80NSSC22R0001 NSTEM Source Selection Statement.pdf

Source Selection Statement for the NASA Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (NSTEM) Contract

Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 80NSSC22R0001

On July 11, 2022, I, along with senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Headquarters (HQ) and the NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC), met with the members of the NSTEM Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to discuss the SEB’s findings based on the evaluation of initial proposals for the NSTEM procurement.

PROCUREMENT HISTORY/ DESCRIPTION

NSTEM is a new Agency-wide acquisition to provide a comprehensive education portfolio comprised of a broad and diverse set of programs, projects, activities, products, and related services for the NASA Office of STEM Engagement (OSTEM). These services are aligned with the OSTEM Goals and Objectives, which were included in the NSTEM solicitation. The resulting contract will provide these services to all NASA Centers and facilities.

NSSC is managing the NSTEM competition. The primary place of performance will be NASA HQ, NASA Centers throughout the United States, campuses, facilities, and satellite offices as identified in the NSTEM Performance Work Statement (PWS).

On November 5, 2021, NASA released a Draft Request for Proposals (DRFP). On November 16, 2021, an Industry Day was held, which was attended by 82 individuals representing 22 different companies. On December 15, 2021, the final Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued for the NSTEM procurement. This procurement was conducted as a small business set-aside in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) under part 12 “Acquisition of Commercial Items,” with the evaluation conducted under FAR part 15, “Contracting by Negotiation.”

The Agency issued a total of six amendments to the RFP as described in the table below. These amendments answered questions from industry, and revised various sections of the solicitation, the Instructions to Offerors, and the Evaluation Criteria for Award.

Date Amendment to RFP

Change

01/04/2022 00001 Responses to industry questions/changes to the RFP

01/21/2022

00002 Responses to industry questions/changes to the RFP

02/01/2022

00003 Responses to industry questions/changes to the RFP

02/08/2022

00004 Responses to industry questions/changes to the RFP

02/10/2022

00005 Response to industry question

03/08/2022

00006 Changes to the Pricing Schedule

The resultant contract will be a Single Award, a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with the ability for NASA to award task orders on a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Completion basis or Firm Fixed Price Level-of-Effort (LOE) basis. The NSTEM contract will consist of a base period of one year (including a 45-day Phase-In), four one-year option periods, and one 6-month Option to Extend Services.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 611710

– Educational Support Services, and the small business size standard is $16.5M.

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

In response to the RFP, NASA received five proposals by the due date of February 14, 2022. The following firms submitted proposals (listed in the order they were evaluated based on a random drawing):

• Dynamic Service Solutions, LLC (DSS)

• Guardians of Honor (GoH)

• Paragon TEC, Inc. (Paragon TEC)

• Equator Corporation (Equator)

• Chiricahua-Logical JV (C-L JV)

After an initial review of the proposals, all were considered acceptable and included in the formal evaluation process.

EVALUATION CRITERIA/PROCEDURES

As NASA’s Source Selection Authority (SSA) for this procurement, I appointed the NSTEM Source Evaluation Board (SEB), which included representatives from Glenn Research Center

(GRC) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Johnson Space Center (JSC), Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), and the NSSC. To assist in the evaluation, the SEB appointed evaluators and internal advisors with expertise in certain technical disciplines to provide assessments of strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies for each Offeror’s proposal, as measured against the solicitation’s evaluation criteria for award while following procedures in the NSTEM Source Evaluation Plan.

The SEB evaluated all proposals in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3

– Source Selection, NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3 – Source Selection, and the evaluation criteria included in the RFP.

The NSTEM solicitation set forth three evaluation factors for award (Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Price) and their relative importance, stating that Mission Suitability is more important than Past Performance, which is more important than Price. When combined, the non- Price factors (Mission Suitability + Past Performance) are significantly more important than Price. However, as the ratings/scores of Offerors’ proposals in the non-Price factors approach equivalency, Price will become a more important factor in the award decision.

The solicitation also advised that the Mission Suitability factor is comprised of four subfactors:

Management Approach, Technical Approach, Staffing Approach, and Phase-In Plan, weighted for a total of 1,000 points for the factor as follows:

The SEB carefully reviewed each Offeror’s Mission Suitability proposal, identifying and documenting the findings as applicable: Significant Strengths, Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, and Deficiencies. Definitions for these terms are as follows:

TYPE OF FINDING DEFINITION

Significant Strength (not in FAR/NFS)

A proposal area that greatly enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes significantly toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the Government.

Strength (not in FAR/NFS) A proposal area that enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the Government (this could be associated with a process, technical approach, materials, facilities, etc.).

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness A proposal flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

After evaluating each proposal, the SEB voting members collectively developed a consensus adjectival rating for each of the three subfactors based upon the documented findings.

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. This represented the numerical score for a given subfactor. This process was repeated for each of the three Mission Suitability subfactors by Offeror. The final point value for the Mission Suitability factor was then calculated as the sum of the four subfactors’ point values. In accordance with NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.370(h)(viii), the SEB did not assign an overall adjectival rating for the Mission Suitability factor.

For the Past Performance factor, the RFP advised offerors that the Government would evaluate the recency and relevancy of each past performance reference. After determining the recency and relevancy of each referenced contract, the SEB evaluated the extent of each Offeror's ability to perform the referenced contract successfully in the areas of: (a) quality of product or services; (b) timeliness or scheduling of supplies/deliveries; (c) business relations/customer satisfaction; and (d) staffing (including teaming arrangement partners).

As set forth in the RFP, the SEB evaluated past performance based on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis in accordance with the following definitions:

ADJECTIVAL RATING DEFINITIONS PERCENTILE

RANGE

Excellent

A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists.

91-100

Very Good

A proposal having no deficiencies, and which demonstrates over-all competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.

71-90

Good

A proposal having no deficiencies, and which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly detract from the Offeror’s response.

51-70

Fair A proposal having no deficiencies, and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.

31-50

Poor

A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to correct.

0-30

ADJECTIVAL

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

Unacceptable

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

If an Offeror did not have a record of relevant Past Performance or Past Performance was otherwise not available, the Offeror would have received an unknown (or “Neutral”) past performance. In the context of Acceptability/Unacceptability, a neutral rating would have been considered “Acceptable.”

Finally, for the Price factor, the RFP advised offerors that the Government would perform a price analysis of each Offeror’s proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) and (g), to determine price reasonableness and whether unbalanced pricing existed between the proposed option prices and the Phase-In price.

Offerors were evaluated on Price using the total evaluated prices shown in the Price Schedule, Attachment 02, provided by the Government. The total evaluated price was the sum of the evaluated prices for the base period of performance (inclusive of Phase-In price) as well as the four potential one-year option periods and the potential six-month Option to Extend Services, and the IDIQ Education Support Services. Each offeror’s proposed price was equivalent to its total evaluated price.

As set forth in the RFP, the Government intended to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The RFP also included language stating that the Government reserved the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officers (CO) later determined them to be necessary. After the proposals were evaluated and the SEB briefed its results to me as summarized below, the CO determined that establishing a competitive range and conducting discussions with offerors were not necessary, and I concurred in this determination.

EVALUATION OF INITIAL PROPOSALS

The following is a summary of the final evaluation findings for each Offeror’s proposal for the three evaluation factors for award: Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Price.

Dynamic Services Solutions, LLC. (DSS)

For the Mission Suitability factor, across the four subfactors, DSS’s proposal received one

Significant Strength, three Strengths, five Weaknesses, two Significant Weaknesses, and five Deficiencies. The SEB assigned the following adjectival ratings for each subfactor:

Under Subfactor A (Management Approach), DSS received an adjectival rating of “Poor,” with one Strength, three Weaknesses, two Significant Weaknesses, and one Deficiency.

Under Subfactor B (Technical Approach), DSS received an adjectival rating of “Poor” with three Deficiencies.

Under Subfactor C (Staffing Approach), DSS received an adjectival rating of “Poor” with one Significant Strength, one Weakness and one Deficiency.

Under Subfactor D (Phase-in Plan), DSS received an adjectival rating of “Good” with two Strengths and one Weakness.

Under the Past Performance factor, DSS received an “Acceptable” rating.

Under the Price factor, DSS proposed the highest price of all the Offerors. The SEB evaluated the price for reasonableness and unbalanced pricing to determine the total evaluated price of performing the NSTEM requirements. This evaluation included, but was not limited to, a comparison of DSS’s price proposal against the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE).

The SEB concluded that DSS’s price was unreasonable, and no unbalanced pricing existed.

Guardians of Honor (GoH)

For the Mission Suitability factor, across the four subfactors, GoH’s proposal received seven Significant Strengths, six Strengths, and five Weaknesses. The SEB assigned the following adjectival ratings for each subfactor:

Under Subfactor A (Management Approach), GoH received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” with five Significant Strengths, two Strengths, and two Weaknesses.

Under Subfactor B (Technical Approach), GoH received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” with one Significant Strength and three Strengths.

Under Subfactor C (Staffing Approach), GoH received an adjectival rating of “Good” with one Significant Strength and two Weaknesses.

Under Subfactor D (Phase-in Plan), GoH received an adjectival rating of “Good” with one Strength and one Weakness.

Under the Past Performance factor, GoH received an “Acceptable” rating.

Under the Price factor, GoH proposed the second lowest price of all the Offerors. The SEB evaluated the price for reasonableness and unbalanced pricing to determine the total evaluated price of performing the NSTEM requirements. This evaluation included, but was not limited to, a comparison of GoH’s price proposal against the IGCE. The SEB concluded that GoH’s price of $212,385,307 was reasonable, and no unbalanced pricing existed.

Paragon TEC, Inc. (Paragon TEC)

For the Mission Suitability factor across the four subfactors, Paragon TEC’s proposal received three Significant Strengths, five Strengths, one Weakness, seven Significant Weaknesses, and one Deficiency. The SEB assigned the following adjectival ratings for each subfactor:

Under Subfactor A (Management Approach), Paragon TEC received an adjectival rating of “Poor” with one Significant Strength, three Strengths, one Weakness, two Significant Weaknesses, and one Deficiency.

Under Subfactor B (Technical Approach), Paragon TEC received an adjectival rating of “Fair” with one Significant Strength, two Strength, and three Significant Weaknesses.

Under Subfactor C (Staffing Approach), Paragon TEC received an adjectival rating of “Fair” with one Significant Strength and one Significant Weakness.

Under Subfactor D (Phase-in Plan), Paragon TEC received an adjectival rating of “Fair” with one Significant Weakness.

Under the Past Performance factor, Paragon TEC received an “Acceptable” rating.

Under the Price factor, Paragon TEC proposed the lowest price of all the Offerors. The SEB evaluated the price for reasonableness and unbalanced pricing to determine the total evaluated price of performing the NSTEM requirements. This evaluation included, but was not limited to, a comparison of Paragon TEC’s price proposal against the IGCE. The SEB concluded that Paragon TEC’s price was reasonable, and no unbalanced pricing existed.

Equator Corporation (Equator)

Under the Mission Suitability factor across the four subfactors, Equator’s proposal received one Significant Strength, three Strengths, two Significant Weaknesses, and six Deficiencies. The SEB assigned the following adjectival ratings for each subfactor:

Under Subfactor A (Management Approach), Equator received an adjectival rating of “Poor” with three Strengths, two Significant Weaknesses, and one Deficiency.

Under Subfactor B (Technical Approach), Equator received an adjectival rating of “Poor” with three Deficiencies.

Under Subfactor C (Staffing Approach), Equator received an adjectival rating of “Poor” with one

Significant Strength and one Deficiency.

Under Subfactor D (Phase-in Plan), Equator received an adjectival rating of “Poor” with one Deficiency.

Under the Past Performance factor, Equator received an “Acceptable” rating.

Under the Price factor, Equator proposed the third highest price of all the Offerors. The SEB evaluated the price for reasonableness and unbalanced pricing to determine the total evaluated price of performing the NSTEM requirements. This evaluation included, but was not limited to, a comparison of Equator’s price proposal against the IGCE. The SEB concluded that Equator’s price was reasonable, and no unbalanced pricing existed.

Chiricahua-Logical JV (C-L JV)

Under the Mission Suitability factor across the four subfactors, C-L JV’s proposal received one Significant Strength, two Strengths, two Weaknesses, five Significant Weaknesses, and two Deficiencies. The SEB assigned the following adjectival ratings for each subfactor:

Under Subfactor A (Management Approach), C-L JV received an adjectival rating of “Poor” with one Significant Strength, two Weaknesses, two Significant Weaknesses, and one Deficiency.

Under Subfactor B (Technical Approach), C-L JV received an adjectival rating of “Poor” with two Significant Weaknesses and one Deficiency.

Under Subfactor C (Staffing Approach), C-L JV received an adjectival rating of “Fair” with one Strength and one Significant Weakness.

Under Subfactor D (Phase-in Plan), C-L JV received an adjectival rating of “Good” with one Strength.

Under the Past Performance factor, C-L JV received an “Acceptable” rating.

Under the Price factor, C-L JV proposed the second highest price of all the Offerors. The SEB evaluated the price for reasonableness and unbalanced pricing to determine the total evaluated price of performing the NSTEM requirements. This evaluation included, but was not limited to, a comparison of C-L JV’s price proposal against the IGCE. The SEB concluded that C-L JV’s price was reasonable, and no unbalanced pricing existed.

SELECTION DECISION

I have determined that the findings presented by the SEB, as documented in its presentation to me and as summarized above, were detailed and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the NSTEM RFP and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal. I discussed with the SEB its rationale for its findings, adjectival ratings, and evaluation of the Mission Suitability subfactors, and discussed the rationale for the evaluation of Price and Past Performance. I determined that the SEB’s findings were valid for the purpose of making a selection decision.

I based my selection on the comparative assessment of each proposal against each of the RFP evaluation factors to determine which proposal represented the best value to the Government.

In determining which proposal offered the best value to NASA, I referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors for award as specified in the RFP, Section IV- 4.0:

Mission Suitability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price. As individual factors, Mission Suitability is more important than Past Performance, which is more important than Cost/Price. When combined, the non-Price factors (Mission Suitability + Past Performance) are significantly more important than Price. However, as the ratings/scores of Offerors’ proposals in the non-Price P approach equivalency, Price will become a more important factor in the award decision.

Based on my assessment of the proposals and the SEB’s findings, GoH stands out as the Offeror with the highest scores and ratings in the Mission Suitability factor, an Acceptable Past Performance rating, and the second lowest price. I find that the qualitative merits of the SEB’s findings as presented to me fully support these ratings. In the subfactors under Mission Suitability, GoH received two adjectival ratings of “Excellent” and two, adjectival ratings of “Good.” It is notable that the two “Excellent” ratings were earned in the two most heavily weighted subfactors

– Management Approach and Technical Approach. GoH earned “Good” ratings for the Staffing Plan and Phase-In Plan subfactors. No other Offeror received ratings this high under the Mission Suitability factor. Furthermore, the SEB determined that GoH’s Mission Suitability proposal contained multiple Significant Strengths, Strengths, and no Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies.

All other offerors received at least one Deficiency and at least one Significant Weakness in their proposal findings, along with an adjectival rating of “Poor” in at least one of the Mission Suitability subfactors. All offerors received Acceptable Past Performance ratings, so this was not a discriminator in my award decision. Since Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, were significantly more important than Price, GoH’s proposal offers the best value to the Government. I have determined this because GoH received the highest adjectival Mission Suitability ratings and scores (along with the qualitative findings to support these high ratings) and the second lowest offered price. In considering the Offeror with the lowest proposed price, Paragon TEC, GoH’s clearly superior Mission Suitability evaluation results justify the Government paying the small premium of just over 10 percent above the lowest price Offeror. Specifically, in the Mission Suitability factor, under the Management Approach and Technical Approach subfactors, GoH offered a comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit. For the Staffing Approach and Phase-in Plan subfactors, GoH offered reasonably sound responses. The multiple

Significant Strengths and Strengths that GoH’s proposal earned will translate to a greatly enhanced/enhanced potential for successful performance of the NSTEM contract. Additionally, GoH’s findings will contribute significantly toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the Government. In sum, it is worth it to the Government to pay the small price premium to achieve these important results.

Furthermore, the NSTEM RFP permits an award to be made based on initial proposals. Here, award without discussions is appropriate because there is a clearly superior proposal that 1) contained no Deficiencies or Significant Weaknesses that required correction before contract award; 2) contained no proposed exceptions to contract clauses that were unacceptable to NASA;

and 3) included a proposed contract value that was reasonable, and within the budgetary and funding limitations. Therefore, and as discussed above, I have decided to award the NSTEM contract without discussions based on the initial evaluations’ findings.

Based on the above, I select Guardians of Honor (GoH) for award of the NASA Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (NSTEM) Contract as representing the best value to

NASA.

Michael Kincaid Date NSTEM Source Selection Authority

Date: