

Procurement History

Market research was conducted to determine the existing small business capabilities and to assess how well they compare with the MCHFSS requirements. A sources-sought synopsis was issued on April 24, 2019, 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 people. The NAICS code was changed to 336413, Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing, after receiving feedback from industry. Based on the responses received, the Contracting Officer determined, with the concurrence of the Small Business Specialist, that there was reasonable expectation that offers would be received from two or more small businesses. Therefore, this single award source selection was conducted as a 100% small business set-aside.

The SSA appointed the LaRC SET on May 1, 2019, for the purpose of evaluating proposals received in response to the solicitation. A Procurement Strategy Meeting was held on July 30, 2019. A Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) was posted on August 13, 2019 with a Pre- Solicitation Conference conducted on September 19, 2019. Two Amendments to the DRFP were issued; both to provide responses to industry questions. The final RFP was posted on September 23, 2019.

The RFP contemplated the award of a single-award indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract with cost plus fixed fee delivery orders. The period of performance was five years from April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2025 with no options.

Timely proposals were received on or before the due date of October 22, 2019 from the following two Offerors (listed in alphabetical order):

• Calspan Systems Corporation (Calspan)

• Science and Technology Corporation (STC)

Evaluation Factors and Process

This Price-Performance Tradeoff (PPTO) source selection was conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, 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 unacceptable in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. Both proposals warranted a full evaluation. Proposals were then evaluated by the SET in accordance with RFP Section M as follows:

Step 1 – The RFP stated the Government will rank all proposals based on cost/price, from lowest to highest cost/price, to identify the five (5) lowest-priced proposals. An offeror’s proposed cost/price will be determined by the Total Proposed Price which is the amount proposed in Attachment 2,Form 1, “Total Proposed Price Summary”.

Step 2 – The RFP stated an initial review of the five (5) lowest-priced proposals would then be conducted 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 a proposal to be unacceptable in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, the Government will eliminate the proposal from further evaluation and the next lowest-priced proposal not originally included will be included in the evaluation.

Step 3 – The RFP stated the five (5) lowest-priced proposals remaining from Step 2 would then be evaluated against the Technical Considerations (M.3) for technical acceptability. Proposals will be rated as “Acceptable,” “Potentially Acceptable,” or “Unacceptable.” Offerors rated as “Unacceptable” will be eliminated from further evaluation and notified accordingly. Only “Acceptable” and “Potentially Acceptable” proposals would then be evaluated against the Past Performance and Price Factors (M.4).

Step 3(a): The RFP stated that if during the technical acceptability evaluation process in Step 3 the Government determines that any of the initial five (5) lowest-priced proposals are rated “Unacceptable”, then the next lowest-priced proposal not originally included will be included in the evaluation. The process to include additional proposals would continue until the five (5) lowest-priced proposals are rated “acceptable” or “potentially acceptable” or until all Offerors have been considered.

Step 4 – The RFP stated the Government will only evaluate the Past Performance and Price Factors for the offerors remaining from Step 3. The RFP stated the past performance and cost/price evaluation will be conducted in accordance with Section M.4 of the solicitation. Only offerors with a rating of “Moderate Level of Confidence” or above for the Past Performance factor would be eligible for award.

Step 4(a): The RFP stated that if during the evaluation process, the Government determined that none of the initial five lowest priced proposals received at least a “Moderate” Level of Confidence for the Past Performance Factor rating, the Government may include the next lowest priced proposal not originally included. The process to include additional proposals may continue until a proposal meets the requirements in Step 4, and receives at least a “Moderate” Level of Confidence for Past Performance.

Step 5 - The RFP stated the Government intends to award a contract without discussions;

however, the Government reserved the right to conduct discussions in accordance with FAR 52.215-1.

Step 6 – The RFP stated that, following Step 4 ( and if needed, Step 5), the SSA after consultation with the evaluation team 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 evaluated offeror and comparatively evaluate competing offers, considering input from the team. The SSA will consider past performance confidence ratings assigned by the team; however, the SSA will base selection on substantive proposal differences that are reflected by the past performance confidence ratings, while also considering the Price evaluation, as opposed to basing selection on mere differences in ratings.

Evaluation Findings

The SET conducted its evaluation of the proposals in accordance with the RFP. The SET’s evaluation of the Offerors’ proposals for technical acceptability determined that the proposals from Calspan and STC were rated as “Acceptable.” Specifically, both proposals demonstrated an acceptable staffing approach, acceptable facility clearance, and acceptable quality management systems.

The SET then evaluated the two (2) proposals against the past performance and cost/price factors in accordance with the RFP.

Factor 1 – Past Performance: Under the Past Performance factor and in accordance with RFP M.4(a) 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 content, size, and complexity to the requirements of the acquisition.

The evaluation of past performance was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), NFS 1815.305(a)(2), and the solicitation. Under the Past Performance Factor, the Government evaluated the Offeror’s recent and relevant record of performance of work similar in content, size, and complexity to the requirements of this acquisition.

For Pertinence, the RFP stated “In assessing pertinence, the Government will consider the degree of similarity of work performed in terms of content, size, and complexity of each relevant contract of the prime and each significant subcontractor (as defined at L.3) 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.”

A. For Content, the team evaluated references based on the relevant experience compared to the Technical Performance Elements (TPEs) of Section L.15(b)(4) specified below. Note that no subcontractors were proposed by the Offerors.

Technical Performance Areas (PWS Areas):

• PWS 3.1 – Metallic Machining

• PWS 3.2 -Welding

• PWS 3.3 – Metal Fabrication

• PWS 4.1 – Composite Model Maker

• PWS 4.2 – Composite Fabricator

B. For Size, the team compared the references for similarity in size to the estimated annual contract value to the solicitation requirements. A size criteria rating was assigned based on the references similarity to the annual dollar value of the Independent Government Cost Estimate of the Langley Research Center’s (LaRC) MCHFSS effort (approximately$2,800,000 per year). The following size pertinence scale for Prime Offerors was applied (no proposed significant subcontractors):

Size Criteria Rating Less than or Equal to $675,000 (25% or less) Not Pertinent (NP)

Greater than $675,000 to $1,300,000 (25% - 49%) Somewhat Pertinent (SP) Greater than $1,300,000 to $2,000,000 (50% - 74%) Pertinent (P) Greater than $2,000,000 to $2,500,000 (75% - 89%) Highly Pertinent (HP)

Greater than $2,500,000 (90% or greater) Very Highly Pertinent (VHP)

C. For Complexity, the team reviewed references and compared items such as contract type, experience with special terms and conditions, and/or context of performance in comparison to the performance requirements outlined in the solicitation.

For the Overall Content Rating, the team considered the ratings for content, size, and complexity to arrive at an Overall Content rating.

For Performance, the RFP stated “In assessing performance, the Government will assess the Offeror's overall performance record. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance record for demonstrated experience in the technical performance areas listed in L.15(b)(4) for the work each firm is proposed to perform.”

RFP Section M.4(a) 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 confidence 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 in RFP Section M.4(a).

Factor 2 – Cost/Price: The evaluation of the price factor was conducted in accordance with RFP Section M.4(b). The Government performed a cost analysis by evaluating the prices proposed in response to this solicitation. Specifically, the Government compared the cost/prices proposed in response to this solicitation and compared the proposed prices to the independent Government cost estimate. Furthermore, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), the Government conducted cost realism analysis by independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements were realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements;

and were consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s proposal. The Government derived a probable cost, which was determined by adjusting, when appropriate, an Offeror’s proposed cost, and fee to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analyses performed.. As required by the RFP, the probable cost was used for the purposes of evaluation to determine the best value.

The Government verified each Offeror’s compliance with Wage Determination (WD) requirements, as well as Limitations on Subcontracting.

The Contracting Officer carefully reviewed the facts from the initial findings and discussed the findings with the SET. The RFP indicated that the Government anticipated award would be made without discussions in accordance with FAR 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors- Competitive Acquisitions. Based on the evaluation by the SET as presented to the Contracting Officer, the Contracting Officer determined that discussions were not necessary. Therefore, the SET met with me on November 21, 2019 to present its findings.

Evaluation Results

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

Offeror Factor 1 - Past Performance Level of Confidence

Factor 2- Total Proposed Cost/Price

Calspan High Level of Confidence Highest STC Very High Level of Confidence Lowest

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. Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance confidence ratings and findings for the two (2) evaluated Offerors:

Offeror Pertinence Rating Performance Rating Level of Confidence

STC Very Highly Pertinent Exemplary Very High Level of Confidence

Calspan Very Highly Pertinent Very Effective High Level of Confidence

STC:

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

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

The three (3) references provided by STC were found to be recent, in accordance with RFP Section L.15(b)(3).

The SET assigned an overall Content pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent to STC based on the ratings for each Technical Performance Area (TPA). STC was rated Very Highly Pertinent in each of the five (5) TPAs in accordance with RFP Section L.15(b)(4). STC demonstrated content experience as the incumbent for the EMCHFSS II effort.

The SET assigned an overall Size rating of Very Highly Pertinent based on the references provided by STC. Two (2) of the references provided were rated Very Highly Pertinent and one

(1) was rated Highly Pertinent. STC demonstrated VHP for size for its EMCHFSS II and ATC Fab references that were larger in size compared to the $2.8M estimated annual value for the MCHFSS effort.

The SET assigned an overall Complexity rating of Very Highly Pertinent to STC based on the provided references. One reference was rated Very Highly Pertinent (VHP) and two (2) were rated Highly Pertinent. STC is the incumbent contractor on EMCHFSS II, which is similar to the MCHFSS contract requirement.

The SET assigned a rating of Very Highly Pertinent for overall pertinence, based on the evaluation of content, size, and complexity.

The SET assigned an “Exemplary” overall performance rating for STC. STC had two (2) references rated as “Exemplary” and one (1) reference rated as “Very Effective. STC was predominately rated Exceptional and Very Good in most areas during the past performance interviews (PPIs). The majority of those ratings were Exceptional. Additionally, the SET found and evaluated three (3) Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports related to the past performance reference provided by STC. The CPARS were rated Exceptional or Very Good in most categories. STC was rated Satisfactory in two areas, however there was no indication of persistent or recurring problems related to those categories.

In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SET assigned an overall confidence rating of “Very High Level of Confidence” to STC based on an overall pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent experience and Exemplary performance.

Calspan:

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

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

The three (3) references provided by Calspan were found to be recent, in accordance with RFP Section L.15(b)(3).

The SET assigned an overall Content pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent to Calspan based on the ratings for each TPA. Calspan was rated Very Highly Pertinent in each of the five

(5) TPAs in accordance with RFP Section L.15(b)(4). Calspan’s past performance record on its contracts for Rolls Royce’s Global Rigs and Boeing’s Composite Core Fuel Pods demonstrate its capabilities in Metallic Machining, Welding, Metal Fabrication, Composite Model Maker, and Composite Fabricator that are highly similar to the MCHFSS requirements.

The SET assigned an overall Size rating of Very Highly Pertinent based on the references provided by Calspan. Two (2) of the references provided were rated Very Highly Pertinent and one (1) was rated Highly Pertinent. STC demonstrated VHP for size for its Rolls Royce reference that was larger in size compared to the $2.8M estimated annual value for the MCHFSS effort.

The SET assigned an overall Complexity rating of Very Highly Pertinent to Calspan based on the provided references. Two references were rated Very Highly Pertinent (VHP) and one (1) was rated Highly Pertinent. The complexity exhibited in the two (2) of Calspan’s references for the Force Measurement Support Services and Boeing Composite Core Fuel Pod contracts were more complex than the MCHFSS effort in that they required specialized metal machining processes on wind-tunnel balances, sophisticated welding techniques, and advanced knowledge of composite manufacturing techniques and applications.

The SET assigned a rating of Very Highly Pertinent for overall pertinence, based on the evaluation of content, size, and complexity.

The SET assigned a “Very Effective” overall performance rating for Calspan. Calspan had one

(1) reference rated as “Exemplary” and two (2) references rated as “Very Effective. Calspan was predominately rated Very Good in most areas during the past performance interviews (PPIs).

They also received some Exceptional and Satisfactory ratings. Additionally, the SET found and evaluated one (1) CPARS report related to the past performance reference provided by Calspan.

The CPARS were rated Very Good in most categories. Calspan was rated Satisfactory in one (1) area, however there was no indication of persistent or recurring problems related to those categories.. .

In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SET assigned an overall “High Level of Confidence” to Calspan based on an overall pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent experience and Very Effective performance.

Factor 2 – Cost/Price

The SET analyzed the price proposals to determine price reasonableness. Offerors’ price proposals were evaluated in accordance with RFP Section M.4(b), 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

STC Lowest Calspan Highest

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

STC:

The STC proposal included no subcontractors to accomplish the proposed effort. Based on the cost realism analysis and the SET review of STC’s cost proposal, the Government made cost realism adjustments totaling $1,526,555.45 to STC’s proposal. STC proposed WD labor rates for select labor categories in its cost proposal, with a 1% escalation, which is below the Global Insights average escalation for 2020-2024 of 3.05%. The low escalation proposed, per STC, would be achieved via turnover during the course of the contract, lowering some labor rates.

However, the Government reviewed the rates proposed against their current incumbent rates (as reflected in the NASA Form 533M ) and determined numerous rates were proposed lower than actually being incurred by STC which was not realistic since it is not believed that turnover would be that high in Year 1 of the contract. Therefore, the more realistic incurred rates were used for the adjustment. The Government adjusted the labor rates to the more realistic incurred rates, but concluded that the 1% escalation would be achievable with turnover over the complete term of the contract.

STC has approved provisional indirect rates. In addition, the Government reviewed the proposed indirect rates with current actual rates of STC and took no exceptions to those rates. Adjustment in the indirect costs are due to the increased labor cost base.

Fee was also increased due to the increase in total cost.

After the adjustments to STC’s proposed cost/price were made, the SET determined the price proposal to be fair and reasonable, reflected a clear understanding of the MCHFSS effort, and was consistent with the elements of the technical proposal.

Calspan:

The Calspan proposal included no subcontractors to accomplish the proposed effort. No adjustments were made to the Offeror’s proposal to establish probable cost. Therefore, the proposed cost is the most probable cost (MPC).

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

BASIS FOR SELECTION

The SET presented its findings to me on November 21, 2019, 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 past performance and the cost/price 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 factor is significantly more important than the cost/price factor, I evaluated the offers using past performance and price as indicators of which Offeror provides the best value to the Government.

I began my comparative assessment between STC and Calspan by comparing the past performance ratings. For Content Pertinence, although both offerors received a “Very Highly Pertinent” for the content pertinence rating, I noted STC was rated Very Highly Pertinent in all five (5) TPEs, while Calspan was rated Very Highly Pertinent in three (3) TPAs and Highly Pertinent in two (2) TPAs. STC received superior ratings than Calspan in two (2) TPAs of particular importance to the mission at LaRC: Welding and Metal Fabrication. I noted STC received a Very Highly Pertinent in Welding, while Calspan received a rating of Highly Pertinent. I considered in my analysis STC’s demonstrated experience and certifications in welding critical wind tunnels and pressure vessels, along with aerospace and man-rated hardware at LaRC. Additionally, STC received a rating of Very Highly Pertinent in Metal Fabrication, while Calspan received a rating of Highly Pertinent. STC’s proposal demonstrated experience in a higher magnitude of metal fabrication work than Calspan as evidenced by their experience on aerospace projects at LaRC. For Overall Pertinence, I also compared STC and Calspan on Size, Content, and Complexity. Both Offerors received Very Highly Pertinent ratings for Size and Complexity. As a result, STC and Calspan received an overall Pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent.

Next, I compared the offerors’ overall performance ratings. While both STC and Calspan performed well, STC’s performance rating of “Exemplary” was superior to Calspan’s “Very Effective” rating. STC received Exemplary ratings for two (2) references and a Very Effective rating for (1) reference. Calspan received an Exemplary rating for one (1) reference and Very Effective ratings for two (2) references. STC was rated Exceptional (Exemplary) in the majority of technical and general performance areas during the past performance interviews and review of CPARS records. Calspan was rated Very Good (Very Effective) in the majority of the technical and general performance areas during the past performance interviews and review of CPARS records. STC’s performance was superior to Calspan in all five TPAs. During the past performance interviews, STC was rated exceptional in all TPAs, whereas Calspan was rated Exceptional in only two (2) of the TPAs (#4 Composite Model Maker and #5 Composite Fabricator). Calspan was rated Very Good in the areas of Metallic Machining and Metal Fabrication, and did not receive a rating for Welding.

I noted STC received a past performance confidence rating of a “Very High Level of Confidence,” which is one level above Calspan’s past performance confidence rating of “High Level of Confidence.” Overall, I found STC’s past performance to be superior to Calspan’s past performance.

After my assessment of the Past Performance factor, I continued my comparative assessment of the Cost/Price factor. An analysis of the proposed cost/price determined both Offeror’s proposed cost/prices to be fair, reasonable, and realistic for the work to be performed. I found STC’s most probable cost notably lower than Calspan’s (more than 10%). Although STC’s initial proposed cost/price required adjustments, the MPC with those upward adjustments was still lower than Calspan’s proposed cost/price. STC’s lower MPC would provide a considerable and beneficial savings to the Government.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

In making the selection decision, I have carefully considered the relative weight of the evaluation factors as indicated within the RFP, which states that past performance is significantly more important than price. Based on my integrated assessment, it is my conclusion that STC’s proposal provides the greater benefit to the Government, in accordance with the specified evaluation criteria. First, I have very high confidence in STC’s ability to meet the MCHFSS requirements, based on its past performance record. While both Offerors received Very Highly Pertinent ratings for the overall Pertinence component, the demonstrated experience of STC was broader than that of Calspan in two Performance Work Statement areas crucial for supporting LaRC’s mission. In addition, STC’s exemplary performance rating is higher than Calspan’s very effective rating. STC’s lower cost/price compared to Calspan is beneficial to the Government.

STC has a superior past performance confidence rating and a lower price than Calspan.

Therefore, based on my integrated assessment of the proposals against the evaluation criteria specified in the RFP, it is my decision that STC’s proposal provides the best overall value to the Government, and I hereby select Science and Technology Corporation for award of the NASA Langley Research Center’s Mechanical and Composite Hardware Fabrication Support Services contract with a most probable cost of $13,014,460.17.

Daphne Darden Date Source Selection Authority

Dec. 5, 2019