80SSC020R0002 - SSDD Final.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

LABORATORY SERVICES CONTRACT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 80SSC020R0002

On June 19, 2020, I met with the Acquisition Buying Team (ABT) appointed to evaluate proposals for the SSC Laboratory Service Contract (LSC). During this meeting, the ABT presented the procurement history and findings resulting from the evaluation process. I discussed the relative merits of each proposal with ABT members, as well as other attendees, to assure a full understanding of the ABT’s evaluation. This document summarizes the procurement, evaluation process, results of that process, and basis of my selection of an offeror for award.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this procurement is to provide a follow-on acquisition for the current SSC LSC.

This acquisition will provide laboratory services to NASA; SSC and Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF), as well as, any NASA Center or programs sponsored by NASA Center, NASA Contractors, NASA tenants (limited to SSC and MAF), Other Government Agencies, and commercial customers. The successful offeror will be required to provide the following services;

Contract Management, Logistics, Safety, Health, and Environmental, General Laboratory Services, Metrology Assurance, Measurement Standards and Calibration Services, Gas and Material Analysis Services, Environmental Laboratory Services, and Stennis Institutional Geographic Information System (SIGIS) Services.

This contract will be a performance-based, hybrid type contract including a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) element for CORE services and an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) element for DEMAND services. The base period of performance is 23 months, November 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022. Option Period (OP) One and OP Two both consist of 12 months and OP Three consists of 13 months. The option periods and the potential six month extension period under FAR 52.217-8 were evaluated and considered as part of the competition.

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

SSC ABT members were appointed on March 03, 2020 by Gerald L. Norris, SSC Procurement Officer. ABT voting members were responsible for evaluating proposals received in response to the solicitation. Appointed voting members represented the Engineering and Test Directorate, Office of Procurement, and Environmental and Health Services Office.

Market research was conducted in order to determine if small businesses with the capabilities and experience were available to conduct the procurement as a competitive set-aside. A sources sought, 80SSC019R0006, was posted to Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) on June 20, 2019. The responses received to the sources sought indicated that two or more 8(a) small businesses were capable of completing the requirement. As a result, the acquisition was set-aside for competitive 8(a). On February 12, 2020 a pre-solicitation notice, 80SSC020R0002, including a draft solicitation was posted to Contract Opportunities. The final solicitation, 80SSC020R0002, was posted to Contract Opportunities on March 11, 2020 and was amended twice; P00001 was posted to Contract Opportunities on March 21, 2020 and P00002 was posted to Contract Opportunities on April 01, 2020. A virtual site visit and industry day were made available to contractors on March 21, 2020 as part of amendment P00001. A virtual site visit and industry day were required due to restrictions imposed in response to COVID-19.

Proposals were due on April 15, 2020 at 3:00 pm CDT. Three proposals, from the following Offerors, were received in response to the RFP (listed in order of receipt):

Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC (Alutiiq) 360 F Quality Circle Suite 600 Huntsville, AL 35806

Arrow’s Edge, LLC (Arrow’s Edge) 620 Discovery Drive, NW, Bldg. 2, Suite 360 Huntsville, AL 35806

Unpopulated Joint Venture JV Majority Partner: Seabrook Solutions JV Minority Partner: Amentum Services, Inc.

Rsi-QuantiTech JV, LLC (RSi) 4835 University SQ, STE 15 Huntsville, AL 35816

Unpopulated Joint Venture JV Majority Partner: Radial Solutions Incorporated JV Minority Partner: QuantiTech, Inc.

Specialty Subcontractors: Technical Maintenance Incorporated Geocent

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The ABT evaluated proposals in accordance with (IAW) the criteria established in the RFP Attachment 15, FAR provision 52.212-2 “Evaluation—Commercial Items”, and addendum to FAR provision 52.212-2 “Evaluation—Commercial Items.”

Evaluation factors identified in the RFP include Management Approach, Past Performance, and Price. As stated in the RFP, the Government intends to award one contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government. This procurement is being conducted utilizing Best Value Selection (BVS), which seeks to make an award based on the best combination of price and non-price factors (Management Approach and Past Performance). BVS predefines the evaluation factors that will serve as discriminators among proposals. BVS evaluation is based on the premise that, if all proposals are of approximately equal qualitative merit, award will be made to the Offeror with the lowest total evaluated price (TEP).

However, the Government will consider awarding to an Offeror with higher qualitative merit if the difference in price is commensurate with the added value. Conversely, the Government will consider making award to an Offeror whose offer has lower qualitative merit if the price differential between it and other offers warrants doing so.

Best value will be determined based on an integrated assessment of each proposal in terms of management approach, past performance, and price. Therefore, subjective judgment by the Government is implicit in the evaluation process. Management Approach and Past Performance are approximately equal. When combined, these two factors (Management Approach and Past Performance) are significantly more important than Price. Once all responses have been gathered, proposals will be evaluated by team members using the evaluation process identified below.

EVALUATION PROCESS

Step One: An initial review of each proposal was performed to determine if all required information was provided IAW the solicitation. The Government made a determination as to whether the offeror’s proposal was acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal submitted. Accordingly, offeror’s were advised to submit initial proposals that clearly meet all requirements of the solicitation. All proposals, acceptable or unacceptable, were evaluated under Step Two.

Step Two: Each proposal was assessed in terms of the evaluation factors; management approach, past performance, and price. Each offeror was assigned a rating for each of the non-price factors;

management approach and past performance. Proposed prices were not rated, however, were evaluated using one or more of the price analysis techniques under FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to determine whether the offeror’s proposed prices were fair and reasonable.

The three evaluation factors described in the RFP are as follows:

Management Approach

Each proposal was evaluated to determine the effectiveness of the proposed Management Approach as outlined in the submission requirements contained in Attachment 15 of the RFP.

Offerors were required to provide/address four main areas in their Management Approach: a) Organizational Chart, b) Staffing Plan, c) description of safety management approach and philosophy to obtain Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) certification within 18 months of contract start, and d) Total Compensation Plan. The ABT evaluated and assigned an adjectival efficiency rating of Highly Effective, Moderately Effective, or Ineffective for the overall Management Approach. The definitions for the adjective ratings and complete submission requirements can be found in the RFP, Attachment 15.

Past Performance

Each offeror was required to submit Past Performance information as outlined in the submission requirements contained in Attachment 15 of the RFP. Additionally, Past Performance information obtained from references and other sources known by the Government were considered if the information obtained met the definition of recent and relevant as defined in the RFP, Attachment 15. An offeror’s Past Performance on recent and relevant projects was evaluated to determine the quality of work previously provided and to assess the relative capability of the offeror to effectively accomplish the requirements of PWS 4.1 through 4.5 including management, technical, quality, and safety. The ABT assigned an overall confidence rating that utilized data from each recent and relevant past performance submitted by the offeror as well as any additional recent and relevant past performance found from other sources. The confidence ratings of very high level of confidence, high level of confidence, moderate level of confidence, low level of confidence, very low level of confidence, and neutral were assigned based on the evaluation results. The definitions for the confidence levels and the complete submission requirements can be found in the RFP, Attachment 15. Each offeror and its team mates, Joint Venture partners, subsidiaries, affiliates, or subcontractors Past Performance references that were submitted in response to this solicitation were reviewed to determine if the resources of the other companies will meaningfully affect the performance of the proposed contract or if the past performance of the entity will be predictive of the offerors performance under a contract resulting from this solicitation and, if applicable, demonstrated a history of successfully performing JVs.

Price

Each offeror’s proposal was reviewed to ensure that a price was included for each CLIN description contained within blocks 20, 23, and 24 of the SF 1449. Attachment 6-1 and 6-2 were reviewed to determine if all of the information was provided; Attachment 6-1 was reviewed to ensure a cost breakout of the major costs elements for each CLIN 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, and 0999 was completed and Attachment 6-2 was reviewed to ensure a loaded rate inclusive of hourly rate, salary related expenses, overhead, G&A, and profit that comprise the loaded labor rate for each labor category and for each period. The loaded rates proposed in Attachment 6-2 were analyzed to determine if they were consistent with those used to price CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, and 0004.

Each offeror’s TEP was reviewed for completeness, reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing to determine the best value to the Government. The TEP was calculated by adding the offeror’s phase-in price (CLIN 0999), the price for the base and all option periods to include the NTE amount for the IDIQ work (CLIN 0001 – 0005), and a 6 month option period under FAR 52.217- 8.

EVALUATION STEP ONE

Upon receipt of proposals the ABT voting members conducted step one of the evaluation process. The purpose of this step was to conduct an initial review of each proposal to determine if all required information was provided IAW the solicitation. All three proposals, Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC, Arrow’s Edge, LLC, and RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC, were determined to be acceptable based upon the initial review.

Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC: Acceptable, All required information was provided. (Minor Informalities include corresponding NAICS not in SAMS). NAICS were reviewed again on

June 8, 2020 and the offeror’s SAM contained the NAICS 541380. A dynamic small business search was conducted to confirm 8(a) status.

Arrow’s Edge, LLC: Acceptable, All required information was provided. (Minor Informalities include NAICS not listed in SBA Letter). Contractor confirmed through clarification Attachments 6-1 and 6-2 were edited with unique rates and team members are the subcontractors to the unpopulated Joint Venture. NAICS were reviewed again on June 8, 2020 and the offeror’s SAM contained the NAICS 541380. A SBA letter noted “your firm may be awarded contracts under other NAICS Codes, as long as your firm is qualified to perform the required service or task.”

RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC: Acceptable, All required information did not appear to be submitted with the initial proposal. Amendment P00002 was not signed and returned with the proposal submitted, however, was acknowledged as evidenced by clarification received from RSi. The original submission identified a pricing validity period of 120 days (as amended by P00002) within Section 3 Cost Assumptions Conditions and Exceptions.docx, Section 3.1.

Minor Informalities include corresponding NAICS not in SAMS and incorrect CAGE on the SF 1449. NAICS were reviewed again on June 8, 2020 and the offeror’s SAM contained the NAICS 541380. A SBA letter certified that RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC is a certified 8(a) Participant. Based on the clarification response received along with the contents within their original proposal as submitted, the information provided by Rsi-QuantiTech JV, LLC clarified their proposal and it was determined to be acceptable.

As stated in the Solicitation all proposals, acceptable or unacceptable, will be evaluated under Step Two.

EVALUATION STEP TWO

The ABT reviewed proposals from each offeror and completed an evaluation of all three factors, Management Approach, Past Performance, and Price. On June 19, 2020, the ABT presented evaluation findings to the SSA. Final consensus findings are as follows:

Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC

Management Approach

Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC’s (Alutiiq) proposal received a Highly Effective adjectival rating for its Management Approach. Alutiiq received one significant strength and four strengths under this evaluation factor. Alutiiq addressed all areas required in their Management Approach.

A significant strength was identified in the proposal’s emphasis on obtaining letters of commitment from 100% of the incumbent workforce and providing for the continuation of a total compensation plan to employee’s salary and benefits into the successor contract. A strength was identified by utilizing an autonomous leadership structure that was aligned with the PWS, from the Project Manager down through the group leads of the labs, which significantly supports maintaining efficiency in laboratory services and communication to customers. Another strength was identified in the proposal for bolstering the depth and breadth of workforce experience through cross-training of employees, effectively strengthening their ability to complete requirements on the contract in addition to posturing for surge requirements. Another strength was identified in the proposal’s organizational structure and staffing plan that addresses key positions, which reflects the required education, skills, and experience of personnel per skill category while correlating to the requirement of the PWS. A fourth strength was identified for their approach to build on SSC/MAF customer feedback thereby allowing for an adaptable, flexible and comprehensive measure for providing technical solutions. Therefore, Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC’s Management Approach received a Highly Effective adjectival rating.

Past Performance

Alutiiq Essential Service, LLC's (Alutiiq) proposal received a Very High Level of Confidence for Past Performance. Alutiiq received one significant strength and five strengths under this evaluation factor. Alutiiq received a significant strength for exceptional quality in the laboratory as verified by annual proficiency tests (best marks within NASA). Alutiiq received a strength for their cross-training program that enhances flexibility and response to surge requirements.

Alutiiq received a strength for documented exceptional ratings received on multiple contracts during the past three years of performance. Alutiiq also received strengths for implementing automated processes to maximize efficiencies, demonstrated efficiencies through mentoring, promoting from within, as well as equipment reutilization which resulted in a multi-million dollar cost savings to the Government, and a substantial quantity of NASA and Center-level awards under multiple contracts and performance periods. The recent and relevant past performance submitted by Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC was entirely attributable to subsidiaries. Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC clearly addressed how subsidiaries resources will be relied upon to meaningfully affect the performance of the proposed contract. Therefore, all submitted PPI was considered and evaluated by the ABT. Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC received an overall Very High Level of Confidence that they will successfully perform the required effort.

Price

Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC (Alutiiq) provided a price in blocks 20, 23, and 24 of the SF 1449. Both Attachment 6-1 and 6-2 were completed IAW the solicitation instructions and the labor rates contained in Attachment 6-2 were analyzed and determined to be consistent with the rates utilized for CLINS 0001-0004. Considering the above information the price was determined to be fair and reasonable based upon adequate price competition IAW FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2)(i). The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for Alutiiq is $36,511,105.46.

Arrow’s Edge, LLC

Management Approach

Arrow’s Edge, LLC’s (Arrow’s Edge) proposal received a Highly Effective adjectival rating for its Management Approach. Arrow’s Edge received four strengths under this evaluation factor.

Arrow’s Edge Management Approach addressed all required areas IAW the solicitation. Their proposal received a strength for emphasis on hiring, retaining, and maintaining a highly qualified workforce through a five step staff retention plan in an effort to minimize impact to continuity of services and to preserve institutional knowledge while offering part time surge support. The management approach received a strength from the contractor’s proposal to empower the project manager with the authority and autonomy to make on-site decision to execute all aspects of the project. In addition, this approach allows laboratory managers and leads to make decisions at the lowest possible level to maximize flexibility and responsiveness. The proposal received a strength for their approach utilizing on the job training as well as cross-training among the metrology technicians within the Measurement Standards and Calibration Laboratory to support efficiency and proficiency while working multiple disciplines in the laboratory. A strength was assessed for the contractors proposed approach to obtain VPP Star Status through establishing roles and responsibilities, timelines, document preparation, and mock audits. This approach is supported by the contractor’s stellar safety record across multiple contracts. The contractor's total number of employees proposed to complete the requirements stated in the PWS raises some concerns based on the IGE staffing levels identified for this contract. However, this concern alone does not rise to the level of a weakness and leaves little doubt that the Management Approach will be effective throughout the life of the contract. Therefore, Arrow’s Edge, LLC’s Management Approach received a Highly Effective adjectival rating.

Past Performance

Arrow's Edge, LLC proposal received a Very High Level of Confidence for Past Performance.

Arrow's Edge, LLC received one significant strength and four strengths under this evaluation factor. Arrow's Edge, LLC received a significant strength for their dedication to safety culture.

The safety metrics listed, multiple safety awards, and exceptional CPARS in relation to the safety program is evident all throughout their past performance. Arrow's Edge, LLC received strengths for exceptional quality in the laboratory due to earning approximately 79% Exceptional/Very Good ratings over multiple contracts, for documented experience meeting AS9100 standards, achieving significant cost savings to the government, and a documented excellent relationship between the Joint Venture partners. The recent and relevant past performance submitted by Arrow’s Edge, LLC, an unpopulated Joint Venture, was entirely attributable to the minority partner, Amentum. Neither Arrow’s Edge, LLC nor the majority partner, Seabrook Solutions, LLC, provided recent and relevant past performance. A Government search did not reveal any additional recent and relevant past performance for Arrow’s Edge, LLC, Seabrook Solutions, LLC, or Amentum. However, Amentum, the minority partner, is currently performing exceptional/very good on a more complex laboratory services contract with equivalent scope to this requirement for another NASA center. Furthermore, the documented relationship between Seabrook Solution, LLC and Amentum is highlighted by two Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP) annual awards showcasing their ability to effectively work together as a team. The past performance information provided by Arrow’s Edge, LLC clearly demonstrates a history of successfully performing JV’s and is predictive of the offerors performance under a contract resulting from this solicitation. Therefore, all submitted PPI was considered and evaluated by the ABT. Arrow's Edge, LLC received an overall Very High Level of Confidence that they will successfully perform the required effort.

Price

Arrow’s Edge, LLC (Arrow’s Edge) provided a price in blocks 20, 23, and 24 of the SF 1449.

However, neither Attachment 6-1 nor 6-2 were completed IAW the solicitation instructions and were altered by the offeror. IAW the solicitation, “Offerors shall complete Attachment 6-1 providing a cost breakout of the major cost elements (e.g. material, labor, subcontracts, overhead, G&A, Profit, etc.) for each of the firm fixed price CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, and 0999.” Arrow’s Edge, LLC altered Attachment 6-1 and did not provide material, labor, overhead, G&A, or profit breakdown. Instead, only Subcontracts and JV Fee was provided. The Government requested clarification on the submitted Attachment 6-1. The contractor’s response stated, “Based on the Government’s request for clarification, we will be happy to provide each of the Venture partners with the elements of cost broken out at the Government’s request.” This would require the Government to enter into discussions. Attachment 6-2, provided with the solicitation, contained column headers intended for offerors to provide both regular hourly rates and loaded hourly rates for CLIN 0005. The contractor provided an altered Attachment 6-2 and did not provide regular hourly rates or loaded hourly rates for CLIN 0005. Instead, the contractor changed the form and provided SSC Core and MAF Core rates for CLINS 0001-0004.

The Government requested clarification on the submitted Attachment 6-2. The contractor’s response to the clarification stated what was submitted was a “separate version” that represented “Unique Rates”. However, there is no indication whether the “Unique Rates” in the contractor submitted Attachment 6-2 are regular labor rates, fully burdened labor rates, a combination of both, or something different. In addition, the contractor stated in the clarification response that “Also, the CLINs were mis-labeled as CLIN 0001-0004, when the labels should have specified CLIN 0005 in each column.” The proposed labor rates contained in Attachment 6-2 could not be evaluated for consistency with pricing in Attachment 6-1 because the pricing detail was not provided. Moreover, an evaluation could not be completed for pricing future IDIQ/Task Order work. In order for the offeror to provide the requested information after receipt of proposals and attempt to resolve the Government’s concerns, the Government would be required to enter into discussions with the offeror. Arrow’s Edge, LLC provided enough information to calculate the TEP IAW the solicitation. The contractor’s prices for CLINS 0001-0004 were submitted on the SF 1449. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for Arrow’s Edge was considered reasonable based upon adequate price competition IAW FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i).

RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC

Management Approach

RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC’s (RSi) proposal received a Moderately Effective adjectival rating for its Management Approach. RSi received four strengths under this evaluation factor. RSi addressed all areas required in their Management Approach. The proposal received a strength for empowering the project manager with the autonomy and authority to represent RSi in all aspects of management. A second strength was identified for a detailed staffing process for recruiting, hiring, developing, and retaining qualified incumbent and new hire personnel. A third strength was assessed for RSi’s cross training and mentoring program. A fourth strength was assessed for the use of a Safety Maintenance and Review Team (SMART Team). The Management Approach submitted by RSi was inconsistent on the roles/responsibilities of Technical Maintenance, Inc. (TMI). TMI is presented as being used to augment baseline capability provided by SSC LSC for surge requirements on an as needed basis in their Management Approach sections 1.1 and 1.5. The Management Approach (Exhibit 1) clearly designates that TMI is the only team member identified as being responsible for PWS elements

4.2 and 4.3. The Past Performance Matrix (Attachment 16) states that “Work on PWS 4.2 and

4.3 will be primarily performed by our specialty subcontractor, TMI.” In addition, there is a lack of detail pertaining to the Total Compensation Plan (TCP) fringe benefits proposed by RSi.

The TCP only provides generalities for fringe benefits that each company will provide with no specific details. The lack of details pertaining to the fringe benefits along with the inconsistencies of TMI’s role within PWS 4.2 and 4.3 are both areas of concern that leave doubt that the proposed approach will be effective therefore resulting in a Moderately Effective adjectival rating.

Past Performance

RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC’s (RSi) proposal received a Moderate Level of Confidence for Past Performance. RSi received two strengths under this evaluation factor. RSi received a strength for receiving 100% Exceptional/Very Good ratings within CPARS in the categories of Quality, Cost, Schedule, and Management for PWS elements 4.1, 4.4, and 4.5. RSi received a second strength for their demonstrated efficiencies through cross-training, mentoring, and promotion opportunities as documented within CPARS in the areas of Management and Quality. The recent and relevant past performance submitted by Rsi-QuantiTech JV, LLC, an unpopulated Joint Venture, was entirely attributable to the minority partner, QuantiTech, Inc. No recent and relevant past performance was received or found by the Government for the JV team members Radial Solutions, Inc., Geocent, or Technical Maintenance, Inc. While QuantiTech, Inc.

demonstrated past performance in PWS elements 4.1, 4.4, 4.5, no past performance was provided or was found by the Government for PWS elements 4.2 and 4.3. Radial Solutions Incorporated, the 51 percent majority owner/partner had no recent and relevant past performance. However, combined with the past performance evaluated for PWS elements 4.1, 4.4, 4.5 for QuantiTech, Inc., the 49 percent minority owner/partner, RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC received an overall Moderate Level of Confidence that they will successfully perform the required effort. The past performance information provided by RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC clearly demonstrates a history of successfully performing JV’s and is predictive of the offerors performance under a contract resulting from this solicitation. Therefore, all submitted PPI was considered and evaluated by the ABT.

Price

RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC provided a price in blocks 20, 23, and 24 of the SF 1449. Attachment 6-1 was completed IAW the solicitation instructions and the labor rates contained in Attachment 6-2 were analyzed and determined to be consistent with the rates utilized for CORE work.

Attachment 6-2 was completed IAW the solicitation instructions. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) was determined to be fair and reasonable based upon adequate price competition IAW FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i).

SELECTION DECISION

On June 19, 2020 the ABT presented their finding for the Laboratory Services solicitation, 80SSC020R0002. All three offers received were evaluated using the Evaluation Process defined in Attachment 15, Addenda to 52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Items, paragraph (C) of the solicitation. I noted that during Step One of the evaluation process the team provided some offerors an opportunity for clarification IAW the FAR 15.306. After clarifications all offerors were considered acceptable and were evaluated under Step Two of the evaluation process as outlined in the solicitation. The consensus findings from Step Two for Management Approach and Past Performance were presented along with the ratings, including the TEP analysis as summarized above.

I asked the ABT to discuss each offeror and to identify if the offeror was a Joint Venture. If the offeror was a Joint Venture, I requested that the ABT provide a breakdown of the team members to include any major subcontractors if applicable. Furthermore, I asked the ABT if they addressed meaningful relationships for past performance submitted from subsidiaries or affiliates in order to determine if the past performance evaluated will meaningfully affect the performance of the proposed contract. In the case of a new business entity, I questioned if the evaluated performance provided a thorough and clear explanation of why such information should be considered predictive of the Offeror’s performance on this requirement? I reviewed the documentation provided by the ABT addressing how the submitted past performance would affect or be predictive of future performance on this requirement and it was to my satisfaction.

In addition, the ABT provided me with their consensus findings spreadsheet which specifically documented the recent and relevant (size, scope, and complexity) past performance of each offeror.

Under Step One, the ABT determined Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC submitted an Acceptable proposal. Under Step Two, the ABT assessed a Highly Effective rating for their Management Approach identifying 1 Significant Strength, 4 Strengths, and no Weaknesses. The ABT assessed a Very High Level of Confidence for their Past Performance identifying 1 Significant Strength, 5 Strengths, and no Weaknesses. I concur with the ABT’s use, assessment, and evaluation of subsidiaries recent and relevant past performance information submitted by Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC. Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC received the highest possible ratings for both non-priced factors and submitted the lowest TEP. Considering the valuation and findings of the ABT, I concur.

Under Step One, the ABT determined Arrow’s Edge, LLC submitted an Acceptable proposal.

Under Step Two, the ABT assessed a Highly Effective rating for their Management Approach identifying 4 Strengths and no Weaknesses. The ABT assessed a Very High Level of Confidence for their Past Performance identifying 1 Significant Strength, 4 Strengths, and no Weaknesses. I concur with the ABT’s use, assessment, and evaluation of the Joint Venture partners recent and relevant past performance information submitted by Arrow’s Edge, LLC.

The contractor's total number of employees proposed to complete the requirements stated in the PWS raised some concerns with the ABT based on the IGE staffing levels identified for this contract. However, this concern did not rise to the level of a weakness and the overall Management Approach received a Highly Effective rating. I recognize that the staffing levels are based on the offerors approach to fulfilling the requirements, and a difference in the IGE staffing approach and an offeror approach does not indicate a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal. I had the ABT further explain their concerns with the offerors staffing numbers. Three members of ABT expressed concerns based on their familiarity with operations of the separate laboratories and how work is processed within the labs. Based on the discussion I also have concerns that the offerors staffing is underestimated to perform the required work timely. My concerns do not rise to the level that causes me to disagree with the ABT’s Management Approach adjectival rating.

Arrow’s Edge, LLC submitted altered Attachments 6-1 and 6-2. Clarifications did not resolve the concerns identified in either Attachment 6-1 or 6-2. In order to obtain the requested information and resolve the ABT’s concerns, the Government would be required to enter into discussions. Arrow’s Edge, LLC received the highest possible ratings for both non-priced factors and had the second lowest TEP. Considering the evaluation and findings of the ABT, I concur.

Under Step One, the ABT determined RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC submitted an Acceptable proposal. Under Step Two, the ABT assessed a Moderately Effective rating for their Management Approach identifying 4 Strengths and no Weaknesses. The ABT assessed a Moderate Level of Confidence for their Past Performance identifying 2 Strengths, and no Weaknesses. I concur with the ABT’s use, assessment, and evaluation of the Joint Venture partners recent and relevant past performance information submitted by RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC. I was informed that the Management Approach submitted by RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC was inconsistent on the roles/responsibilities of Technical Maintenance, Inc. (TMI). TMI is presented as being used to augment baseline capability provided by SSC LSC for surge requirements on an as needed basis in their Management Approach sections 1.1 and 1.5. The Management Approach (Exhibit 1) clearly designates that TMI is the only team member identified as being responsible for PWS elements 4.2 and 4.3. The Past Performance Matrix (Attachment 16) states that “Work on PWS 4.2 and 4.3 will be primarily performed by our specialty subcontractor, TMI.” While QuantiTech, Inc. demonstrated past performance in PWS elements 4.1, 4.4, 4.5, no past performance was provided or was found by the ABT for PWS elements 4.2 and 4.3. RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC received the second highest possible rating for their management approach and the third highest possible rating for their Past Performance with the highest TEP. Considering the evaluation and findings of the ABT, I concur.

At the conclusion of the ABT’s presentation of findings, I was presented with two options.

Option A was to select potential awardee and award without discussions or to select Option B and Initiate Discussions.

I found that Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC had the highest possible ratings for all non-priced factors with the lowest TEP. The evaluation was complete for Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC and I had no further questions.

I found that Arrow’s Edge, LLC also had the highest possible ratings for all non-priced factors with the second lowest TEP. I have concerns with the proposal submitted by Arrow’s Edge, LLC regarding Attachment 6-1 and Attachment 6-2. The solicitation stated; “The Government reserves the right to award without discussions but may conduct discussions if the Government determines it is necessary.” Arrow’s Edge, LLC chose to alter both Attachment 6-1 and Attachment 6-2. The missing information in Attachment 6-1 and Attachment 6-2 is not necessary to determine their TEP. Arrow’s Edge, LLC clarification response states “A properly completed Attachment 6-1, “Pricing Schedule” was provided in our proposal.” However, Attachment 6-2 as submitted by Arrow’s Edge, LLC that utilizes “Unique Rates” leaves question as to what IDIQ customers will be charged under CLIN 0005. The evaluation was complete for Arrow’s Edge, LLC and I had no further questions.

I found that RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC had the second highest rating for Management Approach, the third highest rating for Past Performance, and the highest TEP. The lack of details pertaining to the fringe benefits along with the inconsistencies of TMI’s role within PWS 4.2 and 4.3 are both areas of concern that leave doubt that the proposed approach will be effective.

Furthermore, no past performance was provided or was found by the ABT for PWS elements 4.2 and 4.3. The evaluation was complete for Rsi-QuantiTech JV, LLC and I had no further questions.

The ABT presented their findings for each offeror. IAW FAR 52.212-1(g), which was incorporated into the solicitation by reference, “The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest;

accept other than the lowest offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received.” Based on the findings presented from the initial proposals and in order to preserve the integrity of the procurement process, I have determined it is not necessary to open discussions.

Therefore, I have elected to select Option A and award without discussions.

To make the selection, I first considered the evaluation of the proposals against evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP. The Solicitation stated; “The Government intends to award one contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government. This procurement is being conducted utilizing Best Value Selection (BVS), which seeks to make an award based on the best combination of price and non-price factors (Management Approach and Past Performance).

BVS predefines the evaluation factors that will serve as discriminators among proposals. BVS evaluation is based on the premise that, if all proposals are of approximately equal qualitative merit, award will be made to the Offeror with the lowest total evaluated price (TEP). However, the Government will consider awarding to an Offeror with higher qualitative merit if the difference in price is commensurate with the added value. Conversely, the Government will consider making award to an Offeror whose offer has lower qualitative merit if the price differential between it and other offers warrants doing so.”

IAW the evaluation criteria outlined in Attachment 15, Addenda to 52.212-2 Commercial Items, Paragraph (B) of the solicitation; Best value will be determined based on an integrated assessment of each proposal in terms of management approach, past performance, and price.

Therefore, subjective judgment by the Government is implicit in the evaluation process.

Management Approach and Past Performance are approximately equal. When combined, these two factors (Management Approach and Past Performance) are significantly more important than Price.

Because the non-priced factors were significantly more important than price, I considered the results of the non-priced factors (Management Approach and Past Performance) for all offerors to determine if any offeror received the highest rating it both factors, Management Approach and Past Performance.

After reviewing the ratings for all three offerors, two offeror’s, Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC and Arrow’s Edge, LLC received the highest ratings in both non-priced factors. RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC received the second highest possible rating for their Management Approach and the third highest possible rating for their Past Performance. The solicitation states that “BVS evaluation is based on the premise that, if all proposals are of approximately equal qualitative merit, award will be made to the Offeror with the lowest total evaluated price (TEP).” Since two proposals received the highest ratings for both non-priced factors, I then compared the TEP.

Alutiiq Essential Services submitted the lowest TEP, Arrow’s Edge, LLC submitted the second lowest TEP, and RSi-QuantiTech JV, LLC submitted the highest TEP.

Based on the selection criteria, there were no significant discriminators in the Management Approach or Past Performance to warrant awarding to an offeror with a higher price. In review of the higher priced offerors, it was noted that while two offerors may have received the same adjectival ratings for the non-priced factors, I found no benefit to warrant awarding to a higher priced offeror.

The decision to award to Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC, the offeror who received the highest ratings in both Management Approach and Past Performance, and who provided the lowest TEP represents the best value to the Government and to Stennis Space Center. Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC’s TEP of $36,511,105.46 is considered both fair and reasonable and is the most advantageous to the Government. As a result, award shall be made to Alutiiq Essential Services, LLC without discussions.

Gerald L. Norris Source Selection Authority

Gerald Norris Digitally signed by Gerald Norris Date: 2020.07.29 10:53:57 -05'00'