NEMCON Source Selection Statement.pdf

NASA Environmental and Medical Contract (NEMCON) 1

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR THE

NASA ENVIRONMENTAL AND MEDICAL CONTRACT (NEMCON)

On August 14, 2020, I, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA), along with other senior officials of the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals for award of the NEMCON. Relevant portions of the SEB’s evaluation of proposals and my decision on selection of the successful offeror are set forth in this Source Selection Statement.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The objective of this procurement is to acquire a broad range of medical and environmental support services for KSC, the U.S. Air Force at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), and NASA Headquarters (HQ) with an option to include additional NASA Centers on an as-needed basis. These services include the following:

• NASA KSC Environmental Compliance Support: conduct permit sampling and analysis;

prepare regulatory reports; provide regulatory consultation; investigate and clean up hazardous material spills; sample, characterize, and dispose of hazardous and controlled waste; perform ecological monitoring and manage data sets; monitor impacts from KSC launches on the environment; assist with compliance surveillance; provide professional engineering services; and provide compliance program management support and subject matter expertise.

• NASA KSC Environmental Health Support: provide industrial hygiene, health physics (radiation safety), and public health services to include providing expert consultation;

scheduling work with customers; conducting hazard assessments and exposure monitoring; providing support to hazardous operations (e.g., confined space permitting, confined space monitoring, toxic vapor monitoring); operating onsite laboratories to analyze samples; arranging for offsite laboratory services to analyze samples; preparing reports for customers; and implementing a quality assurance program.

• NASA KSC Aerospace Medicine Support: provide aerospace medicine expertise; provide medical and human systems expertise to evaluate ground system and flight vehicle designs for flight crew interfaces (e.g., emergency egress systems); develop and implement medical support and incident response plans for launch and landing events and exercises; provide and train medical support personnel for launch and landing events and exercises; provide medical support to flight crews when stationed at KSC (e.g., NASA health stabilization program implementation, visitor medical evaluations, and clinical laboratory analysis).

NASA Environmental and Medical Contract (NEMCON) 2

• NASA KSC Occupational Health Support: operate onsite clinics; conduct physical examinations and issue medical certifications; provide medical treatments to employees and launch guests; provide employee assistance counselling; provide health and medical training services; operate fitness facilities; perform musculoskeletal rehabilitation services; provide health education and wellness services; direct emergency medical services; manage employee medical records; and provide clinical laboratory services.

• Air Force Occupational and Environmental Health Support: provide occupational health services (e.g., conduct physical examinations, issue medical certifications, and provide clinical laboratory services) and environmental health services (e.g., industrial hygiene, health physics, public health, emergency response, and potable water system sampling support) to the 45th Space Wing (and its tenants) at CCAFS and Patrick Air Force Base.

• NASA HQ Environmental Support: provide Agency sustainability, energy, water, and National Environmental Policy Act program management support and subject matter expertise; assist with policy development and functional compliance; prepare Agency plans, reports, and guidance documents; facilitate Agency working groups, community of practice meetings, and environmental conferences; and manage Agency sustainability award calls.

• NASA Agency Environmental Support: perform audits of offsite hazardous and controlled waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities used by NASA; update and maintain Center environmental resource documents; and update and maintain Center cultural resource management plans.

• Other Support contemplated for NASA KSC, NASA HQ, and other NASA Centers and the 45th Space Wing: NEMCON may provide additional medical, occupational health, environmental health, and environmental services (special projects and recurring services) as requested through separate ordering procedures.

BACKGROUND

On May 14, 2019, the development of the NEMCON Request for Proposals (RFP) commenced with the appointment of a Procurement Development Team (PDT). The Contracting Officer established 541620 (Environmental Consulting Services) as the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the NEMCON procurement, with a corresponding size standard of $15M annually. On August 19, 2019, the Small Business Administration increased the size standard for this NAICS code to $16.5M annually. Consequently, the Contracting Officer issued a Sources Sought Synopsis, seeking potential sources for the performance of NEMCON. This Sources Sought Synopsis defined the scope of the NEMCON acquisition and sought information from capable sources to determine industry interest and capability and to facilitate consideration of small business set aside potential. Based on the capability packages received, the Contracting Officer, with concurrence of the Small Business Specialist and the NEMCON PDT Chairperson, determined that an adequate number of capable small business concerns existed to justify setting aside the acquisition for small business. The PDT prepared an

NASA Environmental and Medical Contract (NEMCON) 3 acquisition plan, developed a NEMCON website (which included a technical resource library), provided a site tour, and developed a draft solicitation for industry comment.

On December 17, 2019, the KSC Procurement Officer appointed the SEB for the purpose of evaluating proposals received in response to the solicitation. The Contracting Officer issued the NEMCON RFP on November 22, 2019. The NEMCON RFP sought proposals from small businesses and anticipated award of a Cost Plus Award Fee contract with an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity component that is Cost Plus Fixed Fee. The contract period of performance consists of a two-year base period and four 2-year options, for a total of ten potential years.

During the course of the procurement, the Contracting Officer issued a total of five RFP amendments to incorporate minor changes and posted two documents answering both Draft RFP and RFP questions.

In response to the NEMCON RFP, NASA received three timely proposals on or before the due date of January 17, 2020 from the following companies:

Herndon Solutions Group (HSG), LLC

Heritage Services Corporation (Heritage)

EGC|AGEISS, JV (EGC|AGEISS)

EVALUATION PROCESS

The RFP prescribed three evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost, which the SEB evaluated using the applicable procedures, adjectival ratings, levels of confidence, definitions and/or percentile ranges specified in the RFP, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3, and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) subpart 1815.3, “Source Selection.” The RFP advised offerors of the relative order of importance of the factors stating the following:

Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors. Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost. Mission Suitability is more important than Cost, which is more important than Past Performance.

The RFP further identified two subfactors, which the SEB was to weight and consider in evaluating Mission Suitability as follows:

Management Approach 400 points Technical Approach 600 points Total Mission Suitability 1000 points

Under the procedures established in the RFP and the applicable acquisition regulations, the SEB evaluated Mission Suitability proposals under each subfactor to identify significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. As a result of these findings, the SEB assigned an adjectival rating and percentile ranking/point score for each subfactor using the

NASA Environmental and Medical Contract (NEMCON) 4 adjective ratings and percentile ranges at NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The total Mission Suitability point score is the sum of the points assigned for each subfactor.

With regard to the Management subfactor, the RFP described in detail the areas the SEB would evaluate, including program management, organizational structure and key positions, the business and financial management approach, total compensation plan, and phase-in plan. The RFP also described in detail the areas the SEB would evaluate under the Technical subfactor— namely, the feasibility and ability to provide flexible, effective, and efficient implementation of the contract requirements in a multi-program and multi-customer environment while supporting the performance work statement (PWS) requirements and fluctuations in workload, skill mix, and staffing.

For Past Performance, the RFP advised offerors that the SEB would evaluate recent and relevant performance of work similar in size, content, and complexity to the NEMCON requirements, as well as the offeror’s management, technical, schedule, and cost/price performance. The SEB also would evaluate an offeror’s experience with supporting a multi-program and multi-customer service environment, previous contract phase-in activities, labor relations experience and safety reports. The RFP further provided that the SEB would evaluate the past performance of each offeror’s major subcontractors. The SEB would evaluate Past Performance using the following levels of confidence as NFS 1815.305(a)(2) defines them: Very High, High, Moderate, Low, Very Low, or Neutral.

Finally, for the Cost factor, the RFP advised offerors that the Government would perform both a cost analysis and a cost realism analysis to determine whether proposed costs are realistic for the work that the offeror would perform, reflect a clear understanding of the NEMCON requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s proposal. The RFP also advised that the Government would develop a probable cost for each proposal, taking into account the above-described analyses. For purposes of source selection, the total evaluated cost consisted of the Phase-in (firm fixed price), the probable costs and proposed fee for the Base period (including non-proposed costs) and all options.

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

INITIAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS, COMPETITIVE RANGE

DETERMINATION, AND DISCUSSIONS

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

The resulting mission suitability rating, past performance rating and cost evaluation of each offeror’s proposal provided the basis for making a competitive range determination.

NASA Environmental and Medical Contract (NEMCON) 5

In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Contracting Officer determined that discussions were necessary and in the Government’s best interest. Pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(1), the Contracting Officer, with my concurrence, determined that the HSG proposal was within the competitive range. The Contracting Officer concluded that Heritage’s and EGC|AGEISS’ proposals were not among the most highly rated and, therefore, the Contracting Officer did not include them in the competitive range. The Contracting Officer notified the offerors excluded from the competitive range on June 30, 2020. Heritage subsequently requested a pre-award debrief which occurred on July 9, 2020. EGC|AGEISS acknowledged the notification but did not request a debriefing.

The SEB conducted written and oral discussions with HSG during the period of June 30, 2020, through August 3, 2020. The SEB focused the discussions on the weaknesses and uncertainties requiring clarification that the SEB identified during the initial evaluation. Upon the conclusion of the discussions, the Contracting Officer requested a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) from HSG with a due date of August 3, 2020. Following the same procedures that the SEB followed in the initial evaluation, the SEB then completed a final evaluation of HSG’s FPR and reported its findings to me as discussed below.

FPR MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

The evaluation of the FPR resulted in an increased Mission Suitability score for HSG. No significant weaknesses, weaknesses, or uncertainties requiring clarification remained in HSG’s Mission Suitability proposal. The SEB’s report to me focused on HSG’s strengths.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, the SEB found no significant strengths, three strengths, and no remaining weaknesses in its FPR. The first strength was for proposing an effective seamless phase-in approach. The second strength was for a proposed strong safety and health culture. The third, strength was for proposing an effective model for integrated program management and continuous improvement. Based on these findings, the SEB rated HSG’s proposal under the Management Approach subfactor as “Good.”

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the SEB found no significant strengths, four strengths, and no remaining weaknesses in its FPR. The first strength was for proposing a robust approach to post emergency spill cleanup services. The second strength was for proposing a comprehensive and effective approach to work control in environmental health services. The third strength was for proposing a comprehensive and effective approach to ensure quality work products in industrial hygiene. The fourth strength was for proposing a robust approach to conducting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities audits. Based on these findings, the SEB rated HSG’s proposal under the Technical Approach subfactor as “Good.”

As a result of the SEB’s evaluation and rating of the Management and Technical subfactors, the overall Mission Suitability score for HSG was 690 out of 1,000 points available.

FPR PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The SEB evaluated HSG’s past performance as very highly pertinent to this acquisition and the SEB assessed HSG’s performance on cited contracts as “Exceeded Performance.” HSG demonstrated significantly relevant experience for the cited contracts, similar in size, content, NASA Environmental and Medical Contract (NEMCON) 6 and complexity to NEMCON in PWS 1.0, Program Management, PWS 2.0, Medical Services, PWS 3.0, Environmental Health Services, PWS 4.0, Environmental Services, PWS 5.0, Air Force Services, and PWS 6.0, NASA HQ and Centralized Agency Environmental Support.

Finally, HSG has maintained safe and healthy operations for all cited contracts and had no Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) reportable injuries, no worker compensation claims, and no environmental citations for the past three years.

The SEB evaluated HSG’s Relevant Experience and Past Performance level of confidence as “Very High.”

COST EVALUATION

HSG has a total evaluated cost of $242,846,664. In accordance with FAR 15.404, the Government performed a cost analysis and a cost realism analysis to evaluate the realism and reasonableness of the proposed costs. The SEB did not identify any probable cost adjustments.

Based on these analyses, HSG’s proposed cost was determined to be fair, reasonable and realistic.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

During the presentation, I questioned the SEB on the material presented and carefully considered the detailed findings presented by the SEB. I concluded that the SEB's evaluation was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. In addition, I solicited and considered the views of key senior personnel at KSC. These key senior personnel have responsibility related to this procurement and understood the application of the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP.

In determining the best value to the Government, I referred to the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors specified in the RFP (i.e., Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost), specifically that Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost, and that Mission Suitability is more important than Cost, which is more important than Past Performance. Using these evaluation factors I have reached the following conclusions.

With regard to Mission Suitability, the most important factor, I noted that HSG received an adjective rating of “Good” in Management Approach, and “Good” in Technical Approach. I noted that there are no significant strengths and three strengths and no weaknesses in its Management Approach, and no significant strengths and four strengths and no weaknesses in its Technical Approach. I concur with the SEB’s evaluation in these areas.

With regard to Past Performance, I noted that HSG has an extensive breadth of experience with contracts similar in size, content, and complexity to the NEMCON, worthy of a Very High Level of Confidence rating.

With regard to the Cost factor, the SEB found that HSG’s proposal satisfied the requirements of cost realism and price reasonableness, and the SEB made no probable cost adjustments to its FPR. I agree with the SEB’s evaluation of the cost factor.

NASA Environmental and Medical Contract (NEMCON) 7

Considering the three evaluation factors and their relative order of importance, I find that HSG's proposal represents the best value to the Government. Accordingly, I select Herndon Solutions Group, LLC for award of the NASA Environmental and Medical Contract.

Robert D. Cabana Date Source Selection Authority

Date2_af_date: 8/20/20