LASSO II Source Selection_Signed.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR THE

LABORATORY SUPPORT SERVICES AND OPERATIONS (LASSO) II CONTRACT

On September 7, 2022, I, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the LASSO II contract, along with other senior officials of the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC), met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals. I have set forth in this source selection statement relevant portions of the SEB’s evaluation of proposals and my decision on selection of the successful offeror.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The objective of this procurement is to obtain contractor support to operate and maintain a diverse set of laboratories, developmental shops, and test facilities to provide laboratory services for KSC in support of multiple NASA programs and projects, KSC spaceport customers, and the

United States Space Force Space Launch Delta 45 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. The

LASSO II contract will be a fixed-price, level-of-effort contract, with a contract provision to increase the level-of-effort to support the ebb and flow of requirements for laboratory services at

KSC. The contract period of performance consists of a 22-month base period, followed by two 1-year option periods, and one 14-month option period.

BACKGROUND

On March 18, 2021, the acquisition development process for the LASSO II contract commenced with the appointment of a Requirements Development Team (RDT). The RDT conducted market research; defined requirements for the work to be performed; released a draft performance work statement for industry comment; met with industry representatives to discuss

LASSO requirements; prepared an acquisition plan; released a draft solicitation for industry comment; held a presolicitation conference; and provided a site tour to industry representatives.

On December 1, 2021, the LASSO II SEB was appointed for the purpose of evaluating proposals received in response to the LASSO II solicitation. Following review and consideration of industry comments on the draft solicitation, the Contracting Officer established the North

American Industry Classification System code for the LASSO II procurement as 541380

(Testing Laboratories), with a corresponding revenue size standard of $16.5 million annually.

The Contracting Officer issued the LASSO II Request for Proposal (RFP) on December 3, 2021.

During the course of the procurement, the Contracting Officer issued a total of eight amendments to make corrections and other administrative changes; update solicitation terms, conditions, and provisions; incorporate additional requirements and proposal instructions; and respond to questions.

In response to the LASSO II RFP, the Government received four timely proposals on or before the due date of January 19, 2022 from the following companies (listed in alphabetical order):

Amentum Services, Inc. (Amentum)

Engineering Research and Consulting (ERC)

Leidos, Inc. (Leidos)

Sierra Lobo, Inc. (SLI)

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

The SEB evaluated proposals in accordance with the RFP and the source section procedures provided in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3 Source Selection and NASA

FAR Supplement (NFS) Subpart 1815.3 Source Selection. The RFP advised offerors that the

Government would use a trade-off process, as described in FAR 15.101-1 in making the source selection.

The RFP prescribed three evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Price, which the SEB evaluated using the applicable procedures, adjectival ratings, levels of confidence, definitions, and percentile ranges specified in the RFP, FAR, and NFS. The RFP advised offerors of the relative order of importance of the factors, stating the following: “The

Mission Suitability factor and the Past Performance factor, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. The Past Performance factor is more important than the Price factor, which is more important than the Mission Suitability factor.”

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the SEB evaluated each Offeror’s proposed approach to accomplishing requirements. The RFP further identified three subfactors, which the SEB was to weight and consider in evaluating Mission Suitability as follows:

Management Approach: 600 points

Technical Approach: 300 points

Small Business Utilization: 100 points

Total Mission Suitability: 1,000 points

Under the procedures established in the RFP and the applicable acquisition regulations, the SEB evaluated Mission Suitability proposals under each subfactor to identify significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. As a result of these findings, the SEB assigned an adjectival rating and percentile ranking/point score for each subfactor using the adjective ratings and percentile ranges at NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The total Mission

Suitability point score is the sum of the points assigned for each subfactor.

With regard to the Management Approach subfactor, the RFP, as amended, described in detail the areas the SEB would evaluate, including contract management, organizational structure, key positions, management staffing, information management, work control, contract phase-in, and total compensation. The RFP also described in detail the areas the SEB would evaluate under the Technical Approach subfactor, including technical staffing, approaches to laboratory operations, and professional and technical support services. Finally, under the Small Business

Utilization subfactor, the RFP described in detail areas the SEB would evaluate, namely, small business subcontracting and commitment to the small business program.

Under the Past Performance factor, the SEB evaluated each Offeror’s past performance and assigned one of the following level of confidence ratings in accordance with NFS

1815.305(a)(2): very high, high, moderate, low, very low, and neutral. The RFP advised that the

Government would evaluate the Offeror’s and its major subcontractor(s)’, individual partners, or parent/affiliate(s)’ recent performance of work similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of this solicitation, as well as the technical, schedule, cost/price performance, and safety and health. Recent was defined as performance within the last five years of the proposal due date with a minimum of 12 months of performance performed within the five year period

(excluding phase-in). The RFP advised that the Government could supplement the information contained in the proposal with information obtained from the Government organizations and personnel, commercial sources, public information sources, and, if applicable, data gathered during the discussion phase of the evaluation. Further, the RFP advised that the evaluation would consider the scope of work the Offeror and its major subcontractor(s) are proposing to perform to determine the relevancy of their past performance information.

The SEB evaluated each offeror’s and its major subcontractor(s)’, individual partners, or parent/affiliate(s)’ recent past performance by assessing the relevancy of work performed under prior contracts to the Government’s requirements in the LASSO II solicitation. Further, the SEB assessed the management, technical, schedule, cost/price performance, and safety and health performance on contracts that it determined to be recent and relevant.

Under the Price factor, the SEB evaluated each offeror’s proposal in accordance with FAR

Subpart 15.4, Contract Pricing, to ensure a fair and reasonable price. The RFP advised offerors that the Government could use one or more of the various price analysis techniques and procedures found at FAR 15.404-1(b). The RFP, as amended, defined an offeror’s total evaluated price as the offeror’s pricing for the base period and all option periods, including the following: phase-in; the offeror’s performance work statement (PWS) section 1 price by

Government fiscal year (GFY); the proposed firm fixed price labor rates (fully burdened with indirects and profit) multiplied by the Government-provided “base” hours for PWS sections 2, 3, and 4; the proposed firm fixed price labor rates (fully burdened with indirects and profit) for flex level of effort hours multiplied by the Government-provided best estimated quantities for each

GFY; the proposed fixed price increase to the firm fixed price for related non-proposed other direct costs exceeding the Government-provided values for each GFY; and the proposed fixed price increase to the firm fixed price for flex program management office (that will be applied with each “Flex” hour exercised during contract performance) for each GFY. Note: the total for

GFY 2028 was multiplied by 4 (reference FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services).

The SEB reviewed each proposal to ensure there were no revisions of formulas within the

Microsoft Excel pricing template. The SEB also reviewed each proposal for obvious errors or omissions and to ensure that each offeror priced all contract line items. The SEB then reviewed each offeror’s pricing assumptions for consistency with the requirements of the LASSO II

Contract. The SEB compared the total evaluated prices received in response to the RFP, at both the contract line item number (CLIN) pricing level and the total evaluated price. The SEB also compared the total evaluated prices to the independent Government estimate. The SEB also reviewed each offeror' s proposed pricing at the CLIN level for unbalanced pricing.

The SEB conducted all evaluations using the above-described evaluation criteria as specified in the RFP. The SEB was comprised of consultants and evaluators in appropriate disciplines to provide specific expertise needed in the evaluation process and provide findings and requests for clarification to the SEB voting members. Using the analysis of the consultants and evaluators, the SEB generated initial evaluation consensus findings that identified and assessed strengths and weaknesses and rated and scored each proposal accordingly. In addition to the evaluation of the factors and subfactors identified above, the SEB ensured that each proposal met all solicitation requirements established by the RFP.

INITIAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS,

COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION AND DISCUSSIONS

The SEB conducted the initial evaluation of the four proposals received in response to the RFP.

The resulting mission suitability rating, past performance rating, and price evaluation of each offeror’s proposal provided the basis for making a competitive range determination. On May 26, 2022, the SEB presented the results of its evaluation to me. The evaluation record and presentation included a complete and detailed evaluation of each proposal against all evaluation criteria for each evaluation factor. The evaluation record and presentation documented the findings, adjectival ratings, point scores, past performance confidence rating, and total evaluated price for each proposal. I reviewed the past performance assessments for each offeror, as well as the mission suitability findings and results of the price analysis for each offeror.

Based on the results of the SEB’s evaluation and in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the

Contracting Officer determined that discussions were necessary and in the Government’s best interest. Pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(l), the Contracting Officer, with my concurrence, determined the following two offerors to be within the competitive range: Amentum and ERC.

Accordingly, the Contracting Officer’s competitive range determination excluded the following two offerors from the competitive range, thereby eliminating from the competition: Leidos and

SLI . On June 6, 2022, the Contracting Officer notified all offerors of the competitive range determination.

The SEB conducted discussions with Amentum and ERC during the period of June 24, 2022, through August 12, 2022. The SEB focused the discussions on the significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and uncertainties requiring clarification that the SEB identified during its initial evaluation of proposals. Upon the conclusion of discussions, the Contracting Officer requested a final proposal revision (FPR) from Amentum and ERC with a common due date of August 22, 2022. Both offerors submitted timely FPRs. Following the same procedures that the SEB followed in the initial evaluation, the SEB then conducted a final evaluation of each offeror’s proposal, as revised, and reported its findings to me as discussed below.

FPR MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

On the Mission Suitability factor, I have summarized below the substance of the SEB’s evaluation of each offeror’s proposal after FPRs, in order of the overall Mission Suitability factor score from lowest to highest between the two offerors.

Amentum

Under the Management Approach subfactor, the SEB rated Amentum’s proposal as “Good.” The

SEB identified three strengths, and one weakness under this subfactor.

The SEB assigned Amentum a strength for its comprehensive approach for transition of the

Launch Equipment Test Facility (LETF), to include effective oversight and detailed schedules for facility transition and property management. This approach would ensure that the LETF transition to the LASSO II contract will not impact operations or mission success. Amentum received a second strength for an effective approach to quality management that demonstrated a commitment to quality, continuous improvement, and risk management. Amentum received a third strength for its rationale and designation of key positions, which enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

The SEB assigned Amentum a weakness because the professional compensation proposed increased the risk that Amentum would be unable to (1) keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives and provide uninterrupted high-quality work for base level of effort, and

(2) maintain program continuity for any additional effort contemplated under the flex hour provision.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the SEB rated Amentum’s proposal as “Good.” The

SEB identified no significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses nor significant weaknesses under this subfactor.

Under the Small Business Utilization subfactor, the SEB rated Amentum’s proposal as “Good.”

The SEB identified one strength under this subfactor. The SEB assigned Amentum a strength for their strong commitment to the Small Business Program and exceeding the Government’s

Recommended Small Business Goals. Amentum’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan thoroughly addressed the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan;

included high technology work with small businesses (significant work content across a majority of the PWS); identified the percentage of work to be subcontracted to small businesses in areas of high technology; and supported small business outreach, counseling, and market research methods.

Amentum received a total of 566 points under the Mission Suitability factor.

ERC

Under the Management Approach subfactor, the SEB rated ERC’s proposal as “Good.” The SEB identified two strengths under this subfactor.

The SEB assigned ERC a strength for its effective approach to employee training. This onsite training will better enable ERC to customize course content that will align with the needs of KSC labs and customers. ERC received a second strength for its proposed professional compensation approach which demonstrated an ability to maintain program continuity and uninterrupted high-quality work.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the SEB rated ERC’s proposal as “Good.” The SEB identified no significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses nor significant weaknesses under this subfactor.

Under the Small Business Utilization subfactor, the SEB rated ERC’s proposal as “Good.” The

SEB identified one strength. The SEB assigned ERC a strength for their strong commitment to the Small Business Program and exceeding the Government’s Recommended Small Business

Goals. ERC’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan thoroughly addressed the requirements of

FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan; included high technology work with small businesses (significant work content across a majority of the PWS); and identified the percentage of work to be subcontracted to small businesses in areas of high technology.

ERC received a total of 643 points under the Mission Suitability factor.

FPR PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Amentum

Amentum received an overall level of confidence rating of “Very High,” meaning the

Government has a very high level of confidence that Amentum will successfully perform the required effort based on the assessed past performance records. Amentum demonstrated very relevant experience in all PWS areas and specific areas of the LASSO II work scope. Overall, for PWS sections 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0, the Offeror’s experience was rated as very relevant based on the contracts submitted. Amentum’s experience is highlighted by its performance as the incumbent contractor on the current LASSO contract. Amentum also demonstrated extensive experience in contract management and laboratory maintenance across a variety of contracts.

Based on the foregoing, the SEB determined the Offeror’s overall relevant past performance was very highly pertinent to the LASSO II requirements. With respect to performance on relevant contracts, Amentum demonstrated overall exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance in the areas assessed.

ERC

ERC received an overall level of confidence rating of “Very High,” meaning the Government has a very high level of confidence that ERC will successfully perform the required effort based on the assessed past performance records. ERC demonstrated very relevant experience in the specific areas of the LASSO II work scope, except for Electromagnetic Interference, which was rated as relevant. Overall, for PWS Sections 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0, the Offeror’s experience was rated as very relevant based on the contracts cited. ERC’s past performance is highlighted by its experience as the prime contractor on its Marshall Engineering Technicians and Trades Support

(METTS) II contract, which demonstrated performance of diverse laboratory operations and support requiring a wide breadth of expertise consistent with the LASSO II requirements. ERC demonstrated experience in contract management and laboratory maintenance across its contracts. Based on the foregoing, the SEB determined the Offeror’s overall relevant past performance was very highly pertinent to the LASSO II requirement. With respect to performance on relevant contracts, the Offeror demonstrated overall exemplary past performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance in the areas assessed.

FPR PRICE EVALUATION

The SEB performed a price analysis of each offeror’s total evaluated price, in accordance with

FAR 15.404-l(b). As part of its evaluation, the SEB determined that adequate price competition existed, and the SEB did not find any instances of unbalanced pricing. Amentum’s total evaluated price was slightly lower than ERC’s price of $239,704,522.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

During the presentation, I questioned the SEB on the material presented and carefully considered the detailed findings presented by the SEB. I concluded that the SEB’s evaluation was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. In addition, I solicited and considered the views of other senior officials in attendance. These officials included individuals with responsibilities related to the procurement or who represent key customers at the program and institutional level, who understood the application of the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP.

I discussed my perspective regarding the SEB’s findings and, accordingly, the basis for my conclusion that the proposal submitted by ERC represents the best value to the Government.

I first note that, with respect to the three evaluation factors specified in the RFP (i.e., Mission

Suitability, Price, and Past Performance), the Mission Suitability factor and the Past Performance factor, when combined, are significantly more important than the Price factor. The Past

Performance factor is more important than the Price factor, which is more important than the

Mission Suitability factor. In determining the best value to the Government, I relied on these evaluation factors and relative order of importance to conduct a comparative assessment of the proposals and reached the following conclusions.

With regard to the Mission Suitability factor, I note that both Amentum and ERC received an adjective rating of “Good” under the Management Approach subfactor, “Good” under the

Technical Approach subfactor, and “Good” under the Small Business Utilization subfactor.

However, ERC’s proposal had a higher point score. I also note that the SEB found no weakness, significant weakness, or deficiency in ERC’s proposal.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, which I note is the most heavily weighted subfactor, the SEB credited ERC with two strengths. The first strength credited ERC for proposing an effective approach to employee training. ERC’s proposed training program will enable it to customize course content to align with the needs of KSC labs and the customers. The second strength attributed to ERC came after the FPRs. ERC’s blended salary rates proposed for all professional labor classifications demonstrated an ability to maintain program continuity and uninterrupted high-quality work.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, the SEB credited Amentum with three strengths.

The first strength recognized Amentum’s comprehensive approach to the transition of the LETF.

Amentum’s proposal recognized the criticality of the services performed within the LETF and provided a thorough and methodical approach for onboarding the LETF to the LASSO II contract at contract start. The second strength recognized Amentum’s approach to quality management, which promotes quality-focused leadership. The third strength was for Amentum’s approach to key positions, which reflects its understanding of the criticality of safety and health in high risk areas.

The aforementioned strengths for ERC and Amentum and their relative merit is reflected in the offerors’ Management Approach subfactor scores. I noted that the difference between the offerors’ Management Approach subfactor scores stems from the findings related to the total compensation plan (TCP).

The Government is concerned with the quality and stability of the workforce to be employed on the LASSO II contract. The SEB credited ERC with a strength for proposing professional compensation that demonstrates an ability to maintain program continuity and uninterrupted high-quality work. I questioned the SEB regarding ERC’s professional compensation, and the

SEB explained that ERC’s proposed blended salary rates, in the aggregate, exceeded the incumbent LASSO contract rates as of May 2022. In addition, the proposed blended salary rates, in the aggregate, notably exceeded the salary rates for the 50th percentile for the equivalent market rate from the Economic Research Institute (ERI) for this geographic area based on North

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541380 Testing Laboratories and

Services. The SEB found that the proposed blended salary rates demonstrate ERC’s sound management judgment. The proposed blended salary rates make it highly likely that ERC will have the ability to provide an experienced and qualified workforce for successful performance of the base level contract as well as support additional work under the flex hour provision. I concur with the SEB’s analysis and agree that ERC’s strength under the Management Approach subfactor provides a clear benefit to the Agency.

By contrast, Amentum, received a weakness for proposing blended salary rates, in the aggregate, that were lower than the incumbent LASSO contract rates as of May 2022. In addition, the proposed blended salary rates, in the aggregate, were also lower than the salary rates for the 50th percentile for the equivalent market rate from the ERI for this geographic area based on NAICS code 541380, Testing Laboratories and Services. LASSO II includes requirements for laboratory expertise in support of critical NASA missions for the Artemis program, Launch Services

Program, and Commercial Crew Program, as well as scientific expertise in the design, test, and fabrication of scientific payloads and projects for the Scientific Mission Directorate.

Additionally, the LASSO II contractor must provide KSC with a wide array of laboratory capabilities that can quickly provide accurate test and analysis to meet aggressive mission milestones. Amentum’s proposed blended salary rates below the 50th percentile are antithetical to obtaining and keeping suitably qualified personnel who possess the technical experience and experiential knowledge of unique requirements for support to these NASA missions.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the SEB found neither strengths nor weaknesses for

ERC or Amentum. Both offerors presented sound approaches in accomplishing the technical requirements for this contract and thus were not a discriminating factor for selection.

Under the Small Business Utilization subfactor, which I note is the least heavily weighted subfactor, the SEB assigned a strength to both ERC’s and Amentum’s proposals for demonstrating strong commitments to the Government’s Small Business Program and exceeding the Government’s recommended Small Business goals. Between the two offerors, the SEB rated

ERC slightly higher for further exceeding the Government’s Small Business goals; however, the difference is marginal. Considering the subfactor weighting, I did not find this subfactor to be a significant discriminator.

Overall, under the Mission Suitability factor, for the aforementioned reasons, I concur that the

SEB findings across both offerors accurately reflect the quality of the proposals, as well as the standing of the offerors’ proposals relative to one another. I did note a meaningful difference under the Management Approach subfactor, primarily within the TCPs. Therefore, under the

Mission Suitability factor, I find ERC’s proposal to be somewhat superior to Amentum’s proposal.

With regard to the Past Performance factor, I first note that, based on the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors, it is the most important factor. To begin, I consider that

Amentum is the prime contractor on the current LASSO contract, under which Amentum provides for the operation and maintenance of a diverse set of laboratories, developmental shops, and test facilities which provide laboratory services for KSC in support of multiple customers.

Other than contract-type, the only meaningful scope difference between the LASSO and LASSO

II contracts is the addition of laboratory operation and maintenance support for the LETF.

Moreover, Amentum has consistently exceeded performance requirements on LASSO (this is in addition to Amentum’s exemplary performance on its other submitted contracts, which the SEB determined to be similar in size, content, and complexity). Accordingly, the breadth and depth of Amentum’s experience on other contracts cited were directly comparable to the LASSO II contract, which leads me to concur with the SEB’s assessment of Amentum’s past performance.

Therefore, I have a very high level of confidence that Amentum would successfully perform the

LASSO II Contract.

As to the past performance of ERC, I note that among its other submitted contracts, ERC included the METTS II contract, which is of length and price comparable to the LASSO II contract. As the prime contractor, Aerie Aerospace (a joint venture between ERC and Aetos) supported multiple customer organizational directorates while operating the MSFC Metrology and Calibration Laboratory, Environmental Gas Laboratory, Valve and Component

Refurbishment Laboratory, Mechanical and Fabrication Facilities, Precision Cleaning

Laboratory, Pressurant and Propellant Delivery Systems, NDE Laboratory, Propulsion Test

Laboratory, Structural Test Laboratory, and Electrical Fabrication and Assembly Laboratory.

This was performed under a cost-plus-award fee contract. ERC also submitted KSC’s Test and

Operations Support Contract (TOSC), on which ERC performs as a significant subcontractor while supporting every technical PWS element. Under TOSC, ERC provides analysis work including weight and center of gravity, vibroacoustic, frequency response, over-pressurization, structural, heat, and wind load calculations, electromagnetic effects, ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, and electrostatic discharge compatibility analyses. ERC also supports operations within the LETF and Prototype Development Laboratory. Accordingly, the breadth and depth of

ERC’s experience on contracts comparable to the LASSO II contract leads me to concur with the

SEB’s assessment of ERC’s past performance. Therefore, I have a very high level of confidence that ERC would also successfully perform the LASSO II Contract.

With respect to each offeror, the SEB also reviewed the last three full years’ Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Form 300A, Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illness, which included data on the contracts cited in response to the RFP. The RFP also requested a summary of all Federal and State OSHA citations, including case or citation number, executive summary, and final disposition. The SEB thoroughly analyzed each offeror’s safety metrics, including Total Case Rate, Days Away, Restricted or Transferred Rate, and Days Away From

Work Injury Illness Rate, and compared these metrics to the BLS industryaverage incident rates for the applicable NAICS code. The SEB concluded that all offerors maintained safe and healthy operations for all cited contracts, and I concur with this conclusion.

Overall, under the Past Performance factor, for the aforementioned reasons, I have a very high level of confidence that both of the offerors could successfully perform the required effort. I believe the adjectival ratings the SEB assigned to the offerors accurately reflect the overall quality of the offerors’ past performance and conclude that there is no evidence within the Past

Performance factor evaluation to meaningfully discriminate between offerors.

With regard to the Price factor, I reiterate that in the relative order of importance of evaluation factors, the Mission Suitability factor and the Past Performance factor, when combined, are significantly more important than the Price factor. The Past Performance factor is more important than the Price factor, which is more important than the Mission Suitability factor.

Thus, by terms of the RFP, any difference in the price among proposals warrants meaningful consideration. As mentioned above, ERC’s total evaluated price is higher than Amentum’s.

However, over the five years and six months period being considered, the annual difference is negligible. For this selection, I consider the difference in the total evaluated prices to be insignificant and therefore, not a meaningful discriminator between offerors.

In making my decision, I noted no meaningful difference between the two proposals under the

Past Performance factor and only a negligible difference under the Price factor. With regard to

Mission Suitability, the SEB identified three strengths and one weakness for Amentum and two strengths and no weakness for ERC. A detailed analysis of the underlying strengths and weaknesses revealed that ERC’s Mission Suitability proposal was somewhat superior to that of

Amentum’s. Although the SEB identified three strengths for Amentum, those strengths did not carry as much value as ERC’s strength for its proposed total compensation. I find the only discriminating factor is ERC’s proposed blended labor rates exceeding the incumbent rate and

ERI data, which provides a greater degree of benefit to maintain workforce stability and to maintain program continuity, especially in light of the flex hour provision. This benefit is worth the slightly higher price. Obtaining and maintaining a qualified workforce is crucial to the success of the LASSO II contract and this value is reflected in ERC’s overall Mission Suitability score. ERC’s proposal represents the best value to the Government because it offered a somewhat superior proposal with respect to Mission Suitability and is essentially equal to

Amentum under Past Performance, with no meaningful difference in price.

Therefore, I select ERC for award of the LASSO II contract.

Jennifer C. Kunz

Source Selection Authority