SSA_Source_Selection_Statement_for_CLSAGESS_SSA's_Final.pdf

Source Selection Sensitive Information FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Source Selection Statement Center Logistics Services and Aerospace Ground Equipment Support Services

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC)

On January 26, 2017, I, the Source Selection Authority (SSA), along with other key officials of NASA AFRC, met with the members of the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals in response to the Center Logistics Services and Aerospace Ground Equipment Support Services (CLS&AGESS) solicitation number NND16578229R. The CLS&AGESS solicitation anticipates awarding a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract with a Cost No Fee (CNF) Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) and FFP Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) CLIN. The Request for Proposal (RFP) included the following period of performance dates:

Phase-in 1/1/2017 – 1/31/2017

Base Period 2/1/2017 – 1/31/2019

Option 1 2/1/2019 – 1/31/2020

Option 2 2/1/2020 – 1/31/2021

Option 3 2/1/2021 – 1/31/2022

Option to Extend Services 02/01/2022 – 7/31/2022

The CLS&AGESS contract provides Logistics Services and Aerospace Ground Equipment Support Services at the Center to meet mission requirements. These services include:

a. Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Support Services consist of: Aircraft Support Services including critical/emergency and routine maintenance and mission support services, service of aircraft batteries, life support, proof load testing, fuel delivery, aircraft fueling, N2 servicing, AGE equipment training, equipment painting, fire extinguisher inspection, aircraft static display inspection, and ramp sweeping.

b. Logistics Services consist of: transportation services (shipping, receiving, freight, mail pickup and delivery, hazardous/radioactive material services, export control, moves), fleet management services (maintenance, motor pool and dispatch, vehicle fueling, fuel station management), supply management services (warehousing, inventory control, hazardous material storage), personal property and controlled equipment management services (inventory, acquisition, disposal), records management services, purchase request processing services, and aircraft sustainment services (parts receipts, warehousing, purchasing, repairs, and maintenance).

Procurement History

In accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 5.2, “Synopsis of Proposed Contract Actions,” the CLS&AGESS effort was synopsized on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website on July 7, 2016. On July 20, 2016, NASA AFRC issued a Draft RFP as a Small Business Set-Aside under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 336413 – Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing with a size standard of 1,250 employees. On August 23, 2016, NASA AFRC issued the RFP.

Four amendments were issued namely:

Amendment 1, on 9/6/2016: Amended the solicitation as follows:

Revised clause B.1 SCOPE OF CONTRACT, under Paragraph 2, to change the date of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) to September 1, 2016

Revised clause B.4 1852.216-81 ESTIMATED COST. (DEC 1988) to reflect the total estimated cost for the Cost-No-Fee CLIN 106

Revised clause C.1 SCOPE OF WORK, Paragraph 1 to change the date of the PWS to September 1, 2016

Revised clause G.7 1852.245-73 FINANCIAL REPORTING OF

NASA PROPERTY IN THE CUSTODY OF CONTRACTORS. (JAN

2011), under Paragraph (b)(3) to include the address

Revised clause J.1 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS to change the date for all the revised Attachments and include Exhibit A, entitled, “Disposition of Significant DRFP NND16578229R Comments”

Revised provision L.10 1852.215-77 PREPROPOSAL/PRE-BID CONFERENCE. (APR 2015), under Paragraph (c)

Revised provision M.3 EVALUATION, under Section entitled, “Price”, Paragraph 3(2), to provided amounts for CLIN 106, 206, 306 and 406

Revised provision M.3 EVALUATION, under Section entitled, “Price”, Paragraph 3(4) and changed to a stand-alone paragraph

Revised Attachment J-01, entitled, “Performance Work Statement” to remove the watermark “DRAFT, changed the date and inserted a header to reference the attachment number J-01 and title

Revised Attachment J-02, entitled, “Data Requirement Document Descriptions”, under DRDs 02, 05, 45, 61 and 68, block 5 and 6

Revised Attachment J-09 (A), entitled, “Wage Determination California County of Kern and (B), entitled, “Wage Determination California County of Los Angeles

Revised Attachment L-02, to insert a header to reference the attachment number L-02 and title

Revised Attachment L-03, to insert a header to reference the attachment number L-03 and title

Revised Attachment L-04, to insert a header to reference the attachment number L-04 and title

Revised Attachment L-05, entitled, “Past Performance Questionnaire, Paragraph 4 to include the due date

Revised Exhibit A, entitled, “Disposition of Significant DRFP NND16578229R Comments”, under reference # 14, #16 and #23

Revised the RFP in its entirety to change the reference of quote(s) to proposal(s)

Published response to questions 1-11

Incorporated and uploaded the Safety, Health and Environmental Management Plan (SHEMP) Attachments A, B, and C, per DRD-04

SHEMP

Amendment 2, on 9/7/2016: Revised the continuation page of the Standard Form (SF) 30 of Amendment #001, paragraph R, to read: The Government responses to Questions 1-2 are provided under ATTACHMENT 1:

NND16578229R: Center Logistics Services and Aerospace Ground Equipment Support Services (CLS&AGESS) RFP Question and Answers.

Amendment 3, on 9/16/2016: Amended the solicitation as follows:

Revised clause B.1 SCOPE OF CONTRACT, under Paragraph 2, to change the date of the PWS to September 14, 2016

Revised clause C.1 SCOPE OF WORK, Paragraph 1 to change the date of the PWS to September 14, 2016

Revised clause J.1 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS to change the date for all the revised Attachments and incorporated Attachment J-13, entitled, “Collective Bargaining Agreement: LOGMET, effective March 5, 2014 – March 5, 2017”

Revised Attachment J-01, entitled, “Performance Work Statement”, under the respective section C.2.7.4 Government Furnished Material (GFM), C.2.9.4 Radioactive Material Certification, C.2.9.11 Hazardous Material Certification, C.2.9.12 Shipping and Transporting Certification, and C.11.1 Pickup and Delivery Services

Updated Attachment J-04, entitled, “Installation-Accountable Government Property” to include additional property

Provided copies of the pre-proposal conference welcome package (conference presentation chats and list of attendees)

Published responses to questions

Amendment 4, 9/22/2016: Published response to questions

The RFP required that proposals be submitted in four (4) volumes. The four (4) volumes were: Volume I – Technical, Volume II - Past Performance Information, Volume III – Price, Volume IV – Business.

All Proposals were due by September 30, 2016, at 4:00 pm (PT). Three (3) Offerors submitted proposals. All three met the time and date requirement in response to the RFP: Kay and Associates, Inc. (KAI), LOGMET LLC, and Scientific and Commercial Systems Corporation (SCSC).

On October 3, 2016, the SEB conducted an initial review of the proposals to determine acceptability, in accordance with NASA FAR Supplement 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. The SEB members conducted a records check through System for Award Management (SAM) to ensure all Offerors had an active registration and no active exclusions, then verified that the Offeror’s Representations and Certifications were current and complete. A review was conducted to confirm that all proposals were in compliance with the page limitations, font size limitation, required elements of the cover letter (a statement that the proposal shall remain in effect for a minimum of 120 calendar days, a statement regarding acceptance of the anticipated contract terms and conditions, etc.), Standard Form 33, Form DD254, inclusion of DRD- 02-“Key Personnel”, DRD-69 “Phase-In Plan”, and that all pertinent portions of the proposal were readable and in compliance with the RFP.

Verification was made that under the Offeror’s Representations and Certifications, the Offerors certified themselves as small businesses under NAICS Code 336413, with a size standard of 1,250 employees.

The evaluation was conducted using Performance Price Trade-off best value source selection in which competing Offeror’s past performance history was evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price consideration. RFP Section M, “Evaluation Factors for Award,” Provision M.3, “Evaluation” set forth the following areas for evaluation:

1. Technically Acceptable

2. Past Performance

3. Price

Technically Acceptable

The technically acceptable rating consisted of an evaluation of the Technical Approach, Management/Staffing Approach and Phase-In Plan. The SEB evaluated the technical proposal on a pass/fail basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable, reference solicitation Provision M.3, Evaluation, Table B-1 “Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings”. Each Offeror’s technical proposal was evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and existing capability met or exceeded the various requirements identified within the PWS and the solicitation. All technically acceptable offers were treated equally except for their past performance records and prices. Failure to meet a requirement resulted in a proposal being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors rated technically unacceptable were not further evaluated.

Additionally, Offerors were required to provide evidence of a Government approved Contractor‘s purchasing system. The plan and approach of establishing and implementing an approved purchasing system was evaluated on the soundness of the approach and the realism of achieving the approach within ninety (90) days after the contract effective date.

Proposals were evaluated in alphabetical order of the Offeror’s name, pursuant to the SEB Evaluation Plan dated 10/25/2016.

Technical Findings Summary

LOGMET LLC -- Technically Unacceptable

The Offeror's overall proposal did not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation and is determined to be technically unacceptable.

While the Offeror described an overall management and staffing approach to accomplish the requirements outlined in the PWS and provided a plan to establish and implement a Government approved purchasing system, their proposal failed to provide sufficient evidence of a thorough understanding of the technical requirements to effectively perform the Logistics Services and AGE Support Services stipulated within the PWS. The Offeror did not demonstrate the ability to perform under the following functional areas of the PWS:

Section C.3 – AGE

Section C.5 – Supply Management Services

Section C.6 – Personal Property Management Services

Section C.7 – Fleet Management Services

Section C.8 – Purchase Request Processing Services

Section C.9 – Aircraft Part Provisioning Services

Section C.11 – Optional Service Line Items

The Offeror stated that it ''has extensive and broad existing capabilities to meet the CLS&AGESS PWS requirement.'' However, they failed to establish a connection between those capabilities and the requirements necessary to successfully meet the needs of the solicitation. For instance, the PWS specifically describes two different levels of support for aircraft fueling activities between AFRC Edwards and B703. At B703, the PWS states ''shall perform fueling of aircraft'' while at AFRC Edwards it stated ''shall assist aircraft crews in the fueling of aircraft''. On page 8 of the Offeror's proposal, the Offeror stated ''technicians are part of the team used to fuel aircraft at AFRC Edwards''. It continues to state that the Offeror will ''assist'' and lists some of the functions that are detailed in the PWS Section C.3.3.10.2, page 35, but the Offeror did not provide any reference to the required functions for B703 or to the other tasks that are required. Additionally, the Offeror failed to address PWS Section C.6.4, Disposal.

The Offeror did not address any of the requirements listed in this section, directly or by reference, nor provide any information on how it would comply with the legal requirements that were detailed in this section.

Therefore, the Offeror’s proposal was deemed technically unacceptable and was not evaluated further.

KAI -- Technically Acceptable

The Offeror's overall proposal met the minimum requirements of the solicitation and was determined to be technically acceptable.

The Offeror demonstrated they have a comprehensive understanding of the requirements and provided evidence of having a technical approach to effectively perform the work stipulated within the PWS.

The Offeror identified processes and procedures which described their approach to the overall management and staffing of the contract in order to meet all the PWS requirements. The Offeror's proposed management team would have the authority to execute the day-to-day operations, facilitate communication to ensure the proper approvals and documentation are completed, and staff the various functional areas of the PWS.

The Offeror provided evidence of a Government Approved Purchasing System.

SCSC -- Technically Acceptable

The Offeror's overall proposal met the minimum requirements of the solicitation and was determined to be technically acceptable.

The Offeror demonstrated they have a comprehensive understanding of the requirements and provided evidence of having a technical approach to effectively perform the work stipulated within the PWS.

The Offeror's proposed staffing approach demonstrated an understanding of the roles and duties for the personnel necessary to accomplish Logistics Services and AGE Support Services.

The Offeror provided a detailed management approach on the basic procedures for accomplishing the day-to-day operations. Specifically, the Offeror outlined an approach to manage and oversee the staff of the various functional areas of the PWS.

Additionally, the Offeror provided an approach to how they intend to manage, monitor and integrate the prime and subcontractor staff to function as a cohesive team to meet the requirements of the PWS.

The Offeror provided evidence of their ability to obtain a Government Approved Purchasing System.

Overall Technical Evaluation:

The results of the technical evaluation are as follows:

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FINDING

OFFEROR RATING

KAI Acceptable

LOGMET LLC Unacceptable

SCSC Acceptable

Past Performance

The past performance evaluation was an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the solicitation requirements. This factor indicated the relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of each Offeror’s record of performing services or delivering products similar in size, content, and complexity as the requirements of the PWS and solicitation. The past performance evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), NFS 1815.305(a)(2), and the solicitation.

There were two aspects to the past performance evaluation:

(1) The first aspect of the past performance was to evaluate the relevancy (quantity) of the Offeror’s present/past performance. Relevant performance included performance of present/past contracts similar or greater in size, content, and complexity of the effort described in the PWS and solicitation. The evaluation team reviewed the Offeror’s past performance and identified the significant strengths, strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, and/or significant weaknesses of the Offeror’s proposal in determining the relevancy of the present/ past performance to the task requirements of the PWS and solicitation and assigned a Past Performance Relevancy Rating based on the following definitions:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

RATING DEFINITION

Very Relevant

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

Relevant Present / past performance effort involved similar size, content, and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

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

Not Relevant

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

(2) The second aspect of the past performance evaluation was to determine how well the contractor performed on current and previous contracts (Quality). Past performance information was obtained on the relevant, similar current or past contracts listed by the Offeror in Volume II, Past Performance, to assist in determining the quality level of past performance. The Government’s evaluation was not limited to past performance information on the listed contracts. Past performance information on work for commercial customers, local, state and federal Government that were relevant and similar to this procurement was also evaluated. The Government used past performance information obtained from the Government wide Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), as well as the past performance questionnaires (PPQ). The Offeror’s past performance in occupational health, security, safety, and mission success was evaluated as a part of this aspect of past performance.

The quality assessment rating was evaluated based on the following ratings and definitions:

QUALITY ASSESSMENT RATINGS FOR EVALUATING PAST PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION

Exceptional

Contractor's performance meets contractual requirements and consistently exceed (or exceeded) many of them. The contractual performance of requirements being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good

Contractor's performance meets contractual requirements and consistently exceed (or exceeded) some of them. The contractual performance of requirements being assessed was accomplished with no more than some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory

Contractor's performance meets (or met) contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the requirements contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal

Contractor's performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the requirements being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

Unsatisfactory

Contractor's performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the requirements contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. Extensive customer oversight and involvement was required.

Neutral Contractor performance was not observed or not applicable to the current effort being reported against.

The results of the quantitative and qualitative assessments were used to determine an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The Past Performance Confidence Assessments are based on the following ratings and definitions:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

RATING DESCRIPTION

Very High Level of Confidence

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

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

Moderate Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. (There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both.)

Low Level of Confidence The offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards.

Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements. (One or more weaknesses exist. Weaknesses outbalance strengths.)

Very Low Level of Confidence

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

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

The evaluation team utilized the present/past performance information on the relevant, similar current or past contracts provided by each Offeror in Volume II, Past

Performance, to identify the significant strengths, strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, and/or significant weaknesses and determined a relevancy rating for past performance.

The evaluation team utilized the present/past performance information provided in Volume II, Past Performance, obtained from the Government-wide Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), as well as the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) to assign an overall quality rating for past performance.

The evaluation team used the findings from these two aspects to assign an overall level of confidence.

KAI -- Past Performance Evaluation:

The Offeror's past performance with regard to size, content and complexity reflected significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses, which determined the relevancy of the present/past performance to the task requirements of the PWS. Overall, the Offeror's Past Performance relevancy demonstrated experience in the areas of AGE and some experience in Fleet Management and Purchasing Request Services. However, due to the lack of pertinent past performance experience in the area of Logistics, which is a major component of this acquisition, an overall Quantity rating of Somewhat Relevant was assigned for past performance.

The Offeror's Past Performance evaluations have consistently received a rating of Exceptional or Very Good. In particular, in the areas pertinent to this acquisition, the contractor performance has been Very Good. The PPIRS narratives consistently provided examples where the Offeror met or exceeded contract requirements. An overall Quality rating of Very Good was assigned.

In review of the comments provided in PPIRS, there were multiple instances where the contractor exceeded the performance standards established in the contract. In one instance, the evaluator stated, “61% of total Preventative Maintenance Task completed ahead of schedule.” In another instance, “the Contractor’s high quality of service resulted in avoidance of rework cost, which benefited the Government”. In multiple evaluations, the Offeror was complimented for going above and beyond by implementing and establishing a supplemental HAZMAT Management Program and Safety Program that exceeded the requirements of the contract.

The Offeror identified 12 company and individual employee performance awards received within the last five (5) years.

The Offeror's overall Quantity rating is Somewhat Relevant to the requirement and the overall Quality rating is Very Good.

Based on the overall assessment, the Government has a High Level of Confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SCSC -- Past Performance Evaluation:

The Offeror's past performance with regard to size, content and complexity reflected strengths, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses, which determined the relevancy of the present/past performance to the task requirements of the PWS. Overall, the

Offeror’s Past Performance demonstrated experience in the areas of Logistics and the subcontractor's overall Past Performance demonstrated some experience in the area of

AGE. However, no one contract provided same or similar experience in all areas.

When considering the overall requirements of this acquisition for size, content and complexity, an overall Quantity rating of Somewhat Relevant was assigned for past performance.

The Offeror's Past Performance evaluations have received a rating of Exceptional to

Very Good. In particular, for the evaluation pertinent to this acquisition, the Offeror's performance was Very Good. However, the Past Performance Questionnaires and

Government PPIRS evaluations were limited for the Offeror. The Offeror's subcontractor has received Past Performance ratings ranging from Exceptional to

Marginal. The subcontractor's performance was deemed Satisfactory based on the feedback and narratives provided in the evaluations. Some narratives provided examples of the subcontractor’s failure to meet minimum contract performance metrics.

In one instance, the evaluator stated, “Six (6) out of the ten (10) months the

Government granted a variance for vehicle groups within the Accepted Quality Levels”.

In another instance, the evaluator stated, “Contractor did fail to meet the Service

Summary Standard for Preventive Maintenance and Inspections for five (5) out of twelve (12) months”. Additionally, “there were 24 tool box inspections performed during this period with seven (7) defective for an overall effective rating of 74% of a standard of

95%.” Due to the failures found in the narratives, a rating of Satisfactory was assigned.

Therefore, the overall Quality rating of Satisfactory was assigned.

The Offeror did not identify any performance awards received within the last five (5) years.

The Offeror's overall Quantity rating is Somewhat Relevant and the overall Quality rating is Satisfactory.

Based on the overall assessment, the Government has a Moderate Level of Confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Overall Past Performance Evaluation:

The Offerors’ overall relevancy (Quantity) ratings are listed below:

OVERALL RELEVANCY (QUANTITY) RATING

KAI Somewhat Relevant

SCSC Somewhat Relevant

The Offerors’ overall quality assessment ratings are listed below:

OVERALL QUALITY RATING

KAI Very Good

SCSC Satisfactory

The Offeror’s overall confidence ratings are listed below:

Price

Price analysis was conducted to ensure that a fair and reasonable price is paid by the Government and to assess the reasonableness of the proposed price.

The proposed fully burdened hourly rates for “IDIQ Task Order Support” were reviewed and determined to be reasonable.

The option prices for the fully burdened hourly rates were not significantly unbalanced.

The data provided in the Price Volumes did not indicate a failure to understand the requirement.

The completed price analysis resulted in the determination that SCSC’s total evaluated price is lower than KAI’s total evaluated price.

The proposed prices for each Offeror are lower than the Independent Government Estimate (IGE).

OVERALL CONFIDENCE RATING

OFFEROR RELEVANCY QUALITY

CONFIDENCE

LEVEL

KAI Somewhat Relevant Very Good High

SCSC Somewhat Relevant Satisfactory Moderate

Selection Decision

The SEB presented the findings of their evaluation to me as the SSA on January 26, 2017.

Following the SEB presentation, I fully considered the SEB’s findings. I commended the SEB on their comprehensive and detailed evaluation of the three (3) proposals. I have reviewed the detailed findings of the SEB.

I agree with each of the SEB’s findings.

As the SSA for this acquisition, I have determined the proposal submitted by KAI provides the best overall value to satisfy the Government’s requirement. This decision was made using my independent judgment and based upon the criteria established in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, of the solicitation, and the capability (i.e.

Technical Acceptability, Past Performance Confidence Assessment, and Price) of KAI to fulfill the subject requirement.

In making my selection decision, I first reviewed the relative importance of the evaluation factors. This solicitation is a competitive Performance Price Trade-Off best value source selection where past performance history is significantly more important than price. First, a technical rating of acceptable or unacceptable was given to each proposal. Failure to meet a requirement resulted in an Offeror being determined technically unacceptable, and the Offeror’s proposal was not further evaluated. If a technically acceptable rating was assigned, the Offeror’s past performance history was evaluated.

With regard to the Technically Acceptable factor, I considered the SEB’s evaluation of LOGMET’s technically unacceptable rating. I agree with the finding that LOGMET failed to provide sufficient evidence of a thorough understanding of the technical requirements to effectively perform the Logistics and AGE Support Services stated in the PWS. Most notably, LOGMET’s proposal often failed to provide specific detailed information to demonstrate their ability to perform the technical requirements outlined in the PWS.

I also considered the SEB’s finding that KAI’s and SCSC’s overall proposals met the minimum requirements of the solicitation and are determined to be technically acceptable. KAI and SCSC provided acceptable approaches to meeting the technical, management and staffing requirements. Both Offerors provided detailed information on how they would accomplish the day-to-day tasks. Moreover, both Offerors demonstrated a clear understanding of the technical requirement.

I then evaluated the past performance confidence for the two (2) Offerors, KAI and SCSC, who were deemed technically acceptable by reviewing the SEB’s findings of each Offeror’s past performance relevancy and quality.

With regard to the past performance relevancy (quantity) factor, both proposals demonstrated experience on previous/current contracts performing some similar work, although neither proposal demonstrated past performance in all the functional areas of the PWS. The past performance references for KAI showed experience in AGE, but were unable to demonstrate extensive experience in the area of Logistics. The past performance references for SCSC showed experience in Logistics and the subcontractor's showed some experience in the area of AGE, however no one contract provided the same or similar experience in all areas. Accordingly, both proposals demonstrated an overall Past Performance Relevancy rating of Somewhat Relevant.

I then reviewed the past performance quality results for both KAI and SCSC. The adjectival rating assigned to KAI for Past Performance Quality was Very Good, receiving Past Performance ratings of Exceptional to Very Good. The narratives provided for KAI past performance consistently provided examples where the Offeror met or exceeded contract requirements.

Although SCSC’s PPIRS reports were limited, SCSC received Past Performance ratings of Exceptional to Very Good. Additionally, SCSC’s subcontractor received a wide range of Past Performance ratings from Exceptional to Marginal. The narratives provided for SCSC’s subcontractor provided examples of the subcontractor’s failure to meet minimum contract performance metrics, in which case past performance was deemed by the SEB to be Satisfactory. In particular, because the SEB identified differences between the proposed subcontractor’s past performance ratings and narratives for the same contract, I requested on January 31, 2017, that the SEB obtain additional information for the rationale from the Assessing Officials responsible for the feedback and narratives provided in PPIRS and the PPQ. The information obtained assisted me in gaining a better understanding of what factors contributed to the SEB’s finding of Satisfactory for the Past Performance Quality assessment for the subcontractor. This confirmed for me the SEB’s finding.

For the reasons stated in the previous paragraph, I agree with the SEB’s overall adjectival rating of Satisfactory for Past Performance Quality assigned to SCSC.

For the past performance confidence rating, I considered both the overall past performance relevancy and overall past performance quality ratings of each Offeror. As discussed above, I find the past performance relevancy of both Offerors to be somewhat relevant with neither Offeror’s past performance relevancy to be a better value than the other. KAI received a higher past performance quality rating of Very Good, in comparison to SCSC’s rating of Satisfactory. Accordingly, I have a high level of confidence that KAI could successfully perform the subject contractual effort as opposed to a moderate level of confidence in SCSC.

With regard to price, I noted that KAI’s proposed price of $54,902,085.00 was higher than SCSC’s. I also noted that both Offerors’ proposed prices were less than the IGE.

Considering that both KAI’s and SCSC’s proposals are technically acceptable, the key discriminator in my selection decision is the overall level of confidence in the Offeror’s past performance.