Center Administrative Support Services II (CASS II) Source Selection Statement.pdf

Source Selection Statement for the

Center Administrative Support Services (CASS) II Acquisition

RFP 80MSFC20R0009

On May 17, 2021, I, along with senior officials from the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

(MSFC), met with members of the source evaluation team (SET) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the Center Administrative Support Services (CASS) II acquisition. The SET presented their findings to me for the purpose of making a source selection decision.

I. PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The CASS II request for proposals (RFP) was released on September 25, 2020. The scope of the

CASS II effort will include: Contract Management (PWS 1.0); Administrative Support Services

(PWS 2.1); Personnel Support Services (PWS 2.2); Administrative and Human Resources (HR)

Support Services (PWS 2.3); Travel (PWS 3.0); Training (PWS 4.0); Government Vehicle Usage

(PWS 5.0); and Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Services (PWS 6.0).

The effort will be performed under a firm-fixed-price (FFP) type contract with an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) component. The contract will consist of a one-year base period with four one-year priced options.

The Government designated this procurement as a 100% total Historically Underutilized

Business Zone (HUBZone) set-aside. The acquisition was assigned North American Industry

Classification System (NAICS) code 541611, Administrative Management and General

Management Consulting Services, with a corresponding U.S. Small Business Administration

(SBA) size standard of $16.5M.

Three amendments were issued in order to respond to industry questions and comments, make minor adjustment to the solicitation, and to extend the proposal due date.

On November 16, 2020, proposals were received from the following companies (listed in ascending order of lowest to highest total price):

1. CeleraPro, LLC (CeleraPro)

2. RightDirection Technology Solutions, LLC (RightDirection)

3. Cherokee Nation Aerospace and Defense, LLC (CNAD)

4. VMAX Solutions, LLC (Joint Venture) (VMAX)

5. PositivePsyche.biz Corporation (PositivePsyche)

6. Red River Science and Technology, LLC (RRST)

7. SSC-Deltha II, LLC (Joint Venture) (SSC-Deltha II)

8. Nexus Solutions, LLC (Joint Venture) (Nexus)

9. Prosperitus Solutions, LLC (Prosperitus)

10. LAUNCHTECH, LLC (LAUNCHTECH)

11. Muscogee Staffing Solutions, LLC (Muscogee)

12. PCI Productions, LLC (PCI)

13. Totally Joined for Achieving Collaborative Techniques, LLC (TJFACT)

14. Exceed, LLC

15. CMT Services, Inc.

16. Home Care Advantage, Inc. DBA HCA Staffing

17. ASG Solutions Corporation, DBA American Systems Group

18. Peak Resource Conservation, Inc., DBA PRC Engineering

19. Resource Associates of Nevada, Inc.

20. Mora Consultants, LLC

21. Oneida Business Enterprises, Inc.

22. Maven OFS JV, Inc.

23. Innovative Consulting & Management Services, LLC

24. The Data Entry Company

25. AVOSYS Technology, Inc.

26. KR3 Information Systems, Inc.

27. Lotus USA, Inc.

II. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The SET evaluated proposals in accordance with the RFP, FAR Part 12, Acquisition of

Commercial Items, FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, NASA FAR Supplement (NFS)

Part 1815, Contracting by Negotiation, and the CASS II Source Evaluation Plan.

The RFP listed two evaluation factors, Price and Past Performance, and stated that each of these factors was considered to be of essentially equal importance.

Price: The Government performed a price analysis of all responsive proposals received in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques. For evaluation purposes, the total price was established as the sum of (1) the mission services price for the contract period of performance, including all options; and, (2) an IDIQ price using the offeror-provided fully burdened rates applied to a pre-populated estimate of labor hours for each labor category for the contract period of performance, including all options (See Excel Pricing Model (EPM) Tab A-1, Summary of Total Price). The proposed Phase-in price did not factor in the determination.

Past Performance: In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2), the offeror’s past performance, including relevant federal, state, and local government and private contracts, and the past performance of any proposed subcontractors and individual joint venture (JV) partners, if applicable, was evaluated. This factor was not numerically scored, but was assigned a level of confidence rating (i.e., “Very High Level of Confidence,” “High Level of Confidence,”

“Moderate Level of Confidence,” “Low Level of Confidence,” “Very Low Level of

Confidence,” and “Neutral.”)

With respect to the RFP, the evaluation proceeded as follows:

Step 1: The Government reviewed offers to determine acceptability in accordance with NFS

1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. Offers determined to be unacceptable were not further evaluated.

Step 2: The Government evaluated all offers remaining from Step 1 in accordance with the

Section M provision entitled Volume I - Price Evaluation Price Performance Tradeoff (PPTO).

Offers determined to be not reasonable were not further evaluated.

Step 3: The Government ranked the offers remaining after Step 2 in order of lowest to highest total price.

Step 4: The Government evaluated the past performance of the lowest priced offer from Step 3 in accordance with the Section M provision entitled Volume II - Past Performance Factor

Evaluation. The evaluation continued in order of lowest to highest total price until either an offer was assigned a “Very High Level of Confidence” rating, or until all offers were evaluated. Once an offer was rated with a “Very High Level of Confidence,” no additional offers were evaluated.

All offers evaluated under the Past Performance factor were forwarded to the source selection authority (SSA).

Step 5: The SSA will make a best value award decision most advantageous to the Government.

The SET presented its findings to me on May 17, 2021. As part of this presentation, only the first

13 proposals (i.e., those of CeleraPro to TJFACT) were evaluated based on the methodology described above. Based upon the information presented, I determined the CeleraPro, LLC proposal to be the best value most advantageous for award of the CASS II effort.

The evaluation of proposals is summarized below.

CeleraPro

Under the Price factor, the CeleraPro, LLC proposal had the lowest total price of $18.996M.

Under the Past Performance factor, the CeleraPro, LLC proposal was assigned a “High Level of

Confidence” resulting from one significant strength and one strength as noted by the SET.

The significant strength is the exceptional performance of CeleraPro, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant Administrative Support Services for the General

Services Administration (GSA) Office of Administrative Services (OAS) contract

47HAA19F0020/47HAA018D0204.

The strength is the very good performance of LightGrid, LLC, CeleraPro, LLC's proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant Defense

Information Systems Agency (DISA) IE1 IT Project Management Services contract GS-35F-

077FA, task order HC102818F0001.

RightDirection

Under the Price factor, the RightDirection proposal had the second lowest total price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the RightDirection proposal was assigned a “Moderate Level of Confidence” resulting from one strength as noted by the SET.

The strength is the exceptional performance of RightDirection when serving as the prime contractor on the overall relevant U.S. Department of State (DOS) Bureau of Diplomatic

Security (DS), Professional Support Services (PSS) contract SAQMMA14D0091.

CNAD

Under the Price factor, the CNAD proposal had the third lowest total price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the CNAD proposal was assigned a “Moderate Level of

Confidence” resulting from one strength as noted by the SET.

The strength is the very good performance of Cherokee Nation Red Wing (CNRW), an affiliate of CNAD, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall relevant Aviation and Missile

Command (AMCOM), Security Assistance Management Directorate (SAMD), Non-Standard

Materials & Services contract W31P4-Q-11-C0298.

VMAX

Under the Price factor, the VMAX proposal had the fourth lowest total price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the VMAX proposal was assigned a “High Level of

Confidence” resulting from two significant strengths as noted by the SET.

The two significant strengths are:

(1) the exceptional performance of AWD Management Services, Inc., VMAX Solutions, LLC -

JV Partner (non-managing), when serving as the prime contractor on the overall very highly relevant NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Administrative Support Services II (JASS II) contract NNJ15RA34B; and

(2) the exceptional performance of AWD Management Services, Inc., VMAX Solutions, LLC -

JV Partner (non-managing), when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) Administrative and Facilities Management contract

W91238-15-P-0008.

PositivePsyche

Under the Price factor, the PositivePsyche proposal had the fifth lowest total price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the PositivePsyche proposal was assigned a “Neutral” level of confidence” resulting from no significant strengths, no strengths, and no adequate findings as noted by the SET.

RRST

Under the Price factor, the RRST proposal had the sixth lowest total price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the RRST proposal was assigned a “Moderate Level of

Confidence” resulting from one adequate finding rating as noted by the SET.

The adequate is the satisfactory performance of Red River Science & Technology, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall very highly relevant U.S. Air Force (USAF) Air

Combat Command Human Resources Multiple Functions contract FA489018R0009.

SSC-Deltha II

Under the Price factor, the SSC-Deltha II proposal had the seventh lowest total price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the SSC-Deltha II proposal was assigned a “High Level of

Confidence” resulting from two significant strengths and one strength as noted by the SET.

(1) the exceptional performance of Deltha Corporation, SSC-Deltha II - JV Partner (non-managing), when serving as the JV Managing Partner on the overall very highly relevant MSFC

Center-wide Administrative Services (CAS) contract NNM08AA28C; and

(2) the exceptional performance of Deltha Corporation, SSC-Deltha II - JV Partner (non-managing), when serving as the JV Managing Partner on the overall very highly relevant Ames

Research Center (ARC) Business Operations and Technical Support (BOATS) contract

NNA10EE58C.

The strength is the very good performance of Strategic Support Corporation, Inc., SSC-Deltha II

- JV Managing Partner, when serving as the JV Managing Partner on the overall relevant

Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Site

Administrative Support (SAS) contract DEFE0026066.

Nexus

Under the Price factor, the Nexus proposal had the eighth lowest total price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Nexus proposal was assigned a “High Level of

Confidence” resulting from one significant strength, two strengths, and one adequate finding as

The significant strength is the exceptional performance of Manufacturing Technical Solutions

(MTS), Nexus Solutions, LLC - JV Partner (non-managing)/Mentor, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall very highly relevant NASA Marshall Integrated Program Support

Services, Project Coordination (MIPSS PC) contract NNM13AA04Z, task order NNM13AA67T.

The two strengths are:

(1) the exceptional performance of RiVidium, Inc., Nexus Solutions, LLC - JV’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall very highly relevant

Department of Energy (DOE) Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) Desert Southwest

Region (DSW) Administrative Support Services contract GS02F183AA, task order

89503118FWA400106; and

(2) the exceptional performance of RiVidium, Inc., Nexus Solutions, LLC - JV’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Human Resources Shared Services Centers (HRSSC)

Technical and Administrative Support Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) contract

EPBPA17C0002.

The adequate is the satisfactory performance of Mb Solutions, Inc., Nexus Solutions, LLC - JV

Managing Partner/Protégé, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant

Army Materiel Command (AMC) Medical Logistics contract W9124P19C0034.

Prosperitus

Under the Price factor, the Prosperitus proposal had the ninth lowest total price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Prosperitus proposal was assigned a “Neutral” level of confidence resulting from no significant strengths, no strengths, and no adequate findings as

LAUNCHTECH

Under the Price factor, the LAUNCHTECH proposal had the 10th lowest total price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the LAUNCHTECH proposal was assigned a “Moderate

Level of Confidence” resulting from three adequate findings as noted by the SET.

The three adequate findings are:

(1) the exceptional performance of Erica Lane Enterprises, Inc., LAUNCHTECH, LLC's proposed subcontractor, when serving as a subcontractor on the overall very highly relevant

NASA Stennis Space Center Facility Operating Support Contract (FOSC) NNS07AB21C, subcontract JT-002;

(2) the very good performance of Ignite Fueling Innovation, Inc., LAUNCHTECH, LLC's proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant

Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Engineering and Support Services (MiDAESS) Agency

Operations Support Capability Group 5/MDA contract HQ0147-10-D-0002; and

(3) the satisfactory performance of The Oryza Group, LLC, LAUNCHTECH, LLC's proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall very highly relevant

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) contract HSSCCG-15-D-00002.

Muscogee

Under the Price factor, the Muscogee proposal had the 11th lowest total price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Muscogee proposal was assigned a “Neutral” level of confidence resulting from no significant strengths, no strengths, and no adequate findings as

PCI

Under the Price factor, the PCI proposal had the 12th lowest total price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the PCI proposal was assigned a “High Level of Confidence” resulting from one significant strength and two strengths as noted by the SET.

The significant strength is the exceptional performance of Media Fusion, LLC, an affiliate of PCI

Productions, when serving as a JV Partner (non-managing) of Alutiiq Fusion JV on the overall very highly relevant NASA Langley Administrative, Media, and Professional Services II

(LAMPS II) contract 80LARC18C0002.

(1) the very good performance of Media Fusion, LLC, an affiliate of PCI Productions, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall relevant NASA Center Administrative and

Technical Support Services (CATSS I) contract NND10AH15C; and

(2) the exceptional performance of Alcyon Technical Services JV, an affiliate of the Workforce

Innovations - JV Managing Partner (a proposed subcontractor of PCI Productions), when serving as the prime contractor on the overall very highly relevant NASA Technical Information, Administrative, and Logistics Services 2 (TIALS-2) contract NNC16CA11C.

TJFACT

Under the Price factor, the TJFACT, LLC proposal had the 13th lowest total price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the TJFACT, LLC proposal was assigned a “Very High

Level of Confidence” resulting from two significant strengths, two strengths, and one adequate finding as noted by the SET.

(1) the very good performance of TJFACT, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall very highly relevant Department of State (DOS) Vetting and Linguistics (V&L) contract

19AQMM19D0077; and

(2) the exceptional performance of TJFACT, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Medical/Scientific, Administrative, and Professional/Technical Support Services (MAPSS) contract

HHSD200201794526I.

(1) the exceptional performance of Hanks, Hanks, and Associates, LLC (HHA), TJFACT, LLC's proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall very highly relevant

NASA Center Administrative Support Services (CASS) contract NNM16AA10C; and

(2) the very good performance of Hanks, Hanks, and Associates, LLC (HHA), TJFACT, LLC's proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall relevant Department of Transportation Administrative and Program Support contract DTOS5915A00002.

The adequate is the satisfactory performance of TJFACT, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant Army 81st Readiness Division (RD) Maintenance, Repair, Administrative and Logistics Support Services (MRALS) contract W9124C19D0008.

III. SELECTION DECISION

The SET presented its evaluation findings to me and we thoroughly discussed these findings.

The findings developed by the SET were detailed and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the RFP. I questioned the SET with regard to the total prices, its rationale for the past performance findings, and the past performance level of confidence ratings. Consequently, I was in agreement with the SET’s assessment of fair and reasonable pricing across all proposals and was not able to establish a basis to question the assigned past performance findings or level of confidence ratings. Thus, I determined that the findings presented by the SET were reasonable and valid for purposes of making a selection decision. With respect to the process and findings, I concluded the evaluation plan was followed and the evaluation of the proposals was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. Further, I solicited the views of my senior officials in their area of expertise to help me make a best value tradeoff analysis utilizing the factors of Price and Past Performance.

While I agreed with the findings of the SET, I also recognized my responsibility as the SSA to examine the SET’s assessment of fair and reasonable pricing across all proposals, the past performance findings, and the past performance level of confidence ratings for each proposal. I used my independent judgment to determine the appropriate discriminators for purposes of the selection.

I then exercised my independent judgement regarding the significance of the findings as discriminators between proposals and concluded that the successful offeror representing the best value most advantageous to the Government for the CASS II acquisition is CeleraPro, LLC. A more detailed statement of the rationale for my decision follows.

CeleraPro vs. RightDirection

In comparing the CeleraPro proposal with the RightDirection proposal under the Price factor, the

CeleraPro proposal had the lowest total price (i.e., $18.996M) whereas the RightDirection proposal had the second lowest price. Therefore, I considered the CeleraPro proposal to have a slight advantage over the RightDirection proposal under the Price factor.

In an effort to understand the respective level of confidence ratings assigned under the Past

Performance factor, I compared the findings for each proposal.

The CeleraPro proposal (i.e., “High Level of Confidence”) received one significant strength and one strength as noted by the SET. The significant strength is the exceptional performance of

CeleraPro, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant

Administrative Support Services for the GSA OAS contract 47HAA19F0020/47HAA018D0204.

The strength is the very good performance of LightGrid, CeleraPro's proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant DISA IE1 IT Project

Management Services contract GS-35F-077FA, task order HC102818F0001.

In contrast, the RightDirection proposal (i.e., “Moderate Level of Confidence”) received one strength as noted by the SET. The strength is the exceptional performance of RightDirection when serving as the prime contractor on the overall relevant U.S. DOS DS, PSS contract

SAQMMA14D0091.

I also considered the performance demonstrated by each offeror in relation to the requirements of the four evaluated PWS areas and whether it demonstrated relevant performance across the breadth of these activities. The CeleraPro proposal, which had a significant strength and an additional strength, demonstrated exceptional performance across all four PWS areas (i.e., PWS

1.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3) and prior experience as a prime contractor. The RightDirection proposal, which had a single strength, demonstrated exceptional performance across only three of the four

PWS areas (i.e., PWS 1.0, 2.1, and 2.3), while also demonstrating experience as a prime contractor. As I considered CeleraPro’s single significant strength demonstrating exceptional performance history across the full breadth of the four evaluated PWS requirements sufficient to demonstrate that this firm is fully capable of performing CASS II requirements. In consideration of the above, I determined the CeleraPro proposal to have an advantage over the RightDirection proposal under the Past Performance factor.

I then proceeded with my best value tradeoff evaluation of the two proposals. The CeleraPro proposal had a slight advantage over the RightDirection proposal under the Price factor. The

CeleraPro proposal also had an advantage over the RightDirection proposal under the Past

Performance factor. As a result, based on the advantages demonstrated by the CeleraPro proposal under both factors, I determined that the CeleraPro proposal represents the best value to the

Government.

CeleraPro vs. CNAD

In comparing the CeleraPro proposal with the CNAD proposal under the Price factor, the

CeleraPro proposal had the lowest total price (i.e., $18.996M) whereas the CNAD proposal had the third lowest price. Therefore, I considered the CeleraPro proposal to have a slight advantage over the CNAD proposal under the Price factor.

CeleraPro, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant

Administrative Support Services for the GSA OAS contract 47HAA19F0020/47HAA018D0204.

The strength is the very good performance of LightGrid, CeleraPro's proposed subcontractor, In contrast, the CNAD proposal (i.e., “Moderate Level of Confidence”) received one strength as noted by the SET. The strength is the very good performance of CNRW, an affiliate of Cherokee

Nation Aerospace & Defense, LLC, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall relevant

AMCOM, SAMD, Non-Standard Materials & Services contract W31P4-Q-11-C0298.

breadth of these activities. The CeleraPro proposal, which had a significant strength and an additional strength, demonstrated exceptional performance across all four PWS areas (i.e., PWS

1.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3) and prior experience as a prime contractor. The CNAD proposal, which had a single strength, demonstrated exceptional performance across only two of the four PWS areas (i.e., PWS 1.0 and 2.2) based on performance of a meaningful affiliate rather than direct experience by the offeror. As I considered CeleraPro’s single significant strength demonstrating exceptional performance history across the full breadth of the four evaluated PWS requirements sufficient to demonstrate that this firm is fully capable of performing CASS II requirements. In consideration of the above, I determined the CeleraPro proposal to have an advantage over the

CNAD proposal under the Past Performance factor.

proposal had a slight advantage over the CNAD proposal under the Price factor. The CeleraPro proposal also had an advantage over the CNAD proposal under the Past Performance factor. As a result, based on the advantages demonstrated by the CeleraPro proposal under both factors, I determined that the CeleraPro proposal represents the best value to the Government.

CeleraPro vs. VMAX

In comparing the CeleraPro proposal with the VMAX proposal under the Price factor, the

CeleraPro proposal had the lowest total price (i.e., $18.996M) whereas the VMAX proposal had the fourth lowest price. Therefore, I considered the CeleraPro proposal to have a slight advantage over the VMAX proposal under the Price factor.

CeleraPro, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant

Administrative Support Services for the GSA OAS contract 47HAA19F0020/47HAA018D0204.

The strength is the very good performance of LightGrid, CeleraPro's proposed subcontractor, The VMAX proposal (i.e., “High Level of Confidence”) received two significant strengths as noted by the SET. The two significant strengths are: (1) the exceptional performance of AWD

Management Services, Inc., VMAX Solutions, LLC - JV Partner (non-managing), when serving as the prime contractor on the overall very highly relevant NASA JASS II contract

NNJ15RA34B; and, (2) the exceptional performance of AWD Management Services, Inc., VMAX Solutions, LLC - JV Partner (non-managing), when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant USACE Administrative and Facilities Management contract W91238-

15-P-0008.

breadth of these activities. The CeleraPro proposal, which had a significant strength and an additional strength, demonstrated exceptional performance across all four PWS areas (i.e., PWS

1.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3). The VMAX proposal, which had two significant strengths, also demonstrated exceptional performance across all four PWS areas (i.e., PWS 1.0, 2.1, 2.2, and

2.3). Thus, both offerors had relevant past performance across the entire PWS.

I also noted that both offerors had past performance as a prime contractor. However, in the

VMAX proposal, only the non-managing partner had past performance as a prime contractor. In addition, while both CeleraPro and its proposed subcontractor had relevant past performance, only the non-managing partner in the VMAX proposal had relevant past performance. Also, the non-managing partner in the VMAX proposal was responsible for both significant strengths.

Considering the extent to which the respective past performance references addressed the PWS areas and the past performance of the respective team members and their roles in the proposed effort, I was confident that both offerors could successfully perform the CASS II effort.

However, I found no basis to meaningfully discriminate between the proposals under the Past

Performance factor.

proposal had a slight advantage over the VMAX proposal under the Price factor. In addition, I found no basis to meaningfully distinguish between the proposals under the Past Performance factor. As a result, based on the slight advantage offered by the CeleraPro proposal under the

Price factor, I determined that the CeleraPro proposal represents the best value to the

CeleraPro vs. PositivePsyche

In comparing the CeleraPro proposal with the PositivePsyche proposal under the Price factor, the

CeleraPro proposal had the lowest total price (i.e., $18.996M) whereas the PositivePsyche proposal had the fifth lowest price. Therefore, I considered the CeleraPro proposal to have an advantage over the PositivePsyche proposal under the Price factor.

CeleraPro, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant

Administrative Support Services for the GSA OAS contract 47HAA19F0020/47HAA018D0204.

The strength is the very good performance of LightGrid, CeleraPro's proposed subcontractor, In contrast, the PositivePsyche proposal (i.e., “Neutral”) received no significant strengths, strengths, or adequate findings as noted by the SET.

breadth of these activities. The CeleraPro proposal, which had a significant strength and an additional strength, demonstrated exceptional performance across all four PWS areas (i.e., PWS

1.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3) and prior experience as a prime contractor. The PositivePsyche proposal, on the other hand, demonstrated no relevant performance across any of the four PWS areas, which resulted in the proposal’s “Neutral” rating. In accordance with the solicitation, I considered PositivePsyche’s performance record neither favorably nor unfavorably. As I considered CeleraPro’s single significant strength demonstrating exceptional performance history across the full breadth of the four evaluated PWS requirements sufficient to demonstrate that this firm is fully capable of performing CASS II requirements. In consideration of the above, I determined the CeleraPro proposal to have an advantage over the PositivePsyche proposal under the Past Performance factor.

proposal had an advantage over the PositivePsyche proposal under the Price factor. The

CeleraPro proposal also had an advantage over the PositivePsyche proposal under the Past

Performance factor. As a result, based on the advantages demonstrated by the CeleraPro proposal

CeleraPro vs. RRST

In comparing the CeleraPro proposal with the RRST proposal under the Price factor, the

CeleraPro proposal had the lowest total price (i.e., $18.996M) whereas the RRST proposal had the sixth lowest price. Therefore, I considered the CeleraPro proposal to have an advantage over the RRST proposal under the Price factor.

CeleraPro, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant

Administrative Support Services for the GSA OAS contract 47HAA19F0020/47HAA018D0204.

The strength is the very good performance of LightGrid, CeleraPro's proposed subcontractor, In contrast, the RRST proposal (i.e., “Moderate Level of Confidence”) received one adequate finding as noted by the SET. The adequate finding is the satisfactory performance of Red River

Science & Technology, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall very highly relevant USAF Air Combat Command Human Resources Multiple Functions contract

FA489018R0009.

breadth of these activities. The CeleraPro proposal, which had a significant strength and an additional strength, demonstrated exceptional performance across all four PWS areas (i.e., PWS

1.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3) and prior experience as a prime contractor. The RRST proposal, which had a single adequate finding, demonstrated only satisfactory performance across three of the four

PWS areas (i.e., PWS 1.0, 2.2, and 2.3), while also demonstrating experience as a prime contractor. As I considered CeleraPro’s single significant strength demonstrating exceptional performance history across the full breadth of the four evaluated PWS requirements sufficient to demonstrate that this firm is fully capable of performing CASS II requirements. In consideration of the above, I determined the CeleraPro proposal to have an advantage over the RRST proposal under the Past Performance factor.

proposal had an advantage over the RRST proposal under the Price factor. The CeleraPro proposal also had an advantage over the RRST proposal under the Past Performance factor. As a result, based on the advantages demonstrated by the CeleraPro proposal under both factors, I

CeleraPro vs. SSC-Deltha II

In comparing the CeleraPro proposal with the SSC-Deltha II proposal under the Price factor, the

CeleraPro proposal had the lowest total price (i.e., $18.996M) whereas the SSC-Deltha II proposal had the seventh lowest price. Therefore, I considered the CeleraPro proposal to have an advantage over the SSC-Deltha II proposal under the Price factor.

CeleraPro, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant

Administrative Support Services for the GSA OAS contract 47HAA19F0020/47HAA018D0204.

The strength is the very good performance of LightGrid, CeleraPro's proposed subcontractor, The SSC-Deltha II proposal (i.e., “High Level of Confidence”) received two significant strengths and one strength. The two significant strengths are: (1) the exceptional performance of Deltha

Corporation, SSC-Deltha II - JV Partner (non-managing), when serving as the JV Managing

Partner on the overall very highly relevant MSFC CAS contract NNM08AA28C; and (2) the exceptional performance of Deltha Corporation, SSC-Deltha II - JV Partner (non-managing), when serving as the JV Managing Partner on the overall very highly relevant ARC BOATS contract NNA10EE58C. The strength is the very good performance of Strategic Support

Corporation, Inc., SSC-Deltha II - JV Managing Partner, when serving as the JV Managing

Partner on the overall relevant DOE NETL SAS contract DEFE0026066.

breadth of these activities. The CeleraPro proposal, which had a significant strength and an additional strength, demonstrated exceptional performance across all four PWS areas (i.e., PWS

1.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3). The SSC-Deltha II proposal, which had two significant strengths and one strength, also demonstrated exceptional performance across four of the four PWS areas (i.e., PWS 1.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3). Thus, both offerors had relevant past performance across the entire

PWS.

I also noted that both offerors had past performance as a prime contractor or managing partner.

In addition, both CeleraPro and its proposed subcontractor had relevant past performance, and both SSC and Deltha II had relevant past performance. However, CeleraPro, as the prime contractor for the proposed effort, had a stronger record of past performance than the managing partner under the SSC-Deltha II proposal. Also, the non-managing partner in the SSC-Deltha II proposal was responsible for both significant strengths.

effort, I was confident that both offerors could successfully perform the CASS II effort.

proposal had an advantage over the SSC-Deltha II proposal under the Price factor. In addition, I found no basis to meaningfully distinguish between the proposals under the Past Performance factor. As a result, based on the advantage offered by the CeleraPro proposal under the Price factor, I determined that the CeleraPro proposal represents the best value to the Government.

CeleraPro vs. Nexus

In comparing the CeleraPro proposal with the Nexus proposal under the Price factor, the

CeleraPro proposal had the lowest total price (i.e., $18.996M) whereas the Nexus proposal had the eighth lowest price. Therefore, I considered the CeleraPro proposal to have an advantage over the Nexus proposal under the Price factor.

CeleraPro, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant

Administrative Support Services for the GSA OAS contract 47HAA19F0020/47HAA018D0204.

The strength is the very good performance of LightGrid, CeleraPro's proposed subcontractor, Under the Past Performance factor, the Nexus proposal was assigned a “High Level of

Confidence” resulting from one significant strength, two strengths, and one adequate finding as

A significant strength is the exceptional performance of MTS, Nexus Solutions, LLC - JV

Partner (non-managing)/Mentor, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall very highly relevant NASA MIPSS PC contract NNM13AA04Z, task order NNM13AA67T. The two strengths are: (1) the exceptional performance of RiVidium, Inc., Nexus Solutions, LLC - JV’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall very highly relevant

DOE WAPA DSW Administrative Support Services contract GS02F183AA, task order

89503118FWA400106; and (2) the exceptional performance of RiVidium, Inc., Nexus Solutions, LLC - JV’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant U.S. EPA HRSSC Technical and Administrative Support BPA contract

EPBPA17C0002. The adequate finding is the satisfactory performance of Mb Solutions, Inc., Nexus Solutions, LLC - JV Managing Partner/Protégé, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant AMC Medical Logistics contract W9124P19C0034.

breadth of these activities. The CeleraPro proposal, which had a significant strength and an additional strength, demonstrated exceptional performance across all four PWS areas (i.e., PWS

1.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3). The Nexus proposal, which had a significant strength and two strengths, also demonstrated exceptional performance across all four PWS areas (i.e., PWS 1.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3). Thus, both offerors had relevant past performance across the entire PWS.

I also noted that both offerors had past performance as a prime contractor. In addition, both

CeleraPro and its proposed subcontractor had relevant past performance, and both Nexus’ mentor and its proposed subcontractor RiVidium had relevant past performance. However, the proposed subcontractor under the Nexus proposal was responsible for both strengths.

effort, I was confident that both offerors could successfully perform the CASS II effort.

proposal had an advantage over the Nexus proposal under the Price factor. In addition, I found no basis to meaningfully discriminate between the proposals under the Past Performance factor.

As a result, based on the advantage demonstrated by the CeleraPro proposal under the Price factor, I determined that the CeleraPro proposal represents the best value to the Government.

CeleraPro vs. Prosperitus

In comparing the CeleraPro proposal with the Prosperitus proposal under the Price factor, the

CeleraPro proposal had the lowest total price (i.e., $18.996M) whereas the Prosperitus proposal had the ninth lowest price. Therefore, I considered the CeleraPro proposal to have an advantage over the Prosperitus proposal under the Price factor.

CeleraPro, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant

Administrative Support Services for the GSA OAS contract 47HAA19F0020/47HAA018D0204.

The strength is the very good performance of LightGrid, CeleraPro's proposed subcontractor, In contrast, the Prosperitus proposal (i.e., “Neutral” level of confidence) received no significant strengths, strengths, or adequate findings as noted by the SET.

breadth of these activities. The CeleraPro proposal, which had a significant strength and an additional strength, demonstrated exceptional performance across all four PWS areas (i.e., PWS

1.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3) and prior experience as a prime contractor. The Prosperitus proposal, on the other hand, demonstrated no relevant performance across any of the four PWS areas, which resulted in the proposal’s “Neutral” rating. In accordance with the solicitation, I considered

Prosperitus’ performance record neither favorably nor unfavorably. As I considered CeleraPro’s single significant strength demonstrating exceptional performance history across the full breadth of the four evaluated PWS requirements sufficient to demonstrate that this firm is fully capable of performing CASS II requirements. In consideration of the above, I determined the CeleraPro proposal to have an advantage over the Prosperitus proposal under the Past Performance factor.

proposal had an advantage over the Prosperitus proposal under the Price factor. The CeleraPro proposal also had an advantage over the Prosperitus proposal under the Past Performance factor.

As a result, based on the advantages demonstrated by the CeleraPro proposal under both factors, I determined that the CeleraPro proposal represents the best value to the Government.

CeleraPro vs. LAUNCHTECH

In comparing the CeleraPro proposal with the LAUNCHTECH proposal under the Price factor, the CeleraPro proposal had the lowest total price (i.e., $18.996M) whereas the LAUNCHTECH proposal had the 10th lowest price. Therefore, I considered the CeleraPro proposal to have a significant advantage over the LAUNCHTECH proposal under the Price factor.

CeleraPro, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant

Administrative Support Services for the GSA OAS contract 47HAA19F0020/47HAA018D0204.

The strength is the very good performance of LightGrid, CeleraPro's proposed subcontractor, In contrast, the LAUNCHTECH proposal (i.e., “Moderate Level of Confidence”) received three adequate findings as noted by the SET. The three adequate findings are: (1) the exceptional performance of Erica Lane Enterprises, Inc., LAUNCHTECH, LLC's proposed subcontractor, when serving as a subcontractor on the overall very highly relevant NASA Stennis Space Center

FOSC NNS07AB21C, subcontract JT-002; (2) the very good performance of Ignite Fueling

Innovation, Inc., LAUNCHTECH, LLC's proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant MDA MiDAESS Agency Operations Support

Capability Group 5/MDA contract HQ0147-10-D-0002; and, (3) the satisfactory performance of

The Oryza Group, LLC, LAUNCHTECH, LLC's proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall very highly relevant DHS USCIS contract HSSCCG-15-D-

00002.

breadth of these activities. The CeleraPro proposal, which had a significant strength and an additional strength, demonstrated exceptional performance across all four PWS areas (i.e., PWS

1.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3) and prior experience as a prime contractor. The LAUNCHTECH proposal, which had three adequate findings, with no findings for the offeror, demonstrated satisfactory performance history for one referenced contract, while demonstrating exceptional and very good performance history for subcontractor team members. However, I also noted that none of the subcontractors for whom past performance was evaluated had sufficient workshare to be considered a major subcontractor and therefore insufficient workshare to have meaningful influence to the contract as a whole. Additionally, the references demonstrated coverage of only one of the four PWS areas (i.e., PWS 2.1). As I considered CeleraPro’s single significant strength demonstrating exceptional performance history across the full breadth of the four evaluated PWS requirements sufficient to demonstrate that this firm is fully capable of performing CASS II requirements. In consideration of the above, I determined the CeleraPro proposal to have an advantage over the LAUNCHTECH proposal under the Past Performance factor.

proposal had a significant advantage over the LAUNCHTECH proposal under the Price factor.

The CeleraPro proposal also had an advantage over the LAUNCHTECH proposal under the Past

Performance factor. As a result, based on the advantages demonstrated by the CeleraPro proposal

CeleraPro vs. Muscogee

In comparing the CeleraPro proposal with the Muscogee proposal under the Price factor, the

CeleraPro proposal had the lowest total price (i.e., $18.996M) whereas the Muscogee proposal had the 11th lowest price. Therefore, I considered the CeleraPro proposal to have a significant advantage over the Muscogee proposal under the Price factor.

CeleraPro, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant

Administrative Support Services for the GSA OAS contract 47HAA19F0020/47HAA018D0204.

The strength is the very good performance of LightGrid, CeleraPro's proposed subcontractor, In contrast, the Muscogee proposal (i.e., “Neutral” level of confidence) received no significant strengths or strengths as noted by the SET.

breadth of these activities. The CeleraPro proposal, which had a significant strength and an additional strength, demonstrated exceptional performance across all four PWS areas (i.e., PWS

1.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3) and prior experience as a prime contractor. The Muscogee proposal, on the other hand, demonstrated no relevant performance across any of the four PWS areas, which resulted in the proposal’s “Neutral” rating. In accordance with the solicitation, I considered

Muscogee’s performance record neither favorably nor unfavorably. As I considered CeleraPro’s single significant strength demonstrating exceptional performance history across the full breadth of the four evaluated PWS requirements sufficient to demonstrate that this firm is fully capable of performing CASS II requirements. In consideration of the above, I determined the CeleraPro proposal to have an advantage over the Muscogee proposal under the Past Performance factor.

proposal had a significant advantage over the Muscogee proposal under the Price factor. The

CeleraPro proposal also had an advantage over the Muscogee proposal under the Past

Performance factor. As a result, based on the advantages demonstrated by the CeleraPro proposal

CeleraPro vs. PCI

In comparing the CeleraPro proposal with the PCI proposal under the Price factor, the CeleraPro proposal had the lowest total price (i.e., $18.996M) whereas the PCI proposal had the 12th lowest price. Therefore, I considered the CeleraPro proposal to have a significant advantage over the PCI proposal under the Price factor.

CeleraPro, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant

Administrative Support Services for the GSA OAS contract 47HAA19F0020/47HAA018D0204.

The strength is the very good performance of LightGrid, CeleraPro's proposed subcontractor, Under the Past Performance factor, the PCI proposal was assigned a “High Level of Confidence” resulting from one significant strength and two strengths as noted by the SET. The significant strength is the exceptional performance of Media Fusion, LLC, an affiliate of PCI Productions, when serving as a JV Partner (non-managing) of Alutiiq Fusion JV on the overall very highly relevant NASA LAMPS II contract 80LARC18C0002. The two strengths are: (1) the very good performance of Media Fusion, LLC, an affiliate of PCI Productions, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall relevant NASA CATSS I contract NND10AH15C; and (2) the exceptional performance of Alcyon Technical Services JV, an affiliate of the Workforce

Innovations - JV Managing Partner (a proposed subcontractor of PCI Productions), when serving as the prime contractor on the overall very highly relevant NASA TIALS-2 contract

NNC16CA11C.

breadth of these activities. The CeleraPro proposal, which had a significant strength and an additional strength, demonstrated exceptional performance across all four PWS areas (i.e., PWS

1.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3) and prior experience as a prime contractor. The PCI proposal also had a significant strength and two strengths and demonstrated exceptional performance across all four

PWS areas (i.e., PWS 1.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3). However, I was also cognizant of the fact that all of the referenced contracts were for performance by affiliates rather than direct experience by the offeror and its JV subcontractor team members. As I considered CeleraPro’s single significant strength demonstrating exceptional performance history across the full breadth of the four evaluated PWS requirements sufficient to demonstrate that this firm is fully capable of performing CASS II requirements, while having less confidence in the PCI proposal, based on the limited involvement of the affiliates for whom the references were provided. In consideration of the above, I determined the CeleraPro proposal to have a slight advantage over the PCI proposal under the Past Performance factor.

proposal had a significant advantage over the PCI proposal under the Price factor. The CeleraPro proposal also had a slight advantage over the PCI proposal under the Past Performance factor. As a result, based on the advantages demonstrated by the CeleraPro proposal under both factors, I

CeleraPro vs. TJFACT

In comparing the CeleraPro proposal with the TJFACT proposal under the Price factor, the

CeleraPro proposal had the lowest total price (i.e., $18.996M) whereas the TJFACT proposal had the 13th lowest price. Therefore, I considered the CeleraPro proposal to have a significant advantage over the TJFACT proposal under the Price factor.

CeleraPro, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant

Administrative Support Services for the GSA OAS contract 47HAA19F0020/47HAA018D0204.

The strength is the very good performance of LightGrid, CeleraPro's proposed subcontractor, Under the Past Performance factor, the TJFACT proposal was assigned a “Very High Level of

Confidence” resulting from two significant strengths, two strengths, and one adequate finding as noted by the SET. The significant strengths are: (1) the very good performance of TJFACT, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall very highly relevant DOS V&L contract

19AQMM19D0077; and (2) the exceptional performance of TJFACT, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant CDC MAPSS contract HHSD200201794526I.

The two strengths are: (1) the exceptional performance of Hanks, Hanks, and Associates, LLC

(HHA), TJFACT's proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall very highly relevant NASA CASS contract NNM16AA10C; and (2) the very good performance of Hanks, Hanks, and Associates, LLC (HHA), TJFACT's proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the overall relevant Department of Transportation Administrative and

Program Support contract DTOS5915A00002. The adequate finding is the satisfactory performance of Totally Joined for Achieving Collaborative Techniques, LLC (TJFACT, LLC) when serving as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant Army 81st RD MRALS contract W9124C19D0008.

breadth of these activities. The CeleraPro proposal, which had a significant strength and an additional strength, demonstrated exceptional performance across all four PWS areas (i.e., PWS

1.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3) and prior experience as a prime contractor. The TJFACT proposal had two significant strengths (one more than the CeleraPro proposal) and two strengths (one more than the CeleraPro proposal) and also demonstrated exceptional performance as a prime contractor across all four PWS areas (i.e., PWS 1.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3). While I considered CeleraPro’s single significant strength contractor demonstrating exceptional performance history across the full breadth of the four evaluated PWS requirements sufficient to demonstrate that this firm is fully capable of performing CASS II requirements, I also noted that the additional significant strength and strength of the TJFACT proposal also demonstrated their ability to perform the effort.