GLASS Source Selection Statement.pdf

Source Selection Statement For the

Glenn-Langley Administrative Support Services (GLASS) Procurement

Solicitation Number 80LARC23R0014

On November 22, 2023, as the Source Selection Authority (SSA), I, along with other senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC) and Glenn Research Center (GRC), met with the Source Evaluation Team (SET) appointed to evaluate proposals for the Glenn-Langley Administrative Support Services (GLASS) procurement.

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

The purpose of this acquisition is to acquire administrative support services and related services primarily supporting Langley Research Center (LaRC) and Glenn Research Center (GRC). The scope of the GLASS contract requires the contractor to provide comprehensive administrative services to support the Agency/Center’s organizational operations in areas such as general office operations, meeting and event planning, correspondence and information delivery, information technology services coordination, training tasks support, office move coordination, property coordination, and general reporting and data collection.

The GLASS procurement was conducted as a total 8(a) small business set-aside competition.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 561110, office administrative services, and the small business size standard is $12.5M. The procurement will result in the award of a single-award contract that will consist of Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for core administrative support services at LaRC and GRC. The contract will also include Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) CLINs to support requirements within the scope of the contract that could not be precisely defined at award. The contract’s period of performance is up to five years, which includes a two-year base period followed by three 1-year options.

The GLASS Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on June 30, 2023, followed by the issuance of three amendments to the RFP. Per the RFP (Section M.5, Step 1), the Government ranked all proposals based on price, from lowest to highest, to identify the four (4) lowest-priced proposals that would be evaluated. The Offeror’s proposed price was determined by the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) as defined in the RFP Section B.4. Proposals were received on or before the due date of August 4, 2023, from the following thirteen (13) Offerors (listed in alphabetical order):

Alutiiq Career Ventures, LLC Advance Employee Intelligence, LLC (AEI) Banner Quality Management Inc (BQMI)

FedWriters, Inc Greenbrier Government Solutions Human Capital Resources and Concepts, Inc (HCRC) IBEX IT Business Experts, LLC LBO Technology, LLC (LBO) Mora Consultants, LLC Muscogee Staffing Solutions, LLC (MSS) NexTech LinTech LLC (NLJV) PBG FedSync JV LLC TJS Group, LLC

HCRC was removed from consideration and notified of this determination on November 8, 2023.

The RFP included the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition,” which sets forth the Government’s right to award a contract without discussions with Offerors. After evaluating proposals, the Contracting Officer (CO) determined that establishment of a competitive range was not necessary, a determination that I, as the SSA, concurred with.

EVALUATION SUMMARY

As NASA’s SSA for the GLASS procurement, I appointed the SET, which included technical and business members and consultants from appropriate disciplines, to assist in proposal evaluations. The four lowest-priced proposals, which included Advance Employee Intelligence, LLC; LBO Technology, LLC; Mora Consultants, LLC; and PBG FedSync JV LLC, were evaluated in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 “Source Selection”, NASA FAR Supplement Part 1815.3, and the solicitation using a Performance-Price Tradeoff (PPTO) approach with technical proposals. The RFP stated that overall, in selecting the Contractor for contract award, the Past Performance Factor is more important than the Price Factor.

Evaluation of the Technical Proposal (Technical Considerations): The SET performed a detailed evaluation of each Offeror’s Technical Proposal for acceptability based on the “Technical Considerations” set forth in RFP Section M.5 Volume I – Technical Proposal (Technical Considerations). Offerors had to receive an “Acceptable” rating in order to move on to the next step of evaluation. Offerors receiving an “Unacceptable” rating for one (1) or more of the areas were not considered for further evaluation. An award can only be made to an Offeror who has a technically “Acceptable” proposal. The technical criteria under RFP Section M.6 that were evaluated are summarized below:

(1) Approach to Manage the Contract

(2) Staffing Approach

(3) Training Approach

(4) Quality Approach

The SET evaluated each Offeror’s Technical proposal based on its approach to meet the requirements in RFP section L.17(b), as outlined below:

(1) Approach to Manage the Contract: The Offeror shall demonstrate its approach to manage the work across the PWS and at the two primary locations at Langley Research Center (LaRC) and Glenn Research Center (GRC). This includes:

(a) Detail the management approach to managing multiple, geographically disbursed locations. The management approach shall identify strategies for effective and efficient management of PWS requirements, recognizing the broad range of services and differences across Centers.

(b) Detail the proposed organizational structure including an organization chart identifying roles of all organizational elements and reporting relationships including Offeror’s management interface(s) with NASA’s multiple locations.

(c) Identify the top four (4) most critical positions to meet the performance of the contract, and how these positions fit into the organizational structure. Provide position descriptions and a summary of the position qualifications, roles, responsibilities, and scope of authority. Resumes will not be considered and evaluated.

(2) Staffing Approach: The Offeror shall demonstrate a staffing approach to recruit and retain a technically proficient workforce with the capabilities to perform the requirements of the PWS and to be fully operational/staffed on the effective date of the contract. The proposal shall separately address the specific requirements at LaRC and GRC, including, but not limited to:

(a) Detail the skill mix and associated Work Year Equivalents (WYEs) of qualified and trained staff capable of meeting the PWS requirements of the contract (See RFP Attachment L-3, Staffing Profile).

(b) Describe the plans to recruit and retain qualified incumbent personnel separately delineated by Center/location and associated predecessor contract(s), identify the specific percentage of retention, basis for the retention rate, and position categories. Also detail the plan to recruit and retain non-incumbent qualified personnel to meet the overall staffing needs of the contract (by location).

(c) Affirm that the Offeror will comply with FAR 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards, and associated labor regulations related to seniority and compensation for proposed staffing and successor contract covered by this clause.

(d) If the offeror chooses to deviate from Sec L, Attachment L-3, Staffing Profile, the Offeror shall clearly detail the ability to meet the PWS requirements for the proposed position(s).

(3) Training Approach/Program: The Offeror shall describe its approach to ensuring that employees are trained and proficient to meet the broad PWS requirements, which includes, but not limited to, the approach to:

(a) Ensure incumbent and non-incumbent personnel, upon start of contract performance, are fully trained and proficient to meet the requirements of the PWS.

(b) Ensure contractor employees maintain the required level of education, training, and proficiency to meet the PWS requirements, including, but not limited to continuous learning, knowledge sharing, and coaching.

(c) Avoid/minimize disruption in the level of services provided due to vacancies/turnover and other reasons, to include, but not limited to cross-training of employees to quickly respond to unanticipated absences and/or employee turnover.

(4) Quality Approach: The Offeror shall describe its approach, including the approach for proposed subcontractors:

(a) Quality control and inspection system to meet the services under this contract that ensures the quality, completeness, and timeliness of work products and responsiveness to Government’s requirements.

(b) Approach to identify and implement corrective actions when needed to ensure future performance conforms to contract requirements and minimizes the need for Government oversight of the contractor’s operations.

Past Performance and Price Evaluations: All technically “Acceptable” proposals were further evaluated using a tradeoff process between past performance and price factors in accordance with RFP Section M.7 Evaluation Factors. The SET performed a detailed evaluation of Offerors’ past performance and price proposals to assess information submitted for the two evaluation factors.

Factor 1 – Past Performance: The Past Performance Factor evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), NFS 1815.305(a)(2), and the solicitation. The Government evaluated each Offeror’s recent and relevant record of performance of work similar in content, size, and complexity to the requirements of this solicitation. The evaluation considered the Past Performance Information (PPI) for the prime offeror and significant subcontractors. Significant subcontracts were defined in the RFP (L.18.b) as a subcontractor proposed to perform 20% or more of the total annual contract price for the center where the work will be performed. The evaluation of the past performance factor did not consider the performance of individuals who are proposed to be involved in the proposed work.

RFP section M.7(a) stated that all past performance references (contracts) must meet the “recency” and “relevancy/pertinence” requirements of the solicitation to be considered. Past performance was assessed to arrive at a Level of Confidence rating as set forth in NFS 1815.305.

Each confidence rating has a “performance” component and a “pertinence” component. An Offeror must meet the requirements of both components to achieve a particular confidence rating and the lowest rated component is the highest confidence rating that can be achieved.

In order for references to be considered in the Past Performance evaluation, they were required to meet the “recency” and “relevancy/pertinence” requirements of the solicitation in accordance with RFP section M.7(a). References that did not meet the recency and/or relevance/pertinence requirements stated in this solicitation were removed from consideration and not evaluated further.

In assessing recency, the SET evaluated past performance references that had on-going performance or had completed performance within the past five (5) years from the date the RFP was issued.

In assessing pertinence, the SET considered the degree of similarity of work performed in terms of content, size, and complexity of each relevant contract considering the amount and type of work each entity is proposed to perform to the requirements in the solicitation, as well as the recency and duration of the past performance. Based on the Government’s evaluation, a pertinence rating was assigned as follows: Very Highly Pertinent (VHP), Highly Pertinent (HP), Pertinent (P), Somewhat Pertinent (SP), Not Pertinent (NP), or Did Not Address (DNA).

For content pertinence, the Government evaluated relevance in terms of the technical performance areas (TPA) (PWS areas) specified below and the percentage of work the prime and each significant subcontractor will perform as detailed below:

• TPA 1: PWS 3.7 – Workforce Management

• TPA 2: PWS 4.1.2 – Appointment and Scheduling Services

• TPA 3: PWS 4.1.4 – Correspondence and Records Management Support

• TPA 4: PWS 4.1.8 – Team and Collaboration

• TPA 5: PWS 4.2 – Meeting and Event Support Services

• TPA 6: PWS 4.6 – Executive Level Administrative Support

For size pertinence, the Government evaluated relevance in terms of each contract’s obligated dollars per year over the last 5 years. To be considered at least “Somewhat Pertinent,” the prime contractor’s reference (including contract references held individually by either partner to a joint venture (JV) as well as any work done by the JV itself previously) must have had an average annual obligated dollar value of at least 15% for similar work to the TPAs (see section L.18(d)) of the GLASS RFP, and a significant subcontractor’s reference(s) must have had average annual obligated dollar value of at least 15% for similar work to the TPAs for that entity under the GLASS contract. References for protégé members of any proposed Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture (MPJV) must have had average annual obligated dollar value of at least 15% for similar work to the TPAs in the GLASS contract. If a contract reference (prime or significant subcontractor) was submitted that was lower than the percentage identified herein to be considered at least “Somewhat Pertinent,” that reference was rated as “Not Pertinent” for the pertinence rating and was excluded from the Government’s evaluation for the Past Performance factor.

For complexity pertinence, the Government evaluated relevance to the TPAs above in terms of the performance challenges and risks experienced under the contract reference compared to the complexities of the TPA(s) the entity is proposed to perform for the GLASS contract.

In assessing performance, the Government assessed each Offeror's performance record for each contract reference. The Government evaluated the Offeror’s record for demonstrated experience in the technical performance areas listed in RFP section L.18(d)(11) and the other areas listed in L.18(d)(12). The performance assessment was based primarily on, but not limited to, past performance evaluation input provided through customer Past Performance Questionnaires and/or interviews (PPIs), and Government databases (e.g., CPARS/PPIRS). Based on the Government’s evaluation, a performance rating was assigned as follows: Exemplary (EX), Very Effective (VE), Effective (E), Minimum Acceptable (M), or Does Not Meet (DNM).

Once each SET member individually evaluated each Offeror for pertinence and performance, the team met and discussed all the past performance findings of the individual voting members. The SET used its collective judgement to develop consensus findings for the past performance factor and arrived at its consensus ratings for the pertinence, performance, and level of confidence rating for each Offeror. Based on the pertinence and performance components, the SET assigned a level of confidence rating in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2) of “Very High Level of Confidence,” “High Level of Confidence,” “Moderate Level of Confidence,” “Low Level of Confidence,” “Very Low Level of Confidence,” or “Neutral.”

The Price Factor was evaluated in accordance with the Solicitation at section M.7(b). The Government conducted a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, including comparing prices proposed by all Offerors in response to the RFP, comparing the proposed prices to historical prices for the same or similar items purchased by the Government, and comparing the proposed prices to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). In accordance with section M.7(b), the Government evaluated the pricing data requested in Section L.19 to determine if the Offeror’s price reflected a clear understanding of the requirements; to measure/assess benefits and risks associated with the Offeror’s proposed approach; to determine consistency with the technical proposal; to review proposed prices for Attachment L-1 Cost forms LaRC, GRC and Other Center IDIQ Schedule; and to ensure compliance with Wage Determination requirements and Limitations on Subcontracting (FAR 52.219-14).

The SSA’s comparative assessment of the proposals was performed in accordance with RFP section M.

EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSALS (TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS)

The SET conducted its evaluation of each Offeror’s technical proposal for acceptability based on the “Technical Considerations” set forth in the RFP, section M.6 Volume I – Technical Proposal (Technical Considerations). A summary of the assigned ratings is shown below:

FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS

The SET evaluated each Offerors’ past performance records (in alphabetical order) in accordance with RFP section M.7(a) Past Performance – Volume II, and a Level of Confidence rating was assigned for the Past Performance factor in accordance with NFS 1815.305. Below is a summary of the overall Pertinence, Performance, and Confidence Level ratings assigned to each Offeror.

Advance Employee Intelligence (AEI)

The SET assigned a Low Level of Confidence rating to AEI for the Past Performance factor.

This rating is based on an overall pertinence rating of Somewhat Pertinent (considering content, size, and complexity), and an overall performance rating of Very Effective. A summary of the Past Performance Ratings for AEI is shown in the table below:

For content pertinence, AEI demonstrated Somewhat Pertinent past performance in all six of the TPAs. Considering the content of all six TPAs and given the Somewhat Pertinent ratings for all the TPAs, the SET assigned an overall content rating of Somewhat Pertinent.

For size pertinence, AEI demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent past performance in terms of size as compared to the GLASS requirements.

For complexity pertinence, AEI demonstrated Somewhat Pertinent past performance.

The SET considered AEI’s Somewhat Pertinent ratings in Content and Complexity, along with the Very Highly Pertinent rating in Size and assigned an Overall Pertinence rating of Somewhat Pertinent.

For performance, the preponderance of AEI’s performance was Very Good. Therefore, AEI was assigned an Overall Performance rating of Very Effective.

LBO Technology, LLC (LBO)

The SEB assigned a High Level of Confidence rating to LBO for the Past Performance factor.

This rating is based on the overall pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent (considering content, size, and complexity), and an overall performance rating of Very Effective. A summary of the Past Performance Ratings for LBO is shown in the table below:

For content pertinence, LBO demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent past performance in TPA 1, 2, 3 and 6 and Highly Pertinent past performance in TPA 4 and 5. Considering the content of all six TPAs and given the Very Highly Pertinent ratings for TPA 1, 2, 3 and 6 and the Highly Pertinent ratings for TPA 4 and 5, the SET assigned an overall content rating of Highly Pertinent.

For size pertinence, LBO demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent past performance in terms of size as compared to the GLASS requirements.

For complexity pertinence, LBO demonstrated Highly Pertinent past performance.

The SET considered LBO’s Highly Pertinent Content and Complexity ratings, along with the Very Highly Pertinent Size rating, and assigned an Overall Pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent.

For performance, the preponderance of LBO’s performance was Very Good. Therefore, LBO was assigned an Overall Performance rating of Very Effective.

Mora Consultants, LLC

The SEB assigned a High Level of Confidence rating to Mora Consultants, LLC for the Past Performance factor. This rating is based on an overall pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent (considering content, size, and complexity), and an overall performance rating of Exemplary. A summary of the Past Performance Ratings for Mora Consultants, LLC is shown in the table below:

For content pertinence, Mora Consultants, LLC demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent past performance in TPAs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, and Pertinent past performance in TPA 5. Considering the content of all six TPAs and given the Very Highly Pertinent ratings for TPAs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 and the Pertinent rating for TPA 5, the SET assigned an overall content rating of Highly Pertinent.

For size pertinence, Mora Consultants, LLC demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent past performance in terms of size as compared to the GLASS requirements.

For complexity pertinence, Mora Consultants, LLC demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent past performance.

The SET considered Mora Consultants, LLC’s Highly Pertinent Content, along with its Very Highly Pertinent Size and Complexity rating and assigned an Overall Pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent.

For performance, the preponderance of Mora Consultants, LLC’s performance was Exemplary.

Therefore, Mora Consultants, LLC was assigned an Overall Performance rating of Exemplary.

OFFEROR

PW

S

3.

PW

S

4.

1.

PW

S

4.

1.

PW

S

4.

1.

PW

S

4.

PW

S

4.

6 Overall

Content Pertinence

Size Pertinence

Complexity Pertinence

Overall Pertinence

Overall Performance

Confidence Level

TPA 1 TPA 2 TPA 3 TPA 4 TPA 5 TPA 6

MORA VHP VHP VHP VHP P VHP HP VHP VHP HP Exemplary High

PBG FedSync JV LLC

The SET assigned a Very High Level of Confidence rating to PBG FedSync JV LLC for the Past Performance factor. This rating is based on an overall pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent (considering content, size, and complexity), and an overall performance rating of Exemplary. A summary of the Past Performance Ratings for PBG FedSync JV LLC is shown in the table below:

For content pertinence, PBG FedSync JV LLC demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent past performance in all six of the TPAs. Considering the content of all six TPAs, and given the Very Highly Pertinent ratings for TPAs, the SET assigned an overall content rating of Very Highly Pertinent.

For size pertinence, PBG FedSync JV LLC demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent past performance in terms of size as compared to the GLASS requirements.

For complexity pertinence, PBG FedSync JV LLC demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent past performance.

The SET considered PBG FedSync JV LLC’s Very Highly Pertinent ratings in Content, Size and Complexity, and assigned an Overall Pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent.

For performance, the preponderance of PBG FedSync JV LLC’s performance was Exemplary.

Therefore, PBG FedSync JV LLC was assigned an Overall Performance rating of Exemplary.

FACTOR 2 – PRICE EVALUATION RESULTS

The SET evaluated the proposed total evaluated price (TEP), as well as other pricing data requested in Section L.19, for the four (4) lowest-priced proposals to assess price reasonableness, and to determine whether the proposed prices were realistic for the work to be performed and reflected a clear understanding of the requirements. The analysis included, but was not limited to, comparing proposed prices in response to the solicitation, comparing each proposal price to the independent Government cost estimate, and determining if the Offeror’s price reflects a clear understanding of the requirements consistent with the technical proposal.

The Contracting Officer determined that all four (4) Offerors’ prices were fair and reasonable based on the comparison of proposed prices to the solicitation, comparison of the proposed

OFFEROR

PW

S

3.

PW

S

4.

1.

PW

S

4.

1.

PW

S

4.

1.

PW

S

4.

PW

S

4.

6 Overall

Content Pertinence

Size Pertinence

Complexity Pertinence

Overall Pertinence

Overall Performance

Confidence Level

TPA 1 TPA 2 TPA 3 TPA 4 TPA 5 TPA 6

PBG FedSync VHP VHP VHP VHP VHP VHP VHP VHP VHP VHP Exemplary Very High prices to the IGCE, and a determination that adequate price competition existed. In addition, based on the analysis the CO determined that all Offerors’ proposed prices were consistent with the technical proposal and reflected a clear understanding of the requirements.

AEI proposed the lowest proposed TEP followed by Mora Consultants LLC, PBG FedSync JV LLC, and LBO (in ascending order).

Offeror 1 - AEI proposed the lowest TEP. The SET determined that AEI’s price proposal is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the technical proposal. AEI’s proposed labor rates and associated staffing plan were consistent with the Government provided information in the RFP.

The Offeror’s proposed prices for Attachment L-1 Cost forms for LaRC IDIQ and GRC IDIQ Schedule rates were determined to be reasonable. AEI complied with the Wage Determination (WD) requirements, as well as the Limitations on Subcontracting (FAR 52.219-14). The SET did not identify any pricing concerns in AEI’s proposal that would preclude award.

Offeror 2 – LBO proposed the highest TEP. The SET determined that LBO's price proposal is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the technical proposal. LBO’s proposed labor rates and associated staffing plan were consistent with the Government provided information in the RFP.

The Offeror’s proposed prices for Attachment L-1 Cost forms for LaRC IDIQ and GRC IDIQ Schedule rates were determined to be reasonable. LBO complied with the WD requirements, as well as the Limitations on Subcontracting (FAR 52.219-14). The SET did not identify any pricing concerns in LBO’s proposal that would preclude award.

Offeror 3 – Mora Consultants, LLC proposed the second lowest TEP. The SET determined that Mora Consultants, LLC’s price proposal is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the technical proposal. Mora Consultants, LLC’s proposed labor rates and associated staffing plan were consistent with the Government provided information in the RFP. The Offeror’s proposed prices for Attachment L-1 Cost forms for LaRC IDIQ and GRC IDIQ Schedule rates were determined to be reasonable. Mora Consultants, LLC complied with the WD requirements, as well as the Limitations on Subcontracting (FAR 52.219-14). There did appear to be one instance in which the labor rate from the Dec 2022 WD was used instead of the July 2023 WD labor rate. The difference is insignificant. The SET did not identify any pricing concerns in Mora Consultants, LLC’s proposal that would preclude award.

Offeror 4 - PBG FedSync JV LLC proposed the third lowest TEP. The SET determined that PBG FedSync JV LLC’s price proposal is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the technical proposal. PBG FedSync JV LLC’s proposed labor rates and associated staffing plan were consistent with the Government provided information in the RFP. The Offeror’s proposed prices for Attachment L-1 Cost forms for LaRC IDIQ and GRC IDIQ Schedule rates were determined to be reasonable. PBG FedSync JV LLC complied with the WD requirements, as well as the Limitations on Subcontracting (FAR 52.219-14). The SET did not identify any pricing concerns in PBG FedSync JV LLC’s proposal that would preclude award.

AEI’s proposal for selection based on the “Low Level of Confidence” rating for the past performance factor. As such, the remaining discussion related to my decision will be focused on LBO, Mora Consultants, LLC, and PBG FedSync JV LLC.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

I began the analysis by comparing all proposed TEPs. Mora Consultants, LLC has the lowest TEP, followed by PBG FedSync JV LLC, and finally LBO. Then I compared the past performance confidence ratings for each Offeror with PBG FedSync JV LLC being rated “Very High Level of Confidence”, and both LBO and Mora Consultants, LLC being rated “High Level of Confidence”.

As stated above, I reviewed and considered all significant evaluation findings that were fully documented in the SET’s presentation and reports in making my source selection decision. Based on this, I fully concur with the SET’s findings.

Under Past Performance, the SET rated the overall Pertinence component based on the degree of similarity (i.e., content, size, and complexity) of work performed on recent and relevant contract references in relation to the GLASS solicitation requirements and considering the amount and type of work each entity is proposed to perform. LBO and Mora Consultants, LLC both received the same rating of Highly Pertinent for the Overall Pertinence component, while PBG FedSync JV LLC received the highest rating of Very Highly Pertinent. Although both LBO and Mora Consultants, LLC received the same Overall Pertinence ratings of Highly Pertinent, they each achieved those ratings from different aspects (i.e., overall content, size, complexity). For Overall Content Pertinence, LBO’s Highly Pertinent rating was based on receiving Very Highly Pertinent ratings for TPAs 1, 2, 3, and 6 and Highly Pertinent ratings for TPAs 4 and 5, as compared to Mora Consultants, LLC’s Very Highly Pertinent ratings for TPAs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 and Pertinent rating for TPA 5. Based on my consideration of differing aspects and rating of both proposals, I determined LBO and Mora Consultants, LLC’s proposal to be essentially equal regarding Overall Content Pertinence. I do find the higher rating of Very Highly Pertinent for complexity for Mora Consultants, LLC to be advantageous compared to the LBO rating of Highly Pertinent for complexity. Although LBO and Mora Consultants, LLC had the same Overall Pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent, I noted that LBO received a lower rating of Highly Pertinent for complexity compared to Mora Consultants, LLC’s rating of Very Highly Pertinent for complexity. PBG FedSync JV LLC received Very Highly Pertinent for all aspects of Overall Pertinence, resulting in a Very Highly Pertinent rating for Overall Pertinence. PBG FedSync JV LLC has the superior proposal for the Content area compared to both LBO and Mora Consultants, LLC, and a superior proposal in the Complexity area compared to LBO. It is my judgment that PBG FedSync JV LLC’s superior proposal in the Content area is of greater value to the Government, as it is a more relevant reflection of the technical work to be performed under GLASS, as compared to both LBO and Mora Consultants, LLC’s proposals.

The SET rated the Performance component based on the input provided through interviews, Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), and CPARS/PPIRs. I noted that both Mora Consultants, LLC and PBG FedSync JV LLC received Performance ratings of Exemplary, and I did not find any discernable differences between or among these two Offerors for those ratings. However, I did find a discernable difference in LBO’s lower Performance rating of Very Effective. I find both Mora Consultants, LLC and PBG FedSync JV LLC’s Performance component ratings of Exemplary to be superior compared to LBO’s. I noted that Mora Consultants, LLC and PBG FedSync JV LLC’s Performance ratings are equal, and I do not find any discriminators for award between Mora Consultants, LLC and PBG FedSync JV LLC in the Performance component.

Overall, for Factor 1, Past Performance, I noted that PBG FedSync JV LLC is the only Offeror to receive the highest ratings for the Pertinence and Performance ratings, resulting in the highest confidence rating of Very High Level of Confidence compared to LBO and Mora Consultants, LLC’s lower ratings of High Level of Confidence. Considering LBO’s lower level of confidence rating and higher price when compared to PBG FedSync JV LLC, LBO could no longer be considered the best value and was not further considered in my tradeoff analysis. I then continued my tradeoff analysis between Mora Consultants, LLC and PBG FedSync JV LLC.

Although I found no discernable differences between Mora Consultants, LLC and PBG FedSync JV LLC’s Performance component, PBG FedSync JV LLC’s higher rating for the Pertinence component, and in particular PBG FedSync JV LLC’s higher rating for TPA 5, Meeting and Event Support Services was a notable difference between PBG FedSync JV LLC and Mora Consultants, LLC. I find PBG FedSync JV LLC’s strong and Very Highly Pertinent record across its references of providing the skillsets, resources, and services for meeting and event support services to be very highly relevant to the types of services required for the GLASS solicitation requirements. I find this to be highly advantageous and provides substantial value to the Government.

There were several aspects of PBG FedSync JV LLC’s proposal that demonstrated very highly relevant past performance record that stood out to me as being especially important and of substantial value to the Government. This includes, but is not limited to, PBG FedSync JV LLC’s very highly relevant experience executing senior-level meetings and large-scale events that are very highly relevant and very beneficial to the meetings and events to be conducted by both Langley Research Center and Glenn Research Center under the GLASS contract. In addition, I noted that PBG FedSync JV LLC demonstrated very highly relevant experience working closely with the Government teams, securing suitable event space for both on site or off-site events, proactively creating and distributing event-specific agendas and promotional materials, and incorporating IT and multimedia requirements associated with these meetings and events. I considered these to be essential and of substantial value in the execution of TPA 5 (PWS 4.2), Meeting and Event Support Services. This gives me greater confidence in PBG FedSync JV LLC’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the GLASS contract compared to Mora Consultants, LLC.

After completing my analysis of past performance, I conducted an analysis of Factor 2: Price.

PBG FedSync JV LLC’s TEP is higher than Mora Consultants, LLC’s. The SET determined that both TEPs were fair and reasonable, and no pricing concerns were apparent that would preclude award. I reviewed the TEPs of both Mora Consultants, LLC and PBG FedSync JV LLC. The SET and I discussed differences between the two TEPs, reviewed potential risks associated with different pricing strategies, and reviewed the TEPs in comparison to the Independent

Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). My analysis disclosed no concerns with the TEPs of either Mora Consultants, LLC or PBG FedSync JV LLC.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

In making the selection decision, I conducted an integrated assessment of each proposal and considered that in accordance with the RFP, the Past Performance Factor is more important than the Price Factor. Although Mora Consultants, LLC offers a lower price compared to PBG FedSync JV LLC, I noted that the advantages of PBG FedSync JV LLC’s higher past performance confidence level provides substantial value to the Government that outweighs the difference in price between these two proposals.

Therefore, based on my integrated assessment of Offerors’ proposals, and in accordance with the evaluation criteria and their relative importance established for this acquisition, it is my decision that the proposal submitted by PBG FedSync JV LLC represents the best overall value to the Government. Therefore, I select PBG FedSync JV LLC for award of NASA’s Glenn-Langley Administrative Support Services (GLASS) contract.

Lisa Ziehmann

Source Selection Authority

Lisa Ziehmann Digitally signed by Lisa Ziehmann Date: 2023.12.15 09:40:29 -05'00'