ECO3 - SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND OPERATIONS 3 (ECO3) CONTRACT

NASA JOHNSON SPACE CENTER (JSC) – WHITE SANDS TEST FACILITY (WSTF)

SOLICITATION NUMBER 80JSC022R0011

On January 4, 2023, I, the Source Selection Authority (SSA), along with other procurement officials of the Johnson Space Center (JSC), met for the Competitive Range Determination presentation via Microsoft Teams with members of the Environmental Compliance and Operations 3 (ECO3) Streamlined Procurement Team (SLPT) appointed to evaluate proposals received in response to the ECO3 Request for Proposals (RFP) 80JSC022R0011. At this meeting, the ECO3 SLPT presented its evaluation findings. I posed a variety of questions to the SLPT members and solicited their views as well as those of the procurement officials who were present. Subsequently, discussions were held and the SLPT members briefed me in writing stating Navarro did not make any changes to their Final Proposal Revision. This statement details the SLPT’s final evaluation and my source selection determination.

BACKGROUND

NASA requires continued environmental compliance and operations support at the JSC’s White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) located in Las Cruces, New Mexico, and other NASA centers.

Specifically, ECO3 will provide multi-media environmental compliance services, environmental restoration program services, sustainability program services, and general environmental operational support services.

ECO3 is a total small business set-aside for qualified firms who meet the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 562910 – Environmental Remediation Services. The Small Business Size Standard in number of employees is 750 under this NAICS.

The ECO3 is a hybrid Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract with Cost-Plus Fixed- Fee (CPFF) and Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) task orders. This acquisition has a single five-year period of performance (POP), from June 1, 2023 to May 31, 2028 with no options. The contract not-to-exceed value is $80,000,000.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

Request for Information (RFI)/Sources Sought Synopsis (SSS) On January 25, 2022, NASA issued an RFI/SSS through the Government Point of Entry (GPE), www.sam.gov, under notice ID 80JSC022-ECO3 for the following reasons:

Solicit comments from industry regarding acquisition strategies Provide industry with the anticipated elements of the ECO3 Draft PWS. These documents were provided as part of the Government’s request for capabilities statements from interested parties.

Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)/RFI On February 14, 2022, NASA issued an OCI/RFI for ECO3. NASA requested information from industry regarding potential OCI. NASA received six (6) responses from interested parties. There were no significant OCIs identified.

Industry Bulletin On February 16, 2022, NASA posted an Industry Bulletin to the GPE in lieu of hosting an Industry Day. NASA opened a registration period to allow interested parties the opportunity to virtually meet with NASA One-on-One.

March 1, 2022 - Virtual One-on-Ones held with 11 Interested Parties

Posting of Industry Day Questions and Answers On March 18, 2022, NASA provided official responses to 57 questions to the GPE, which were received during the ECO3 One-on-One meetings.

Draft Request for Proposal (dRFP) On June 15, 2022, NASA posted the ECO3 dRFP and Technical Resource Library (TRL) to the GPE which allowed interested parties to submit comments and questions no later than June 22, 2022, at 12:00 p.m. MDT.

Pre-Solicitation Synopsis On June 23, 2022, NASA posted a pre-solicitation synopsis to the GPE.

Draft RFP Question and Answers Posted NASA provided official responses to a total of 69 questions to the GPE on:

July 5, 2022 July 8, 2022

RFP

On July 12, 2022, NASA released the ECO3 RFP and associated documents to the GPE. Proposals were due on August 11, 2022, at 12:00 p.m. MDT.

Pre-Proposal Conference On July 20, 2022, NASA held a virtual pre-proposal conference via Microsoft Teams to discuss and highlight the RFP requirements.

15 Interested Parties attended

RFP Amendment 1 On August 1, 2022, Amendment 1 was issued, which updated RFP clauses and associated documents, enabled the Adobe fill-in tool, removed controlled access to the TRL, and extended the proposal due date to August 25, 2022, at 12:00 p.m. MDT. NASA also provided official responses to an additional 28 questions received regarding the ECO3 RFP.

RFP Amendment 2 On August 19, 2022, Amendment 2 was issued, which updated the NASA Enterprise File Sharing/Sync (EFSS) Box proposal submission link.

Receipt of Proposals On August 25, 2022, two (2) timely proposals were received, including one from Los Alamos Technical Associates (LATA) and one from Navarro Research and Engineering (Navarro).

Exclusion from the Competition On August 29, 2022, the Contracting Officer notified LATA that its proposal had been determined unacceptable pursuant to NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305-70(a)(3) and would be excluded from further evaluation. LATA subsequently filed a pre-award protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Evaluation of a Single Proposal Presentation With only one proposal remaining in the competition, NFS 1815.305-71, Evaluation of a Single Proposal, required the Contracting Officer to determine if the solicitation was flawed or unduly restrictive. On September 30, 2022, the Contracting Officer presented findings to the SSA, demonstrating the solicitation was not flawed or unduly restrictive and determined the single proposal received was acceptable for further evaluation. The SSA directed the Contracting Officer to proceed with an evaluation of a single proposal and award after negotiating an acceptable contract.

Competitive Range Presentation The Competitive Range Determination presentation was held on January 4, 2023. Based on the findings presented, the SSA concurred with the Contracting Officer’s determination that Navarro presented a highly rated proposal based on Technical Acceptability, Past Performance Level of Confidence ratings, and best value to the Government. However, due to only one proposal being received and pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.403-1(c)(1)(A), the ECO3 acquisition did not obtain adequate price competition. Therefore, in accordance with FAR 15.403-4, Certified Cost and Pricing Data shall be obtained from the Offeror. Subsequently, discussions with Navarro had to be held upon issuance of the Competitive Range Determination Letter.

Competitive Range Determination Letter The Competitive Range Determination Letter was issued to Navarro on January 6, 2023. This initiated discussions with Navarro, the only Offeror within the Competitive Range.

Discussions Written discussions were conducted via email by issuance of letter number BH-23-100 on January 6, 2023. A request for Certified Cost or Pricing Data (CCPD), validation of Navarro's compliance with VETS-4212 Report, and Pre-award Equal Employment Opportunity were included in discussions.

Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) and Model Contracts On January 11, 2023, Navarro submitted their response to the Competitive Range Letter via Enterprise File Sync Share (EFSS) Box. The file contained a copy of the Certificate of Certified Cost or Pricing Data which confirmed the prices provided in their proposal signed on August 25, 2022 are accurate, complete and current. The Government also received copies of the VETS-4212 Reports, a submittal of their EEO report for 2021 and Navarro’s written confirmation that the proposal submitted and signed on August 25, 2022 was their Model Contract and no further changes were required. On January 12, 2023, the Contracting Officer officially closed discussions. Therefore, no changes were made to their initial proposal and additional evaluation was not required.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The proposal was evaluated in strict accordance with the FAR Part 15, NFS Part 1815, and the ECO3 RFP. The RFP details the SLPT evaluation factors and criteria contained in Section M.2 of the RFP.

Upon receipt of the proposal, the SLPT conducted an initial review of the proposals to determine acceptability in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. The SLPT determined Navarro’s proposal was acceptable and LATA’s proposal to be unacceptable in accordance with the solicitation.

The Government planned to 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 technically acceptable factors (Acceptable/Unacceptable) with a tradeoff of between past performance and cost/price. Order of importance of evaluation factors: For those Offeror(s) who are determined to be “Acceptable” or “Potentially Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, tradeoffs will be made between Past Performance and Cost/Price. Past Performance is approximately equal to Cost/Price.

The Government evaluated the proposal using the factors and subfactors identified in the RFP.

Although the proposal was organized by factors and subfactors, the Government evaluated the proposal for consistency among proposal information, including the offeror’s proposed Model Contract.

Technical Acceptability Factor (Volume I) In accordance with RFP Section M.2.1, the proposed Specific Technical Acceptability Approach was evaluated for demonstration of understanding, reasonableness, feasibility, completeness, any associated impact and ensuing risk to the Government where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

1. Subfactor 1 Technical Acceptability (TA1): Specific Technical Approach

2. Subfactor 2 Technical Acceptability (TA2): Contract Management Plan (Partial)

3. Subfactor 3 Technical Acceptability (TA3): Contract Phase-In Plan (Partial)

Past Performance Factor (Volume II) The Government evaluated Past Performance as required by Sections L.19.3, L.19.5 and M.3 of the

ECO3 RFP.

Three (3) past performance aspects were taken into consideration by the SLPT in determining an Offeror’s past performance confidence rating: recency, relevance, and performance, as described in RFP Section M.3(c).

Recency: Only contract period of performances within three (3) years from the date of the ECO3 original solicitation release, and information on Key Personnel within three (3) years from the date of the ECO3 original solicitation release were considered in the past performance evaluation. Within this 3-year period, more recent performance received greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than those with more distant performance, assuming all other considerations to be equal.

Relevance: If the contract was deemed recent, the Government then determined the degree of relevance – i.e., level of pertinence – of the contract based on size, content, and complexity. The term “content” considered the contract’s scope of services, work, requirements, or supplies, in comparison to the requirements of this solicitation. Contracts that exhibited all specific trades/type of work required under the solicitation Performance Work Statement were considered more relevant than contracts limited to specific trades only. The term “complexity” considered items such as contract type, experience with special terms and conditions, and/or context of performance in comparison to the performance environment outlined in the solicitation. Prior contracts where the workers were unionized were given more consideration than prior contracts where the workers were not unionized.

For purposes of this procurement, relevance was assessed using the following definitions:

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved much of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance contractual effort involved some of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Performance: The Government assessed the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting, and safety performance of the contracts which were recent and relevant (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). The quality assessment consisted of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment resulted in either positive or adverse findings. The Government considered the number and severity of any problems, the effectiveness of corrective actions taken that resulted in sustained improvements, and the overall record of past performance. This assessment led the Government to determine the quality of performance as either Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Poor/Unsatisfactory.

For the evaluated Offeror, the SLPT relied upon the narrative provided by the Offeror in Volume II – Past Performance, the Past Performance Questionnaires submitted by the Offeror’s references, information in the Government Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS);

information in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) logs, the OSHA website, and the Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO); and any data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. All past performance information was evaluated with respect to recency, relevancy, and performance.

The SLPT then assigned a confidence rating of Very High Level of Confidence, High Level of Confidence, Moderate Level of Confidence, Low Level of Confidence, Very Low Level of Confidence, or Neutral at the overall factor level for Past Performance, after evaluating all aspects of the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance. More recent and more relevant past performance received greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than less recent or less relevant past performance. A performance confidence rating was assessed at the overall factor level for Past Performance after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance.

The RFP defined the Levels of Confidence as follows:

Very High Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Offeror’s past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards. Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Very Low Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas.

Performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, adversely affected overall performance.

Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].

Cost and Price Factor (Volume III) In accordance with RFP Section L.19.6 and M.4, Cost and Price Factor of the RFP, the SLPT evaluated proposed cost and established the probable cost of doing business. The Offeror’s Cost/Price was evaluated for the validity, realism, and adequacy of the cost proposal and the probable cost it would incur in the performance of the ECO3 effort. To ensure the final agreed-to prices were fair and reasonable, the Government performed these analyses in accordance with FAR 15.305- Proposal Evaluation, FAR 15.404 – Proposal Analysis, and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305-Proposal Evaluation. The cost and price evaluation considered the phase-in price, two (2) Firm-Fixed-Price Task Orders, and IDIQ cost, fees and rates.

feasibility, completeness, any associated impact and ensuing risk to the Government where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Subfactor 2 - Contract Management Plan (Partial) and Total Compensation Plan In Subfactor 2, Navarro’s Contract Management Plan and Total Compensation Plan were evaluated against the RFP and DRD requirements and deemed acceptable for their demonstration of understanding, reasonableness, feasibility, completeness, any associated impact and ensuing risk to the Government where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Subfactor 3 - Contract Phase-In Plan (Partial) In Subfactor 3, Navarro’s Contract Phase-In Plan was evaluated against the RFP and DRD requirements and deemed acceptable for their demonstration of understanding, reasonableness, feasibility, completeness, any associated impact and ensuing risks to the Government where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Past Performance Factor The SLPT evaluated Navarro’s Past Performance in accordance with the criteria defined in L.19.5 and M.3 of the RFP. Navarro provided three (3) contracts, including one (1) for Key Personnel, which were all determined to be Recent and Relevant. All contracts listed in Navarro’s Past Performance Volume II were within the required three-year recency period and determined Recent.

Having determined Navarro’s past performance to be Recent, the SLPT evaluated Navarro’s past performance for Relevancy according to the criteria in the RFP. The estimated size of the ECO3 effort is a maximum $80 million ceiling value with 49 estimated FTEs. The contract type is 100% IDIQ, Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee with Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) and Cost Plus Fixed-Fee (CPFF) task orders. The scope of the effort is environmental operations, compliance, sustainability, and restoration as described in the RFP Section C Performance Work Statement (PWS). Each of the three

(3) contracts reviewed for Navarro’s past performance evaluation identified Navarro as the Prime contractor. As outlined in Table 2 below, all three (3) of the contracts were essentially the same size and complexity as ECO3. Regarding content, Navarro proposed to perform 100% of the ECO3 requirements (environmental compliance, restoration, sustainability, and operations). The SLPT used the ECO3 contract tasks identified in the PWS, as well as the percentage of work proposed, to determine the relevancy of Navarro’s past performance on the three (3) contracts submitted. All three

(3) of Navarro’s contracts demonstrated experience with each individual section of the ECO3 PWS and, therefore, were essentially the same as ECO3. Considering size, content and complexity, Navarro’s past performance was determined to be Very Relevant.

For Key Personnel, the current ECO2 Program Manager (PM) was proposed to serve as the ECO3 PM. Under the ECO2 contract, the PM has demonstrated experience with a contract essentially the same in size, content and complexity to what they would be responsible for managing under the ECO3 requirements. The PM’s past performance was 100% mapped to each of the ECO3 PWS elements. Based on the evaluation of the PM’s past performance on ECO2, the SLPT determined the proposed Key Personnel’s past performance to be Very Relevant.

The Contracting Officer initially utilized multiple sources of “Other than certified cost and pricing data” to support a fair and reasonable determination based on FAR 15.404-1(c)(2)(iii)(A), Actual costs previously incurred by the same offeror, and FAR 15.404-1(c)(2)(iii)(D) Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). However, the requirement for submission of cost or pricing data

Since only one (1) acceptable proposal was received, the ECO3 acquisition did not obtain adequate price competition per FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(A). Therefore, in accordance with FAR 15.403-4, Certified Cost and Pricing Data needed to be obtained from the Offeror. Pursuant to FAR 15.306(d) and PN 19-06, after receipt of proposals and the establishment of competitive range, the Contracting Officer was required to conduct discussions to ensure the Government’s ability to obtain the best value for award.

As a result of the Contracting Officer’s recommendation presented to the SSA, on January 4, 2023, the SSA concurred with the Contracting Officer’s determination to conduct written discussions to request a Certificate of Certified Cost and Pricing Data associated with the proposal submitted in response to the solicitation.

Additionally, validation of Navarro's compliance with VETS-4412 Report and Pre-award Equal Employment Opportunity was required as compliance could not be validated via the Department of Labor's VETS-4212 Database and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs' National Pre-award Registry. Therefore, proof of annual submission of VETS-4212 Report in accordance with FAR 52.222-38, Compliance with Veterans’ Employment Reporting Requirements, and proof of bi-annual compliance with Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) regulations mandated by Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs in accordance with FAR 52.222-24, Pre-award On-site Equal Opportunity Compliance Evaluation, were required.

AWARD WITH DISCUSSIONS

On January 6, 2023, the Contracting Officer opened discussions with Navarro. A copy of the following was requested:

1. Certificate of Certified Cost or Pricing Data was requested,

2. Validation of Navarro's compliance with VETS-4412 Report

3. Validation of Pre-award Equal Employment Opportunity compliance

4. Navarro’s written confirmation that the proposal submitted and signed on August 25, 2022 was their Final Proposal Revision/Model Contract and no further changes are required.

On January 11, 2023, Navarro provided the aforementioned items and confirmed that the proposal submitted and signed on August 25, 2022 was their Final Proposal Revision and no changes were needed. The SLPT reviewed all the submitted documentation and determined no further information was required.

On January 12, 2023, the Contracting Officer issued letter number BH5-23-101 to Navarro acknowledging receipt of their FPR/Model Contract, as well as the documents requested during discussions. The letter further stated, the Government intends to award without obtaining further revisions. In accordance with FAR 15.307(b), discussions were closed.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

My selection decision articulated below is based solely on, and is wholly consistent with, the selection criteria and evaluation framework, including the relative importance of the evaluation factors and subfactors as explained in the solicitation and supported by the SLPT’s findings which I have identified above as relevant and material to my decision.

The materials and presentation from the SLPT evidenced the proposal from Navarro is Technically Acceptable for all three (3) subfactors. I concur with the SLPT’s determination.

For the Past Performance factor, I noted Navarro was assigned a Very High Level of Confidence.

Navarro’s performance, inclusive of the Key Personnel was consistently rated as “Excellent” across the three (3) contracts which were all evaluated as “Very Relevant”. As the incumbent contractor, I considered Navarro’s breadth and depth of experience with 100% of the PWS and, furthermore, how its performance received consistently strong ratings. With Navarro’s demonstrated background, I am confident it has the requisite experience to successfully perform the ECO3 effort. Reviewing all aspects of the SLPT’s past performance evaluation, I concur with the SLPT’s assessment of Navarro’s Past Performance Level of Confidence as one of “Very High Confidence”.

For Cost/Price, I noted the SLPT concluded that Navarro’s proposed cost of $45.49M was reasonable and realistic when considering their approach to performing the ECO3 requirements. However, due to the single proposal received and inadequate cost/price competition, I wanted further insight into this conclusion to ensure the SLPT had obtained a fair and reasonable price, representing the best value to the Government. The SLPT explained to me in detail how they utilized the following methods to demonstrate how the cost/price received was fair and reasonable.

Navarro’s total proposed price of $45.49M was compared to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) of $54.80M to determine price reasonableness. The IGCE was generated based on the Government’s expertise in managing requirements of this nature. The variance in price of $9.31M is due to the differences in variations in the calculation of labor skill mix, New Mexico Gross Receipt Tax (NMGRT), and contract indirect rates between the Government estimate and Contractor proposal.

Navarro’s total proposed price of $45.49M was also compared to historical prices in the form of actual costs from the predecessor contract (ECO2) of $48.60M to determine price reasonableness.

The SLPT explained the variance in price of $(3.11M) is due to the Government better defining the requirements in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 3.0, Compliance which allowed the Government to shift a portion of the cost risk to the Contractor and compete PWS Section 3.0 as firm fixed price, whereas ECO2 PWS Section 3.0 was cost reimbursable due to requirement uncertainties.

Based on this explanation and the analysis performed by the SLPT, utilizing the IGCE and actual costs from the predecessor contract, I feel confident Navarro can successfully perform as proposed.

The proposed cost/price of $45.49M is fair and reasonable and is the best value for the Government.

Taking into consideration all the information provided to me by the SLPT and applying the RFP’s stated evaluation criteria, I find Navarro’s proposal represents the best value to the Government.

Navarro can successfully perform the required ECO3 effort, provides a Very High Level of

Confidence in Past Performance, and provides the Government with the lowest proposed and probable price, which is fair and reasonable.

In accordance with the RFP, my selection decision is based solely on, and is wholly consistent with, the selection criteria and evaluation framework, including the relative importance of the evaluation criteria as explained in the RFP and supported by the SLPT findings. I hereby determine the proposal offered by Navarro is the best value to the Government and select Navarro for award of the ECO3 contract.

Stephen H. Janney Source Selection Authority

STEPHEN

JANNEY

Digitally signed by

STEPHEN JANNEY

Date: 2023 01.31 14:24:25 -06'00'