NCAPS Source Selection Statement.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Headquarters Washington, DC 20546-0001

Source Selection Statement

NASA Consolidated Applications and Platform Services (NCAPS) Procurement

Solicitation No. 80TECH23R0002

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

May 28, 2024

On April 22, 2024, I, along with senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Headquarters (HQ) met with members of the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to hear their findings based on the evaluation of the proposals for the NASA Consolidated Applications and Platform Services (NCAPS) Procurement.

Introduction

The NASA Consolidated Application and Platform Services (NCAPS) contract will provide the necessary support to maintain and evolve NASA’s core collaborative IT services, which are essential to the ongoing success of its missions and projects across NASA’s geographically distributed Centers. The scope of work includes efficient, effective, innovative, and collaborative approaches to IT management and delivery. The contractor shall ensure the safety, security, and availability of operations with requisite Agency visibility, ensuring NASA and its partners can operate without disruption while maintaining interoperability across NASA’s heterogenous IT environment.

This acquisition was conducted as a full and open competition. This competitive acquisition will result in a hybrid contract that includes Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Core Services Catalog items, FFP Core Services Labor, Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Core Services Labor, Cost- Reimbursement no fee Other Direct Costs (ODCs) and Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) task orders. The IDIQ task orders can be CPFF and/or FFP. Phase-in is FFP.

The total potential period of performance/effective ordering period of this contract is 8 years, including a 90-day Phase-in (90-day Phase-in, 9-month Base Period, and 7 one-year Option Periods). The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541512 - Computer Systems Design Services and the small business size standard is $30 million.

On January 17, 2023, NASA released a Draft Request for Proposals (DRFP). On January 24, 2023, a virtual Industry Day was held, which was attended by 403 individuals representing 180 different companies. On March 15, 2023, the Final Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on sam.gov.

NASA issued a total of six amendments to the RFP as follows:

Date Amendment Number Change 03/29/2023 01 Responses to industry questions;

changes to the RFP.

04/10/2023 02 Responses to industry questions;

changes to the RFP.

02/01/2024 03 Final Proposal Revision (FPR);

clause updates.

02/02/2024 04 Responses to industry questions.

02/07/2024 05 Responses to industry questions.

2/12/2024 06 Responses to industry questions.

PROPOSAL EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Overview

To perform the evaluation of proposals, I appointed a Source Evaluation Board (SEB) comprised of IT experts from across the Agency. This SEB evaluated proposals in accordance with the procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3, and Section M of the RFP.

The NCAPS RFP set forth three evaluation factors:

1. Mission Suitability

2. Past Performance

3. Cost/Price

For the relative order of importance of these evaluation factors, Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price. As individual factors, Mission Suitability is more important than Past Performance, which is more important than Cost/Price. My selection is based on applying this methodology and identifying the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. As described below in greater detail, my selection of an awardee is consistent with the tradeoff process set forth within FAR 15.101-1.

Mission Suitability Evaluation

The Mission Suitability factor contained four subfactors:

1. Subfactor A: Technical Scenario Video Presentation

2. Subfactor B: Technical Approach

3. Subfactor C: Management Approach

4. Subfactor D: Small Business Utilization

Subfactor A: Technical Scenario Video Presentation

Subfactor A consisted of two scenarios in which Offerors were required to submit a

Recorded Video Technical Scenario Presentation addressing each scenario. The SEB evaluated the Offeror’s Technical Scenario Video Presentation to assess its level of confidence that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the requirements of the NCAPS Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Subfactor B: Technical Approach (TA)

Subfactor B consisted of TA-1 Application Development, Security, and Operations, and TA- 2 Innovation Services Approach. The SEB evaluated the Offeror’s Technical Approach to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the contract’s technical requirements as set forth in the PWS. Consideration was given to the Offeror’s proposed proven efficiencies and/or innovative methodologies.

Subfactor C: Management Approach (MA)

Subfactor C consisted of a Management Plan, Phase-in Plan, Staffing Plan, and Total Compensation Plan. The SEB evaluated the Offeror’s Management Plan, Phase-in Plan, and Staffing Plan for overall demonstrated comprehensive understanding of that section, feasibility, efficiency, and effectiveness. The SEB evaluated the Offeror’s Total Compensation plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. The TCP required by NFS 1852.231-71 was evaluated for reasonableness and effectiveness for obtaining and maintaining qualified personnel to meet contract requirements.

Subfactor D: Small Business Utilization

Subfactor D consisted of Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Commitment to Small Businesses. The SEB evaluated the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan, as required by FAR clause 52.219-9—Alternate II, “Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Additionally, The SEB evaluated the Offeror’s commitment to Small Businesses.

Evaluation Definitions and Procedure

For each Mission Suitability subfactor, the SEB identified findings (i.e., Significant Strengths, Strengths, Significant Weaknesses, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies) based on the following definitions:

• Significant Strength: An aspect of the proposal that greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

• Strength: An aspect of the proposal that will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

• Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

• Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

• Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Based on the findings assigned by the SEB to each offeror’s respective proposals, the SEB then assigned an adjectival rating to each of the subfactors. As provided at NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A), each adjectival rating has a corresponding percentile range. After assigning the applicable adjectival subfactor rating to each offeror’s proposal, the SEB selected the percentile score that, in the SEB’s assessment, best represented the offeror’s approach for that subfactor. The SEB assigned these subfactor adjectival ratings and percentile scores in accordance with the following table:

Adjectival Rating

Definitions Percentile Range

Excellent

A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists.

91-100

Very Good

A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates overall competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.

71-90

Good

A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. As a whole, weaknesses not offset by strengths do not significantly detract from the Offeror’s response.

51-70

Fair

A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.

31-50

Poor

A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to correct.

0-30

Finally, the SEB numerically scored each Mission Suitability subfactor in accordance with the below table:

Subfactor Points

Subfactor A: Technical Scenario Video Presentation 100 Subfactor B: Technical Approach 400 Subfactor C: Management Approach 400 Subfactor D: Small Business Utilization 100 Total 1,000

Past Performance Evaluation

The Past Performance evaluation is an assessment of NASA’s confidence in each offeror’s ability to perform the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s relevant performance under previously awarded contracts. The SEB evaluated offerors’ past performance in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.304-70. The SEB evaluated each offeror’s past performance record for recency, relevance, and performance as compared to the work required under NCAPS.

After evaluating aspects of an offeror’s recent and relevant past performance, the SEB assigned each offeror an overall Past Performance Level of Confidence rating from among the following ratings as defined in the RFP and NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A): Very High, High, Moderate, Low, Very Low, and Neutral.

Cost/Price Evaluation

In accordance with RFP section M.6, the SEB developed (calculated) a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each offeror’s proposal. The TEP was calculated by summing the evaluated prices of Phase-In, NCAPS FFP Core Services Catalog, NCAPS FFP Core Services Labor, NCAPS CPFF Core Services Labor, IDIQ FFP, IDIQ CPFF and ODCs.

A cost realism analysis was conducted on the Cost-Type CLINs to ensure that the Government determines and considers a realistic cost.

A price analysis was conducted on the Firm-Fixed Price CLINs to ensure a fair and reasonable price by the Government.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Evaluation of Initial Proposals

As listed alphabetically below, NASA received five timely proposals from the following offerors in response to the NCAPS RFP:

• Accenture Federal Services, LLC.

• CACI, Inc. – Federal

• CGI Federal, Inc.

• SAIC

• Salient CRGT, Inc.

On December 6, 2023, the NCAPS SEB presented its initial proposal finding results. The SEB’s presentation included a detailed discussion of the evaluation of each offeror’s initial proposal against the three evaluation factors for award included in the RFP:

Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. The SEB evaluated these proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria and processes described in the section above and further detailed within the RFP.

Competitive Range Determination

On January 5, 2024, I concurred with the CO’s determination that proposals received from Accenture Federal Services, LLC (Accenture) and CACI, Inc. – Federal (CACI) were the most highly rated and should be included in the competitive range. The CO determined that holding discussions with these two offerors would enable them to address shortcomings in their proposals as identified by the SEB, and that this in turn would enhance proposals and maximize the Government’s ability to obtain the best value in awarding an NCAPS contract. I concurred with that assessment.

After notifying offerors not selected for inclusion within the competitive range, the SEB engaged in discussions with Accenture and CACI. On February 15, 2024, Accenture and CACI submitted Final Proposal Revisions to NASA.

FINAL EVALUATION FINDINGS

The following is a summary of the final evaluation findings for the three evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Past Performance and Cost/Price.

CACI’s overall proposed/total evaluated price was $867,415,546. Accenture’s proposed/total evaluated price was significantly higher than CACI’s Total Evaluated Price.

The substance of the SEB’s final evaluation of Mission Suitability is presented below.

Accenture Federal Services, LLC. (Accenture)

Under Subfactor A – Technical Scenario Video Presentation, Accenture received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, one Strength, and no Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies.

Accenture received one strength for its efficient and effective approach to normalizing story points by utilizing reference stories.

Under Subfactor B – Technical Approach, Accenture received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one Significant Strength, two Strengths, and no Weaknesses, Significant Weakness, or Deficiencies.

Accenture received one significant strength for its proposed innovation supporting production deployment process.

Accenture received two strengths for providing: (1) an effective approach for increasing development and deployment efficiencies; and (2) an effective approach to support Information and Data Analytics Services (IDAS).

Under Subfactor C – Management Approach, Accenture received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one Significant Strength, one Strength, and no Weaknesses, Significant Weakness, or Deficiencies.

Accenture received one significant strength for a feasible and effective management approach that includes a division of responsibilities and percentages of work that extends beyond the significant subcontractors to large and small businesses, as well as empowering their subcontractors with NCAPS leadership roles to give them direct input and guidance over their work.

Accenture received one strength for a feasible innovative approach to the NCAPS phase-in.

Under Subfactor D – Small Business Utilization, Accenture received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, one Strength, and no Weaknesses, Significant Weakness, or Deficiencies.

Accenture received one strength for its Small Business Subcontracting Plan and commitment to the small business program, which demonstrates a commitment to small business.

CACI, Inc. – Federal (CACI)

Under Subfactor A – Technical Scenario Video Presentation, CACI received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” with two Significant Strengths, one Strength, two Weaknesses, and no Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies.

CACI received two significant strengths for providing: (1) an approach that is feasible, effective, and provides a comprehensive understanding of the NCAPS workflow for the video technical scenario 1 (VP-1); and (2) an approach that is effective, efficient, feasible, and demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the NCAPS workflow for the video technical scenario 2 (VP-2).

CACI received one strength for an effective approach to normalizing story points by utilizing reference stories.

CACI received two weaknesses for: (1) lacking a comprehensive understanding in demonstrating how user stories will be decomposed and mapped for video technical scenario 1 (VP-1) using Attachment J, Fixed Price Story Point Process, section 1 Incremental Development Unit (IDU) Process; and (2) ineffectively identifying the quantity of each catalog item needed to deliver a fully functioning product to the customer for video technical scenario 1 (VP-1). The SEB determined that the strength identified in this subfactor outweighed the above minor weaknesses.

Under Subfactor B – Technical Approach, CACI received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” with two Significant Strengths, four Strengths, and no Weaknesses, Significant Weakness, or Deficiencies.

CACI received two significant strengths for providing: (1) an approach that is effective, feasible, and shows a comprehensive understanding to establishing and utilizing ITIL, Agile, and SAFe frameworks; and (2) a comprehensive approach to increase development and deployment efficiencies which is feasible, effective, and shows a comprehensive understanding.

CACI received four strengths for providing: (1) an effective approach to Verification and Validation that reduces risk; (2) an efficient approach to roles, tools, innovations, and automations to support the production deployment process for applications, platforms, analytics, automation, and web applications; (3) an approach for identifying risks to accomplish the objectives of the PWS and to minimize the risks that is feasible and effective; and (4) an efficient approach to development, tools, innovations, and automation to support Information and Data Analytics Services (IDAS).

Under Subfactor C – Management Approach, CACI received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weakness, or Deficiencies.

There were no findings for CACI under this subfactor.

Under Subfactor D – Small Business Utilization, CACI received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one Significant Strength, and no Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weakness, or Deficiencies.

CACI received one significant strength for its Small Business Subcontracting Plan and commitment to small business program, which demonstrates a very strong commitment to small business.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Accenture was assigned an overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of Very High.

CACI was assigned an overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of Very High.

COST/PRICE EVALUATION

The SEB evaluated Accenture’s total evaluated price (TEP) and did not make any probable cost adjustments. I concur with the CO’s determination that the proposed cost CLINs are realistic, and each proposed Firm Fixed Price CLIN and the overall Total

Evaluated Price are reasonable.

The SEB evaluated CACI’s total evaluated price (TEP) and did not make any probable cost adjustments. I concur with the CO’s determination that the proposed cost CLINs are realistic and each proposed Firm Fixed Price CLIN and the overall Total Evaluated Price are reasonable.

CACI’s overall proposed/total evaluated price was $867,415,546, which is significantly lower than Accenture’s TEP.

SOURCE SELECTION DETERMINATION

On April 22, 2024, in my role as the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the NCAPS procurement, the SEB briefed me on its evaluation of the proposals for the two offerors (Accenture and CACI) in the competitive range for the NCAPS procurement. This briefing provided me and my advisors an opportunity to ask questions and discuss the results of the SEB’s work to further understand the SEB’s analysis and conclusions. I carefully reviewed the SEB’s presentation to the Source Selection Authority and the associated Cost Report.

I determined that the findings presented by the SEB, as documented in its presentation, were detailed and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the NCAPS RFP and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal. I discussed with the SEB the rationale for its findings, adjectival ratings, and scores for the Mission Suitability subfactors, and also discussed the rationale for the evaluation of Cost/Price and Past Performance. I determined that the SEB’s findings were reasonable and valid for the purpose of making a selection decision.

In determining which proposal offered the best value to NASA, I referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors for award as specified in the RFP, Section M.3:

Mission Suitability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price. As individual factors, Mission Suitability is more important than Past Performance, which is more important than Cost/Price.

I based my selection on the comparative assessment of each proposal against each of the RFP evaluation factors to determine which proposal represented the best value to the Government.

CACI was the highest rated offeror under Mission Suitability, receiving an “Excellent” under Subfactor A, an “Excellent” under Subfactor B, a “Good” under Subfactor C, and a “Very Good” under Subfactor D. Overall, CACI received a Mission Suitability Score of 825. Accenture was the second highest rated offeror under Mission Suitability, receiving a “Good” under Subfactor A, a “Very Good” under Subfactor B, a “Very Good” under Subfactor C, and a “Good” under Subfactor D. Overall, Accenture received a Mission Suitability Score of 788.

Under Subfactor A – Technical Scenario Video Presentation, I identified a major discriminator in that CACI earned two significant strengths—one for each scenario— resulting in a significantly higher rating of “Excellent” than Accenture. Accenture’s proposal earned a “Good” rating for Subfactor A, receiving one strength.

Specifically, I noted in Subfactor A, CACI received a Significant Strength in each scenario. For Scenario 1, CACI received a Significant Strength for an approach that is feasible, effective, and provides a comprehensive understanding of the NCAPS workflow for video technical scenario 1 (VP-1). In scenario 2, CACI received a Significant Strength for an approach that is effective, efficient, feasible, and demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the NCAPS workflow for video technical scenario 2 (VP-2).

I noted that Accenture received only one strength, resulting in a “Good” rating under Subfactor A. Accenture proposes an approach to normalizing story points across Fixed Price Teams that is efficient and effective and will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract. While I noted that this Strength will enhance the potential for successful contract performance, I also noted that CACI received a similar strength under this subfactor.

Overall, for Subfactor A – Technical Scenario Video Presentation, I have determined that there is a clear and distinct advantage in favor of CACI with its “Excellent” rating as compared to the “Good” rating earned by Accenture. In comparing the proposals of CACI to Accenture, I identified a meaningful discriminator with CACI’s two Significant Strengths, which are described above. I have concluded that CACI’s approach to both video scenarios demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the NCAPS requirements, which greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

Both Accenture and CACI received one strength in this subfactor for normalizing Story Points, which was not a key discriminator. Even though CACI received two weaknesses under this subfactor, I noted that they were relatively minor. While Accenture did not receive any Weaknesses, they also did not receive any Significant Strengths. Therefore, overall for Subfactor A, I conclude that the advantages of CACI’s proposal (particularly its Significant Strengths) significantly outweigh the merits of the Accenture proposal.

Under Subfactor B – Technical Approach, I determined that CACI has an advantage over Accenture with an “Excellent” rating, in that CACI received two Significant Strengths, four Strengths, and no Weaknesses, Significant Weakness, or Deficiencies. Accenture received a “Very Good” rating with one Significant Strength, two Strengths, and no Weaknesses, Significant Weakness, or Deficiencies in this subfactor.

Under Subfactor B – Technical Approach, I noted that CACI received an overall “Excellent” rating due to two Significant Strengths for providing: (1) an approach that is effective, feasible, and shows a comprehensive understanding to establishing and utilizing ITIL, Agile, and SAFe frameworks; and (2) a comprehensive approach to increase development and deployment efficiencies which is feasible, effective, and shows a comprehensive understanding. CACI was also assessed four Strengths for providing: (1) an effective approach to Verification and Validation that reduces risk; (2) an efficient approach to roles, tools, innovations, and automations to support the production deployment process for applications, platforms, analytics, automation, and web applications; (3) an approach for identifying risks to accomplish the objectives of the PWS and to minimize the risks is feasible and effective; and (4) an efficient approach to development, tools, innovations, and automation to support Information and Data Analytics Service (IDAS). These strengths will further enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

For Subfactor B – Technical Approach, Accenture received an overall “Very Good” rating due to its one Significant Strength and two Strengths. Accenture received one significant strength for its proposed innovation supporting production deployment process, which is feasible, effective, and efficient. Accenture received two strengths for providing: (1) an effective approach for increasing development and deployment efficiencies; and (2) an effective approach to support Information and Data Analytics Services (IDAS). These strengths will further enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

Overall, for Subfactor B – Technical Approach, I have concluded that there is an advantage in favor of CACI. In comparing the proposals of CACI to Accenture, I identified a meaningful discriminator with CACI’s Significant Strength for its comprehensive approach to increase development and deployment efficiencies. While Accenture did receive a strength for increasing development and deployment efficiencies, it did not rise to the level of CACI’s significant strength because it was not a comprehensive approach. Additionally, CACI’s Significant Strength in establishing and utilizing ITIL, Agile, and SAFe frameworks and Accenture’s significant strength for its proposed innovation supporting production deployment process both greatly enhance the potential for successful contract performance and do not distinguish one offeror from the other. I noted that both Accenture and CACI received a Strength for their approach to support Information and Data Analytics Services (IDAS), which will have some positive impact on successful contract performance and do not distinguish one offeror from the other. However, CACI does distinguish itself with its three additional strengths (described above) which further enhance the potential for successful contract performance. Additionally, I noted when looking at the offerors’ technical approaches for subfactor B, CACI received findings (2 Significant Strengths and 4 Strengths) in six out of the seven technical areas under TA-1 of the RFP, while Accenture only received findings (1 Significant Strength and 2 Strengths) in three of the seven technical areas under TA-1 of the RFP. This demonstrates a more comprehensive understanding of the requirements. Therefore, overall for Subfactor B, I conclude that the advantage of CACI’s proposal outweigh the merits of Accenture’s proposal.

Under Subfactor C – Management Approach, I determined that Accenture has an advantage over CACI with a “Very Good” rating, in that Accenture received one Significant Strength and one Strength for this subfactor. CACI received a “Good” rating with no findings in this subfactor.

For Subfactor C – Management Approach, CACI received an overall “Good” rating by providing a reasonably sound approach to the NCAPS requirements. CACI received no findings in this area. Accenture received an overall “Very Good” rating due to its one Significant Strength and one Strength. Accenture received one Significant Strength for a feasible and effective management approach. Accenture received one strength for a feasible innovative approach to the NCAPS phase-in.

Based on the findings above for Subfactor C – Management Approach, I have concluded that there is an advantage in favor of Accenture.

Under Subfactor D – Small Business Utilization, I determined that CACI has an advantage over Accenture with a “Very Good” rating, in that CACI received one Significant Strength in subfactor D. Accenture received “Good” rating with one Strength in this subfactor.

Within Mission Suitability Subfactor D – Small Business Utilization, CACI received an overall “Very Good” rating for this Subfactor, receiving one Significant Strength for its Small Business Subcontracting Plan and commitment to small business program, which demonstrates a very strong commitment to small business. I noted that Accenture received a “Good” rating receiving one strength for its Small Business Subcontracting Plan and commitment to small business program. CACI’s proposal demonstrated a clear and distinct advantage over Accenture by proposing small business subcontracting goals that exceeded or significantly exceeded NASA’s recommended goals. Overall, for Subfactor D – Small Business Utilization, I have concluded that there is an advantage in favor of CACI.

For the Mission Suitability factor overall, the most important evaluation factor for award, I have determined that under Subfactors A, B, and D (Technical Scenario Video Presentation, Technical Approach, and Small Business Utilization), CACI offered the strongest proposal and was superior to Accenture. Under Subfactor C, Management Approach, Accenture was superior to CACI. CACI’s superior Technical Scenario Video Presentation (Subfactor A), Technical Approach (Subfactor B), and Small Business Utilization (Subfactor D) far outweigh the competitive advantage Accenture earned under Management Approach (Subfactor C).

As explained above, for the NCAPS procurement, Mission Suitability was more important than Past Performance, which was more important than Cost/Price. In addition, Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, were significantly more important than Cost/Price.

While the past performance details varied slightly between CACI and Accenture, their past performance provided equal confidence in their ability to perform the work based on past contracts. Therefore, I viewed the past performance as relatively equal between the Offerors and this factor did not impact my selection decision.

With respect to the third factor, CACI’s Total Evaluated Price is significantly lower than Accenture’s.

The NCAPS RFP provides that a trade-off process (as described at FAR 15.101-1) will be used in making my source selection decision. Paragraph (a) of that regulation explains that “[a] tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.” In the present case, the offeror’s proposal that is strongest in the combined non-price evaluation factors is CACI, which is the same offeror whose Total Evaluated Price is the lowest. These facts lead to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate for me to perform a tradeoff between Accenture and CACI in which I consider an award to other than the lowest priced offeror. While Accenture’s proposal had many meritorious and attractive attributes, CACI’s proposal demonstrates much greater overall potential for successful contract performance and is lower priced than Accenture’s. Such circumstances do not support NASA considering whether it should pay a higher price for Accenture’s proposed approach.

Specifically, considering each evaluation factor individually and then applying the RFP’s weighting methodology, it is my determination that CACI’s proposal presents the best value to NASA. Within the Mission Suitability factor, the Technical Scenario Video Presentation and Small Business Utilization were weighted equally, and the Technical Approach was weighted equally to Management Approach. I found that CACI’s proposal has the clear advantage in a majority of the subfactors, given that its Technical Scenario Video Presentation, Technical Approach, and Small Business Utilization is notably stronger than Accenture’s. Although Accenture has an advantage over CACI when comparing their Management Approaches, CACI’s Management Approach is still very strong overall. On balance, this leads to my conclusion that, for the Mission Suitability factor, CACI’s proposal is superior to that of Accenture. As stated above, for the second most heavily weighted evaluation factor, Past Performance, I viewed this factor as relatively equal. Finally, CACI’s Total Evaluated Price is significantly lower than Accenture’s. These facts provide strong support for an award to CACI.

Conclusion

While both CACI and Accenture submitted competitively priced proposals that were respectively strong in the areas of Mission Suitability and Past Performance, my close examination and comparison of these proposals demonstrated that CACI had a clear edge over Accenture for both Mission Suitability and Cost/Price evaluation factors. Therefore, I have concluded that CACI’s proposal will provide the best value to NASA for the NCAPS contract performance. This selection is based solely on, and is wholly consistent with, the selection criteria set out in the NCAPS solicitation and applicable FAR and NFS regulations, and it is supported by the SEB’s comprehensive evaluation.

Accordingly, I select CACI, Inc. – Federal for award of the NCAPS contract.

Jeffrey M. Seaton Date Source Selection Authority