NBOC II Source Selection Statement 3-10-22.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR

NASA BALLOON OPERATIONS CONTRACT (NBOC) II

SOLICITATION NO. 80GSFC20R0031

On December 20 and 21, 2021 and January 19, 2022, I along with senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) held a teleconference with the NBOC II Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to hear findings based on the evaluation of the proposals for the NASA Balloon Operations Contract (NBOC) II procurement.

This memorandum documents my decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The NBOC II requirement was issued as a full and open competition procurement. The purpose of this contract is to provide services for the operation and maintenance of the Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility (CSBF) and overall management of the launch and operations, mission and engineering services, and potential hardware development to support the NASA Balloon Program. CSBF is a Government-owned facility located in Palestine, Texas, with a permanent balloon staging facility at Fort Sumner, New Mexico. The contractor will provide facility operation and maintenance for the CSBF, operational balloon flight support including launching, tracking, and recovery of the scientific balloons and payloads, and engineering services for operational support, quality control, and oversight of balloon production.

Performance will be at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)/Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), onsite at CSBF, Fort Sumner, New Mexico and offsite at the Contractor’s facility, as well as other temporary duty (TDY) locations that may be specified in the Statement of Work (SOW) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) task orders. The SOW areas are as follows:

• Reliability and Quality Management of Manufacturing to include vendors/sub-contractors

• Reliability and Quality Management of Flight Systems and Flight Support Ground

Systems

• Balloon Flight Operations Support

• Engineering Services

• Aircraft Operations and Management

• Facilities – Operations and Maintenance

• Configuration Management

• Risk Management

• Training and Certification

• Information Technology

• Property Management

• Task Order Management

NASA issued the Request for Proposal (RFP) on November 16, 2020, followed by four (4) amendments.

Amendment One to the RFP was issued on December 10, 2020, to (1) notify potential offerors that the responses to questions and updates to the RFP documents were anticipated to be posted the week of December 14, 2020 and (2) extend the solicitation due date from December 17, 2020 3:00 p.m. to January 8, 2021 and (3) require large file transfers be sent by close of business on January 4, 2021.

Amendment Two to the RFP, issued on December 17, 2020, included the following changes:

1. Revised the RFP Cover Letter to update the following information:

(a) The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition was 541330 and the small business size standard was changed from $16.5M to $38.5M.

(b) The contract total potential seven (7) year period of performance/effective ordering period was changed from an 18-month Base Period, two 24-month options (Periods 1 and 2), and an 18-month option (Period 3) to a 12-month Base Period, and three 24-month options (Periods 1, 2 and 3)

(c) The proposal response date to this solicitation was changed from no later than December 17, 2020 to no later than January 8, 2021.

2. SF33 was revised to include proposal due date.

3. The following documents were revised to reflect the period of performance beginning with October 1, 2021: RFP, Attachment F, Phase-in SOW, SOW and Cost Exhibits.

4. RFP and Cost Exhibits: Slip Month dates were updated.

5. Wage Determination WD 2015-5454 replaced WD 2015-5445

6. RFP: Clause 52.228-7 was added into the RFP under Section I.

7. RFP: Clause B.8 Non proposed costs table was updated.

8. RFP: Clause G.10 1852.245-71 INSTALLATION-ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (JUN 2018) - ALT I (JAN 2011) contains changes to the section referencing “The following property and services are provided if checked”

9. RFP: Section L.18, Cost Volume Instructions was revised to include additional instructions.

10. Exhibit 18 - Past Performance Questionnaire was updated to reflect the response due date as follows: RETURN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE BY RFP due date and time.

Amendment Three to the RFP was issued on January 6, 2021 to update the following clauses:

1. B.6 GSFC 52.217-90 OPTION TO EXTEND (SEP 2013)

2. F.2 GSFC 52.217-92 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE/EFFECTIVE ORDERING PERIOD

(JAN 2014)

3. E.3 52.246-11 HIGHER-LEVEL CONTRACT QUALITY REQUIREMENT (DEC 2014)

quality standard from ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9001-2000 Quality Management System (QMS) requirements to ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9001-2015 QMS as indicated in the responses to the questions and answers.

Amendment Four to the RFP was issued on January 6, 2021 to clarify Amendment 3 Block 11 -there was no due date extension.

The resultant contract will be a Hybrid Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Core contract with Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Task Orders with an effective ordering period of 12-month Base Period, and three 24-month options (Periods 1, 2 and 3). A 60-day phase-in will be accomplished under a separate Firm-Fixed-Price contractual vehicle issued at contract award.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541330 and the small business size standard is $38.5M in average annual receipts. The maximum ordering value of the IDIQ portion of the contract is $100.5M with unilateral upward adjustment capability of 20% ($20.1M) for programmatic uncertainties, if needed, for a total potential maximum ordering value of $120.6M.

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

The following companies submitted timely proposals by January 8, 2021:

• Battelle Memorial Institute (Battelle)

• KBR Wyle (KBR)

• Millennium Engineering and Integration Services, LLC (MEI)

• Northrop Grumman (NG)

• University of Arizona (UA)

• Universities Space Research Association (USRA)

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

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

As NASA’s Source Selection Authority (SSA) for this procurement, I appointed the SEB, which included a team of technical and business members and consultants from appropriate disciplines, to assist in proposal evaluations.

The NBOC II SEB evaluated proposals in accordance with the source selection procedures identified in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 "Source Selection" and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3. The SEB procedures at NFS 1815.370, NASA Source Evaluation Boards, were applied.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) defined the evaluation factors as Mission Suitability, Cost, and Past Performance. The RFP specified the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors as follows:

The Cost factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability factor and the Past Performance factor. As individual factors, the Cost factor is less important than the Mission Suitability factor but more important than the Past Performance factor.

The RFP established that the Mission Suitability Factor would be point scored in the evaluation process. The Mission Suitability Factor consisted of the following three (3) subfactors with assigned points as indicated.

MISSION SUITABILITY SUBFACTOR POINTS

Subfactor A Technical Approach 500 Subfactor B Management Approach 400 Subfactor C Small Business Utilization (SBU) 100

TOTAL 1000

The Mission Suitability Factors were evaluated using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The SEB first reviewed each proposal and generated consensus findings (i.e., deficiencies, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, strengths, and significant strengths) within each subfactor. Next, the SEB considered the findings under each subfactor and applied the adjectival rating definitions set forth in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A) to assign a rating based on the merit of the proposal within that subfactor. After assigning the adjectival rating for the subfactor, the SEB determined the associated percentile score with the range set forth in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The maximum points available for each subfactor were then multiplied by the assigned percent for each subfactor to derive the score for the particular subfactor. For example, if a subfactor has a possible 200 points and receives a percentile rating of 80, then the score of that subfactor would be 160 points.

Regarding the Cost factor, the proposed costs of the Core requirements (basic and all options periods), slip months and the rates proposed in Attachment F, DIRECT LABOR RATES, INDIRECT RATES, FEE MATRICES AND BOE were assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism. As stated in the RFP, the cost evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B). Offerors were referred to FAR 2.101(b) for a definition of “cost realism” and to FAR 15.404-1(d) for a discussion of “cost realism analysis” and “probable cost.” The proposed costs, including direct labor, other direct costs, and indirect rates, were assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism. Both the “proposed and probable” costs reflected the Offeror’s proposed fee amount. Proposed fee was not adjusted in the probable cost assessment. The proposed and probable costs and phase-in price were presented to me, along with any issues and risks associated with the proposed costs.

For the Past Performance Factor, the past performance evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 and provision M.6 of the solicitation. Each Offeror’s contract references were evaluated to determine the degree of relevance based on size, content, and/or complexity. In evaluating Past Performance, the SEB relied on the Government-wide Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) database and customer feedback, in addition to the narrative on relevant past/current contracts provided by the Offerors. The Past Performance factor was not point scored but was assigned an adjectival rating of “Very High Level of Confidence,” “High Level of Confidence,” “Moderate Level of Confidence,” “Low Level of Confidence,” “Very Low Level of Confidence,” or “Neutral.”

MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

The Mission Suitability factor has three subfactors as follows: Subfactor A – Technical Approach; Subfactor B – Management Approach; and Subfactor C – Small Business Utilization.

Each subfactor was evaluated in accordance with the weights delineated in the RFP. The table below provides the adjectival ratings assigned in each Mission Suitability subfactor for the six

(6) NBOC II proposals.

Offeror Subfactor A Technical Approach

Subfactor B Management

Approach

Subfactor C Small Business

Utilization

Mission Suitability

Points BATTELLE Fair Fair Good 418 KBR WYLE Fair Good Fair 460 MILLENNIUM Good Very Good Excellent 661 NORTHROP GRUMMAN Excellent Very Good Excellent 879 UNIV OF ARIZONA Poor Fair Poor 251 USRA Fair Good Good 447

Battelle

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, Battelle received an adjectival rating of “Fair” with two (2) Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths, five (5) Weaknesses, one (1) Significant Weakness, and no Deficiencies. Battelle received two (2) Significant Strengths in the following areas: (1) proposing a model-based quality assurance and reliability approach which uses telepresence, automated processes, and mobile platforms to substantially improve insight to potential hardware integration or schedule impacts; and (2) by employing a collaborative relationship with the Balloon Program Office (BPO), integrating lessons learned, and an incentive program within the risk process, the proposed approach greatly enhances the risk management process. These Significant Strengths greatly enhance the potential for successful performance.

Battelle received two (2) Strengths in the following areas: (1) proposing an approach for aircraft and logistics support which increases the likelihood of successful contract performance; and (2) a comprehensive task plan for a new launch location survey and site selection which demonstrates a clear understanding of site requirements and the level of coordination required with BPO and stakeholders. These Strengths will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Battelle received five (5) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) by failing to offer adequate details regarding the plan for handling the SOW requirements for the successful implementation of Reliability and Quality Assurance (QA) processes, including quality records, the offeror fails to demonstrate full understanding of the balloon film and balloon manufacturing; (2) proposed labor categories, quantities of each, and projected hours does not adequately address the resources required for scenario 1, thereby increasing the risk to successful contract performance;

(3) by failing to note that the BPO has the NASA management responsibility for the program and failing to note the coordination requirements with the Balloon Program Mission Managers, the offeror introduces an elevated risk in mission success and meeting requirements of the contract;

(4) a lack of understanding regarding critical events that take place during the Antarctic campaign increases the risk of not being able to execute the campaign events in an adequate, efficient, comprehensive, and successful manner; and (5) by offering to utilize the same personnel for supporting both Antarctica and New Zealand campaigns, the offeror fails to recognize the time gap between campaigns and fails to recognize human factors risks such as long hours and fatigue while supporting the two campaigns. These Weaknesses increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Battelle additionally received one (1) Significant Weakness for its proposed labor category hours which does not adequately address the entire core Statement of Work requirements increasing the risk to successful contract performance. Further, due to inconsistencies between the technical approach, the basis of estimates, and the labor hours provided for the cost volume exhibits, the Government was unable to evaluate the proposal for adequacy, effectiveness, reasonableness, efficiency, and compliance to requirements, greatly increasing the risk to successful contract performance and cost.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, Battelle received an adjectival rating of “Fair” with no Significant Strengths, six (6) Strengths, six (6) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. Battelle received six (6) Strengths in the following areas: (1) by offering to implement analytical tools to assess the status of equipment in preparation for campaigns, and the enhanced safety training for personnel, Battelle is likely to succeed in minimizing equipment related issues and safety incidents during active campaigns; (2) by proposing to use a Web Portal and Management tools to enhance the overall communication experience for stakeholders, Battelle will likely facilitate communication and enhance contract performance; (3) using its corporate resources to enhance assets available to research groups and BPO that will meet contract requirements, provide efficiency and effectiveness; (4) proposing an efficient phase-in plan which reduces the transition period; (5) demonstrating reach-back capabilities for staffing of the contract which increases the effectiveness of meeting contract requirements; and (6) proposing an innovative and effective management approach to gain valuable guidance and awareness of scientific research priorities that would likely enhance the support for the science community. These Strengths will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Battelle received six (6) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) by not providing an adequate description of the interaction with the balloon manufacturer with appropriate lines of communication, Battelle’s proposal shows a lack of understanding of their role thereby increasing risk to successful contract performance; (2) having inconsistent messaging throughout the proposal on how Battelle proposes to interact with the Balloon Program Office and by showing a lack of understanding of BPO’s role in contract administration, Battelle’s proposed management approach increases the risk to successful contract performance; (3) by not adequately describing within the phase-in plan how Battelle proposes to transition on-going work at the balloon manufacturer and by having inconsistency in the risk activities schedule, the Government is unable to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the Phase-in Plan; (4) by not providing adequate engineering support in the areas of balloon film and balloon production reliability, QA, monitoring, inspection, and testing, the offeror does not address conducting the necessary analyses to maintain the production of high quality balloons; (5) by proposing differing descriptions between the management response to position descriptions and the technical response to core labor categories descriptions, Battelle does not adequately provide clear duties and responsibilities for the labor categories thereby increasing the risk to successful contract performance; and (6) by proposing a total compensation plan with differing benefits packages by Battelle and its subcontractors, there is an increased risk in the effectiveness of obtaining and maintaining qualified personnel to meet the contract requirements. These Weaknesses increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU), Battelle received an adjectival rating of “Good,” with two (2) Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, two (2) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. Battelle received two (2) Significant Strengths in the following areas: (1) by proposing to use an online supplier portal to align subcontractors with technical work and by having an office of supplier diversity that implements the small business policies, Battelle greatly increases the likelihood of successful contract performance and their small business program; and (2) by proposing an approach to mentor protégé programs and its intended agreement with the protégé, Battelle greatly increases the likelihood of successful contract performance in the small business utilization.

Battelle received one (1) Strength for proposing to have enforceable, signed teaming agreements.

Battelle received two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) by not proposing an Individual Subcontracting Plan (ISP) that contains all 15 elements as required by the FAR and by not including the approved master subcontracting plan, the Battelle proposed response for small business utilization increases its risk to successfully implementing a small business program and likelihood of meeting contract requirements; and (2) proposal does not adequately describe the work that will be subcontracted to its small business subcontractors. The inconsistent work descriptions for the small business subcontractors allows for inefficiencies and unclear responsibilities thereby increasing the risk to successful contract performance and small business utilization. These Weaknesses increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

KBR Wyle

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, KBR Wyle received an adjectival rating of “Fair” with no Significant Strengths, six (6) Strengths, five (5) Weakness, one (1) Significant Weakness, and no Deficiencies. KBR Wyle received six (6) Strengths in the following areas: (1) By proposing to implement tiered accountability to enhance the interrelationships between technical, business, and subcontractor teams/departments, the offeror is likely to enhance the communication between various departments and team members; (2) proposing to update the NBOC II statement of work to include the proprietary tools that will enhance its ability to manage maintenance of equipment and provide trajectory prediction and analysis; (3) proposing new positions to oversee the implementation of reliability and quality assurance functions and requirements; (4) by teaming with an aircraft service provider with experience in international flight planning and ability to readily provide spare aircraft parts, KBR Wyle increases its ability to provide aircraft services during campaigns; (5) a good understanding that launch operations (Scenario 2) are highly dependent on weather conditions; and (6) a risk management process that prioritizes safety by minimizing risk to the public and staff while integrating lessons learned. These Strengths will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

KBR Wyle received five (5) Weakness in the following areas: (1) response to Scenario 1 does not adequately address support required to perform the scenario; (2) response to Scenario 2 indicates a lack of understanding of the notable activities, like a Project Initiation Conference, which is required for campaign operations and readiness of payloads; (3) response to Scenario 2 for providing support that is required for campaign operations has inconsistencies that show a lack of understanding on aircraft operations by NSF and the difficulty to bring personnel to the ice later in the season; (4) response to Scenario 3 indicates a lack of understanding of impacts a new launch site has on local infrastructure and lacks coordination with local, state, and federal authorities; and (5) the proposed approach for gondola certification shows a lack of understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the personnel involved in the process. These Weaknesses increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

KBR Wyle received one (1) Significant Weakness for the proposed total direct labor hours and the proposed premium (overtime) labor hours which are insufficient to adequately address the core statement of work requirements and are not consistent with the historical needs. Given the proposed labor hours and the proposed skill mix, the Government evaluated the proposal as not adequate and potentially not in compliance with requirements, greatly increasing the risk to successful contract performance.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, KBR Wyle received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, eight (8) Strengths, one (1) Weakness, two (2) Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. KBR Wyle received eight (8) Strengths in the following areas: (1) for having a Quality Management System (QMS) that is ISO certified and a Health, Safety, Security, and Environment (HSSE) management system that is certified ; (2) proposing management tools that have the potential to effectively streamline the management of competing tasks, reduce risk associated with schedule and cost, improve communication, and enhances overall contract performance and delivery; (3) having key management positions supporting the phase-in management team in the NBOC II transition; (4) proposing a comprehensive hiring plan which increases its ability to maintain a qualified workforce; (5) a staffing approach that enables cross-training and reach-back to skilled workers and having a program that provides support to both the employee and their family during deployment; (6) proposing a total compensation plan (TCP) with an employee rewards and recognition program that has the potential to be effective in maintaining qualified personnel to meet the contract requirements; (7) providing a program in which employees are encouraged to report safety behavior, situations, or conditions that are unsafe; and (8) proposing additional facilities and testing equipment near campaign locations which lowers technical risk. These Strengths will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

KBR Wyle received one (1) Weakness for its proposed management and communication approach which does not adequately address its role in working with the balloon manufacturer to address quality or other operational concerns which increases the risk to meeting contract requirements.

KBR Wyle received two (2) Significant Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) by failing to provide a clear, detailed TCP and the exhibits 12/12A for each KBR Wyle team member, the offeror does not meet the RFP requirements; and (2) by failing to adequately understand the roles and responsibilities of the Balloon Program Office in the contract administration and all associated programmatic elements and failing to fully describe the coordination and communication requirements with the BPO, the offeror introduces a significant, elevated risk to mission success. These Significant Weaknesses greatly increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU), KBR Wyle received an adjectival rating of “Fair,” with no Significant Strengths, three (3) Strengths, no Weaknesses, one (1) Significant Weakness, and no Deficiencies. KBR Wyle received three (3) Strengths in the following areas:

(1) by proposing to have signed teaming agreements and by having a small business liaison officer, the offeror increases the likelihood of successful small business utilization implementation and contract performance; (2) the Small Business (SB) commitment exceeds RFP requirements with their outreach process, which includes proactive engagement for new SB opportunities, sharing lessons learned, and SB counseling during performance; and (3) being a NASA approved Mentor plus the proposed implementation exceeds the RFP requirements and provides confidence that contract requirements will be met or exceeded.

KBR Wyle received one (1) Significant Weakness for not demonstrating a commitment to small business by failing to provide 4 of the required 6 socioeconomic categories and by not meeting the Government Recommended Goal of 25% by dollar value, thereby greatly increasing the risk of not meeting small business implementation requirements.

Millennium

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, Millennium received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, three (3) Strengths, three (3) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. Millennium received three (3) Strengths in the following areas: (1) by detailing the process for reliability and quality assurance related to balloon film and balloon production, Millennium acknowledges the criticality of producing high quality balloons;

(2) proposing new positions to enable appropriate tailoring of reliability and quality assurance (R&QA) processes; and (3) proposing to use risk-based mission assurance as the basis for determining its approach to quality and reliability. These Strengths will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Millennium received three (3) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) inadequate description of labor categories and hours in response to Scenario 1 and lack of understanding of the complexity of scientific instrumentation recovery; (2) proposed response to Scenario 2, Antarctic campaign, shows a lack of adequate understanding of the roles, responsibilities, and coordination required for an Antarctic campaign; and (3) proposal shows a lack of adequate understanding for the NASA approval process for the operations of aircraft for NASA operations. These Weaknesses increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, Millennium received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one (1) Significant Strength, six (6) Strengths, two (2) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. Millennium received one (1) Significant Strength for proposing to introduce new positions for critical elements of the technical and operational aspects of the contract scope of work which greatly increases the likelihood of exceeding contract requirements.

Millennium received six (6) Strengths in the following areas: (1) proposing to introduce and implement program management tools that are likely to achieve higher levels of administrative, technical, and operational efficiency; (2) proposing an efficient and timely phase-in plan; (3) proposing to allow for an equivalency of experience for the minimum required education by allowing its substitution for a degree; (4) the proposed approach for staffing includes reach-back capability that will enhance its ability to meet contract requirements, especially during workload surges; (5) the proposed total compensation plan describes a commitment to ensuring employees and their dependents have support to provide for a work-life balance that will aid in maintaining qualified personnel; and (6) proposing an efficient, integrated management structure with clear lines of authorities and communications among different organization managers. These Strengths will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Millennium received two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) the proposed management approach does not adequately address the role of the Balloon Program Office in the administration of the contract; and (2) the proposed management approach does not adequately identify the specialized training needed by the facilities team. These Weaknesses increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU), Millennium received an adjectival rating of “Excellent,” with two (2) Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weakness, and no Deficiencies. Millennium received two (2) Significant Strengths in the following areas: (1) exceeding the Governments Recommended Goal (GRG) for small business utilization in all socioeconomic categories and by exceeding the overall goal, the offeror significantly enhances the support for small business and (2) expanding their current participation in the Mentor-Protégé Program and by identifying a potential protégé, Millennium will greatly enhance NASA’s small business goals and increase the likelihood of successful small business implementation.

Millennium received two (2) Strengths in the following areas: (1) exhibiting strong commitment to small business, by providing guidance, by addressing inquires and concerns, and by participating in promoting small businesses; and (2) having enforceable teaming agreements in place that will be initiated at the time of contract award.

Northrop Grumman

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, Northrop Grumman received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” with one (1) Significant Strength, five (5) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. Northrop Grumman received one (1) Significant Strength for its proposed response to Scenario 3 which is well thought out and comprehensive, providing mitigation strategies for identified risks, and describing all the required activities. Further, the comprehensive, reasonable, and effective strategy recognizes the impacts to the potential new launch sites local infrastructure and the necessity of early communication with local, state, and federal organizations. This Significant Strength contributes significantly toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the Government.

Northrop Grumman received five (5) Strengths in the following areas:(1) by proposing to capture and incorporate science team payload risks early on in the certification process, and by proposing to establish a standard test early in the gondola integration activities, the offeror is likely to reduce technical risks; (2) proposing a dedicated position that is responsible for managing and supporting balloon manufacturing which increases the Balloon Program Office’s awareness of potential issues that may impact balloon performance and mission success; (3) proposing an effective approach for providing flight operations engineering support which will ensure balloon technical requirements are met; (4) proposing to register their Quality Management System (QMS) to the ISO9001:2015 standard by an external registrar and planning to provide full end to end quality and reliability appropriately tailored for low-cost access to space (LCAS); and (5) proposing an effective and comprehensive approach to the Antarctic campaign planning scenario. These Strengths will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, Northrop Grumman received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one (1) Significant Strength, seven (7) Strengths, two (2) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. Northrop Grumman received one (1) Significant Strength for proposing several management enhancements that will greatly increase the successful performance and management of the contract. The proposed tools demonstrate a commitment to transparency, significantly improve communication and allow for data sharing and remote access which will greatly increase the successful performance and management of the contract

Northrop Grumman received seven (7) Strengths in the following areas: (1) proposing a quality assurance approach that is independent of operations, engineering, and facilities, and ensures a high level of transparency; (2) proposing a comprehensive phase-in plan that utilizes an external transition team to ensure continuity of operations and execute tasks without interruptions to ongoing campaigns; (3) proposing an effective approach for meeting position requirements including a path for employee growth; (4) providing an approach for staffing reach-back that will potentially increase the ability to meet surge capability and specialized expertise requirements;

(5) proposing corporate enhancements of facilities and financial resources, as well as surge support capability, increases its ability to perform the contract requirements effectively and efficiently; (6) proposing an approach to task management that provides for a transparent process that includes a risk assessment, standardized tool, and customer insight work that is effective and efficient; and (7) proposing to implement a number of new and effective management features to enhance safety, quality, project management, risk management, and communications. These Strengths will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Northrop Grumman received two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) proposed position descriptions are inadequate when describing the minimum experience required for a position and

(2) proposed management structure roles and responsibilities for the Safety and Quality Assurance Manager and Information Technology Lead are inconsistent with the proposed management approach. These Weaknesses increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU), Northrop Grumman received an adjectival rating of “Excellent,” with three (3) Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. Northrop Grumman received three (3) Significant Strengths in the following areas: (1) by significantly exceeding the GRG funding allocation for small business, by identifying goals in all socioeconomic categories of SB, and by proposing to exceed the GRG in the category for Women-Owned Small Business, NG’s commitment to small business greatly exceeds the government recommended goals and demonstrates its commitment.; (2) the offeror’s current participation and mentorship within NASA and SBA, and its proposed protégé, will greatly enhance NASA’s small business goals and increase the likelihood of successful small business implementation; and (3) the offeror has an existing commitment to small business that is achieved through their Small Business Liaison

Officer (SBLO), outreach program, small business database and counseling program, therefore the offeror is likely to significantly commit and exceed the government requirements for supporting small business.

Northrop Grumman received one (1) Strength for having enforceable teaming agreements (TA) with all their identified subcontractors. This Strength will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

University of Arizona

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, University of Arizona received an adjectival rating of “Poor” with no Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths, three (3) Weaknesses, three (3) Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. University of Arizona received two (2) Strengths in the following areas: (1) proposes that team members with quality assurance (QA) duties will not have responsibility to ensure cost or schedule are met, thereby promoting independence and

(2) proposing a unified approach of “monitor, verify, certify, and enforce” with an integrated team for all engineering support activities. These Strengths will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

University of Arizona received three (3) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) the proposal does not adequately describe an implementation approach to reliability and quality assurance that indicates a clear understanding of NASA research and development program’s requirements; ;

(2) by not providing specific details regarding key elements required in the successful search for new launch site, the offeror shows a lack of adequate understanding of launch site requirements;

and (3) by proposing labor categories and skill mix inconsistencies, UA’s proposal increases the risk of not meeting contract requirements. These Weaknesses increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

University of Arizona received three (3) Significant Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) the UA proposal does not adequately provide an effective implementation approach to providing Flight Operations Engineering Support for the contract requirements, including gondola certification review process, thermal analysis, and consultation services to science teams as defined within the Statement of Work, thereby greatly increasing the risk to the balloon flight program, meeting contract requirements, and likelihood of successful contract performance; (2) by failing to adequately provide the required details for Scenario 1 on the proposed management, coordination, logistics, and operational requirements like labor categories and hours, that are needed to provide aircraft support for the two concurrent campaigns activities, the proposed approach greatly increases the risk of adequately coordinating campaign activities; and (3) by not providing specific details on the labor categories and quantity required to support the campaign for Scenario 2, by missing crucial information regarding the notable activities for the campaign, and by mis-estimating the start of the anti-cyclone pattern, the offeror exhibits a lack of understanding regarding the logistics, coordination, and execution of Antarctica campaigns.

These Significant Weaknesses greatly increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, University of Arizona received an adjectival rating of “Fair” with no Significant Strengths, three (3) Strengths, four (4) Weaknesses, three (3) Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. University of Arizona received three (3) Strengths in the following areas: (1) proposing an effective data management system for technical collaboration and program management that is web-accessible to personnel including while operating remotely; (2) proposing equivalent advanced learning experience to be substituted for a degree allows a larger pool of potential candidates for positions and creates opportunities for growth; (3) proposing additional facilities for environmental testing, launch integration, and services for welding, inspection, and machining. These Strengths will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

University of Arizona received four (4) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) proposing an inadequate management approach addressing communication within and outside the organization; (2) proposing a safety and health plan that does not adequately address the role of Balloon Program Office in the response to mishap preparedness; (3) by presenting an organization chart that reflects centralized control at UA, there is a concern regarding the effectiveness of CSBF Site Manager in executing the contract tasks successfully; (4) proposed approach to task order management does not adequately address the requirements for an electronic task order management system for managing multiple tasks simultaneously. These Weaknesses increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

University of Arizona received three (3) Significant Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) UA failed to provide information requested in the RFP for the justification of not using significant subcontractors and how to address performance issues; (2) by failing to address plans for continuing current campaign and production activities during the phase-in period, the UA’s phase-in plan is likely to cause significant disruption to ongoing activities. (3) by not adequately describing a comprehensive staff hiring plan that provides details of recruitment activities, the UA proposed approach is ineffective and greatly increases the risk to minimizing staff disruptions throughout the contract performance. These Significant Weaknesses greatly increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU), University of Arizona received an adjectival rating of “Poor,” with no Significant Strengths, no Strengths, no Weaknesses, two (2) Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. University of Arizona received two (2) Significant Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) UA’s proposed approach does not address all the required socioeconomic goals, and those that are addressed are significantly less than the Government recommended goals; (2) by not identifying high technology work for small business subcontracts, by only identifying a single subcontractor for a potential task order, and by not having an enforceable teaming agreement for that same subcontractor, the UA significantly fails to demonstrate a commitment to small business subcontracting. These Significant Weaknesses greatly increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Universities Space Research Association

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, Universities Space Research Association received an adjectival rating of “Fair” with one (1) Significant Strength, two (2) Strengths, five (5) Weaknesses, two (2) Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. Universities Space Research Association received (1) Significant Strength for offering details that reflect a clear understanding of the elements to be addressed for successful selection of a new US launch site and by demonstrating transparency and incorporating feedback from NASA and the science community. This Significant Strength greatly enhances the potential for successful performance.

Universities Space Research Association received two (2) Strengths in the following areas: (1) proposes an approach to mitigate data associated with NASA Balloon Program launches, (new balloon data, mission data, and historical data) to a cloud-based storage that will increase the availability of historical data; and (2) by fully detailing all the steps required for the production of high quality balloons and by proposing a robust reliability and quality assurance plan for the surveillance, auditing, and monitoring the process of balloon production, USRA is likely to succeed in the production of high quality balloons and benefit the government. These Strengths will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Universities Space Research Association received five (5) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) the proposed implementation approach for flight operations engineering support does not adequately address the interactions required with the Balloon Program Office, NASA engineering, or NASA Safety; (2) the proposal does not adequately address quality assurance and reliability methods for services and products; (3) the proposal does not adequately address the roles and responsibilities of the identified labor categories in the new launch site selection; (4) the proposal does not adequately address the flight operations support requirements and the roles BPO has in the Antarctic campaign; (5) the proposed risk management process does not meet NASA requirements for assessing the probability of a risk. These Weaknesses increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Universities Space Research Association received two (2) Significant Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) The USRA proposed labor categories with proposed hours are inconsistent and do not adequately address the requirements of the contract; and (2) the USRA proposed response to scenario 1, does not adequately address the requirements for the management, coordination, logistical, and operational support for aircraft services during recovery and concurrent campaigns thereby significantly increasing the risk to contract performance. These Significant Weaknesses greatly increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, Universities Space Research Association received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, six (6) Strengths, three (3) Weaknesses, one (1) Significant Weakness, and no Deficiencies. Universities Space Research Association received six (6) Strengths in the following areas: (1) by providing integrated project teams to manage and perform the work on the contract, the USRA proposed approach is effective and efficient; (2) by proposing to enhance the process of science support, establishing a Suborbital Research Center for developing the next generation career ladder of balloon scientists and engineers, the USRA’s proposal will benefit the NASA Balloon Program and enhance the overall contract performance; (3) proposed minimum requirements for the mechanical technician positions provide for equivalency to education; (4) proposed Total Compensation Plan (TCP) provides an award system that recognizes employees and provides programs for the employees that support the work-life balance; (5) by clearly defining the roles and responsibilities, as well as, the interrelationships between various organizations in the management structure, the offeror increases the likelihood of successful contract performance and effectively execute the contract requirements; and (6) proposed corporate resources that have direct application to the execution of the contract requirements. These Strengths will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Universities Space Research Association received three (3) Weaknesses in the following areas:

(1) USRA proposal position description certifications are not adequately aligned with the responsibilities of the position; (2) the proposal shows a lack of adequate understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the Balloon Program Office in mishaps, close calls, and anomaly investigations; (3) the proposed management structure does not adequately address the interfaces with the NASA personnel. These Weaknesses increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Universities Space Research Association received (1) Significant Weakness for failing to provide a methodology for hiring incumbent staff and for not providing a comprehensive staffing plan for hiring qualified personnel to fill vacancies. In addition, the USRA proposal fails to adequately provide a strategy for corporate reach-back to minimize staff disruptions or meet surge capabilities, thereby greatly increasing risk to contact performance and to meeting the requirements of the contract.

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU), Universities Space Research Association received an adjectival rating of “Good,” with one (1) Significant Strength, no Strengths, two (2) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. Universities Space Research Association received (1) Significant Strength for greatly exceeding the GRG for the overall small business subcontracting goal, and by greatly exceeding the GRG for the socioeconomic category for historically black colleges universities/minority institutions.

Universities Space Research Association received two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) by not proposing a small business plan that contains all 15 elements required by the FAR (19.704), the USRA’s proposed response for small business utilization increases its risk to successfully implementing a small business program; and (2) the offeror’s proposed small business utilization response does not adequately address the high technology and enforceable agreements. These Weaknesses increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

COST EVALUATION

The SEB evaluated the total proposed cost and determined the Government’s probable cost for all the Offerors. The SEB determined that an upward probable cost adjustment was required for all offerors. A slight probable cost adjustment was made to the University of Arizona to adjust non-proposed Other Direct Costs.