eMITS Source Selection Statement.pdf

Source Selection Statement

Enterprise Multimedia and Integrated Technical Services (eMITS) Solicitation No. 80TECH22R0001

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

April 6, 2023

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

PROPOSAL EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Overview Mission Suitability Evaluation

Subfactor A – Technical Approach Subfactor B – Management Approach Applicable Definitions and Procedure

Past Performance Evaluation Cost/Price Evaluation

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Evaluation of Initial Proposals Competitive Range Determination

SOURCE SELECTION DETERMINATION

Introduction Summary Analysis

Mission Suitability Factor Past Performance Factor Cost/Price Factor

Tradeoff Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

The principal purpose of the eMITS procurement is to acquire information technology (IT) management, multimedia and communication services, and related services for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) and Office of Communications (OCOMM). NASA OCIO and OCOMM are consolidating services currently provided under separate contracts at different NASA Centers throughout the country and transitioning those services to Agency-level contracts to support NASA customer organizations through a single provider of digital multimedia and technical communications services. While it is not expected that the eMITS contractor will provide all services to all customers on the contract start date, it is expected that over time, all Center and Agency-level customer requirements will migrate to eMITS. As a result, the eMITS contractor will be expected to facilitate this migration effort and effectively and efficiently provide eMITS services to all NASA customers according to the contract schedule.

This acquisition was conducted as a Total Small Business Set-Aside and will result in a single contract award. The eMITS period of performance will consist of a 90-day phase-in period, a one-year base period, and seven one-year option periods. The contract will have a $10,000 guaranteed minimum ordering value and a not-to-exceed value of $100,000,000 for all eMITS IDIQ Task Orders (TO). The applicable North American Industry Classification System code is 541519, Other Computer Related Services, with a small business size standard of $30 million.

To identify potential sources and determine whether eMITS could be conducted as a small business set-aside, in 2021, NASA posted a Sources Sought Synopsis to SAM.gov and a Request for Information to the NASA and General Services Administration contracting websites. After releasing a Draft RFP and holding an Industry Day, both in March 2022, NASA released the eMITS RFP on May 31, 2022.

PROPOSAL EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Overview

To perform the evaluation of proposals, I appointed a Source Evaluation Board (SEB) comprised of IT and communications experts from across the agency. This SEB evaluated proposals in accordance with the procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3, and Section M of the RFP.

The eMITS RFP set forth three evaluation factors:

1. Mission Suitability

2. Past Performance

3. Cost/Price

For the relative weighting of these factors, Mission Suitability was more important than Past Performance, which was more important than Cost/Price. In addition, Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, were significantly more important than Cost/Price. My selection is based on applying this methodology and identifying the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. As described below in greater detail, my selection of an awardee is consistent with the tradeoff process set forth within FAR 15.101-1.

Mission Suitability Evaluation

The Mission Suitability factor contained two subfactors:

1. Subfactor A – Technical Approach

2. Subfactor B – Management Approach

Subfactor A – Technical Approach

Subfactor A consisted of three technical scenarios that offerors were required to address in their proposals:

1. Technical Approach Scenario 1

2. Technical Approach Scenario 2

3. Technical Approach Scenario 3

For Subfactor A, the SEB evaluated each offeror’s proposal to determine the offeror’s understanding of the technical requirements of the contract and the Performance Work Statement, taking into consideration proposed proven efficiencies and innovative methodologies.

Subfactor B – Management Approach

For Subfactor B, the SEB evaluated each offeror’s proposal according to the following four specific areas of interest to NASA:

1. Management Plan

2. Phase-in Plan

3. Staffing Approach

4. Total Compensation Plan

Applicable Definitions and Procedure

For each Mission Suitability subfactor, the SEB identified findings (i.e., Significant Strengths, Strengths, Significant Weaknesses, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies) based on the following definitions:

Significant Strength: An aspect of the proposal that greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

Strength: An aspect of the proposal that will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Based on the findings assigned by the SEB to each offeror’s respective technical and management approaches, the SEB then assigned an adjectival rating to each of these subfactors.

As provided at NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A), each adjectival rating has a corresponding percentile range. After assigning the applicable adjectival subfactor rating to each offeror’s proposal, the SEB selected the percentile score that, in the SEB’s assessment, best represented the offeror’s approach for that subfactor. The SEB assigned these subfactor adjectival ratings and percentile scores in accordance with the following table:

Subfactor Adjectival

Rating Definition Percentile

Range

Excellent A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists.

91-100

Very Good

A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates overall competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.

71-90

Good

A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly detract from the Contractor’s response.

51-70

Fair A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths. 31-50

Poor A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to correct.

0-30

Finally, the SEB numerically scored each Mission Suitability subfactor in accordance with the below table:

Subfactor Total Possible Points Subfactor A:

Technical Approach 600

Subfactor B:

Management Approach

Total Possible Mission Suitability Points

Past Performance Evaluation

The Past Performance evaluation is an assessment of NASA’s confidence in each offeror’s ability to perform the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s relevant performance under previously awarded contracts. The SEB evaluated offerors’ past performance in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.304-70. The SEB evaluated each offeror’s past performance record for recency, relevance, and performance as compared to the work required under eMITS.

After evaluating aspects of an offeror’s recent and relevant past performance, the SEB assigned each offeror an overall Past Performance Level of Confidence rating from among the following ratings as defined in the RFP and NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A): Very High, High, Moderate, Low, Very Low, and Neutral.

Cost/Price Evaluation

In accordance with RFP section M.5, the SEB developed a Total Evaluated Price for each offeror’s proposal. This calculation began with each offeror’s total proposed price. Total proposed price consisted of each offeror’s fee plus its proposed amounts for the following mix of Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and cost-type contract line items (CLINs): (1) A FFP phase-in period; (2) A Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) core; (3) Hybrid (CPAF or FFP) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) TOs; and contract option periods.

For each cost-type element of the total proposed price, NASA conducted a cost realism analysis to ensure a realistic cost was determined and considered by the Government. Any realism issue that was identified during the cost realism analysis resulted in an adjustment and was used to calculate a total probable cost. Probable costs were determined by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost and fee, when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analyses performed.

To arrive at each offeror’s Total Evaluated Price, NASA calculated the sum of the FFP elements of the offeror’s proposal and the probable costs (as determined by NASA) of the cost-type elements of the offeror’s proposal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Evaluation of Initial Proposals

As listed alphabetically below, NASA received five timely proposals from the following offerors in response to the eMITS RFP:

Agile Decision Sciences, LLC (ADS) DCRevTech, LLC, a Joint Venture (JV) consisting of Diaconia, LLC and COLSA

Corporation ROTHE ARES JV, LLC, consisting of Rothe Development Inc. and ARES Technical

Services Corporation (ROAR) SaiTech Inc.

Technology Automation & Management, Inc.

The SEB evaluated these proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria and processes described in the section above and further detailed within the RFP. The SEB presented the results of this evaluation to me and the Contracting Officer (CO) at the Competitive Range Determination briefing held on November 28, 2022.

Competitive Range Determination

On December 9, 2022, I concurred with the CO’s determination that proposals received from ADS and ROAR were the most highly rated and should be included in the competitive range.

The CO determined that holding discussions with these two offerors would enable them to address shortcomings in their proposals as identified by the SEB, and that this in turn would enhance proposals and maximize the Government’s ability to obtain the best value in awarding an eMITS contract. I concurred with that assessment.

After notifying offerors not selected for inclusion within the competitive range, the SEB engaged in discussions with ADS and ROAR. On February 15, 2023, ADS and ROAR submitted Final Proposal Revisions to NASA.

SOURCE SELECTION DETERMINATION

Introduction

On March 13, 2023, in my role as the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the eMITS procurement, the SEB briefed me on its evaluation of the proposals for the two offerors (ADS and ROAR) in the competitive range for the eMITS procurement. This briefing provided me and my advisors an opportunity to ask questions and discuss the results of the SEB’s work to further understand the SEB’s analysis and conclusions.

Following this briefing, I independently reviewed the two offerors’ proposals. I also thoroughly reviewed the following items which, collectively, comprise the SEB’s final evaluation documentation: the SEB’s final briefing charts; each offeror’s Past Performance Evaluation Worksheet; the Cost/Price Report; and the Total Compensation Plan Memorandum. I have determined that the evaluation results presented to me, including the findings, adjectival ratings, and results of the cost/price evaluation, are consistent with the evaluation methodology contained in the eMITS solicitation and are consistent with the content within the offerors’ proposals.

Accordingly, I fully concur with and adopt the SEB’s evaluation record.

As explained in greater detail below, I have selected ROTHE ARES JV, LLC (ROAR) for award of the eMITS contract. In reviewing the SEB’s evaluation record as part of the selection process, I did not limit my analysis to consideration or comparison of the SEB’s quantitative evaluation data, such as the offerors’ Mission Suitability scores or the number of strengths and weaknesses for each proposal, nor did I rely solely on the SEB’s overall evaluation conclusions. Rather, my selection rationale is based on all of these aspects of the work of the SEB as well as my own qualitative assessment of what I found to be the most discriminating and noteworthy aspects of the proposals. Specifically, and also as discussed below, I identified the key attributes of each offeror’s proposed approach and the value that those attributes would provide to NASA.

program lifecycle, which ROAR illustrated as a period of about one month, covering origination to broadcast and post launch activities. This aspect of ROAR’s proposal meaningfully exceeded both the timeline and level of detail requirements contemplated by the solicitation. ROAR’s proposed skill mix, the specific scheduling of each labor category, and the amount of time that each discipline will likely need to perform its job reflects that ROAR has put considerable thought into this planning and has a realistic strategy that will help to ensure smooth and successful operations.

As part of its planning methodology, I found ROAR’s launch communications plan (LCP) particularly noteworthy. Specifically, ROAR will develop an LCP unique to each event that addresses the full spectrum of multimedia and communications services required, analyzes risk, plans for contingencies, and complements NASA’s plans for the event. This highly detailed strategy recognizes the extensive preparation required to execute a successful launch event and offers a feasible and effective solution which will require less NASA oversight. But beyond reduced oversight required by NASA, I expect that this aspect of ROAR’s approach will yield significant benefits for NASA by ensuring comprehensive coverage with no gaps for all of the required media types (e.g., photography, social media, web coverage) and the full period of time before, during, and after a launch. ADS similarly had positive attributes within this portion of its proposal, but one of the main differences between the proposals in this area was that ROAR’s approach is much more thorough and demonstrates a notably deep understanding of what is required to reduce the risk of unsuccessful contract performance in this key area.

I noted that the SEB also assigned ROAR a separate strength within Subfactor A specifically concerning its proposed skills and level of effort (LOE) under Scenario 1. It is my assessment that ROAR received some credit for the proposed tasks and timelines associated with its resource-loaded schedule in the above-discussed significant strength. However, this separate strength focuses on ROAR’s proposed skills and LOE, demonstrating its ability to appropriately staff the requirements. Thus, I found this specific strength to be noteworthy of its own accord, and I agreed with the SEB that the assignment of this standalone strength is appropriate. While ADS provided information on the skills and LOE required for Scenario 1, I found ROAR’s proposed skills and LOE to be more comprehensive. For instance, ROAR aligned its skills and LOE to its detailed listing of anticipated tasks and timelines, exceeding the requirements identified in the solicitation. Although ADS’s proposal mapped the labor categories and number of hours to proposed tasks, ROAR provided additional specificity in its breakdown. In addition to mapping the labor categories and number of hours to proposed tasks, ROAR included a more detailed task list and broke out the number of hours required for each labor category over the course of its multimedia and broadcast program lifecycle to provide insight into how the offeror would staff launch coverage at specific points in time and for specific milestones over the course of the project.

ROAR also received a strength for its approach to skills and LOE under Scenario 2. Analogous to its approach to skills and LOE under Scenario 1, ROAR presented this information as part of a resource-loaded schedule with a detailed task list and labor hours broken out across its day-to-day web-based brand management operations as well as its podcast production project schedule and milestones. This highly detailed approach to skills and LOE, which provides insight into how labor hours will be spread across day-to-day operations and project milestones, provides me with confidence that ROAR understands the labor estimation requirements necessary to execute tasks under the eMITS contract.

Of additional note under Scenario 1, ROAR incorporated the essential mission imagery downlink requirements into its strategic plan in order to successfully complete an on-orbit event specified under the technical scenario. The SEB assigned ROAR a strength for this aspect of its proposal, and I similarly found value in ROAR’s approach, which demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the processes, skillsets, contingency planning, and enterprise contract dependencies required to provide effective service delivery. Although they may seem somewhat minor, mission imagery downlink requirements are critical to successful service delivery because they are a foundational element of all on orbit events and necessary to effectively accomplish the events identified under Scenario 1.

I found that both proposals demonstrated the offerors’ understanding of the technological challenges associated with conducting a commercial crew launch and both proposals offered solutions that would greatly enhance the potential for successful contract performance while reducing labor costs. ADS proposed using animation software to reduce labor costs and wider use of remote-controlled cameras to increase the number of camera views without a corresponding increase in labor cost. ROAR proposed automated technology solutions and strategic camera locations to enable coverage from multiple perspectives and reduce costs associated with labor, travel, infrastructure, maintenance, and power consumption. Although I found that the noted efficiencies from ROAR’s approach offered slightly better value to the Government, I found no appreciable difference between the two offerors’ approaches, which I found feasible and effective.

In addition, both offerors identified effective approaches to working with NASA Centers and other NASA contractors to deliver services under Scenario 2. ADS received a significant strength for its approach. I found value in its proposal to establish Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA). I also found its proposal to develop a content development workflow, enabling the availability of each Center’s work products across the agency, particularly noteworthy. Providing a central location for storing multimedia elements and products behind the public-facing web portal is an efficient approach which will facilitate content review. ROAR received a strength for proposing to mitigate the cultural challenges associated with transitioning from a large, distributed organization to an enterprise model through structured collaboration.

ROAR’s collaborative approach recognizes and supports unique Center contributions to Agency messaging which will increase the likelihood of gaining buy-in from the Centers and other stakeholders. ROAR received an additional strength for proposing to establish ACAs and Collaboration Toolkits, which augment ACAs by utilizing focused support agreements for specific activities, information sharing models, and coordination tools to optimize knowledge sharing and communication. I found value in ROAR’s approach in that it will enable and further enhance ROAR’s relationships with stakeholders across NASA. Overall, I found no appreciable differences between the two offerors’ approaches to deliver services under Scenario 2.

I also noted that ADS received a strength under Scenario 2 for proposing artificial intelligence strategies to the collection and analysis of social media reach and engagement data which could be used during multimedia planning and production to ensure NASA is communicating across all

Centers with “One Voice.” I found this approach to achieving a more unified NASA media presence particularly innovative. Use of predictive analysis strategies is an effective solution that addresses current gaps in NASA’s collection and analysis of data.

Both offerors also provided comprehensive plans to address migration from a Center-centric service delivery model to an enterprise model under Scenario 3. ADS received a strength under Scenario 3 for its plan to manage system migration from NASA’s current still and motion imagery repository and Digital Asset Management (DAM) system, highlighting the need for thorough planning and proactive stakeholder engagement. However, I found ROAR’s approach more comprehensive. In its proposal, ROAR considered additional NASA policy requirements, and described how its plan meets a compressed development cycle in order to ensure successful migration prior to end of life (EOL) of the system. ROAR received a significant strength for its proposal, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of how NASA Procedural Requirements will impact its project management approach in order to successfully meet the project milestones. I found ROAR’s approach to meeting a compressed development cycle particularly noteworthy and appreciate its focus on system EOL in establishing a timeline for execution of the migration.

ROAR’s approach to Scenario 3 also addresses the practical considerations of project execution.

For example, ROAR received a strength for proposing to mirror the system and set up a duplicate virtual environment that would remain operational until final system validation and testing is complete, creating a failover, eliminating downtime, and limiting customer frustration.

In addition, ROAR received a strength for its well-defined plan for gathering and measuring system performance and customer satisfaction, utilizing Community of Practice interviews, sprint reviews, user acceptance testing, and Service Level Agreement adherence as critical aspects for gauging customer satisfaction. ROAR’s technical approach to migration, as well as its plan for gathering and measuring system performance and customer satisfaction data, has merit and serves as an effective and efficient solution to Scenario 3.

Based on my review of the SEB’s findings and the proposals, I found that both offerors demonstrated an understanding of the technological challenges of the technical scenarios under Subfactor A. Both offerors received significant strengths for their technical approaches to conducting live mission coverage of a commercial crew launch under Scenario 1 and both offerors identified effective approaches to working with NASA Centers and other NASA contractors to deliver services under Scenario 2. I found that both offerors’ proposals demonstrated strong planning skills; however, I concluded that ROAR provided a greater level of detail in its approach to executing the various technical scenarios under Subfactor A. For instance, ROAR incorporated critical mission imagery downlink requirements into its strategic plan, demonstrating a meticulous approach to planning and execution which will result in successful service delivery.

In addition, ROAR’s comprehensive multimedia and broadcast program lifecycle and LCP, its proposed skills and LOE, and its overall approach to Scenario 3 (meeting a compressed development cycle and addressing the practical considerations of project execution) demonstrate that it has given meaningful consideration to end-to-end project execution and will require less NASA oversight during contract performance. This higher level of detail with respect to project execution exhibited in the five strengths and two significant strengths attributed to ROAR under Subfactor A is a material discriminator between the two proposals under this subfactor. While I found ADS’s earned strength for utilizing artificial intelligence strategies to collect and analyze social media reach and engagement data under Scenario 2 innovative and attractive, it was my assessment that this aspect of ADS’s approach will ultimately have a minor effect on mission success under eMITS. Overall, based on my qualitative review of the proposal content, I found that ROAR’s proposal has a distinct advantage over ADS’s proposal under Mission Suitability Subfactor A.

Subfactor B – Management Approach

Both offerors also proposed effective workforce approaches and received significant strengths for those approaches under the Management Approach subfactor (Subfactor B). ROAR’s “functional depot” approach, facilitating efficient resource allocation to service delivery and transforming Center efforts into Agency-wide products and services, is innovative and, if deployed effectively, would be transformational. Although ADS’s approach utilizes a more traditional organizational structure, it also proposes a flexible organization which can shift resources to higher priority activities and support the transition of Center contracts over time.

Overall, I found no appreciable differences between the two offerors’ approaches to workforce management under Subfactor B.

Of additional note, I found ADS’s ePortal to be a highly efficient interface tool which would support contract management, communication, execution, and dissemination of information.

ADS earned a significant strength from the SEB for this aspect of its proposal. ADS proposes to integrate ePortal at contract phase-in, managing personnel, resources, financial management, deliverables, and metrics for each work order. Importantly, ePortal is capable of interfacing with NASA contract management and service infrastructure. I found value in ADS’s approach to provide transparency across all aspects of contract management, customer engagement, financial management, performance management, personnel management, and task management. The ePortal tool will serve as an effective tool to reduce duplication and provide consistency across a geographically dispersed community of customers, greatly enhancing the potential for successful contract performance.

Overall, I found slightly more value in ADS’s proposal under Subfactor B. Both offerors proposed effective workforce approaches, but the significant strength ADS received for its management tool slightly tipped the scales in favor of ADS under Mission Suitability Subfactor B.

Past Performance Factor

After completing my analysis under the Mission Suitability Factor, I considered the Past Performance factor. I noted that the SEB assigned a Moderate Level of Confidence rating to ADS’s and ROAR’s Past Performance volumes, and I agreed with the SEB on each rating assessed for past performance. I closely examined and considered each offeror’s proposal, along with the SEB’s evaluation and found no meaningful discriminators for award as between the two offerors’ records of past performance.

Cost/Price Factor

Finally, I considered the Cost/Price Factor. I noted that ADS’s proposed cost was higher than ROAR’s proposed cost, and that both offerors’ proposed costs were lower than the Independent Government Cost Estimate. I also noted that the SEB’s cost realism analysis resulted in labor adjustments to both offerors’ proposals. The SEB made labor adjustments to ADS’s proposed cost to increase direct labor rates to meet Service Contract Act minimums (SCA), which resulted in an upward probable cost adjustment reflected in ADS’s Total Evaluated Price. Similarly, I noted that the SEB made a labor adjustment to ROAR’s proposed cost to raise four proposed labor rates to meet the minimum threshold established by the Government for reasonableness and to increase direct labor rates to meet SCA minimums, which resulted in an upward probable cost adjustment as reflected in ROAR’s Total Evaluated Price. After carefully reviewing the Cost/Price Report, I concluded that the adjustments made to both offerors’ proposed costs by the SEB were done with appropriate precision and care and were fully justified based on the rationale provided by the SEB’s cost evaluators. The result of these adjustments is that ROAR’s Total Evaluated Price is, in my assessment, meaningfully lower than ADS’s Total Evaluated Price.

Tradeoff

As explained above, for the eMITS procurement, Mission Suitability was more important than Past Performance, which was more important than Cost/Price. In addition, Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, were significantly more important than Cost/Price. The eMITS RFP provides that a trade-off process as described at FAR 15.101-1 will be used in making my source selection. Paragraph (a) of that regulation explains that “[a] tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.” In the present case, the offeror’s proposal that is strongest in the combined non-price evaluation factors is ROAR, which is the same offeror whose Total Evaluated Price is the lowest. These facts lead to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate for me to perform a tradeoff between ADS and ROAR in which I consider an award to other than the lowest priced offeror. While ADS’s proposal had many meritorious and attractive attributes, ROAR’s proposal demonstrates much greater overall potential for successful contract performance and is lower priced than ADS’s.

Such circumstances do not support NASA considering whether it should pay a higher price for ADS’s proposed approach.

Specifically, considering each evaluation factor individually and then applying the RFP’s weighting methodology, it is my determination that ROAR’s proposal presents the best value to NASA. Within the Mission Suitability factor, Technical Approach was weighted more heavily than Management Approach, and I found that ROAR’s proposal has the clear advantage for this evaluation factor given that its Technical Approach is notably stronger than ADS’s. Although ADS has a slight advantage over ROAR when comparing their Management Approaches, ROAR’s Management Approach is still very strong overall. On balance, this leads to my conclusion that, for the Mission Suitability factor, ROAR’s proposal is superior to that of ADS.

Turning to the second most heavily weighted evaluation factor, Past Performance, I did not find any meaningful distinction between the Past Performance evaluations of these two offerors, rendering that aspect of my evaluation an effective tie. And finally, ROAR’s Total Evaluated Price is lower than ADS’s. These facts provide strong support for an award to ROAR.

Conclusion

While both ROAR and ADS submitted competitively priced proposals that were respectively strong in the areas of Mission Suitability and Past Performance, my close examination and comparison of these proposals demonstrated that ROAR had a clear edge over ADS for both Mission Suitability and Cost/Price evaluation factors. Therefore, I have concluded that ROAR’s proposal will provide the best value to NASA for eMITS contract performance. This selection is based solely on, and is wholly consistent with, the selection criteria set out in the eMITS solicitation and applicable FAR and NFS regulations, and it is supported by the SEB’s comprehensive evaluation.

Accordingly, I select ROTHE ARES JV, LLC for award of the eMITS contract.

Jeffrey M. Seaton Date Source Selection Authority

JEFFREY

SEATON

Digitally signed by

JEFFREY SEATON

Date: 2023.04.06 23:20:47 -07'00'

4/6/23