HOSS II SSS Final (Signed) MD Ck.pdf

Bloomsburie’s proposal was deemed unacceptable due to the fact it was incomplete and contained major errors and inconsistencies. Accordingly, this proposal was eliminated from further evaluation consideration. This left nine (9) remaining proposals.

The HOSS II solicitation required all Offerors to possess a Secret level facility clearance or describe in detail their approach for obtaining this clearance prior to the effective date of the contract. Additionally, all Offerors were required to submit an acceptable Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Plan., the Offeror was required to submit Attachment G - Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Avoidance Plan in the Offer Volume.

The remaining nine Offerors met these requirements, therefore the HOSS II IET proceeded to evaluate these proposals against the three evaluation factors of Mission Suitability, Price, and Past Performance.

The RFP stated that the Government intended to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions with Offerors. The RFP also stated that the Government reserved the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer (CO) later determined them to be necessary. Based on the initial evaluations, the CO found that establishing a competitive range was not necessary, a determination with which I concurred.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The HOSS II IET evaluated proposals in accordance with the source selection procedures identified in FAR part 15.3 “Source Selection” and NFS 1815.3 “Source Selection”. The procedures at NFS 1815.370, NASA Source Evaluation Boards, were applied.

The RFP listed three (3) evaluation factors for award: Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Price. The IET evaluated each proposal against these three factors. As stated in section M.3 of the RFP, the Price 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 the most important and the Past Performance Factor is more important than the Price Factor.

Mission Suitability: In accordance with the RFP, the Mission Suitability factor was evaluated using the adjectival ratings and definitions in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A).

Price: Since this is a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) acquisition, comparison of the proposed prices was used to satisfy the requirement to perform price analysis, and the price evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1). NFS 1815.305(a)(1) does not include any additional requirements for a FFP acquisition.

Past Performance: Past Performance evaluations were conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 and section M.6 of the solicitation. An Offeror’s past performance record indicates the relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of performing services or delivering products similar in size and content to the requirements of this acquisition. The past performance of the prime contractor was weighted more heavily than any significant suspicious mail fails to adequately show a comprehensive understanding of the mail screening services.

DAWSON

DAWSON received an adjectival rating of Fair for Technical Approach. This Offeror was assessed no Significant Strengths or Strengths, two Weaknesses, no Significant Weakness, and no Deficiencies.

Weakness #1: The offeror proposed an unsafe approach to the facilities help desk that does not accurately reflect the responsibilities outlined in the Performance Work Statement.

Weakness #2: The Dawson’s Safety and Health Plan does not adequately address the Company Physician and SOH Programs.

Intelogistics

Intelogistics received an adjectival rating of Poor for Technical Approach. This Offeror was assessed no Significant Strengths or Strengths, four Weaknesses, one Significant Weakness, and one Deficiency.

Weakness #1: The proposed approach of processing suspicious mail and accountable mail is inadequate and does not demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement.

Weakness #2: The Offeror’s proposed approach for courier driver services is inadequate and does not demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement.

Weakness #3: The Offeror’s proposed approach for performing Facilities Support services is inadequate and does not demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement.

Weakness #4: The Offeror’s proposed Phase-In Plan is unclear and does not demonstrate the ability to assume full contract responsibilities during the time frame specified by the Government. The Offeror’s proposed Phase-In Plan schedule is unclear and lacks a detailed approach to assume contract responsibilities.

Significant Weakness #1: The Offeror’s proposed approach for Executive Driver services is extremely inadequate and lacks adequate staffing to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement.

Deficiency #1: The Intelogistics Safety and Health Plan is critically flawed and does not adequately address 30 out of 39 of the categories required in the Safety and Health Plan.

Longeviti

Longeviti received an adjectival rating of Good for Technical Approach. This Offeror was assessed no Significant Strengths, one Strength, three Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Strength #1: The Longeviti Safety and Health Plan was sound and complete and included positive approaches and details related to Policy, Management Leadership, Employee Involvement, Assignment of Responsibility, Procurement, Workplace Analysis, Hazard Identification, Inspections, and Mishap Investigation and Reporting.

Weakness #1: The offeror’s proposal for mail delivery and processing accountable mail is inadequate and fails to convey a comprehensive understanding of the Performance Work Statement.

Weakness #2: The Offeror’s proposed Phase-In Plan lacks the required schedule to demonstrate the ability to assume full contract responsibilities during the 60-day phase-in period specified by the Government.

Weakness #3: The proposed approach to staff executive drivers adds risk for turnover of employees and may result in the inability to complete all driving services on time.

NLJV

NLJV received an adjectival rating of Good for Technical Approach. This Offeror was assessed no Significant Strengths, one Strength, one Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Strength #1: The Offeror proposed a commendable Phase-In plan which transitions all services of the Performance Work Statement awarded on this contract ahead of the required schedule.

Weakness #1: The NLJV Safety and Health Plan does not adequately address Goals and Objectives, Management Leadership, Employee Involvement, Company Physician, and Medical Program.

RWD Consulting

RWD Consulting received an adjectival rating of Fair for Technical Approach. This Offeror was assessed no Significant Strengths or Strengths, three Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Weakness #1: The proposed approach for performing Facilities Support services is inadequate and does not demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement.

Weakness #2: The RWD Consulting Safety and Health Plan Does not adequately address the SOH Programs.

Weakness #3: The proposed approach of processing incoming mail is inadequate and does not demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement.

Tatitlek

Tatitlek received an adjectival rating of Good for Technical Approach. This Offeror was assessed no Significant Strength, three Strengths, one Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Strength #1: The Offeror proposed a commendable approach to quality control and organizational structure and management processes. The proposed proactive plan for identifying concerns and initiating self-corrective actions is superb. The robust plan provides continuous improvement of service areas as well as corporate support and resources to the PM. By proposing this process, the government will greatly benefit by receiving new and improved methods of business operation, increased employee involvement in the development of processes and increased customer satisfaction.

Strength #2: The Offeror proposed a good, detailed transition timeline within the Phase- In Plan that clearly demonstrates the ability to assume full contract responsibility during the time frame specified by the Government. Within the phase-in plan, the detailed transition timeline that the offeror proposed shows a high understanding of customer needs and requirements of a seamless transition.

Strength #3: The Offeror proposed a well-developed approach to risk identification and risk management, which effectively identified appropriate potential risks, and appropriate mitigation strategies that may occur during the life cycle of the contract.

Weakness #1: The Tatitlek Safety and Health Plan does not adequately address the Medical Program and the SOH Programs.

TBP&JJ

TBP&JJ received an adjectival rating of Fair for Technical Approach. This Offeror was assessed no Significant Strengths or Strengths, four Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

TBP&JJ High Tridant High

AVS

AVS was assessed an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of “Moderate” based on the combination of Moderate Overall Relevance and Very High Overall performance.

Dawson Dawson was assessed an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of “Moderate” based on the combination of Moderate Overall Relevance and High Overall performance.

Intelogistics Intelogistics was assessed an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of “High” based on the combination of High Overall Relevance and Very High Overall

Longeviti Longeviti was assessed an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of “High” based on the combination of Very High Overall Relevance and High Overall

NLJV

NLJV was assessed an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of “High” based on the combination of Very High Overall Relevance and High Overall

RWD Consulting

RWD Consulting was assessed an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of “Very High” based on the combination of Very High Overall Relevance and Very High Overall performance.

Tatitlek

Tatitlek was assessed an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of “Very High” based on the combination of Very High Overall Relevance and Very High Overall

TBP&JJ

TBP&JJ was assessed an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of “High” based on the combination of High Overall Relevance and Very High Overall

Tridant Tridant was assessed an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of “High” based on the combination of Very High Overall Relevance and High Overall

PRICE EVALUATION RESULTS

The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) for Phase-in, the core services, and RTO were presented to the SSA. As a result, the IET’s analysis, the evaluation team concluded that most of the offeror’s prices were considered reasonable based on adequate price competition.

However, the prices submitted by Dawson, and TBJJ are considered unreasonable, since they are significantly higher in total cost and hours than the other offerors and the Government estimate. The following list identifies the Offerors in order from the lowest total price to the highest total price, based on the combined prices from the Core, RTO, and Phase-in: Tridant, AVS, RWD, Tatitlek (approximately $7.3M), NLJV, Longeviti, Intelogistics, TPB&JJ, and Dawson.

SELECTION DECISION

As the SSA for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the IET’s documentation entitled “Headquarters Operational Support Services (HOSS II) Contract Presentation to Source Selection Authority”. On April 30, 2024, I met with the HOSS II IET to review the IET’s findings.

I determined that the findings presented by the IET, as documented in its presentation were detailed, consistent with the evaluation criteria in the HOSS II RFP, and provided a clear description of the merits of each Offeror’s proposal. I discussed with the IET its rationale for the findings and the adjectival ratings assigned for the Mission Suitability factor, and also discussed the rationale for the evaluation of Past Performance and Price. I determined that the findings were reasonable and valid for the purpose of making a selection decision based on initial proposals. Thus, I accept the IET’s findings.

In determining which proposal offered the best value to NASA, I referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP:

The Price 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 the most important, and the Past Performance Factor is more important than the Price Factor.

My selection was based on the comparative assessment of each proposal against each of the solicitation’s evaluation factors for award.

Mission Suitability

I noted that Tatitlek received a Good (the most heavily weighted one) rating along with Longeviti and NLJV. However, I noted that Tatitlek’s rating is superior with three Strengths and one Weakness in comparison to Longeviti’s one Strength and three Weakness and NLJV’s one Strength and one Weakness.

I noted that Tatitlek received its first Strength for its commendable approach to quality control and organizational structure and management processes. This robust plan to provide continuous improvement of services areas as well as corporate support and resources to the Project Manager. Tatitlek was assessed a second Strength for its good, detailed transition timeline within the Phase-In Plan that clearly demonstrates the ability to assume full contract responsibility during the time frame specified by the Government.

I observed that Tatitlek received a third Strength for their well-developed approach to risk identification and risk management, which effectively identified appropriate potential risk and appropriate mitigation strategies that may occur during the life cycle of the contract. These features will contribute toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the Government. Their only Weakness was based on their failure to adequately address Medical Programs and SOH Programs in the Safety and Health plan, which was not a significant concern to me since it was only a small portion of the overall scope of the Safety and Health Plan.

While the Longeviti and NLJV proposals were also rated Good, they were not as strong as the Tatitlek proposal. I found that the advantages and benefits offered by Tatitlek, particularly the Strengths noted above, outweighed Longevity’s and NLJV’s proposals.

Longeviti received one Strength for its sound Safety and Health Plan, but that does not measure up to the three Strengths that Tatitlek had that will impact performance in multiple areas of the Performance Work Statement. Additionally, their three Weaknesses related to mail delivery, phase-in, and executive driving resulted in performance concerns that were more substantial than Tatitlek’s one weakness for inadequate details in their Safety and Health Plan. For NLJV, they share a similar weakness as Tatitlek in the Safety and Health Plan, however they only had one strength for their phase-in plan, which did not measure up to the three strengths obtained by Tatitlek, particularly for their positive approaches to quality control and risk management.

All other Offerors were rated as Fair or Poor in the Mission Suitability factor, with no Strength findings and Weaknesses that created performance concerns. Therefore, these Offerors were less competitive overall, given the solicitation weighted Mission Suitability most heavy compared to Past Performance and Price.

Past Performance

Regarding the Past Performance factor, I noted that Tatitlek and RWD were the only Offerors to receive a Very High Level of Confidence rating, while Intelogistics, Longeviti, NLKV, TBP&JJ and Tridant received High Level of Confidence ratings. I noted that some Offerors had some performance issues on past contracts and some Offerors lacked size and/or content relevance to HOSS II. I found that AVS and DAWSON, with Moderate Level of Confidence ratings, were not as competitive in this factor as compared to the other Offerors’ higher Past Performance ratings. Based on the combination of Very High relevance and Very High Performance, both Tatitlek and RWD were superior in the Past Performance factor.

Price

Regarding the Price factor, I acknowledged the order of price for each Offeror from lowest to highest. I noted that pricing varied between the Core, RTO, and Phase-in for each Offeror. For example, Trident provided the lowest price, based on their highly competitive Core price, however they had the highest and least competitive RTO price.

Alternatively, Intelogistics proposed the lowest RTO price, but a much less competitive total price after considering their Core and Phase-in prices. Several of the Offers were competitive overall in pricing, with the exception of Dawson and TBP&JJ, which were notably high and evaluated as unreasonable. I also noted that Tatitlek core and RTO price fell within the midrange of all the offerors.

Decision

In making my selection decision, I again referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP. Under Mission Suitability, the most important factor, I determined that Tatitlek Federal Services, Inc. offered the strongest proposal and was superior to all Offerors in Mission Suitability.

I concluded that the proposals offered by AVS, DAWSON, Intelogistics, RWD, TBP&JJ and Tridant did not provide sufficient value to the Government to be considered, as each offered a significantly less meritorious Mission Suitability proposal in comparison to Tatitlek. While Trident and AVS proposed the lowest overall prices, price was the least heavily weighted factor and Tatitlek was superior to both Offerors in Mission Suitability and Past Performance. Although Longeviti and NLJV possessed the same Mission Suitability rating as Tatitlek, as I described above, Tatitlek’s advantageous Strengths and one minor Weakness provided an overall advantage in the most heavily weighted factor.

I determined that Tatitlek price and Past Performance rating was the best value to the Government. While I recognized that Tridant offered the lowest price, I concluded that Tatitlek’s significant Mission Suitability advantage, in the most important factor, and higher Past Performance rating far outweighed Tridant’s cost advantage.

AVS offered the second lowest price and a Moderate Level of Confidence in Past Performance; however, the moderate price advantage did not outweigh Tatitlek’s significant advantage in Mission Suitability, the most important factor.

After reviewing Tatitlek and RWD’s Past Performance evaluation, I acknowledged that they both have a Very High Level of Confidence. A closer examination revealed that both Offerors demonstrated very high content relevancy and very high performance records. Overall, Tatitlek’s margin of superiority in Mission Suitability outweighed any slight advantage that RWD has in Price. In conclusion, I determined that Tatitlek’s more advantageous Mission Suitability proposal and lower price, along with its High Past Performance Level of Confidence, offers the best value to the Government.

Therefore, I select Tatitlek for award of the Headquarters Operational Support Services (HOSS) II contract.

Floyd R. Crisp II Date Source Selection Authority

3 May 2024