GLSC - Source Selection Statement.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR THE

GODDARD LOGISTICS SERVICES CONTRACT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO.: 80GSFC24R0048

On May 14, 2024, and May 22, 2024, I along with other senior officials of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the Goddard Logistics Services Contract (GLSC) procurement. This memorandum documents my selection decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION & HISTORY

The purpose of the Goddard Logistics Services Contract is to provide support to the NASA Information and Logistics Management Division (ILMD). The ILMD is responsible for providing expertise to develop, innovate, and advance all NASA GSFC’s logistics management needs to meet Earth science, space science, and exploration mission requirements.

The principal purpose of this requirement is to obtain logistics services in an environment which the Contractor manages the daily operations while achieving maximum cost-effectiveness, high customer satisfaction, compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations, and ILMD procedures. The ILMD logistics services to be provided under this requirement include: Disposal Operations, Equipment Management, Mail Management, Supply and Materials Management, Transportation Management, and Export Control. The services will be provided onsite at NASA GSFC (Greenbelt, MD), Headquarters (Washington, DC), and Wallops Flight Facility (Wallops Island, VA).

The GLSC requirement was conducted as a full and open competition under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 561210, Facilities Support Services, with a Small Business Size Standard of $47M. This competitive acquisition will result in a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract and have a total potential 5-year and 6-month Period of Performance (12-month Base Period, four 12-month Option Periods, and one 6-month option period).

NASA released the GLSC Request for Proposal (RFP) on November 16, 2023. Three solicitation amendments were subsequently issued on December 6, 2023, December 8, 2023, and December 12, 2023, which revised various clauses/provisions including the cost instructions, revised the Performance Work Statement (PWS), and extended the proposal due date to December 20, 2023.

Proposals were due on December 20, 2023, and the following four Offerors submitted timely responses:

1. Amentum Services, Inc. (Amentum)

2. Talon East Fuel Services, LLC

3. Tech Systems, Inc. (TSI)

4. TRAX International Corporation (TRAX)

After preliminary review of the Offerors’ proposals, Talon East Fuel Services’ proposal was determined to be unacceptable pursuant to NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. On March 14, 2024, the Contracting Officer informed Talon East Fuel Services, LLC of its exclusion from proposal evaluation and that it would not be considered for contract award. The SEB proceeded to evaluate the remaining three Offerors: Amentum, TSI, and TRAX. Proposals were evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP (See Evaluation Procedures).

The RFP stated that the Government intended to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions with Offerors. Additionally, the Government reserved the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determined them to be necessary. After the evaluation of proposals, the Contracting Officer found the establishment of a competitive range was not necessary, a determination in which I concurred.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Proposals were evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in RFP Section M, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, and NFS Subpart 1815.3 with the objective of determining the best value to the Government. The Request for Proposal (RFP) defined the evaluation factors as Mission Suitability, Cost, and Past

Performance. The RFP specified the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors as follows: the Cost Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual factors, the Mission Suitability Factor is more important than the Cost Factor, which is more important than the Past Performance Factor.

The RFP established that only the Mission Suitability Factor would be point scored in the evaluation process. In accordance with NFS 1815.304-70(b)(1), the Mission Suitability Factor was weighted on a 1000-point scale. The points associated with each Mission Suitability Subfactor are as follows:

Subfactor Points Subfactor A – Technical Approach 350 Subfactor B – Management Approach 500 Subfactor C – Small Business Utilization 150 Total Points 1000

The Mission Suitability Factor was evaluated using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges set forth at NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The maximum points available for each Subfactor were multiplied by the assessed percentage for each Subfactor to derive the score for the particular Subfactor.

The Cost Factor was assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism, and the evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B). Offerors were referred to FAR 2.101(b) for the definition of “cost realism” and to FAR 15.404-1(d) for a discussion of “cost realism analysis” and “probable cost.” Both the “proposed and probable cost” reflected the Offeror’s proposed fee and were corrected to resolve mathematical errors, if any. The proposed fee was not adjusted as a result of any cost realism adjustments to establish the probable cost. The proposed and probable cost assessment was presented to me, along with the proposed Firm-Fixed-Price Phase-in.

The Past Performance Factor was evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15 and the criteria set forth in RFP Provision GSFC 52.215-330, Past Performance Evaluation Factor (Services). The Offeror’s overall corporate past performance, including the corporate past performance of any proposed Significant Subcontractors, within the past 5-years was evaluated. This area was not numerically scored, but Offerors having a record of relevant past performance were assigned a Level of Confidence Rating of either a Very High; High; Moderate; Low; or Very Low, in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2). Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance was not available were not evaluated favorably, nor unfavorably in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) and assigned a rating of “Neutral.”

EVALUATION SUMMARY

Mission Suitability Evaluation

As a result of the evaluation process, the Mission Suitability Subfactor Adjectival Ratings are as follows:

Offeror Subfactor A Technical Approach

Subfactor B Management Approach

Subfactor C Small Business Utilization

Amentum Services, Inc. Good Good Excellent Tech Systems, Inc. Fair Good Excellent TRAX International Corporation Very Good Good Very Good

The substance of the SEB’s evaluation of the Mission Suitability Factor for each Offeror is presented below.

Amentum Services, Inc.

Under the Mission Suitability Factor, Amentum’s proposal received a total score of 640 points (out of a possible 1000 points). The proposal received one Significant Strength, three Strengths, and one Significant Weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation results under the Mission Suitability Subfactors.

Under Subfactor A – Technical Approach, the proposal received an Adjectival Rating of “Good” resulting from two Strengths and one Significant Weakness as detailed below:

Amentum received a STRENGTH for its approach to the Equipment Physical Inventory Process. Amentum’s implementation and utilization of a system that tracks the equipment inventory progress increases the efficiency and accuracy of inventory reporting.

Amentum received a STRENGTH for its approach to Supply and Materials Management Operations through the implementation of a Parts Lifecycle Management (PLM) program for all Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts to enhance accountability, accuracy, and status reporting for Government stakeholders.

Amentum received a SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS for its approach to the contract hours and skill mix. Amentum proposed unreasonable and insufficient labor hours, which demonstrated a lack of understanding of the level of effort required to accomplish the work to be performed under several critical PWS sections (i.e., PWS Sections 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0).

Under Subfactor B – Management Approach, the proposal received an Adjectival Rating of “Good” resulting from one Strength as detailed below:

Amentum received a STRENGTH for its approach to implementing a Customer Concierge to improve scheduling and problem resolution, which provides added oversight and interface with stakeholders.

Under Subfactor C – Small Business Utilization, the proposal received an Adjectival Rating of “Excellent” resulting from one Significant Strength as detailed below:

Amentum received a SIGNIFICANT STRENGTH for its small business subcontracting approach. Amentum proposed an overall Small Business Subcontracting Goal which exceeded the Government Recommended Goal (GRG), proposed higher Socioeconomic Goals than all of the GRGs, identified high technology small business teammates, has small business teammates with enforceable teaming arrangements, and is an approved Mentor under the NASA Mentor-Protégé program.

Tech Systems, Inc.

Under the Mission Suitability Factor, TSI’s proposal received a total score of 590 points (out of a possible 1000 points).

The proposal received three Weaknesses and one Significant Strength. The following is a summary of the evaluation results under the Mission Suitability Subfactors.

Under Subfactor A – Technical Approach, the proposal received an Adjectival Rating of “Fair” resulting from three Weaknesses as detailed below:

TSI received a WEAKNESS for failing to adequately demonstrate a thorough understanding of the Equipment and Physical Inventory Process requirements.

TSI received a WEAKNESS for its ambiguous approach to support supply purchasing operations which reflects a lack of understanding of the requirement.

TSI received a WEAKNESS for its approach to the contract hours and skill mix. TSI proposed labor hours that are inadequate or duplicative, which demonstrates a lack of understanding of the level of effort required to accomplish the work to be performed under some critical PWS sections (i.e., PWS Sections 3.0, 6.0, and 7.0).

Under Subfactor B – Management Approach, the proposal did not yield any findings, resulting in an Adjectival Rating of “Good.”

Under Subfactor C – Small Business Utilization, the proposal received an Adjectival Rating of “Excellent” resulting from one Significant Strength as detailed below:

TSI received a SIGNIFICANT STRENGTH for its small business subcontracting approach. TSI, which is a small business, will perform over 50% of the work as the Prime Contractor which significantly exceeds the overall small business GRG. Additionally, TSI has a dedicated Business Development, Operations, and Procurement team that supports the identification of small businesses and maintains a database of small business suppliers which demonstrates a strong commitment to small business subcontracting.

TRAX International Corporation

Under the Mission Suitability Factor, TRAX’s proposal received a total score of 768 points (out of a possible 1000 points). The proposal received two Significant Strengths and three Strengths. The following is a summary of the evaluation results under the Mission Suitability Subfactors.

Under Subfactor A – Technical Approach, the proposal received an Adjectival Rating of “Very Good” resulting from one Significant Strength and two Strengths as detailed below:

TRAX received a SIGNIFICANT STRENGTH for its thorough and comprehensive approach to meeting unique transportation management requirements. The Offeror’s detailed recognition of transportation and project logistics complexities, such as the need for early engagement with project stakeholders and the importance of real-time system monitoring during critical hardware transportation, ensures critical mission objectives are met and greatly increases the potential for successful contract performance.

TRAX received a STRENGTH for its effective approach to the equipment physical inventory process which provides solutions to equipment inventory challenges and a forward-thinking approach to customer service.

TRAX received a STRENGTH for its export control proposed enhancement which will increase the accuracy and timely identification of export control procedures and guidelines.

Under Subfactor B – Management Approach, the proposal received an Adjectival Rating of “Good” resulting from one Strength as detailed below:

TRAX received a STRENGTH for its approach to property management through the implementation of a property management system which will allow for greater oversight, accountability, and safeguarding of Government property.

Under Subfactor C – Small Business Utilization, the proposal received an Adjectival Rating of “Very Good” resulting from one Significant Strength as detailed below:

TRAX received a SIGNIFICANT STRENGTH for small business subcontracting approach. TRAX proposed an overall Small Business Subcontracting Goal which exceeded the GRG, proposed a higher Socioeconomic Goal than one GRG category, identified high technology small business teammates, and has small business teammates with enforceable teaming arrangements.

Cost/Price Evaluation

The SEB evaluated each Offeror’s proposed cost elements, including direct labor hours, direct labor rates, indirect rates, Subcontractor support, the Government provided estimate for Other Direct Costs (ODCs), and Fixed-Fee. Additionally, the Firm-Fixed-Price Phase-in and any cost risks associated with the proposals were presented to me. Amentum had the lowest total proposed cost, which was slightly lower than the total proposed cost by TSI. TSI’s proposed cost was very slightly lower than TRAX’s proposed cost ($264,563,568).

As a result of the SEB’s analysis, the evaluation team made probable cost adjustments to direct labor hours for Amentum, direct labor hours for TSI, and direct labor rates for TRAX. Following the probable cost adjustments, TSI had the lowest total probable cost, which was very slightly lower than the total probable cost for Amentum, which was very slightly lower than the probable cost for TRAX ($264,971,851).

Past Performance Evaluation

Amentum Services, Inc. was determined to have an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of VERY HIGH based on the combination of Very High relevance and Very High performance ratings.

Tech Systems, Inc. was determined to have an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of HIGH based on the combination of High relevance and High performance ratings.

TRAX International Corporation was determined to have an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of VERY HIGH based on the combination of Very High relevance and Very High performance ratings.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

The SEB presented its evaluation findings to me, and we thoroughly discussed all of them. The SEB’s findings were detailed, consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP and provided clear descriptions of the attributes in each proposal. I inquired with the SEB about the rationale for each Offeror’s findings, scores, and ratings. Regarding the evaluation process and findings, I concluded that the evaluation of the proposals was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. Further, I solicited the views of my senior advisors in their areas of expertise for input as necessary. I conducted a tradeoff utilizing the evaluation factors described in the solicitation (i.e., Mission Suitability, Cost/Price, and Past Performance). Section M of the solicitation explains the Cost Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual factors, the Mission Suitability Factor is more important than the Cost Factor, which is more important than the Past Performance Factor. In my independent judgment, after analyzing the evaluation findings and discriminators between proposals, I concluded that the Successful Offeror is TRAX International Corporation. The statement of the rationale for my decision is detailed below.

My selection was based on the comparative assessment of the proposals against each of the RFP evaluation factors to determine which proposal represented the best value. Regarding the Mission Suitability Factor, the most important factor, I noted that the Offerors received different adjectival ratings for Subfactors A and C, and the same adjectival rating for Subfactor B. Under Subfactor A (Technical Approach), I noted that TRAX received an adjectival rating of Very Good, Amentum received a rating of Good, and TSI received a rating of Fair. Under Subfactor B (Management Approach), I noted that all Offerors received Good ratings, however based on the content of the findings, I found meaningful discriminators between the Offeror’s findings. Under Subfactor C (Small Business Utilization), I noted that both Amentum and TSI received Excellent ratings, while TRAX received a Very Good rating. Based on the adjectival ratings and discriminators, I found the Mission Suitability approach proposed by TRAX was significantly more advantageous than the proposals submitted by Amentum and TSI, which resulted in TRAX receiving a notably higher overall Mission Suitability total point score.

In order to thoroughly understand the evaluation results, I compared the findings for each proposal under the Mission Suitability Subfactors, as addressed below.

Under Subfactor A – Technical Approach, I noted that TSI received no Strengths and three Weaknesses resulting in a Fair rating. I considered all of these findings and determined these Weaknesses increase the risk to contract performance. As a result, I determined that TSI’s proposal was less competitive within Subfactor A and thus I focused my comparative assessment on TRAX and Amentum.

I noted that Amentum received a Significant Weakness for its proposed contract hours and skill mix. Amentum proposed unreasonable and insufficient labor hours, which demonstrates a lack of understanding of the level of effort required to accomplish the work to be performed under PWS Sections 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0; which appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Conversely, I noted that TRAX received a Significant Strength for demonstrating a thorough and comprehensive approach to meeting transportation management and project logistics requirements. I found that TRAX’s detailed recognition of the complexities associated with the critical elements of transportation management and the proactive solutions it will implement to satisfy these requirements provides an extremely high level of confidence that they will successfully perform these duties and ensure critical mission objectives are met. Based on the above, I noted a significant discriminator between TRAX and Amentum’s Technical Approach to successfully meeting the critical elements of the GLSC requirements.

I noted that Amentum and TRAX both received Strengths for proposing similarly effective equipment physical inventory processes. I considered these Strengths to be equally valuable, therefore neither Strength provided one Offeror with an advantage over the other.

I noted that Amentum received a Strength for proposing implementation of a PLM program for all EEE parts to enhance accountability, accuracy, and status reporting for program/project stakeholders. Additionally, I noted that TRAX received a Strength for its approach to export control through its proposed expansion of the use of NASA SharePoint in order to become a Center-wide repository of export control knowledge and classification information, which will increase the accuracy and timely identification of export control procedures and guidelines. I considered these Strengths to be equally valuable, therefore neither Strength provided one Offeror with an advantage over the other.

Overall, I concluded that TRAX’s Technical Approach was markedly stronger than Amentum’s and offered a distinct advantage under Subfactor A. I found that this advantage was based on TRAX’s Significant Strength for a thorough and comprehensive approach to meeting unique transportation management and project logistics requirements, as compared to Amentum’s Significant Weakness for unreasonable and insufficient labor hours, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the level of effort required to accomplish the work to be performed under several PWS Sections.

Under Subfactor B – Management Approach, the most heavily weighted Subfactor, I noted that all three Offerors received Good ratings. However, I noted that Amentum and TRAX both received one Strength while TSI received no findings. As a result, I determined that TSI’s proposal was less competitive compared to TRAX and Amentum within Subfactor B.

I noted that Amentum received a Strength for its approach in implementing a Customer Concierge to improve scheduling and problem resolution, which provides added oversight and interface with stakeholders and increases the potential for successful contract performance. Additionally, I noted TRAX received a Strength for its approach to property management. I found that the application of this property management system to maintain full property control and visibility demonstrates TRAX’s ability and commitment to provide the necessary tools needed to safeguard and maintain strong property control. The impact of this Strength is somewhat higher than that of Amentum in that it exceeds the minimum property/equipment control and accountability requirements specified in the PWS. Overall, both Amentum and TRAX received Good ratings for their Management Approach under Subfactor B, however, I concluded that TRAX had a slight advantage over Amentum.

Under Subfactor C – Small Business Utilization, I noted that TSI and Amentum received Excellent ratings and TRAX received a Very Good rating. TSI, which is a small business, will perform over 50% of the work as the Prime Contractor which significantly exceeds the overall small business GRG. Additionally, the Offeror has a dedicated Business Development, Operations, and Procurement team that supports the identification of small businesses and maintains a database of small business suppliers based on their specialties, capabilities, and certifications. Both TRAX and Amentum received similar Significant Strengths for their approach to Small Business Utilization, which exceeded the overall GRGs and some of the individual socioeconomic GRGs. I noted that Amentum proposed an overall Small Business Subcontracting Goal that exceeded the GRG, proposed higher Socioeconomic Goals than all of the GRGs for each category, identified several high technology small business teammates, has several small business teammates with enforceable teaming arrangements, and is an approved Mentor under the NASA Mentor-Protégé program, which offers an advantage over TRAX. Overall, I found that TSI offered the strongest Small Business Utilization approach, followed by Amentum and then TRAX.

Under the Cost Factor, I noted that TSI’s probable cost was very slightly lower than Amentum’s probable cost, which was very slightly lower than TRAX’s probable cost (less than 1% difference between the lowest and highest). For both total probable dollars and percentage difference, I found the probable cost differences to be minimal, yielding a nominal advantage for TSI.

Under the Past Performance Factor, I found a discriminator as both Amentum and TRAX received Very High Level of Confidence Ratings compared to TSI’s High Level of Confidence Rating. TSI’s Level of Confidence Rating of High is due to the combination of its High overall relevance and High overall performance rating. As a result, I determined that TSI’s proposal was less competitive to TRAX and Amentum within the Past Performance Factor. I found no meaningful discriminator between Amentum and TRAX within the Past Performance Factor as both demonstrated Very High overall relevance and Very High overall performance.

In making my selection, I again referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP. I determined TRAX offered a significantly more advantageous proposal under the Mission Suitability Factor, the most important factor, when compared to Amentum and TSI. This determination was based primarily on TRAX’s significant advantage in Subfactor A and slight advantage in Subfactor B, the two most heavily weighted subfactors under the Mission Suitability Factor. Next, I looked at the Cost Factor, the second most important factor. While Amentum and TSI offered very slightly lower probable costs than TRAX, I found the difference to be extremely minimal (less than 1%).

Lastly, I looked at the Past Performance Factor, the least important factor, where I noted that the two most competitive proposals, TRAX and Amentum, received the same Very High Level of Confidence Rating and the least competitive proposal, TSI, received a High Level of Confidence Rating. In weighting TRAX’s more advantageous Mission Suitability proposal against Amentum and TSI’s Mission Suitability proposals, I concluded that the technical and management advantages offered by TRAX outweighed Amentum and TSI’s very slight cost advantages. In conclusion, I determined that TRAX presented an overall superior proposal that offers the best value to the Government. Therefore, I select TRAX International Corporation for the award of the Goddard Logistics Services Contract.

David A. Reth Date Source Selection Authority