GSMO-2_Selection_Statement_Sanitized.pdf

SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR

GROUND SYSTEMS AND MISSION OPERATIONS 2 (GSMO-2)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NNG16551793R

On December 13, 2016 and January 5, 2017, I, along with senior officials from the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the

GSMO-2 procurement. This memorandum documents my decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY

The GSMO-2 requirement was issued as a full and open competition procurement. This procurement will result in a Cost Plus Award Fee, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract with an effective ordering period of five years. The purpose of the contract is to acquire engineering services for ground systems and mission operations support to more than 20 missions in phases of the lifecycle from Pre-Phase A to Phase E. The scope encompasses concept studies, development (definition and implementation), integration, test, verification, operations, sustainment of mission operations systems, subsystems, and operations processes and procedures. Services involve systems engineering, facility engineering, launch and early orbit support, flight operations, flight dynamics support, and sustaining engineering.

The appointed SEB included a team of technical and business members along with consultants from appropriate disciplines, to assist in proposal evaluation.

NASA issued the Request for Proposals (RFP) on March 11, 2016. Five amendments were issued to the RFP. Amendment One was issued on March 22, 2016 to: (i) Update Enclosure CC

Historical Rates in its entirety; and (ii) replace page 111 of NNG16551793R with the

Amendment 1 version. Amendment Two was issued on March 31, 2016 to: (i) update various clauses and provisions in RFP Sections H, J, L, and M. Amendment Three was issued on April

5, 2016 to: (i) amend the small business goals under provision L.13 GSFC MISSION

SUITABILITY VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS (COMPETITIVE) (OCT 2015). Amendment Four was issued on October 28, 2016 to: (i) Revise provision L.10 GSFC 52.215-201 PROPOSAL

PREPARATION—GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS (FEB 2016), (ii) revise provision L.14 GSFC

52.215-223 COST VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS (JAN 2016), and (iii) set the Final Proposal

Revision due date. Amendment Five was issued on November 2, 2016 to: (i) Replace G.8 GSFC

52.216-103 Submission of Vouchers For Payment (SEP 2014) with G.8 1852.232-80 Submission for Vouchers for Payment. (SEP 2016).

The following companies submitted proposals by April 25, 2016:

Harris Corporation (Harris)

Honeywell Technology Solution Inc. (“HTSI”) now known as KBRwyle (“KBRwyle”)

Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies (“SGT”)

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 determined that a selection based on initial proposals was not in the best interests of the Government. I concurred with the CO’s determination that a selection on initial proposals was not appropriate and that establishment of a competitive range and discussions were necessary.

Two of the Offerors, SGT and KBRwyle, were the most highly rated Offerors, considering their

Mission Suitability scores (based on supporting findings), Costs and Past Performance ratings when each Factor is weighed as instructed in the solicitation. It was also determined that, based on the evaluation conducted by the SEB, Harris’ proposal was not among the most highly rated proposals and would not likely improve sufficiently during the discussions process to be competitive for selection. Therefore, Harris’ proposal was not within the competitive range.

On October 11, 2016, the CO sent written notices to SGT and KBRwyle notifying each Offeror that they were included in the competitive range and that the Government intended to enter into discussions. These notices to each Offeror also identified all Significant Weaknesses, Weaknesses, Strengths and Significant Strengths assigned to their particular proposal. To facilitate discussions, the CO requested that written responses be submitted in writing by October

14, 2016.

Discussions with SGT and KBRwyle were held in person at the NASA Goddard Space Flight

Center on October 18th and 19th, 2016 respectively. Discussions centered on the weaknesses, costs risks, and any probable cost adjustments previously disclosed to the Offerors. The CO informed the Offerors that an amendment to the RFP (Amendment Four, as described above) would be issued along with a Request for Final Proposal Revisions.

Subsequently on October 28, 2016, an email was sent to SGT and KBRwyle to close discussions and request Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs). This email included Amendment Four which stated FPRs were due November 14, 2016. A more formal detailed letter was sent to both

Offerors on November 1, 2016.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The RFP defined the evaluation factors as Mission Suitability, Cost and Past Performance. The

RFP specified the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors as follows:

The Cost Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the

Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual factors, the Cost Factor is less important than the Mission Suitability Factor but more important than the Past Performance Factor.

The RFP established that only the Mission Suitability factor would be point scored in the evaluation process. In accordance with NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

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 Subfactors Points

Subfactor A Technical Approach 400

Subfactor B Management Approach 500

Subfactor C Small Business Utilization 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. For example, if a Subfactor has a possible 200 points and receives a percent rating of 80, then the score for the Subfactor is 160 points.

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. This evaluation included the Government making probable cost adjustments to each Offeror’s proposed costs.

Both the proposed and probable cost assessments were presented to me, 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. 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 and on information retrieved from the government-wide Past Performance Information Retrieval System

(PPIRS) database, questionnaires, and award fee letters. 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 OF THE FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

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

Offeror were evaluated in an alternating fashion.

Offeror Subfactor A Subfactor B Subfactor C

KBRwyle Very Good Good Very Good

SGT Excellent Good Excellent

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

KBRwyle

Under Subfactor A, KBRwyle received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one Significant

Strength, two Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

KBRwyle received a Significant Strength for demonstrating a comprehensive and exemplary understanding of all three principal elements of the SOW—Ground System

Development (WBS 2.4), Flight Operations (WBS 3.3), and Sustaining Engineering

(WBS 3.7). For each element, KBRwyle proposed numerous, notable techniques and procedures to satisfy these elements in an efficient and effective manner. Under Ground

System Development, KBRwyle provided an excellent trade studies description and an approach that included challenges, design considerations, and proposed efficiencies.

Under Flight Operations, KBRwyle proposed plans that promote excellent information exchange and an approach to Flight Operations that would maximize science data return while minimizing risk. Under Sustaining Engineering, KBRwyle proposed an effective response to address critical anomalies or failures and proposed an efficient approach to perform online console operations.

KBRwyle received a Strength for its approach to managing its systems administrators which will reduce the likelihood of negative impact on mission-unique infrastructure.

KBRwyle received a Strength for proposing to use an asset with the potential to standardize IT for mission operations in an efficient, secure fashion.

Under Subfactor B, KBRwyle received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant

Strengths, three Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

KBRwyle received a Strength for a well-developed and proactive staffing and recruitment approach that included several notable elements.

KBRwyle received a Strength for a well-developed communications approach between

GSMO-2 management and NASA personnel at the appropriate levels.

KBRwyle received a Strength for proposing a well-structured and efficient task ordering process approach.

Under Subfactor C, KBRwyle received an adjectival rating of "Very Good" with one Significant

Strength, one Strength, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

KBRwyle received a Significant Strength for their commitment and planned participation in the NASA Mentor-Protégé Program as part of the GSMO-2 contract.

KBRwyle received a Strength for their small business subcontracting approach which exceeds the small business recommended goals.

SGT

Under Subfactor A, SGT received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” with one Significant

Strength, four Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weakness, and no Deficiencies.

SGT received a Significant Strength for their scenarios approach. For both the Mission

Operations (scenario 1) and Ground Systems Development (scenario 2) scenarios, SGT provided excellent responses that provided insight into how they would address these parts of the SOW. For Mission Operations, SGT provided a well-prioritized set of challenges that showed significant attention to detail and a sound understanding of what could become significant issues. SGT’s response included multiple, beneficial approaches to maintaining the health and safety of the spacecraft and instruments, and eliminating error. For Ground Systems Development, SGT provided an outstanding response with well-prioritized challenges that included several noteworthy elements.

SGT received a Strength for a thorough technical approach that demonstrated a solid understanding of the techniques and procedures for ground systems development.

SGT received a Strength for a well-developed sustaining engineering approach which increases the likelihood of successfully maintaining GSMO-2 hardware and software.

SGT received a Strength for a well-developed approach demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of data protection.

SGT received a Strength for proposing to use an asset with the potential to standardize

IT for mission operations in an efficient, secure fashion.

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

SGT received a Strength for a comprehensive and proactive staffing and recruitment approach that included several notable elements.

SGT received a Strength for a comprehensive approach for communications between

GSMO-2 management and NASA personnel at the appropriate levels.

SGT received a Strength for proposing a well-structured and efficient task ordering process approach.

Under Subfactor C, SGT received an adjectival rating of "Excellent" with two Significant

Strength, no Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

SGT received a Significant Strength for their commitment and planned participation in the NASA Mentor-Protégé Program as part of the GSMO-2 contract.

KBRwyle received a Significant Strength for their small business subcontracting approach which significantly exceeds the small business recommended goals.

COST EVALUATION

In the final evaluation, the SEB evaluated the total proposed cost (including the fixed price phase in, and proposed award fee) and determined the Government’s probable cost for both Offerors.

As a result of the SEB’s analysis, the evaluation team made direct labor and associated indirect costs adjustments resulting in very minor cost adjustments to both offerors. SGT’s proposed and probable cost was more than 10% higher than KBRwyle’s proposed and probable cost. The SEB found that the costs proposed by KBRwyle and SGT in their FPRs were reasonable and realistic for the work to be performed.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

In evaluating Past Performance of the Prime Offerors the SEB found:

KBRwyle was determined to have an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of

"Very High" based on the combination of Very High Relevance and Very High Overall

Performance.

SGT was determined to have an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of "Very

High" based on the combination of Very High Relevance and Very High Overall Performance.

DECISION

As the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the SEB’s documentation entitled “Ground Systems and Mission Operations 2 (GSMO-2) Presentation to

Source Selection Authority, December 13, 2016.” On December 13, 2016, I met with the

GSMO-2 SEB, along with several ex-officio members, to hear the SEB’s evaluation findings.

On January 5, 2017, I again met with the SEB during which they addressed additional questions I had regarding the evaluation.

I determined that the findings presented by the SEB, as documented in its presentation and the accompanying “GSMO-2 Cost Evaluation Report” were detailed, consistent with the evaluation criteria in the GSMO-2 RFP, and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal. I discussed with the SEB its rationale for the findings and the adjectival ratings and scores for the

Mission Suitability subfactors, and also discussed the rationale for the evaluation of Cost and

Past Performance. Further, I solicited the views of ex-officio members in their areas of expertise. I determined that the 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 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 Cost Factor is less important than the Mission Suitability Factor but more important than the Past Performance Factor.

My selection was based on a comparative assessment of each proposal against each of the RFP source selection Evaluation Factors. Both Offerors were competitive in all three Evaluation

Factors.

Within Mission Suitability Subfactor A, Technical Approach, I noted that KBRwyle received a

Very Good rating with one Significant Strength and two Strengths while SGT received an

Excellent rating with one Significant Strength and four Strengths.

SGT received a Significant Strength for its approach to the Subfactor A Scenarios. For both

Scenario 1 (Mission Operations) and Scenario 2 (Ground Systems Development), SGT provided excellent responses that provided insight into how they would address these areas of the SOW.

For the Mission Operations Scenario, SGT provided a well-prioritized set of challenges that showed significant attention to detail and a sound understanding of what could become significant issues. Similarly, for the Ground Systems Development Scenario, SGT provided well-prioritized challenges that included several noteworthy elements.

KBRwyle received a Significant Strength for demonstrating a comprehensive and exemplary understanding of the principal elements of the statement of work. In all three principal areas—

Ground System Development (WBS 2.4), Flight Operations (WBS 3.3), and Sustaining

Engineering (WBS 3.7), KBRwyle provided notable examples of the techniques and procedures to successfully accomplish the work.

I noted that SGT received a Strength for proposing well-developed techniques and procedures for Ground Systems Development (WBS 2.4). SGT also received a Strength for a well-developed approach to the Sustaining Engineering (WBS 3.7).

Finally, I noted that both offerors received nearly identical strength findings for proposing a tool to provide for efficient IT security. Thus, these strengths did not provide a discriminator. I also examined SGT’s data protection and KBRwyle’s systems administration strength. I found these strengths to be essentially equally valuable to NASA and therefore neither strength provided one offeror with an advantage over the other.

Overall, when comparing the offerors across all of Subfactor A, I noted that both offerors earned significant strengths findings for their proposed technical approaches to GMSO-2, though in different ways, with KBRwyle excelling in their response to the principal elements of the SOW and SGT excelling in the Scenarios. These significant strengths provide me with confidence that both offerors have strong technical approaches as well as the understanding and insight needed to perform the most difficult aspects of the SOW—Mission Operations, Ground Systems

Development, and Sustaining Engineering.

Both KBRwyle and SGT offered excellent technical approaches to Ground Systems

Development. KBRwyle’s approach, as captured in its significant strength, included a comprehensive discussion of its proposed techniques and procedures, which included challenges, design considerations, enhancements and efficiencies to meet critical mission data requirements.

SGT’s Ground Systems Development approach was similarly meritorious for its well-prioritized set of challenges (part of its Significant Strength) and for proposing well-developed, thorough techniques and procedures (Strength finding).

I also found that both offerors had comparably strong approaches, techniques and procedures in the area of Sustaining Engineering. KBRwyle proposed a number of features and capabilities that demonstrated an exemplary understanding in this area including an effective response to address critical anomalies (part of its Significant Strength). SGT similarly provided a well-developed approach that showed a detailed understanding of the requirements (Strength finding).

In the area of flight operations, KBRwyle offered a strong approach by proposing to thoroughly plan, integrate, and execute every Flight Operations activity and process to maximize science data return and minimize risk (part of its Significant Strength). SGT provided a comprehensive, detailed response to the challenges associated with its mission operations scenario (part of its

Significant Strength). SGT’s proposal included multiple, beneficial approaches to maintaining the health and safety of the spacecraft and instruments, and eliminating errors that adversely affect mission operations. Overall, I concluded that SGT had a slight advantage in Subfactor A based on the excellence of its Mission Operations scenario response.

Regarding Subfactor B, I noted that both offerors received Good ratings. Both offerors received three strengths each for staffing and recruitment, communications, and task order processing.

When I examined all the strengths awarded in this subfactor, I found that both SGT and

KBRwyle offered sound management approaches of essentially equal merit. I did not find any meaningful discriminators in Subfactor B.

Regarding Subfactor C, I noted that SGT received an Excellent rating while KBRwyle received a

Very Good rating. Both offerors received a Significant Strength for their commitment to the

Mentor-Protégé Program and therefore I found no discriminators in that area. Regarding the

Government’s Small Business Recommended Goals, I noted that SGT received a Significant

Strength for significantly exceeding the goals while KBRwyle received a Strength for exceeding the goals. Upon further examination of the respective small business goal findings, I concluded that SGT offered a slightly more advantageous proposal under Subfactor C based on the greater degree of small business subcontracting when compared to KBRwyle’s proposed approach, which also exceeds the goals, though to a lesser degree.

When considering all three subfactors of Mission Suitability, I concluded that while both offerors submitted strong proposals, SGT offered a slightly stronger Mission Suitability response, which is mainly attributable to the excellence of its mission operations response in Subfactor A, and to a lesser extent, due to SGT’s slightly more beneficial Small Business Subcontracting approach in

Subfactor C, the least weighted subfactor. Subfactor B did not provide a discriminator.

Regarding the cost evaluation, I noted that KBRwyle had the lowest probable cost which was more than 10% lower than SGT. In both total probable dollars and percentage difference, I find this probable cost difference to be significant and appreciable.

Under the Past Performance Factor, I found no discriminator as both SGT and KBRwyle received a Very High Level of Confidence rating.

In making my selection, I again referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP. I considered that SGT offered a slightly more advantageous proposal under Mission Suitability, the most important factor. Next I looked at cost, the second most important factor. Here, I considered that KBRwyle offered a significant and appreciable cost savings over SGT. Past Performance, the least important factor, did not alter my best value determination, as both offerors received the same Very High rating. In weighing SGT’s slightly more advantageous Mission Suitability proposal against KBRwyle’s significant cost advantage, I concluded that KBRwyle’s relative advantage in cost was greater than SGT’s relative advantage in Mission Suitability. Thus, when I weighted Mission Suitability as most important, I concluded that SGT’s slight technical advantage was more than offset by

KBRwyle’s significant cost advantage in the second most important factor. Both SGT and

KBRwyle submitted strong Mission Suitability proposals and both demonstrated that they have the understanding and insight needed to perform the most difficult aspects of the SOW—Mission

Operations, Ground Systems Development, and Sustaining Engineering. While SGT’s proposal was slightly stronger in the most important factor, I concluded that the significant cost savings offered by KBRwyle’s proposal in the second most important factor made it the best value to the

Government.

Therefore, I select KBRwyle for award of the Ground Systems and Mission Operations 2

(GSMO-2) contract.

_ ___Jan. 10, 2016__________

Richard D. Barney Date

Source Selection Authority