COSMOS Source Selection Statement.pdf

Source Selection Statement Contract for Organizing Spaceflight Mission Operations and Systems (COSMOS)

Solicitation 80JSC024R0003 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

On July 15, 2025, I met with members of the Contract for Organizing Spaceflight Mission Operations and Systems (COSMOS) Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to review initial findings and discuss material presented to me about the evaluation of the seven proposals received for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) COSMOS procurement, under Request for Proposals (RFP or Solicitation) 80JSC024R0003. The briefing, which detailed the SEB’s evaluation findings, was made to me in my capacity as the Source Selection Authority (SSA). Prior to the briefing, I was provided with the SEB evaluation findings to review, which I did before attending the briefing. In addition to myself, the briefing was attended by members of the SEB and senior-level NASA officials. During the briefing, the SEB reported its evaluation results. I considered the information presented, asked questions, received feedback from the advisors present, and accepted the findings of the SEB. Relevant portions of the SEB evaluation of proposals is set forth in this Source Selection Statement.

BACKGROUND

The purpose of COSMOS is to acquire services needed to ensure the availability, integrity, reliability, and security of the functional capabilities for command, control, and support of space vehicles and their payload elements which comprise the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) Mission Systems. The contractor shall provide support to the Mission Control Center Systems (MCCS), Training Systems (TS), Space Vehicle Mockup Facility (SVMF), and other FOD mission systems environments to include operations, development, modifications, sustaining engineering, maintenance, information technology (IT), cyber security, and communications security (COMSEC). These services also include mission preparation (“Plan”), crew, instructor, and flight controller training (“Train”), and real-time mission execution (“Fly”) activities to support for the Orion/Space Launch Systems (SLS) Programs, the International Space Station (ISS) Program, the Commercial Crew Program, Moon to Mars Program, and future NASA programs and missions. COSMOS will be a single-award IDIQ contract with the capability to issue Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF), Task Orders/Delivery Orders. There will be an option to unilaterally transition CPAF Task Orders/Delivery Orders to/from Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) at the discretion of the Government.

The COSMOS is the follow-on procurement to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Mission Systems Operations Contract (MSOC) that was awarded as a competitive single award hybrid, Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) contract.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

Request for Information (RFI) On February 8, 2024, NASA issued a Request for Information to solicit input from industry regarding acquisition strategies under number 80JSC024COSMOS and to provide industry with a copy of the current MSOC Statement of Work (SOW) and other pertinent documents.

Industry Day On February 27, 2024, NASA held in-person and virtual Industry Day for the COSMOS acquisition. Forty-eight companies participated in the event representing both prime and subcontractors. In-person one-on-one meetings occurred with a total of 15 interested parties on February 27-28, 2024.

Posting of Industry Day Questions and Answers On April 24 and May 30, 2024, NASA posted official responses to questions received during Industry Day, One-on-One meetings held on February 27, 2024, and RFI questions on SAM.gov.

Technical One-on-Ones On May 31, 2024, NASA held Technical One-on-Ones. The purpose of these Technical One-on- One sessions were to aid in the understanding of the technical requirements for Mission Systems Operations Contract (MSOC), Contract Number 80JSC017C0006.

Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) On September 12, 2024, NASA posted the COSMOS DRFP.

DRFP Question and Answers Posted On October 1 & 17, 2024, NASA posted the DRFP Questions and Answers.

Pre-solicitation Synopsis On October 11, 2024, NASA posted a pre-solicitation synopsis informing interested parties that NASA JSC planned to issue a Request for Proposal for COSMOS 80JSC024R0003 on or about October 25, 2024.

Request for Proposal (RFP) On October 25, 2024, NASA posted the RFP and associated documents on SAM.gov. The RFP initial proposal due date was December 9, 2024. The following COSMOS RFP modifications/amendments were issued:

• Modification 1 of the Final RFP posting, posted on November 7, 2024, provided the COSMOS Pre-Proposal Conference Charts and the Interest Parties List as of November 7, 2024.

• Modification 2, posted on November 19, 2024, included Amendment 1 of the Final RFP, which replaced the RFP (included updates to Section H, J, K, L and M of the RFP) and the Excel Attachment L-5a COSMOS Cost Price Template issued on October 25, 2024.

• Modification 3, posted on November 22, 2024, included RFP Questions and Answers and Amendment 2 of the Final RFP, which updated the COSMOS RFP due date from December 9, 2024, to December 13, 2024, and replaced page L-13 of the COSMOS RFP in its entirety.

• Modification 4, posted on November 26, 2024, included COSMOS RFP Questions and Answers and Amendment 3 of the Final RFP, which updated DRD-COSMOS-0009 Interrelationship Section reference from Clause H.5 Small Business Contracting Goals JSC 52.519-90 to Clause H.5, Small Business Subcontracting Goals JSC 52.219-90 and removed "Subcontracting Listing" from Table L-1: Overview of Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, Format, and Cross Referencing located in L.17 PROPOSAL

ARRANGEMENT, PAGE LIMITATIONS, COPIES, AND DUE DATES.

• Modification 5, posted on December 5, 2024, included RFP Questions and Answers and Amendment 4 of the Final RFP, which updated the DD254 Top Secret Facility Clearance Format from MS Word to Native Format in Section L.17 PROPOSAL

ARRANGEMENT, PAGE LIMITATIONS, COPIES, AND DUE DATES.

Pre-Proposal Conference On November 8, 2024, NASA hosted a Pre-Proposal Conference and Virtual Pricing Workshop.

Receipt of Proposals Seven proposals were timely received by the due date of December 13, 2024. The following Offerors submitted proposals (listed in alphabetical order):

• ASCEND Aerospace & Technology (ASCEND) (JV)

• Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH)

• CACI, INC.–FEDERAL (CACI)

• KBR Wyle Services, LLC (KBR)

• Mission System Partners, LLC (MSP) (JV)

• Peraton Inc. (Peraton)

• Science Applications International Corporation Inc. (SAIC)

Upon receipt of the proposals, the SEB conducted an initial review of the proposals to determine acceptability in accordance with NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305-70, “Identification of Unacceptable Proposals.” The SEB did not identify any unacceptable proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70. No late proposals were received. The SEB evaluated the remaining proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria established in the RFP. The evaluation criteria are further described below. The order of evaluation was determined in accordance with the COSMOS Evaluation Plan.

Exchanges with Offerors after receipt of proposals

On January 23, 2025, the Contracting Officer notified Offerors that Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility (DEIA) DRD-COSMOS-0016 under the Contract for Organizing Spaceflight Mission Operations and systems (COSMOS) Request for Proposal (RFP) 80JSC024R0003, would not be Evaluated per Executive Order (E.O.) titled, “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions.”

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The proposals were evaluated in strict accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Part 1815, and the COSMOS RFP. The RFP details the SEB Evaluation factors and criteria contained in Section M of the RFP.

Subfactors were evaluated in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The SEB carried out the evaluation activities in order to report its findings to the SSA, who is responsible for making the final source selection decision.

As stated in the RFP, the Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. This procurement was conducted utilizing a combination of mission suitability, past performance and cost/price evaluation factors. The lowest cost/price proposals may not necessarily receive an award. Likewise, the highest technically rated proposals may not necessarily receive an award. The evaluation factors were weighed in accordance with the criterion in the RFP:

• The combination of the Mission Suitability factor and Past Performance factor is significantly more important than the Cost factor.

• The Mission Suitability factor is approximately equal to the Cost factor.

• Mission Suitability factor is more important than the Past Performance factor.

• Cost factor is more important than Past Performance Factor.

The Government evaluated each offeror’s proposal using the factors and subfactors below as indicated in Section M of the RFP. Although proposals are organized by factors and subfactors, the Government evaluated the proposals for consistency among proposal information. The offerors were cautioned that a lack of consistency could lead to a weakness or deficiency in one or more of the factors or sub factors.

Therefore, all aspects of the offeror’s proposal was considered during the evaluation process, including the offeror’s proposed Model Contract.

MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR

The SEB evaluated each Offeror’s proposal in accordance with RFP M.4, Mission Suitability Factor (Volume I), which reflects that Mission Suitability factor is comprised of three subfactors, weighted as follows, for a total of 1,000 points:

Subfactors Weight Management Approach (MA) 450 Points Technical Approach (TA) 350 Points Small Business Utilization (SBU) 200 Points TOTAL 1000 Points

In accordance with the evaluation criteria for each set forth in M.4 for each subfactor, the SEB carefully reviewed each Offeror’s proposal, identifying as applicable: Significant Strengths, Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, and Deficiencies, as documented in its findings.

The SEB developed an adjectival rating and numerical scores in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(3) for each of the subfactors based on the identified Significant Strengths, Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, and/or Deficiencies.

Overall, Mission Suitability was numerically scored but was not assigned a summary adjectival rating.

PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

The SEB evaluated each Offeror’s Past Performance volume in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in solicitation provision M.5, Past Performance Evaluation (JSC 52.215-115) (JUL 2022) (Volume II). The SEB carefully reviewed each Offeror’s Past Performance for recency, relevance, and performance when determining a Past Performance Level of Confidence rating for each Offeror. More recent and more relevant past performance received greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than less recent or less relevant past performance. A Level of Confidence rating was assessed at the overall factor level for Past Performance after evaluating aspects of each Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance.

COST AND PRICE FACTOR

In accordance with M.6, Cost and Price Factor (Volume III) of the RFP, the Government performed the cost and price evaluation in accordance with FAR 15.305, Proposal Evaluation;

FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis; and NFS 1815.305, Proposal Evaluation. The COSMOS contract type structure determined the proposal analysis technique performed and ensured the final agreed-to price was fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.

The Total Evaluated Cost and Price (TECP) (which may reflect a probable cost adjustment) from the Cost/Price Volume takes precedence over the Offeror’s proposed price, and the TECP will be used by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) in making the source selection decision. The TECP will be the summation of the cost/price for the COSMOS contract’s Phase-In, Base Period, Option 1, Option 2, and 6-Month Option to Extend Services, to include proposed fee and will include any probable cost adjustments.

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The SEB evaluated each Offeror’s proposal that was determined to be acceptable in response to the COSMOS RFP. The following table depicts a summary of the evaluation results for each Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation factors for award. Offerors are listed in the order of evaluation which was determined by a random drawing.

Offeror Mission Suitability

Score

1,000 points

Total Evaluated Cost and Price:

Proposed/ Probable

($M)

Past Performance Confidence Rating

CACI 799.5 Highest High ASCEND 829 Lowest High KBR 758 Fourth Highest High Peraton 823.5 Third Highest Moderate SAIC 682 Fifth Highest High MSP 872.5 Sixth Highest Moderate BAH 675.5 Second Highest Moderate

CACI

Mission Suitability

The SEB evaluated CACI’s Mission Suitability proposal in accordance with the criteria defined in Sections L and M of the RFP. CACI’s proposal received an overall score of 799.5 out of 1,000 points for the Mission Suitability factor. The SEB identified a total of three Significant Strengths, seven Strengths, and three Weaknesses. No Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies were identified.

Below is a summary of the SEB’s evaluation of CACI’s proposal under the three Mission Suitability subfactors:

Offeror Mission Suitability

1,000 Points

Subfactor 1 Management

Approach

450 Points

Subfactor 2 Technical

350 Points

Subfactor 3 Small Business

Utilization

200 Points

CACI 799.5 315

GOOD

290.5

VERY GOOD

EXCELLENT

Mission Suitability Subfactor 1 – Management Approach

The SEB evaluated CACI’s overall Management Approach subfactor in accordance with the requirements of the RFP. The SEB identified three Strengths and one Weakness resulting in a rating of Good as explained in detail below. There were no Significant Strengths, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies identified.

The first Strength in CACI’s proposal under the Management Approach was for its Contract Management Plan. The proposed plan offers an excellent single team organizational structure bolstered by a simplistic and extensive approach to work, financial transparency, and tracking, using a Government accessible dashboard that combines these concepts to provide a benefit to the contract management of the COSMOS requirements and reduces the risk to the Government of excessive resource allocations in support of human spaceflight mission and development. The second Strength was for CACI’s proposed Staffing and Critical Skills Plan. CACI’s plan is complete, reasonable, and feasible, demonstrating understanding of the importance of development, operations, and facility continuity through contract transition and throughout the life of the contract by using a custom solution for knowledge management and competitive compensation plan. CACI’s proposal combines these concepts into an excellent and thorough Staffing and Critical Skills approach that reduces the risk to the Government of disruptions to continuity of operations due to attrition of these highly specialized and critical skills. The third Strength in CACI’s proposal was for its reasonable, feasible, and complete Phase-in Plan. Its Phase-In Plan provided an exceptionally detailed schedule, a phase-in manager, and a pre-phase-in tool set and processes at no cost to the Government. The plan reduces the risk to the Government of disruptions due to contract transition that would negatively impact human spaceflight missions.

The evaluated Weakness relates to CACI’s unreasonable approach to Uncompensated Overtime (UCOT) that is inconsistent across the Total Compensation Plan (CACI Volume I) and the Cost Price Narrative (CACI Volume III). CACI’s unreasonable approach will negatively affect employee morale, which, in turn, negatively impacts retention of employees with critical skills supporting all human spaceflight missions, which increases the risk to the Government of retaining critical skills needed to support human spaceflight operations.

To sum, because CACI’s Management Approach proposal was evaluated as having three Strengths, one Weakness, and no Significant Strengths, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies, and demonstrates a reasonably sound response, where weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly detract from CACI’s response, the SEB rated the proposal for this subfactor as Good in accordance with the definition in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A) as referenced in the RFP’s Section M.4.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach

The SEB evaluated CACI’s overall Technical Approach subfactor in accordance with the requirements of the RFP. The SEB identified one Significant Strength, four Strengths, and two

Weaknesses resulting in a rating of Very Good as explained in detail below. There were no Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies identified.

The Significant Strength in CACI’s proposal was for a complete, reasonable, and feasible Software Standards and Development Plan. The plan details a highly developed process with complete metrics, a proposal to exceed automated testing requirements, and includes security engineering early in the software development phase. This significantly reduces the risk to the Government of issues related to security, quality, and efficiency in software development.

The first Strength was for CACI’s reasonable and complete subset of innovation and process improvements. Innovation and process improvements included a predictive diagnostic tool, automation, extension of Agile process for enhanced metric tracking, and a concept to make use of the Backup Control Center (BCC) for critical needs. These improvements will reduce the risk to the Government by infusing new ideas to enable greater resource efficiency and enable more dependable and quality software to mitigate operational disruptions. The second Strength in CACI’s proposal was a reasonable, feasible, and complete innovation that provides a concept to enable containerization. The concept will enable an ability to deliver single software pieces as opposed to entire software packages while also enabling an ability to better secure mission systems. This will reduce risk to the Government by reducing cybersecurity incidents and disruptions to human spaceflight operations. The third Strength in the proposal related to a reasonable, feasible, and complete response to the Government personnel surge support scenario.

CACI provided solutions that allow for real-time response to the Government request coupled with an excellent structured surge request procedure. This greatly reduces the risk to the Government in being able to successfully execute in the highly dynamic environment of human spaceflight. The final Strength was for CACI’s reasonable and complete Safety and Health (S&H) Plan, which provided substantial employee involvement, a safety awards program, dedicated Space Vehicle Mockup Facility (SVMF) Safety & Health Officer, and in-depth safety performance reviews which reduces the Government’s risk to mishaps of contractor employees and/or damage to NASA property.

The first evaluated Weakness relates to CACI’s proposed unreasonable process for developing new or modifying existing security plans. CACI proposes that the Information System Owner (ISO) is a contractor function but does not detail the process required for that responsibility to be delegated. This will result in unacceptable risk leading to potential security vulnerabilities as this concept does not meet the underlying requirement for management of NASA Information Systems. The second evaluated Weakness was for CACI’s proposal not demonstrating an understanding of proper Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) verification/authority. This will lead to improper use of PPE by contractor employees and increases the risk to the Government of mishaps by not complying with OSHA guidelines and Johnson Space Center (JSC) Procedural Requirements (JPR) instructions.

To sum, because CACI’s Technical Approach proposal was evaluated as having a Significant Strength, four Strengths, two Weaknesses, and no Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies, and demonstrates over-all competence, where one or more Significant Strengths have been found, and Strengths outbalance any Weaknesses that exist, the SEB rated the proposal for this subfactor as Very Good in accordance with the definition in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A) as referenced in the RFP’s Section M.4.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 3 – Small Business Utilization (SBU)

The SEB evaluated CACI’s overall SBU subfactor in accordance with the requirements of the RFP. The SEB identified two Significant Strengths resulting in a rating of Excellent as explained in detail below. There were no Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies identified.

The first Significant Strength in CACI’s proposal is for a sound and reasonable subcontracting plan that greatly exceeds all categories of the recommended Small Business Utilization goals outlined in the RFP. CACI provides significant opportunities to develop numerous small businesses, increasing their ability to compete with other small and large businesses, and also decreases the risk to the Government of not meeting NASA's overall Small Business Goals. The second Significant Strength in CACI’s proposal is for its exceptional commitment to the small business program, which includes having subcontractors perform most work across the statement of work in areas of high technology, and two Mentor Protégé agreements. CACI demonstrates an impressive assurance to advance and mentor small businesses and the approach decreases the risk to the Government of not meeting NASA's commitment to use small businesses and to support their development.

To sum, because CACI’s Small Business Utilization proposal was evaluated as having two Significant Strengths and provides a comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit, and no Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies exist, the SEB rated the proposal for this subfactor as Excellent in accordance with the definition in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A) as referenced in the RFP’s Section M.4.

Cost/Price

As stated in M.6, the Government evaluated CACI’s total proposed cost/price. No probable cost adjustments were made to CACI’s proposal. As such, the TECP is the same as the total proposed price. CACI’s TECP is 19.4% higher than the lowest offeror’s probable cost and 4.4% higher than the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). The TECP is the highest of the COSMOS Offerors. The TECP was deemed to be fair and reasonable.

Past Performance

The SEB evaluated CACI’s Past Performance volume in accordance with the criteria defined in M.5 of the RFP and assessed CACI a High Level of Confidence rating.

The SEB examined multiple sources in evaluating CACI’s Past Performance record to develop a Confidence Rating in accordance with M.5. The SEB used the past performance information from proposal data required by provisions of Section L, information obtained by the evaluation team based on communications with listed references, as well as data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System and similar systems of other Governmental departments and agencies, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with client Program Managers and Contracting Officers, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. More recent and more relevant past performance received greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment.

The SEB evaluated eleven CACI contracts for relevancy: four were submitted in the Past Performance Volume; and seven contracts were identified in CPARS by the SEB. Of the eleven, three were Relevant, two were Somewhat Relevant, and six were Not Relevant. The SEB evaluated one V2X (Major Subcontractor) contract for relevancy that was submitted in the Past Performance Volume, and none were identified by the SEB in CPARS.

All twelve of the evaluated contracts are within the RFP recency period. Of the twelve total contracts evaluated, three were found to be Relevant, three were Somewhat Relevant, six were Not Relevant. One Relevant contract was determined to have Very Good performance while the other two both had Excellent performance. The Somewhat Relevant contracts for CACI were determined to have Excellent performance. The Somewhat Relevant contract for the Major Subcontractor had Excellent performance.

The SEB also considered the offeror’s proposed Program Manager. The proposed Program Manager had recent past performance of some of the content, complexity, and size as their proposed roles on COSMOS and was found to have Very Good and Excellent performance.

CACI’s safety, health and environmental past performance was considered Excellent by the SEB.

In sum, CACI’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition, demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Based on the CACI’s performance record, there is a High Level of Confidence that CACI will successfully perform COSMOS.

ASCEND

The SEB evaluated ASCEND’s Mission Suitability proposal in accordance with the criteria defined in Sections L and M of the RFP. ASCEND’s proposal received an overall score of 829 out of 1,000 points for the Mission Suitability factor. The SEB identified a total of two Significant Strengths, five Strengths, and four Weaknesses. No Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies were identified.

Below is a summary of the SEB’s evaluation of ASCEND’s proposal under the three Mission

Offeror Mission

ASCEND 829 373.5

VERY GOOD

255.5

VERY GOOD

The SEB evaluated ASCEND’s overall Management Approach subfactor in accordance with the requirements of the RFP. The SEB identified one Significant Strength, two Strengths, and three Weaknesses resulting in a rating of Very Good as explained in detail below. There were no Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies identified.

The Significant Strength in ASCEND’s proposal was for its Staffing and Critical Skills Plan.

ACEND’s Staffing and Critical Skills Plan thoroughly details a management structure to effectively manage the contract. ASCEND’s plan demonstrated understanding of the importance of continually building up knowledge and investing into its workforce by making use of (1) an exceptional training program to thoroughly develop all personnel, (2) an exceptional Award Fee sharing concept that will allocate a portion of award fee back to the workforce, (3) a concept of infusing cutting edge concepts and knowledge annually to build targeted training for COSMOS personnel, and (4) an exceptional use of reach-back workforce to manage unplanned attrition and surge support. ASCEND’s Staffing and Critical Skills Approach is exceptional, complete, and reduces the risk to the Government of disruptions to continuity of operations due to attrition of these highly specialized and critical skills.

The first Strength in ASCEND’s proposal was for its Contract Management Plan. ASCEND proposes an excellent single team organizational structure bolstered by a simplistic and extensive approach to work, and performance tracking detailed down to the facility and task level using a Government accessible dashboard that combines to provide a benefit to the contract management of the COSMOS requirements and reduces the risk to the Government of excessive resource allocations in support of human spaceflight mission and development. The second Strength in ASCEND’s proposal was for its Phase-in Plan. The proposed plan provided a detailed schedule, an excellent master plan with associated checklists, and well-detailed records inventory approach that reduces the risk to the Government of disruptions due to contract transition that would negatively impact human spaceflight missions.

The first Weakness relates to ASCEND’s Total Compensation Plan. ASCEND’s plan proposed a flawed and inconsistent usage of shift differential pay throughout proposal volumes which increases risk to the Government of not being able to retain critical skills and being unable to support human spaceflight operations. The second Weakness related to its Staffing and Critical Skills Plan. ASCEND proposed an employee incentive program that would result in pay imbalance amongst the workforce, which increases the risk to the Government of having unexpected attrition and a negative impact on employee morale. The final Weakness related to

ASCEND’s hiring approach. ASCEND’s proposed having the Government approve and directly influence contract leadership position hiring which puts the Government at risk of breaking defined Government and Contractor roles and responsibilities.

In sum, because ASCEND’s Management Approach proposal was evaluated as having one Significant Strength, two Strengths, three Weaknesses, and no Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies, and demonstrates over-all competence, where one or more Significant Strengths have been found, and Strengths outbalance any Weaknesses that exist, the SEB rated the proposal for this subfactor as Very Good in accordance with the definition in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A) as referenced in the RFP’s Section M.4.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach

The SEB evaluated ASCEND’s overall Technical Approach subfactor in accordance with the requirements of the RFP. The SEB identified one Significant Strength, three Strengths, and one Weakness resulting in a rating of Very Good as explained in detail below. There were no Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies identified.

The Significant Strength in ASCEND’s proposal relates to its Safety and Health Approach.

ASCEND’s proposed approach highlights its ability to maintain OSHA VPP Star status, implementing an exceptional safety approach, and outstanding employee involvement that is integrated into their Employee Safety and Health committee, which significantly reduces risk to the Government of mishaps to contractor employees and/or damage to NASA property.

The first Strength in ASCEND’s proposal relates to its Software Standards and Development Plan. ASCEND’s plan details a highly developed process complete with metrics, a proposal that targets beneficial areas for automated code testing, and a process that outlines exceptional inclusion of interfacing with the users of the human spaceflight software that collectively reduces risk to the Government by limiting operational disruptions due to unintended software errors.

The second Strength related to ASCEND’s Efficiencies and Innovative Techniques. ASCEND proposes using automation within software deployment and configuration. This excellent approach will reduce the risk to the Government by infusing new ideas to enable greater resource efficiency and enable more dependable and quality software to mitigate operational disruptions.

The final Strength relates to ASCEND’s response to a given Technical Scenario. Specifically, ASCEND’s response to the Government personnel surge support scenario provides solutions that allow for real-time response to the Government request coupled with resource flexibility, which greatly reduces the risk to the Government of not being able to successfully execute in the highly dynamic environment of human spaceflight.

The evaluated Weakness was for ASCEND’s Software Standards and Development Plan.

ASCEND’s plan proposes the use of multiple requirements tracking tools which increases the risk to the Government of inefficiencies in requirements management and additional Government resources to implement the referenced tools.

To sum, because ASCEND’s Technical Approach proposal was evaluated as having one Significant Strength, three Strengths, one Weakness, and no Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies, and demonstrates over-all competence, where one or more Significant Strengths have been found, and Strengths outbalance any Weaknesses that exist, the SEB rated the proposal for this subfactor as Very Good in accordance with the definition in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A) as referenced in the RFP’s Section M.4.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 3 – Small Business Utilization (SBU)

The SEB evaluated ASCEND’s overall SBU subfactor in accordance with the requirements of RFP L.19.3, Small Business Utilization (SBU), Mission Suitability Subfactor 3, which states, “All Offerors, except small businesses, must complete the portion of the instructions under Small Business Subcontracting specific to the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, (DRD-COSMOS- 0009). Small businesses are not required to submit Small Business Subcontracting Plans…” ASCEND, a mentor-protégé joint venture, is considered a small business under 13 CFR 121. As such, under the Small Business Utilization subfactor, the SEB had no findings and ASCEND was rated as Excellent.

Cost/Price

As stated in M.6, the Government evaluated ASCEND’s total proposed cost/price. No probable cost adjustments were made to ASCEND’s proposal. As such, the TECP is the same as the total proposed price. ASCEND’s TECP is the lowest of the COSMOS Offerors and 12.5% lower than the IGCE. The TECP was deemed to be fair and reasonable.

Past Performance

The SEB evaluated ASCEND’s Past Performance volume in accordance with the criteria defined in M.5 of the RFP and assessed ASCEND a High Level of Confidence rating.

The SEB examined multiple sources in evaluating ASCEND’s Past Performance record to develop a Confidence Rating in accordance with M.5. The SEB used the past performance information from proposal data required by provisions of Section L, information obtained by the evaluation team based on communications with listed references, as well as data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System and similar systems of other Governmental departments and agencies, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with client Program Managers and Contracting Officers, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. More recent and more relevant past performance received greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment.

ASCEND is a new mentor-protégé joint venture and does not have a record of past performance, therefore, the SEB evaluated seven contracts performed by the JV Partners for relevancy. Five contracts were submitted in the Past Performance Volume II. Two additional contracts were identified in CPARS and assessed.

All of the evaluated contracts are within the RFP recency period. Of the joint venture partners’ evaluated contract past performances, two were found to be Very Relevant, one was Relevant, and four were Somewhat Relevant. The two Very Relevant contracts were both determined to have Very Good Performance, the Relevant Contract was determined to have Satisfactory performance, and the four Somewhat Relevant contracts all had Excellent Performance.

The SEB also considered the offeror’s proposed Program Manager. The proposed Program Manager had recent Past Performance of much of the content, complexity, and size as the proposed roles on COSMOS. The SEB determined the proposed Program Manager’s Past Performance to be Excellent. ASCEND’s safety, health and environmental past performance was considered Very Good by the SEB.

In sum, ASCEND’s relevant Past Performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition;

demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Based on the ASCEND’s performance record, there is a High Level of Confidence that ASCEND will successfully perform COSMOS.

KBR

The SEB evaluated KBR’s Mission Suitability proposal in accordance with the criteria defined in Sections L and M of the RFP. KBR’s proposal received an overall score of 758 out of 1,000 points for the Mission Suitability factor. The SEB identified a total of two Significant Strengths, six Strengths, and two Weaknesses. No Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies were identified.

Below is a summary of the SEB’s evaluation of KBR’s proposal under the three Mission

Offeror

Mission

KBR 758 306

GOOD

VERY GOOD

The SEB evaluated KBR’s overall Management Approach subfactor in accordance with the requirements of the RFP. The SEB identified two Strengths resulting in a rating of Good as explained in detail below. There were no Significant Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies identified.

The first Strength in KBR’s proposal was for its Contract Management Plan. KBR’s proposed plan offered excellent processes and a management structure that includes an integration role that will be enhanced by KBR’s online platform that will merge management procedures and tools to improve successful contract management and greatly reduces the risk to the Government of excessive resource allocations due to miscommunication throughout contract execution. KBR’s second Strength relates to its Staffing and Critical Skills Plan. KBR’s proposed plan demonstrates an understanding of the importance of properly accounting for all critical skills and certifications while including robust incentives for hiring and retention centered around using their exceptional Strategic Talent Acquisition and Retention (STAR) tool and recruitment processes. This reduces risk to the Government of disruptions to continuity of operations due to attrition of these highly specialized and critical skills.

In sum, because KBR’s Management Approach proposal was evaluated as having two Strengths, and no Weaknesses, Significant Strengths, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies, and demonstrates a reasonably sound response, and weaknesses, if any, do not detract from the offeror’s response, the SEB rated the proposal for this subfactor as Good in accordance with the definition in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A) as referenced in the RFP’s Section M.4.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach

The SEB evaluated KBR’s overall Technical Approach subfactor in accordance with the requirements of the RFP. The SEB identified one Significant Strength, three Strengths, and two Weaknesses resulting in a rating of Very Good as explained in detail below. There were no Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies identified.

The Significant Strength in KBR’s proposal was for its Safety and Health Plan. KBR’s proposed Safety and Health Plan includes implementing an exceptional safety philosophy, maintaining OSHA Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) compliance, and other exceptional processes that integrate into an online dashboard which when combined form an exceptional process that significantly reduces the risk to the Government of mishaps of contractor employees and/or damage to NASA property.

The first Strength in KBR’s proposal relates to its Software Standards and Development Plan and Contract Security Management Plan. KBR’s demonstrates an understanding of how these plans will interact by highlighting implementing security concepts into the software development process as well as the secure concepts to using GitLab to manage the software development process. This reduces the risk to the Government by having a reliable, certified, and safe method for producing and certifying critical software and applications to be used throughout human spaceflight operations and development. The second Strength relates to KBR’s approach for implementation of innovations and efficiencies. KBR’s proposed approach offers a process and the use of corporate investment seed money to initiate new ideas that are approved by the Government. KBR’s proposed approach and investment reduces the risk to the Government by allowing efficient review and approval of new innovations and providing the ability to proceed with ideas even when the Government temporarily lacks resources. The final Strength relates to

KBR’s testing and system automation. KBR’s proposed testing and system automation provides excellent efficiencies and innovations like expanding automated testing, making systems more automated, and implementing containerization methods that combine to demonstrate a thorough and excellent response which reduces risk to the Government by infusing new technology and ideas to enable more efficient and safer processes to successfully operate in the dynamic environment of human spaceflight.

The first Weakness in KBR’s proposal relates to KBR’s Technical Data Requirements Description. KBR’s proposal references a non-existent DRD’s content and includes incorrect DRD references throughout proposal. This increases the risk to the Government of not having complete documentation in place for the quality needed to safely support human spaceflight operations. The second Weakness relates to KBR’s innovation process. KBR’s proposed process fails to provide enough detail on return on Investment (ROI) for the suggested technical improvements. KBR’s proposal did not include a complete explanation of risk identification and risk reduction methods, which increases the risk to the Government by not being able to fully understand and approve work prior to resource allocation.

In sum, because KBR’s Technical Approach proposal was evaluated as having one Significant Strength, three Strengths, two Weaknesses and no Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies, and demonstrates over-all competence, where one or more Significant Strengths have been found, and Strengths outbalance any Weaknesses that exist, the SEB rated the proposal for this subfactor as Very Good in accordance with the definition in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A) as referenced in the RFP’s Section M.4.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 3 – Small Business Utilization (SBU)

The SEB evaluated KBR’s overall Small Business Utilization subfactor in accordance with the requirements of the RFP. The SEB identified one Significant Strength, and one Strength resulting in a rating of Excellent as explained in detail below. There were no Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies identified.

The Significant Strength in KBR’s proposal relates to the Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The proposal includes having small business subcontractors perform all work across the statement of work in areas of high technology and Mentor Protégé agreements. Thus, KBR demonstrates an impressive assurance to advance and mentor small businesses which decreases the risk to the Government of not meeting NASA's commitment to use small businesses and to support their development.

The Strength in KBR’s proposal was for its commitment to the Small Business Program. The proposal exceeds all categories of the recommended Small Business Utilization goals outlined in the COSMOS RFP. The opportunities KBR provides to develop small businesses, increases their ability to compete with other small and large businesses, and also decreases the risk to the Government of not meeting NASA's overall Small Business Goals.

In sum, because KBR’s Small Business Utilization proposal was evaluated as having one Significant Strength, one Strength, and no Weakness, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies, and demonstrates a comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more Significant Strengths, and no Deficiency or Significant Weakness exists the SEB rated the proposal for this subfactor as Excellent in accordance with the definition in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A) as referenced in the RFP’s Section M.4.

Cost/Price

As stated in M.6, the Government evaluated KBR’s total proposed cost/price. No probable cost adjustments were made to KBR’s proposal. As such, KBR’s TECP is the same as the total proposed price. KBR’s TECP is 9.0% higher than the lowest offeror’s probable cost and 4.6% lower than the IGCE. The TECP is the fourth highest of the COSMOS Offerors. The TECP was deemed to be fair and reasonable.

Past Performance

The SEB evaluated KBR’s Past Performance volume in accordance with the criteria defined in M.5 of the RFP and assessed KBR a High Level of Confidence rating.

The SEB examined multiple sources in evaluating KBR’s Past Performance record to develop a Confidence Rating in accordance with M.5. The SEB used the past performance information from proposal data required by provisions of Section L, information obtained by the evaluation team based on communications with listed references, as well as data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System and similar systems of other Governmental departments and agencies, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with client Program Managers and Contracting Officers, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. More recent and more relevant past performance received greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment.

The SEB evaluated five KBR contracts for relevancy: four submitted in the Past Performance Volume II; and one contract was identified in CPARS by the SEB.

All five of the evaluated contracts are within the RFP recency period. Of the five total contracts evaluated, one was found to be Very Relevant, three were Relevant, and one was Somewhat Relevant. The Very Relevant contract was determined to have Very Good performance, two of the Relevant contracts had Excellent performance, one Relevant contract had Very Good Performance, and the Somewhat Relevant contract had Very Good performance.

The SEB also considered KBR’s proposed Program Manager. The proposed Program Manager had recent past performance of essentially the same content, complexity, and size as the proposed role on COSMOS and was found to have Very Good performance. KBR’s safety, health and environmental past performance was considered Excellent by the SEB.

In sum, KBR’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Based on KBR’s performance record, there is a High Level of Confidence that KBR will successfully perform the required effort.

PERATON

The SEB evaluated Peraton’s Mission Suitability proposal in accordance with the criteria defined in Sections L and M of the RFP. Peraton’s proposal received an overall score of 823.5 out of 1,000 points for the Mission Suitability factor. The SEB identified a total of four Significant Strengths, six Strengths, and six Weaknesses. No Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies were identified.

Below is a summary of the SEB’s evaluation of Peraton’s proposal under the three Mission

Peraton 823.5 369

VERY GOOD

262.5

VERY GOOD

The SEB evaluated Peraton’s overall Management Approach subfactor in accordance with the requirements of the RFP. The SEB identified one Significant Strength, two Strengths, and two Weaknesses resulting in a rating of Very Good as explained in detail below. There were no Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies identified.

The Significant Strength in Peraton’s proposal relates to the proposed Contract Management Plan and Work Breakdown Structure. Peraton’s proposed plan will effectively manage the contract and ensure successful contract execution. The proposed plan offers an extensive approach to work tracking integrated within an exceptional single team organizational structure and further enhanced with targeted notable corporate investments that innovatively and collectively provides a significant benefit to the contract management of the COSMOS requirements and greatly reduces the risk to the Government of excessive resource allocations in support of human spaceflight mission and development.

The first Strength in Peraton’s proposal relates to its Staffing and Critical Skills Plan. Peraton’s proposed plan thoroughly details a management structure to effectively manage the contract.

Peraton demonstrated understanding of the importance of properly accounting for all critical skills and certifications by expanding and providing an in-depth explanation on additional Peraton identified critical skills, while also including a robust talent program paired with a robust critical skills database to manage backfill and attrition. This reduces the risk to the Government of disruptions to continuity of operations due to attrition of these highly. The second Strength relates to Peraton’s Phase-in Plan. The proposed plan provides a detailed schedule, an excellent transition methodology, plans to use other contracts’ personnel to conduct inventory to reduce travel costs, and concepts to maximize communication between the Government, incumbent, and Peraton throughout phase-in that reduces the risk to the Government of disruptions due to contract transition that would negatively impact human spaceflight missions.

The first evaluated Weakness relates to Peraton’s Work Breakdown Structure numbering and labeling. Peraton’s proposal presented disorganized labels, which increases risk to the Government of future contract wide charging issues as WBS elements will incorrectly correspond to some charge codes. The second Weakness relates to Peraton’s Total Compensation Plan. Peraton’s proposed plan has inconsistent usage of certification pay across all its major subcontractors which increases risk to the Government of not being able to retain critical skills and being unable to support human spaceflight operations.

In sum, because Pertaton’s Management Approach proposal was evaluated as having one Significant Strength, two Strengths, two Weaknesses, and no Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies, and demonstrates an over-all competence where one or more Significant Strengths have been found, and Strengths outbalance any Weaknesses that exist. Therefore, the SEB rated the proposal for this subfactor as Very Good in accordance with the definition in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A) as referenced in the RFP’s Section M.4.

Mission…