NNK16CA06C_-_Source_Sel_Statement.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

Reinforce Catacomb Roof for Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1B Vehicle, LC-39B at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida

SOLICITATION NUMBER: NNK16569003R

1. DESCRIPTION OF ACQUISITION:

A. This acquisition is for the Reinforce Catacomb Roof for SLS Block 1B Vehicle, Launch Complex (LC)-39B at the Kennedy Space Center, FL. The scope of work to be performed under this project consists of reinforcing the LC-39B catacombs’ roof utilizing cast-in-place concrete beams. Beam construction will involve post-installed adhesive anchors, reinforcing steel, galvanic anode installation, and forming and shoring at a ceiling height of approximately 38 feet above finished floor. Construction in the catacombs will be in areas with limited access and workspace due to existing duct, cable tray, up to 84 inch diameter piping, and/or other obstructions. Access to the catacombs includes limited clearances.

B. A synopsis was published on the NASA Internet Acquisition Service (NAIS) and the Federal Business Opportunities on November 23, 2015. The solicitation was issued on December 23, 2015. One (1) amendment was issued to update Davis Bacon Wage Rates and provide responses to contractor technical questions. Amendment 001, January 20, 2016). Past Performance Questionnaires and the proposals were received no later than January 25, 2016.

C. Two (2) offers were received: Maverick Constructors LLC (Maverick) and JP Donovan Construction, Inc. (JPD). Both offerors were checked against the Excluded Parties List System. Neither of the offerors appeared on the List. The offerors were also checked against Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System and there were no reports. The bonds were verified for the raised seal and a bond checklist performed with no issues. They also acknowledged the amendment.

D. The Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) consisted of Justin Junod (NEF-20), Lori Jones (NEF-10), Eli McDivitt (SAE-20) and Randall Gumke (OP-ES-A). The Source Selection Authority (SSA) is Sherry L. Gasaway.

2. EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

A. Introduction:

This is a single award acquisition with award being made to the offeror deemed to be responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal offers the lowest price and is technically acceptable. The Government evaluated proposals in accordance with the solicitation and will award a contract without discussions.

B. Evaluation Factors

This acquisition is being procured under a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. Evaluation and selection for contract award is based on four (4) factors: (i) Price, (ii) Project Execution Plan, (iii) Technical Experience, and (iv) Past Performance.

C. Evaluation of Price Proposals

Prices proposed by the offerors were checked for minor errors and apparent mistakes and none were noted. In accordance with Section M.1(c) of the solicitation, the prices proposed for the base bid were evaluated for fairness and reasonableness by comparison against the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and by comparison against the prices proposed by all of the offerors. The solicitation then provides that, “Prices determined to be unreasonably high or unreasonably low, when compared to the Government estimate and/or prices submitted by other offerors, will be considered unreasonable and will not be considered for award”. Using this criteria, a spreadsheet listing all of the offerors’ proposed prices for the base bid was prepared for the SSET.

The identity of the offerors was not revealed on the spreadsheet, but each offeror’s proposal was assigned an alphabetical letter (A and B), and listed in order of the lowest price for the base bid. Offeror A proposed the lowest price for the base bid by a substantial margin, underbidding Offeror B. Even though, Offeror A’s base bid price was above the original IGE, it was below the average or mean price of both proposals and determined to be fair and reasonable.

Since Offeror A’s price was the apparent lowest price, their technical information was forwarded to Engineering for review. As discussed in the other evaluation factors below, Offeror A’s technical proposal did not meet the solicitation’s requirements. Therefore, the Government evaluated the price of Offeror B.

Offeror B’s price was over the initial Government estimate and above the average or mean price of both proposals. Due to the large difference between the Government estimate and Offeror B’s price, the Government reexamined its Government estimate. The review revealed the original Government estimate failed to adequately address the uniqueness and complexity of this project. Although the requirements were clearly written in the specifications and drawings, the government estimate was prepared as a typical concrete placement project. The estimate did not consider that this project would involve concrete work at above normal heights. The completed construction of this concrete reinforcement will increase the structural capacity of the existing LC 39B catacomb structure to support the new program launch vehicles. The structural reinforcement of the catacombs’ roof will utilize cast-in-place concrete beams. Beam construction will involve post-installed adhesive anchor installation by ACI-CRSI certified installers, reinforcing steel, galvanic anode installation, and forming and shoring at a ceiling height of approximately thirty-eight (38) feet above the finished floor. The scaffolding requirement will be more then typically required and the work will be in areas with limited access to workspace due to existing duct, cable tray, up to eighty-four (84) inch diameter piping, and other existing obstructions. Access to the catacombs includes limited clearances.

The Government revised the Government estimate to $1,693,140. This resulted in a reduction in the difference of Offeror B’s proposal from to in comparison to the Government estimate. Due to the revised Government estimate, Offeror A’s proposal was found to be below the Government estimate.

It is also noted that the Government assumed the bidding environment would include offers from large business companies who typically can provide construction services at lower prices than small businesses. The actual proposals received included only two small businesses. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques, price analysis was performed to ensure that the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable. FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) institutes that adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price. In this procurement, two responsible offerors, competing independently, submitted priced proposals. Taking into consideration the environmental elements that make performing work in this location difficult, in conjunction with the consideration that the two firms that proposed are small businesses, it is reasonable to assume that a large price difference may be present. Each proposal may have utilized different methods to perform the prescribed work, thus accounting for the price difference. Adequate price competition existed, with several offerors taking part in the site visit and submitting pre-proposal inquiries. Offeror B submitted their proposal with the expectation of full and open competition.

This project is of a complex nature involving concrete work that surpasses typical construction efforts to support a new class of robust launch vehicles. This work will take place in confined areas at heights above normal working conditions. Even though the Government failed to account for these complex requirements in the Government estimate, these requirements are specifically outlined in the plans and specifications that both offerors bid on. This procurement was solicited as an LPTA full and open competition, with the expectation of several large businesses participating. In addition, adequate competition took place, where two firms provided proposals. Even though Offeror B’s proposal is above the Government estimate, it is found to be supportable due to the inaccurate Government Estimate; coupled with the competitive price environment of this acquisition which resulted in two small businesses competing for this project. As a result, the Government concludes that Offeror B’s price proposal is fair and reasonable.

D. Evaluation of Non-Price Factors of Lowest Fair and Reasonable Priced Offeror

The technical (non-price) documentation of the offeror with the lowest evaluated price (Offeror A) was given to the technical evaluators to assess the offeror’s project execution plan, technical experience, and past performance. The Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) performed the evaluation in accordance with Section M of the solicitation.

I. Factor 1 – Project Execution Plan

The Government first evaluated the lowest price offeror’s (Offeror A) Project Execution Plan against the following standards listed in Section M.1(b)(1) of the solicitation:

(1) The offeror’s high level performance summary schedule showing critical activities including but not limited to 1) notice to proceed, 2) installation of post-installed anchors, 3) proof load testing of the post-installed adhesive anchors, 4) concrete placement, and 5) completion of work no later than 334 calendar days after the offeror receives notice to proceed, demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements.

(2) The offeror’s overview of the intended method of drilling, general installation, and testing procedure for the post-installed adhesive anchors is technically comprehensive and demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements.

(3) The offeror’s overview of the intended method for concrete placement is technically comprehensive and demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements.

To receive an “Acceptable” rating for the Project Execution Plan Factor, the offeror must provide a sound plan that will ensure successful completion of the project on schedule.

The evaluation of the Offeror A’s Project Execution Plan is as follows:

(1) In accordance with Section L.10(a)(1) and M.1(b)(1) of the solicitation, Offeror A was deemed non-compliant. Offeror A did not provide a high level performance summary schedule, which was to include specific critical activities outlined in the RFP. It was determined that Offeror A did not demonstrate a sound approach for meeting the project schedule since no performance schedule was submitted, and therefore failed to meet the minimum requirement of this element of the Project Execution Plan.

(2) In accordance with Section L.10(a)(1) and M.1(b)(1) of the solicitation, Offeror A was deemed non-compliant. Offeror A did not provide an overview of its intended method of drilling, general installation, and testing procedures for the post-installed adhesive anchors. It was determined that Offer A did not demonstrate a technically comprehensive and clear understanding of the requirements, and therefore failed to meet the minimum requirement of this element of the Project Execution Plan.

(3) In accordance with Section L.10(a)(1) and M.1(b)(1) of the solicitation, Offeror A described in sufficient detail its placement plan for concrete. This plan included, but was not limited to, information on beam forming, pumping, piping, safing of piping, installation of concrete, and means to validate the successful installation of concrete. The offeror’s overview of the intended method for concrete placement is technically comprehensive and demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements.

Summary: The Project Execution Plan must demonstrate a sound approach for meeting the project schedule, which includes (1) A high level performance summary,

(2) Overview of intended method of drilling, installing, and testing procedures for the post-installed adhesive anchors, (3) Method of concrete placement. Offeror A failed to meet two of the three stated requirements. The offeror did not provide a high level performance summary and did not adequately address the intended method to install the post-installed anchors. Offeror A did not provide a sound plan that will ensure successful completion of the project on schedule and did not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Consequently, Offeror A received an “Unacceptable” rating for Factor 1 – Project Execution Plan.

In accordance with the utilization of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection process, award will be made to the offeror who conforms to the solicitation requirements and whose proposal meets the technically acceptable standard for the non-price factors and provides the lowest evaluated price. Offeror A received an Unacceptable rating in Factor 1- Project Execution Plan, therefore is ineligible for award. Further evaluation of offeror A’s Past Performance and Technical Experience Factors were not conducted in the following sections, as Offeror A is ineligible for award. Offeror B is the next lowest priced offeror and is further reviewed in this document.

Offeror B’s Project Execution Plan is evaluated as follows:

(1) Offeror B provided a high level performance summary schedule which included the listed critical activities as indicated in Sections L&M. Its schedule included adequate detail and logic to enable reasonable assurance that the Offeror has a clear understanding of the requirements of this solicitation.

(2) Offeror B provided an overview of their intended method to drill, install, and test the post-installed adhesive anchors. Its overview included adequate detail and description of the processes and procedures for the installation of post-installed adhesive anchors. The Offeror provided a technically comprehensive overview which included but was not limited to discussion on submittals, existing condition survey, installer certification, preparation activities, installation, testing, and product acceptance. The Offeror’s thorough overview enables reasonable assurance that it has a clear understanding of the requirements of this solicitation.

(3) Offeror B provided an overview of their intended method for concrete placement.

Their overview included adequate detail and description of the processes and procedures for the placement of concrete. The Offeror provided a technically comprehensive overview which included but was not limited to discussion on form design, submittals, concrete placement plan, existing condition survey, preparation activities, installation, testing, and product acceptance. The Offeror’s thorough overview enables reasonable assurance that it has a clear understanding of the requirements of this solicitation.

Offeror B met all of the of the project execution plan factors identified in the solicitation and is, therefore, assessed as having a Project Execution Plan rating of “Acceptable”.

II. Factor 2 – Technical Experience

Offeror B’s Technical Experience Summary included the following three (3) projects:

(1) Eastern Processing Facility at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL. (Completed October 2013 for $32,338,717)

(2) New East Boat Ramp at Port Canaveral, FL. (Completed July 2014 for $4,640,000)

(3) Ticket Entry Decorative Concrete at KSC Visitor Complex, FL. (Completed December 2012 for $1,072,291)

The Government evaluated Offeror B’s technical experience against the following standards listed in Section M.1(b)(2) of the solicitation. Offerors must meet all of the standards to receive an “Acceptable” rating on this factor:

(1) All contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must be in progress with at least 50% of the construction work completed or have been successfully completed within five (5) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation December 23, 2015.

(2) At least three of the projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have involved structural cast-in-place concrete.

(3) At least one of the projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have involved cast-in-place structural concrete repair.

(4) At least one of the projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have involved post-installed adhesive anchor installation.

(5) At least one of the projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have involved structural cast-in-place concrete work performed at a height of ten

(10) feet or greater.

The evaluation of the Technical Experience Summary is as follows:

(1) All three projects submitted were either 50% complete or successfully completed within five years of the date of issuance of this solicitation.

(2) Three of the submitted projects involved structural cast-in-place (CIP) concrete.

(3) Two of the projects involved structural cast-in-place structural concrete repair.

(4) Three of the submitted projects involved post-installed adhesive anchor installation.

(5) One of the three projects involved structural cast-in-place concrete work at a height of ten feet or greater.

Offeror B met all of the of the technical experience factors identified in the solicitation and is, therefore, assessed as having a Technical Experience rating of “Acceptable”.

III. Factor 3 - Past Performance

The completed past performance questionnaires submitted by Offeror B’s Contracting Officers or customer contact equivalents identified in the Technical Experience Summary were evaluated. (This assessment of past performance information is separate from the contractor responsibility determination required under FAR Subpart 9.1.) The Government evaluated Offeror B’s past performance against the following criteria listed in Section M.1 (b)(3) of the solicitation:

(1) Providing effective project management, labor, equipment, supplies, tools, and financial resources to successfully perform, provide contract deliverables and complete work in a safe and timely manner.

(2) Providing immediate and effective contractor management attention at the job site for resolution of contract problems.

(3) Providing quality engineering shop drawings and accurate and complete as-built documentation.

(4) Providing project completion within ten percent (10%) of original contract cost and schedule (except where customer required changes caused the cost or schedule deviation).

(5) Performing structural cast-in-place concrete.

(6) Performing cast-in-place structural concrete repair.

(7) Installation of post-installed adhesive anchors.

(8) Performing structural cast-in-place concrete work at a height of ten (10) feet or greater.

(9) Maintaining an acceptable Safety Program:

1. Maintaining acceptable Days Away Restricted or Transferred (DART), Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR), OSHA 300 Log and Experience Modification Rating (EMR) rates for the previous three years.

2. Maintaining a safety and health program with visible management control and involvement

3. Maintaining a safety program ensuring subcontractors’ safety performances was consistent with the prime contractor’s safety program

4. Ability to analyze worksite hazards prior to the start of work to ensure that all hazards were abated

5. Maintaining a safety program with emergency procedures for securing dangerous conditions and protecting personnel during contract performance

6. Ability to understand and comply with safety requirements

7. Maintaining a safety program that ensured the customer’s critical resources were adequately protected

8. Ability to resolve safety discrepancies in a timely and effective manner

9. Ability to report, investigate, and take corrective actions on safety accidents/incidents in a timely and effective manner

(10) Providing prompt payment of employees, subcontractors, and suppliers for services and supplies performed/delivered under the contract.

(11) Complying with Davis-Bacon Act and other labor requirements and resolution of reported labor violations/discrepancies.

(12) Complying with contract subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business concerns. (Applicable only to offerors who are large businesses).

Past performance was evaluated using the following past performance confidence ratings:

Very High Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition;

demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Offeror’s past performance indicates 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 the offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards. Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Very Low Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas. Performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, adversely affected overall performance.

Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].

To receive an “Acceptable” rating for past performance, the offeror must receive an overall Past Performance Confidence Rating of Very High or High.

The Government received two completed NASA/KSC questionnaires for Offeror B as follows:

New East Boat Ramp at Port Canaveral, FL. – All questions were answered with Very Good, Exceptional or N/A ratings. The customer also stated that it would select the contractor again. The customer stated “This was a very challenging project with much communication with the public having input on the project causing changes during design. Contractor worked great with us. All the change without trying to get a change orders for everything.” Also, “This was a critical time table because the ramp had to be in operation before old one could be removed and start on building on new Cruise Terminal.

Ticket Entry Decorative Concrete at KSC Visitor Complex, FL. – All questions were answered with Very Good or N/A ratings. The customer also stated that it would select the contractor again. The customer stated “Work was placed very professionally and planned accurately.”

Information obtained from other sources: The listed customer contacts for all projects listed in the Offeror’s Technical Experience Summary were contacted to discuss their assessment of the three Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) questions that related to Structural Cast-in-place concrete and the one PPQ question that related to installing post-installed adhesive anchors. The customer contacts were attempted to be reached via phone and email on 2/3/2016. At that time, only the customer contact for the Ticket Entry project was available. The customer contact indicated that all of the concrete work was for new walkways performed at ground level and the new walkways tied into existing walkways via post-installed anchors, repairs to the existing walkways were performed, and that the walkways included structural reinforcement. The customer indicated a “very good” rating for each of the pertinent questions in the PPQ. On 2/5/2016 the customer contact for the Eastern Processing Facility responded that Offeror B’s performance on structural cast-in-place concrete work performed at a height of ten feet or greater was “exceptional”.

The results of the past performance evaluations are provided as follows:

(1) Compliant with providing effective project management, labor, equipment, supplies, tools, and financial resources to successfully perform, provide contract deliverables and complete work in a safe and timely manner.

(2) Compliant with providing immediate and effective contractor management attention at the job site for resolution of contract problems.

(3) Compliant with providing quality engineering shop drawings and accurate and complete as-built documentation.

(4) Compliant with providing project completion within ten percent (10%) of original contract cost and schedule (except where customer required changes caused the cost or schedule deviation).

(5) Demonstrated their ability to successfully perform structural cast-in-place concrete.

(6) Demonstrated their ability to successfully perform cast-in-place structural concrete repair.

(7) Demonstrated their ability to successfully install post-installed adhesive anchors.

(8) Demonstrated their ability to successfully perform structural cast-in-place concrete work at a height of ten (10) feet or greater.

(9) Maintaining an acceptable Safety Program:

1. Compliant with maintaining acceptable Days Away Restricted or Transferred (DART), Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR), OSHA 300 Log and Experience Modification Rating (EMR) rates for the previous three years. Examination of Offeror B’s OSHA 300 and 300A logs for years 2013 to 2015 indicate the company’s Days Away Restricted or Transferred (DART) and Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) were better than industry average. Offeror B’s Experience Modification Rating (EMR) rates for 2013 – 2015 are considered better than industry average standard / rates.

2. Compliant with maintaining a safety and health program with visible management control and involvement

3. Compliant with maintaining a safety program ensuring subcontractors’ safety performances was consistent with the prime contractor’s safety program

4. Compliant with analyzing worksite hazards prior to the start of work to ensure that all hazards were abated

5. Compliant with maintaining a safety program with emergency procedures for securing dangerous conditions and protecting personnel during contract performance

6. Compliant with understanding and complying with safety requirements

7. Compliant with maintaining a safety program that ensured the customer’s critical resources were adequately protected

8. Compliant with resolving safety discrepancies in a timely and effective manner

9. Compliant with reporting, investigating, and taking corrective actions on safety accidents/incidents in a timely and effective manner

(10) Compliant with providing prompt payment of employees, subcontractors, and suppliers for services and supplies performed/delivered under the contract.

(11) Compliant with Davis-Bacon Act and other labor requirements and resolution of reported labor violations/discrepancies.

(12) Compliant with contract subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business concerns. (Applicable only to offerors who are large businesses).

Offeror B is a small business therefore this was not evaluated.

Based on the above, Offeror B received an overall past performance confidence rating of “High Level of Confidence” and per Section M of the solicitation Offeror B receives an “Acceptable” for past performance.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Offeror B’s (J. P. Donovan Construction, Inc.) price is determined to fair and reasonable. J. P.

Donovan’s Project Execution Plan, Technical Experience, and Past Performance were evaluated in accordance with the solicitation and all determined to be “Acceptable”. Based on the criteria established in Section M of this solicitation the Government has determined the proposal submitted by J. P. Donovan provides the lowest price that is technically acceptable to satisfy Kennedy Space Center’s requirement for Reinforce Catacomb Roof for Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1B Vehicle, LC-39B. J. P. Donovan Construction, Inc. is awarded the Reinforce Catacomb Roof for Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1B Vehicle, LC-39B at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida for a total of $2,578,000.00.

Randall A. Gumke Contracting Officer

Sherry L. Gasaway Source Selection Authority