MESC SSSdms.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR THE

MISSION ENABLING SERVICES CONTRACT (MESC)

NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Solicitation Number 80JSC021R0009

On May 19, 2022, I, along with other key officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC), met with members of the Streamlined Procurement Team (SLPT) appointed to evaluate proposals received in response to the MESC Request for Proposals (RFP) 80JSC021R0009. I posed a variety of questions, solicited the views of the SLPT and my advisors, expressed my own views, and made my selection decision. The final presentation charts, along with the Technical Acceptability and Past Performance Evaluation Worksheets, have been reviewed and represent the final source evaluation report and are herein incorporated by reference.

BACKGROUND

The principal purpose of the Mission Enabling Services Contract (MESC) requirement is to provide development, sustainment, and maintenance of specialized and highly specialized mission-enabling applications and services to the NASA JSC Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) and its affiliate organizations.

The MESC contracts will provide services in three areas of work and result in two (2) single-award Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) baseline contracts and multiple-award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts with Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Task Orders (TOs). A “baseline” comprises activities that satisfy known, continuous United States government requirements that exist independent of another baseline or any TO under the IDIQ vehicle.

Baseline A and Baseline B content includes statically defined, full Lifecycle highly specialized mission enabling Information Technology (IT) management and execution. The three areas of work are as follows:

• Baseline A - NASA Aircraft Management Information System (NAMIS) Services (Full & Open Competition) (NAMIS) is an integrated, module-based, custom software suite that supports aircraft flight operations for the Agency. The scope includes all the life-cycle support elements for an enterprise-level, agency-wide IT project, including project management; requirements analysis; software development, testing and verification; and knowledge of NASA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Federal Aviation Administration regulatory requirements relating to aircraft safety and/or flight operations.

• Baseline B – Spaceflight Enabling Services (Small Business Set-Aside) will provide support in implementing the FOD IT system, including recent cloud components. It will also provide support for planning, integration, and control services. The scope includes all services and support relating to implementing the FOD Information Technology (FIT) System including System Design; Configuration Management; Development; System and Security Administration; Procurement; Training; Installation; User Support; and

Sustaining Engineering. The scope also include responsibility for providing the following: project and configuration management (CM) support of FOD Project Information Systems; Configuration Management and Data Management (CMDM) of all Business Planning and Control Office project management processes, documentation, and FOD Control Board and Panel activities; Facility Utilization and Optimization; and Integrated Mater Scheduling.

• Multiple-Award IDIQ (Small Business Set-Aside) will provide Management and Mission Support Services and Advanced Research and Development Technology Support. The management and mission support services on the MESC contact are characterized as, but not limited to, specialized and highly specialized spaceflight enabling services not offered and/or not provided by the NASA Agency. The advanced research and development technology support on the MESC contract is defined as highly entropic, paradigm-shifting prototype software and supporting hardware development and technology research, in the pursuit of next generation mission operations design solutions.

The MESC solicitation is a partial small business set-aside under the authority of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.203(a) and has been assigned the North American Industry Classification System code 541512, Computer Systems Design Services, with a Small Business Administration-designated small business size standard of $30 million in average gross sales over a three (3) year period.

Baseline A was conducted under full and open competition. Baseline B and IDIQ were set aside for small business. Large businesses were able to propose to Baseline A. Small businesses were able to propose to Baseline A, Baseline B, IDIQ, or any combination of the three (3) areas of work. Offerors were not required to propose on all areas of work. Per RFP Section M.2, if an offeror proposed on multiple areas of work, each area of work would receive a separate evaluation and Technical Acceptability rating.

The Government anticipated a sixty-one (61) day phase-in period for Baseline A and Baseline B and no phase-in period for IDIQ. The Government also expected a five (5) year period of performance for both Baseline A and Baseline B, comprised of a two (2) year base period of performance followed by a two (2) year option and a one (1) year option for each Baseline. The RFP identified an ordering period of five (5) years for IDIQ with a $20,000 guaranteed minimum ordering value for each IDIQ contract and a not to exceed value of $35 million for all MESC IDIQ TOs.

On February 18, 2021, a Request for Information (RFI)/Sources Sought Synopsis was posted to beta.SAM.gov in order to identify potential sources and to determine the appropriate level of competition and/or small business subcontracting goals for MESC. Industry Day was held on March 30, 2021, with one-on-one sessions following on March 31, 2021, and April 1, 2021. A draft RFP was posted to beta.SAM.gov on July 22, 2021. The preproposal conference was held on September 8, 2021.

The Final RFP was released on August 26, 2021, with proposals due no later than 12:00 p.m.

Central Daylight Time (CDT) on September 28, 2021. Amendment 1 to the Final RFP, posted on

September 9, 2021, extended the proposal due date to 12:00 p.m. CDT on October 5, 2021.

Amendment 2 to the Final RFP, posted on September 23, 2021, included responses to questions posed by industry; contained minor changes to Section C, Section H, Section I, Section L, Section M, Attachment J-02 Data Requirements List, Attachment L-03 Baseline Excel Pricing Model (EPM) Template, Attachment L-04 IDIQ EPM Template, Attachment L-06 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Data Requirements Document (DRD)-02 Total Compensation Plan, and DRD-19 Key Personnel; and provided the Athena User Guide in the Technical Library. Amendment 3 of the Final RFP, posted on September 28, 2021, contained minor changes to Attachment L-03 Baseline EPM template.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This procurement was conducted using a combination of technically acceptable baseline requirements and a tradeoff of past performance and cost/price. The SLPT evaluated proposals in accordance with the evaluation procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, NASA FAR Supplement 1815.3 and Section M of the MESC RFP – Evaluation Factors for Award to Offerors.

First, the SLPT conducted an initial review of proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals.

Remaining proposals were then evaluated against the Technical Acceptability Factor. Each area of work had separate Technical Acceptability Subfactors and received a separate evaluation and Technical Acceptability rating.

The Technical Acceptability Factor for Baseline A contained two (2) subfactors, Subfactor 1:

CMMI Level 3 (or higher) Certification and Subfactor 2: Operational Approach. The Technical Acceptability Factor for Baseline B contained one (1) subfactor, Operational Approach. The Technical Acceptability Factor for IDIQ contained one (1) subfactor, Task Order Scenario for Technical Evaluation.

The RFP required that Technical Acceptability be assessed by assigning ratings of “Acceptable,” “Potentially Acceptable,” or “Unacceptable” to each Offeror’s Technical Acceptability volume.

The ratings were defined as follows:

“Acceptable” Rating – A proposal will be rated “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, where ALL factor/subfactors are individually rated acceptable based on the demonstration of understanding, and level of reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness such that associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

“Unacceptable” Rating – A proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, where ANY factor/subfactor is individually rated unacceptable based on the demonstration of understanding, and level of reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness such that associated risks do jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

“Potentially Acceptable” Rating – A proposal will be rated “Potentially Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, when after the initial evaluation, the proposal does not fully meet the definition for an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” rating and the Government anticipates that additional information obtained during discussions could result in a proposal rating of “Acceptable”.

All “Acceptable” or “Potentially Acceptable” proposals were further evaluated against Past Performance and Cost/Price. Past performance was more important than Cost/Price.

Offerors who proposed on multiple areas of work received a separate evaluation and Past Performance Confidence Rating. The Past Performance Confidence Rating was based on the SLPT’s evaluation of available information regarding the Offeror’s relevant Past Performance on recent contracts, in accordance with RFP Section M.4 – Past Performance Factor (Volume II).

The SLPT relied on proposal data required by Section L.20.5 of the RFP, completed PPQs, and data independently obtained from the Government and commercial sources as stated in Section M.4(b) of the RFP.

Offerors were required to provide past performance information for each area of work to which the Offeror proposed. Offerors proposing to Baseline A and Baseline B were required to provide information on up to three (3) past contracts per area of work. The contracts could have been performed by the prime offeror (including joint ventures) or major subcontractors (companies performing at least 20% of the total proposed contract price over the period of performance for the particular baseline). Offerors proposing to IDIQ were required to provide information on up to five (5) past contracts. The contracts could have been performed by the prime offeror (including joint ventures) or subcontractors.

Three (3) aspects were taken into consideration by the SLPT in determining an Offeror’s Past Performance Confidence rating: recency, relevance, and performance.

Only contract periods of performance within three (3) years from the date of the MESC original solicitation were considered in the past performance evaluation.

If the contract was deemed recent, the Government was then required to determine the degree of relevance of the contract based on size, content, and complexity. The term “content” considered the contract’s total scope of services, work, requirements, or supplies, in comparison to the requirements of the MESC solicitation. Contracts that exhibited all specific trades/type of work required under the solicitation Statement of Work (SOW) were considered more relevant than contracts limited to specific trades only. The term complexity considered items such as contract type, experience with special terms and conditions and/or context of performance in comparison to the performance environment outlined in the MESC solicitation. The evaluation considered what the corporate parent, affiliate, or other organizational entities (division(s), business units, segments) were responsible for and/or proposing to do on the MESC effort and the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon, such that the corporate parent, affiliate, or other organizational entity would have meaningful involvement in contract performance.

Although information demonstrating experience in all areas of the SOW could be submitted, past performance efforts in the following areas were considered more relevant:

Baseline A:

1. Demonstrated application of the rules and regulations related to airworthiness standards for Public Aircraft and Commercial Aircraft, including the Federal Aviation Regulations.

2. Experience with sustaining, maintaining, and developing highly specialized, complex custom-developed software written in the following languages: C#, Web Programming (Angular/Blazor/MVC), Web API, JavaScript/TypeScript, Transact SQL/Entity Framework/SSRS, managed to a CMMI Level 3, or higher, standard.

Baseline B:

1. Experience to provide specialized IT end-user and back-end enabling infrastructure administration and support.

2. End user (i.e. domestic, international, and on-orbit) mission enabling support services.

3. Experience with sustaining, maintaining, and developing highly specialized, complex custom-developed software written in the following languages: ASP.NET (C#, VB.NET .NET Framework, .NET core), Java, ColdFusion, PERL, JavaScript, Typescript, Node.js, HTML, SQL, XML.

IDIQ:

1. Demonstrated application of highly specialized software engineering and research development of applications, solutions, and mission enabling services.

2. Computer simulation and modeling.

3. Intelligent systems.

4. Network modeling

5. Development and evaluation of crew display concepts

Relevance was assessed using the following definitions:

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved much of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance contractual effort involved some of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

The SLPT then assessed the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, and safety performance of the recent and relevant contracts. The quality assessment consisted of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment could result in positive or adverse findings. The Government considered the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of corrective actions taken that resulted in sustained improvements, and the overall record of past performance. This assessment led the Government to determine the quality of performance as either Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Poor/Unsatisfactory.

After evaluating aspects of an Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance, a Past Performance Confidence Rating was assessed for each area of work proposed at the overall factor level for past performance. More recent and more relevant past performance received greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than less recent or less relevant past performance. The past performance of a prime or team member was compared to the work proposed to be performed by that prime or team member and weighted accordingly in assigning the overall past performance adjectival rating to the offeror. The RFP set out six (6) possible Past Performance Confidence Ratings:

Very High Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Offeror’s past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance.

Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance.

Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards. Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Very Low Level of Confidence: The offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas. Performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, adversely affected overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].

Finally, in accordance with RFP Section M.5 – Cost/Price Factor (Volume III), the SLPT evaluated proposed costs/prices for Offerors whose proposals were rated either technically “Acceptable” or “Potentially Acceptable.” For Offerors that proposed on multiple areas of work, each area of work was evaluated independently.

For Baselines A and B, the Government evaluated the proposed costs and established the probable cost of doing business with each Offeror. The Offeror’s cost/price was evaluated for the validity, realism and adequacy of each cost proposal and the probable cost that would be incurred in the performance of the MESC effort. The Government performed price analysis, cost analysis, and cost realism analysis on all proposed Baseline prices to include cost elements for all five (5) contract years (CY). The probable cost for the sum of all CYs was used for purposes of evaluation and selection.

For IDIQ, the Government performed a price analysis of all proposals received and reviewed proposed rates and prices for all contract years to determine whether they were reasonable. The price analysis included an evaluation of the Fully Burdened Rates (FBR) for each Standard Labor Category (SLC). To ensure the final agreed-to prices are fair and reasonable the Government preformed the analysis in accordance with FAR 15.305 – Proposal Evaluation, FAR

15.404 – Proposal Analysis, and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815-305 – Proposal Evaluation. The proposed overall price for the sum of all contract years and the results of the Government’s analysis, including risk assessment if one was performed, were presented for consideration in making the source selection decision.

EVALUATION OF INITIAL PROPOSALS

The Government received five (5) timely proposals in response to the MESC RFP. One (1) proposal was received for Baseline A, three (3) proposals were received for Baseline B, and three (3) proposals were received for IDIQ. Offeror names and areas of work proposed are identified below and listed alphabetically:

MESC Offerors Baseline A:

NAMIS

Baseline B:

Spaceflight Enabling

Services+

IDIQ+

ASRC Federal Aerospace Services, LLC (AFAS)

X X

Lentech, Inc. (Lentech) X MRI Technologies (MRI) X Rothe Development, Inc. (RDI) X X

SAIC X

+ Small Business Set-aside

All proposals were evaluated in accordance with Section M of the MESC RFP, as detailed above. The SLPT first conducted an initial review of the proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70 and RFP Section M.2(a) to determine acceptability. All five (5) proposals were determined to be acceptable in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70 and were further evaluated in accordance with the RFP.

BASELINE A

SAIC was the sole offeror who proposed for Baseline A. In accordance with NFS 1815.305-71, Evaluation of a Single Proposal, when only one (1) proposal is received in response to the solicitation, the Contracting Officer shall determine if the solicitation was flawed or unduly restrictive and determine if the single proposal is an acceptable proposal. Based on these findings, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall direct the Contracting Officer to either: (1) award after negotiating an acceptable contract; or (2) reject the proposal and cancel the solicitation.

The Contracting Officer explained that NASA received twenty-five (25) responses from interested parties in response to the Requirements Request for Information (RFI), indicating that there were multiple capable vendors to perform the work. In addition, Industry Day had 14 attendees interested in Baseline A and One-on-One meetings were held with thirteen (13) parties indicating significant industry interest. The MESC requirements were written as performance-based in order to allow for the most competition and offerors were given forty (40) days (more than the minimum thirty (30) day requirement) to develop proposals. Finally, four (4) potential offerors attended the pre-proposal conference on September 8, 2021. Based on these facts and the Contracting Officer’s review of the RFP, the Contracting Officer determined that the solicitation was not flawed or unduly restrictive.

Based on the Contracting Officer’s determination, I directed the SLPT to award after negotiating an acceptable contract with the single offeror on Baseline A.

BASELINE B

RDI, AFAS, and Lentech submitted proposals for Baseline B. The results of the Baseline B evaluation were presented to me at the Competitive Range Determination briefing on March 23, 2022. On April 13, 2022, I concurred with the Contracting Officer’s written determination that

RDI’s proposal was the most highly rated based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, in accordance with FAR 15.306I(1), and should be included in the competitive range for Baseline B. AFAS and Lentech were not included in the competitive range for Baseline B and were notified accordingly. The SLPT thereafter engaged in discussions with RDI to obtain a Property Management Plan (which was required from the Apparent Successful Offeror under RFP Section L.20.7.C.), to obtain a Certificate of Current Cost and Pricing Data, and to complete its Post Award Small Business Program Representation.

RDI was informed of its inclusion in the competitive range on April 13, 2022. The SLPT conducted written discussions with RDI and closed discussions on May 12, 2022. RDI submitted a timely FPR, and the SLPT evaluated RDI’s FPR in accordance with the RFP instructions. After evaluating RDI’s FPR, the SLPT determined that the items addressed during discussions had been sufficiently dispositioned to the satisfaction of the SLPT.

Technical Acceptability Factor

RDI submitted no changes to its Technical Acceptability volume; the SLPT therefore made no changes to RDI’s initial rating of “Acceptable” for the Technical Acceptability Factor.

Specifically, the SLPT found that RDI’s proposal provided an acceptable response to the Operational Approach because it demonstrated understanding, reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness such that associated risks would not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

The SLPT then assessed RDI’s Past Performance.

Past Performance Factor

RDI submitted no changes to its Past Performance volume; the SLPT therefore made no changes to RDI’s initial rating of Very High Level of Confidence for the Past Performance Factor.

All contracts submitted in RDI’s Past Performance volume were determined to be Recent. RDI demonstrated experience similar in size, content, and complexity to MESC Baseline B. Although RDI did not demonstrate experience on acquiring third-party training and professional services under MESC Baseline B SOW subsection 2.3.2 nor registering web applications under subsection 2.3.4, the tasks under SOW subsections 2.3.2 and 2.3.4 are minor in comparison to the rest of the work under section 2.3 and RDI was able to demonstrate experience in the remaining MESC Baseline B SOW areas. As a result, the SLPT determined the degree of relevance for RDI’s work is Very Relevant. The SLPT also found RDI’s quality of performance to be Excellent, based on feedback provided in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and PPQs. The SLPT concluded that RDI’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on RDI’s performance record, there is a Very High Level of Confidence that RDI will successfully perform the required effort.

Cost/Price Factor

In accordance with the RFP, the SLPT performed a cost analysis and price analysis, and evaluated RDI’s proposed cost/price for validity, realism, and adequacy to develop a probable cost of performance. Based on this analysis, the SLPT made an escalation adjustment to RDI’s proposed direct labor cost.

At the Government’s request and as required by the FAR, RDI included a Certificate of Current Cost and Pricing Data to support the FBRs it provided in its Model Contract.

Based on the information contained in the Cost/Price volume, the SLPT determined the final cost/price proposed by RDI was fair and reasonable.

IDIQ

The results of the IDIQ initial evaluation were also presented to me at the Competitive Range Determination briefing on March 23, 2022. The results as presented are summarized below:

Technical

Acceptability Past Performance Cost/Price

AFAS Acceptable High Level of Confidence Lowest MRI Acceptable High Level of Confidence Highest RDI Acceptable Very High Level of Confidence Second Lowest

AFAS

Technical Acceptability Factor

Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that AFAS’s Technical Acceptability volume for IDIQ was “Acceptable.” Specifically, the SLPT found that AFAS’s proposal provided an acceptable response to the Task Order Scenario for Technical Evaluation because it demonstrated understanding, reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness such that associated risks would not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Based on the SLPT’s determination that AFAS’s response to the Task Order Scenario for Technical Evaluation was rated acceptable, the SLPT rated AFAS’s proposal as “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor for IDIQ. The SLPT then assessed AFAS’s Past Performance.

Past Performance Factor

All contracts submitted in AFAS’s Past Performance volume were determined to be Recent.

AFAS demonstrated experience similar in size, content, and complexity to MESC IDIQ. AFAS submitted three contract references for the IDIQ portion of MESC - SES II (performed by an affiliate of AFAS), ACITS-3 (performed by an affiliate of AFAS), and JOIST IDIQ (performed by Cimmaron, AFAS’s proposed major subcontractor). SES II and ACITS-3 are larger in size and similar in complexity to MESC IDIQ. Cimarron demonstrated much of or essentially the same experience in the MESC IDIQ SOW area that was considered more relevant. Accordingly, the SLPT determined that SES II was Somewhat Relevant, ACITS was Relevant, and JOIST IDIQ was Very Relevant. The SLPT also found AFAS’s quality of performance to be Excellent, based on feedback provided in CPARS and PPQs. The SLPT concluded that AFAS’s past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. AFAS’s past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance.

Based on AFAS’s performance record, there is a High Level of Confidence that AFAS will successfully perform the required effort.

Cost/Price Factor

In accordance with the RFP, the SLPT conducted a price analysis on the Fully Burdened Rates.

A risk assessment was performed to direct labor escalation and several direct labor rates. The SLPT found that there is a risk of price overstatement of 2.74%. The proposed price was determined to be fair and reasonable.

MRI

Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that MRI’s Technical Acceptability volume for IDIQ was “Acceptable.” Specifically, the SLPT found that MRI’s proposal provided an acceptable response to the Task Order Scenario for Technical Evaluation because it demonstrated understanding, reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness such that associated risks would not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Based on the SLPT’s determination that MRI’s response to the Task Order Scenario for Technical Evaluation was rated acceptable, the SLPT rated MRI’s proposal as “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor for IDIQ. The SLPT then assessed MRI’s Past Performance.

Past Performance Factor

MRI submitted three contracts for the IDIQ portion of MESC, ESOC, JETS, and COMIT. All three were determined to be Recent. MRI demonstrated experience similar in size, content, and complexity to MESC IDIQ. MRI demonstrated experience in the MESC IDIQ SOW areas, and provided experience on contracts similar in size and complexity. As a result, the SLPT determined the degree of relevance for MRI’s work from each of the three submitted contract references is Relevant. The SLPT also found MRI’s quality of performance to be Excellent and Very Good, based on feedback provided in CPARS and PPQs. The SLPT concluded that MRI’s past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. MRI’s past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance.

Based on MRI’s performance record, there is a High Level of Confidence that MRI will successfully perform the required effort.

Cost/Price Factor

In accordance with the RFP, the SLPT conducted price analysis on the FBRs. A risk assessment was performed to direct labor escalation and adjustment to rates using Economic Research Institute (ERI) data. There is a risk of price overstatement of 5.65%. The proposed price was determined to be fair and reasonable.

RDI

Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that RDI’s Technical Acceptability volume for IDIQ was “Acceptable.” Specifically, the SLPT found that RDI’s proposal provided an acceptable response to the Task Order Scenario for Technical Evaluation because it demonstrated understanding, reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness such that associated risks would not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Based on the SLPT’s determination that RDI’s response to the Task Order Scenario for Technical Evaluation was rated acceptable, the SLPT rated RDI’s proposal as “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor for IDIQ. The SLPT then assessed RDI’s Past Performance.

Past Performance Factor

RDI submitted five (5) contract references for the IDIQ portion of MESC. RDI submitted its own effort on the JOIST CPFF and IDIQ contract, its major subcontractor’s, Barrios’, effort on HSFTIC, and its other subcontractors’ efforts on ESIASS, SAS, and OSCPP5. All contracts submitted in RDI’s Past Performance volume were determined to be Recent. RDI demonstrated experience similar in size, content, and complexity to MESC IDIQ. RDI and its subcontractors demonstrated experience in the MESC IDIQ SOW areas and provided experience on contracts larger in size and more complex than MESC IDIQ. As a result, the SLPT determined the degree of relevance for RDI’s effort on JOIST to be Very Relevant, Barrios’ effort on HSFTIC to be Relevant, ARES’ effort on ESIASS to be Somewhat Relevant, SAIC’s effort on SAS to be Very Relevant, and AANA’s effort on OSCPP5 to be Very Relevant. The SLPT also found RDI’s and its subcontractors’ quality of performance all to be Excellent, based on feedback provided in CPARS and PPQs. The SLPT concluded that RDI’s past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on RDI’s performance record, there is a Very High Level of Confidence that RDI will successfully perform the required effort.

Cost/Price Factor

In accordance with the RFP, the SLPT conducted a price analysis on the FBRs. A risk assessment was performed to direct labor escalation. There is a risk of price overstatement of 0.25%. The proposed price was determined to be fair and reasonable.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

On May 19, 2022, the SLPT presented and discussed with me its evaluation observations. Based on the information presented, I fully understand the evaluation process and the SLPT observations. I noted that, per the RFP, Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price.

Baseline A

On March 23, 2022, I directed the SLPT to award after negotiating an acceptable contract with the single offeror on Baseline A, in accordance with NFS 1815.305-71, Evaluation of a Single Proposal. On May 19, 2022, the SLPT stated that it had completed contract negotiations with the single Baseline A offeror and had obtained certified cost and pricing data in accordance with NFS 1815.305-71 and FAR 15.403-1. As a result, I made no change to my previous decision to award Baseline A to SAIC.

Baseline B

The SLPT’s observations that were presented to me were consistent with the evaluation criteria in the MESC RFP. I inquired further into the SLPT’s basis for its evaluation conclusions and associated ratings in order to be certain I fully understood its rationale and the underlying qualitative aspects of the remaining proposal in the competitive range. I considered the inputs and opinions of key personnel and advisors who had heard the presentation and who have responsibility relative to the procurement. Finally, I expressed my own views and made the selection. I based my decision on selecting the proposal offering the best overall value to the Government in accordance with the RFP’s stated criteria for award.

Having previously concurred with the Contracting Officer that RDI’s proposal was the most highly rated, I reviewed the SLPT’s observations with respect to its evaluation of RDI.

Technical Acceptability Factor

I reviewed the SLPT’s observations with respect to the Technical Acceptability Factor and subfactor, Operational Approach. I reviewed the SLPT’s analysis for RDI and concurred with the SLPT’s rationale. I found that RDI’s Operational Approach is acceptable based on the demonstration of understanding, reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness such that associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. I determined that the SLPT’s evaluation record and its “Acceptable” rating for RDI had a rational basis and is valid for the purpose of making a selection decision. As a result, I agree with the SLPT that RDI’s proposal is “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor.

Past Performance Factor

Having concluded that RDI’s proposal was technically “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, I reviewed the SLPT’s evaluation of RDI’s past performance under the Past Performance Factor. I noted that three (3) aspects were taken into account by the SLPT in assigning a Past Performance Confidence Rating: recency, relevance, and performance. I understand that, in accordance with the MESC RFP, only performance within three (3) years from the date of the MESC original solicitation was considered in the past performance evaluation. Further, I noted that RDI received a relevance rating of either Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, or Not Relevant, based on the SLPT’s assessment of the size, content, and complexity of the submitted performance in comparison to MESC Baseline B. I also considered the SLPT’s assessment of RDI’s performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, and safety performance. In addition, I noted that performance quality was assessed as either Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Poor/Unsatisfactory. Finally, I reviewed the SLPT’s overall Past Performance Confidence Rating.

As discussed during the competitive range meeting on March 23, 2022 and in the competitive range determination of April 13, 2022, RDI recethe SLPT’s rating of RDI’s Past Performance was a Very High Level of Confidence. The SLPT noted that RDI demonstrated very relevant past performance across all areas of the SOW with essentially the same content, size and complexity to MESC. I concur with the SLPT’s determination and find that RDI’s very relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, and that it demonstrated exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance.

Cost/Price Factor

Next, in the Cost/Price factor, I examined the probable costs of the Offeror’s proposals and the SLPT’s cost and price analyses. I note that the SLPT evaluated RDI’s cost/price per the RFP for validity, realism, and adequacy of each cost proposal and the probable cost that will be incurred in the performance of this effort. I agreed with the SLPT's evaluation of the probable costs. I noted that an escalation adjustment was made to the direct labor cost, but the delta was insignificant. On May 19, 2022, the SLPT completed discussions with RDI and obtained a certificate of current cost and pricing data in accordance with NFS 1815.305-71 and FAR 15.403-1. Additionally, during discussions, RDI confirmed that the proposed cost/price submitted in its initial proposal did not change. As a result, no other adjustments were required to RDI’s proposed cost/price. Based on the foregoing, I am satisfied that RDI’s proposed cost/price is fair and reasonable.

Conclusion

Having fully reviewed and agreed with the evaluation observations of the SLPT, I find that RDI can successfully perform the required MESC Baseline B effort. I find value in RDI’s Very High Level of Confidence rating for Past Performance in combination with its fair and reasonable price. Keeping in mind that Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price, I find that the overall attributes of RDI’s proposal provides the best value to the Government for award of the Mission Enabling Services Contract (MESC) Baseline B. My selection is based solely on and is wholly consistent with the selection criteria and evaluation framework set out in the RFP and supported by the SLPT’s evaluation.

I therefore select Rothe Development, Inc. (RDI) for award of the MESC Baseline B contract.

IDIQ

On March 23, 2022, the SLPT presented and discussed with me its evaluation observations with respect to MESC IDIQ. The SLPT’s observations that were presented to me were consistent with the evaluation criteria in the MESC RFP. I inquired further into the SLPT’s basis for its evaluation conclusions and associated ratings in order to be certain I fully understood its rationale and the underlying qualitative aspects of the proposals received for MESC IDIQ. I solicited input from key personnel and advisors who had heard the presentation and who have responsibility relative to the procurement. Finally, I expressed my own views and made the selection. I based my decision on selecting the proposals offering the best overall value to the Government in accordance with the RFP’s stated criteria for award.

Technical Acceptability Factor

I reviewed the SLPT’s observations and ratings with respect to the Technical Acceptability Factor and subfactor, Task Order Scenario for Technical Evaluation. I reviewed the SLPT’s analysis for AFAS, MRI, and RDI and concurred with the SLPT’s rationale. I found that AFAS, MRI, and RDI each submitted a Technical volume that was acceptable based on the demonstration of understanding, reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness such that associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. I determined that the SLPT’s evaluation record and its “Acceptable” ratings for AFAS, MRI, and RDI had a rational basis and are valid for the purpose of making a selection decision. As a result, I agree with the SLPT that AFAS, MRI, and RDI’s proposals are “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor.

Past Performance Factor

Having concluded that AFAS, MRI, and RDI’ submitted proposal that were technically “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, I reviewed the SLPT’s evaluation of each offeror’s past performance under the Past Performance Factor. I noted that three (3) aspects were taken into account by the SLPT in assigning a Past Performance Confidence Rating:

recency, relevance, and performance. I understand that, in accordance with the MESC RFP, only performance within three (3) years from the date of the MESC original solicitation was considered in the past performance evaluation. Further, I noted that offerors received a relevance rating of either Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, or Not Relevant, based on the SLPT’s assessment of the size, content, and complexity of the submitted performance in comparison to MESC IDIQ. I also considered the SLPT’s assessment of each offeror’s performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, and safety performance. In addition, I noted that performance quality was assessed as either Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Poor/Unsatisfactory. Finally, I reviewed the SLPT’s overall Past Performance Confidence Ratings.

I concur with the SLPT’s Past Performance analysis and evaluation of AFAS, MRI, and RDI.

All three offerors for the IDIQ portion of MESC received at least a High Level of Confidence rating based upon the recency, relevance, and performance of the contracts submitted for evaluation.

Cost/Price Factor

The SLPT evaluated the proposals and determined all the prices proposed by all three offerors were fair and reasonable. After reviewing the SLPT’s evaluation, I concur with the SLPT’s determination that the prices for all three offerors are fair and reasonable. I note that, while one of the offeror’s fully burdened labor rates was slightly higher than the other two, I find that a multiple award to all offerors provides the best value to the Government, as the three will compete again at the task order level.

Conclusion

Having fully reviewed and agreed with the evaluation observations of the SLPT, I found that AFAS, MRI, and RDI can successfully perform the required MESC IDIQ effort. Based upon the evaluation results, my own independent judgment and assessment, and the terms of the RFP, I considered it in the Agency’s best interest to make award to all three (3) offerors. Consistent with the RFP’s preference for multiple awards for MESC IDIQ, I found that the award of MESC IDIQ base contracts to AFAS, MRI, and RDI will greatly increase competition. I found value in AFAS and MRI’s High Level of Confidence Ratings and RDI’s Very High Level of Confidence rating for Past Performance. I find that the prices proposed by all three offerors are fair and reasonable. Keeping in mind that Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price, I found that the attributes of AFAS, MRI, and RDI’s proposals provide the best value to the Government for award of the Mission Enabling Services Contract (MESC) IDIQ. My selection is based solely on and is wholly consistent with the selection criteria and evaluation framework set out in the RFP and supported by the SLPT’s evaluation.

I therefore select ASRC Federal Aerospace Services, LLC (AFAS); MRI Technologies (MRI);

and Rothe Development, Inc. (RDI) for award of MESC IDIQ contracts.

Donna Shafer Source Selection Authority