EGSS Consolidation DF 05292024_Redacted.pdf

Rev.: 07/2022

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Langley Research Center - LARC

Determination and Findings (D&F) for Consolidation of Requirements Enterprise Geospatial Support Services (EGSS)

FINDINGS

I. Requirement Specific Information

A. Proposed/New Requirement

1. Description of Services: Enterprise Geospatial Support Services (EGSS)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Office of Strategic Infrastructure (OSI) has a requirement for EGSS. The purpose of the single-award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract is to provide institutional geospatial support and services for NASA, with a primary focus on OSI functional areas including facilities engineering and asset management, real property management, environmental management, logistics management, and space environments testing management as defined in NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 1000.3E. Through the EGSS contract, OSI aims to standardize the institutional geospatial support and services provided at NASA Headquarters (HQ), Centers, and field sites by providing a centrally managed contract vehicle for use throughout the OSI functional communities while supporting Agency strategic sourcing initiatives.

Additionally, the Performance Work Statement (PWS) of the IDIQ will provide, manage, maintain, and evolve geospatial products and services to support current and future requirements across the enterprise. The significant tasks of the proposed consolidation’s PWS are Enterprise Program Technical and Administrative Support;

Outreach and Training; Geospatial Data Creation and Maintenance; and Creation and Update of Geospatial Products and Services. At time of award, it is anticipated that Task Orders will be placed for the following Centers: Langley Research Center, Johnson Space Center, Ames Research Center, and NASA HQ. Support will be extended to additional Centers as their current contracts end or as the work can be migrated from existing contracts. The following charts depicts a timeline for planned migration of current support across the entire period of performance:

2. Identify whether the requirement will be competed or sole source: Competed, 100% Women-owned, Small Business set-aside

3. Solicitation Number, Contract Name, or Contract Number if known: Solicitation No.

80LARC24R0003

4. Contract Vehicle (e.g., contract, task order, IDIQ contract): Single award, IDIQ with decentralized ordering of task orders

5. Period of Performance: Five (5), 1-year Ordering Periods, beginning and ending

6. Estimated Value of the New Requirement (including all options as well as annual value): Maximum (Ceiling) amount of

B. Current Requirement(s) i.e., the impacted contract(s) with geospatial support services embedded with the current PWS(s):

Geospatial Support Services Contracts

Contract Awardee Business

Size Location Overall Kt

Value

Est Value of GSS w/in current

Contract

Approx.

% of costs for

GSS

support 80LARC21F0001 - Geospatial Support Services (GSS2)**

Small Langley & Johnson

100%

80ARC017C0008

- Architectural & Engineering Support Services

Large Ames 1.87%

NNG17AZ09C - Multitude of services associated with facility design and construction, and other related technical services for the

GSFC

Large Goddard 2.28%

80AFRC21C0001 - Research Facilities and Engineering Support Services (RF&ESS)

Small Armstrong 1.28%

80JSC022DA003 - JSC, Test Evaluation & Support Team 3

Small White Sands 0.36%

Total:

4.1% **80LARC21F0001 – period of performance is three years; Est Value of GSS w/in current Contract was amortized (at % escalation based on FY2024 costs) for a five-year period of performance

Description of Services:

80LARC21F0001 “Geospatial Support Services (GSS2)” – Langley Research Center (LaRC) & Johnson Space Center (JSC): This is a non-personal services contract to provide geospatial support and services to NASA LaRC and JSC. The contractor provides all personnel, equipment, supplies, transportation, tools, materials, supervision, and other items and non-personal services necessary to deliver geospatial products and services except for those items provided as Government furnished. Additionally, the Contractor provides specific geospatial products and support to other federal, state, and local government agencies and other partners as either a one-time or reoccurring deliverable.

80ARC017C0008 “Architectural & Engineering (A&E) Support Services” – Ames Research Center (ARC): The contractor provides A&E services to the ARC Research Facilities Engineering branch that include facility master planning, facility architectural engineering design, construction management, energy and water conservation program management, facility space utilization assessments, real property management, feasibility studies and engineering services.

NNG17AZ09C “Multitude of services associated with facility design and construction, and other related technical services for the GSFC” – Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC): The contractor furnishes a multitude of services associated with facility engineering design and construction and other related technical services for GSFC. This predominantly involves work at the Greenbelt campus but may involve work at other GSFC facilities/locations.

Except where government provided, the contractor furnishes all materials, labor, equipment, tools, management, coordination, safety, and quality control necessary for the performance of services under this contract. GSFC facilities design and construction work in this contract may be described as new construction, modification, or modernization and rehabilitation of facilities, varying from routine general construction to installation of complex special test or laboratory systems. It may include work on building interiors and exteriors, including but not limited to, architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical (to include plumbing and HVAC), environmental, and fire protection (detection and suppression). It may also include civil site work and both underground and surface site utility and infrastructure system work.

80AFRC21C0001 “Research Facilities and Engineering Support Services (RF&ESS)” – Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC): The contractor provides labor and materials to perform development, test, engineering, analysis, specification, design, development, installation, integration, operation, maintenance, documentation, training, customer outreach, change management, configuration control, troubleshooting and related functions. These responsibilities branch across three primary functional areas: Dryden Aeronautical Test Range operations and engineering services; simulation support services; and Center-Wide IT Services.

80JSC022DA003 “JSC, Test Evaluation & Support Team 3 (TEST3)” – White Sands Test Facility (WSTF): Under TEST3, the contractor maintains and operates infrastructure to support testing of propulsion hardware, propellants, aerospace fluids, materials, and various components, as well as provide expertise. The contract also supports hypervelocity impact testing and flight hardware processing, and provides technical services, training, safety and quality assurance, facility maintenance and operations, construction management, and emergency services.

C. Is this a contract/order as a result of a Product Service Line (PSL)? No.

II. Justification

A. Market research has been conducted (FAR 7.107-2(a)(1)): See attached NASA Form

(NF) 1787A, Market Research Report and Revised NF 1787A dated 29 Jan 2024.

Both the Requirement Development Team (RDT) and Selection Evaluation Team (SET) performed considerable market research in support of their objectives and to develop a sound strategy. This comprehensive market research included:

Performing detailed assessments of strategic sourcing opportunities across NASA and the Federal Government.

Interviewing LaRC and Agency stakeholders.

Assessing General Services Administration (GSA), United States Air Force

(USAF), USA, and other Agency procurements; and Leveraging the LaRC Small Business Specialist throughout the market research process.

The team reviewed the solicitations for multiple NASA consolidated contracts to identify best practices in approach. These included Advanced Enterprise Global IT Solutions (AEGIS), Cybersecurity and Privacy Enterprise Solutions and Services (CyPrESS), Glenn-Langley Administrative Support Services (GLASS), and Protective Services Eastern Region (NPS-ER). The team searched SAM.gov and identified current/previous geospatial procurements for benchmarking. Multiple contracts were identified. One contract was identified as similar in scope and scale and were reviewed further: USAF GS&S (FA003-23-R-0003) solicitation. The USAF contract is currently under solicitation, so the team was only able to access and review the solicitation package posted in SAM.gov. The current GSS2 contract (80LARC21F0001) was awarded under the GSA Schedule (Task Order) as a Small Business Set-Aside. Based upon market research, it was determined that the best approach would be to utilize the Best-in- Class/GSA Schedule for award.

A search was completed utilizing the Small Business Administration Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) utilizing the NAICS code 541370 and the term “GIS” (Geographic Information Services). The term GIS resulted in 1,119 results, so the search was narrowed using the term “geospatial”, which resulted in 264 vendors. To get a more manageable result, the search term was changed to “geospatial services”, which resulted in 34 Small Businesses. Of the 34 Small Businesses (SB), there were 8 Women Owned Small Business (WOSB), 4 Economically Disadvantaged Women Owned Small Business (EDWOSB), 3 HUBZone, 2 Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB), 1 Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business (SDVOSB), and 11 Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB).

A review of the relevant Past Performance records was conducted to build confidence in the vendors as well as to develop a better understanding of the capabilities held by each vendor. The SAM.gov request for information (RFI) and GSA RFI reviews resulted in a total of 7 vendors that were found capable. The economic breakdown (with some vendors identifying more than one economic category) was 2-8(a) firms; 3-Women Owned; 1-Economically Disadvantaged Women Owned (one vendor checked WOSB and

EDWOSB); 1-HUBZone; 1-Service Disabled Veteran; 1-Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (one vendor checked VOSB and SDVOSB), 2-Small Disadvantaged Business. The market research team defined Capable as “Demonstrated relevant experience or described approach to providing technical support in all PWS areas and sufficient approach to performing work at geographically separated sites”. For further market research, a search on Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) for past performance information was conducted on the capable vendors. The search resulted in the following:

8(a) – (1) No CPARS records were found for one of the 8(a) firms. (2) The CPARS record for the second 8(a) firm revealed no rating below Satisfactory with a mix of mostly Exceptional and Very Good ratings.

• SDB – CPARS information was obtained for both vendors. (1) The CPARS record for one vendor revealed no rating below Satisfactory with mostly Very Good ratings. (2) The CPARS for the second vendor revealed no rating below Satisfactory with mostly Satisfactory ratings.

• SDVOSB/VOSB – (1) The CPARS record revealed no rating below Satisfactory with a mix of mostly Exceptional and Very Good ratings.

• HUBZone – (1) No CPARS records were found for the one capable HUBZone vendor.

• WOSB – (1) The CPARS records for two vendors revealed no rating below Satisfactory with the majority being Exceptional ratings. (2) The CPARS record for one vendor revealed no rating below Satisfactory with mostly Very Good ratings.

• EDWOSB – (1) The CPARS record for one vendor revealed no rating below Satisfactory with mostly Very Good ratings.

A second RFI was posted to SAM.gov on 29 Nov 23 with a response date of 8 Dec 2023 which posed 30 questions to potential sources and a draft PWS with attachments for review and comments. Additionally, the LaRC Small Business Specialist sent email notifications through the NASA Vendor Database (NVDB) and DSBS on 29 Nov 2023 to alert potential sources that an additional RFI had been posted to SAM.gov for this requirement. A total of 21 responses were received with a breakdown of 19-SB, 2-large business (LB), 10-8(a), 6-WOSB, 3-HBZ, 2-SDB, 2-EDWOSB, and 1-SDVOSB. Eight of the responses to the initial SAM.gov and GSA RFIs were duplicates of the responses received for the additional SAM.gov RFI; therefore, there were a total of 39 responses for all three RFIs. Of the 21 received responses from interested parties, 18 were found capable of performing geospatial support services, agency wide. The market research team defined “Capable” as past performance/experience in all PWS areas and sufficient approach to performing work at geographically separated sites.

The RDT determined existing Agency contracts and other strategic sourcing options did not possess the breadth of scope, capabilities, or contract value to support the requirements. Based on these above market research, LaRC determined that transitioning to a one solicitation, one contract award solution for all geospatial support services requirements and a total women-owned, small business set-aside, was in NASA’s best interest in order to maximize small business participation, reduce performance risk, and reduce acquisition complexity for small business and industry.

B. Quantify the specific benefits of the proposed consolidation/consolidated requirement by completing each of the following tasks (each task must be completed) (FAR 7.107-2(c)):

1. Compute the contract cost savings or reduction:

The EGSS consolidation will re-organize work to align with Agency strategic sourcing initiatives. Currently, there is one (1) separate, distinct contract for geospatial support services within the agency, 80LARC21F0001 (GSS2), which provides geospatial support for LaRC and JSC. AFRC, ARC, GSFC, and WSTF geospatial support requirements are provided as small portions of services under four (4) significantly larger, broader scoped contracts which do not provide the complete range of tasks/requirements of the proposed consolidated PWS. OSI worked with center procurement, resource analysts, and geospatial leads to gather information on existing contract support and cost. While the costs for geospatial support for GSS2 was straightforward, discerning actual cost proved difficult for the remaining contracts where geospatial services made up a small percentage of the overall work. This work was often only a few paragraphs within the overarching PWS, and the work was wrapped up in a CLIN with unrelated work, thus estimation of the costs and hours worked was required.

While contract costs savings are anticipated (e.g., overhead, corporate efficiencies, etc.), the total contract value is increasing as OSI invests in growing an enterprise geospatial program, and standardizing center capabilities. OSI anticipates the consolidation will derive cost savings resulting from the benefits and opportunities for efficiencies identified in Section II.C below including, but not limited to, efficiencies from eliminating significant duplication across the existing contracts and beneficial synergies gained by deploying contractor’s capabilities more effectively across all of NASA’s programs and missions. Additionally, the EGSS contract will enable consolidation of redundant center geospatial deployments creating additional savings in overhead, general & administrative, and IT labor and infrastructure costs. As mentioned above, the contracts that currently provide various geospatial support services under small portions of multiple contracts make accurately quantifying the cost savings unfeasible.

is the total value of the work performed under the current Agency contracts’ structure. The total value of the planned consolidation, based upon the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), is a maximum ordering amount of

(Attachment 1). The value of the proposed consolidated work is greater in value than the Agency contracts’ work currently being performed; therefore, the value entered here is “0”.

2. Compute the administrative or personnel cost savings and provide the supporting documentation for this computation:

maximum practicable participation by small business. The information below discusses the substantial intangible benefits.

OSI currently lacks the capability to fully provide geospatial support across all centers uniformly. With varying levels of need at each center, achieving economies of scale becomes challenging. By consolidating contracts, the agency can standardize geospatial services and support across all centers, while supporting center unique requirements. This standardization not only enhances efficiency but also enables centers with little or no geospatial capabilities to leverage agency investments made at centers with mature geospatial programs leading to optimized resource allocation and reduced overhead costs.

By extending existing capabilities to other centers, the agency will avoid redundant stand-up costs (money/time) associated with a center pursuing a “new” or stand-alone capability and allows new capabilities to be implemented at centers quickly and efficiently while maintaining strategic alignment. The GSS2 contract consolidated geospatial support between JSC and LaRC, extending LaRC’s extensive capabilities to JSC. Both JSC and LaRC have benefited from this structure through sharing of best practices, resources, and cost savings by moving to a consolidated IT architecture.

In order to fulfill the mission-critical need and align with the agency’s decision to enable an enterprise contract, creating a contract with standardized language to obtain the capability reduces the burden for agency-wide policy and governance to enable all centers to build the capability consistently across the enterprise. Otherwise, the process of utilizing all technical managers and leadership to develop that policy and governance formally and ensure its implementation across contracts would require additional time from contracting officers. By incorporating standardized language and governance into the enterprise contract, strategic alignment is organically enabled, reducing potential full-time equivalent (FTE) time in strategic alignment planning and implementation of policy/governance. Standard contract language also allows for establishment and enforcement of consistent quality and standards across the enterprise. With standardized processes, procedures, and deliverables outlined in the enterprise contract, the agency can ensure that geospatial services meet uniform quality benchmarks and adhere to established standards. This consistency improves overall performance, enhances reliability, and fosters trust among stakeholders.

A single enterprise contract facilitates streamlined communication and collaboration among stakeholders involved in geospatial operations. With centralized contract management and clear lines of communication established under the enterprise contract, stakeholders can collaborate more effectively, share information efficiently, and coordinate activities seamlessly. This streamlined communication enhances decision-making, reduces errors, and promotes synergy across the enterprise, ultimately improving overall performance and efficiency.

The enterprise contract will enable customers to spend less time procuring support as they will only need to issue Task Orders rather than participating in recompetes as previous contracts sunset. This streamlined procurement process reduces administrative burden, expedites the acquisition of geospatial services, and allows customers to focus on their core mission objectives rather than contract management tasks. By consolidating contracts, the agency gains better negotiation power with vendors. With a larger contract scope and volume, the agency can negotiate more favorable terms, pricing, and conditions, leading to cost savings and increased value for money. This enhanced negotiation power allows the agency to maximize the benefits derived from the enterprise contract and achieve greater efficiency in procurement activities.

The efficiencies gained by having one contract will enable the agency to reinvest those savings and enable more economy of scale. This reinvestment can be directed towards enhancing geospatial capabilities further, investing in technological advancements, or supporting other mission-critical initiatives. By leveraging the cost savings achieved through consolidation, the agency can maximize the value derived from the enterprise contract and drive further efficiencies across its operations.

Pursuit of a centralized procurement for OSI geospatial support services was a key component of the OSI Mission Support Future Architecture (MAP) KDP-C Phase 1 recommendation approved by the Mission Support Council in December 2022. The approved MAP recommendation including creating a centrally managed enterprise capability within OSI, consolidating enterprise architecture to extend tools to all centers, establishing minimum service levels to ensure all centers meet standards, providing Geospatial support at centers through a centralized procurement. The stated benefits for the recommendation included:

Enable timely and informed decision making through the provision of authoritative and accurate data (e.g., Agency Master plan updates, CMMS enhancement, real property, space utilization, environmental tools)

Increase quality and availability of geospatial products and services across the centers and OSI functions

Reduce labor costs and limits pursuit of redundant geospatial efforts across Centers through centralized procurement

Reduce current software license, hardware, and overhead cost and mitigates future cost of centers individually pursuing enterprise capabilities

Compliance with Federal Data Strategy and collaboration with other Agency systems

Consolidation of EGSS not only supports the OSI and Office of Procurement (OP) MAP goals of pursuing enterprise operating models, but also aligns with the broader NASA strategic goal to transform mission support capabilities for the next era of aerospace. As stated in the benefits above, EGSS will expand the reach of geospatial tools across the Centers, providing decision makers at all levels access to authoritative and accurate data.

Better data equals better decisions on how OSI executes the limited funds it receives to sustain the agency infrastructure.

The aforementioned additional benefits will include but are not limited to: quality improvements that will save time, improve, or enhance performance or efficiency;

reduction in acquisition cycle times and better terms and conditions.

To accomplish the aforementioned goals and achieve additional benefits, OP is working to reduce the number of contracts across the agency that are providing the same services, resulting in potential consolidation requirements as it synchronizes institutional requirements. An enterprise acquisition strategy is required to support the transition of current contract requirements to a centralized acquisition vehicle that aligns with new business models, Product Service Lines (PSL).

D. Identify alternative contracting approaches that have been considered that would involve a lesser degree of consolidation (FAR 7.107-2(a)(2)).

Two alternative contracting approaches were considered: (1) each Center soliciting its own requirements individually resulting in five new geospatial support contracts and (2) procuring the follow-ons to GSS2 and the ARC services independently, while leaving the GSS requirements for Armstrong, Goddard, and White Sands with its current contract.

Each of these alternative contracting approaches would require additional resources to award and administer the contracts and the additional benefits of quality improvements that will save time, improve, or enhance performance or efficiency, reduction in acquisition cycle times, and better terms and conditions as described above in Sections II.B. and C. will be negated or significantly diminished. Continuing to use multiple contracts does not allow for the level of standardization and efficiencies that a single consolidated contract provides. In addition, the geospatial data created under the consolidated contract will be hosted in a centralized enterprise architecture, resulting in task orders becoming integrally related and better suited for a single contractor.

LaRC concluded this consolidation optimally furthered the Agency’s Procurement Transformation Initiatives which include (1) establishing clearly defined enterprise requirements/deliverables; (2) streamlining acquisition practices and business processes;

and (3) reducing redundant contracts and other instruments across the Agency to meet evolving mission needs. Therefore, LaRC determined the recommended strategy optimally addressed the Agency Procurement Initiatives and other criteria including (1) meeting the specialized breadth and depth of geospatial support services performance requirements, (2) small business impacts, (3) reducing overlap in requirements, (4) more effective vendor management, and (5) reducing the number of SEBs.

E. Describe the impacts of the acquisition strategy on contracting with small business concerns:

1. As a result of the consolidation, the annual amount that was previously obligated to small businesses that will no longer be obligated as a result of the planned consolidation is $0. The planned consolidation will be awarded to a WOSB; and

2. There will be no change in the number of small businesses that have prime-level contracts with NASA as a result of the planned consolidation

F. Select all of the steps taken to include small business concerns in the acquisition strategy for the planned consolidation. In addition to numbers 1 and 2 below, include any other steps taken. Check all that apply below.

1. Incorporated recommended small business subcontracting goals in the draft and final request for proposal (RFP), in accordance with NPD 5000.2 Small Business Subcontracting Goals and NFS 1815.304(c)(4)(B).

2. Evaluation of offerors’ small business subcontracting commitment as a part of the evaluation criteria, NFS 1815.304(c)(4)(C)

None of the above apply, as this acquisition will be 100% set-aside for Women-owned, Small Businesses.

DETERMINATION

In accordance with the findings provided above, I determine that it is in the best interest of the Agency to consolidate the aforementioned requirements. This written determination demonstrates that this consolidation is necessary and justified.

APPENDIX 1

SEB Estimate in FY24 Dollars per SEB

Position GS

Wages Locality Pay -

Rest of US, Step 3

Wages + Fringe (36% est)

Hours Total

Contract Specialist (CS) Lead Contracting Officer (CO) Branch Head Procurement Officer (PO) SEB Advisor

SSA

Pricing Analyst Voting Member/Board Chair Voting Member (2 @ 25%) Technical consultants (5 @ 20% each)

OGC

Finance OSBP/Policy/Functional Review Total:

Total x 2 separate contracts: