JOIST_Source_Selection_Statement_with_signature_scrubbed.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR THE

JOINT OPERATIONS AND INTEGRATED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY (JOIST)

CONTRACTS

AT JOHNSON SPACE CENTER

On May 12, 2017, I, along with other senior officials of the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC), met with members of the Streamlined

Procurement Team (SLPT) appointed to evaluate the proposals for the Joint Operations and

Integrated Systems Technology (JOIST) solicitation, NNJ17580323R.

BACKGROUND

This procurement is to provide development, sustainment, and maintenance of specialized and highly-specialized IT software, systems, and support to the JSC’s Flight Operations Directorate

(FOD) and its affiliate organizations.

The JOIST acquisition will be awarded to provide services in three areas of work – two single-award baselines and a multiple-award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) vehicle. The three areas of work are as follows:

Baseline A will provide support for NASA Aircraft Management Information System

Services (NAMIS) – an integrated, module-based, custom software suite that supports aircraft flight operations for the Agency. The scope includes all the life-cycle support elements for an enterprise-level, agency-wide IT project, including project management;

requirements analysis; and software development, testing and verification.

Baseline B will provide support in implementing the FOD IT system and its legacy components. The scope includes asset management and logistical support; and IT

Resource Management (ITRM) inclusive of IT planning and IT investment management and reporting.

Multiple-Award IDIQ will provide specialized, highly-specialized, and advanced research and development IT not covered under Baseline A and Baseline B. Services will be provided in a tiered structure, including Tier 1 (Highly-Specialized Operations

Systems Technology, Software, and Support); Tier 2 (Specialized Management and

Mission Support Services); Tier 3 (Advanced Research and Development Technology

Support).

The JOIST solicitation is a partial small business set-aside under the authority of Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.203(a) and has been assigned the North American Industry

Classification System code 541512, Custom Systems Design Services, with a Small Business

Administration-designated small business size standard of $27.5 million in average gross sales over a 3-year period.

Baseline A and Baseline B are Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF). Authorization to perform work under the multiple-award IDIQ vehicle will be through the issuance of CPFF and Firm-Fixed-

Price task orders. Baseline B was set aside for small businesses. Baseline A and the multiple-award IDIQ were conducted under full and open competition. In accordance with solicitation provision M.2, “for IDIQ, the Government intends to reserve one or more contract awards for small business concerns [in accordance with FAR 19.502-4]. The Government intends to award to enough small business companies to solicit competition restricted to small businesses.”

Large businesses were able to propose to either Baseline A, IDIQ, or both areas of work. Small

Businesses were able to propose to either Baseline A, Baseline B, IDIQ, or any combination of the three areas of work. Offerors were not required to propose on all areas of work. Per provision M.2, each area of work was evaluated independently for all factors; proposing on any one area of work did not enhance or diminish an Offeror’s ability to compete in another area of work.

The phase-in period will be 60 days for all awardees. The Government anticipates a 5-year period of performance for both Baseline A and Baseline B, both comprised of a 2-year base period of performance followed by a 2-year option and a 1-year option. The IDIQ guaranteed minimum to be ordered under each IDIQ awardee’s contract is $20,000, and the potential value for all JOIST IDIQ task orders is not to exceed $134.5 million.

On March 3, 2016, a Request for Information (RFI)/Sources Sought Synopsis was posted to

Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) in order to identify potential sources and to determine the appropriate set-aside decision. Industry Day was held on April 12, 2016, with one-on-one sessions following on April 12-14. A Draft RFP was posted to FBO on September 19, 2016.

The pre-proposal conference was held on October 14, 2016.

The Final RFP was released on October 26, 2016, with proposals due no later than 1:30 p.m.

Central Time on November 29, 2016. Amendment 1 of the Final RFP, posted on November 16, 2016, contained minor changes to Data Requirements Document (DRD)-04 Small Business

Subcontracting Plan and Reports, Section L, Attachment L-03 Strategic Project Task Order, Attachment L-07 Completion Form and IDIQ Excel Pricing Model Templates, and Section M, questions and answers regarding the DRFP; questions and answers regarding the Final RFP; and extend the proposal due date to 1:30 p.m. Central Time on December 12, 2016.

As a result of this RFP, proposals from eight (8) Offerors were submitted on time in response to the solicitation (Baseline A – two (2) proposals; Baseline B – five (5) proposals; IDIQ – six (6) proposals). Company names and area of work proposed for timely submitted proposals are identified below:

EVALUATION PROCEDURE

As the Source Selection Authority (SSA), I appointed the SLPT for this procurement on

November 14, 2016. Timely submitted proposals received in response to this RFP were evaluated by the SLPT in accordance with the evaluation procedures set forth in the Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, NASA FAR Supplement 1815.3 and Section M of the RFP.

The SLPT based it evaluations on the material presented in the individual Offerors’ proposal.

The RFP specified that the SLPT would conduct an initial review of proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. None of the timely submitted proposals were determined “Unacceptable”.

Following the initial review, the RFP specified that all remaining proposals would be evaluated against the following evaluation factors:

Technical/Management

Past Performance

Cost/Price

Each area of work was independently evaluated.

In accordance with provision M.2.1 of the RFP, each proposal received a technical/management confidence rating (High Confidence (Green); Moderate Confidence (Blue); Low Confidence

(Yellow)) for each area of work proposed based on the following subfactors:

Subfactor A: Contract Management Approach

(1) Management and Staffing Plan

(2) Total Compensation Plan

(3) Phase-In Plan (not applicable for IDIQ)

(4) Small Business Subcontracting Plan (only applicable to large business prime Offerors)

Subfactor B: Specific Technical Understanding and Resources

Past Performance was also independently evaluated for each area of work proposed. The past performance evaluation was based on information provided by the Offeror in its narrative, past performance questionnaires, information obtained by the Government based on communications with listed references, as well as data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. All past performance information was evaluated with respect to recency, relevance, and performance. In accordance with provision M.2.2 Past Performance Factor –

Volume II, past performance was rated using a confidence rating as defined in the NFS

1815.305(a)(2)(A): Very High Level of Confidence, High Level of Confidence, Moderate Level of Confidence, Low Level of Confidence, Very Low Level of Confidence, and Neutral.

Under the Cost/Price factor, the Government performed cost/price analysis to ensure that the proposed cost/prices are fair and reasonable. A cost analysis was performed for each area of work proposed to include a cost realism analysis in accordance with FAR Part 15 and NASA

FAR Supplement (NFS) Part 1815.

In accordance with provision M.2 of the RFP, the relative importance of the tradeoff evaluation factors for each area of work are as follows:

BASELINE A (NAMIS Services): Past Performance is significantly more important than Cost/Price. Technical/Management is more important than Cost/Price.

Technical/Management and Cost/Price, when combined, are less important than Past

Performance.

BASELINE B (FOD IT and Planning, Integration, and Control Services (PIC)

Services): Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price. Technical/Management is more important than Cost/Price. Technical/Management and Cost/Price, when combined, are more important than Past Performance.

IDIQ: Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price. Technical/Management is more important than Cost/Price. Technical/Management and Cost/Price, when combined, are more important than Past Performance.

lacked recent experience with a very large, closed custom-sourced code base, which is a technical area of need under Baseline A, and a risk to their performance. All referenced contracts were found to be recent. BAH’s performance rating was assessed as Excellent overall;

BAH team’s performance has predominantly been rated as “excellent” on contracts considered to be recent and relevant, including their safety assessment, thereby indicating a history of exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner.

Under the Cost/Price Factor, BAH’s cost/price was determined to be Reasonable and

Realistic. Technical resource and non-technical cost adjustments were identified to determine a probable cost.

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

Under the Technical/Management Factor, the proposal received a High (Green) level of confidence.

SAIC’s technical and management approach for Baseline A demonstrates exceptional merit by strongly addressing the solicitation’s evaluation criteria in a manner that provides evaluators a high level of confidence that the SAIC team can satisfy the technical and management requirements specific to Baseline A. SAIC’s proposed Phase-in Plan, SAIC’s Total

Compensation Plan, Management and Staffing Plan, and Small Business Subcontracting Plan demonstrate comprehensive understanding of the contract management requirements of Baseline

A, and all provide feasible approaches. The proposal addresses the contract management requirements by proposing a strategic staffing plan with reachback to a large corporate Software

Integration Service Line. Furthermore, SAIC has proposed a mature retention plan with characteristics that are favorable to retaining critical skills and other staff. The proposed Specific

Technical Understanding and Resources demonstrates understanding and provides a feasible and complete approach that is consistent with other areas of the proposal.

Some very minor unfavorable observations were noted, but those observations do not appreciably reduce the SLPT’s high confidence that the Offeror can satisfy the technical and management requirements identified in the solicitation.

Under the Past Performance Factor, the proposal received a Very High level of confidence.

The SAIC team’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, as the referenced past performance includes effort that involved essentially the same technical content, complexity (including contract type and configuration management requirements), and size of effort as JOIST Baseline A. All referenced contracts were found to be recent. SAIC’s performance rating was assessed as Excellent overall; the SAIC team’s performance has predominantly been rated as “excellent” on contracts considered to be recent and relevant, thereby indicating a history of exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner.

Under the Cost/Price Factor, SAIC’s cost/prices were determined to be Reasonable and

Realistic. Non-technical cost adjustments were identified to determine a probable cost.

SOURCE SELECTION ANALYSIS – BASELINE A

The SLPT presented and discussed with me its evaluation observations for each Offeror in

Baseline A. During the presentation, I questioned the SLPT as to their technical/management observations; and the degree to which they assessed that any unfavorable observations would impact an Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the area of work. I made a qualitative determination as to the relative strengths of each offer. I also ascertained the comparative magnitude of the unfavorable observations and asked a number of questions to understand the level of confidence for each and how they compared to each other. With regard to past performance, I inquired about the basis for the assigned level of confidence. I noted that both

Offerors proposed reasonable and realistic cost/price.

Based on the information presented, I fully understand the evaluation process and the SLPT observations, and concur with the overall SLPT evaluation and observations. I am in agreement with the information presented by the SLPT, and take no exception to the actions or observations of the SLPT. I noted, pursuant to the RFP, with regard to Baseline A, that “Past Performance is significantly more important than Cost/Price. Technical/Management is more important than

Cost/Price. Technical/Management and Cost/Price, when combined, are less important than Past

Performance.” I understand that award should be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal meets the requirements of the RFP and provides the best value to the Government.

BAH

I asked the SLPT to explain its evaluation of BAH’s overall technical and management approach to Baseline A. The SLPT explained that BAH proposed an effectively-structured team that utilizes mature and effective tools, processes, and staffing practices to ensure a qualified and effective staff. BAH’s proposal demonstrated a retention plan with characteristics favorable to maintaining a skilled and satisfied workforce, thereby providing significantly positive impact to the successful performance of Baseline A. The proposed small business goals greatly exceeded the Contracting Officer’s assessment given in the solicitation; the Small Business Subcontracting

Plan gives a feasible and effective plan to meeting these goals. BAH’s proposed Management and Staffing Plan and Phase-In Plan ensures a smooth transition of services, which provided value to the government. BAH proposed to leverage and extend the use of existing tools that are core to the NAMIS system, thereby providing a positive impact to the successful performance of

Baseline A by ensuring project continuity with minimal disruption to established code repository management practices. Furthermore, BAH proposed to use a quantitative management approach of processes to predict and achieve systematically the desired performance outcomes for NAMIS systems, hardware, and software development and engineering delivery. This operational philosophy would provide a direct positive impact to mission success by providing automated, data-driven metrics, thereby removing any inherent bias associated with qualitative metrics and reporting. I concur with the SLPT’s determination that BAH’s technical and management approach for Baseline A demonstrates exceptional merit by strongly addressing the solicitation’s evaluation criteria in a manner that provides the SLPT with a high level of confidence that the

BAH team can satisfy the technical and management requirements specific to Baseline A.

The SLPT noted that there were some unfavorable observations, and I requested further details.

It was explained that BAH’s approach to recruiting incumbents, although mitigated, may pose a risk to keeping continuity of operations. I noted that BAH’s incumbent personnel and subcontractor retention plan may have a greater negative impact than the SLPT was assigning and I considered it an additional risk, but overall I agreed with the SLPT’s overall High confidence in BAH’s ability to satisfy the technical and management requirements identified in the solicitation. The SLPT explained that none of the unfavorable observations appreciably reduced its high confidence that BAH can satisfy the technical and management requirements identified in the solicitation.

Taking into consideration all of the information provided to me by the SLPT regarding BAH’s technical and management approach, I understood the rationale and basis for assigning BAH an overall confidence rating of High and, after considering my own concern against the totality of the information I had reviewed, I concurred with this assessment.

With regard to the SLPT’s evaluation of BAH under the past performance evaluation factor, I sought to understand the SLPT’s assessment of BAH’s recent and relevant past performance as well as the quality of that performance, for performing tasks across the entire Baseline A SOW.

After reviewing and discussing the SLPT’s assessment of BAH’s past performance, I noted that

BAH provided relevant experience across much of the SOW, but fell short of very relevant experience as they lacked recent experience with a very large, closed custom-sourced code base, which is a technical area of need under Baseline A, and a risk to their performance. I also noted that BAH’s proposed Program Manager’s past experience as Deputy Program Manager of a firm-fixed-price contract was nonetheless relevant to the responsibilities related to his performance as Program Manager under the more complex cost-plus-fixed-fee type Baseline A contract. The SLPT also presented me with their assessment of the quality of BAH’s performance of these tasks and concluded, based upon the totality of the available past performance data reviewed, that BAH’s performance was predominantly excellent and warranted an overall Excellent rating. After my further inquiry of the SLPT, I learned that BAH received a significant majority of performance quality ratings of “excellent.”

Based upon this integrated assessment of the recency, relevancy, and quality of BAH’s past performance, I concurred with the SLPT that BAH’s performance was highly pertinent to the

Baseline A requirements, demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to the Baseline A requirements. I also concurred with the SLPT that BAH’s past performance indicated that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on BAH’s performance record and the pertinent evaluation criteria, I concurred with the SLPT that there is a high level of confidence that BAH could successfully perform the required effort under Baseline A. Thus, based on their past performance, the SLPT assigned BAH a High overall level of confidence rating in its ability to perform the required work in support of Baseline A. Taking into consideration all of the information provided to me by the SLPT, I understood and accepted the rationale and basis for assigning BAH an overall confidence rating of High. I concurred with this assessment.

I also asked the SLPT to explain its evaluation of BAH’s cost/prices, including whether it was fair and reasonable. The SLPT explained that BAH’s final proposed cost/prices were reasonable and realistic but technical resource and non-technical upward cost adjustments were identified to determine a probable cost. I asked the SLPT to explain the upward cost adjustments. The SLPT explained that the upward cost adjustments were made for the following reasons: 1.) The SLPT did not believe that the proposed skill mix could appropriately accommodate the proposed software development strategy and associated levels of user support, 2.) The proposed use of corporate resources in lieu of local, in-house support carries a higher degree of risk because

NAMIS technical publications FTEs require a deeper understanding of the documentation content than can be provided by a technical writer/editor unfamiliar with the NAMIS aircraft systems, and 3.) The labor resources and basis of estimate as proposed are not sufficient to fully cover SOW 1.4 (End-User Support Services) requirements. After addressing the specifics with them, I determined that the adjustments were appropriate and I took no exception to the SLPT’s conclusions on cost/price.

SAIC

I asked the SLPT to explain its evaluation of SAIC’s overall technical and management approach to Baseline A. The SLPT determined that SAIC’s technical and management approach for

Baseline A demonstrates exceptional merit by strongly addressing the solicitation’s evaluation criteria in a manner that provides the SLPT with a high level of confidence that the SAIC team can satisfy the technical and management requirements specific to Baseline A. I found value in

SAIC’s proposed Phase-in Plan, prime Offeror Total Compensation Plan, Management and

Staffing Plan, and Small Business Subcontracting Plan in that they demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the contract management requirements of Baseline A.

The SLPT noted that there were some unfavorable observations, and I requested further details.

It was explained that there were no Total Compensation Plans submitted from the subcontractors.

The SLPT explained that this was minor based on the higher percentage of work that would be performed by the prime contractor. I agreed with the SLPT’s assessment. The SLPT explained that none of the unfavorable observations appreciably reduced its high confidence that SAIC can satisfy the technical and management requirements identified in the solicitation.

With regard to the SLPT’s evaluation of SAIC under the past performance evaluation factor, I sought to understand the SLPT’s assessment of SAIC’s recent and relevant past performance as well as the quality of that performance, for performing tasks across the entire Baseline A SOW.

After reviewing the SLPT’s assessment, I noted that SAIC provided relevant to very relevant experience across all of the SOW sections (specifically, SOW 1.6 was relevant, all other SOW sections were very relevant) in one of their recent contract activities and that this contract involved essentially the same content, complexity, and size of the effort and complexities required under Baseline A. The SLPT also assessed the quality of SAIC’s performance of these tasks and concluded, based upon the totality of the available past performance data reviewed, and predominantly “excellent” ratings in performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, and small business subcontracting, and taking into account a “very good” safety assessment, SAIC’s performance warranted an overall Excellent rating.

Based upon this integrated assessment of the recency, relevancy, and quality of SAIC’s performance, the SLPT determined that SAIC’s performance was highly pertinent to the

Baseline A requirements, indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance of the Baseline A requirements. Based on SAIC’s performance record, the SLPT determined that there is a very high level of confidence that SAIC could successfully perform the required effort under Baseline A and I considered this as valuable to the Government. Taking into consideration all of the information provided to me by the SLPT, I understood and accepted its rationale and basis for assigning SAIC an overall confidence rating of very high. I conclude that the assessment they have performed is appropriate in accordance with the solicitation, concur with this assessment, and conclude that there is a Very High level of confidence given

SAIC’s past performance record.

I also asked the SLPT to explain its evaluation of SAIC’s cost/prices, including whether it was fair and reasonable. The SLPT explained that SAIC’s final proposed cost/prices were reasonable and realistic and only minor upward non-technical cost adjustments were identified to determine a probable cost. I asked the SLPT to explain the upward cost adjustments and after addressing the specifics with them, I determined that the adjustments were appropriate and I took no exception to the SLPT’s conclusions on cost/price.

SELECTION DECISION – BASELINE A

I have applied the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria in making my final determination, including the previously-stated weights of the evaluation factors. My ultimate decision involved a determination of which proposal I thought represented the best value to the Government.

For the Technical/Management Factor, both proposals demonstrated exceptional merit. There were very minor unfavorable observations about both offers and therefore, some risk associated with both offers. Comparatively, the SLPT assessed the risks presented by SAIC’s proposal as less significant than the minor risk presented by BAH, and I agree. Therefore, I found a small but identifiable advantage to SAIC’s proposal under the Technical Management factor.

Due to a gap in BAH’s experience with a very large, closed custom-sourced code base, BAH’s

Past Performance was deemed only highly pertinent, giving them a high level of confidence rating in their Past Performance factor. SAIC, in contrast, had no such gap and presented experience that involved essentially the same technical content complexity (including contract type and Configuration Management requirements), and size effort as JOIST Baseline A, giving

SAIC a very highly pertinent Past Performance. This experience gap drove SAIC’s offer to have a meaningful advantage over BAH’s offer. Based on the information presented and for the reasons stated above, I find SAIC to have an advantage in the Past Performance Factor, which is significantly more important than technical/management and cost/price.

Under the Cost/Price Factor, BAH has a lower probable price. However, I do not find this lower probable cost to provide a meaningful advantage over SAIC’s probable cost, as the two were close. As I contemplated the tradeoff between the lower cost presented by the BAH proposal and the advantages provided in the Past Performance Factor of the SAIC proposal, it was clear that the value to the Government in SAIC’s proposal outweighs any of the potential small cost savings provided under the BAH proposal. As articulated throughout this Source Selection

Statement, the attributes of SAIC’s proposal represent a significant advantage in the Past

Performance Factor that merit the additional cost associated with awarding Baseline A to SAIC.

I find SAIC’s well-balanced response across all evaluation factors to indicate a thorough understanding of the requirements and an effective plan to manage the effort. I find SAIC’s probable cost to be reasonable and realistic. I understand the upward probable cost adjustments made by the SLPT, and consider them appropriate.

In summary, I find SAIC to have a superior proposal in response to the Baseline A solicitation that provides greater value to the Government given the relative importance of the tradeoff evaluation factors. SAIC’s proposal provides more value to the Government based on its advantage in the Technical/Management Factor and its higher past performance confidence, and thereby poses less risk to the Government. I find that BAH’s proposal provided greater performance risks based on their past performance and I do not find that the BAH proposal offers any meaningful advantages over that of the SAIC proposal in either Technical/Management, or

Cost/Price.

Therefore, in accordance with the RFP, which states the Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government that meets all solicitation requirements, I find that the Science Applications

International Corporation proposal meets all solicitation requirements, represents the best overall value to the Government, and is hereby selected for award of JOIST Baseline A.

My selection decision is based solely on, and is wholly consistent with, the selection criteria and evaluation framework, including the relative importance of evaluation factors as explained in the solicitation and supported by the SLPT findings that I identified as relevant and material to my decision.

existing infrastructure, tools, and processes. The approach to employee compensation is mostly indicative of an employee-focused culture that incorporates a fair compensation and maintains seniority of incumbent personnel. Cimarron’s phase-in approach includes a dedicated phase-in team and provides a reasonable and feasible approach to accomplishing the Phase-In activities with minimal risk to the Government. Cimarron has proposed a risk-averse approach to the technical requirements of Baseline B.

Some unfavorable observations were noted, but the SLPT still has moderate confidence that

Cimarron can satisfy the technical/management requirements for Baseline B identified in the solicitation. Cimarron’s proposed direct labor rates, many of which are below current salaries for incumbent personnel, may impede the Offeror’s ability to attract incumbent personnel at the proposed rate. This risk is somewhat mitigated by proposing to match current salaries of those employees with critical skills, to proactively identify qualified non-incumbent personnel to fill positions where incumbent personnel cannot be captured, and a staffing plan and benefits that increase the likelihood of capturing qualified non-incumbent personnel. However, the risk that incumbent personnel will not be captured for the preponderance of the proposed staff remains, thereby increasing performance risk at the beginning of the contract.

Under the Past Performance Factor, the proposal received a High level of confidence.

Cimarron’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition, as they have performance that is relevant to much of the content, size, and complexities of Baseline B. All referenced contracts were found to be recent. Cimarron’s performance rating was assessed as

Very Good overall.

Under the Cost/Price Factor, Cimarron’s cost/prices were determined to be Reasonable and

Ignite Fueling Innovation, Inc. (Ignite)

Under the Technical/Management Factor, the proposal received a Low (Yellow) level of

Ignite’s technical and management approach for Baseline B fails to demonstrate appreciable merit in addressing the solicitation’s evaluation criteria in a manner that provides reasonable confidence the Offeror can satisfy the technical and management requirements specific to

Baseline B. Unfavorable observations about the management approach detract substantially from the SLPT’s confidence that Ignite can satisfy the technical/management requirements identified in the solicitation.

The Ignite proposal does not adequately demonstrate an understanding of the technical requirements for Baseline B. The proposed Specific Technical Understanding and Resources fails to detail the technical approaches for providing products and services defined in one (1) section and nine (9) subsections of the Statement of Work (SOW). Furthermore, the proposed labor resources are not supported with adequate rationale that demonstrates Ignite’s understanding of the complexity of many areas of the SOW. As a result, the Government is at significant technical risk of requirements not being met due to a lack of understanding of the scope of the Baseline B technical requirements.

Under the Past Performance Factor, the proposal received a Moderate level of confidence.

Ignite’s relevant past performance is pertinent to the acquisition. All referenced contracts were found to be recent. Ignite’s past performance includes experience relevant to some of the content of Baseline B, but does not include content relevant to SOW sections 2.6-2.7. Furthermore, Ignite’s past performance experience includes only contracts that are smaller and less complex than Baseline B. Ignite’s performance rating was assessed as Very Good overall; Ignite’s performance has predominantly been rated as “very good” on contracts considered to be recent and relevant and “marginal” on their safety assessment, thereby demonstrating a history of effective performance that is fully responsive to contract requirements.

Under the Cost/Price Factor, Ignite’s cost/prices were determined to be Reasonable and

Mathematical Research, Inc. (MRI)

Under the Technical/Management Factor, the proposal received a Moderate (Blue) level of

MRI’s technical and management approach for Baseline B demonstrates appreciable merit by fully addressing the solicitation’s evaluation criteria in a manner that provides reasonable confidence MRI can satisfy technical/management requirements specific to Baseline B. MRI has provided an exceptional approach to compensation and recruitment that gives the SLPT confidence that MRI will be able to attract and retain personnel.

Some unfavorable observations were noted. MRI’s Specific Technical Understanding and

Requirements proposal provided a very detailed response to the process used to formulate the basis of estimate, however, the Offeror did not sufficiently detail the technical approaches for providing products and services defined for much of the SOW. Other, less-notable unfavorable observations were also noted. While unfavorable observations about the proposal detract somewhat from the SLPT’s confidence, the SLPT still has confidence the Offeror can satisfy the technical/management requirements identified in the solicitation, largely due to the consistent quality of the contract management approach and a reasonable basis of estimate.

Under the Past Performance Factor, the proposal received a High level of confidence. MRI’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition. The relevant past performance indicated experience with content pertinent to the majority of the statement of work (SOW).

MRI has experience on contracts of size and contract type similar to Baseline B. All referenced contracts were found to be recent. MRI’s performance rating was assessed as Excellent overall.

MRI’s performance has predominantly been rated as “excellent” on contracts considered to be recent and relevant, thereby indicating a history of performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner.

Under the Cost/Price Factor, MRI’s cost/prices were determined to be Reasonable and

Rothe Development, Inc. (Rothe)

Rothe’s technical and management approach for Baseline B demonstrates exceptional merit by strongly addressing the solicitation’s evaluation criteria in a manner that provides the SLPT with a high level of confidence that the Rothe team can satisfy the technical and management requirements specific to Baseline B. The proposal strongly addresses the evaluation criteria for contract management by proposing an effectively-structured team that mirrors NASA’s organizational structure and utilizes cross-trained supervisors and team members. The proposed compensation package will be attractive to potential employees. Furthermore, Rothe’s proposal demonstrates a thorough understanding of the technical requirements of Baseline B. The Rothe team has demonstrated understanding of the software development lifecycle, the customer environment, and proposes to leverage multiple software methodologies for development and sustaining requirements.

Some very minor unfavorable observations, including minor inconsistencies in the content to be transferred from all the previous contracts that feed into JOIST Baseline B and the allocation of personnel amongst the SOW sections, were noted. However, these unfavorable observations do not appreciably reduce the SLPT’s high confidence that the Rothe team can satisfy the technical/management requirements of Baseline B.

The Rothe team’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition. Cumulatively, the referenced contracts cover the significant majority of the content of JOIST Baseline B, and are of similar complexity and size to the individual teammate’s proposed contract functions.

All referenced contracts were found to be recent. Rothe’s performance rating was assessed as

Excellent overall because the Rothe team’s performance has predominantly been rated as

“excellent” on contracts considered to be recent and relevant, including their safety assessment, thereby indicating a history of exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner.

Under the Cost/Price Factor, Rothe’s cost/prices were determined to be Reasonable and

Tietronix Software, Inc. (Tietronix)

Tietronix’s technical and management approach for Baseline B provides the SLPT reasonable confidence that Tietronix can satisfy the technical and management requirements specific to

Baseline B. Tietronix has reasonable and feasible approaches to staffing, compensation, and the phase-in. Tietronix has proposed a reasonable, feasible, and complete technical approach that demonstrates understanding of the technical requirements.

Some unfavorable observations were noted. The proposed organizational structure and management for Baseline B is built around the existence of task orders, and therefore is more indicative of an IDIQ-type contract than a baseline effort. In addition, the proposal is written generically and is short on implementation approach details in several areas. Other, less notable unfavorable observations were also noted. Overall, while these observations do detract somewhat from the SLPT’s confidence, the SLPT still has confidence that Tietronix can satisfy the technical/management requirements for Baseline B identified in the solicitation because of the demonstrated understanding of the technical requirements.

Tietronix’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition. Tietronix’s past performance includes experience that is “relevant” or “somewhat relevant” to much of the SOW.

However, Tietronix’s past performance is only somewhat relevant to 2.2.2 Change Management,

2.3.1 Configuration Management and Control, and SOW 2.4 End-User Support Services.

Furthermore, Tietronix’s largest contract is approximately 54% the size of JOIST Baseline B;

other contracts are of significantly smaller size. All referenced contracts were found to be recent. Tietronix’s performance rating was assessed as Excellent overall; Tietronix’s performance has predominantly been rated as “excellent” on contracts considered to be recent and relevant, including their safety assessment, thereby indicating a history of performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner.

Under the Cost/Price Factor, Tietronix’s cost/prices were determined to be Reasonable and

SOURCE SELECTION ANALYSIS – BASELINE B

The SLPT presented and discussed with me its evaluation observations for each Offeror in

Baseline B. During the presentation, I questioned the SLPT as to their technical/management observations; and the degree to which they assessed that any unfavorable observations would impact an Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the area of work. I made a qualitative determination as to the relative strengths of each offer. I also ascertained the comparative magnitude of the unfavorable observations and asked a number of questions to understand the level of confidence for each and how they compared to each other. With regard to past performance, I inquired about the basis for the assigned level of confidence, and specifically requested further details on any Offerors with a low level of confidence. I noted that all Offerors proposed reasonable and realistic cost/price.

I reviewed the results of the SLPT’s evaluation of the five (5) Offerors with regard to Baseline B

(Cimarron, Ignite, MRI, Rothe, and Tietronix). I inquired further into the SLPT’s basis for its evaluation conclusions and associated ratings for all of these Offerors concerning the

Technical/Management, Past Performance, and Cost/Price evaluation factors.

I reviewed the SLPT evaluation and fully understand the information presented and the process used by the SLPT. I took no exception to the process used by the SLPT, and I fully considered the findings as presented to me. During the presentation, I posed a variety of questions, solicited the views of the SLPT members and my advisors, and expressed my own independent views.

I understand that award should be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal meets the requirements of the RFP and provides the best value to the Government. In making my selection decision, I made a comparative assessment of the most highly rated proposals based on the

Evaluation Factors in the solicitation: Technical/Management, Past Performance, and Cost/Price.

Per the RFP, I considered Past Performance as more important than Cost/Price;

Technical/Management as more important than Cost/Price; and when combined, Technical/Management and Cost/Price as more important than Past Performance.

Cimarron

With regard to the SLPT’s evaluation of Cimarron under the Technical/Management evaluation factor, I asked the SLPT to explain its evaluation of Cimarron’s overall technical and management approach to Baseline B. The SLPT determined that Cimarron’s technical and management approach for Baseline B demonstrates appreciable merit by fully addressing the solicitation’s evaluation criteria in a manner that provides the SLPT reasonable confidence that the Cimarron team can satisfy the technical and management requirements specific to Baseline

B. One observation that I took particular note of was that the proposed direct labor rates may impede Cimarron’s ability to attract incumbent personnel at the proposed rate. This poses a risk that incumbent personnel will not be captured, and increases performance risk at the beginning of the contract. I agreed with the SLPT’s overall Moderate confidence in Cimarron’s ability to satisfy the technical and management requirements identified in the solicitation, but thought it was generous; based on my review, it appeared to be on the lower end of moderate. Taking into consideration all of the information provided to me by the SLPT regarding Cimarron’s technical and management approach, I understood and accepted its rationale and basis for assigning

Cimarron an overall confidence rating of moderate. I concurred with this assessment.

With regard to the SLPT’s evaluation of Cimarron under the Past Performance evaluation factor, I sought to understand the SLPT’s assessment of Cimarron’s recent and relevant past performance, as well as the quality of that performance, for performing tasks across the entire

Baseline B SOW. I noted that Cimarron provided relevant to somewhat relevant past performance with predominantly very good performance quality, schedule adherence, and cost control, and excellent safety performance. Cimarron’s past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition. Cimarron’s performance was assessed as very good. All referenced contracts were found to be recent. The SLPT assessed Cimarron’s past performance confidence rating as high overall, and I concurred with that assessment.

I also asked the SLPT to explain its evaluation of Cimarron’s cost/prices, including whether it was fair and reasonable. The SLPT explained that Cimarron’s final proposed cost/prices were reasonable and realistic and technical resource and non-technical upward cost adjustments were identified to determine a probable cost. I asked the SLPT to explain the upward cost adjustments. The SLPT explained that the upward technical cost adjustments were because the proposed labor resources and basis of estimate are not sufficient to fully cover SOW 2.3.2, 2.3.3, and 2.3.4 requirements, thereby putting SharePoint and web development efforts and FIT system support at risk. The non-technical cost adjustments were in the area of direct labor rates and to maintain the amount of fixed fee proposed for Baseline B despite the other probable cost adjustments addressed above. After addressing the specifics with them, I determined that the adjustments were appropriate and I took no exception to the SLPT’s conclusions on cost/price.

Ignite

With regard to the SLPT’s evaluation of Ignite under the Technical/Management evaluation factor, I asked the SLPT to explain its evaluation of Ignite’s overall technical and management approach to Baseline B. The SLPT determined that Ignite’s technical and management approach for Baseline B fails to demonstrate appreciable merit in addressing the solicitation’s evaluation criteria in a manner that provides reasonable confidence the Ignite can satisfy the technical and management requirements specific to Baseline B. Unfavorable observations about the management approach detract substantially from the SLPT’s confidence that Ignite can satisfy the technical/management requirements identified in the solicitation. The SLPT determined the

Ignite proposal does not adequately demonstrate an understanding of the technical requirements for Baseline B. I considered a significant risk to contract performance that the proposed Specific

Technical Understanding and Resources fails to detail the technical approaches for providing products and services defined in one (1) section and nine (9) subsections of the SOW. I saw additional risk in that the proposed labor resources are not supported with adequate rationale that demonstrates Ignite’s understanding of the complexity of many areas of the SOW. The SLPT determined the Government is at significant technical risk of requirements not being met due to a lack of understanding of the scope of the Baseline B technical requirements. I agreed with the

SLPT’s overall low confidence in Ignite’s ability to satisfy the technical and management requirements identified in the solicitation. Taking into consideration all of the information provided to me by the SLPT regarding Ignite’s technical and management approach, I understood and accepted its rationale and basis for assigning Ignite an overall

Technical/Management confidence rating of low. I concurred with this assessment.

With regard to the SLPT’s evaluation of Ignite under the Past Performance evaluation factor, I sought to understand the SLPT’s assessment of Ignite’s recent and relevant past performance, as well as the quality of that performance, for performing tasks across the entire Baseline B SOW.

Specifically, I reviewed the SLPT’s assessment of the relevancy of Ignite’s recent experience across all the tasks in the SOW. I noted that Ignite provided somewhat relevant past performance that is pertinent to this acquisition. All referenced contracts were found to be recent. The SLPT assessed Ignite’s performance confidence rating as moderate overall and I concurred with that assessment.

I asked the SLPT to explain its evaluation of Ignite’s cost/prices, including whether it was fair and reasonable. The SLPT explained that Ignite’s final proposed cost/prices were reasonable and realistic and technical resource and non-technical upward cost adjustments were identified to determine a probable cost. I determined that the adjustments were appropriate and took no exception to the SLPT’s conclusions on cost/price.

MRI

With regard to the SLPT’s evaluation of MRI under the Technical/Management evaluation factor, I asked the SLPT to explain its evaluation of MRI’s overall technical and management approach to Baseline B. The SLPT determined that MRI’s technical and management approach for Baseline B demonstrates appreciable merit by fully addressing the solicitation’s evaluation criteria in a manner that provides the SLPT reasonable confidence that the MRI team can satisfy the technical and management requirements specific to Baseline B. The SLPT noted some unfavorable observations but the SLPT still had moderate confidence that MRI can satisfy the technical and management requirements identified in the solicitation. I noted that I found risk in

MRI’s insufficient description of their technical approach for providing products and services for much of the SOW and in their unclear organizational structure; however, some of the risk in the insufficient description of their technical approach was mitigated by the very detailed response to the process used to formulate the basis of estimate. I agreed with the SLPT’s overall moderate confidence in MRI’s ability to satisfy the technical and management requirements identified in the solicitation. Taking into consideration all of the information provided to me by the SLPT regarding MRI’s technical and management approach, I understood and accepted its rationale and basis for assigning MRI an overall confidence rating of moderate. I concurred with this assessment.

With regard to the SLPT’s evaluation of MRI under the Past Performance evaluation factor, I sought to understand the SLPT’s assessment of MRI’s recent and relevant past performance as well as the quality of that performance, for performing tasks across the entire Baseline B SOW.

Specifically, I reviewed the SLPT’s assessment of the relevancy of MRI’s recent experience across all the tasks in the SOW. I noted that MRI provided very relevant to somewhat relevant past performance with predominantly excellent performance quality, schedule adherence, and cost control, and very good safety performance. MRI’s past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition. MRI’s work performance rating was assessed as very good. All referenced contracts were found to be recent. The SLPT assessed MRI’s performance confidence rating as high overall and I concurred with that assessment.

I also asked the SLPT to explain its evaluation of MRI’s cost/prices, including whether it was fair and reasonable. The SLPT explained that MRI’s final proposed cost/prices were reasonable and realistic, but non-technical upward cost adjustments were identified to determine a probable cost. I asked the SLPT to explain the upward cost adjustments.