CASS Source Selection Statement.pdf

Source Selection Statement for Contract Audit Support Services (CASS)

RFP#: 80NSSC21R0018

I. BRIEF PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION AND TIMELINE

The proposed acquisition is for Contract Audit Support Services (CASS) in support of NASA Procurement Offices to perform a broad range of contract audits on NASA cognizant contractors.

The acquisition strategy provides for issuing Multiple Award IDIQ contract awards to each offeror who is determined by the Source Evaluation Team (SET) to be technically acceptable and has a past performance Level of Confidence rating other than “Very Low”.

The solicitation was issued on June 3, 2021. Amendment 1 was issued on June 11, 2021, and Amendment 2 was issued on June 22, 2021. Amendment 3 was issued on July 14, 2021.

II. NAMES OF OFFERORS SUBMITTING PROPOSALS

In response to the solicitation, initial proposals were received from the following offerors prior to the solicitation due date of 2:00PM on June 23, 2021:

1. Booth Management Consulting, LLC

2. Castro & Company, LLC

3. Deva & Associates PC

4. Hamilton Enterprises, LLC

5. Reed & Associates, CPAS, Inc.

6. Regis & Associates PC

7. SBC-Hoskins-BSC JV

8. Tichenor & Associates, LLP

While discussions were not held with each offeror, the SET determined that the solicitation prior to Amendment 0003 was not clear on how the Government would evaluate AICPA Peer Review Letters for joint ventures (SBC-Hoskins-BSC is a joint venture). The Government made the decision to specifically address joint ventures by amending “ATTACHMENT E:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD” via Amendment 0003 on July 14, 2021 with a response due by 1:00 PM EST on July 19, 2021. The Government specifically highlighted the changes via a bold blue font so that each offeror would have the opportunity to easily identify the changes. Additionally, the Government included a change log with each amendment to highlight the changes from the original solicitation.

All offerors responded to the CO via email. In their responses, Offerors 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 stated (or indicated by their lack of response) that there were no revisions to their original submissions.

Offeror 3 Deva & Associates PC and Offeror 7 SBC-Hoskins-BSC JV submitted revisions to their original proposal. NASA began its evaluation after Amendment 3 had closed, including the revisions made by Offeror 3 and Offeror 7. After evaluating its revisions and determining that its proposal and all its revisions rendered Offeror 7 unacceptable, the contracting officer noted that the revisions had been received an hour after the Amendment’s closing date. The contracting officer consulted with legal counsel to determine whether he should reject Offer 7 outright. In accordance with the advice received from legal counsel, the contracting officer determined that the government had waived its ability to reject the proposal outright by failing to promptly notify Offer 7 that hits proposal was late. Furthermore, the contracting officer recognized that the timeline could have been confusing as the initial timely for receipt of proposals was in CST whereas the amendment was bound by an EST closing time. Accordingly, the contracting officer did not hold the timeliness of Offer 7 against it.

III. DISPOSITION AND EVALUATION OF INITIAL PROPOSALS

The SET presented its initial findings to me as the CASS Source Selection Authority (SSA) via the written Source Evaluation Team (SET) Proposal Evaluation Results on September 14, 2021.

Based on those findings, and as authorized in FAR 52.212-1, I have made a determination that discussions are not necessary and intend to make the determination for award off initial proposals.

IV. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The following is a summary of the SET’s consensus for Technical Acceptability and Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating for each of the Offeror’s initial proposal.

Offeror Sub- Factor

Technical Acceptability Sub-Factor Description Overall Rating

Booth Management

Consulting, LLC

1.A AICPA Peer Review Letter Acceptable

1.B CASS Technical Verification Questionnaire Acceptable

1.C Product Work Sample 1 “Incurred Cost Audit - Audit Report Acceptable

1.C Product Work Sample 1 “Incurred Cost Audit - Audit Program Acceptable

1.D Product Work Sample 2 - Audit Report Acceptable 1.D Product Work Sample 2 - Audit Program Acceptable 2 Past Performance Level of Confidence High

Castro & Company

1.A AICPA Peer Review Letter Acceptable 1.B CASS Technical Verification Questionnaire Acceptable

1.C Product Work Sample 1 “Incurred Cost Audit - Audit Report Acceptable

1.C Product Work Sample 1 “Incurred Cost Audit - Audit Program Acceptable

1.D Product Work Sample 2 - Audit Report Acceptable 1.D Product Work Sample 2 - Audit Program Acceptable

2 Past Performance Level of Confidence Very High

Deva & Associates

1.A AICPA Peer Review Letter Acceptable

1.A Subcontractor or Teaming Partner AICPA Peer Review Letter Acceptable

1.B CASS Technical Verification Questionnaire Acceptable

1.B Subcontractor or Teaming Partner CASS Technical Verification Questionnaire Acceptable

1.C Product Work Sample 1 “Incurred Cost Audit - Audit Report Acceptable

1.C Product Work Sample 1 “Incurred Cost Audit - Audit Program Acceptable

1.D Product Work Sample 2 - Audit Report Acceptable 1.D Product Work Sample 2 - Audit Program Acceptable 2 Past Performance Level of Confidence High

Hamilton Enterprises

1.A AICPA Peer Review Letter Acceptable 1.B CASS Technical Verification Questionnaire Acceptable

1.C Product Work Sample 1 “Incurred Cost Audit - Audit Report Acceptable

1.C Product Work Sample 1 “Incurred Cost Audit - Audit Program Acceptable

1.D Product Work Sample 2 - Audit Report Acceptable 1.D Product Work Sample 2 - Audit Program Acceptable 2 Past Performance Level of Confidence Moderate

Reed & Associates

1.A AICPA Peer Review Letter Acceptable 1.B CASS Technical Verification Questionnaire Acceptable

1.C Product Work Sample 1 “Incurred Cost Audit - Audit Report Acceptable

1.C Product Work Sample 1 “Incurred Cost Audit - Audit Program Acceptable

1.D Product Work Sample 2 - Audit Report Acceptable 1.D Product Work Sample 2 - Audit Program Acceptable 2 Past Performance Level of Confidence High

Regis & Associates

1.A AICPA Peer Review Letter Acceptable 1.B CASS Technical Verification Questionnaire Acceptable

1.C Product Work Sample 1 “Incurred Cost Audit - Audit Report Acceptable

1.C Product Work Sample 1 “Incurred Cost Audit - Audit Program Acceptable

1.D Product Work Sample 2 - Audit Report Acceptable

2 Past Performance Level of Confidence Very High

SBC Hoskins-

BSC JV

1.A AICPA Peer Review Letter Unacceptable 1.B CASS Technical Verification Questionnaire N/A

1.C Product Work Sample 1 “Incurred Cost Audit - Audit Report N/A

1.C Product Work Sample 1 “Incurred Cost Audit - Audit Program N/A

1.D Product Work Sample 2 - Audit Report N/A 1.D Product Work Sample 2 - Audit Program N/A 2 Past Performance Level of Confidence N/A

Tichenor & Associates, LLP

1.A AICPA Peer Review Letter Acceptable 1.B CASS Technical Verification Questionnaire Acceptable

1.C Product Work Sample 1 “Incurred Cost Audit - Audit Report Acceptable

1.C Product Work Sample 1 “Incurred Cost Audit - Audit Program Acceptable

1.D Product Work Sample 2 - Audit Report Acceptable

2 Past Performance Level of Confidence Moderate

V. SELECTION DECISION

In accordance with the selection criteria outlined in FAR 52.212-2 of the solicitation, I have selected the following companies for award:

1. Booth Management Consulting, LLC

2. Castro & Company, LLC

3. Deva & Associates PC

4. Hamilton Enterprises, LLC

5. Reed & Associates, CPAS, Inc.

6. Regis & Associates PC

7. Tichenor & Associates, LLP

Each of these offeror’s proposal has been determined by the SET to be technically acceptable and has a past performance Level of Confidence rating other than “Very Low.”

SBC Hoskins-BSC JV is ineligible for award because its proposal did not meet the selection criteria delineated in the solicitation

Mike Vicory Source Selection Authority