2026 03 16 Source Selection Statement.pdf

(PS60 Rev. 2019-04-25) CUI//SP-SSEL

Source Selection Statement for the Next Generation Scalable Data Engineering, Operations, and Informatics Support for

Open Science (Next Gen) Request for Proposal 80MSFC24R0005

On March ##, 2026, I, along with other senior officials from the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), met with the source evaluation board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the Next Gen acquisition. The SEB presented their findings to me for the purpose of making a source selection decision.

I. PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The Next Gen Request for Proposal (RFP) was released on September 5, 2024. Three amendments were issued to the RFP. Amendment P00001, issued on September 20, 2024, responded to questions and comments submitted by industry. Amendment P00002, issued on October 1, 2024, also responded to questions and comments submitted by industry. Finally, Amendment P00003, issued on December 8, 2025, was provided to offerors to request a 180-day extension of each proposal’s validity period and to allow offerors to submit revisions to proposal volumes.

The RFP requires the successful offeror to provide the necessary resources to ensure NASA’s Interagency Implementation and Advanced Concepts Team (IMPACT) maintains cutting-edge leadership in: (1) Science informatics; (2) Artificial intelligence (in accordance with federal laws and regulations), including machine learning expertise with specialization in spatio-temporal algorithms; (3) Science data systems and domain science; and (4) Scientific data storage, archiving, and management.

The effort will be performed under a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with firm-fixed-price (FFP) task orders. The contract will consist of a 45-day phase-in period, a two-year base period, three one-year option periods, and a potential six-month extension under FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services.

This procurement was designated as a 100% small business set-aside under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 19.5, Small Business Total Set-Asides, Partial Set-Asides, and Reserves.

The procurement was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Part 1815, Contracting by Negotiation. It was noted that because the Nex Gen solicitation was released prior to implementation of the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) and Agency Procurement Class Deviations implementing those changes, the acquisition was conducted in accordance with the FAR/NFS structure in effect at that time as stated in the solicitation.

On October 16, 2024, NASA received six acceptable proposals for evaluation from the following companies:

1. Adnet Systems (Adnet)

2. Aetos Systems, Inc. (Aetos)

3. Development Seed (Dev Seed)

4. E. Street Technologies (E Street)

5. nou Systems, Inc. (nou)

6. Reliant Technologies (Reliant)

II. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The proposals were evaluated in accordance with the RFP, FAR Part 15, NFS Part 1815, and the Next Gen Source Evaluation Plan.

In accordance with the RFP, a best value trade-off process, as described at FAR 15.101-1, was to be used in making the source selection.

The three evaluation factors are described as follows:

Mission Suitability

The subfactors used in evaluating Mission Suitability and their corresponding weights are listed below:

Technical Approach 600 points Management and Compensation Approach 400 points TOTAL 1,000 points

After evaluating each proposal, the SEB voting members collectively developed a consensus adjectival rating (i.e., "Excellent," "Very Good," "Good," "Fair," or "Poor") for the first subfactor based upon the documented findings (i.e., significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies). Following the establishment of a consensus adjectival rating, the SEB voting members collectively developed a consensus percentile rating that corresponded with the adjectival rating. Once the percentile rating was established, the numerical score for that subfactor was computed by taking the consensus percentile rating for that subfactor and multiplying it by the maximum points available for that subfactor (see listing above). This represented the numerical score for a given subfactor. This process was repeated for the second Mission Suitability subfactor by offeror. The final point value for the Mission Suitability factor was then calculated as the sum of both subfactors' point values. In accordance with NFS 1815.370(h)(viii), the SEB did not assign an overall adjectival rating for the Mission Suitability factor.

Price

The Government performed a price analysis of all proposals received in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques.

Consistency between the Mission Suitability factor and the Price factor volumes was considered in determining if the offeror’s proposed price is fair and reasonable. Additionally, failure by an offeror to provide all required Excel Pricing Model data (e.g., IDIQ labor rates for all labor categories for all years of performance) could have adversely impacted the offeror’s Mission Suitability score or result in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable (see NFS 1815.305-70(a)(3)).

For evaluation purposes, the total price was established as the sum of (1) the phase-in services price; (2) an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) price using the offeror-provided fully burdened rates applied to a pre-populated estimate of labor hours for each labor category, for each Center, for the contract period of performance, including all options; and (3) a calculated price using the offeror-provided Other Direct Cost Indirect Rates applied to a pre-populated estimate for travel for the contract period of performance, including all options. (See Excel Pricing Model (EPM) Tab A-1, Summary of Total Price). For the purpose of evaluating the option to extend services (i.e., FAR 52.217-8), the Government determined the six-month price by prorating the price proposed for the last year of estimated IDIQ performance (i.e., CLINs 008 and 009). The proposed Phase-in services performance period, established as a separate firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract line-item number, will be performed concurrent with the incumbent contract.

Past Performance:

In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2), the offeror’s past performance, including relevant federal, state, and local government and private contracts, and the past performance of any proposed subcontractors and individual joint venture partners, if applicable, was evaluated. This evaluation was based on the information provided by the offeror in their Past Performance volume. However, the Government also considered the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) database records, completed past performance questionnaires, and any other relevant information obtained independently by the Government.

Any offeror rebuttals, if applicable, regarding adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond were also made part of the evaluation record and included in the evaluation. Information provided to, or obtained by the Government, was utilized to assess the relevant aspects of each offeror's record of performing services or delivering products similar in size, content, and complexity in correlation to the requirements of this acquisition.

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" in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A).

The SEB evaluated all six proposals and presented the findings to me on February 17, 2026. As a result, the contracting officer, with my concurrence, determined the proposal submitted by Dev Seed to be the most highly rated proposal and included only that proposal in the competitive range, based on that proposal’s relative standing across the three factors over all other proposals, particularly in regard to the significant advantages of the proposal under the Mission Suitability and Past Performance factors.

Discussions were initiated with Dev Seed on February 20, 2026, and concluded on February 25, 2026, with a final proposal revision (FPR) requested on that date. This FPR was received on March 2, 2026.

EVALUATION OF THE FPR

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the Dev Seed proposal did not require revision based on the initial proposal evaluation assessment, which reflected four strengths (i.e., the approach to perform, and demonstrated understanding of, notional tasks 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12; the approach to perform Performance Work Statement (PWS) elements 3.2, 3.4.4, and 3.4.6; the approach for ensuring the workforce maintains cognizance of and embraces advancements in technology; and the proposed phase-in approach) that distinguished and added value to this offeror’s proposal;

and three weaknesses (i.e., the approach to perform notional tasks 2 and 11; the approach to perform PWS element 3.4.1; and the proposed total compensation approach) with minimal impact. The initial proposal evaluation assessment revealed the significant advantage that the Dev Seed proposal had over the other proposals under this factor. Therefore, a revised Mission Suitability volume was not requested. However, a minor weakness associated with the offeror’s total compensation plan was indirectly resolved as a result of Dev Seed’s revisions to its Price volume to correct minor errors. Dev Seed’s overall Mission Suitability score was assessed following the resolution of the total compensation plan issues; however, the score was not upwardly adjusted as the original weakness was considered to be minor and therefore insufficient to meaningfully impact the subfactor rating and score.

Under the Price factor, Dev Seed’s FPR total proposed price of $54.1M was determined to be fair and reasonable as the initial total proposed price and subsequent FPR total proposed price were based on adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.403-1. Certified cost or pricing data was not requested from any offeror. Additionally, comparison of the FPR total proposed price to the initial proposal total proposed prices of other offerors and to the independent Government cost estimate (IGCE) indicated the FPR total proposed price was fair and reasonable. A revised Price volume was requested as the offeror’s initial Excel Pricing Model (EPM) contained minor errors which required correction and therefore necessitated the conduct of discussions to address. These errors were subsequently corrected during discussions.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Dev Seed proposal did not require revision based on the assessment of a “Very High Level of Confidence,” which included a significant strength and strength for contract references, relevant PWS coverage across all seven applicable PWS elements (i.e., 2.0, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5, and 3.4.6), and demonstrated performance as a prime contractor. Dev Seed’s initial proposal was the only proposal to receive this highest possible confidence level, which resulted in a significant advantage over the other proposals under this factor.

III. DECISION

The SEB presented the evaluation for the Dev Seed proposal to me for consideration. I determined the SEB conducted a thorough and accurate review of the Dev Seed proposal according to the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP. I also concluded that the evaluation plan for this procurement was followed, the evaluation of the proposal was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented, and that the SEB's findings were reasonable and valid for the purpose of making a selection decision.

With the resolution of the minor errors in the Dev Seed Price volume, I determined the final proposed price to be fair and reasonable. I therefore select Dev Seed for award of the Next Gen contract.

Cindy G. Upton Source Selection Authority