JSHIFT Source Selection Statement.pdf

Source Selection Statement for the

Joint Safety Health Institutional Facilities Team (JSHIFT)

Solicitation Number 80LARC25R7001

The Source Evaluation Board (SEB) meet with me, the Source Selection Authority (SSA), on July 9, 2025 for the purpose of presenting the team’s findings and to obtain my approval to award without discussions. I approved the decision to proceed to award without discussions pending amending the RFP per Amendment 4. This briefing included representatives from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC), Johnson Space Center (JSC), and Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Upon completion of the SEB’s evaluation, on July 28, 2025, I met with the SEB appointed to evaluate proposals for the Joint Safety Health Institutional Facilities Team (JSHIFT) acquisition.

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

The purpose of this acquisition is to acquire institutional occupational safety and occupational health services at LaRC, JSC, and GSFC. The scope of the JSHIFT contract requires the contractor to provide all necessary management, personnel, equipment, facilities, materials, supplies, and services to support the Agency/Center’s organizational operations for occupational safety inspection, test safety engineering, fire protection, industrial hygiene, and radiation safety.

The JSHIFT procurement was conducted as a total 8(a) small business set-aside competition.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541690, Other Technical Engineering Services, and the small business size standard is $19 million. The procurement will result in the award of one contract that will consist of a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) for the core services/support that includes a two-year base period and three one-year option periods and each center having its own Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN). The resulting award will also include Cost-Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) and FFP Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) CLINs for non-core support.

The JSHIFT Request for Proposal (RFP) was released on April 22, 2025, followed by the issuance of four amendments. Proposals were received on or before the due date of July 16, 2025, from the following four Offerors:

Banner Quality Management, Inc. (BQMI) Property and Environmental Management, Inc. (PEM) Red Cedar Management Solutions II, LLC (RCMS) Radial Solutions, Inc. (RSI)

The RFP included the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition,” which notifies Offerors of the Government’s intention to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if needed. After evaluating proposals, the Contracting Officer (CO) determined that establishment of discussions were not necessary, a determination that I, as the SSA, concurred with.

EVALUATION SUMMARY

As NASA’s SSA for the JSHIFT procurement, I appointed the SEB, which included technical and business members and consultants from appropriate disciplines, to assist in proposal evaluations. The four (4) proposals identified above were evaluated in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 “Source Selection,” NASA FAR Supplement Part 1815.3, and the solicitation using a Performance-Price Tradeoff (PPTO) approach without technical proposals. The RFP at provision M.4 stated that overall, in selecting an offeror for contract award, the Past Performance Factor is significantly more important than the Price Factor.

Past Performance and Price Evaluations: The SEB performed a detailed evaluation of the Offerors past performance and price proposals as summarized below:

Factor 1 – Past Performance:

The Past Performance Factor evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), NFS 1815.305(a)(2), and this solicitation. The Government’s evaluation considered the recency, size, relevancy/pertinence, and performance compared to the solicitation requirements to arrive at a Level of Confidence rating in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2). Each confidence rating has a “performance” component and a “pertinence” component. An Offeror must meet the requirements of both components to achieve a particular confidence rating. The evaluation considered the Past Performance Information (PPI) for the prime offeror and significant subcontractors. Significant subcontractors were defined in the RFP (L.16 b.) as any team member performing 20% or greater of the total contract price.

RFP section M.7(a) stated that all past performance references (contracts) must meet the recency and size requirements of the solicitation to be considered. References that did not meet the recency and size requirements stated in this solicitation were removed from consideration and not evaluated further.

For Recency, all past performance references (contracts) must meet the “recency” requirements of the RFP. Paragraph L.16 d. defines recent as contract references that are on-going or completed within the past five (5) years from the date of the RFP issuance.

For Size, prime or significant subcontractor references must be equal to or greater than $1.5M in average annual obligated value for the period of performance for the references provided.

For Pertinence (Content & Complexity), the Government assessed the content and complexity for each contract reference that met the “recency” and “size” thresholds compared to the content and complexity in areas identified below that the prime or significant subcontractor is proposed to perform. Based on the Government’s evaluation, a pertinence rating was assigned as follows:

Very Highly Pertinent (VHP), Highly Pertinent (HP), Pertinent (P), Somewhat Pertinent (SP), Minimally Pertinent (MP), Not Pertinent (NP), or Did Not Address (DNA).

Per the RFP, the Government assessed the pertinence of each relevant contract reference based on “content” and “complexity” for the Performance Work Statement (PWS) areas and General Performance Areas summarized below. The Government also assessed the work each entity proposed to perform as identified in the Past Performance Relevancy Matrix:

PWS Area 1: Comprehensive occupational safety inspection program PWS Area 2: Test Safety Engineering Program PWS Area 3: Comprehensive Fire Protection Program PWS Area 4: Comprehensive Industrial Hygiene (IH) Program PWS Area 5: Comprehensive Radiation Safety Program General Performance Areas: Meeting Schedules, Adaptability to address changing missions/requirements, Management of personnel, and Business relations.

For Performance, the Government assessed the quality of performance for each pertinent contract reference for the areas listed in RFP section L.16 d. The performance assessment was based primarily on, but not limited to, the team’s assessment of past performance evaluation input provided through customer Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and/or interviews (PPIs), and Government databases (e.g., CPARS/PPIRS). Based on the Government’s evaluation, a performance rating was assigned as follows: Exceptional Merit (EM), Very Effective (VE), Effective (E), Minimally Acceptable (M), or Does Not Meet (DNM).

Once each SEB evaluator individually evaluated each Offeror for pertinence and performance, the team met and discussed all of the past performance findings of the individual evaluators. The SEB used its collective judgement to develop consensus findings for the past performance factor and arrived at its consensus ratings for the pertinence and performance. Based on the results of the pertinence and performance assessments, a “Level of Confidence” rating was assigned for each Offeror in accordance with the RFP and NFS 1815.305(a)(2) of either “Very High Level of Confidence,” “High Level of Confidence,” “Moderate Level of Confidence,” “Low Level of Confidence,” “Very Low Level of Confidence,” or “Neutral.”

Factor 2 – Price:

The Price Factor was evaluated in accordance with the solicitation in Section M.8, Volume II - Price. A price analysis was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 to ensure a fair and reasonable price. The reasonableness of the proposed price was determined based on adequate price competition and comparison to the IGCE. A total evaluated price was also calculated for each proposal.

The SSA’s comparative assessment of the proposals was performed in accordance with RFP section M.

FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS

The SEB evaluated each Offeror’s past performance records in accordance with RFP section M.7, Volume I - Past Performance Factor, and a Level of Confidence rating was assigned for the Past Performance factor in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2). Below is a summary of the overall Pertinence, Performance, and Confidence Level ratings assigned to each Offeror.

Offeror Overall Pertinence

Overall Performance

Level of Confidence Rating

Banner Quality Management Inc. (BQMI) MP EM Very Low

Property & Environmental Management Inc. (PEM) HP EM High

Red Cedar Management Solutions II LLC (RCMS II) VHP EM Very High

Radial Solutions Inc. (RSI) HP EM High

Banner Quality Management, Inc. (BQMI)

BQMI is proposed as the prime contractor and included one significant subcontractor, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), as part of its team. BQMI, provided two (2) references and SAIC provided one (1) reference for a total of three references.

Recency: The team verified that all three references met the RFP requirement to be considered recent in accordance with the RFP which was defined as “within the past 5 years of RFP issuance.” All references met the recency requirement of the RFP.

Size: The team verified that all three references met the RFP minimum requirement of an average annual obligated value of equal to or greater than $1.5M.

The SEB assigned a Very Low Level of Confidence rating to BQMI for the Past Performance factor. This rating is based on an overall pertinence rating of Minimally Pertinent (considering content and complexity), and an overall performance rating of Exceptional Merit. A summary of the Past Performance Ratings for BQMI is shown in the table below:

O F

F E

R

R

P W

S A re a

1:

C om p re h en si ve cc u pa ti on al

S af et y In sp ec ti

S A re

2:

T es t S af et y E n gi n ee ri n g

S A re

3:

p re h en ir e

P ro te ct io

S A re

4:

p re h en

In d u st ri al H yg ie e

S A re

5:

p re h en ad ia ti on

S af et y ra ll

P er ti n en ce ra ll

P er fo rm an fi d en ce

L ev el

BQMI SP MP MP MP MP MP EM

VERY

LOW

For pertinence (content and complexity), the team considered the Somewhat Pertinent rating for PWS Area 1, Minimally Pertinent rating for PWS Area 2, Minimally Pertinent rating for PWS Area 3, Minimally Pertinent for PWS Area 4, and Minimally Pertinent rating for PWS Area 5 and assigned an overall pertinence rating of Minimally Pertinent.

For performance, all of BQMI’s references received a performance rating of “Exceptional Merit”. Therefore, the SEB assigned an overall performance rating of Exceptional Merit.

Property and Environmental Management, Inc. (PEM)

PEM is proposed as the prime contractor. PEM included two significant subcontractors, Inspection Experts Inc., and Chenega Global Protection, LLC, as part of its team. PEM provided two (2) references, IEI provided one (1) reference, and Chenega Global Protection, LLC provided two (2) references for a total of 5 references.

Recency: The team verified that all five references met the RFP requirement to be considered recent in accordance with the RFP defined as “within the past 5 years of RFP issuance.” All references met the recency requirement of the RFP.

Size: The team verified that four of the five references met the RFP minimum requirement of an average annual obligated value of $1.5M. The team determined the remaining reference to be below the RFP minimum requirement.

The SEB assigned a High Level of Confidence rating to PEM for the Past Performance factor.

This rating is based on an overall pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent (considering content and complexity), and an overall performance rating of Exceptional Merit. A summary of the Past Performance Ratings for PEM is shown in the table below:

F E

R

S A re p re h en u pa ti al

S af et y In sp ec

S A re t S af et y E n gi n ee ri n g

P W

S A re p re h en e

P ro te ct

S A re p re h en u st ri al H yg ie

S A re p re h en ia ti on

S af ra ll er ti n ra ll

P er fo rm fi d

L

PEM HP P VHP VHP VHP HP EM HIGH

For pertinence (content and complexity), the team considered the Highly Pertinent rating for PWS Area 1, Pertinent rating for PWS Area 2, Very Highly Pertinent rating for PWS Area 3, Very Highly Pertinent for PWS Area 4, and Very Highly Pertinent rating for PWS Area 5 and assigned an overall pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent.

For performance, all of PEM’s references received a performance rating of “Exceptional Merit”.

Therefore, the SEB assigned an overall performance rating of Exceptional Merit.

Red Cedar Management Solutions (RCMS) II, LLC

RCMS II is proposed as the prime contractor. Joint Venture partners include Red Cedar Solutions LLC (RCS) managing partner, NLT Management Services, LLC (NLT), Anadarko Industries, LLC, and included one significant subcontractor, Mainthia Technologies, Inc. (MTI), as part of its team. RCMS II provided one (1) reference, NLT provided one (1) reference, and MTI (significant subcontractor) provided one (1) additional reference for a total of 3 references.

Recency: The team verified that all three references met the RFP requirement to be considered recent in accordance with the RFP defined as “within the past 5 years of RFP issuance.” All references met the recency requirement of the RFP.

Size: The team verified that all three references met the RFP minimum requirement of an average annual obligated value of $1.5M.

The SEB assigned a Very High Level of Confidence rating to RCMS II for the Past Performance factor. This rating is based on an overall pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent (considering content and complexity), and an overall performance rating of Exceptional Merit. A summary of the Past Performance Ratings for RCMS II is shown in the table below:

F E

R

S A re p re h en u pa ti on al

S af et y

In sp ec

S A re t S af et y E n gi n ee ri

S A re p re h en e

P ro te ct

S A re p re h en u st ri al H yg ie

S A re p re h en ia ti on

S af ra ll

P er ti n ra ll

P er fo rm fi d en ce

L

RCMS II VHP VHP VHP VHP VHP VHP EM

VERY

HIGH

For pertinence (content and complexity), the team considered the Very Highly Pertinent rating for PWS Area 1, Very Highly Pertinent rating for PWS Area 2, Very Highly Pertinent rating for PWS Area 3, Very Highly Pertinent for PWS Area 4, and Very Highly Pertinent rating for PWS Area 5 and the team assigned an overall pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent.

For performance, all of RCMS II’s references received a performance rating of “Exceptional Merit”. Therefore, the SEB assigned an overall rating of Exceptional Merit.

Radial Solutions, Inc (RSI)

RSI is proposed as the prime contractor and included one significant contractor, Bastion Technologies, as part of its team. RSI provide two (2) references and Bastion provided three (3) references for a total of (5) five references.

Recency: The team verified that all five references met the RFP requirement to be considered recent in accordance with the RFP defined as “within the past 5 years of RFP issuance.” All references met the recency requirement of the RFP.

Size: The team verified that all five references met the RFP minimum requirement of an average annual obligated value of $1.5M.

The SEB assigned a High Level of Confidence rating to RSI for the Past Performance factor.

This rating is based on an overall pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent (considering content and complexity), and an overall performance rating of Exceptional Merit. A summary of the Past Performance Ratings for RSI is shown in the table below:

F E

R

S A re p re h en u pa ti on al

S af et y

In sp ec

S A re t S af et y E n gi n ee ri

S A re p re h en e

P ro te ct

S A re p re h en u st ri al H yg ie

S A re p re h en ia ti on

S af ra ll

P er ti n ra ll

P er fo rm fi d en ce

L

RSI HP HP SP HP VHP HP EM HIGH

For pertinence (content and complexity), the team considered the Highly Pertinent rating for PWS Area 1, Highly Pertinent rating for PWS Area 2, Somewhat Pertinent rating for PWS Area 3, Highly Pertinent for PWS Area 4, and Very Highly Pertinent rating for PWS Area 5 and the team assigned an overall pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent.

For performance, all of RSI’s references received a performance rating of “Exceptional Merit”.

Therefore, the SEB assigned an overall performance rating of Exceptional Merit.

FACTOR 2 – PRICE EVALUATION RESULTS

The SEB performed a price analysis of each offeror’s price proposal for the information as requested in Section L.17, and in accordance with M.8.

The Contracting Officer determined that all four (4) Offerors’ prices were fair and reasonable based on a comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation to establish adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i), and a comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates in accordance with FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2)(v).

RSI has the lowest Total Calculated Price (TCP) followed by BQMI, RCMS II, and PEM (in ascending order).

RSI proposed the lowest TCP. The SEB determined the price proposal is fair and reasonable.

The Offeror’s Exhibit C IDIQ Schedule rates were verified and determined to be reasonable. RSI complied with the Wage Determination (WD) requirements Non-exempt labor categories, as well as the Limitations on Subcontracting (FAR 52.219-14). The SEB did not identify any pricing concerns in RSI’s proposal that would preclude award.

BQMI proposed the second lowest TCP. The SEB determined the price proposal is fair and reasonable. The Offeror’s Exhibit C IDIQ Schedule rates were verified and determined to be reasonable. BQMI complied with the Wage Determination (WD) requirements Non-exempt labor categories, as well as the Limitations on Subcontracting (FAR 52.219-14). The SEB did not identify any pricing concerns in BQMI’s proposal that would preclude award.

RCMS II proposed the second highest TCP. The SEB determined the price proposal is fair and reasonable. The Offeror’s Exhibit C IDIQ Schedule rates were verified and determined to be reasonable. RCMS II complied with the Wage Determination (WD) requirements Non-exempt labor categories, as well as the Limitations on Subcontracting (FAR 52.219-14). The SEB did not identify any pricing concerns in RCMS II’s proposal that would preclude award.

PEM proposed the highest TCP. The SEB determined the price proposal is fair and reasonable.

The Offeror’s Exhibit C IDIQ Schedule rates were verified and determined to be reasonable.

PEM complied with the Wage Determination (WD) requirements Non-exempt labor categories, as well as the Limitations on Subcontracting (FAR 52.219-14). The SEB did not identify any pricing concerns in PEM’s proposal that would preclude award.

Summary of Factor Ratings:

Offeror Factor 1: Past Performance

Level of Confidence Factor 2: Price

Total “Calculated” Price

BQMI Very Low Second Lowest

PEM High Highest

RCMS II Very High Second Highest

RSI High Lowest

BASIS FOR SELECTION

As the SSA for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the relevant documentation, including, but not limited to, the "Source Selection Briefing for JSHIFT” presented to me on July 28, 2025 (and its subsequent revisions on August 7, 2025), and the related Past Performance Report and Pricing Report.

I determined that the findings presented by the SEB, as documented in its presentation and the accompanying reports and consensus documents, are comprehensive and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the RFP and provide a clear description of the merits and attributes of each Offeror’s proposal. I concluded that the evaluation of proposals was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. I determined that the SEB’s findings were well-supported, reasonable, and aligned to the evaluation criteria for making a selection decision based on initial proposals. I accept the SEB findings as my own without exception.

In determining which proposal offers the best value to NASA, I conducted a comparative assessment of proposals and then conducted a trade-off among proposals utilizing the evaluation factors described in the solicitation. I referred to the relative order of importance of the two evaluation factors as specified in solicitation Section M.4, indicating that the Past Performance Factor is significantly more important than the Price Factor.

FACTOR 1, PAST PERFORMANCE

For Factor 1, past performance, the SEB rated the pertinence component based on the degree of similarity (content and complexity) of work performed on recent and relevant contract references in relation to the JSHIFT solicitation requirements and considering the amount and type of work each entity is proposed to perform. For the overall pertinence component, I note that RCMS II received the highest rating of Very Highly Pertinent, while PEM and RSI received Highly Pertinent ratings, and BQMI received the lowest rating of Minimally Pertinent.

I also noted that RCMS II achieved a rating of Very Highly Pertinent across all five PWS areas, while PEM received three Very Highly Pertinent ratings, RSI received one Very Highly Pertinent rating, and BQMI received none. RCMS II’s demonstrated past performance in both content and complexity gives me greater confidence in RCMS II’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the JSHIFT contract with the least amount of performance risk.

The SEB team rated the performance component based on the input provided through Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and CPARS/PPIRs. It is noted that all four offerors received an overall performance rating of Exceptional Merit. I do not find any discriminators for award among the offerors in the Performance component.

FACTOR 2 – PRICE

For Factor 2, Price, I concur with the SEB team’s analysis that the overall prices are fair and reasonable based on the establishment of adequate price competition and comparison of proposed prices to the Independent Government Cost Estimate. I note that all four offers complied with the solicitation requirements.

For the offerors TCP, I noted that RSI has the lowest TCP followed by BQMI, RCMS II, and PEM (in ascending order). There were no apparent pricing concerns that would preclude award.

Based on the analysis conducted by the SEB and the Price/Cost Analyst (PCA), the CO determined that all four offerors’ prices are considered reasonable based on adequate price competition and comparison to the IGCE.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

I conducted an integrated assessment of each proposal and considered the relative importance of the evaluation criteria for award, as indicated in the RFP. I also considered that, in accordance with the RFP, the Past Performance Factor is significantly more important than the Price Factor.

I reviewed and considered all significant evaluation findings that were fully documented in the SEB’s presentation and reports in making my source selection decision. Based on this, I fully concur with the SEB’s findings.

In reviewing the results for the Past Performance factor, I note that RCMS II received the highest rating of Very High Level of Confidence, while PEM and RSI received High Level of Confidence ratings, and BQMI received a Very Low Confidence Level rating. Based on the “Very Low Level of Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor, along with the fact it did not offer the lowest TCP, I did not further consider BQMI’s proposal for selection.

In reviewing the results for the Price Factor, I note that PEM had the highest TCP compared to all other offerors and was significantly higher than the IGCE. Given that there are two alternative offers having a lower TCP than PEM, and a Confidence Level Rating that is higher than or equal to PEM’s Confidence Level Rating, I did not further consider PEM’s proposal for selection.

As such, the remaining discussion related to my decision will be focused on RCMS II and RSI.

RCMS II received an overall past performance pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent based on achieving Very Highly Pertinent ratings across all five PWS areas. Contrastingly, RSI received an overall past performance pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent based on one Very Highly Pertinent rating, three Highly Pertinent ratings, and one Slightly Pertinent rating across the five PWS areas. For the overall performance component, both RCMS II and RSI received overall Exceptional Merit ratings based on the receipt of Exceptional Merit ratings for the references evaluated. Per the Price Factor results, RCMS II’s proposed TCP is higher than RSI’s TCP however the difference is not substantial enough to offset the superior level of confidence rating assigned by the SEB. The price difference is considered acceptable due to the criticality of the safety and health requirements of the JSHIFT effort, which the RFP reflects in designating the ‘past performance’ factor significantly more important than the price factor.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

In making the selection decision, I conducted an integrated assessment of each proposal and considered that, in accordance with the RFP, the Past Performance Factor is significantly more important than the Price Factor. Although RSI offers a lower price compared to RCMS II, I note that the advantages of RCMS II’s superior past performance confidence level provides substantial value to the Government by affording a higher chance of successful contract performance that outweighs the difference in price between these two proposals. Therefore, based on my integrated assessment of Offerors’ proposals, and in accordance with the evaluation criteria and their relative importance established for this acquisition, it is my decision that the proposal submitted by RCMS II represents the best overall value to the Government. Therefore, I select RCMS II for award of NASA’s JSHIFT contract.

Grant M. Watson Source Selection Authority