CPSS PPC Source Selection Statement_Official Copy.pdf

Selection Statement for the Consolidated Program Support Services

Program, Planning, and Control Request for Proposals 80MSFC19R0010

On April 5, 2021, I, along with other senior officials from the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the Consolidated Program Support Services (CPSS) Program Planning and Control (PP&C) acquisition. The SEB presented their findings to me for the purpose of making a source selection decision.

I. PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The CPSS PP&C Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on October 4, 2019. The RFP requires the successful offeror to provide the necessary management, personnel, and materials to perform comprehensive PP&C services to support various programs and projects across the Agency through (1) PP&C Integration, Earned Value Management (EVM), Cost Estimating and Cost Analysis, Resource Data Storage and Retrieval Library (REDSTAR), Scheduling, and Risk Management; and (2) Programmatic Subject Matter Experts (SMEs).

The effort will be performed under a firm-fixed-price (FFP) type contract for PP&C Mission Services and indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) task orders, and time-and-materials (T&M) for Programmatic SME IDIQ task orders. The contract will consist of a one-year base period with four, one-year option periods.

The Government designated this procurement as a 100% small business (SB) set-aside under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 19.5. The procurement was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, and NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NFS) Part 1815, Contracting by Negotiation.

Five amendments were issued to the RFP to respond to questions from industry and to update various portions of the RFP.

On November 26, 2019, NASA received five proposals from the following companies (listed in the order of evaluation):

(1) AB Analytics, LLC

(2) Abacus Technology Corporation (Abacus)

(3) All Points Logistics, LLC

(4) InuTeq, LLC

(5) Manufacturing Technical Solutions, Inc. (MTS)

II. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The proposals were evaluated in accordance with the RFP, FAR Part 15, NFS Part 1815, and the CPSS PP&C Source Evaluation Plan.

The RFP listed three evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Price, and Past Performance.

The RFP stated Mission Suitability is considered slightly more important than either Price or Past Performance. Price and Past Performance are essentially equal in importance. Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. In accordance with the RFP, a best value tradeoff process, as described at FAR 15.101-1, was used in making the source selection.

The three evaluation factors are described as follows:

Mission Suitability: The subfactors used in evaluating Mission Suitability and their corresponding weights are listed below:

Subfactor 1: Management Approach 600 points Subfactor 2: Technical Approach 400 points TOTAL 1,000 points

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 offeror’s proposed price for the contract requirements was established as: (1) the sum of the PP&C mission services price for the contract period of performance, including all options; (2) an IDIQ PP&C price using the offeror-provided fully burdened rates applied to a pre-populated estimate of labor hours for each labor category, for each Center, for the contract period of performance, including all options;

and (3) a calculated value using the offeror-provided Other Direct Cost Indirect Rates applied to a pre-populated PP&C IDIQ ODC value, for the contract period of performance, including all options.

Past Performance: The Offeror’s past performance, to include relevant Federal, State, and local government and private contracts, and the past performance of any proposed subcontractors were 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,” or “Neutral”) in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2).

The SEB evaluated all five proposals and presented its findings to me on November 23, 2020. As a result, the contracting officer, with my concurrence, determined the Abacus proposal and the MTS proposal to be the most highly rated proposals for inclusion in the competitive range.

Discussions were concluded on February 26, 2021, and final proposal revisions (FPRs) were requested. FPRs were received by March 5, 2021.

The evaluation of the FPRs is summarized below.

III. EVALUATION OF FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

Abacus Technology Corporation

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the Abacus proposal received a total score of 896 out of a possible 1,000 points. Across the two subfactors, the proposal received three significant strengths and two strengths.

Under Subfactor 1: Management Approach, the Abacus proposal received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” and 528 points (out of a possible 600 points) based on one significant strength and two strengths.

The significant strength is the proposed comprehensive management approach which includes an Agency-wide, customer-focused, management organizational structure, promotes standardization and consistency across the Agency, provides a customer-focused, task order implementation lead, and allows for real-time task performance transparency.

The two strengths are:

(1) the proposed staffing approach which includes four aspects relative to staffing specialized personnel with the requisite unique skills and capabilities to perform both Mission Services and indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity requirements; and

(2) the proposed phase-in plan includes one aspect relative to the management organizational structure that utilizes an experienced management phase-in team and Center-specific phase-in teams, one aspect relative to efficient processes and systems to allow full transparency of phase-in activities, and one aspect relative to an accelerated time-phased approach for recruiting, hiring, and onboarding which should contribute to a successful transition of ongoing work.

Under Subfactor 2: Technical Approach, the Abacus proposal received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” and 368 points (out of a possible 400 points) based on two significant strengths.

The two significant strengths are:

(1) the proposed technical approach which demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of Program, Planning, and Control (PP&C) Integration, Earned Value Management

(EVM) and Scheduling that will allow for successful execution of Performance Work Statement (PWS) technical requirements; and

(2) the proposed comprehensive technical approach for innovation, process improvement, and standardization which should provide informed, skilled, and qualified support and standardized products to Program, Planning, and Control (PP&C) disciplines across the Agency.

Under the Price factor, the Abacus proposal was determined to be fair and reasonable and had the highest total proposed price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Abacus proposal received an adjectival rating of "Moderate Level of Confidence" based on two significant strengths and one strength that collectively covered four (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, 4.5 and 6.0) of the six PWS elements (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, and 6.0) while demonstrating that Abacus previously served in the capacity of a prime contractor.

The two significant strengths are:

(1) the predominantly exceptional performance of Abacus, when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Information Management and Communications Support (IMCS) contract, NNK08OH01C; and

(2) the predominantly exceptional performance of Abacus, when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant United States Air Force Engineering and Technology Acquisition Support Services (ETASS II) contract, FA8721-15-D-0009, Task Order 0002.

The strength is the predominantly very good performance of MRI Technologies, Abacus’ proposed subcontractor, when serving as a subcontractor on the highly relevant Johnson Space Center (JSC) Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) Space Operations Contract (ESOC), NNJ10TB01C, purchase order 5411267. The proposed subcontractor workshare for MRI Technologies is 9.5% of the combined CLIN 0002 and CLIN 0003 (i.e., PWS 4.0, PP&C IDIQ, and PWS 6.0, Programmatic SME IDIQ) yearly maximum value.

Manufacturing Technical Solutions, Inc. (MTS)

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the MTS proposal received a total score of 864 out of a possible 1,000 points. Across the two subfactors, the proposal received three significant strengths and three strengths.

Under Subfactor 1: Management Approach, the MTS proposal received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” and 480 points (out of a possible 600 points) based on one significant strength and three strengths.

The significant strength is the proposed management approach includes (1) three aspects relative to the management organizational structure which consist of various management positions who will coordinate Subject Matter Expert (SME) support at MSFC, enforce standardization initiatives, provide both regional and sustainable Agency-wide management as additional Centers onboard, and enhance customer-focused communications, and (2) one aspect relative to an Agency-accessible, automated tool that will effectively and efficiently manage task order performance for real-time transparency.

The three strengths are:

(1) the proposed staffing approach which includes four aspects relative to staffing specialized personnel with the requisite unique skills and capabilities to perform both Mission Services and indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity requirements;

(2) the proposed approach to motivate excellent performance across the offeror’s team through the deduction schedule for Performance Element 2 of Attachment J-8, Performance Requirements Summary (PRS); and

(3) two aspects of the phase-in plan which leverage multiple, Center-based, phase-in management teams, thereby contributing to a successful transition of ongoing work without disruption.

Under Subfactor 2: Technical Approach, the MTS proposal received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” and 384 points (out of a possible 400 points) based on two significant strengths.

The two significant strengths are:

(1) the proposed technical approach which demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of Program, Planning, and Control (PP&C) Integration, Cost Estimating and Cost Analysis, Scheduling, Earned Value Management (EVM), and Risk Management which should allow for successful execution of contract technical requirements; and

(2) the proposed comprehensive technical approach for innovation, standardization, and process improvement which should provide standardized tools and informed and skilled support to Program, Planning, and Control (PP&C) disciplines across the Agency.

Under the Price factor, the MTS proposal was determined to be fair and reasonable and had the lowest total proposed price ($157.7M).

Under the Past Performance factor, the MTS proposal received an adjectival rating of "High Level of Confidence" based on two significant strengths that collectively covered five (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.5 and 6.0) of the six PWS elements (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, and 6.0) while demonstrating that MTS previously served in the capacity of a prime contractor.

The two significant strengths are:

(1) the uniformly exceptional performance of MTS when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Marshall Integrated Program Support Services (MIPSS) Program, Planning and Control (PP&C) Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), NNM13AA04Z, Task Order NNM13AA65T; and

(2) the uniformly exceptional performance of MTS when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant NASA MSFC MIPSS Subject Matter Expert (SME) BPA, NNM13AA04Z, Task Order NNM14AA02T.

IV. SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

The SEB presented its evaluation findings for each proposal to me, and I carefully considered the detailed findings and the board's responses to my questions about those findings, the adjectival ratings, the point scores, the total proposed prices, and the past performance level of confidence ratings. I also solicited and considered the views of the officials who attended the SEB presentation, who have responsibility related to this procurement and understand the application of the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP.

I determined the SEB conducted a thorough and accurate review of the proposals according to the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP, identifying findings and explaining how it believed those findings would affect performance. The findings were detailed, consistent with the RFP, provided clear descriptions of the merits of each proposal, and supported the various ratings assigned. While I agreed with the findings of the SEB, I also recognized my responsibility as the source selection authority (SSA) to examine the findings, the point scores, the total proposed prices, and the past performance level of confidence ratings for each proposal, and use my independent judgment to determine the appropriate discriminators for purposes of the selection.

Based on a comparison of two proposals in the competitive range against the three evaluation factors and the relative importance of those factors, I select the proposal submitted by Manufacturing Technical Solutions, Inc., for award of the CPSS PP&C contract. The rationale for my selection follows.

Abacus vs. MTS

Comparing the Abacus proposal to the MTS proposal under the Mission Suitability factor, I noted the SEB assigned the Abacus proposal 896 points and assigned the MTS proposal 864 points. In an effort to understand the respective evaluations, I compared the findings for each proposal under both of the Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, the Abacus proposal received one significant strength and two strengths. In reviewing the findings under this subfactor, I studied the beneficial impacts to the CPSS PP&C contract. The one significant strength related to a proposed comprehensive management approach that includes (1) a sustainable NASA-wide solution that is Center-attentive and customer-focused (i.e., includes open and continuous communication and full transparency through the use of a secure web-based portal that supports project planning, tracking, reporting, and communication of contract performance that is accessible by NASA and customizable to user requirements) combined with (2) a management organizational structure that includes clearly defined roles, reporting requirements, and collaborative responsibilities of managers/leads within the Abacus team and to NASA (with emphasis on local operating environments, discussion of new or changing requirements and priorities, and maintaining communication on issues and remedial actions), (3) an advisory group that promotes growth through training via a PP&C Academy, and (4) key personnel responsible for hiring and fulfillment of the SME requirements. This comprehensive management approach promotes standardization and consistency across the Agency, provides a customer-focused task order implementation lead, and allows for real-time task performance transparency to programs and projects that greatly enhance the likelihood of effectively and efficiently managing, planning, controlling, reporting, and communicating the performance of services across NASA programs and projects.

In addition, the two strengths for the Abacus proposal related to: (1) the proposed staffing approach which includes four aspects relative to staffing specialized personnel with the requisite unique skills and capabilities to perform both Mission Services and IDIQ requirements by ensuring that incumbent personnel experience no loss in total compensation during the transition period, leveraging established contingent consulting agreements with the SME workforce and accessing a large pool of qualified SME candidates, establishing a PP&C Academy for professional development, training, and a certification program for the entire workforce to increase PP&C knowledge and skills (i.e., with corporate emphasis placed upon building a better PP&C practitioner), and supporting relocation of employees to support critical mission requirements and retain unique expertise; and (2) the proposed phase-in plan which includes one aspect relative to the management organizational structure that utilizes an experienced management phase-in team and Center-specific phase-in teams/leads (which are located at each NASA Center to provide simultaneous, local, and immediate support for phase-in activities), one aspect relative to efficient processes and systems to allow full transparency (to NASA) of phase-in activities (i.e., use of the Offeror’s integrated business management system that stores all phase-in related documents used to communicate and track phase-in activities), and one aspect relative to an accelerated time-phased approach for recruiting, hiring, and onboarding all labor categories within the first 30 days (with incumbent personnel hired within the first 15 days) through a web-based staffing and resource tool, which should contribute to a successful transition of ongoing work.

The MTS proposal, on the other hand, received one significant strength and three strengths under the Management Approach subfactor. In reviewing the findings under this subfactor, I studied the beneficial impacts to the CPSS PP&C contract. The one significant strength related to the proposed management approach includes three aspects relative to the management organizational structure which consist of various management positions who will coordinate SME support at MSFC, enforce standardization initiatives across the Team Leads, provide both regional management roles (i.e., JSC, Armstrong

Flight Research Center, Ames Research Center, and Glenn Research Center) and sustainable NASA-wide management as additional Centers onboard (to include directly interfacing with Center contracting officers and NASA Technical Monitors), and enhance customer-focused communications (i.e., a Program Manager who travels at no additional cost to all NASA Centers to discuss contract capabilities and services via an ordering guide), and one aspect relative to a NASA-accessible, automated SharePoint-based tool that will effectively and efficiently manage task order performance and allow real-time transparency through a dashboard that tracks task order planning, status, and funding with on-demand customizable task order reports. These aspects of the proposed management approach greatly enhance the likelihood of effectively and efficiently managing, planning, controlling, reporting, and communicating the performance of services across NASA programs and projects.

In addition, the three strengths for the MTS proposal related to: (1) the proposed staffing approach which includes four aspects relative to staffing specialized personnel with the requisite unique skills and capabilities to perform both Mission Services and IDIQ requirements (e.g., retaining incumbents by maintaining benefits, recognizing seniority for benefits accrual, and ensuring no salary adjustments for all but one of the 83.35 work year equivalents, using an established rapid recruiting process that enables fulfillment of vacancies in an average of 10 days, using a SME Bank to search for expertise, skills, program experience, and availability of SMEs, applying a multi-faceted approach to improve and expand employee skills, and partnering with a local university and funding a 2-year PP&C curriculum that establishes an intern program for future growth) which increase the likelihood of staffing contract requirements with qualified personnel throughout the life of the contract; (2) the proposed approach to motivate excellent performance across MTS’s team through the deduction schedule for Performance Element 2 of Attachment J-8, Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) which will motivate the workforce to deliver consistently high levels of customer service via an employee annual profit-sharing pool tied to “Excellent” customer survey ratings; and (3) the two aspects of the detailed, phase-in plan which leverage multiple, Center-based, phase-in management teams (with specific responsibilities and lines of communication related to phase-in of mission services and IDIQ requirements at MSFC versus other NASA Centers), thereby contributing to a successful transition of ongoing work without disruption.

In comparing the Abacus proposal with the MTS proposal under the more heavily-weighted Management Approach subfactor, I noted that both offerors had one significant strength in relation to their proposed general management approach (and organizational structure). Specifically, both offerors provided a sustainable approach to support other Centers as they onboard and emphasized a customer-focused approach that greatly enhances the likelihood of effectively and efficiently managing, planning, controlling, reporting, and communicating the performance of services across NASA programs and projects. In addition, both offerors proposed enhanced communications and a NASA-accessible, dashboard tool that will effectively and efficiently manage task order performance and allow real-time transparency to track task order planning, status, and funding with on-demand, customizable task order reports. However, in my view, the

Abacus proposal included a more robust organizational structure with detailed, clear lines of communication and an emphasis upon collaborative responsibilities across the team and NASA (including the use of an Innovation and Advisory Group of senior PP&C management personnel who guide the contract management team and also train and certify all employees at the PP&C Academy) while consistently emphasizing the Abacus’ plan to build a better PP&C practitioner through structured training that will increase knowledge and skills.

Next, I compared the strengths for each offeror. Both offerors received a strength relative to four aspects of their proposed staffing approach which increases the likelihood of staffing contract requirements with qualified personnel throughout the contract duration.

Specifically, both offerors will retain incumbent personnel benefits, seniority, and salaries (although MTS acknowledged that the Scheduler 1 position will require a reduction in skill level requirements and a corresponding salary adjustment on the CPSS PP&C contract), and both offerors will leverage either contingent agreements or a SME Bank to identify and hire qualified SMEs. In addition, MTS proposed a rapid recruiting process that averages only ten days to fulfill staffing vacancies. I noted that Abacus proposed the establishment of a PP&C Academy for professional development, training, and certification for the entire workforce (NASA-wide) that will increase PP&C knowledge and skills whereas MTS proposed the use of a talent program, mentoring program, and funded partnership with a local university to establish a PP&C curriculum and internship program for future growth. In my opinion, both offerors provided relatively equal advantages in staffing the CPSS PP&C effort through retention of the incumbent personnel and identification and hiring of SMEs; however, Abacus’ proposed PP&C Academy appears to provide a more rapidly-implemented, structured, NASA-wide training program when compared to MTS’s proposed talent program, mentoring program, and local university curriculum and internship program.

Both offerors also received a strength relative to their proposed phase-in plan that will enhance the likelihood of a successful contract transition. In my view, however, the phase-in approach of Abacus was more robust and responsive to the customer needs in light of the geographic diversity of the CPSS PP&C efforts. Specifically, Abacus proposed the use of separate phase-in teams with a Center-specific lead (located at each Center in order to provide simultaneous, local, and immediate support for phase-in activities) whereas MTS proposed two phase-in teams (one team for MSFC and one team for the remaining Centers). In addition, Abacus proposed the use of its integrated business management system to communicate and track phase-in requirements (which allows full transparency for all phase-in team members and NASA) and an accelerated time-phased approach to staff all labor category positions within 30 days (and incumbent personnel within the first 15 days) while onboarding and training all employees within the first 60 days of the phase-in period.

Finally, I noted that MTS had one additional strength for its proposed approach to motivate excellent performance across the team through the deduction schedule for Performance Element 2 of Attachment J-8, Performance Requirements Summary (PRS).

Specifically, the PRS deduction schedule includes the use of an annual employee profit-sharing pool that is tied to “Excellent” customer ratings which should motivate the workforce to deliver consistently high levels of customer service.

Although the MTS proposal has one additional strength and both offerors had a “very good” management approach, I considered the truly comprehensive nature of Abacus’ management approach, an organizational structure which includes clearly defined roles, reporting requirements, and collaborative responsibilities of managers/leads within the Abacus team and to NASA (with its emphasis on local operating environments), the robustness of their proposed phase-in plan (e.g., a phase-in team located at each NASA Center, an integrated business management system to track phase-in activities, and accelerated staffing and training), and the corporate emphasis upon training and certifying all employees through their PP&C Academy (i.e., to build a better PP&C practitioner) to be more advantageous than MTS’s management approach in light of the NASA-wide nature, the timing associated with onboarding different Centers and their need for IDIQ efforts, and the geographic diversity of the CPSS PP&C effort. For these reasons, I determined the Abacus proposal had an advantage over the MTS proposal under the Management Approach subfactor.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the Abacus proposal received two significant strengths. In reviewing the findings under this subfactor, I studied the beneficial impacts to the CPSS PP&C contract. The two significant strengths related to: (1) the proposed technical approach which demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of (a) PP&C Integration (e.g., acknowledgement of its role in Agency Baseline Commitment and Key Decision Point products, acknowledgment of appropriate staffing and changing responsibilities for the senior and skilled personnel who fulfill this discipline requirement, and demonstrating comprehensive knowledge of Agency priority shifts, fiscal constraints, and challenges of limited resources while outlining life cycle phase products and the interrelationships between PP&C disciplines), (b) EVM (e.g., both the EVM process and its integration with project development life cycle as well as the role of EVM analysts who fulfill this discipline requirement), and (c) Scheduling (e.g., recognition that Scheduling is the core PP&C discipline which acts as a major project driver and the importance of involving senior schedulers in planning phases) that will allow for successful execution of PWS technical requirements; and (2) the proposed comprehensive technical approach for innovation, process improvement, and standardization which should provide informed, skilled, and qualified support and standardized products to PP&C disciplines across the Agency (e.g., including the PP&C Academy which closely aligns with the NASA Chief Financial Officer University, job sharing and cross training, a professional intern program, a continuous improvement initiative, and standardized PP&C reporting process across the Agency) while ensuring quality and consistent technical services in accordance with NASA standards and practices.

The MTS proposal, on the other hand, also received two significant strengths under the Technical Approach subfactor. In reviewing the findings under this subfactor, I studied the beneficial impacts to the CPSS PP&C contract. The two significant strengths related to: (1) the proposed technical approach which demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of (a) the PP&C Integration technical roles while also providing NASA-specific solutions through tools and processes for both small and large, complex programs and projects (e.g., integrating information across all PP&C disciplines into effective reports to enhance NASA’s decision-making abilities), (b) the challenges associated with performing Cost Estimating and Cost Analysis (e.g., an innovative capability to solve the challenges associated with combining EVM data with a parametric cost estimate), (c) the key principles and concepts within the Scheduling discipline (e.g., building a schedule baseline using the Work Breakdown Structure, ongoing evaluation of schedule metrics based on critical path analysis, and development of integrated master schedules), (d) EVM relative to all phases of programs and projects (e.g., an emphasis on product-oriented work breakdown structures, NASA-wide development, and maintenance of surveillance plans), and (e) NASA program and project risk within Risk Management (e.g., identification and mitigation of risks in collaboration with the Safety and Mission Assurance Office) which greatly enhances the likelihood of successful execution of the CPSS PP&C technical requirements; and (2) the proposed comprehensive technical approach for innovation, standardization, and process improvement which provides multiple standardized tools, training, communication, technical forums, and technical resources, which greatly enhances the likelihood of improving performance, developing expertise, creating efficiencies, and establishing a PP&C culture that ensures quality and consistency of technical services in accordance with NASA standards and practices.

In comparing the Abacus proposal with the MTS proposal under the less-heavily weighted Technical Approach subfactor, I noted that each offeror had one significant strength associated with its proposed technical approach which demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the PWS requirements that greatly enhances the likelihood of successful execution of the CPSS PP&C technical requirements.

Specifically, the Abacus proposal would have a positive impact (e.g., insight into the role of PP&C Integration with Agency Baseline Commitment and Key Decision Point products, use of senior, skilled personnel on PP&C Integration functions, collaboration across PP&C disciplines; insight into EVM processes and their integration into project life cycle development; and recognition of the vital importance of scheduling as a core discipline and the use of senior schedulers in all planning phases) upon technical performance across three of the six PWS disciplines (i.e., PWS 4.1 PP&C Integration,

4.2 Earned Value Management, and 4.5 Scheduling). In contrast, the MTS proposal demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the technical requirements along with proposed processes and tools that would have a positive impact (e.g., including NASA-specific solutions through tools and processes for both small and large, complex programs and projects while integrating information across all PP&C disciplines into effective reports to enhance NASA’s decision-making abilities; an innovative capability to solve the challenges associated with combining EVM data with a parametric cost estimate; building a schedule baseline using the Work Breakdown Structure, ongoing evaluation of schedule metrics based on critical path analysis, development of integrated master schedules; emphasis on product-oriented work breakdown structures, NASA-wide development and maintenance of surveillance plans; and identification and mitigation of risks in collaboration with the Safety and Mission Assurance Office) which greatly enhances the likelihood of successful execution of the CPSS PP&C technical requirements across five of the six PWS disciplines (i.e., PWS 4.1 PP&C Integration, 4.2 Earned Value Management, 4.3 Cost Estimating and Cost Analysis, 4.5 Scheduling, and

4.6 Risk Management). In my opinion, therefore, MTS’s proposed technical approach was more advantageous because it demonstrated a comprehensive, robust approach to the CPSS PP&C technical requirements in five of the six PWS disciplines.

Both offerors also received a significant strength relative to their technical approach for innovation, standardization, and process improvement which should provide informed, skilled, and qualified support along with standardized products to PP&C disciplines across the Agency. Specifically, Abacus proposed the creation of its PP&C Academy to train, certify, and build a better PP&C practitioner (including job sharing, cross training, and a professional intern program), a structured governance process to document and approve innovative ideas and process improvements, and a standardized reporting process that enables better analysis and comparison of program and project successes or challenges. In contrast, MTS proposed a broader culture of innovation through the use of numerous tools (which are NASA accessible), processes, innovative programs, and training that allow for task order planning, status, and funding updates, improved standardization and efficiency of customer requests for contract services, use of data filters in program and project decision making, community engagement to solve PP&C challenges, standardized processes to develop expert PP&C practitioners with focused learning and community knowledge, implementation of process improvements that improve data quality, and targeted discipline and training improvement through monthly and quarterly forums and programs. In reviewing the advantages related to the proposed technical approach for both offerors, I considered MTS’s broader culture of innovation (as demonstrated through more numerous, NASA-accessible tools, processes, innovative programs, and training) to be more beneficial to the Government.

Although both offerors had two significant strengths and an “excellent” technical approach, I considered the more robust technical approach (which included details related to the use of proposed processes and tools that demonstrated a comprehensive understanding) across five of the six PWS disciplines (i.e., PWS 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, and 4.6) and the offeror’s emphasis upon creating a broader culture of continuous improvement and innovation (as evidenced by the numerous tools, process improvements, and training opportunities) detailed in the MTS proposal to be more advantageous than Abacus’ proposed technical approach. For these reasons, I determined the MTS proposal had an advantage over the Abacus proposal under the Technical Approach subfactor.

In comparing the Abacus proposal with the MTS proposal across both subfactors, the Abacus proposal had an advantage over the MTS proposal under the Management Approach subfactor (i.e., the most heavily weighted subfactor). Specifically, I considered the truly comprehensive nature of Abacus’ management approach, the organizational structure that includes clearly defined roles, reporting requirements, and collaborative responsibilities of managers/leads within the Abacus team and to NASA (with its emphasis on local operating environments), the robustness of their proposed phase-in plan, and the corporate emphasis upon training and certifying all employees through their

PP&C Academy (i.e., a corporate emphasis upon building a better PP&C practitioner) to be more advantageous than MTS’s management approach when considering the NASA-wide nature (i.e., timing related to onboarding of Centers that require IDIQ support and the geographic diversity) of the CPSS PP&C effort. In contrast, the MTS proposal had an advantage over the Abacus proposal under the Technical Approach subfactor.

Specifically, I considered the more robust technical approach that demonstrated a comprehensive understanding across five of the six PWS disciplines and MTS’s emphasis upon creating a culture of continuous improvement and innovation to be more advantageous than Abacus’ proposed technical approach. In my assessment of the Mission Suitability factor, I considered the weighting of the two subfactors. I determined that Abacus’ proposed management approach is slightly more impactful and beneficial to the Agency than MTS’s more robust technical approach under this factor. Specifically, the Abacus proposal fully addressed the challenges of managing a NASA-wide contract through clearly defined roles, reporting requirements, and collaborative responsibilities of its managers/leads while emphasizing local operating environments from Phase-In through training (which focuses upon a corporate approach to build a better PP&C practitioner). Therefore, I determined the Abacus proposal to have an advantage over the MTS proposal under the Mission Suitability factor.

In comparing the Abacus proposal with the MTS proposal under the Price factor, the MTS proposal had the lowest total proposed price (i.e., $157.7M), whereas the Abacus proposal had the highest total proposed price. I noted that the total proposed prices of both proposals were determined to be fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. I then reviewed the difference between the total proposed prices of the two proposals and determined the MTS proposal to have a clear advantage over the Abacus 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 Abacus proposal (i.e., “Moderate Level of Confidence” rating) received three findings related to the: (1) predominantly exceptional performance of Abacus, when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant NASA KSC Information Management and Communications Support (IMCS) contract, NNK08OH01C; (2) predominantly exceptional performance of Abacus, when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant United States Air Force Engineering and Technology Acquisition Support Services (ETASS II) contract, FA8721-15-D-0009, Task Order 0002; and (3) predominantly very good performance of MRI Technologies, Abacus’ proposed subcontractor, when serving as a subcontractor on the highly relevant JSC Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) Space Operations Contract (ESOC), NNJ10TB01C, purchase order 5411267.

The MTS proposal (i.e., “High Level of Confidence” rating) received two findings related to the: (1) uniformly exceptional performance of MTS, when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant NASA MSFC MIPSS PP&C BPA, NNM13AA04Z, Task Order NNM13AA65T; and (2) uniformly exceptional performance of MTS, when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant NASA MSFC MIPSS SME BPA, NNM13AA04Z, Task Order NNM14AA02T.

I also considered the performance demonstrated by each offeror in relation to the requirements of the PWS and whether it demonstrated relevant performance across the breadth of these activities. First, I noted that both offerors have served previously in the capacity as a prime contractor, and I deemed this important since the successful offeror will be managing a NASA-wide effort that supports multiple programs and projects across diverse geographic locations. Second, I reviewed the offerors’ performance history, and I was cognizant that the Abacus proposal demonstrated predominantly exceptional to very good performance whereas the MTS proposal demonstrated uniformly exceptional performance history (i.e., quality of performance). Third, I considered both offerors’ performance history relative to the six PWS areas for the CPSS PP&C contract. I noted that Abacus demonstrated relevant PWS coverage across four PWS areas (i.e., PWS 3.0 Management and Reporting Requirements, 4.1 PP&C Integration, 4.5 Scheduling, and 6.0 Programmatic SMEs); however, MTS demonstrated relevant PWS coverage in five PWS areas (i.e., PWS 3.0 Management and Reporting Requirements, 4.1 PP&C Integration, 4.2 Earned Value Management, 4.5 Scheduling, and 6.0 Programmatic SMEs). When considering the uniformly exceptional performance history and demonstrated PWS coverage in five of the six PWS areas, I had increased confidence in MTS’s ability to successfully manage the PP&C contract. Therefore, I determined the MTS proposal to have an advantage over the Abacus proposal under the Past Performance factor.

I then proceeded with my best value tradeoff evaluation of the two proposals. I performed a best value tradeoff process between the factors of Mission Suitability, Price, and Past Performance. I was cognizant that the relative importance of the factors is: (1) Mission Suitability is considered slightly more important than either Price or Past Performance;

(2) Price and Past Performance are considered to be essentially equal in importance; and

(3) Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are considered to be significantly more important than Price. For this acquisition, the MTS proposal had a clear advantage over the Abacus proposal under the Price factor and an advantage under the Past Performance factor, whereas the Abacus proposal had an advantage over the MTS proposal under the Mission Suitability factor. When comparing the non-price factors of Mission Suitability and Past Performance, in my view and for the reasons already stated, the advantage of the MTS proposal under the Past Performance factor outweighs the advantage of the Abacus proposal under the slightly more important Mission Suitability factor. Therefore, since the MTS proposal also had a clear advantage under the Price factor, I determined that the MTS proposal represents the best value to the Government.

In summary, based on my integrated assessment of all proposals received, in accordance with the evaluation criteria and their relative importance established for the CPSS PP&C acquisition, it is my decision the proposal submitted by Manufacturing Technical Solutions, Inc. represents the best overall value to the Government. I therefore direct contract award to Manufacturing Technical Solutions, Inc.

Steven C. Miley Source Selection Authority