EASSS 3 Source Selection Statement - Final.pdf

Source Selection Statement

Evaluations, Assessments, Studies, Services, and Support (EASSS) 3

Solicitation: 80LARC20R0002

Background

The Science Office for Mission Assessments (SOMA) is located at the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC), Hampton, VA, and is responsible for the management and oversight of evaluations, assessments, and studies for the NASA Headquarters Science Mission Directorate (SMD). The purpose of the EASSS 3 contract is to provide support for evaluations, assessments, studies, services, and support to SOMA, other NASA organizations, and other Government agencies.

The EASSS 3 Request for Proposal (RFP) specified that the selection will result in award to the Offeror who presents the best value to the Government based on the evaluation of Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price evaluation factors. The contract will be a Cost- Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) single-award contract with a period of performance of five (5) years.

Market research was accomplished through a Sources Sought Notice (SSN) posted on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website (www.fbo.gov) on October 17, 2019. The Sources Sought migrated to the new https://www.beta.SAM.gov website in early November.

Additionally, the LaRC Small Business Representative highlighted the EASSS 3 procurement at a LaRC Small Business Steering Council Meeting as well as a local small business outreach event in January 2020.

A Procurement Strategy Meeting (PSM) was conducted with me on February 4, 2020, at NASA LaRC, and the procurement strategy was subsequently approved.

The RFP was released on March 16, 2020 as a FAR Part 15 procurement and total small business set-aside under NAICS code 541715, Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (Except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology), with a size standard of 1,000 employees. The RFP had a proposal due date of April 29, 2020. Two amendments followed.

Amendment 0001 was issued on March 27, 2020 and included: responses to industry questions and comments, extension of the proposal due date to May 27, 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions, notification of the re-scheduling of the pre-proposal conference to April 7, 2020, and changes to necessary solicitation documents accordingly. On April 7, 2020, a Pre-Proposal Conference was conducted virtually with four small businesses attending. Amendment 0002 was issued on April 17, 2020 and included: responses to industry questions and comments and changes to several solicitation documents. On April 23, 2020, additional responses to industry questions and comments based on Amendment 0002 were posted, with no resulting changes to the solicitation.

The following company responded to the RFP by the proposal due date of 2:00 p.m. EDT, May 27, 2020:

• Cornell Technical Services, LLC (CTS)

A second proposal was received from LeNgineer, LLC; however, the proposal was determined to be late in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(3) and FAR 15.208, so was not evaluated.

In accordance with FAR 15.206(c), Amendment 0003 was issued to CTS, the only timely proposer, on July 8, 2020, to correct the application of Government-provided rates in Cost Form G and revise an associated Government answer to a question received during the RFP phase.

Evaluation Factors and Procedures

Prior to issuance of the RFP, an SEB was appointed to conduct an evaluation of proposals received in response to the RFP. The RFP set forth the following three evaluation factors:

1) Factor 1: Mission Suitability I. Subfactor 1: Staffing Approach

II. Subfactor 2: Management (1): Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) and Personal Conflicts of Interest (PCI) Avoidance Plan (2): Approach for Managing the Contract

2) Factor 2: Past Performance

3) Factor 3: Cost/Price

The RFP stated that a best value trade-off process would be used in making the source selection decision and that the contract would be awarded to the Offeror that is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and is determined, by the Source Selection Authority’s (SSA’s) integrated assessment of the evaluation factors, including the relative importance of the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. The evaluation factors Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price were of approximately equal importance, and Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, were significantly more important than Cost/Price.

After determining that the LeNgineer, LLC proposal could not be further considered, and with only one timely proposal, the Contracting Officer determined that the procedures at NFS 1805.305-71, Evaluation of a Single Proposal, applied to this procurement. In accordance with NFS 1815.305-71(a), “If only one proposal is received in response to the solicitation, the Contracting Officer shall determine if the solicitation was flawed or unduly restrictive and determine if the single proposal is an acceptable proposal.” Based on these findings, “the SSA shall direct the Contracting Officer to one of the following: (1) Award after negotiating an acceptable contract. (The requirement for submission of cost or pricing data shall be determined in accordance with FAR 15.403-3(a)(1)(ii); or (2) Reject the proposal and cancel the solicitation.”

The Contracting Officer reviewed the procurement, the solicitation and solicitation process, and determined that (1) the solicitation was not flawed or unduly restrictive; and (2) the single proposal was acceptable for evaluation per NFS 1815.305-70. Based on these Contracting Officer determinations, the SSA determined that there was no reason to cancel the solicitation and agreed that the solicitation was not flawed or unduly restrictive. Therefore, the SSA determined that it was in the best interest of the Government to continue the procurement, evaluate CTS’s proposal for acceptability, and award the contract to CTS after holding negotiations (if necessary).

Factor 1 – Mission Suitability

In lieu of performing the full Mission Suitability evaluation as provided in Section M.5 of the RFP, the SEB evaluated the technical proposal (Volume I) against the solicitation requirements and the Mission Suitability subfactors to advise the Contracting Officer whether the proposal was “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” in accordance with NFS 1815.305-71(a). The SEB first performed this individually and then came together in consensus.

The definitions of “Acceptable” and “Unacceptable” used were:

• Acceptable: Meets requirements of the solicitation; there may be some acceptance of risk that does not adversely impact successful contract performance.

• Unacceptable: Does not meet requirements of the solicitation, or there is an aspect of the proposal that increases risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Factor 2 – Past Performance

In lieu of performing the full Past Performance evaluation as provided in Section M.6 of the RFP (i.e., assigning confidence ratings), the SEB assessed the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure a satisfactory performance record in accordance with FAR 9.104-1(c). The SEB reviewed CTS’s Past Performance Proposal and information obtained from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

Factor 3 – Cost/Price

The Contracting Officer considered the SEB and Cost/Price Analyst' input/report and determined the price/cost to be realistic and reasonable..

The Contracting Officer carefully reviewed the SEB’s evaluation and concurred with the SEB that the Offeror’s proposal was acceptable. The RFP states that the Government anticipates that award will be made without discussions (Section L.21a)). Based on the SEB’s evaluation, it was evident that the potential for an award without discussions existed. Therefore, the SEB met with me, the SSA, on August 13, 2020, to present its findings.

Evaluation Findings

Factor 1 – Mission Suitability

Based on the SEB’s detailed evaluation, the CTS Mission Suitability proposal was determined to be “Acceptable”.

Subfactor 1 – Staffing Approach

For Subfactor 1, CTS was determined to be “Acceptable”.

The CTS proposal provided an acceptable approach for staffing the contract to ensure timely and quality performance of Government requirements.

Subfactor 2 – Management

For Subfactor 2, CTS was determined to be “Acceptable”.

Regarding (1) Organization Conflicts of Interest (OCI) and Personal Conflicts of Interest (PCI) Avoidance Plan, the CTS proposal provided an acceptable plan for complying with the requirements of NFS 1852.237-72, Access to Sensitive Information, FAR 52.203-16, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest, RFP Section H.2, Organizational and Personal Conflicts of Interest, and RFP Section H.3, Limitations of Future Contracting. The CTS proposal provided an acceptable approach for identifying, mitigating, neutralizing, and/or avoiding OCIs and PCIs that may arise under the contract.

Regarding (2), Approach for Managing the Contract, the CTS proposal provided an acceptable approach for efficiently and effectively performing the contract requirements (including subcontractor management).

Factor 2 – Past Performance

The SEB evaluated CTS’s past performance in accordance with FAR 9.104-1(c). The SEB considered the information in CTS’s Past Performance Proposal and information obtained from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). CTS provided one reference for past performance (EASSS 2 Contract), which was CTS’s only unclassified contract in CPARS. CTS received Exceptional and/or Very Good performance ratings across all contract years under the EASSS 2 contract, with a preponderance of the ratings being Exceptional. Based on the SEB’s evaluation, the CO determined that CTS has a satisfactory performance record and is “Responsible.”

Factor 3 – Cost/Price

The Contracting Officer performed an analysis of the proposed price to assess price reasonableness. In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4, the Contracting Officer determined that the Offeror’s total proposed price of $109,074,693 is fair and reasonable based on the comparison of the proposed price to historical actuals, labor rate and indirect rate survey data, and the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE).

In accordance with NFS 1815.305-71, Evaluation of a Single Proposal, the CO determined that submission of certified cost and pricing data was not required in accordance with FAR 15.403- 3(a)(1)(ii). Additionally, the CO determined that the proposed price was based on adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(i), which was approved at a level above the CO. Specifically, the CO concluded that (1) two responsible Offerors, competing independently submitted priced offers that satisfy the Government’s expressed requirement; (2) award will be made on a best value basis; and (3) the price is reasonable. Although only a single offer was acceptable, two independently priced offers were submitted with the expectation of competition.

The evidence indicates that the Offeror submitting the proposal reasonably believed that at least one other Offeror was capable of submitting a meaningful offer based on industry participation at the Pre-Proposal Conference and industry questions submitted by multiple parties in response to the RFP.

Other

CTS adequately filled in all aspects of the model contract and Section K and met the two special standards of responsibility: CTS was determined to have acceptable accounting and operational controls as well as the necessary Top Secret facility clearance.

Basis for Selection

The SEB presented its findings to me on August 13, 2020, and I am convinced that the SEB conducted a thorough, fair, and objective evaluation of the CTS proposal. As documented earlier, the Contracting Officer determined, and I agreed, that the procedures at NFS 1815.305-71 apply for the evaluation of a single proposal. As required by NFS 1815.305-71(a), the Contracting Officer reviewed the procurement, the solicitation and solicitation process, and determined that

(1) the solicitation was not flawed or unduly restrictive; (2) negotiations are not necessary; and

(3) the single proposal is acceptable for award.

I concur with the findings of the SEB and the Contracting Officer determinations noted above, and I find that CTS’s proposal was determined technically acceptable, that CTS is considered responsible, and that CTS’s proposed price was determined to be fair, reasonable, and realistic.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

As stated above, I note that CTS’s proposal was rated by the SEB as Acceptable under Factor 1, Mission Suitability, and as Responsible under Factor 2, Past Performance. For Factor 3, Cost/Price, I find that the CTS proposed price is fair and reasonable. Lastly, I note that as briefed to me on August 13, 2020, the Contracting Officer determined the CTS proposal to be acceptable and that discussions are not necessary.

Therefore, as required by NFS 1815.305-71(a), I hereby direct the Contracting Officer to award the EASSS 3 contract to CTS, without discussions, based on the findings documented herein.

Melvin J. Ferebee

Source Selection Authority