FOMSS II Source Selection Statement 06 30 2026Signed.pdf

(PS60 Rev. 2019-04-25)

Selection Statement for the Facilities and Operations Maintenance Support Services

(FOMSS) II

RFP 80MSFC25R0005

On June 11, 2026, I, along with other senior officials from the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), met with the source evaluation board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the FOMSS II acquisition. The SEB presented their findings to me for the purpose of making a source selection decision.

I. PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The FOMSS II Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on December 4, 2024. The RFP required the selected contractor to perform operations and maintenance of all MSFC facilities and collateral equipment, and other related functions. These activities emphasize supporting MSFC’s missions in a safe, reliable, and timely manner, and with minimum disruptions to the occupants of those facilities with the overall goal of attaining maximum building and system availability at the lowest life cycle cost while meeting all MSFC mission requirements and standards for security, environmental health, and safety.

This effort will be performed using a hybrid contract consisting of a firm-fixed-price (FFP) Core Mission Services with an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) component using task orders to perform: (1) FFP work requests; or (2) Time and Materials (T&M) work requests; or

(3) A combination of FFP and T&M work requests; or (4) Service requests, which is IDIQ work ordered using a pre-priced catalog. The contract consists of a one-year base period with four one-year option periods.

Three amendments were issued to the RFP to respond to questions from industry and make minor changes to various elements of the solicitation.

The Government designated this procurement as a 100% 8(a) small business set-aside under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 19.5. The procurement was conducted under FAR Part 12/NFS 1812, Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services, in conjunction with FAR Part 15 and NFS Part 1815, Contracting by Negotiation.

By January 21, 2025, NASA received three proposals from the following companies:

1. Arrow’s Edge, LLC (Joint Venture of Amentum Services, Inc., and Seabrook Solutions, Inc.) (AEJV)

2. ASRC Federal Infrastructure Support, LLC (AFIS)

3. H4 Enterprises, LLC (H4)1

1 On June 17, 2025, H4 was notified that due to issues regarding compliance with solicitation instructions, the proposal was determined to be unacceptable and would not be evaluated.

II. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The proposals were evaluated in accordance with the RFP, FAR Part 12, FAR Part 15, and NFS Part 1815, and the FOMSS II Source Evaluation Plan.

The RFP listed three evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Price, and Past Performance and indicated a best value tradeoff process would be performed between the factors of Mission Suitability, Price, and Past Performance. In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.304(e), the relative importance of these factors is that as individual factors, Mission Suitability is more important than Past Performance which is more important than Price. Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

The three evaluation factors are described as follows:

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

Management and Technical Approach (MTA) 550 points Staffing and Compensation 450 points TOTAL 1,000 points

After evaluating each proposal, the SEB voting members collectively developed a consensus adjectival rating (i.e., "Excellent," "Very Good," "Good," "Fair," or "Poor") for the first subfactor based upon the documented findings (i.e., significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies). Following the establishment of a consensus adjectival rating, the SEB voting members collectively developed a consensus percentile rating that corresponded with the adjectival rating. Once the percentile rating was established, the numerical score for that subfactor was computed by taking the consensus percentile rating for that subfactor and multiplying it by the maximum points available for that subfactor (see listing above). This represented the numerical score for a given subfactor. This process was repeated for the second Mission Suitability subfactor by offeror. The final point value for the Mission Suitability factor was then calculated as the sum of both subfactors' point values. In accordance with NFS 1815.370(h)(viii), the SEB did not assign an overall adjectival rating for the Mission Suitability factor.

Price: The Government performed a price analysis of all responsive proposals received in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques.

For evaluation purposes, the total price was established as: the sum of the (1) phase-in services price; and (2) the Core Mission Services Labor, Non-Labor Items, and Non-Labor Item Burdens for the contract period of performance, including all options; (3) an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) price using the offeror-provided fully burdened composite rates applied to a pre-populated estimate of labor hours for each labor category (see Excel Pricing Model (EPM) Tab A, “Summary of Total Proposed Price”) and appropriate Non-Labor Burden Rates applied to the Government-estimated material and subcontract services costs; (4) Service Requests Pre-Priced unit price applied to a pre-populated quantity for each line item; and (5) a six-month option to extend services value (i.e., FAR 52.217-8), determined by the Government by prorating the price proposed for the last year of Core Mission Services (i.e., Contract Line-item Number (CLIN) 0012 and 0013). The proposed phase-in services price performance period, established as a separate firm-fixed-price (FFP) CLIN 0001 within the FFP Core Mission Services value, will be performed concurrent with the incumbent contract.

Past Performance: The offeror’s overall corporate past performance, to include the corporate past performance of any proposed major subcontractors and the corporate past performance of any affiliates which the offeror demonstrated would be meaningfully involved in the contract’s performance, was evaluated. This factor was not numerically scored but was assigned an adjectival rating. The applicable adjectival ratings were “Very High Level of Confidence,” “High Level of Confidence,” “Moderate Level of Confidence,” “Low Level of Confidence,” “Very Low Level of Confidence,” and “Neutral” in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A).

On January 30, 2026, the contracting officer, with the concurrence of the source selection authority (SSA) established a competitive range consisting of both AEJV and AFIS. On February 5, 2026, both offerors were notified by letter of their inclusion in the competitive range.

As a result of these discussions, each offeror successfully resolved all weaknesses that were identified during the initial proposal evaluation. On March 5, 2026, these offerors were notified by letter that discussions were concluded and requested to provide final proposal revisions which were submitted by March 13, 2026.

Subsequent to provision of the source selection statement to both offerors and the conduct of postaward debriefings, AFIS filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on May 6, 2026. This protest focused on the SEB’s evaluation of offeror past performance and of innovations proposed by AFIS. In response, the Agency implemented a focused corrective action with respect to past performance evaluation and evaluation of proposed offeror innovations. The analysis below reflects the SEB’s analysis regarding these areas and the resulting selection decision is based on this analysis.

III. Evaluation of Final Proposal Revisions

AEJV

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the proposal received a total score of 719 out of a possible 1,000 points and the two subfactor adjectival ratings assigned were “Very Good” (in Management and Technical Approach) and “Good” (in Staffing and Compensation Approach).

In support of these ratings, the proposal received no deficiencies, one significant strength, seven strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses.

Under the Management and Technical Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” and 440 points (out of a possible 550 points) resulting from one significant strength and five strengths. The significant strength was assessed for the aggregate of nine proposed innovations which demonstrate an exceptional understanding of the current operational environment and future needs through provision of a comprehensive suite of effective tools and novel approaches which should greatly enhance and streamline the execution of projects and the delivery of services provided by the FOMSS II contract. The strengths were assessed for (1) the proposed approach to ensure that logistical requirements for work performance will be met during supply chain disruptions and regional shortages which will help to ensure the offeror has sufficient materials and supplies available to perform contract work; (2) an aspect of the proposed quality control approach which would enhance the offeror’s ability to rapidly assess the work requirement and communicate quality control issues with the workforce; (3) the proposed approach for maintenance task development that will take advantage of the individual strengths of reactive, preventive, and condition-based maintenance (CBM) practices and enable the offeror to make sound, data-driven changes to the maintenance program while potentially lowering the lifecycle cost of MSFC's facility equipment;

(4) the proposed well-structured phase-in approach which demonstrates a strong understanding of the logistical, processes, and staffing issues which may arise which will help to ensure the offeror is appropriately positioned to achieve full operational capability and contract responsibility by the end of the phase-in period; and (5) the approach for local autonomy and authority that would ensure the offeror’s local management structure has the training, authorities, and assigned responsibilities to release completed work to the Government, reassign work in response to varying workloads, and respond to emergency requirements. These five strengths will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Under the Staffing and Compensation approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 279 points (out of a possible 450 points) resulting from two strengths. The strengths were assessed for (1) the proposed approach for recruiting and retaining specialized and high-demand professionals and tradesmen, which includes a robust recruitment, retention, incentive, and training programs, that addresses local job market challenges; and (2) the proposed approach to managing varying demand, including workload fluctuations, that emphasizes advance planning and workforce flexibility. These two strengths will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Under the Price factor, the SEB determined the total proposed price to be $206,886,624 which included all option periods. The price was determined to be fair and reasonable.

Under the Past Performance factor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of “Very High Level of Confidence” resulting from four significant strengths. The significant strengths were assessed for (1) the very good performance of Amentum (mentor partner of 8(a) Mentor Protégé Joint Venture, Arrow's Edge, LLC), when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant NASA Facilities Operations and Maintenance Support Services (FOMSS) contract 80MSFC17C0007; (2) the very good performance of Syncom Space Services (S3) joint venture (which included PAE Applied Technologies, LLC as managing partner and which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amentum; Amentum is the mentor member of Arrow's Edge, LLC, an 8(a) Mentor-Protégé joint venture) on the very highly relevant NASA Synergy Achieving Consolidated Operations and Maintenance (SACOM) contract NNS15AA01C; (3) the exceptional performance of PAE Applied Technologies, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Amentum; Amentum is the mentor member of Arrow's Edge, LLC, an 8(a) Mentor-Protégé joint venture), when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Facilities Contract 80JSC021DA015; and (4) the exceptional performance of

Amentum (mentor partner of 8(a) Mentor Protégé Joint Venture, Arrow's Edge, LLC), when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant U.S. Air Force Range Support Services II (RSS II) contract FA824017D4651. These four significant strengths greatly enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

AFIS

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the proposal received a total score of 669 out of a possible 1,000 points and the two subfactor adjectival ratings assigned were “Good” (in Management and Technical Approach) and “Good” (in Staffing and Compensation Approach). In support of these ratings, the proposal received no deficiencies, no significant strengths, nine strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses.

Under the Management and Technical Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 385 points (out of a possible 550 points) resulting from seven strengths.

The strengths were assessed for (1) the proposed subcontracting arrangement approach that leverages subcontractor team members with extensive experience at MSFC providing facilities systems engineering services, operating and maintaining building automation systems, and providing environmental and hazardous waste disposal services; (2) the proposed approach for providing timely and accurate indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) estimates and for performing field investigations which should help to ensure streamlined project execution and efficient utilization of available resources and tools; (3) the proposed quality control approach that leverages stringent industry quality standards and establishes clearly defined quality control roles to ensure the offeror is successfully positioned to provide independent and comprehensive quality control oversight of contract activities; (4) the proposed approach for maintenance task development that provides well-crafted strategies for applying reactive, preventive, and condition-based maintenance practices and techniques to Marshall Space Flight Center’s infrastructure and facilities equipment to reduce total life cycle costs; (5) the aggregate of four proposed innovations which demonstrate a good understanding of the current operational environment and future needs through provision of effective tools and approaches to enhance the execution of projects and the delivery of services provided by the FOMSS II contract; (6) the proposed approach to assume full contractual responsibility and ensure current contract activities continue without interruption which includes a highly qualified phase-in team and well-structured phase-in methodology; and (7) the proposed approach for local autonomy and authority that vests responsibility and authority where it is most effective and ensures that the local organization can make critical decisions that will ensure responsive and effective contract performance. These seven strengths will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Under the Staffing and Compensation approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 284 points (out of a possible 450 points) resulting from two strengths. The strengths were assessed for (1) the proposed approach for recruiting and retaining specialized personnel and technical subject matter experts that uses multiple recruitment and retention techniques and practices that effectively addresses market conditions that may hamper those efforts; and (2) the proposed approach to address varying demands associated with short-term and long-term increases and decreases in the level of support required for the workforce.

These two strengths will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Under the Price factor, the SEB determined the proposal to have the highest total proposed price which included all option periods and which was also determined to be fair and reasonable.

Under the Past Performance factor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of “Very High Level of Confidence” resulting from two significant strengths and one adequate finding. The significant strengths were assessed for (1) the very good performance of ASRC Communications, Ltd. (an affiliate of ASRC Federal Infrastructure Support, LLC), when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant U.S. Space Force Cape Launch Operations and Infrastructure Support (CLOIS) contract FA2521-18-D-0001; and (2) the very good performance of ASRC Federal System Solutions, LLC (an affiliate of ASRC Federal Infrastructure Support, LLC), when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant U.S. Air Force Vance Air Force Base (VAFB) Base Operations Support (BOS) II contract FA300221C0003. The adequate finding was assessed for the very good performance of RSI Entech, LLC, ASRC Federal Infrastructure Support, LLC's proposed subcontractor, when serving as a subcontractor on the very highly relevant Department of Energy East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) Prime Contract DE- SC0004645 (Subcontract 30492-BA-12-001026). The subcontractor’s workshare is 4% of the total Core Mission Services contract value which is below the threshold of 15% or more of total Core Mission Services contract value to be designated a major subcontractor. The two significant strengths greatly enhance the potential for successful contract performance. The adequate finding neither increases nor decreases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

IV. Decision

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

I determined the SEB conducted a thorough and accurate review of the proposals according to the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP, identifying findings and explaining how it believed those findings would affect performance. The findings were detailed, consistent with the RFP, provided clear descriptions of the merits of each proposal, and supported the various ratings assigned. I also determined that the evaluation plan for this procurement was followed, the evaluation of proposals was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented, and that the SEB's findings were reasonable and valid for the purpose of making a selection decision. While I agreed with the SEB's findings, I also recognized my responsibility as the SSA to examine the Mission Suitability findings, adjectival ratings, point scores, the total Price values, and the Past Performance level of confidence ratings for each proposal, and to use my independent judgment to determine the appropriate discriminators for purposes of making a best value award selection for the Government.

Based on a comparison of all proposals against the three evaluation factors for award and the relative importance of these factors, I select the proposal submitted by AEJV for award of the FOMSS II contract as it represents the best value for the Government. The rationale for my selection decision follows.

Mission Suitability

In comparing AEJV’s proposal to the AFIS proposal under the Mission Suitability factor, I noted that the AEJV proposal had a higher point score (i.e., 719 points) versus the AFIS proposal (i.e., 669 points). Looking beyond these scores and the underlying adjectival ratings, I determined they are supported by the corresponding findings for the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

To better understand the respective evaluations, I compared the findings for each proposal under each of the two Mission Suitability subfactors. Overall, the AEJV proposal was assessed one significant strength and seven strengths. The AFIS proposal was assessed nine strengths.

Under the solicitation’s Management and Technical Approach subfactor, which was the most heavily weighted subfactor, I reviewed the subfactor findings and noted that the AEJV proposal had no deficiencies and demonstrated overall competence. The significant strength for the aggregate of nine proposed innovations which demonstrate an exceptional understanding of the current operational environment and future needs through provision of a comprehensive suite of effective tools and novel approaches should, if implemented, enhance AEJV’s ability to schedule projects and operations; improve the Government’s oversight of MSFC’s facility equipment inventory; speed project estimating processes and communications; enhance MSFC’s computerized maintenance management system’s data integrity to ensure Government decisions are made based on sound information; and ensure that human resources operates efficiently, thereby greatly enhancing the potential for successful contract operations and service delivery.

The strength assessed for the proposed approach to ensure that logistical requirements for work performance will be met during supply chain disruptions and regional shortages and help to ensure that sufficient materials and supplies are available to perform contract work and which makes use of a well-developed corporate supply chain should enhance the offeror’s ability to obtain materials and supplies to ensure uninterrupted work. The strength for an aspect of the proposed quality control approach to enhance the offeror’s ability to rapidly assess the work requirement and communicate quality control issues with the workforce should help to ensure the rapid recognition of work deficiencies and keep the workforce actively engaged with quality control issues during the performance of their work. The strength is the proposed approach for maintenance task development that will take advantage of reactive, preventive, and CBM practices and enable the offeror to make sound, data-driven changes to the maintenance program while potentially lowering the lifecycle cost of MSFC's facility equipment should reduce maintenance costs while enhancing equipment reliability. The strength for the proposed well-structured phase-in approach, which demonstrates a strong understanding of the logistical, process, and staffing issues which may arise, should positively impact the offeror’s ability to successfully, efficiently, and quickly assume full contract responsibility by the end of the phase-in period. Finally, the strength for the approach for local autonomy and authority should help to ensure that managers are provided necessary training and work authorization authorities, varying workload and workforce demands are addressed in a timely fashion, and emergency requirements are effectively authorized and executed.

Under this same subfactor, the AFIS proposal demonstrated a reasonably sound response. The strength for the proposed subcontracting arrangement approach that leverages subcontractor team members with extensive experience at MSFC should have a positive impact on the offeror’s ability to successfully perform facilities maintenance and operations at contract start with minimal disruption. The strength for the proposed approach for providing timely and accurate IDIQ estimates and for performing field investigations should help to ensure streamlined project execution and efficient utilization of resources and tools while ensuring that all site conditions and work requirements are verified and incorporated into the estimate. The strength for the proposed quality control approach that leverages stringent industry quality standards and establishes clearly defined quality control roles should help the offeror to be successfully positioned to provide effective quality management oversight for all contract activities while strengthening communication venues with appropriate stakeholders. The strength for the proposed approach for maintenance task development that provides well-crafted strategies for applying reactive, preventive, and condition-based maintenance practices and techniques for MSFC’s infrastructure and facilities equipment should help to reduce total life cycle costs while enhancing infrastructure availability and budget oversight activities. The strength for the aggregate of four proposed innovations which demonstrate a good understanding of the current operational environment and future needs through provision of effective tools and approaches to enhance the execution of projects and the delivery of services provided by the FOMSS II contract should, if implemented, improve the MSFC energy management program’s operations;

provide the Government with enhanced insight into equipment operations; lower the Contractor’s training costs while ensuring the Contractor’s workforce receives appropriate and timely training; and increase facility reliability and energy efficiency, thereby positively impacting contract operations and service delivery. The strength for the proposed approach to assume full contractual responsibility and ensure current contract activities continue without interruption should help to ensure the offeror is able to onramp suitably qualified personnel and achieve key phase-in milestones in order to assume full responsibility at contract start. Finally, the strength for the proposed approach for local autonomy and authority should help to ensure that local contract management can rapidly respond to circumstances as they arise thereby increasing contract management effectiveness and efficiency.

In comparing the AEJV proposal with the AFIS proposal under the more heavily weighted Management and Technical Approach subfactor, I noted that both the AEJV and AFIS proposals had strengths assessed for their proposed phase-in approaches, though I noted that the AEJV proposal had some additional attributes over the AFIS proposal that I considered to be potentially more advantageous upon their application. Likewise, both the AEJV and AFIS proposals had strengths associated with the approaches for local autonomy and authority, though I considered the additional attributes of the AFIS proposal to be potentially more advantageous upon their application. Additionally, both the AEJV and AFIS proposals had strengths assessed for their proposed quality control approaches. Both approaches had positive benefits though I considered the additional positive attributes of the AFIS approach to be more potentially advantageous were they to be employed. Further, both the AEJV proposal and AFIS proposal had strengths assessed for their approaches for maintenance task development, each of which had several aspects that I considered to be of benefit if employed. I noted that the AEJV proposal had a strength for their approach to ensure that logistical requirements for work performance will be met during supply chain disruptions and regional shortages which will help to ensure the offeror has sufficient materials and supplies available to perform contract work and which I considered to be of particular importance given recent domestic and global supply chain issues and the risk that these issues could present to successful contract performance. The AFIS proposal had a strength assigned for their proposed subcontracting approach which leverages subcontractor team members with extensive MSFC experience with facilities systems engineering, operating and maintaining building automation systems, and environmental and hazardous waste management which should help to ensure these activities are performed by firms familiar with the MSFC operational environment. However, I considered this strength to be of less importance to me as the expertise of the incumbent workforce would be leveraged to the greatest extent possible, regardless of which offeror was selected. The AFIS proposal was also assessed a strength for the approach to provide timely and accurate IDIQ estimates and field investigations which should help to ensure streamlined project execution and efficient utilization of available resources and tools.

I then turned my attention to the innovation findings assigned to both proposals which were a primary focus of the SEBs’ re-evaluation effort, and I probed the SEB to better understand the results of this evaluation. First, I noted that the AEJV proposal was assigned a significant strength for nine proposed innovations which demonstrate an exceptional understanding of the current operational environment and future needs through provision of a comprehensive suite of effective tools and novel approaches which should greatly enhance and streamline the execution of projects and the delivery of services while the AFIS proposal was assessed a strength for four proposed innovations which demonstrate a good understanding of the current operational environment and future needs through provision of effective tools and approaches to enhance the execution of projects and the delivery of services. The SEB explained that the nine innovations proposed by AEJV and the four innovations proposed by AFIS were those considered to be of benefit to the Government if they were to be implemented postaward and therefore were included by the Government in each offeror’s model contract for resubmission as part of each offeror’s final proposal revision (FPR) (and which were also included in each offeror’s FPR Mission Suitability volume and Price volume). Each offeror submitted a signed model contract including only the innovations the Government had accepted as part of their final proposal submissions. The SEB further explained that only one innovation for each offeror was originally reflected as a strength under the Management and Technical Approach subfactor because, while the additional innovations were determined to be of benefit to the Government, it could not be determined prior to award if the additional innovations could ultimately be implemented during performance. On re-evaluation, the SEB determined that a more appropriate paradigm was not whether they could ultimately be deployed (which could not be determined during the evaluation phase) but whether each proposed innovation would ultimately be of benefit to the Government if they were to be implemented in the postaward operational environment. This revised framework was applied to the innovations proposed by both offerors. This assessment resulted in a revised aggregate strength finding for the AFIS proposal which included their four proposed innovations while resulting in an aggregate significant strength finding for the AEJV proposal which included their nine proposed innovations.

I then enquired as to how this ultimately impacted the rating and scoring of both proposals under this subfactor. The SEB relayed, and I agreed with, the assessment that the AEJV significant strength’s proposed innovations were potentially much more impactful than those of AFIS, not based on number of innovations but because the innovations were particularly relevant to Government needs as indicated in the solicitation, were more forward thinking, and better leveraged advances in technology, while the AFIS strength’s innovations were generally more conservative in nature.

I then noted that the resulting rating and scoring impact was dictated by the percentile ranges associated with the “Very Good” and “Good” adjectival ratings (noting that to be rated above a “Good” a proposal was required to have one or more significant strengths). Based on this, the AEJV rating of “Very Good” delineated a higher available percentile range resulting in a revised Management and Technical Approach subfactor rating and score that was commensurate with the benefits associated with the AEJV proposal’s assigned significant strength and additional strengths. Conversely, because no AFIS strengths were determined to be significant, the SEB was bound by the percentile range established for the “Good” rating, to which AFIS was assigned the highest percentile (and also the highest points) allowed for that adjectival rating.

This resulted in no change in the numerical score for this subfactor as the highest number of available points had previously been assessed. Based on the above, I considered the AEJV proposal to have an advantage over the AFIS proposal under the Management and Technical Approach subfactor.

Under the solicitation’s Staffing and Compensation Approach subfactor, I noted that the AEJV proposal demonstrated a reasonably sound response. The strength assessed for the approach to recruit and retain specialized and high-demand professionals and tradesmen should have a positive impact on the offeror’s ability to provide a suitably qualified and skilled workforce. The strength for the approach to manage varying demand, including workload fluctuations, should provide an effective proactive means of responding to varying workload demands. As a result, each of the strengths above should have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Under this same subfactor, the AFIS proposal also demonstrated a reasonably sound response.

The strength assessed for the approach to recruit and retain specialized personnel and technical subject matter experts should help to ensure that in times of a competitive labor market the offeror is able to provide a suitably qualified workforce. The strength for the approach to address varying demands associated with short-term and long-term increases and decreases in the level of support required for the workforce should likewise help to ensure the workforce is suitably positioned to respond to workload fluctuations. As a result, each of the strengths above should have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

In comparing the AEJV proposal with the AFIS proposal under the less heavily weighted Staffing and Compensation Approach subfactor, I noted that both the AEJV proposal and the AFIS proposal were assessed with strengths for the proposed approaches to recruit and retain specialized personnel. I also noted that both the AEJV and AFIS proposals were assessed strengths for their approaches for managing varying demand and workload fluctuations.

However, given that both offerors had similar strengths relating to recruitment and retention, as well as for addressing workload fluctuations, I found no meaningful distinction between the two proposals to allow for an advantage for either proposal. In light of the above, I found the respective strengths of the offerors with regards to the Staffing and Compensation Approach subfactor to have essentially equal impact on the likelihood of successful contract performance with no meaningful distinction between the two proposals to allow for an advantage for either proposal under this subfactor. Thus, I considered the two proposals to be essentially equal under the less heavily weighted Staffing and Compensation Approach subfactor.

In comparing the AEJV proposal with the AFIS proposal across both subfactors, I considered the AEJV proposal to have an advantage under the more heavily weighted Management and Technical Approach subfactor and considered both proposals to be essentially equal under the less heavily weighted Staffing and Compensation Approach subfactor. Based on this, I determined the AEJV proposal to have an advantage under the Mission Suitability factor.

Price

In comparing the AEJV proposal with the AFIS proposal under the Price factor, the AEJV proposal had the lowest total proposed price. I noted that both proposal’s total proposed prices were determined to be fair and reasonable. I also noted that both proposed prices were inclusive of all assigned strengths, particularly proposed innovations (i.e., those delineated in the significant strength for the AEJV proposal and the strength for the AFIS proposal under the Mission Suitability factor). I therefore determined that the AEJV proposal had an advantage over the AFIS proposal under the Price factor.

Past Performance

In comparing the AEJV proposal to the AFIS proposal under the Past Performance factor, I noted that both proposals were assessed a “Very High Level of Confidence” rating. In an effort to understand the respective level of confidence ratings assigned under the Past Performance factor, I compared the findings for each proposal while noting that the re-evaluation of the Past Performance factor was a primary element of the SEB’s overall FPR re-evaluation.

The AEJV proposal was assessed four significant strengths for (1) the very good performance of Amentum when serving as the prime contractor on a very highly relevant NASA facilities operations contract; (2) the very good performance of affiliate Syncom Space Services (S3) (which included PAE Applied Technologies, LLC as managing partner and which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amentum) on a very highly relevant NASA contract; (3) the exceptional performance of affiliate PAE Applied Technologies, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on a very highly relevant NASA facilities contract; and (4) the exceptional performance of Amentum when serving as the prime contractor on a very highly relevant U.S. Air Force contract.

The AFIS proposal received two significant strengths and one adequate finding. The significant strengths were assessed for (1) the very good performance of affiliate ASRC Communications, Ltd., when serving as the prime contractor on a very highly relevant U.S. Space Force facilities contract; and (2) the very good performance of affiliate ASRC Federal System Solutions, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on a very highly relevant U.S. Air Force base operations contract. The adequate finding was assessed for the very good performance of RSI Entech, LLC, AFIS proposed subcontractor, when serving as a subcontractor on a very highly relevant DoE decontamination and decommissioning contract, with insufficient total Core Mission Services contract value to be designated a major subcontractor (i.e., 4% of the total Core Mission Services contract value which is below the threshold of 15% or more of total Core Mission Services contract value).

I also considered whether the performance demonstrated by each offeror in relation to the requirements of the PWS demonstrated relevant performance across the full breadth of the applicable PWS areas. First, I noted that the AEJV proposal demonstrated relevant coverage across 13 of 13 applicable PWS areas (i.e., PWS 1.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0, 11.0, 12.0, 13.0, and 14.0). I also noted that the AFIS proposal demonstrated relevant coverage across 13 of 13 applicable PWS areas (i.e., PWS 1.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0, 11.0, 12.0, 13.0, and 14.0).

I also noted that the solicitation requested two past performance references from the offeror and if the offeror is a joint venture, two referenced contracts in the name of the joint venture. The solicitation further stated that if the joint venture is newly established and cannot provide past performance referenced contracts in the name of the joint venture, then past performance referenced contracts from individual partners of the joint venture should be submitted for consideration, not to exceed a combined total of five referenced contracts, and that two past performance referenced contracts should be provided for the JV managing partner. AEJV submitted performance in the name of the joint venture (i.e., AEJV) as further explained below.

Additionally, I noted that the potential offeror questions and answers which were incorporated into the RFP indicated that submitted affiliate references could be attributed to the prime offeror provided that meaningful involvement of the affiliate in the FOMSS II contract was demonstrated.

I then considered the five referenced contracts provided for consideration by AEJV. Four of these contracts were assessed significant strengths. AEJV also submitted for consideration, within the five referenced contract limitation, U.S. Navy Fleet Readiness Center Aviation Support Equipment (FRCASE) contract N6852023D0012 which currently provides fleet aviation support equipment maintenance, repair, and overhaul and logistics support services to the U.S.

Navy. The FRCASE contract was assessed as highly relevant in size and several PWS elements were identified as relevant to FOMSS II; however, while there were an insufficient number of relevant PWS elements for this contract to be determined relevant overall, the contract did establish that AEJV had a record of satisfactory to exceptional performance in the name of the joint venture, with the protégé managing partner (i.e., Seabrook Solutions) serving as the managing joint venture partner.2 In addition to the significant strength assigned for AEJV mentor member Amentum’s performance on the NASA FOMSS contract 80MSFC17C00007, AEJV was assessed a significant strength for affiliate Syncom Space Services (S3’s) very good

2 The SEB also checked CPARS to determine whether any records exist for Seabrook Solutions. Seven records were found involving two contracts for database administration/management services. While FOMSS II requires some database administration/management services, neither one of the two Seabrook Solutions contracts satisfies the FOMSS II solicitation’s dollar threshold for size.

performance (which included PAE Applied Technologies, LLC as managing partner and which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amentum; Amentum is the mentor member of Arrow's Edge, LLC, an 8(a) Mentor-Protégé joint venture) on the very highly relevant NASA SACOM contract NNS15AA01C. Additionally, AEJV was assessed a significant strength for the exceptional performance of affiliate PAE Applied Technologies, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Amentum; Amentum is the mentor member of Arrow's Edge, LLC, an 8(a) Mentor-Protégé joint venture), on the very highly relevant NASA JSC Facilities Contract 80JSC021DA015. AEJV’s proposal sufficiently demonstrated that both S3 and PAE Applied Technologies, LLC would be meaningfully involved in performance of the FOMSS II contract and therefore could be attributed as a prime offeror reference (i.e., joint venture AEJV as the prime offeror).

I further noted that the AEJV references found to be relevant provided very good or exceptional performance on very highly relevant referenced contracts. Upon reviewing the findings and in light of the above, I concurred with the “Very High Level of Confidence” assigned to the AEJV proposal, which demonstrated relevant performance across all 13 applicable PWS elements, and which was assessed one or more significant strengths.

I then considered the three referenced contracts provided for consideration by AFIS. Two of these contracts were assessed significant strengths while one was assessed an adequate finding, demonstrating very good performance on very highly relevant contracts or subcontracts. The significant strengths were assessed for (1) the very good performance of ASRC Communications, Ltd. (an affiliate of ASRC Federal Infrastructure Support, LLC), when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant U.S. Space Force CLOIS contract FA2521- 18-D-0001; and (2) the very good performance of ASRC Federal System Solutions, LLC (an affiliate of ASRC Federal Infrastructure Support, LLC), when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant U.S. Air Force VAFB BOS II contract FA300221C0003. The adequate finding was assessed for the very good performance of RSI Entech, LLC, ASRC Federal Infrastructure Support, LLC's proposed subcontractor, when serving as a subcontractor on the very highly relevant Department of Energy ETTP D&D Prime Contract DE-SC0004645 (Subcontract 30492-BA-12-001026). AFIS’s proposal also clearly demonstrated that both ASRC Communications, Ltd. and ASRC Federal System Solutions, LLC would be meaningfully involved in performance of the FOMSS II contract and therefore could be attributed as a prime offeror reference (i.e., AFIS as the prime offeror).

Upon reviewing the findings, I concurred with the “Very High Level of Confidence” assigned to the AFIS proposal, which demonstrated relevant performance across all 13 applicable PWS elements, and which were assessed one or more significant strengths.

I then compared both proposals under the Past Performance factor, noting the “Very High Level of Confidence” assigned to both proposals and that both provided complete coverage across the full breadth of applicable PWS elements. Specifically, the AEJV proposal was assessed four significant strengths, while the AFIS proposal was assessed two significant strengths and one adequate finding. Two AEJV referenced contracts were provided for affiliates of the AEJV mentor partner which demonstrated meaningful involvement, while both AFIS significant strengths were provided for affiliate references, also with meaningful involvement demonstrated.

However, when further comparing the affiliate references of both offerors, AEJV was the only offeror with an affiliate reference that had served as a prime contractor on a very highly relevant contract with an exceptional performance history. I then considered and determined that while both offerors provided complete coverage across the full breadth of applicable PWS elements and were rated as a “Very High Level of Confidence,” the greater depth of the AEJV proposal’s demonstrated relevant performance (i.e., four significant strengths for AEJV vs. two significant strengths and one adequate finding for AFIS) and slightly better affiliate performance history gave AEJV a slight advantage under this factor.

I then proceeded with my best value tradeoff evaluation of the two proposals. I first noted that Section M provision Basis for Award indicated that the Mission Suitability factor is more important than the Past Performance factor which is more important than the Price factor.

Further, the Mission Suitability factor and Past Performance factor, when combined, are significantly more important than the Price factor. I then noted that the AEJV proposal had an advantage under the most important Mission Suitability factor and slight advantage under the Past Performance factor. Finally, the AEJV proposal had an advantage over the AFIS proposal under the Price factor.

Lastly, I considered the relative weighting of the three factors. Given the advantage of the AEJV proposal under the Mission Suitability factor, the slight advantage of the AEJV proposal under the Past Performance factor, and the advantage of the AEJV proposal under the Price factor, I determined that the AEJV proposal provided the best value to the Government. I therefore select that firm for award of the FOMSS II contract.

William L. Marks, II Source Selection Authority