AEGIS SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR THE

Advanced Enterprise Global Information Technology Solutions (AEGIS) Procurement NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Solicitation Number 80JSC020R0039

On June 9, 2021, I, along with other key officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA or Agency or Government), Headquarters (HQ) and various NASA Centers including the Johnson Space Center (JSC), met via Microsoft Teams with members of the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals received in response to the Advanced Enterprise Global Information Technology Solutions (AEGIS) Request for Proposals (RFP) 80JSC020R0039. At this meeting, the AEGIS SEB presented its final evaluation findings to me. I posed a variety of questions to the SEB members and solicited their views as well as those of the key officials who were present.

I. BACKGROUND

The AEGIS procurement will consolidate contract support for Agency-wide secure telecommunications services, to include Enterprise Services, such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) phones, Wide Area Network (WAN), Local Area Network (LAN), and Mission Support Services, such as Mission Voice and support to Mission Flight projects. The Agency’s future need also is expanding to include Cloud Services, Data Center and Zero-Trust Architecture (ZTA).

AEGIS is a single award hybrid contract consisting of Cost-Plus Award Fee (CPAF) for the Core AEGIS requirements, with Award Term (AT), and Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), with an FFP Indefinite-Delivery-Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) feature. The AEGIS procurement is a full and open competition with the assigned North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541512 – Computer Systems Design Services. The Government anticipates a 2-year base period with a one 1-year option period and seven 1-year award terms. The total performance period anticipated (if all options are exercised) is from September 1, 2021 to August 31, 2031.

The IDIQ guaranteed minimum to be ordered under AEGIS is $100K and the potential IDIQ has a not-to-exceed value of $644M.

A Sources Sought Synopsis, 80JSC020NICS, was published on December 11, 2019, through the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website and the NASA JSC AEGIS Procurement website.

The SEB hosted a virtual Industry Day presentation on March 11, 2020 and conducted follow-on virtual one-on-one sessions with interested parties.

The draft Request for Proposals (RFP or Solicitation) was posted to the beta.SAM.gov1 website on July 31, 2020, with responses due on August 21, 2020. The final RFP 80JSC020R0039 was released through the beta.SAM.gov website on September 25, 2020. The SEB conducted a virtual Pre-Proposal Conference on September 30, 2020 and responded to written questions.

NASA issued a total of ten (10) amendments to the RFP, as follows:

1 On May 24, 2021, the General Services Administration (GSA) integrated the beta.SAM.gov and SAM.gov websites into the new SAM.gov website.

http:beta.SAM.gov http:beta.SAM.gov http:beta.SAM.gov http:beta.SAM.gov

Date Amendment to the RFP

Change

09/28/2020 N/A Pre-Proposal Conference Notice 09/29/2020 N/A Posting of Pre-Proposal Conference slides 10/06/2020 001 Extended the proposal due date to November 17, 2020 10/09/2020 002 Responses to industry questions 10/16/2020 003 Responses to industry questions 10/22/2020 004 Responses to industry questions/changes to RFP 11/09/2020 005 Responses to industry questions/changes to RFP 11/10/2020 006 Extended the proposal due date to November 20, 2020 11/13/2020 007 Responses to industry questions/changes to RFP 03/17/2021 008 Various corrections and clarifications, updates the period of performance, and revises the Attachment L-8 Electronic Pricing Model

04/04/2021 009 Updates various FAR clauses, revises ordering clause & updates Attachment J-19 Corporate Collaborative Services Price List

04/20/2021 010 Adds & revises clauses, Performance Work Statement (PWS), Section L, Attachment J-1 DRDs, Attachment L-8 EPM, and adds Attachments J-22 OCI Plan and J-23 VITS Asset Transition Value (ATV) Report

NASA received final proposals on November 20, 2020. There were three timely proposals received (details provided under the “Initial Evaluation of Proposals” section below).

II. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The AEGIS SEB conducted this competitive procurement using the Best Value Tradeoff process as outlined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1. The SEB evaluated proposals in accordance with FAR part 15, NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) part 1815, and Section M of the AEGIS RFP using the evaluation factors and subfactors outlined in the Solicitation. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. Specifically, Section M.2 of the RFP provides, in pertinent part: “Mission Suitability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Mission Suitability is more important than Past Performance, which is more important than Cost/Price.”

First, the SEB conducted an initial review of proposals in accordance with the FAR and NFS 1815.305-70 – Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. No proposals were eliminated from further evaluation during this step. The proposals were then evaluated against the evaluation factors per NFS 1845.304-70. In accordance with Section M.3 of the RFP, only the Mission Suitability factor was scored using a 1,000-point scale for the subfactors, as follows:

A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates Ve1yGood 71%-90% overall competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.

A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a reasonably

Good 51%-70% sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both.

As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly detrnct from the Contractor's response.

Fair 31%-50% A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.

A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant Poor 0%-30% weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to conect.

In accordance with the RFP, the maximum points available for a sub factor were multiplied by NASA's evaluated percentage for that subfactor to derive a numerical score. For example, if a subfactor wo1ih 200 points received a percentage rating of 80%, then the numerical score for that subfactor would be 160 points (i.e., 200 multiplied by 0.8). Also, in accordance with NFS 1815.370(h)(viii), an adjectival rating was assigned for each Mission Suitability subfactor, but an adjectival rating was not assigned for the total Mission Suitability factor of each Offeror's proposal.

In accordance with section M.4 of the Solicitation, the Past Perfo1mance factor considered Recency, Relevancy, and Performance to dete1mine an overall Past Perfonnance Confidence Rating as outlined below:

TABLEM-2

ADJECTIVAL RA TINGS FOR PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

Adjective Definitions

Rating

The Contractor's relevant past pe1fonnance is of exceptional meiit and is ve1y highly

Ve1yHigh pertinent to this acquisition; indicating exemplaiy pe1fo1mance in a timely, efficient, ai1d

Level of econ01nical maimer; ve1y minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall

Confidence perfonnance. Based on the Contractor's perfo1mance record, there is a ve1y high level of confidence that the Contractor will successfully perfo1m the required effort. One or more significant strengths exist. No significant weaknesses exist.

The Contractor's relevant past pe1fo1mance is highly pertinent to this acquisition;

High Level demonstrating ve1y effective perfonnance that would be fully responsive to contract of requirements with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, ai1d

Confidence econ01nical maimer for the most pa1t with only minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall pe1fo1mance. Based on the Contractor's perfo1mance record, there is a high level of confidence that the Contractor will successfully perfonn the required effo1t.

One or more significant strengths exist. Strengths outbalance any weakness.

Moderate Level of Confidence

The Contractor’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements;

reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Contractor’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the Contractor will successfully perform the required effort. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both.

Low Level of Confidence

The Contractor’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the Contractor’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the Contractor will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the Contractor’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements. One or more weaknesses exist. Weaknesses outbalance strengths.

Very Low Level of Confidence

The Contractor’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in one or more areas; problems in one or more areas which adversely affect overall performance. Based on the Contractor’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the Contractor will successfully perform the required effort. One or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses exist.

Neutral In the case of the Contractor without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Contractor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii) and (iv)].

Finally, for the Cost/Price factor, the SEB performed an analysis of each Offeror’s proposed Cost/Price to ensure that the final agreed-to prices are fair and reasonable. This analysis was done in accordance with the RFP and FAR 15.305, Proposal Evaluation, FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis, and NFS 1815.305, Proposal Evaluation. This Cost/Price analysis also followed the guidance outlined in section M.5 of the Solicitation.

Initial Evaluation of Proposals

As stated above, NASA received three (3) timely proposal in response the AEGIS RFP.

Proposals were received from the following companies, listed in the order they were evaluated:

Jacobs Technology, Inc. (Jacobs) Leidos, Inc. (Leidos) Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

After conducting the above-mentioned initial review in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, the SEB then conducted their evaluation of the three proposals in accordance with Section M of the AEGIS RFP, and applicable regulations including the FAR and the NFS. The SEB also reviewed each proposal for compliance with the instructions to Offerors in Section L of the Solicitation.

A summary of the initial results for the Offerors being considered for award are set forth in the table under “Discussions and Evaluation of Final Proposal Revisions” below.

COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION

On March 10, 2021, the initial results of the AEGIS SEB’s evaluation were presented to me, the Source Selection Authority, at the Competitive Range Determination briefing, which was held via Microsoft Teams. On March 17, 2021, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(1), Competitive range, I concurred with the Contracting Officer’s written determination that Leidos’ and SAIC’s proposals were the most highly rated based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, and should be included in the competitive range. Jacobs’ proposal was not one of the most highly rated proposals; therefore, Jacobs was not included in the competitive range.

Thereafter and as described below, the SEB engaged in discussions with Leidos and SAIC.

DISCUSSIONS AND EVALUATION OF FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

On March 17, 2021, Leidos and SAIC were informed of their inclusions in the competitive range. On the same day, Jacobs was notified of its exclusion from the competitive range. Jacobs timely requested a pre-award debriefing, which the Contracting Officer conducted on March 31, 2021.

In the March 17, 2021 letters to Leidos and SAIC, each company was provided the SEB’s findings for its proposal and notified that discussions would be conducted in two phases. Phase I, written response, to address any Model Contract Issues and Updates, Cost/Price Issues/Questions, and Weaknesses and Deficiencies for Mission Suitability findings. Both Offerors were notified that the written responses would be used by the SEB to promote full and open discussion during Phase II, oral discussions.

On March 24, 2021, Leidos and SAIC submitted their written responses to the Contracting Officer. Phase II oral discussions (virtual) were conducted with Leidos on April 8, 2021, and with SAIC on April 9, 2021. Through these discussions, the SEB agreed that each Offeror had sufficiently addressed its respective findings. Accordingly, on April 27, 2021, the Contracting Officer closed discussions and requested Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) from both Offerors, to be submitted by May 10, 2021.

The SEB then conducted its evaluation of the two FPRs in accordance with Section M of the AEGIS RFP, and applicable regulations including the FAR and the NFS.

The final evaluation results of the Offerors’ FPRs are summarized below:

and efficient cybersecurity approach, which includes efficiencies of cybersecurity metrics, enhanced dashboards, and utilization of Network, Security, & Operations (NetSecOps) solutions;

(2) a sustaining operations plan that balances Enterprise and Center needs and recommends efficiencies in various areas; (3) an enterprise portfolio management approach that optimizes utilization of on-premises and cloud computing services; (4) an extremely effective build and deploy process; and (5) migration to Agency Computing Services (ACS). The 12 strengths were assigned for: (1) a thorough innovation and strategy generation approach and innovation opportunity that will provide a highly customizable collaboration solution; (2) an approach for risk management that leverages solutions from associated contracts; (3) a transition plan for two options for IT Service Management (ITSM); (4) an approach to align with NASA’s utilization of IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) for ITSM; (5) a holistic and proactive approach for cybersecurity that includes collaboration, innovation, teamwork facilitation, and coordination across all Information Technology (IT) Programs; (6) an approach towards cybersecurity leadership support and innovation; (7) an approach to improving service quality and the overall customer experience; (8) an approach for providing a qualified and capable workforce; (9) a proposed infrastructure optimization approach; (10) a specialized services approach that balances technical and governance requirements; (11) an approach for transitioning Collaborative Services to Firm- Fixed Price; and (12) an approach for identifying and mitigation of risks for in-flight projects.

Under the Safety and Health Approach subfactor, Leidos received an adjectival rating of “Good.” Leidos received no (0) significant strengths, one (1) strength, and no (0) significant weaknesses, weaknesses, or deficiencies. The one (1) strength in this subfactor was assigned for a comprehensive approach to safety and health (S&H), which emphasizes training, employee responsibility, employee involvement in recognizing and responding to S&H issues, and corporate reach-back to S&H professionals.

Under the Small Business Utilization subfactor, Leidos received an adjectival rating of “Excellent.” Leidos received one (1) significant strength, and no (0) strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, or deficiencies. The one (1) significant strength was assigned for a comprehensive small business plan that exceeds all seven (7) of the RFP recommended SB goals, while reducing resources over the life of the contract.

Under the Past Performance Factor, Leidos received a “Very High Level of Confidence” rating. In assigning this rating, the AEGIS SEB evaluated all of Leidos’ relevant Past Performance data. The SEB determined that overall Leidos’ Past Performance is recent and relevant to this acquisition. The SEB determined the past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition; indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on Leidos’ total performance record, the SEB concludes that there is a Very High Level of Confidence that Leidos will successfully perform the required effort.

Under the Cost/Price factor, Leidos proposed the lower cost/price of the two Offerors in the competitive range. The NASA Cost/Price Analyst reviewed Leidos’ cost proposal and, in accordance with information gathered from the proposal, the AEGIS RFP, and associated documents, determined that no probable cost adjustments were necessary.

findings, I was mindful of the Solicitation’s three evaluation factors for award: Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. I considered their relative ranking as stated in the RFP. In this regard, the RFP provided: “Mission Suitability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Mission Suitability is more important than Past Performance, which is more important than Cost/Price.”

During the course of the presentation, I solicited and considered the views of senior NASA personnel (senior officials) who heard the presentation and who have responsibilities related to this procurement. I considered the SEB’s final evaluation slides along with the views of senior officials in informing my decision. I accepted the SEB’s Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price findings as reflected in the presentation slides and the Final Cost/Price Report. I found this to be a very close competition between the two Offerors and thus focused on identifying notable distinctions between their proposals.

In the Mission Suitability factor, I first considered the Management Approach subfactor (one of the two most heavily weighted ones). Each Offeror received a “Very Good” adjectival rating for this subfactor. I noted that each Offeror received a significant strength for proposing a significant corporate investment and that the investments proposed were very similar. Hence, corporate investment was not a discriminator in my award decision. However, I was able to identify some meaningful discriminators between the Offerors’ proposals in this subfactor. As noted above, while each Offeror received a “Very Good” adjectival rating for this subfactor, this does not mean that both Offerors had proposals of equivalent merit in this area. In fact, I noted that Leidos received one (1) additional significant strength as compared to SAIC in this subfactor (LEIDOS- SEB-033-MS_1) which was associated with their organizational structure aligned to Information Technology Service Management (ITSM) and a thorough understanding of Center, Mission, and Enterprise requirements. The other significant strength (Leidos-SEB-019-MS_1) was assigned for many reasons, including Leidos’ approach to either transition to an existing instance of NASA ITSM, or to stand up a new NASA ITSM instance of ServiceNow. Leidos proposes to allow NASA to choose one of these two ITSM options with no time constraints. Further, I noted three other discriminators in Leidos’ proposal in which it received strengths in the areas of cost control and risk management. I also noted that strengths were not assessed in SAIC’s proposal in these same areas. These three (3) Leidos strengths are as follows:

Strength (Leidos 027-MS-1) – Leidos’ proposed approach to contract management is robust, and it provides an efficient approach to cost control by consolidating technical capabilities and skilled labor through cross-training and cross-utilization as well as adopting more automation throughout the lifecycle of the contract leading to a reduction in staffing and technical service delivery costs.

Strength (Leidos-026-MS-1) - Leidos’ approach for risk assessment includes employing one risk manager to oversee the risk management teams for NASA End-use Services and Technologies (NEST) and AEGIS ensuring continuity across End-User, Communications, and Computing services.

Strength (Leidos-SEB-201-1) – Leidos’ proposal demonstrates an understanding of the life cycle costs of Audio-Visual (AV) and virtual meeting technologies. The approach presents a strength in cost avoidance to the subscription price of the AV hardware and software licensing as well as customer experience level metrics (XLAs) and detailed AV terms and conditions-captured in their model contract.

Finally, I noted that Leidos received a weakness (Leidos-SEB-034-MS_1) for its Total Compensation Plan for not fully following the bona fide fringe benefit requirement for the Health and Welfare rate. I find that this oversight is one that would be easily corrected during contract phase in and as such, did not consider it to detract from the overall strong merit of Leidos’ proposal under the Management Approach subfactor. In summary and based on the above analysis, I concluded that between Leidos and SAIC, Leidos has the superior Management Approach proposal.

Next, I turned my attention to the other most heavily weighted Mission Suitability subfactor, Technical Approach. For this subfactor, both Offerors received an adjectival rating of Excellent.

I was able to identify a few discriminators in this subfactor as well. Specifically, I noted that both Offerors received findings related to their cybersecurity approach. I noted that SAIC received a significant strength (SAIC-SEB-011-MS_2), for its Zero Trust Architecture approach, which demonstrates a transformational forward-thinking and holistic overall technical approach centered around a zero trust cloud-enabled network that leverages automation, Artificial Intelligence(AI) for Information Technology (IT) Operations, and Machine Learning (ML) to excel the modernization and digital transformation of AEGIS services across NASA.

In comparison, Leidos received a significant strength, LEIDOS-SEB-012-MS_2, and two (2) strengths (LEIDOS-SEB-010-MS_2 and LEIDOS-SEB-011-MS_2), all described below. Noting the significant strength, I was impressed with Leidos’ overall cybersecurity approach that identifies a significant equilibrium need (LEIDOS-SEB-012-MS_2) within the area of operational technology, between Enterprise and Mission, and recommends efficiencies of cybersecurity metrics, enhanced dashboards, and the utilization of Network, Security & Operations (NetSecOps) solutions. Leidos’ proposal defines a holistic and proactive approach for cybersecurity (LEIDOS_SEB-010_MS_2) that includes collaboration, innovation, teamwork facilitation, and coordination across all Information Technology (IT) Programs within NASA, as well as an effective and efficient approach (LEIDOS-SEB-011-MS_2) towards cyber leadership support and innovation and an effective strategy supporting NASA’s future goals of innovation and Cybersecurity with CISCO ISE, SDA, and Zero Trust Architecture. I also identified a strength discriminator in Leidos’ approach in the midst of NASA’s transition to a Mission Support Future Architecture Program (MAP) (LEIDOS-SEB-014-MS_2). Specifically, this strength, pertaining to sustaining operations, balances Enterprise and Center needs; provides access and availability to tool automation, integrates and aligns mission support across the enterprise (Corporate and Mission operations, Cybersecurity, and Compute services); and supports NASA’s transition of MAP objectives (aligned with OCIO’s ongoing transformation plans). Hence, I determined that the merit of Leidos’ cybersecurity approach outweighs that of SAIC’s approach.

Finally, I identified a discriminator in the area of improving service quality and the overall customer experience as set forth in Leidos’ strength (LEIDOS-SEB-007-MS-2). Leidos proposes supporting OCIO’s focus on Customer Experience by coupling development of new customer experience Service Level Agreements (SLAs), and expansion of traditional metric-based SLAs demonstrating an effective approach to improving service quality and the overall customer experience. Overall, for the Technical Approach subfactor, I determined that Leidos’ proposal possesses a slightly higher merit as compared to SAIC’s proposal based on the discriminators identified above, particularly in the area of cybersecurity.

I did not identify any meaningful discriminators between the two Offerors’ proposals under the other two Mission Suitability subfactors, Safety and Health Approach, and Small Business Utilization. Both Offerors’ proposals received “Good” ratings in the Safety and Health Approach, and both proposals received an “Excellent” rating in Small Business Utilization.

These last two subfactors were weighted the least heavily, and again, I did not identify any distinctions between the Offerors’ proposals in these subfactors, meaning I concluded that the proposals were of equivalent merit from both a Safety and Health and Small Business Utilization standpoint.

Next, in the Cost/Price factor, I examined the probable costs of the Offeror’s proposals and the SEB’s Cost/Price Report. I agree with the SEB's evaluation of the probable costs. I noted that Leidos was slightly lower than SAIC in both the probable and proposed total cost; the prices were less than one percent apart. I consider the difference in these amounts to be insignificant;

therefore, this factor is not a discriminator for award purposes. I also noted that per the Solicitation, Mission Suitability is more important than Past Performance, which is more important than Cost/Price.

For the Past Performance factor, Leidos and SAIC were each rated “Very High.” I did not identify any findings in this factor to indicate that one Offeror’s proposal was superior to the other. I agree with the SEB’s conclusions that there is a Very High Level of Confidence that both Offerors could successfully perform the required effort. Therefore, this factor was not a discriminator for award in my selection decision.

In conclusion, based on the foregoing and considering the contents in the SEB’s final presentation slides and the Cost/Price Report, I have determined that Leidos’ proposal is the most advantageous and represents the best value to the Government. In the most important factor, Mission Suitability, the above-identified discriminators present in Leidos’ proposal result in a proposal of overall stronger merit than SAIC’s proposal. I did not identify any discriminators in the Cost/Price factor (i.e., the Offerors’ proposed cost/prices were less than one percent apart) or in the Past Performance factor (i.e., the Offerors’ Past Performance proposals were of equivalent merit). Accordingly, I select Leidos Inc. for award of NASA’s Advanced Enterprise Global Information Technology Solutions (AEGIS) contract.

Digitally signed by JEFFREY JEFFREY SEATON Date: 2021 07.01 16:56:24 SEATON -04'00'

Jeffrey M. Seaton NASA Chief Information Officer Source Selection Authority