Source_Selection_Decision_VSS_Cameras_2016-11-18.pdf

Source Selection Statement for the Restore-L Vision Sensor

Subsystem Spaceflight (VSS) Cameras Contract

On November 7,20161 met with members of the procurement team appointed to evaluate the proposals for the Restore-L Vision Sensor Subsystem Spaceflight (VSS) Cameras, Request for Proposal (RFP)NNG16582857R. Other officials of the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) including representatives from the Office of Chief Counsel and Procurement Policy Office also attended the meeting. I made my selection decision at this meeting.

Background

Restore-L VSS Cameras procurement is a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee contract. The contract consists of a 22 month base period of performance with an option of up to an additional 18 months for a total period of performance of 40 months. The total contract value, including the contract option, is $7,552,781

The requirements defined in the Statement of Work, Specifications, and Mission Assurance Requirements of the RFP are to design, develop, fabricate, test, and deliver the Restore-L VSS spaceflight cameras.

On September 8, 2016, the Contracting Officer issued RFP NNG16582857R with aproposal receipt date of October 11,2016. Two timely proposals were received.

Evaluation Procedure

Proposals were evaluated in accordance with the RFP.

An initial evaluation was performed to determine if proposals were unacceptable in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals, each Offerer was checked against the 'List of Parties Excluded fi-om Federal Procurement and Non-Procurement Programs," and proposals were reviewed for compliance with the solicitation instructions. There were no unacceptable proposals or compliance issues identified in the evaluation.

Technical acceptability was assessed with ratings of "Acceptable," "Potentially Acceptable," or "Unacceptable." Pursuant to the RFP, for technical acceptability. Offerers were required to be rated "Acceptable" or "Potentially Acceptable" in order to continue the evaluation process.

Each "Acceptable" and "Potentially Acceptable" proposal was given a past performance confidence assessment rating based on the evaluation of available information regarding each Offerer's recent and relevant past performance within the past 5 years based on the RFP as stated, in part, below.

After evaluating the Offerer's recent and relevant past performance, in accordance with the RFP, the evaluation team assigned the proposals one of the following past performance confidence ratings: "Very High Level of Confidence," "High Level of Confidence," "Moderate Level of Confidence," "Low Level of Confidence," "Very Low Level of Confidence," or "Neutral" as defined in M.4 of the RFP.

The following Predefined Value Characteristics were applicable to this procurement and were evaluated for reasonableness and feasibility and rated as "Significant Value Added," 'Value Added," and "No Value Added."

► Value Characteristic A (VCA) - The proposal describes a beneficial and realistic approach to reducing the overall mass of the camera system below the required value.

► Value Characteristic B (VCB) - The proposal describes a beneficial and realistic approach to having additional operating modes (both higher, lower and even in-between) beyond the two that are outlined in the technical specification.

► Value Characteristic C (VCC) - The proposal describes a beneficial approach to deliver all four of these EDU camera units a month, or multiple months early (while still having them meet all stated requirements).

► Value Characteristic D (VCD) - Small Business Utilization (SBU) - SBU proposal content will be evaluated for the prime offerer's size status and the potential value added as described in Section M of the RFP.

The Government performed a cost realism analysis on each 'acceptable' proposal at the cost element level inclusive of all costs for labor, non-labor resources, indirect rates, and fee in accordance with FAR 15305 - Proposal Evaluation, FAR 15.404 - Proposal Analysis, and NFS

1815.305 - Proposal Evaluation. Cost analysis included the total proposed cost and fee. The proposed and probable costs for the sum of the entire period of performance were used for purposes of evaluation and selection.

Evaluation of Proposals

Two Offerors submitted timely proposals in response to the RFP. The firms that submitted proposals are (in alphabetical order):

(1) Malin Space Science Systems (MSSS1

(2) Nentec Design Groun

Technical Acceptability

The evaluation team determined Technical Acceptability as follows:

Offeror Overall Technical

Acccjitabillty Rating Malin Acceptable Neptec Acceptable

Past Performance

The evaluation team determined the past performance ratings as follows:

Malin

Neptec

Very High Level of Confidence

High Level of Confidence

Malin demonstrated very high relevance and consistently positive performance on the references considered in the evaluation, resulting in a Very High Level of Confidence rating. Neptec demonstrated very high relevance and mostly positive performance, however the evaluation identified one relevant contract in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System in which the evaluator cited multiple performance issues. This contract, balanced with their otherwise positive performance on other contracts, detracted slightly from their overall rating, resulting in a High Level of Confidence rating.

The evaluation team determined the value characteristics as follows:

Malin

Neptec

Value Added

Value Added

Significant Value Added

Value Added

Value Added

Value Added

Significant Value Added

No Value

Added

Malin received a rating of value added for Value Characteristic A because the approach reduced the overall mass of the camera system below the required value which adds value by decreasing the overall weight of the Restore-L payload. For Value Characteristic B, significant value added was rated because the approach demonstrates a minor and low-risk modification to the firmware that would allow the camera to include several additional bandwidth options which allows for finer adjustment of the data rate emanating from the VSS camera and significantly exceeds the requirements. For Value Characteristic C, Malin received a rating of value added in that the approach describes delivery of the first 4 of 6 Engineering Development Units (EDUs) be delivered in 10 months which is before the 12 month requirement and adds value to the Restore-L project schedule. For Value Characteristic D, Malin was assessed as significant value added as the contract specialist utilized the Small Business Dynamic Search website and verified that Malin is a Small Business which significantly exceeds the small business utilization requirement.

Neptec received a rating of value added for Value Characteristic A because the approach reduced the overall mass of the camera system below the required value. For Value Characteristic B, Neptec received a rating of value added in because the proposed camera adds one additional mode that is considered beneficial and adds value. For Value Characteristic C, Neptec was assessed as value added because the approach describes the first 4 of 6 EDUs be delivered in 11 months which is before the 12 month requirement which adds value to the Restore-L project schedule. For Value Characteristic D, Neptec received a rating of no value added because foreign contractors cannot be small business and no subcontracting credit can be earned. The subcontracting evaluation has to be limited to work that is performed in the United States.

Cost/Price

The cost proposals were evaluated consistent with the evaluation criteria in Section M of the RFP. A cost realism analysis resulting in a probable cost was performed. The probable cost included a very minor adjustment for Malin to an indirect rateto determine the probable cost. No probable cost adjustment was made for Neptec. The cost realism analysis resulted in Neptec's proposal containing a very slight probable cost advantage over Malin's probable cost, but the difference in total probable costs between the Offerors were essentially negligible.

Source Selection Decision

My decision is based on selecting the proposal offering the best value in accordance with the RFP's stated criteria for award. I reviewed the evaluation and posed a variety of questions, solicited the member views, expressed my own, and made the selection.

After considering the evaluation team's answers to my questions in the context of the RFP's stated criteria, I took no exception to the evaluation team's findings, and adopted its final evaluation. It was determined by the Contracting Officer that there was no basis or advantage to conduct discussions after the initial evaluation, and I concurred with that determination.

I agreed with the team that Malin and Neptec provided a technical approach that is acceptable.

Therefore, I also agreed with the team that both Offerors overall Technical Acceptability Rating was "Acceptable."

Inassessing the relative value of the Past Performance findings for all proposals, I reviewed the team's documentation of the Past Performance and accepted the assigned level of confidence ratings. Malin's Very High rating was based on very high relevance and consistently positive performance with no performance concerns identified in the evaluation. Alternatively, with most of Neptec's contract references reflected successful performance, on contract reflected multiple performance problems.

This resulted in a High rating for Neptec and a competitive advantage for Malin in the Past performance Factor.

Inassessing Value Characteristics for all proposals, I performed an evaluation of the Value Characteristics rating and their relative benefit to the Government. Both Offerors received similar value added In Value Characteristics A and C, for providing mass margin and proposed deliveries in advance of the required schedule. I noted that Malin proposed the only areas with significant value added, for Value Characteristics B and D. While their benefits as a small business certainly add significant value to the Government as part of Value Characteristic

D, Value Characteristic B was weighted more heavily in the solicitation and Malin's ability to provide numerous bandwidths significant exceeds requirements, resulting in tremendous performance flexibility and benefits. This design feature was the most significant technical discriminator between proposals.

In assessing the Cost/Price, I agreed with the evaluation team that both Offerors' proposed costs were fair and reasonable and the minor probable cost adjustment for Malin was appropriate. The probable cost difference between the two offerors was so small that it had minimal impact in my selection decision.

Final Decision

The relative importance of trade-off evaluation factors was as follows:

The combined value of the predefined value characteristics are more important than past performance. The predefined value characteristics A-C are considered approximately equal value to one another and are each weighted more heavily than value characteristic D in the overall evaluation and tradeoff. For selection, of those Technically "Acceptable" proposals. Past performance and predefined value characteristics, when combined, are significantly more important than cost.

In making my decision, I found that there were discriminators in Value Characteristics and Past Performance. For Value Characteristics B and D, Malin's proposal was assessed Significant Value Added, and as stated above, the multiple bandwidth capabilities in Main's design (Value Characteristic B) offered a significant advantage. For past performance, Malin was assessed Very High Level of Confidence. 1 found Malin's advantages in the Value Characteristics combined with their consistently Very High Past Performance outweigh the minimally lower probable cost proposed by Neptec. As a result of this assessment, 1 select Malin Space Science Systems for the Restore-L Vision Sensor Subsystem Spaceflight Cameras Contract.

Dean Patterson

Source Selection Authority