CHWIE_Source_Selection_Statement.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR THE

CUSTODIAL, HOUSEKEEPING, WASTE-REMOVAL and INSECT

EXTERMINATION CONTRACT

NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Solicitation Number NNJ15553635R

On July 11, 2016, I, along with other key officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Johnson Space Center (JSC) met with the members of the Streamlined Procurement Team (SLPT) appointed to evaluate proposals for the Custodial, Housekeeping, Waste-Removal, and Insect Extermination (CHWIE) Contract Request for Proposal NNJ15553635R and made my selection decision. The final presentation charts represent the final source evaluation report and are herein incorporated by reference.

Procurement Background

The CHWIE Contract is a HUBZone small business set-aside and has been assigned the North American Industry Classification System code 561720, Janitorial Services, with a Small Business Administration-designated small business size standard of $18M.

The CHWIE procurement is for a Firm Fixed-Price (FFP) contract with FFP phase-in with FFP Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) task orders to provide JSC’s facility cleaning operations, general housekeeping, pest control management, recycling and waste management, special events and emergency custodial services. The Government anticipates a 4-year, 9-month period of performance (POP) with a 30-day phase-in period. Phase-in is scheduled to begin September 1, 2016, to September 30, 2016. The Government anticipates a period of performance comprised of a 2-year base period, two 1-year options, and one 9-month option with a POP anticipated to run from October 1, 2016, to June 30, 2021. The IDIQ guaranteed minimum to be ordered under the CHWIE Contract is $500.

A Sources Sought Synopsis - NNJ15553635L, was released on September 10, 2015, through the Government-wide Point of Entry (GPE) specifically through NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS). The SLPT hosted an Industry Day presentation and JSC Site Tour on October 20, 2015, and scheduled a day of One-on-One discussions with interested parties on October 21, 2015.

There were 7 interested parties who submitted capability statements; this information, along with market research and information gleaned from the One-on-One discussions was used to determine that a small business set-aside was appropriate for this acquisition. On January 7, 2016, a pre-solicitation synopsis – NNJ15553635R, was posted to NAIS. A draft Statement of Work (SOW) and draft Data Requirements Descriptions (DRDs) were posted as Modification 1 to the pre-solicitation synopsis on January 7, 2016.

The RFP NNJ15553635R was released through Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) on February 23, 2016, replacing the draft SOW and draft DRDs. The SLPT scheduled a virtual Pre- Proposal Conference on March 4, 2016. Prior to the receipt of proposals on March 31, 2016, one amendment was issued.

Proposals were due on March 31, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. CDT. The RFP divided the proposals into five volumes: Volume I - Technical Acceptability Factor, Volume II - Past Performance, Volume III - Price Factor, Volume IV - Responsibility Considerations and Volume V - Model Contract.

One set of printed volumes and 2 complete CD’s of the Offerors proposals were due by 1:30 p.m. CDT, March 31, 2016.

Evaluation Procedures

The proposals were evaluated in accordance with the CHWIE RFP. The evaluation process was as follows: First, an initial evaluation was performed to determine if any proposals were unacceptable in accordance with NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. Second, all Offerors were checked against the "List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non-Procurement Programs," and were reviewed for compliance with the solicitation instructions. The SLPT also verified the small business status of each Offeror to ensure the HUBZone requirement was met. Third, all proposals were then evaluated against the Technical Acceptability factors listed in the RFP.

Technical Acceptability was assessed assigning ratings of Acceptable, Potentially Acceptable, or Unacceptable. To be considered Technically Acceptable, the proposal had to pass all Technical Acceptability subfactors. The four subfactors were Management Approach, Labor Relations Plan, Phase-in Plan, and Safety and Health Plan. To be found Acceptable, each subfactor must have been at a "level of completeness, feasibility, and reasonableness such that associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance." A Potentially Acceptable proposal was one that "does not fully meet the definition for an "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" rating and the Government anticipates that additional information obtained during discussions could result in a proposal rating of "Acceptable" (RFP Section 6.02.1). Proposals rated as Unacceptable under Technical Acceptability were eliminated from further evaluation. “A proposal will be rated ‘Unacceptable’ under the Technical Acceptability Factor, where any subfactor is individually rated unacceptable based on the level of completeness, feasibility, and reasonableness such that associated risks do jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance” (RFP Section 6.02.1).

Each Technically Acceptable and Potentially Acceptable proposal then received a past performance confidence level rating based on the SLPT's evaluation of available information regarding the Offeror's relevant Past Performance on recent projects (within the past three years), in accordance with Section 6.02.1.2 of the RFP.

Descriptions of the three past performance aspects that were taken into consideration by the evaluation team are stated below:

Recency: Only contract period of performances within three years from the date of the CHWIE original solicitation will be considered in the past performance evaluation.

Within this three year period, more recent performance will receive greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than those with more distant performance, assuming all other considerations to be equal. The Government will not consider performance on any contract that has no documented performance history.

Relevance: If the contract is deemed recent, the Government will then determine the degree of relevance of the contract based on size, content, and complexity. The term “content” considers the contract’s scope of services, work, requirements, or supplies, in comparison to the requirements of this solicitation. Contracts exhibiting all specific trades/type of work required under the solicitation statement of work will be considered more relevant than contracts limited to specific trades only. The term complexity considers items such as contract type, experience with special terms and conditions, experience performing a contract where the employees were represented by a union, and managing multiple facilities in different locations and other unique contract requirements in comparison to the performance requirements outlined in this solicitation.

For purposes of this procurement, relevance was assessed using the following definitions provided in the RFP:

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved much of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance contractual effort involved some of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

This evaluation will consider what the corporate parent, affiliate, or other organizational entities (division(s), business units, segments) are responsible for and/or proposing to do on the CHWIE effort and the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon, such that the corporate parent, affiliate, or other organizational entity your company will have meaningful involvement in contract performance, in determining relevance. Offerors’ with past performance as part of a joint venture will be evaluated on the entirety of the work performed by the joint venture.

Performance: The Government will assess the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting, and safety performance of the contracts determined to be recent and relevant (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. The Government will consider the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of corrective actions resulting in sustained improvements and the overall record of past performance. This assessment will lead the Government to determine the quality of performance as either Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Poor/Unsatisfactory.

The past performance of a major subcontractor will be compared to the work proposed to be performed by that subcontractor accordingly in assigning the overall past performance adjectival rating to the offeror. The past performance of the prime contractor is more important than any major subcontractor or combination of major subcontractors in the overall past performance evaluation.

The SLPT relied upon the narrative provided by each Offeror in Volume II Past Performance, completed Past Performance Questionnaires submitted by the Offerors' customers, the Government Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) - including any relevant contracts that were not included in Volume II of the Offerors’ proposals, the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) - including any relevant contracts not included in Volume II of the Offerors’ proposals, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) logs, Underwriter Letters, and the OSHA website, as well as data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. All past performance information was evaluated with respect to recency and relevancy.

In accordance with the RFP, the SLPT assigned each proposal 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, and Neutral.

To ensure the final agreed-to prices are fair and reasonable, the Government performed a price analysis in accordance with the FAR 15.305 (Proposal Evaluation), FAR 15.404 (Proposal Analysis) and NFS 1815.305 (Proposal Evaluation). In accordance with Provision 6.02.1.3, the Government performed a price evaluation inclusive of the proposed IDIQ fully burdened rates

(FBR).

RFP Section 6.02.1 states, in part:

The Government may elect to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions.

Although an Offeror may receive a rating of “Potentially Acceptable,” it does not guarantee that discussions will be held, or that the offeror will be automatically included in the competitive range, if discussions are held. Discussions, if held, will only be held with the most highly rated Offerors.

RFP Section 6.02.1 also states, in part:

For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, trade-offs will be made between past performance and price. Past performance is more important than price.

The Government will award to the offeror whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government while meeting all solicitation requirements and is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, Standards. Further, the Subcontracting Arrangement Information (SAI) will also be used to determine responsibility for award.

Evaluation of Proposals

In response to the CHWIE RFP, seven Offerors submitted proposals by the specified receipt time in accordance with the RFP. Proposals were received from the following companies and are listed in order of review, as established in accordance with the CHWIE Evaluation Plan and none of the Offerors took exception to the RFP requirements.

(1) JLWs Enterprises

(2) JXM Inc.

(3) Native Resource Development Company, Inc.

(4) JDD, Inc.

(5) Advance Business Solutions Enterprise, Inc.

(6) Rothe Enterprises, Inc.

(7) NSR Solutions, Inc.

One additional proposal was delivered late to JSC and was not accepted for evaluation:

(1) iClean Facility Management Services

All proposals were evaluated in accordance with the RFP.

Technical Acceptability

During the initial evaluation, the SLPT assigned the following ratings for Technical Acceptability:

Offeror Subfactor A:

Managemen t Approach

Subfactor B:

Labor

Relations Plan

Subfactor C:

Phase-in Plan

Subfactor D:

Safety and Health Plan

Overall Technical

Acceptability Rating

JLWs Enterprises, Inc.

Unacceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable

JXM, Inc. Potentially Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable

NRDCI Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

JDD, Inc. Potentially Acceptable Acceptable Potentially

Acceptable Potentially Acceptable

Potentially Acceptable

ABSE, Inc. Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Rothe Enterprises, Inc.

Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

NSR

Solutions, Inc.

Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable Potentially Acceptable Unacceptable

Of the seven proposals received timely, the proposals from JLWs Enterprises, Inc., JXM, Inc., ABSE, Inc., and NSR Solutions, Inc. were all rated “Unacceptable” for Technical Acceptability.

As a result, no further evaluations were conducted on these four proposals. The SLPT then evaluated Past Performance and Price on those proposals rated “Acceptable” or “Potentially Acceptable,” which were NRDCI, JDD, Inc., and Rothe Enterprises, Inc.

Past Performance

NRDCI

The SLPT evaluated past performance information for NRDCI as well as the company which satisfied the RFP requirement for consideration as a Major Subcontractor, CMTI.

All referenced NRDCI contracts were within the recency requirements of the CHWIE RFP.

Overall, the SLPT found the past performance of NRDCI, the prime contractor, to be essentially the same content, complexity, and size of the CHWIE solicitation and therefore is rated as “Very Relevant.”

All of CMTI’s past performance contracts were found to be recent. Overall, the SLPT found the past performance of CMTI, the major subcontractor, to be essentially the same content, complexity, and size of the CHWIE solicitation and therefore is rated as “Very Relevant.”

NRDCI’s overall past performance has been rated satisfactory to excellent by customers, with only one “Satisfactory” rating provided on a past performance questionnaire. CMTI’s overall past performance has been very good to excellent.

The NRDCI team safety past performance record demonstrates adequate control of safety and health performance measures. NRDCI reported a work-related fatality at JSC in their 2014 OSHA log. OSHA cited NRDCI for not reporting a work-related fatality within 8 hours;

however, OSHA did not identify any other regulatory hazard exposures in their investigation.

The NASA investigation revealed the death was caused from exacerbation of an existing medical condition. NRDCI’s corrective measures and improvements to their safety and health program after the fatality have demonstrated an improvement to their safety performance indicators.

Given a combination of an overall adequate safety rating indicator and NRDCI’s very relevant and effective performance, there is a High Level of Confidence that NRDCI will successfully perform the required effort.

JDD, Inc.

The SLPT evaluated past performance information for JDD, Inc.

All referenced JDD, Inc. contracts were within the recency requirements of the CHWIE RFP.

Overall, the SLPT found the past performance of JDD, Inc. to be essentially the same content, complexity, and size of the CHWIE solicitation and therefore is rated as “Very Relevant.”

JDD, Inc.’s overall past performance has been rated as predominantly marginal. JDD, Inc. had the opportunity to provide comments on the evaluation, indicating if they concur or do not concur with the evaluation through the CPARS system. In one instance, JDD, Inc. provided concurrence with the Government assessment of the satisfactory performance. In another instance, JDD, Inc. did not concur with the Government’s evaluation. The evaluation was sent to the Reviewing Official (RO), and the RO stated, “I concur with the assessment. Although the contractor disagrees, further discussion with the rating official indicates to me that the assessment is appropriate.”

JDD Inc.’s safety past performance record demonstrates low control of safety and health performance measures providing a low confidence that JDD, Inc. will safely perform CHWIE requirements. Based on the missing OSHA Logs for 2013 and 2014 and only the state of Ohio Experience Modification Rate (EMR), JDD, Inc.’s overall safety performance is determined low.

Given a combination of an overall low safety rating and JDD, Inc.’s very relevant and marginal to very good performance, there is a Moderate Level of Confidence JDD, Inc. will successfully perform the required effort.

Rothe Enterprises, Inc. (REI)

All referenced REI contracts were within the recency requirements of the CHWIE RFP.

The past performance of REI and the company which satisfied the RFP requirement for consideration as a Major Subcontractor, RDI, were assessed as not relevant to this acquisition.

Based on the SLPT’s review, there is a Neutral Level of Confidence REI’s team will successfully perform the required effort because the team does not have a record of relevant past performance.

Price Analysis

NRDCI

The proposed NRDCI price was evaluated per the RFP and the price was determined to be fair, reasonable and realistic.

The proposed NRDCI phase-in price was evaluated per the RFP and the price was determined to be fair, reasonable and realistic.

JDD, Inc.

The proposed JDD, Inc. price was evaluated per the RFP and the price was determined to be fair, reasonable and realistic.

The proposed JDD, Inc. phase-in price was evaluated per the RFP and the price was determined to be fair, reasonable and realistic.

REI

The proposed REI price was evaluated per the RFP and the price was determined to be fair, reasonable and realistic.

The proposed REI phase-in price was evaluated per the RFP and the price was determined to be fair, reasonable and realistic.

Selection Decision

The SLPT presented and discussed with me its initial evaluation results of each Offeror’s proposal. The presentation included results of the SLPT evaluation of the components of the Offerors’ proposals in the areas of Technical Acceptability, Past Performance and Price in accordance with the RFP.

The SLPT began its presentation with the results of the Technical Acceptability evaluation of all seven of the Offerors’ proposals evaluated in this acquisition. This included an evaluation of the Offerors’ Management Approach, Labor Relations Plan, Phase-In Plan, and Safety and Health Plan. Of the seven proposals evaluated in the area of Technical Acceptability, the SLPT determined that JLWs Enterprises, Inc., JXM, Inc., Advance Business Solutions Enterprises, Inc., and NSR Solutions, Inc. were technically “Unacceptable”. JDD, Inc. was determined to be “Potentially Acceptable”; Native Resources Development Company, Inc. and Rothe Enterprises, Inc. was determined to be “Acceptable”. I concur in the SLPT assessment as described below:

JLWs Enterprises did not provide required Standard Operating Procedures in its proposed Phase- In Plan, address the requirement to use mandatory vendors in its Management Approach, or propose a complete Safety and Health Plan. For these reasons, I concur in the SLPT’s assessment that JLWs Enterprises proposal did not provide a Management Approach, Phase-In Plan or Safety and Health Plan at a level of reasonableness, feasibility and completeness, such that any associated risks would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance and is technically “Unacceptable”.

JXM Inc. did not provide complete information or sufficient detail for its Management Approach, proposed an incomplete Phase-In Plan, and did not address multiple aspects of the Safety and Health Plan. For these reasons, I concur in the SLPT’s assessment that JXM, Inc.

proposal did not provide a Management Approach, Phase-In Plan, or Safety and Health Plan at a level of reasonableness, feasibility and completeness, such that any associated risks would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance and is technically “Unacceptable”.

Advance Business Solutions Enterprises, Inc. did not propose to meet requirements as laid out in the Statement of Work in its Management Approach, provided an incomplete Labor Relations Plan, did not provide a Phase-In Plan, and proposed to follow another entities mishap reporting requirements, comply with a state agency’s requirements and communicate with another Center’s Safety Department in its Safety and Health Plan. For these reasons, I concur in the

SLPT’s assessment that Advance Business Solutions Enterprises, Inc. proposal did not provide a Management Approach, Labor Relations Plan, Phase-In Plan, or Safety and Health Plan at a level of reasonableness, feasibility and completeness, such that any associated risks would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance and is technically “Unacceptable”.

NSR, Inc. did not provide a Custodial Services Management Plan, provided a narrative that was inconsistent with the Organizational Chart, and the proposed Work Year Equivalents was not provided in its Management Approach; and the Safety and Health Plan was not complete and proposed to follow a Corps of Engineers Training Manual, not the required JSC-specific Safety Manual. For these reasons, I concur in the SLPT’s assessment that NSR, Inc. proposal did not provide a Management Approach or Safety and Health Plan at a level of reasonableness, feasibility and completeness, such that any associated risks would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance and is technically “Unacceptable”.

JDD, Inc. did not address all of the details necessary to manage the three site, multi-shift requirement in its Management Approach and provided a generic Phase-In Plan that was not JSC-specific and presented gaps in its supply chain management. If discussions were held, the SLPT anticipates that additional information obtained during discussions could result in a proposal rating of “Acceptable.” I concur in this assessment of JDD, Inc.’s proposal in that these issues could be addressed during discussions, if held, and potentially make the proposal technically “Acceptable”.

The SLPT determined that both Native Resource Development Company, Inc. (NRDCI) and Rothe Enterprises, Inc. (REI) proposals were technically “Acceptable” and provided a Management Approach, Labor Relations Plan, Phase-In Plan, and Safety and Health Plan at a level of reasonableness, feasibility and completeness, such that any associated risks would not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. I concur in the SLPT assessment as no risks were identified in either technical proposal.

The Past Performance and price factors were evaluated for only those proposals determined to be “Acceptable” and “Potentially Acceptable”, which were the proposals of NRDCI, JDD, Inc., and REI. Out of these two factors, I first considered Past Performance as it is the more important of the two factors I must consider in my tradeoff for selection. For each Offeror, the SLPT explained that it considered three aspects (recency, relevancy and performance) when determining each Offeror’s past performance confidence rating as collected from proposal data, information obtained from listed sources, and information independently obtained from commercial and Government sources.

The SLPT evaluation of proposals under the Past Performance Factor resulted in NRDCI receiving a “High Level of Confidence” rating, a “Moderate Level of Confidence” rating for JDD, Inc., and a “Neutral” rating for REI. There appeared to be clear distinctions between the Offerors based on the SLPT assessment, so I endeavored to understand and appreciate the differences between the proposals in this area.

The SLPT explained that REI received the “Neutral” rating because it did not have any past performance data that was deemed relevant to the acquisition. I questioned the SLPT as to whether contracts submitted in the proposal and other data sources reflected any relevant past performance, and they stated that they did not find any. Therefore, I agree with the SLPT’s assessment of a “Neutral” rating due to the lack of relevant past performance data.

Both NRDCI and JDD, Inc. demonstrated very relevant and recent past performance. However, NRDCI received a “High Level of Confidence” rating and JDD, Inc. received a “Moderate Level of Confidence” rating based on differences in the performance and safety areas in the Past Performance Factor.

Past performance feedback for NRDCI reflected mostly excellent performance ratings from its customers with only one satisfactory rating noted. CMTI, NRDCI’s major subcontractor, had performance ratings of very good to excellent in its feedback as well. There was an issue noted in the Safety area in regards to an OSHA citation for failing to report a work-related fatality within 8 hours as required by OSHA regulations for an incident that occurred in 2014. The NASA investigation reflects that the incident was caused from exacerbation of an existing medical condition, not caused by the workplace incident; and appropriate corrective measures were taken to improve their safety program as a result that demonstrates adequate control of safety and health performance measures. Taking into consideration all of the information provided to me by the SLPT, I understood this to be a notification issue, not one of Safety in terms of workplace dangers and accepted its rationale and overall “High Level of Confidence”.

Past performance feedback for JDD, Inc. reflected marginal to very good ratings by its customers. Three of the five contracts in PPIRS reflected satisfactory performance, one was rated marginal to satisfactory and one was rated marginal to very good. These ratings were attributed to schedule, quality of product/services and budget performance. In the safety area, the performance indicators reflect adequate control of safety and health measures, but JDD, Inc.

did not submit all required Safety data. This resulted in an overall low safety assessment by the SLPT. Taking into consideration all of the information provided to me by the SLPT, I understood and accepted its rationale and overall rating of “Moderate Level of Confidence”.

Lastly, I assessed the SLPT’s evaluation of the Offerors’ proposals under the Price Factor. I independently reviewed the SLPT’s evaluation of price for each Offeror and agreed with the SLPT’s determination that all Offerors proposed fair, reasonable, and realistic prices based on competition, historical prices, and the independent government cost estimate.

I noted that NRDCI price was evaluated to be the lowest of the three Offerors at $674,360 less than the next lowest Offeror, REI, over the life of the contract. This represents a 3.1% difference between the two lowest priced Offerors. JDD, Inc.’s price was evaluated as the highest priced Offeror at $1.24M higher than REI over the life of the contract, which represents a 5.5% difference between the two. During my meeting with the SLPT, it was noted that the driver of the price difference was the difference in the proposed number of Work Year Equivalents between the Offerors to perform work over the life of the contract.

After consideration of the SLPT initial evaluation and my independent assessment, I concluded that discussions were not warranted for this acquisition in accordance with RFP Section 6.02.1, “At the completion of the evaluation against the Past Performance and Price Factors, the

Government may elect to award a contract without discussions to the technically “Acceptable” offeror who represents the best value.” Since I determined that discussions would not be held, JDD, Inc. will not have an opportunity to provide additional information that could result in a proposal rating of “Acceptable”.

Best Value Tradeoff Analysis and Final Decision

In accordance with the RFP, I conducted the required best value tradeoff analysis between the remaining Offerors’ proposals, NRDCI and REI, on the basis of Past Performance and Price, with Past Performance weighted as more important than Price. Based upon my independent assessment, I determined, in agreement with the SLPT’s evaluation conclusions, that NRDCI represents the proposal with the highest Past Performance confidence level rating of the Offerors’ at the lowest evaluated Price.

In summary, the Contracting Officer has determined that NRDCI is responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104. As a result of my integrated tradeoff assessment and in accordance with the RFP statement that the Government will award to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government that meets all solicitation requirements, I determined that NRDCI is the best value to the Government and select NRDCI to perform the CHWIE Contract.

Lisa Rea Phillips Date Source Selection Authority

LISA PHILLIPS

2016.08.15 10:34:49 -05'00' 08/15/2016