MLSS II-Source Selection Statement.pdf

(PS60 Rev. 2019-04-25)

Selection Statement for the MSFC Logistics Support Services (MLSS) II Acquisition

RFP 80MSFC23R0004

On June 3, 2024, I, along with other senior officials from the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), met with the source evaluation board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the MLSS II acquisition. The SEB presented their findings to me as the source selection authority (SSA) for the purpose of making a source selection decision.

I. PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The MLSS II Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on July 7, 2023. The RFP required the successful offeror to provide logistics support services in support of MSFC through performance of the following Performance Work Statement (PWS) elements:

2.0 Management

3.0 Disposal Operations

4.0 Equipment Management

5.0 Life Cycle Logistics and Supply Chain Management

6.0 Mail Management

7.0 Supply and Materials Management Operations

8.0 Transportation Management

9.0 Other Specialty Services

The effort will be performed under a commercial-services, single-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with firm-fixed-price (FFP) and time-and-material (T&M) task orders. The contract will have an ordering period of five years from the contract effective date consisting of a one-year base period with four one-year options.

Four amendments were issued to the RFP to provide responses to questions provided by industry and to make various changes to the solicitation.

The Government designated this procurement as a 100% 8(a) small business set-aside under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 19.5. The procurement was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services, in conjunction with FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Part 1815, Contracting by Negotiation.

On August 24, 2023, NASA received 12 proposals from the following companies (the alphabetical order corresponds to the order of evaluation):

1. Ahtna Logistics, LLC (Ahtna)

2. Akima Global Logistics, LLC (Akima)

3. Alutiiq Logistics & Maintenance Services, LLC (Alutiiq)

4. ASRC Federal Advanced Research, LLC (ASRC)

5. Chugach Logistics and Facility Services JV, LLC (Joint Venture) (Chugach)

6. Goldbelt Integrated Logistics Services, LLC (Goldbelt)

7. GuardTech Systems, LLC (Joint Venture) (Guardtech)

8. Intelogistics, LLC1

9. Lakota Solutions, LLC (Lakota)2

10. RedTown Technical Services, LLC (RedTown)

11. TBP & JJ Worldwide Services (Joint Venture) (TBP & JJ)

12. Tunista Logistics Solutions (Tunista)3

II. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The proposals were evaluated in accordance with the RFP, FAR Part 12, FAR Part 15, NFS Part 1815, and the MLSS II Source Evaluation Plan.

The RFP listed three evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Price, and Past Performance. The RFP stated that as individual factors, the Mission Suitability factor is more important than the Past Performance factor which is more important than the Price factor. The Mission Suitability and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the Price factor. In accordance with the RFP, a best value trade-off process, as described at FAR 15.101-1, was to be utilized in making the source selection.

The three evaluation factors are described as follows:

Mission Suitability

The subfactors used in evaluating Mission Suitability and their corresponding weights are listed below:

Management and Compensation Approach 600 points Technical Approach 400 points TOTAL 1,000 points

After evaluating each proposal, the SEB voting members collectively developed a consensus adjectival rating (i.e., "Excellent," "Very Good," "Good," "Fair," or "Poor") for the first subfactor based upon the documented findings (i.e., significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies). Following the establishment of a consensus adjectival rating, the SEB voting members collectively developed a consensus percentile rating that corresponded with the adjectival rating. Once the percentile rating was established, the numerical score for that subfactor was computed by taking the consensus percentile rating for that subfactor and multiplying it by the maximum points available for that subfactor (see listing above). This represented the numerical score for a given subfactor. This process was repeated for the second Mission Suitability subfactor by proposal. The final point value for the Mission

1 The Intelogistics, LLC proposal was determined to be unacceptable based on an incomplete Volume IV Contract volume and a proposal validity period of only 180 days (Volume IV – Contract Instructions, paragraph (c)(3) requires no less than 365 days).

2 The Lakota Solutions, LLC proposal Past Performance volume exceeded the 35-page limitation by three pages.

3 The Tunista Logistics Solutions, LLC proposal Past Performance volume included six referenced contracts which exceeded the five-reference contract limit established for this volume.

Suitability factor was then calculated as the sum of both subfactors' point values. In accordance with NFS 1815.370(i)(2)(viii), the SEB did not assign an overall adjectival rating for the Mission Suitability factor.

Price

The Government performed a price analysis of all responsive proposals received in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques.

Consistency between the Mission Suitability factor and the Price factor volumes was considered in determining whether the proposed prices are fair and reasonable. Additionally, failure by a proposal to provide all required Excel Pricing Model data (e.g., indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) labor rates for all labor categories for all years of performance) adversely impacted the offeror's Mission Suitability score or resulted in a determination that the proposal was unacceptable (see NFS 1815.305-70).

For evaluation purposes, the total price was established as: the sum of the (1) proposed phase-in services price; and (2) Labor, Non-Labor Operational Resources, and Non-Labor Non- Operational Resources burden for the contract period of performance, including all options;

using the offeror-provided fully burdened rates applied to the Government-provided work-year equivalents (WYEs) for each labor category (see Excel Pricing Model (EPM) Tab A, Summary of Total Price for Phase-In, Labor, and Non-Labor Resources). For the purpose of evaluating the option to extend services (i.e., FAR 52.217-8), the Government determined the six-month price by prorating the price proposed for the last year of estimated IDIQ performance (i.e., Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLIN) 0012 and 0013). The proposed phase-in services price performance period, established as firm-fixed-price (FFP) CLIN 0001, will be performed concurrent with the incumbent contract.

Past Performance:

The offeror's past performance, including relevant federal, state, and local Government and private contracts, and the past performance of any proposed subcontractors and individual joint venture partners, if applicable, was evaluated. This factor was not numerically scored but was assigned an adjectival rating. The applicable adjectival ratings were "Very High Level of Confidence," "High Level of Confidence," "Moderate Level of Confidence," "Low Level of Confidence," "Very Low Level of Confidence," and "Neutral" in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A).

III. Evaluation of Proposals

Ahtna

For the Mission Suitability factor, the Ahtna proposal received a total score of 514 (out of a possible 1,000 points) and the two subfactor ratings earned were “Fair” (in Management and Compensation Approach) and “Good” (in Technical Approach). In support of these ratings, the proposal received no significant strengths, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, and three weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management and Compensation Approach subfactor, the Ahtna proposal received an adjectival rating of “Fair” and 282 points (out of a possible 600 points) resulting from one strength and two weaknesses. The strength was assessed for the approach for risk management and the functional description of processes, methods, tools, and metrics utilized for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks. The weaknesses were assessed for (1) the approach for local autonomy and authority for performance of the contract, corporate governance, and degree of local autonomy and authority as it relates to day-to-day operations which could increase complexity of contract oversight and result in unnecessary delays; and (2) the approach not demonstrating an adequate understanding of the contract structure based on the proposal’s identification, in list form, of any equipment the offeror intends to acquire and directly charge to the Government, as required by NFS 1852.245-80 Government Property Management Information.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the Ahtna proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 232 points (out of a possible 400 points) resulting from one strength and one weakness. The strength was assessed for a proposed management innovation which should enable the simplification and/or integration of business processes. The weakness was assessed for the proposal’s lack of adequately demonstrated understanding of the vehicle and equipment mix required to perform the magnitude and complexity of the PWS.

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the Ahtna proposal to have the highest total proposed price and further determined it to be fair and reasonable.

For the Past Performance factor, the Ahtna proposal received a rating of “High Level of Confidence” resulting from one significant strength, one strength, no significant weaknesses, no weaknesses, and one adequate finding. The significant strength was assessed for the exceptional performance of Ahtna when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant Artillery and Chemical Trainer (ACT) contract W900KK-17-C-0015. The strength was assessed for the exceptional performance of Ahtna when serving as the prime contractor on the relevant EC-130J Commando Solo (EC130J) contract FA8509-18-C-0004. The adequate finding was assessed for the very good performance of MTP Drivetrain Services, LLC, Ahtna’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the relevant Route Clearance Vehicle (RCV) Reset Program contract W911N2-18-D-0011 / 0004. MTP Drivetrain Services, LLC’s workshare of total anticipated FY24 WYEs is below the threshold of total anticipated FY24 WYEs to be designated a major subcontractor.

Akima

For the Mission Suitability factor, the Akima proposal received a total score of 804 (out of a possible 1,000 points) and the two subfactor ratings earned were “Good” (in Management and Compensation Approach) and “Excellent” (in Technical Approach). In support of these ratings, the proposal received two significant strengths, nine strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management and Compensation Approach subfactor, the Akima proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 420 points (out of a possible 600 points) resulting from six strengths. The strengths were assessed for (1) the proposed degree of local autonomy in the performance of the contract, to include the authority of the Program Manager, as it relates to day-to-day operations; (2) the proposed purchasing policies, processes, and procedures to be implemented to successfully manage the acquisition of services, hardware, and supplies for the contract; (3) the proactive approach for systematic risk management and associated processes, methods, tools, and metrics to be applied to the management of risk for the contract and which demonstrates a strong understanding of the methodology necessary to successfully identify and manage contract risks; (4) the approach to provide a flexible workforce necessary to accommodate workload and operational fluctuations and cross-utilization of personnel which accounts for performance by multiple unions to maximize integration, synergies, resource sharing, efficiency, and productivity control; (5) the approach to foster teamwork, leadership, and motivation throughout the contractor organization to enhance customer satisfaction and service delivery; and (6) the approach and processes for providing and tracking the completion of necessary orientation, training, and certifications required by the PWS.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the Akima proposal received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” and 384 points (out of a possible 400 points) resulting from two significant strengths and three strengths. The significant strengths were assessed for (1) proposed technical innovations which should dramatically assist NASA in testing and implementing new information technologies and processes that are architecturally compliant, insertion ready, and significantly increase mission capability, productivity, efficiency, and affordability; and (2) proposed productivity innovations which should demonstrably enhance operations, communications, preparation, and execution and provide superior benefit to the logistics suite of services. The strengths were assessed for (1) the approach for reporting and managing open program purchases in support of PWS Section 7.7, Purchasing; (2) the approach to manage and potentially reduce vehicle trouble calls through targeted use of preventative and opportunity maintenance, employment of advanced diagnostic techniques, and use of special purpose troubleshooting and diagnostic equipment; and (3) the approach for recognizing and addressing potential problems and provide for proactive problem avoidance and solutions.

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the Akima proposal's total proposed price to be $78,970,027 which was the lowest total proposed price and further determined it to be fair and reasonable.

For the Past Performance factor, the Akima proposal received a rating of “Very High Level of Confidence” resulting from three significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The significant strengths were assessed for (1) the exceptional performance of Lockwood Hills Federal, LLC, an affiliate of Akima Global Logistics, LLC, when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) Logistics Management Services (LMS) contract 80ARC017C0001; (2) the very good performance of Akima Facilities Operations, LLC (AFO), an affiliate of Akima Global Logistics, LLC, when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant EAGLE Fort Carson, CO (FCCO)/Fort Stewart, GA (FSGA) Logistics Support Services (LSS) contract W52P1J18G0030;

and (3) the exceptional performance of L&M Technologies, Inc., (the non-managing member of subcontract joint venture Mission Support Logistics Services, LLC (MSLS) with WAI Construction Group), Akima Global Logistics' proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Logistics Support Services (MLSS) contract 80MSFC18A000.

Alutiiq

For the Mission Suitability factor, the Alutiiq proposal received a total score of 676 (out of a possible 1,000 points) and the two subfactor ratings earned were “Good” (in Management and Compensation Approach) and “Very Good” (in Technical Approach). In support of these ratings, the proposal received one significant strength, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, and one weakness. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management and Compensation Approach subfactor, the Alutiiq proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 360 points (out of a possible 600 points) resulting from two strengths. The strengths were assessed for (1) the approach for risk management and the functional description of the processes and methods to be utilized for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks; and (2) the approach and processes for providing and tracking the completion of necessary orientation, training, and certifications required by the PWS.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the Alutiiq proposal received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” and 316 points (out of a possible 400 points) resulting from one significant strength and one weakness. The significant strength was assessed for a proposed productivity innovation which should provide industry leading advancements and substantially enhance operations, communications, preparation, and execution over the entire logistics suite of services.

The weakness was assessed for the proposal’s lack of adequate description of the proposed mix of vehicles and equipment to perform the requirements specified in the PWS and required by TA-1(i)(E) of the solicitation.

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the Alutiiq proposal's total proposed price to be the sixth lowest total proposed price and further determined it to be fair and reasonable.

For the Past Performance factor, the Alutiiq proposal received a rating of “High Level of Confidence” resulting from two significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, no weaknesses, and two adequate findings. The significant strengths were assessed for (1) the exceptional performance of Alcyon, Inc., an affiliate of Alutiiq Logistics & Maintenance Services, LLC, when serving as the managing partner of ATS JV which was the prime contractor on the very highly relevant Technical Information Administration and Logistics Services (TIALS-2) contract NNC16CA11C; and (2) the exceptional performance of Alutiiq Commercial Enterprises, LLC (ACE), an affiliate of Alutiiq Logistics & Maintenance Services, LLC, when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) Logistics Support Services contract 80LARC18C0003. The adequate findings were assessed for

(1) the exceptional performance of Interfuze Corporation, Alutiiq Logistics & Maintenance Services, LLC’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the relevant Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) For the Defense Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Response Force (DCRF) contract W911SR16D0010 / Task Order W911SR19F0039; and (2) the exceptional performance of Interfuze Corporation, Alutiiq Logistics & Maintenance Services, LLC’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the relevant CLS For Pocket J contract FA8574-17-D-0001. Interfuze Corporation’s workshare of total anticipated FY24 WYEs is below the threshold of total anticipated FY24 WYEs to be designated a major subcontractor.

ASRC

For the Mission Suitability factor, the ASRC proposal received a total score of 768 (out of a possible 1,000 points) and the two subfactor ratings earned were “Good” (in Management and Compensation Approach) and “Excellent” (in Technical Approach). In support of these ratings, the proposal received three significant strengths, five strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management and Compensation Approach subfactor, the ASRC proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 384 points (out of a possible 600 points) resulting from four strengths. The strengths were assessed for (1) the proposed degree of local autonomy in the performance of the contract, to include the authority of the Program Manager, as it relates to day-to-day operations; (2) the approach to provide a flexible workforce necessary to accommodate workload and operational fluctuations as well as the cross-utilization of personnel in order to maximize integration, synergies, resource sharing, efficiency, and productivity control; (3) the approach to foster teamwork, leadership, and motivation throughout the contractor organization to enhance overall productivity and attain established goals for career development; and (4) the approach and processes for providing and tracking the completion of necessary orientation, training, and certifications required by the PWS.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the ASRC proposal received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” and 384 points (out of a possible 400 points) resulting from three significant strengths and one strength. The significant strengths were assessed for (1) proposed technical innovations which should provide exceptional assistance to NASA in testing and implementing new information technologies and processes that are architecturally compliant, insertion ready, and increase mission capability, productivity, efficiency, and affordability; (2) proposed productivity innovations, improvements, and efficiencies that should enhance operations, communications, preparation, and execution to benefit the logistics suite of services; and (3) the proposed management innovations that simplify and/or integrate business processes and information that should result in project benefits. The strength was assessed for the approach for recognizing and addressing potential and realized problem areas and how the offeror's operations and procedures provide proactive problem avoidance and solutions.

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the ASRC proposal's total proposed price to be second lowest total proposed price and further determined it to be fair and reasonable.

For the Past Performance factor, the ASRC proposal received a rating of “Very High Level of Confidence” resulting from four significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The significant strengths were assessed for (1) the very good performance of ASRC Federal Field Services, LLC (AFFS), an affiliate of ASRC Federal Advanced Research, LLC (AFAR), when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant Vance Air Force Base (VAFB) Base Operations Support (BOS) II (Vance BOS II)) contract FA3002-21-C- 0003/FA3029-23-C-0001; (2) the exceptional performance of ASRC Communications Ltd.

(ASRCC), an affiliate of ASRC Federal Advanced Research, LLC (AFAR), when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant Cape Launch Operations and Infrastructure Support (CLOIS) II contract FA2521-18-D-000; (3) the exceptional performance of ASRC Federal Facilities Logistics, LLC (AFFL), an affiliate of ASRC Federal Advanced Research, LLC (AFAR), when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant Fleet Readiness Centers (FRC) Industrial Product-Support Vendor (IPV) (FRC IPV Gen III) contract SPE5EY-14-D- 0562; and (4) the very good performance of PAE Applied Technologies LLC (PAE), Amentum Holdings LLC affiliate (and which was recently acquired by Amentum) and proposed subcontractor to ASRC Federal Advanced Research, LLC (AFAR), when serving as the managing partner of Syncom Space Services, LLC (S3) joint venture which was the prime contractor on the relevant Synergy Achieving Consolidated Operations and Maintenance (SACOM) contract NNS15AA01C.

Chugach

For the Mission Suitability factor, the Chugach proposal received a total score of 716 (out of a possible 1,000 points) and the two subfactor ratings earned were “Good” (in Management and Compensation Approach) and “Very Good” (in Technical Approach). In support of these ratings, the proposal received one significant strength, six strengths, no significant weaknesses, and two weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management and Compensation Approach subfactor, the Chugach proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 396 points (out of a possible 600 points) resulting from five strengths and one weakness. The strengths were assessed for (1) the proposed degree of local autonomy in the performance of the contract, to include the authority of the Program Manager (PM), as it relates to day-to-day operations; (2) the proposed risk management processes and methods which should provide a solid foundation and risk avoidance culture to identify, assess, mitigate, and manage risks throughout the contract; (3) the approach to foster teamwork, leadership, and motivation throughout the contractor organization to enhance overall productivity; (4) the approach to provide a flexible workforce necessary to accommodate workload and operational fluctuations which should maximize integration, synergies, resource sharing, efficiency, and productivity control; and (5) the approach and processes for providing and tracking the completion of necessary orientation, training, and certifications required by the PWS. The weakness was assessed for the proposal’s lack of adequate compliance with Factor I - Mission Suitability Volume Instructions, paragraph (d)(1)(i)(G), and Factor II – Price Volume Instructions, paragraph (b)(4)(c), regarding the required submission of total compensation plan information and accompanying Attachment L-4, Total Compensation Rate Build-up Form, for major subcontractors.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the Chugach proposal received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” and 320 points (out of a possible 400 points) resulting from one significant strength, one strength, and one weakness. The significant strength was assessed for the proposed productivity innovation to enhance operations and promote efficiencies. The strength was assessed for the proposed management innovations to enable simplification and improvement of business processes, while providing a safer work environment. The weakness was assessed for the proposal does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the vehicle and equipment mix required to perform the magnitude and complexity of the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the Chugach proposal's total proposed price to be the fifth lowest total proposed price and further determined it to be fair and reasonable.

For the Past Performance factor, the Chugach proposal received a rating of “High Level of Confidence" resulting from four significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The significant strengths were assessed for (1) the very good performance of Wolf Creek Federal Services, Inc. (Chugach Logistics and Facility Services JV, LLC joint venture mentor member), when serving as a subcontractor on the very highly relevant Test, Evaluation, and Support Team 3 (TEST3) contract 80JSC022DA003 (Prime) SLI-2022-02-010 (Sub); (2) the very good performance of Wolf Creek Federal Services, Inc., when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant Fort Meade Facilities Services/Logistics Services (FSC/LSC) contract H9823016D0002; (3) the very good performance of Wolf Creek Federal Services, Inc., when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant Range Operations Support (ROS) contract FA2521-15-C-0063; and (4) the exceptional performance of Wolf Creek Federal Services, Inc., when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant Picatinny Arsenal Base Operations Support (BOS) contract W15QKN16C1006, W15QKN12C0001, and W15QKN05C1023. Although the proposal received four significant strengths, Chugach Solutions Enterprise, LLC (the JV managing partner) provided no referenced contracts and therefore had no demonstrated relevant performance in the capacity of the prime.

Goldbelt

For the Mission Suitability factor, the Goldbelt proposal received a total score of 668 (out of a possible 1,000 points) and the two subfactor ratings earned were “Good” (in Management and Compensation Approach) and “Very Good” (in Technical Approach). In support of these ratings, the proposal received one significant strength, three strengths, no significant weaknesses, and two weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management and Compensation Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 348 points (out of a possible 600 points) resulting from two strengths and one weakness. The strengths were assessed for (1) the proposed degree of local autonomy in the performance of the contract, to include the authority of the PM, as it relates to day-to-day operations; and (2) the approach to foster teamwork, leadership, and motivation throughout the contractor organization to enhance customer satisfaction and service delivery.

The weakness was assessed for the approach to provide a flexible workforce and cross utilization of personnel which does not adequately account for potential performance and services by multiple unions as required by MCA-1(A) of the solicitation.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” and 320 points (out of a possible 400 points) resulting from one significant strength, one strength, and one weakness. The significant strength was assessed for a proposed productivity innovation which should demonstrably enhance operations, communications, preparation, and execution providing superior benefit to the logistics suite of services. The strength was assessed for proposed management innovations to enhance process improvements and reduce unplanned maintenance costs. The weakness was assessed for the proposal’s lack of adequate description of the proposed mix of vehicles and equipment to perform the requirements specified in the PWS and as required by TA-1(i)(E) of the solicitation.

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the proposal's total proposed price to be the eighth lowest total proposed price and further determined it to be fair and reasonable.

For the Past Performance factor, the proposal received a rating of “Moderate Level of Confidence” resulting from one significant strength, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, no weaknesses, and one adequate finding. The significant strength was assessed for the exceptional performance of Tech Trans International, Inc., Goldbelt Integrated Logistics Services, LLC’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as prime contractor on the highly relevant NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Logistics Contract (LC) 80JSC018C0005. The adequate finding was assessed for the very good performance of Prime Response, Inc., (PRI), Goldbelt Integrated Logistics Services, LLC’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) Logistics contract 47QRAA19D0046, Task Order: FA700019FA068. Prime Response, Inc.’s workshare of total anticipated FY24 WYEs is below the threshold of total anticipated FY24 WYEs to be designated a major subcontractor.

GuardTech

For the Mission Suitability factor, the GuardTech proposal received a total score of 516 (out of a possible 1,000 points) and the two subfactor ratings earned were “Fair” (in Management and Compensation Approach) and “Good” (in Technical Approach). In support of these ratings, the proposal received no significant strengths, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, and three weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management and Compensation Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of “Fair” and 276 points (out of a possible 600 points) resulting from one strength and two weaknesses. The strength was assessed for the approach and processes for providing and tracking the completion of necessary orientation, training, and certifications required by the PWS. The weaknesses were assessed for (1) the approach for local autonomy and authority, corporate governance, and authority of the PM, which could result in delays or disruption of contract operation and mission support; and (2) the proposal’s lack of compliance with Factor I - Mission Suitability Volume Instructions, paragraph (d)(1)(i)(G), and Factor II – Price Volume Instructions, paragraph (b)(4)(c), regarding the required submission of total compensation plan information and accompanying Attachment L-4, Total Compensation Rate Build-up Form.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 240 points (out of a possible 400 points) resulting from one strength and one weakness. The strength was assessed for the proposed management innovations to enhance process improvements and accelerate schedules. The weakness was assessed for the proposal’s lack of adequate description of the proposed mix of vehicles and equipment to perform the requirements specified in the PWS and as required by TA-1(i)(E) of the solicitation.

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the proposal's total proposed price to be the ninth lowest total proposed price, and further determined it to be fair and reasonable.

For the Past Performance factor, the proposal received a rating of "Moderate Level of Confidence" resulting from no significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, no weaknesses, and three adequate findings. The adequate findings were assessed for (1) the satisfactory performance of Tech Systems, Inc., (TSI) (Prime Joint Venture) when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant Logistics Support Services at Schofield Barracks, HI contract W52P1J-12-G-0047/005; (2) the satisfactory performance of Tech Systems, Inc., (TSI) (Prime Joint Venture) when serving as the prime contractor on the relevant Logistics Support Services at Bremerton, WA contract N00406-21-C-0011; and (3) the satisfactory performance of Professional Contract Services, Inc. (PCSI), GuardTech Systems, LLC's proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant Storage and Warehouse Services for Navy Regional Supply Office, Norfolk, and Regional Supply Office, Oceana contract N0018921C0006. Professional Contract Services, Inc.’s workshare of total anticipated FY24 WYEs is below the threshold of total anticipated FY24 WYEs to be designated a major subcontractor.

Lakota

For the Mission Suitability factor, the Lakota proposal received a total score of 516 (out of a possible 1,000 points) and the two subfactor ratings earned were “Good” (in Management and Compensation Approach) and “Fair” (in Technical Approach). In support of these ratings, the proposal received no significant strengths, one strength, no significant weaknesses, and two weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management and Compensation Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 324 points (out of a possible 600 points) resulting from one strength and one weakness. The strength was assessed for the approach to foster teamwork, leadership, and motivation throughout the contractor organization to enhance overall productivity. The weakness was assessed for is the proposal’s lack of adequate description of the proposed supervisory hierarchy which precludes an understanding of the offeror’s management structure.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of “Fair” and 192 points (out of a possible 400 points) resulting from one weakness. The weakness was assessed for the proposal’s lack of adequately demonstrated understanding of the vehicle and equipment mix required to perform the magnitude and complexity of the PWS.

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the proposal's total proposed price to be the tenth lowest total proposed price and further determined it to be fair and reasonable.

For the Past Performance factor, the proposal received a rating of "High Level of Confidence" resulting from one significant strength, one strength, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The significant strength was assessed for the very good performance of Lakota Solutions, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant 10th Mountain Unit Maintenance Equipment (UME) For 1 Brigade Combat Team contract W911S2-22-P-6018. The strength was assessed for the very good performance of Lakota Solutions, LLC when serving as the prime contractor on the relevant Eglin Air Force Base Aerospace Ground Equipment Program contract FA2486-18-C-0006.

RedTown

For the Mission Suitability factor, the RedTown proposal received a total score of 634 (out of a possible 1,000 points) and the two subfactor ratings earned were “Good” (in Management and Compensation Approach) and “Good” (in Technical Approach). In support of these ratings, the proposal received no significant strengths, four strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management and Compensation Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 378 points (out of a possible 600 points) resulting from three strengths. The strengths were assessed for (1) the degree of local autonomy and authority, including that of the PM, proposed in the performance of the contract; (2) the approach to providing a flexible workforce necessary to accommodate workload and operational fluctuations as well as the approach for cross-utilization of personnel; and (3) the approach for implementing a management and control policy to develop and implement clear and comprehensive guidance that encompasses contract responsibilities for enhancing customer satisfaction and service delivery, as well as fostering teamwork, leadership, and motivation.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 256 points (out of a possible 400 points) resulting from one strength. The strength was assessed for the approach to manage and potentially reduce vehicle trouble calls.

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the proposal's total proposed price to be the third lowest total proposed price and further determined it to be fair and reasonable.

For the Past Performance factor, the proposal received a rating of "Neutral" rating resulting from no significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses.

TBP & JJ

For the Mission Suitability factor, The TBP&JJ proposal received a total score of 618 (out of a possible 1,000 points) and the two subfactor ratings earned were “Good” (in Management and Compensation Approach) and “Very Good” (in Technical Approach). In support of these ratings, the proposal received one significant strength, one strength, no significant weaknesses, and two weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management and Compensation Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 318 points (out of a possible 600 points) resulting from one strength and one weakness. The strength was assessed for is the approach for fostering teamwork, leadership, and motivation throughout the contractor workforce which provides guiding principles that govern workforce personnel. The weakness was assessed for the approach for local autonomy and authority, including that of the PM, for the performance of daily and routine requirements which could cause disruption of operation and mission support.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” and 300 points (out of a possible 400 points) resulting from one significant strength and one weakness. The significant strength was assessed for proposed technical innovations which should provide streamlined assistance to NASA in testing and implementing new information technologies and processes that are architecturally compliant, insertion ready, and increase mission capability, productivity, efficiency, and affordability. The weakness was assessed for the proposal’s lack of adequate description of the proposed mix of vehicles and equipment to perform the requirements specified in the PWS and as required by TA-1(i)(E) of the solicitation.

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the proposal's total proposed price to be seventh lowest total proposed price and further determined it to be fair and reasonable.

For the Past Performance factor, the proposal received a rating of "Moderate Level of Confidence" resulting from no significant strengths, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, no weaknesses, and two adequate findings. The strengths were assessed for (1) the very good performance J&J Worldwide Services (TBP & JJ Worldwide Services, LLC joint venture mentor member) when serving as the joint venture mentor non-managing member of the KJS MP JV, LLC prime contractor on the relevant NSA Millington Base Operations Support contract N6945017D1723; and (2) the very good performance of The Building People, LLC (TBP&JJ Worldwide Services JV protégé member) when serving as the prime contractor on the relevant Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Integration Facility (TSIF) and Freedom Center (FSC) Operations and Maintenance (O&M) services contract 47QSHA19D0010. The adequate findings were assessed for (1) the satisfactory performance of J&J Worldwide Services (TBP & JJ Worldwide Services, LLC joint venture mentor member) when serving as the joint venture mentor non-managing member of the KJS Support Services JV, LLC prime contractor on the highly relevant El Centro NAF Base Operation Support Services contract N6247318D5606; and

(2) the exceptional performance of Ignite Fueling Innovation, Inc., TBPJJ's proposed subcontractor, when serving as a subcontractor to The Boeing Company on the highly relevant International Space Station Boeing Engineering Technical Services (BETS) Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) contract NAS15-10000. Ignite Fueling Innovation, Inc.’s workshare of total anticipated FY24 WYEs is below the threshold of total anticipated FY24 WYEs to be designated a major subcontractor.

Tunista

For the Mission Suitability factor, the Tunista proposal received a total score of 646 (out of a possible 1,000 points) and the two subfactor ratings earned were “Good” (in Management and Compensation Approach) and “Good” (in Technical Approach). In support of these ratings, the proposal received no significant strengths, five strengths, no significant weaknesses, and one weakness. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management and Compensation Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 378 points (out of a possible 600 points) resulting from four strengths and one weakness. The strengths were assessed for (1) the degree of local autonomy and authority proposed for performance of the contract, to include that of the PM; (2) the approach to provide a flexible workforce necessary to accommodate workload and operational fluctuations, as well as a cross-utilization of personnel; (3) the approach to foster teamwork, leadership, and motivation throughout the contractor organization to enhance overall productivity and attain established goals for career development; and (4) the approach and processes for providing and tracking the completion of necessary orientation, training, and certifications required by the PWS. The weakness was assessed for the proposal’s lack of compliance with Factor I - Mission Suitability Volume Instructions, paragraph (d)(1)(i)(G), and Factor II – Price Volume Instructions, paragraph (b)(4)(c), regarding the required submission of total compensation plan information and accompanying Attachment L-4, Total Compensation Rate Build-up Form.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 268 points (out of a possible 400 points) resulting from one strength. The strength was assessed for a proposed productivity innovation to enhance operations and efficiencies to benefit the logistics suite of services.

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the proposal's total proposed price to be the fourth lowest total proposed price and further determined it to be fair and reasonable.

For the Past Performance factor, the proposal received a rating of "Very High Level of Confidence" resulting from three significant strengths, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The significant strengths were assessed for (1) the very good performance of Yulista Technical Services (YTS), an affiliate of Tunista Logistics Solutions, LLC, when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant Aircraft maintenance, Logistics, Integration, Configuration Management and Engineering (ALICE) contract 80JSC018D0002; (2) the exceptional performance of Tunista Logistics Solutions, LLC (TLS) when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field (GBAFAF) contract FA4887-20-D-0001; and (3) the exceptional performance of Tunista Services, LLC (TSL), an affiliate of Tunista Logistics Solutions, LLC, when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant Kirtland contract FA9401-19- C-A020. The strengths were assessed for (1) the exceptional performance of Sierra Lobo, Inc.

(SLI), Tunista Logistics Solutions, LLC’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant Test, Evaluation, and Support Team 3 (TEST3) contract 80JSC022DA003; and (2) the very good performance of Sierra Lobo, Inc (SLI), Tunista Logistics Solutions, LLC’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant Environmental Test and Integration Services II (ETIS II) contract

NNG14CR62C.

Decision

The SEB presented its evaluation findings for each proposal to me, and I carefully considered the detailed findings and the board's responses to my questions about the Mission Suitability findings, adjectival ratings, point scores, the total proposed Price values, and the Past Performance findings and level of confidence ratings. I also solicited and considered the views of the officials who attended the SEB presentation who have responsibility related to this procurement and understand the application of the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP.

I determined the SEB conducted a thorough and accurate review of the proposals according to the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP, identifying findings and explaining how it believed those findings would affect performance. The findings were detailed, consistent with the RFP, provided clear descriptions of the merits of each proposal, and supported the various ratings assigned. I also determined that the evaluation plan for this procurement was followed, the evaluation of proposals was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented, and that the SEB's findings were reasonable and valid for the purpose of making a selection decision. While I agreed with the SEB's findings, I also recognized my responsibility as the SSA to examine the Mission Suitability findings, adjectival ratings, point scores, the total Price values, and the Past Performance level of confidence ratings for each proposal, and to use my independent judgment to determine the appropriate discriminators for purposes of making a best value award selection for the Government.

Based on a comparison of all proposals against the three evaluation factors for award and the relative importance of these factors, I select the proposal submitted by Akima Global Logistics, LLC for award of the MLSS II contract. The rationale for my selection decision follows.

Akima vs Ahtna

Mission Suitability

In comparing Akima’s proposal to the Ahtna proposal under the Mission Suitability factor, I noted that Akima’s proposal had a significant advantage (i.e., 804 points) over the Ahtna proposal (i.e., 514 points). Looking beyond these scores and the underlying adjectival ratings, I determined they are supported by the corresponding findings for the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

To better understand the respective evaluations, I compared the findings for each proposal under each of the two Mission Suitability subfactors. Overall, Akima’s proposal was assessed two significant strengths, nine strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. Ahtna’s proposal was assessed no significant strengths, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, and three weaknesses.

Under the solicitation’s Management and Compensation Approach subfactor, which was the most heavily weighted subfactor, I reviewed the subfactor findings and noted that the Akima proposal demonstrated a reasonably sound response with no identified weaknesses. The first strength for the proposed degree of local autonomy in the performance of the contract, to include the authority of the PM, as it relates to day-to-day operations, should reduce the risk of delayed response times typically associated with higher level corporate approval thereby positively impacting project/program performance. The second strength for the proposed purchasing policies, processes, and procedures to be implemented to successfully manage the acquisition of services, hardware, and supplies for the contract should positively impact purchasing reliability for the Center. The third strength for the proactive approach for systematic risk management and associated processes, methods, tools, and metrics to be applied to the management of risk for the contract and which demonstrates a strong understanding of the methodology necessary to successfully identify and manage contract risks should reduce exposure to operational risk while strengthening risk management processes.