SAS_Source_Selection_Statement_SIGNED.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR

SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE ASSURANCE SERVICES (SAS)

SOLICITATION NUMBER NNG16544506R

On March 10, 2017, I along with senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals for the Systems and Software Assurance Services (SAS) acquisition. This memorandum documents my decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY

The mission of the NASA Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Program is to reduce the inherent risk in the Agency’s ability to procure, develop, deploy and operate software within desired cost, schedule and performance goals. The purpose of this contract is to acquire specialized system and software engineering and development as well as system and software assurance services. These services are performed on selected systems being developed by or for NASA, other Federal, State and local government agencies, commercial entities and/or other organizations and institutions as directed by the Government.

The SAS requirement was issued as a full and open competitive procurement which will result in an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Single Award Contract with Cost Plus Fixed- Fee (CPFF) Task Orders. The effective ordering period is 5 years.

I appointed the SEB, which included a team of technical and business members and consultants from appropriate disciplines, to assist in proposal evaluation.

NASA issued the Request for Proposal (RFP) on June 9, 2016. One amendment was issued to the RFP on June 30, 2016.

The following companies submitted timely proposals by July 12, 2016:

CSRA, LLC (CSRA)

Pragmatics, Inc. (Pragmatics) Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) TASC, an Engility Company (TASC)

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

The RFP defined 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 Past Performance Factor is less important than the Mission Suitability Factor but more important than the Cost Factor.

The RFP established that the Mission Suitability Factor would be point scored in the evaluation process. In accordance with the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NFS) 1815.304-70(b)(1), the Mission Suitability Factor was weighted and scored on a 1,000 point scale. The points associated with each Mission Suitability Subfactor are as follows:

Mission Suitability Subfactor Points Subfactor A Technical Approach/Capability 500

Subfactor B Management Approach 400

Subfactor C Small Business Utilization (SBU) 100 Total 1000

The Mission Suitability Factor was evaluated using the adjectival ratings, definitions and percentile ranges in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The maximum points available for each Subfactor were multiplied by the assessed percent rating for each Subfactor to derive the score for the particular Subfactor.

The Cost Factor was evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B), and solicitation provision M.3 – Cost Evaluation Factor. The proposed costs of the Government Pricing Model (GPM), and the rates proposed in Attachment B, Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates and Fee Matrices, were assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism. The GPM was used to represent estimated work under the IDIQ contract. During proposal evaluation the Government made probable cost adjustments to each of the Offeror’s proposed GPM costs. Both the proposed and probable costs assessments were presented, along with the proposed Phase-in price. Both the proposed and probable costs reflected the Offeror’s proposed fee amount. Proposed fee was not adjusted in the probable cost assessment.

The Past Performance Factor was evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15 and solicitation provision M.4 – Past Performance Evaluation Factor. In evaluating past performance, the SEB evaluated each Offeror’s record (including the record of significant subcontractors as defined in the RFP) for performing services that are similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the RFP in terms of relevance and performance. The SEB also relied on narratives of relevant past and current contracts provided by the Offerors, past performance evaluation input provided via customer questionnaires, and on information retrieved from the government-wide Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) database.

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 table below provides the adjectival ratings assigned in each Mission Suitability subfactor after evaluating each subfactor in accordance with RFP section M.2.

Offeror Subfactor A Subfactor B Subfactor C CSRA Good Good Excellent Pragmatics Very Good Good Good SAIC Good Fair Excellent TASC Excellent Very Good Excellent

The substance of the SEB’s evaluation of Mission Suitability for each Offeror is represented below.

CSRA

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach/Capability, CSRA received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, two Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

CSRA received the following two Strengths, each of which enhances the potential for successful contract performance:

1. CSRA received a Strength for its Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) approach.

CSRA’s Scenario 2 response demonstrated an extensive understanding of the S&MA SOW requirements.

2. CSRA received a Strength for its Application Security capability as part of its overall Information Assurance as a Service approach. CSRA demonstrated an innovative and on-demand approach that combined both dynamic and static code analyses.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach of the Statement of Work, CSRA received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, three Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

CSRA received the following three Strengths, each of which enhances the potential for successful contract performance:

1. CSRA received a Strength for its comprehensive 30-day Phase-in Plan.

2. CSRA received a Strength for its New Business Council to engage Government and commercial entities to utilize IV&V capabilities and services.

3. CSRA received a Strength for an effective planning process that incorporates a look-ahead approach to IV&V.

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU) CSRA received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” with two Significant Strengths, one Strength, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

CSRA received the following two Significant Strengths, each of which greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance:

1. CSRA received a Significant Strength for its subcontracting plan significantly exceeding goals. CSRA’s proposed small business subcontracting plan significantly exceeds the Government’s recommended goals for subcontracting and the commitment to small business is exemplary.

2. CSRA received a Significant Strength for its subcontracting commitment to high technology work. CSRA demonstrated a strong commitment to Small Business Subcontracting by having signed teaming agreements which greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

CSRA received the following Strength which enhances the potential for successful contract performance:

1. CSRA received a Strength for its commitment to the Mentor Protégé program.

PRAGMATICS

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach/Capability, Pragmatics received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one Significant Strength, four Strengths, one Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Pragmatics received the following Significant Strength, which greatly enhances the potential for

1. Pragmatics received a Significant Strength for its IV&V Planning, Scoping, & Execution Approach. Pragmatics demonstrated an efficient IV&V planning and execution approach using several proposed tools and methodologies. Pragmatics’ enhancements demonstrated a high value solution based on IV&V standards. The Pragmatics’ approach demonstrated an efficient and effective solution for IV&V Planning & Scoping and risk identification processes. The proposed approach demonstrated value to the IV&V Program. Pragmatics’ overall IV&V planning, scoping, and execution approach greatly increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Pragmatics received the following four Strengths, each of which enhances the potential for

1. Pragmatics received a Strength for its proposed approach to S&MA support services clearly demonstrating its understanding of the SOW requirements.

2. Pragmatics received a Strength for its integrated continuous improvement approach.

3. Pragmatics received a Strength for its Model-Based Software Engineering approach and mission architecture heritage on the ARM mission in Scenario 1.

4. Pragmatics proposed a straightforward and innovative technique to track each IV&V project’s highest priority unfunded work activities and proposed a roll-up of these activities to identify the highest priority Program opportunities.

Pragmatics received the following Weakness, which increases the risk of unsuccessful contract

1. Pragmatics received a Weakness for its risk to execution approach if simulation and test resources are unavailable.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, Pragmatics received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, three Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Pragmatics received the following three Strengths, each of which enhances the potential for

1. Pragmatics received a Strength for its effective approach to advance IV&V Program capabilities that included a strong set of examples of improvement opportunities and a process to convert improvement candidates to solutions.

2. Pragmatics received a Strength for its Integrated Program Management system.

3. Pragmatics received a Strength for its phase-in planning.

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU), Pragmatics received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, no Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

SAIC

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach/Capability, SAIC received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, one Strength, two Weaknesses, no Significant

SAIC received the following Strength which enhances the potential for successful contract

1. SAIC received a Strength for its personnel advancement investment for information assurance success, including a comprehensive and innovative approach to training of Information Assurance (IA) personnel.

SAIC received the following two Weaknesses, each of which increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance:

1. SAIC received a Weakness for its unclear application of Agile, which did not provide adequate insight into the actual application of the approach or anticipated benefits.

2. SAIC received a Weakness for its ARM planning and scoping in Scenario 1.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, SAIC received an adjectival rating of “Fair” with no Significant Strengths, one Strength, two Weaknesses, one Significant Weakness, and no Deficiencies.

SAIC received the following Strength, which enhances the potential for successful contract

1. SAIC received a Strength for its phase-in plan schedule and communications.

SAIC received the following two Weaknesses, each of which increases the risk of unsuccessful

1. SAIC received a Weakness for its lack of effective communications with the Government. SAIC’s proposal contained inadequate details on its overall communication approach with the Government.

2. SAIC received a Weakness for its lack of quality assurance activities and staffing.

SAIC received the following Significant Weakness, which poses a significant risk to successful

1. SAIC received a Significant Weakness for its inadequate OCI mitigation strategy. SAIC’s proposed approach to identifying and avoiding or mitigating Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) was narrowly focused and did not provide adequate insight into OCIs and the proposed mitigation approach. In some circumstances, the proposed approach introduced significant risk that contract requirements could not be fully performed.

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU) SAIC received an adjectival rating of

SAIC received the following two Significant Strengths, each of which greatly enhances the

1. SAIC received a Significant Strength for its subcontracting commitment to high technology work. SAIC demonstrated a strong commitment to Small Business Subcontracting by having signed formal teaming agreements which greatly enhances the

2. SAIC received a Significant Strength for its strong commitment to small business and participation in the Mentor Protégé program, including identification of a candidate for potential Mentor Protégé relationship for SAS with a HBCU/MI. This commitment to small business and the extensive utilization of Mentor Protégé relationships will greatly enhance the potential for successful contract performance and achievement of small business goals.

SAIC received the following Strength which enhances the potential for successful contract

1. SAIC received a Strength for its small business subcontracting plan. SAIC’s proposed overall small business subcontracting goal exceeds the Government’s recommended goal of 30% and has identified several small businesses and one University that covers all of the socioeconomic categories of small business.

TASC

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach/Capability, TASC received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” with two Significant Strengths, three Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

TASC received the following two Significant Strengths, each of which significantly enhances the

1. TASC received a Significant Strength for its overall assurance approach. TASC proposed an exceptional and robust approach that demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the complexities and challenges associated with performing IV&V; providing Safety and Mission Assurance support; and conducting Information Assurance activities on NASA and commercial partner missions throughout all project lifecycles phases. TASC demonstrated an exemplary understanding of the risks that prevent successful IV&V and Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) Support Office (SSO) work, including excellent examples and insights into mitigations and associated adjustments to its overall approach.

The proposed technical approach will promote effective performance and will greatly enhance the likelihood of success of IV&V and SMA services on NASA projects.

2. TASC received a Significant Strength for its IV&V planning, scoping, and monitoring.

TASC’s proposed approach to utilizing its internal tool will greatly enhance the effectiveness of IV&V planning & scoping processes. The proposed tool derives assurance and confidence from the application of the IV&V Technical Framework and Catalog of Methods. Proposed enhancements to IV&V planning, scoping, and monitoring will deliver the NASA IV&V Program with significant value through a low-risk solution, based on proven IV&V methodologies, and a framework that increases efficiency and effectiveness. This approach will appreciably enhance the IV&V program’s ability to assure that NASA resources are being applied in an efficient and effective manner and will reduce risk to NASA missions.

TASC received the following three Strengths, each of which enhances the potential for

1. TASC received a Strength for effectively accounting for non-traditional development methodologies. TASC’s IV&V execution approach was adaptive and effectively addressed performance challenges resulting from utilization of new development methodologies.

2. TASC received a Strength for its clear understanding and highly effective utilization of IV&V Technical References.

3. TASC received a Strength for a clear and comprehensive understanding of the role of Information Assurance activities in planning and executing IV&V on a realistic and representative mission scenario.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, TASC received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one Significant Strength, two Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

TASC received the following Significant Strength, which greatly enhances the potential for

1. TASC received a Significant Strength for its tool-based integrated management approach.

TASC proposed a robust management approach that utilizes an innovative integrated tool suite. This suite complements TASC’s policies, procedures, techniques and organizational structure to enable responsiveness, flexibility, effective communication and cost efficiency. Areas addressed include: the complexities and challenges associated with managing the performance of IV&V; Safety and Mission Assurance support;

Information Assurance activities on NASA and commercial partner missions throughout all project lifecycle phases. TASC’s inclusion of this integrated tool suite greatly increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

TASC received the following two Strengths, each of which enhances the potential for successful

1. TASC received a Strength for its collaborative and effective approach to advance IV&V Program capabilities.

2. TASC received a Strength for its phase-in, including a detailed transition approach.

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU) TASC received an adjectival rating of

Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

TASC received the following two Significant Strengths, each of which significantly enhances the

1. TASC received a Significant Strength for its high commitment to small business outreach and participation in the Mentor Protégé Program. TASC has an active agreement under the NASA MPP with a SAS teammate, and plans to continue that Mentor Protégé relationship into execution of the SAS contract.

2. TASC received a Significant Strength for its subcontracting commitment to high technology work. TASC demonstrated a strong commitment to Small Business Subcontracting by having signed teaming agreements which greatly enhances the

TASC received the following Strength which enhances the potential for successful contract

1. TASC received a Strength for its subcontracting plan exceeding goals. TASC has proposed an overall small business subcontracting goal for Total Small Business concerns that exceeds the Government’s Recommended Goal of 30% and has identified several small businesses.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

As a result of the evaluation process, the SAS SEB’s Past Performance Level of Confidence rating for each Offeror is as follows:

Offeror Level of Confidence Rating

CSRA Very High

Pragmatics High

SAIC Very High

TASC Very High

CSRA

CSRA was assigned an overall level of confidence of Very High based on the combination of Very High Overall Relevance and Very High Overall Performance. The Offeror’s past performance is of exceptional merit and very highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating exemplary performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements in a timely, efficient, and economical manner. CSRA demonstrated very effective performance in all SOW areas on contracts comparable to SAS.

Pragmatics

Pragmatics was assigned an overall level of confidence rating of High based on the combination of High Overall Relevance and High Overall Performance. The Offeror’s past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements in a timely, efficient, and economical manner. Pragmatics’ past performance lacked verification analyses relevance as well as experience with a comparably sized contract, which detracted slightly from its overall past performance rating.

SAIC

SAIC was assigned an overall level of confidence of Very High based on the combination of Very High Overall Relevance and Very High Overall Performance. The Offeror’s past performance is of exceptional merit and very highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating exemplary performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements in a timely, efficient, and economical manner. SAIC demonstrated very effective performance in all SOW

TASC

TASC was assigned an overall level of confidence of Very High based on the combination of Very High Overall Relevance and Very High Overall Performance. The Offeror’s past performance is of exceptional merit and very highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating exemplary performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements in a timely, efficient, and economical manner. TASC demonstrated very effective performance in all SOW

COST EVALUATION

The SEB evaluated the total proposed cost (including the fixed price phase-in and proposed fee) and determined the Government’s probable cost for all Offerors. The following chart shows the relative order of proposed and probable cost for all Offerors, from lowest to highest, including the phase-in price:

Proposed Cost Probable Cost

TASC Pragmatics

Pragmatics TASC

CSRA CSRA

SAIC SAIC

All Offerors received non-management direct labor rate adjustments based on their approach to providing labor (e.g., incumbent capture, new hires, etc.) and the realism of their proposed rates as compared to the historical labor categories, rates and position descriptions provided in the RFP. Some Offerors received adjustments in other cost areas, including realism of management and administrative costs, calculation errors and reduction of travel costs. The probable cost adjustments varied between Offerors, with the highest total probable cost adjustment being less than 10%. Based on the SEB’s evaluation results, Pragmatics had the lowest resulting probable cost, followed by slightly higher probable costs from TASC and CSRA and a moderately higher probable cost from SAIC.

A cost risk was found for Pragmatic’s proposed overhead rates, because they lacked adequate support. A cost risk was identified for SAIC’s proposed escalation rates, which were somewhat lower than its historical rates and DCMA’s recommended rates, without adequate substantiation.

DECISION

As the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the SEB’s evaluation documentation. Following this review, on March 10, 2017, I met with the SAS SEB to hear the SEB’s evaluation presentation. I determined that the findings presented by the SEB, as documented in its presentation and the accompanying “SAS Cost Evaluation Report” were detailed, consistent with the evaluation criteria in the SAS RFP, and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal. In addition, I specifically discussed with the SEB its reasoning for the Significant Strengths and Significant Weakness as well as the substantive content of these significant findings relative to other Strengths and Weaknesses. I also questioned the SEB regarding its rationale for the adjectival ratings and scores under Mission Suitability, for the assignment of Level of Confidence ratings under Past Performance, and for the probable cost adjustments and assessment of cost risks under Cost.

I noted that the SEB assessed the Mission Suitability point scores consistently with the assigned adjectival ratings for each subfactor, which in turn were justified by the SEB’s underlying findings. I found the Past Performance evaluation to be detailed and clearly documented.

Within the Cost factor, I similarly found that the cost adjustments made by the SEB were logical and sound, and that cost risks were specifically identified. I observed that the evaluation of proposals by the SEB was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. I concluded that the SEB’s evaluation under each of the evaluation factors was reasonable and consistent with evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, and I accepted the SEB’s evaluation results in their entirety.

After hearing the results of the evaluation, I first considered whether a competitive range should be established to allow the SEB to enter into discussions with the Offerors. Given the improbability that discussions would significantly alter the relative standing of the most competitive proposal, the Contracting Officer and I concurred that the establishment of a competitive range was not necessary.

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

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 Past Performance Factor is less important than the Mission Suitability Factor but more important than the Cost Factor.

My selection was based on a comparative assessment of each proposal against each of these source selection evaluation factors.

I began with the Mission Suitability Factor, the most heavily weighted factor. I noted that CSRA received a Good adjectival rating in Subfactors A and B and received an Excellent in Subfactor C. Pragmatics received a Very Good adjectival rating in Subfactor A and a Good adjectival rating in Subfactors B and C. SAIC received a Good adjectival rating in Subfactor A, a Fair adjectival rating in Subfactor B and an Excellent adjectival rating in Subfactor C. TASC received Excellent adjectival ratings in Subfactors A and C and received a Very Good adjectival rating in Subfactor B.

The SAS RFP assigned the greatest weight to Subfactor A, Technical Approach/Capability.

Though several proposals were rated Good in Subfactor A and contained no Significant Weaknesses, I found TASC’s and Pragmatic's proposals to be the most competitive in this subfactor. These two proposals distinguished themselves by being the only proposals that merited one or more Significant Strength findings and achieving the highest subfactor ratings, Very Good for Pragmatics and Excellent for TASC. In my examination of the evaluation results, I noted important discriminators between TASC’s findings in comparison to Pragmatics’.

Pragmatics received a Significant Strength for its IV&V planning, scoping and execution approach. TASC’s proposal was given a similar Significant Strength for its approach to IV&V planning, scoping and monitoring. While both TASC and Pragmatics had these somewhat comparable findings for planning and scoping, TASC’s proposal received a second Significant

Strength for its overall assurance approach. I was impressed by this finding because it demonstrated a robust and comprehensive approach, supported by TASC’s responses to Scenarios one and two, for performing IV&V, S&MA support, and Information Assurance on NASA and commercial partner missions throughout all project lifecycles phases. This approach has broad impact across SAS contract performance and is of significant benefit to NASA.

Also, while TASC had no Weaknesses, Pragmatics had one Weakness in Subfactor A regarding the risk to its execution approach if simulation and test resources were unavailable. This Weakness was focused on the negative consequences of a risk identified by Pragmatics in its response to scenario one and the lack of an adequate mitigation approach for that risk. While not identified as a significant risk, there is a high likelihood that it would adversely impact performance if not mitigated successfully.

For Subfactor B, CSRA, Pragmatics, and TASC demonstrated a strong Management Approach.

TASC received the only Significant Strength in this subfactor for its tool-based integrated management approach, yielding a Very Good rating. TASC’s proposal clearly demonstrated a robust management approach that leverages a comprehensive, and exceptionally integrated, tool suite that complements its policies, procedures, techniques and organizational structure. CSRA and Pragmatics each received three Strengths and ratings of Good. With respect to Subfactor B, SAIC had the only Significant Weakness, arising from its proposed OCI mitigation strategy, which I agreed presented significant risk to successful performance of all contract requirements.

For Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization, I noted that CSRA, SAIC and TASC received an Excellent rating for this factor with all three having two Significant Strengths. Pragmatic’s proposal had no Strengths or Weaknesses in their approach and were therefore found to be adequate with a Good rating for this subfactor. I concluded that CSRA’s, SAIC’s and TASC’s approaches were of comparable merit relative to each other, and that all three had a notable advantage over Pragmatics in this subfactor.

Though CSRA, Pragmatics and TASC’s proposals were competitive in the Mission Suitability factor, I ultimately found TASC’s proposal was distinguished by its Significant Strengths for its overall assurance approach to performing IV&V, S&MA support, and Information Assurance as well as its robust management approach that utilizes an innovative integrated tool suite. Further, the TASC proposal was the only proposal that received no Weaknesses or Significant Weaknesses. Therefore, I concluded it was the superior proposal under the Mission Suitability factor.

I next considered the Past Performance Factor. I noted that CSRA, SAIC, and TASC each received a Very High Level of Confidence rating and demonstrated comparable past performance relative to each other. Pragmatics was the only Offeror to receive a High Level of Confidence rating due in part to the lack of past performance in verification analyses and the lack of experience with a comparably sized contract. I concluded that CSRA’s, SAIC’s and TASC’s more relevant contracts with very high performance provided an advantage over Pragmatics in this Factor.

I last considered the Cost Factor, which was the lowest weighed factor in the evaluation criteria.

I reviewed the proposed and probable costs and phase-in costs, recognizing that while TASC had

DECISION

SAS Source Selection Statement SIGNED