80LARC25DA001 - SSS .pdf

Source Selection Statement

For the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Langley Research Center (LaRC)

Mechanical and Composite Hardware Fabrication Support Services II (MCHFSS II)

Request for Proposal (RFP): 80LARC25R7002

On June 12, 2025, I, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA), along with other senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC), met with the Source Evaluation Team (SET) appointed to evaluate proposals for the Mechanical and Composite Hardware Fabrication Support Services II (MCHFSS II) procurement. The SET presented its findings to me in a formal source selection briefing.

Procurement History

The purpose of this acquisition is to acquire services 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.

Market research was conducted to determine the existing small business capabilities and to assess how well they compare with the MCHFSS II requirements. A Request for Information was posted on April 19, 2024, seeking capability statements from potential sources under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 336413, Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing, with a size standard of 1,250 people. Based on the responses received, the Contracting Officer determined, with the concurrence of the Small Business Specialist, that there was a 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 SET was appointed on July 12, 2024, for the purpose of evaluating proposals received in response to the solicitation. A Procurement Strategy Meeting (PSM) was held on November 13, 2024.

The MCHFSS II Request for Proposal (RFP) was released on December 12, 2024, followed by the issuance of six (6) amendments to the RFP. RFP Amendment 004 updated the proposal due date from January 23, 2025 to January 30, 2025. The RFP expected the acquisition to result in a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) single-award contract. The period of performance is anticipated to be five years, from August 1, 2025 to July 31, 2030.

Timely proposals were received on or before the due date of January 30, 2025 from the following two Offerors (listed in alphabetical order):

• Affordable Engineering Services, Inc. (AES)

• Science and Technology Corporation (STC)

Evaluation Summary

As NASA’s SSA for the MCHFSS II procurement, I appointed the SET, which included technical and business members and consultants from appropriate disciplines, to assist in proposal evaluations. While it was planned to evaluate the five lowest-priced proposals, only two proposals were received. The two lowest-priced proposals, which included Affordable Engineering Services, Inc. and Science and Technology Corporation, were evaluated in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 “Source Selection,” NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Part 1815.3, and the solicitation using a Price Performance Tradeoff (PPTO) approach with technical proposals. The RFP stated that overall, in selecting the Contractor for contract award, the Past Performance Factor is significantly more important than the Cost/Price Factor.

Evaluation of the Technical Proposal (Technical Considerations): The SET performed a detailed evaluation of each Offeror’s Technical Proposal for acceptability based its ability to meet the requirements set forth in RFP Section M.3 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.3 that were evaluated are summarized below:

(1) Staffing Approach

(2) Quality Management Systems

The SET evaluated each Offeror’s Technical proposal based on its approach to meet the requirements in RFP section L.16(a), as outlined below:

(1) Staffing Approach: The Offeror shall demonstrate its staffing approach that reflects the skill mix and associated Work Year Equivalents (WYEs) of fully qualified and trained staff required to meet the PWS requirements of the contract (See PWS Attachment 1). If the Offeror plans to retain incumbent personnel, identify the specific percentage of retention, basis for the retention rate, and position categories. RFP Attachment 2, Form 5, Columns A through D shall be completed and submitted with the staffing approach (Not included in Volume page count). If any additional labor categories are added to Form 5, the offeror shall ensure that the Form 5 is updated and mirrors the Cost/Price Proposal.

(2) Quality Management Systems: The Offeror shall provide evidence, as of the date of the proposal submission, that the prime contractor meets the ISO 9001 Quality Management and/or AS9100 Systems Requirements in accordance with solicitation clause “H.17 –

CERTIFICATION/REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALITY MANAGEMENT

SYSTEMS (LaRC 52.246-99) (JUNE 2024).” The Offeror shall submit a copy of the certification/registration certificate with its Volume I, Technical Proposal.

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 requirements of this solicitation. The evaluation considered the Past Performance Information (PPI) for the prime offeror and significant subcontractors. Significant subcontractors were defined in the RFP (L.4) as a subcontractor proposed to perform 30% or more of any one of the technical performance areas listed in L.16(b)(4). The evaluation of the past performance factor did not consider the performance of individuals who are proposed to be involved in the required work.

RFP section M.4(a) stated that all past performance references (contracts) must meet the “recency” and “relevancy/pertinence” requirements of this solicitation to be evaluated. 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. The 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.4(a). References that did not meet the recency and/or relevance/pertinence requirements stated in the 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 three (3) 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 references based on the relevant experience compared to the Technical Performance Areas (TPA) specified below and the percentage of work the prime and each significant subcontractor will perform as detailed below:

• TPA 1: PWS 3.1 – Metallic Machining

• TPA 2: PWS 3.2 – Welding

• TPA 3: PWS 3.3 – Metal Fabrication

• TPA 4: PWS 4.1 – Composite Model Maker

• TPA 5: PWS 4.2 – Composite Fabricator

• TPA 6: PWS 4.3 – Instrumentation

• TPA 7: PWS 4.4 – Composite Specimen Manufacture

For size pertinence, the Government evaluated relevance in terms of each contract’s obligated dollars per year over the last 3 years. To be considered at least “Somewhat Pertinent,” the prime contractor’s reference must have had an average annual obligated dollar value of at least 15% for similar work to the TPAs of the MCHFSS II 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 MCHFSS 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 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.

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.16(b)(4). The performance assessment was based primarily on, but not limited to, past performance evaluation input provided through customer Past Performance Questionnaires and/or interviews, and Government databases (e.g.

CPARS). Based on the Government’ 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 ratings 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.4(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 proposed prices to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). In accordance with Section M.4(b), the Government evaluated the pricing data requested in Section L.16(c) to determine if the Offeror’s price reflected a clear understanding of the requirements; to measure/assess benefits and risk associated with the Offeror’s proposed approach; to determine consistency with the technical proposal; to review proposed prices for Attachment 2 Cost Forms, 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.3 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 Offeror’s past performance records (in alphabetical order) in accordance with RFP Section M.4(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.

Affordable Engineering Services Inc. (AES)

The SET assigned a Moderate Level of Confidence rating to AES for the Past Performance factor. This rating is based on an overall pertinence rating of Pertinent (considering content, size, and complexity), and an overall performance rating of Effective. A summary of the Past Performance Ratings for AES is shown in the table below:

For content pertinence, AES demonstrated Pertinent past performance for TPAs one (1) through three (3), Somewhat Pertinent past performance for TPAs four (4) through six (6), and Did Not Address (DNA) TPA seven (7). Considering the content of all seven (7) TPAs and given the three (3) Pertinent Ratings, three (3) Somewhat Pertinent Ratings, and one (1) DNA, the SET assigned an overall content pertinence rating of Somewhat Pertinent.

For size pertinence, AES demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent past performance in terms of size as compared to the MCHFSS II requirements.

For complexity pertinence, AES demonstrated Pertinent past performance.

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

For performance, the preponderance of AES’s performance was Satisfactory. Therefore, AES was assigned an Overall Performance rating of Effective.

Science & Technology Corporation (STC)

The SET assigned a Very High Level of Confidence rating to STC for the Past Performance factor. This rating is based on the 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 STC is shown in the table below:

For content pertinence, STC demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent Past Performance in all seven

(7) of the TPAs. Considering the content of all seven (7) TPAs and given the Very Highly

Pertinent ratings for all seven (7) TPAs, the SET assigned an overall content pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent.

For size pertinence, STC demonstrated a Very Highly Pertinent past performance in terms of size as compared to the MCHFSS II requirements.

For complexity pertinence, STC demonstrated a Very Highly Pertinent past performance.

The SET considered STC’s Very Highly Pertinent ratings for Content, Size, and Complexity, and assigned an Overall Pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent.

For Performance, the preponderance of STC’s performance was Exceptional, with a Very Good rating for TPAs four (4) and five (5). Therefore, STC 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.16(c), for the two (2) 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 (IGCE), and determining if the Offeror’s price reflects a clear understanding of the requirements consistent with the technical proposal.

The Contracting Officer determined that both Offerors’ prices were fair and reasonable based on the comparison of proposed prices with each other, and the IGCE. The Contracting Officer also determined that adequate price competition existed. In addition, based on the analysis the CO determined that all Offerors’ proposed prices were realistic for their approach to achieving the technical objectives and reflected a clear understanding of the requirements.

STC proposed the lowest proposed TEP followed by AES.

Offeror 1 – AES proposed the highest TEP. The SET determined that AES’s TEP is fair, realistic, and balanced. AES’s proposed labor rates and associated staffing plan were reasonable and realistic. AES 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 AES’s proposal that would preclude award.

Offeror 2 – STC proposed the lowest TEP. The SET determined that STC’s TEP is fair, realistic, and balanced. STC’s proposed labor rates and associated staffing plan were reasonable and realistic. STC complied with the Wage Determination (WD) requirements, as well as the

Limitations of Subcontracting (FAR 52.219-14). The SET did not identify any pricing concerns in STC’s proposal that would preclude award.

Summary of Factor Ratings:

BASIS FOR SELECTION

As the SSA for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the relevant documentation, including but not limited to, the “Source Selection Briefing for Mechanical & Composite Hardware Fabrication Support Services II (MCHFSS II)” presented to me on June 18, 2025, and the associated Past Performance Report and Cost/Price Analysis Report.

I determined that the findings presented by the SET, as documented in its presentation and accompanying reports and consensus documents, are comprehensive and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the MCHFSS II RFP and provide a clear description of the merits and attributes of each Offeror’s proposal. I concluded that the evaluation of proposals was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. Further, I solicited the views of ex-officio members of the SET in their areas of expertise. I determined that the SET’s findings were well-supported, reasonable, and aligned to the evaluation criteria for making a selection decision based on initial proposals. I accept the SET’s findings as my own without exception.

In determining which proposal offers the best value to NASA, I conducted a trade-off among proposals. I referred to the relative order of importance of the two evaluation factors as specified in solicitation Section M.5 indicating that the Past Performance Factor is significantly more important than the Cost/Price Factor.

In my independent judgement, after analyzing the evaluation findings and discriminators among proposals, I conclude that the successful Offeror is Science & Technology Corp (STC). A more detailed statement of the rationale for my decision follows.

In accordance with RFP Section M.3, in my comparative assessment and selection decision, I only considered Offerors with a Technical Proposal rating for “Acceptable”, Past Performance rating of “Moderate” or above, and the Price Proposal determined to be reasonable.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

I began the analysis by comparing all proposed TEPs. STC has the lowest TEP, followed by AES. Then I compared the past performance confidence ratings for each Offeror, with STC being rated “Very High Level of Confidence”, and AES being rated “Moderate 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 MCHFSS II solicitation requirements and considering the amount and type of work each entity is proposed to perform. AES received an overall Pertinence level of Pertinent, while STC received the highest rating of Very Highly Pertinent. For Overall Content Pertinence, AES’s Somewhat Pertinent rating was based on receiving Pertinent for TPAs one (1) through three (3), Somewhat Pertinent for TPAs four (4) through six (6) and Did Not Address for TPA seven (7). STC’s Very Highly Pertinent rating was based on receiving Very Highly Pertinent for all seven (7) TPAs. For the Complexity Pertinence Factor, AES received a rating of Pertinent while STC received the highest rating of Very Highly Pertinent. STC has the superior proposal for overall Content pertinence compared to AES, and a superior proposal in Complexity area compared to AES. It is my judgement that STC’s superior proposal in overall Content pertinence is of greater value to the Government, as it is a more relevant reflection of the pertinence of technical work performed under MCHFSS II, as compared to AES’s proposal.

The SET rated the Performance component based on the input provide through interviews, Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), and CPARs. AES received an Overall Performance rating of Effective while STC received a rating of Exemplary. I find that STC’s Performance component rating of Exemplary to be superior compared to AES’s Effective rating.

Overall, for Factor 1, Past Performance, I noted that STC is the only Offeror to receive the highest rating for the overall Pertinence and Performance components, resulting in the highest confidence level rating of Very High Level of Confidence compared to AES’s lower confidence rating of Moderate Level of Confidence which is based on AES’s lower ratings for both Pertinence and Performance components. Considering AES’s lower level of confidence rating and higher price when compared to STC, AES could not be considered the best value to the government. I find STC’s Very Highly Pertinent record of providing the skillsets, resources, and services for Mechanical and Composite Hardware Fabrication Support Services to be very highly relevant to the types of services required for the MCHFSS II solicitation requirements. I find this to be highly advantageous and provides substantial value to the Government.

After completing my analysis of Past Performance, I conducted an analysis of Factor 2: Price.

AES’s TEP is higher than STC’s. The SET determined that both TEP’s were fair and reasonable, and no pricing concerns were apparent that would preclude award. I reviewed the TEP’s of both AES and STC. The SET and I discussed differences between the two TEPs, reviewed potential