Source_Selection_Statement.pdf

Source Selection Statement for the

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Occupational Health Services (OHS) Acquisition

RFP 80MSFC19R0041

On May 14, 2019, I, along with senior officials from the Marshall Space Flight Center

(MSFC), met with members of the source evaluation team (SET) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the MSFC Occupational Health Services (OHS) acquisition. The SET presented their findings to me for the purpose of making a source selection decision.

I. PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The scope of the OHS effort will include: Program Management (PWS 3.0); Occupational

Medical Services (PWS 4.0); Industrial Hygiene Services (PWS 5.0); Health Physics (Ionizing and

Nonionizing Radiation) (PWS 6.0); Respiratory Protection Services (PWS 7.0); Indefinite-

Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Requirements (PWS 8.0); and No-Cost Medical Services

(PWS 9.0).

The effort will be performed under a single-award firm-fixed-price contract to the successful offeror with the potential for value reductions based on performance against standards delineated in a performance requirements summary. The contract will also provide for IDIQ effort using pre-priced fully-burdened labor rates, pre-priced OSHA/NASA-specific physicals by type, and pre-priced specific medical procedures. Additionally, the contract will provide for a monthly invoice credit to the Government for the performance of no-cost medical services based on revenues generated in the performance of these services.

The Government designated this procurement as a total small business (SB) set-aside under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 19.5, Set-Asides for Small Business. The acquisition was assigned North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561210, Facilities Support Services. The Government anticipates a five-year period of performance consisting of a one-year base period with four one-year options as well as a separately-priced, firm-fixed-price phase-in purchase order not to exceed 120 days.

The OHS request for proposals (RFP) was released on December 7, 2018. Prior to the receipt of proposals, five amendments to the RFP were issued in order to respond to industry questions and comments and make minor changes to various parts of the solicitation.

On February 28, 2019, proposals were received from the following small businesses, reflected in the order evaluated:

1. Ronin International

2. InoMedic Health Applications, Inc.

3. Alliant Corporation

II. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The SET evaluated proposals in accordance with the RFP, FAR Part 15, Contracting by

Negotiation, and NFS Part 1815, Contracting by Negotiation.

The RFP listed two evaluation factors, Price and Past Performance, and stated that each of these factors was considered to be of essentially equal importance.

Price: The Government performed a price analysis of all responsive proposals received in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques.

The total evaluated price consisted of the total mission services price, the total IDIQ price, and the total price credit which was reflected in Volume II - Price, Excel Pricing Model (EPM), Tab PA, Total Price Summary, for the base period and all option periods combined. The EPM was designed to be self-calculating whereby the offeror’s prices for all mission, IDIQ, and price credit elements automatically summed to arrive at a total calculated price for each proposal.

Past Performance: The Offeror’s overall past performance, including the past performance of proposed major subcontractors, within the past five years was evaluated.

Referenced contracts that had less than one year of performance within the five year period were not evaluated. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance was not available were not evaluated favorably or unfavorably. This factor was not numerically scored, but was assigned an adjectival rating. The applicable adjectival ratings were “Very High Level of Confidence,” “High Level of Confidence,” “Moderate Level of

Confidence,” “Low Level of Confidence,” “Very Low Level of Confidence,” and “Neutral.”

The RFP stated the following with respect to the evaluation:

Step 1: The Government will review offers to determine acceptability in accordance with

NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. Offers determined to be unacceptable will not be further evaluated.

Step 2: The Government will evaluate all offers remaining from Step 1 in accordance with the Section M provision entitled Volume I - Price Factor Evaluation. Offers determined to be not reasonable will not be further evaluated.

Step 3: The Government will rank all offers remaining from Step 2 in order of lowest to highest total evaluated price.

Step 4: The Government will evaluate the past performance of the lowest total evaluated priced offer from Step 3 in accordance with the Section M provision entitled Volume II -

Past Performance Factor Evaluation. The evaluation will continue in order of lowest to highest total evaluated price until either an offer is assigned a “Very High Level of

Confidence” rating, or until all offers are evaluated. Once an offer is rated with a “Very

High Level of Confidence,” no additional offers will be evaluated. All offers evaluated under the Past Performance factor will be forwarded to the source selection authority (SSA).

Step 5: Eligibility for award will be determined by the contracting officer’s affirmative determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.104. Should an offeror be determined non-responsible, they will no longer be considered for award and additional evaluation under Step 4 may be necessary.

Step 6: The SSA will make a best value award decision most advantageous to the

Government.

The SET presented its findings to me on May 14, 2019. As a result, I determined the

InoMedic Health Applications, Inc., proposal to be the best value and most advantageous for award of the OHS effort.

The evaluation of the proposals is summarized below in the order evaluated (i.e., lowest to highest price).

Ronin International

Under the Price factor, the Ronin proposal had the lowest total evaluated price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Ronin proposal was assigned a “Neutral” rating based on the assessment of no significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The rating was based on a determination that all of the referenced contracts provided within the Past Performance volume were not relevant in either size or content.

InoMedic Health Applications, Inc.

Under the Price factor, the InoMedic proposal had a total evaluated price of $11.7M.

Under the Past Performance factor, the InoMedic proposal was assigned a “High Level of

Confidence” based on two significant strengths, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The significant strengths related to: (1) InoMedic’s exceptional performance as a prime contractor on the Medical and Environmental Support Contract (MESC) NNK08OQ01C; and (2)

KBR Wyle’s exceptional performance as a prime contractor on the Human Health Performance

Contract (HHPC) NNJ15HK11B. The strengths related to: (1) InoMedic’s exceptional performance as a joint venture partner on the Kennedy Environmental and Medical Contract (KEMCON)

NNK16OB01C; and (2) KBR Wyle’s very good performance as a subcontractor on the

Environmental Engineering and Occupational Health (EEOH) Support Services contract

NNM13AA80C.

Alliant Corporation

Under the Price factor, the Alliant proposal had the highest total evaluated price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Alliant proposal was assigned a “High Level of

Confidence” rating based on two significant strengths, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The significant strengths related to: (1) Spectra Tech’s very good performance as a prime contractor on the UCOR Radiological Protection Support Services Contract 30492-BA-

EQ004; and (2) Crestwood Physicians Services Primary Care’s exceptional performance as a prime contractor on the Crestwood Physicians Services Primary Care Medical Services contract 4566545.

The strengths related to: (1) Alliant Corporation’s exceptional performance as a subcontractor on the Safety Services Division (SSD) U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge National Laboratory contract 4000144940; and (2) Alliant Corporation’s exceptional performance as prime contractor on the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Industrial Hygiene Services contract 12792.

III. SELECTION DECISION

The SET presented its evaluation findings for each proposal to me and we thoroughly discussed all findings. The findings developed by the SET were detailed and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the RFP. I questioned the SET with regard to the total evaluated prices, its rationale for the past performance findings, and the associated past performance confidence ratings. Consequently, since I was not able to establish a basis to question the relative standing of each proposal or the assigned confidence rating, I determined that the findings presented by the

SET were reasonable and valid for purposes of making a selection decision. With respect to the process and findings, I concluded the evaluation plan was followed and the evaluation of the proposals was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. Further, I solicited the views of my senior officials in their area of expertise to help me make a best value tradeoff analysis utilizing the factors of Price and Past Performance.

In making the selection decision, I referred to the RFP language which explicitly stated:

The Government will evaluate the past performance of the lowest total evaluated priced offer from Step 3 in accordance with the

Section M provision entitled Volume II - Past Performance Factor

Evaluation. The evaluation will continue in order of lowest to highest total evaluated price until either an offer is assigned a “Very High

Level of Confidence” rating, or until all offers are evaluated. Once an offer is rated with a “Very High Level of Confidence,” no additional offers will be evaluated.

I noted that since no proposal was rated as a “Very High Level of Confidence” in the

Past Performance factor, all three proposals were evaluated.

It was clear from the findings that all three firms made a reasonable attempt to respond to the requirements of the solicitation. I then exercised my independent judgement regarding the significance of the findings as discriminators between proposals and concluded that the proposal representing the best value and most advantageous to the Government, for the MSFC

Occupational Health Services acquisition, is the proposal provided by InoMedic Health

Applications, Inc. A more detailed statement of the rationale for my decision follows.

In comparing the Ronin proposal to the InoMedic proposal under the Price factor, the

Ronin proposal had a slight advantage over the InoMedic proposal.

In comparing the Ronin proposal to the InoMedic proposal under the Past Performance factor, the Ronin proposal received no significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. As all of the referenced contracts were determined to be not relevant, the proposal received a “Neutral” rating under this factor. In accordance with the solicitation, I viewed Ronin’s “Neutral” rating neither favorably nor unfavorably. Conversely, the InoMedic proposal received a significant strength for InoMedic’s exceptional performance as a prime contractor on a highly relevant contract and a second significant strength for a major subcontractor’s exceptional performance as a prime contractor on a highly relevant contract. The proposal also received a strength for InoMedic’s exceptional performance as a joint venture partner on a highly relevant contract and a second strength for a major subcontractor’s very good performance as a subcontractor on a relevant subcontract. In my view, this demonstrated performance history provided InoMedic with a much stronger past performance record.

Therefore, in comparing the Ronin proposal and the InoMedic proposal, InoMedic’s demonstrated highly relevant experience gave that proposal a clear advantage over the Ronin proposal under the Past Performance factor.

When viewing the factors of Price and Past Performance, I determined that while the

Ronin proposal had a slight advantage over the InoMedic proposal under the Price factor, the

InoMedic proposal had a distinct advantage over the Ronin proposal under the Past Performance factor. I also noted that, in accordance with the solicitation, the Price and Past Performance factors were considered to be essentially equal in importance. While I viewed the Ronin Past

Performance “Neutral” rating neither favorably nor unfavorably, I believed that the slight price savings under the Price factor did not justify the increased risk of awarding a contract to an offeror with no identifiable relevant past performance record. Further, InoMedic’s past performance record left less doubt as to the capability of this firm to perform OHS contract requirements while I had greater concerns regarding Ronin’s ability to perform these services based on the lack of relevant references. Therefore, I concluded that the InoMedic proposal provided the better value to the Government.

In comparing the Alliant proposal to the InoMedic proposal under the Price factor, the

InoMedic proposal had a significant advantage over the Alliant proposal.

In comparing the Alliant proposal to the InoMedic proposal under the Past Performance factor, the Alliant proposal had two significant strengths and two strengths. Both significant strengths related to very good or exceptional performance by major subcontractor teammates on highly relevant contracts. The strengths related to Alliant’s exceptional performance on relevant or highly relevant subcontracts or contracts. Likewise, the InoMedic proposal received two significant strengths and two strengths. The significant strengths related to InoMedic’s exceptional performance on a highly relevant contract and a major subcontractor’s exceptional performance on a highly relevant contract. The strengths related to InoMedic’s exceptional performance on a highly relevant contract and a major subcontractor’s very good performance on a relevant subcontract. However, I did note some distinction between proposals under this factor.

First, while the InoMedic proposal offered a significant strength for performance of the offeror, the Alliant proposal lacked such a significant strength for the offeror. Secondly, while both proposals demonstrated relevant experience with exceptional or very good performance across the preponderance of the PWS, the InoMedic proposal offered relevant exceptional or very good performance for coverage across the PWS with only the exception of medical insurance billing (a component of PWS 9.0, No-Cost Medical Services), while the Alliant proposal offered relevant exceptional or very good performance for coverage across the PWS with the exception of PWS

4.0, Occupational Medical Services. However, while noting the distinctions above based on the merits of the findings presented, I considered that both proposals were rated with a “High Level of Confidence,” and offered coverage across the preponderance of the PWS with exceptional or very good performance; therefore, I believed that both offerors could successfully perform the

OHS contract. As a result, I did not consider either proposal to offer a meaningful advantage under this factor.

When viewing the factors of Price and Past Performance, I determined that the InoMedic proposal had a significant advantage over the Alliant proposal under the Price factor. I also noted that both proposals were considered to be essentially equal in the Past Performance factor (noting the differences discussed above within the same adjectival confidence level rating) with both proposals assigned a “High Level of Confidence.” I further noted that, in accordance with the solicitation, the Price and Past Performance factors were considered to be essentially equal in importance. Considering the significant advantage of the InoMedic proposal under the Price factor and the lack of a meaningful advantage of either proposal under the Past Performance factor, with both considered to be essentially equal, I believed that the InoMedic proposal provided the better value which was most advantageous to the Government.

Based on the above, and my comparative assessment of proposals which was conducted in accordance with the specified RFP contract award selection criteria, I determined that the proposal submitted by InoMedic Health Applications, Inc., provided the best value being most advantageous to the Government. Accordingly, I direct contract award to InoMedic Health

Applications, Inc., for the Occupational Health Services contract.

X Jason T. Detko

Source Selection Authority