Source_Selection_Statement.pdf

SELECTION OF CONTRACTOR FOR THE

EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE INTEGRATED SUPPORT 3 CONTRACT

AT THE JOHN F. KENNEDY SPACE CENTER

(SOLICITATION NUMBER NNK16570512R)

INTRODUCTION

On September 27, 2016, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the Expendable Launch

Vehicle Integrated Support 3 (ELVIS 3) contract, I, along with senior officials of the John F. Kennedy

Space Center (KSC), met with the appointed Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to independently review its evaluation of proposals received in response to the subject solicitation. Relevant portions of the SEB’s evaluation and my decision to award on initial proposals to a.i. solutions, Inc., is set forth in this Source

Selection Statement.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The objective of this procurement is to acquire expendable launch vehicle integrated support services to enable the NASA Launch Services Program (LSP) to provide safe, reliable, cost-effective and on schedule end-to-end launch services for NASA and NASA-sponsored payloads seeking launch on expendable launch vehicles. These services include contract management; program management support;

safety, reliability, and resident office quality engineering; launch site support engineering; technical integration services; engineering, operations, and maintenance of communications and telemetry (C&T) systems; information technology (IT) services; launch vehicle system engineering and mission analysis;

special studies; and other services supporting launch operations at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California. Requisite support shall be provided to NASA LSP and NASA LSP supported missions, activities and strategic initiatives including but not limited to multiple NASA programs, the Department of Defense (DoD), and other Government agencies and commercial launch providers. Services will be provided at KSC, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), VAFB, other launch sites, resident offices, and as required at commercial launch provider facilities.

This procurement will result in a performance-based, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with an award term option incentive, and a provision for obtaining additional services on an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity basis. The contract period of performance consists of a 1.5-year base period, one 1-year option, and seven 1-year award term options, for a maximum potential period of performance of 9.5 years.

BACKGROUND

On November 16, 2015, the KSC Procurement Officer appointed a Procurement Development Team

(PDT) to develop a complete acquisition package for submission to the SEB. The Contracting Officer established the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for ELVIS 3 as 541330, Engineering Services, with a $38.5M size standard exception for military and aerospace equipment and military weapons. Consequently, a Sources Sought Synopsis was issued seeking potential sources for the performance of ELVIS 3. This Sources Sought Synopsis defined the scope of the ELVIS 3 acquisition and sought information from capable sources to determine industry interest and capability, and to facilitate consideration of small business set aside potential. Based on the capability statements received, the Contracting Officer, with concurrence of the KSC Small Business Specialist, the Small Business

Administration Procurement Center Representative, and the PDT Chairperson, determined that the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 19.502-2(b) were not met to support a set-aside determination. The PDT defined requirements, conducted market research, prepared an acquisition plan, developed an ELVIS 3 website, provided site tours at KSC and VAFB, scheduled one-on-one meetings with industry representatives, and developed a draft solicitation for industry comment. Additionally, a

Bidder’s Library was established on the ELVIS 3 public website to provide information to those interested in the procurement.

Following review and consideration of industry comments on the draft solicitation, the ELVIS 3 Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued on June 3, 2016, on an unrestricted basis. During the course of the procurement, the Contracting Officer issued two amendments to incorporate minor changes, and posted one document answering RFP questions. The RFP advised offerors that the Government would use a trade-off process, as described in FAR 15.101-1, in making the source selection, and that proposals would be evaluated in accordance with the RFP and source selection procedures provided in FAR Subpart 15.3 and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Subpart 1815.3. In addition, the RFP advised offerors of the

Government’s intent to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors unless the Contracting Officer determined that discussions were necessary.

On June 10, 2016, the KSC Procurement Officer appointed the SEB for the purpose of evaluating proposals received in response to the solicitation.

In response to the ELVIS 3 RFP, two timely proposals were received on or before the due date of July 6, 2016, from the following companies (in alphabetical order):

a.i. solutions, Inc. (a.i. solutions)

Major Subs: Analex Corporation (Analex)

ZIN Technologies, Inc. (ZIN)

Engineering Research and Consulting, Inc. (ERC)

Major Sub: Aerodyne Industries, LLC (Aerodyne)

PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS

The RFP prescribed three evaluation factors, Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost, which were evaluated using the applicable procedures, adjectival ratings, levels of confidence ratings, definitions, and/or percentile ranges specified in FAR Subpart 15.3 and NFS Subpart 1815.3. The RFP advised offerors of the relative order of importance of these factors stating, “The Mission Suitability factor and the Past Performance factor, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost factor. The

Mission Suitability factor is more important than the Cost factor, and the Cost factor is more important than the Past Performance factor.”

For the Mission Suitability factor, the RFP advised offerors that the SEB would evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the requirements, the adequacy of the offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the requirements, and the offeror’s ability to perform as proposed, including the offeror’s proposed resources. The RFP further identified three subfactors, which were to be weighted and considered in evaluating Mission Suitability as follows:

Technical 500 points

Management 400 points

Small Business Utilization 100 points

Total Mission Suitability 1,000 points

Under the procedures established in the RFP and the applicable acquisition regulations, the SEB was to evaluate Mission Suitability proposals under each subfactor to: identify and document significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies; assign an adjectival rating and determine a percentile/point score for each subfactor based on findings; and calculate a total point score for Mission Suitability.

With regard to the Technical subfactor, the RFP described in detail the areas that would be evaluated:

LSP Programmatic Safety, Reliability and Resident Office Quality Engineering; Launch Site Support

Engineering; C&T; VAFB Unique Support; IT; Launch Vehicle Insight and Spacecraft Integration; and appropriate staffing and skill mix to successfully meet performance requirements. With regard to the

Management subfactor, the RFP described in detail areas that would be evaluated: contract management plan; key positions; key personnel; contract phase-in; risk management; total compensation; and labor relations. The RFP also described in detail the areas that would be evaluated under the Small Business

Utilization subfactor: small business subcontracting, and commitment to small businesses.

For the Cost factor, the RFP advised offerors that the Government would perform a cost analysis and a cost realism analysis on each proposal to evaluate the realism and reasonableness of the proposed costs.

The RFP further provided that both the cost analysis and cost realism analysis would be used to determine the most probable cost to the Government for each proposal, including ensuring the proposal costs are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s proposal. Offerors were advised that a lack of resource realism may adversely affect the Mission Suitability scores and result in probable cost adjustments under the cost factor.

For purposes of source selection, the total proposed cost and evaluated cost were considered. The total evaluated cost consists of the phase-in firm-fixed-price, the probable cost for the base period, option 1, and all award term options (including non-proposed cost).

Finally, for the Past Performance factor, the RFP advised offerors that the SEB would evaluate the offeror’s and its major subcontractors’ recent and relevant performance of work similar in size, content, and complexity to the ELVIS 3 requirements. Recent was defined as performance within the last three years. A major subcontractor was defined as a subcontractor that has a subcontract with a total proposed value (total of base period, option 1, and all award term options) greater than $30M or that will perform critical aspects of the requirement. The past performance evaluation considered the offeror’s technical, schedule, and cost/price performance, as well as the offeror’s labor relations, safety and health, and environmental compliance performance. Past Performance was to be evaluated using the following levels of confidence ratings, to assess the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform requirements: Very High, High, Moderate, Low, Very Low, or Neutral.

The SEB appropriately conducted all evaluations using the above described evaluation criteria as specified in the RFP. In conducting the evaluations, the SEB utilized dedicated evaluators from appropriate disciplines to provide specific expertise needed in the evaluation process and provided findings and requests for clarifications to the appropriate SEB Leads (Business and Mission Suitability).

Using the findings and analyses of the evaluators as reported by each SEB Lead, the SEB generated the initial evaluation consensus findings which identified and assessed strengths and weaknesses, and rated and scored each proposal accordingly. In addition to the evaluation of the factors and subfactors identified above, the SEB ensured all solicitation requirements established by the RFP were met.

Furthermore, as part of the evaluation process, the SEB analyzed each offeror’s administrative data which was comprised of financial information to determine responsibility to perform a contract of this magnitude, the model contract, acceptance of contract terms and conditions, and contractor representations and certifications.

MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

a.i. solutions

Under the Mission Suitability - Technical subfactor, the SEB identified two significant strengths, four strengths, and two weaknesses. The first significant strength was for the proposed comprehensive approach and demonstrated thorough understanding of all aspects of PWS 10, Launch Vehicle Insight and

Spacecraft Integration. This includes PWS 10.1, Mission Analysis; PWS 10.2, Vehicle Systems

Engineering; and PWS 10.3, Resident Office Engineering. The second significant strength was for the proposed comprehensive approach for ensuring C&T readiness at KSC and VAFB, including effective implementation and management of C&T systems to meet operational, maintenance, and sustaining engineering requirements. The four strengths in a.i. solutions’ proposal were (1) proposed approach to facility readiness improves reliability and availability of facilities to meet requirements and schedule milestones; (2) proposed approach to RF link margin analysis increases productivity; (3) computer aided design model database approach provides configuration control and accessibility across engineering disciplines; and (4) ELV SharePoint migration decreases the risk of cyber intrusion to LSP systems. The two identified weaknesses were related to minor staffing shortfalls for launch site support engineering and facility management at CCAFS, which when combined, equate to less than 1 WYE.

Based on the above described findings, the SEB rated a.i. solutions’ proposal under the Technical subfactor as Excellent.

Under the Mission Suitability - Management subfactor, the SEB identified three significant strengths and three strengths. The first significant strength was for the proposed key personnel all of which are highly qualified with highly relevant experience for the proposed positions. The second significant strength was for its management approach to supporting dynamic Program priorities, fostering an integrated

Government/contractor team, and enabling an efficient flow of information and decision making. The third significant strength was for the approach to extend international agreements to maintain access to

RD-180 engine data, eliminating significant lead-time to acquire access to proprietary data and maintaining continuity of engineering and analysis tasks. The three strengths in a.i. solutions’ management proposal were (1) thorough phase-in plan minimizes the disruption and impact to on-going

LSP operations during the contract transition period; (2) proposed integrated management information system promotes efficiency and effectiveness of contract management functions; and (3) effective approach to incentivize performance, teamwork, and motivation across the workforce.

Based on the above described findings, the SEB rated a.i. solutions’ proposal under the Management subfactor as Very Good.

Under the Small Business Utilization subfactor, the SEB identified one significant strength for demonstrating a significant commitment to the small business program, providing meaningful high-technology work opportunities, offering mentoring/assistance for small businesses to expand capabilities and experience, proposing to meet the overall 30% small business subcontracting goal, and exceeding four of the small business subcategory goals and meeting the fifth.

Based on the above described findings, the SEB rated a.i. solutions’ proposal under the Small Business

Utilization subfactor as Excellent.

a.i. solutions received an overall Mission Suitability score of 920 out of 1,000.

ERC

Under the Mission Suitability - Technical subfactor, the SEB identified one strength, seven weaknesses, and four significant weaknesses. The strength was for ERC’s proposed asset replacement strategy which provides a proactive approach to addressing asset life-cycle management. The seven weaknesses in the

ERC proposal were (1) technical approach does not substantiate how payload processing facility readiness requirements would be met; (2) proposal does not substantiate its approach for construction project management; (3) approach did not substantiate how PWS 9 elements of operations and maintenance of workstations, servers, and network equipment; IT security requirements; and software development, including addressing compliance with key NASA requirements, would be met; (4) staffing approach for IT does not provide adequate information to substantiate how ELVIS 3 IT requirements would be met; (5) proposal does not substantiate how it could perform the financial management, contract administration, and logistics functions associated with PWS 2 with the staffing provided; (6) staffing plan narrative and basis of estimate (BOE) do not demonstrate an understanding of the requirements for PWS

6; and (7) proposal does not sufficiently demonstrate how the proposed staffing meets PWS 8 requirements. The first significant weakness was for the proposed approach for launch site support engineering which failed to demonstrate an understanding of the work associated with PWS 5, did not provide sufficient detail to execute work requirements, contained numerous errors regarding the scope of work and role of the ELVIS contractor, and proposed labor classifications that did not align with the requirements. The second significant weakness was for the approach to launch vehicle insight and mission analysis which incorrectly cited the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook to be the LSP mission lifecycle, demonstrated a limited understanding of the Government and ELVIS contractor launch vehicle insight function, and provided inadequate staffing and experience levels to successfully execute requirements. The third significant weakness was for providing insufficient staffing to fully accomplish the resident office quality engineering functions. The fourth significant weakness was for providing insufficient staffing to meet C&T requirements at VAFB and proposing an inappropriate skill mix to perform C&T functions at KSC.

Based on the above described findings, the SEB rated ERC’s proposal under the Technical subfactor as

Fair.

Under the Mission Suitability - Management subfactor, the SEB identified one significant strength, four strengths, one weakness, and one significant weakness. The significant strength was for proposing an integrated team model approach which operates as a single entity, thereby creating a cohesive unit to execute work requirements and maximize responsiveness to dynamic Program priorities. The four strengths were (1) proposed programs incentivizes performance, encourages teamwork, and motivates the workforce; (2) proposed approach for phase-in includes features that would minimize the disruption and impact to on-going LSP operations during the contract transition period; (3) proposed Program Manager with strong leadership qualifications and spaceflight experience at KSC; and (4) proposed approach to utilization of a management information system provides the Government real-time visibility into cost, schedule, and technical performance. The weakness was for the proposed corporate accountability approach that requires corporate review and approval of several business functions, which could significantly impact its ability to execute basic contractual functions in a timely manner. The significant weakness was for the proposed approach which, with the exception of the Program Manager, failed to identify key positions and personnel, and failed to demonstrate how it would implement its management approach in the absence of an identified management team.

Based on the above described findings, the SEB rated ERC’s proposal under the Management subfactor as Good.

Under the Small Business Utilization subfactor, the SEB identified one significant strength for demonstrating a strong commitment to small business utilization, providing meaningful high-technology work opportunities for small businesses to expand capabilities and experience, proposing to meet the overall 30% small business subcontracting goal, substantially exceeding two of the small business subcategory goals, and meeting the remaining three.

Based on the above described findings, the SEB rated ERC’s proposal under the Small Business

Utilization subfactor as Excellent.

ERC received an overall Mission Suitability score of 572 out of 1,000.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The Past Performance evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305 and NFS 1815.305.

Each offeror was evaluated based on recent and relevant contracts or subcontracts of similar size, content, or complexity to the ELVIS 3 requirement, as well as the offeror’s technical, schedule, cost/price, labor relations, safety and health, and environmental compliance performance. The RFP required offerors to submit up to five past contracts for themselves and up to three past contracts for each major subcontractor. The SEB also utilized a Government past performance data base and made calls to verify and clarify information. All contracts submitted by both a.i. solutions and ERC met the RFP definition of

“recency,” (i.e., within 3 years).

The SEB found that a.i. solutions and its major subcontractors, Analex and ZIN demonstrated recent and relevant past performance that is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, in terms of size, content, and complexity, with very relevant experience in the majority of the ELVIS 3 Performance Work Statement

(PWS) sections, including the more sizeable sections of launch vehicle insight and spacecraft integration and C&T. The team demonstrated exemplary performance that was fully responsive to contract requirements in all areas of performance, including quality, schedule, cost control, and management.

Most notably a.i. solutions and team member Analex demonstrated very highly relevant experience through the ELVIS 2 contract where they performed in an exceptional manner garnering excellent award fee ratings from NASA. a.i. solutions and its major subcontractors also demonstrated relevant performance on numerous other contracts including the Missile Defense Agency Engineering and Support

Services (MiDAESS) contract, the National Reconnaissance Office Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle

Independent Verification and Validation (EELV IV&V) contract, and the Space Flight Systems

Development and Operations Contract 2 (SpaceDOC-2).

In the area of labor relations, a.i. solutions has demonstrated experience on the ELVIS 2 contract, specifically, negotiating a collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters Union. In the areas of safety and health and environmental compliance, the a.i. solutions team’s past performance was exceptional. In addition, a review of OSHA Forms 300A for a.i. solutions team, for the period 2013 through 2015, found that all three companies were below industry averages for total number of cases with days away from work, job transfer, or restriction for work related injuries and illnesses under NAICS

Code 541330, Engineering Services.

As a result, the SEB determined a.i. solutions’ Past Performance level of confidence as Very High.

The SEB found that ERC and its major subcontractor Aerodyne demonstrated recent and relevant past performance that is highly pertinent to this acquisition, in terms of size, content, and complexity, in many of the of the ELVIS 3 PWS sections, including experience relevant to launch vehicle insight and spacecraft integration, and very relevant experience in C&T. The Team demonstrated very effective performance that was fully responsive to contract requirements in all areas of performance, including quality, schedule, cost control, and management. Most notably, ERC and Aerodyne demonstrated relevant experience for their performance on the Test and Operations Support Contract (TOSC), the

Engineering and Test Support Services (ETSS) contract and the Climatic, Dynamic, and Propulsion

(CDP) Test Support Services contract.

In the area of labor relations, ERC has experience on a number of contracts as a subcontractor (i.e., negotiated or assumed nine collective bargaining agreements), and experience as a prime contractor on a recently awarded contract (which is currently in the bridge period). In the areas of safety and health and environmental compliance, the ERC team’s past performance was exceptional. In addition, a review of

OSHA Forms 300A for ERC and Aerodyne, for the period 2013 through 2015, found that both companies were consistent with industry averages for total number of cases with days away from work, job transfer, or restriction for work related injuries and illnesses under NAICS Code 541330, Engineering Services.

As a result, the SEB determined ERC’s past performance level of confidence as High.

COST EVALUATION

In accordance with FAR 15.404 and NFS 1815.305, the Government performed a cost analysis and a cost realism analysis to evaluate the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs.

The SEB identified no probable cost adjustments for a.i. solutions. The SEB found that the costs proposed were reasonable and realistic for the work to be performed, demonstrated an understanding of the ELVIS 3 requirements, and were consistent with the various elements of a.i. solutions’ proposal.

Based on the cost analyses performed, a.i. solutions’ proposed and evaluated cost was $332.6M.

ERC proposed total costs were lower overall. The SEB identified two minor probable cost adjustments to account for current Collective Bargaining Agreement salaries for two union positions. In addition, the

SEB’s evaluation resulted in several staffing related findings which included instances where proposed staffing did not align with PWS requirements or was omitted. However, no other probable cost adjustments were made since the technical and BOE sections of the proposal lacked sufficient detail for the SEB to understand the proposed approach with adequate clarity to identify an appropriate probable cost adjustment. Further, due to this lack of sufficient detail in the offerors approach, the Government was unable to determine if the proposed costs were reasonable and realistic.

SELECTION DECISION

At the conclusion of the SEB’s presentation, I determined that their findings were rational, complete, and well documented. I solicited additional comments, concerns, or questions from both the SEB participants and the other key KSC senior managers and stakeholders who were present. After the presentation and discussion periods were over, I reconvened with the SEB Chair, the Contracting Officer, and assigned

Legal Counsel to discuss the possibilities going forward, namely, of either awarding on initial proposals, as is contemplated in the ELVIS 3 RFP or alternatively, establishing a competitive range consisting of one or both offerors. Given the significant qualitative difference in Mission Suitability proposals between a.i. solutions and ERC, the superiority of a.i. solutions’ demonstrated past performance, and the relative difference in total evaluated cost, I believe that the proposal submitted by a.i. solutions represents the best value to the Government and firmly believe that a tradeoff, that is, paying a somewhat higher price for this solution, is in LSP’s best interest. Further, due to the lack of any significant problems within a.i.

solutions’ approach across all PWS sections, I believe that award on initial proposals is appropriate. My articulated rationale for selecting a.i. solutions is further delineated below.

As the selection official, I am tasked with comparing these two proposals, considering the documented evaluation of the SEB, and reaching an independent conclusion as to that evaluation and the relative merits of the competing proposals. I agreed with a vast majority of the SEB’s rationale but do make note of a few minor disagreements with either rationale or assignation of a “strength” or “weakness.” Those disagreements will be called out below. Finally, in some instances, I placed variant significance on findings and the potential impacts to ELVIS 3 performance that the finding may or may not represent.

These variants are captured below as well.

In determining the best value to the Government, I referred to the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors specified in the RFP. The solicitation stated the relative importance of these factors as follows: “The Mission Suitability factor and the Past Performance factor, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost factor. The Mission Suitability factor is more important than the Cost factor, and the Cost factor is more important than the Past Performance factor.” As previously indicated, I do consider a.i. solutions’ superior Mission Suitability and Past Performance at a higher overall proposed cost, to be in the Government’s best interest, as further described below.

Mission Suitability

Within the Mission Suitability evaluation, I note that the SEB rated a.i. solutions proposal significantly higher overall in terms of the Mission Suitability point score.

With regard to the Technical subfactor, a.i. solutions received an adjective rating of “Excellent” and garnered two significant strengths, both of which I consider to be significant of discriminators between these two proposals. a.i. solutions’ approach to successfully accomplish the work within PWS 10 is both holistic and incredibly detailed. a.i. solutions clearly demonstrated it understands the nature and criticality of the work that LSP does in the area of launch vehicle insight and mission analysis. For instance, within mission analysis, a.i. solutions competently demonstrated an understanding of the various analytical disciplines that comprise mission analysis and have set forth the appropriate tasks (e.g. analyses and trade studies germane to the mission phase and discipline). Not only did a.i. solutions demonstrate this depth and breadth in meeting each of the PWS 10.1 requirements, they also were able to synthesize this into a credible response to the scenario within this area by successfully walking through the Interface

Control Document (ICD) spacecraft temperature violation during a coast phase of an upper stage. The

SEB identified this ability to thoroughly understand mission analysis in a meaningful way, both temporally (i.e. done at the correct time over a mission lifecycle) and efficiently (i.e. supported by the appropriate staff, models, and tools within the various subdisciplines) as a significant strength, and I agree. a.i. solutions’ approach significantly increases the likelihood that mission analysis requirements will be met. Within PWS 10.2, a.i. solutions again demonstrated a strong understanding of the commercial launch vehicles to which they will be expected to provide insight functions. For instance, a.i.

solutions’ understanding of the differences in commercial launch providers’ flight software testing philosophies (and the level of effort required) is an excellent indicator that its launch vehicle insight approach is both appropriately analyzed from an engineering subdiscipline perspective and also appropriately staffed and integrated with the Government civil service team. This is also demonstrated by their seamless integration of their own personnel with LSP’s through the Engineering Review Process

(ERP). a.i. solutions’ proposal demonstrated that they will be ready to provide the staffing (both in levels and skill mix) from contract start. Not only is their proposal strong in the area of launch vehicle insight, they also demonstrated a thorough understanding of LSP’s launch vehicle certification process, including the different risk categories, the disciplines necessary, and the steps needed to perform a successful certification. They effectively demonstrated a solid juxtaposition of their own contractor team with LSP’s certification documents. Given the intense workload facing LSP in the first year of the contract with five missions launching and two launch vehicle certifications in process, having that expertise in place is critically important; a.i. solutions’ proposal demonstrated they are ready for that undertaking immediately and throughout the contract period of performance.

Conversely, with respect to the ERC Technical subfactor, I noted they received an adjective rating of

“Fair.” Within PWS 10, ERC’s proposal demonstrates a lack of understanding of how LSP performs mission analysis, vehicle systems engineering, and the resident office functions where LSP employees

(both civil service and contractor) are embedded at the commercial launch service provider’s factories.

First, within mission analysis, ERC mistakenly cites the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook (used in the development of spacecraft projects) as the mission lifecycle of an LSP mission. This gives me concern that they lack the understanding necessary to carry out mission analysis successfully during performance of the ELVIS 3 contract as this Handbook is simply inappropriate and would not be used during the mission analysis activities that LSP is tasked with accomplishing. Additionally, none of the mission specific analyses and very few of the necessary modeling tools that accompany them are identified within ERC’s approach. I agree with the SEB’s rationale in this respect. LSP relies on the analytical disciplines within mission analysis to “check the work” of our commercial launch providers and have, in the past, caught mission critical errors that could have been fatal to the mission. This demonstrates the criticality of this function and is certainly a discriminator when compared with a.i.

solutions’ robust approach in this area. ERC’s proposed approach to perform the other areas of PWS 10, resident office engineering and vehicle insight/systems engineering is equally questionable. Our contractor engineers are required to be collocated with our commercial launch vehicle providers to be able to perform the necessary insight function. ERC’s approach failed to address any of those functions and without doing so, introduces significant risk that the functions simply will not be performed and that layer of rigor will be lacking. Further, while a.i. solutions’ understanding and deployment of resources to mesh their own employees with Government as it relates to the functions of the ERP is relatively seamless, ERC’s is problematic. Whether it is their advocacy for the inclusion of cost and schedule considerations within the ERP, a fundamental misunderstanding of the role the contractor and

Government play when flight anomalies are discovered during a launch vehicle certification effort, or a misidentification of spacecraft design analysis as within LSP’s bailiwick, ERC’s approach is both lacking in terms of understanding the work and appropriately staffing it (both in number of WYE and skill mix).

I believe the SEB’s evaluation in this area to be accurate and compelling and I adopt it as my own. As an aside, while I agree with the SEB’s assignation of “significant weakness” in this area for ERC, I do believe that one of the two scenarios was adequately addressed by ERC, that of the ICD violation. While ordinally, the sequence by which ERC walks through the troubleshooting is different than is typically done in the commercial expendable launch vehicle industry, their overall methodology is reasonable in my opinion.

The other area within the Technical subfactor that represented a significant delta in qualitative proposal value between the two offerors was their approaches to successfully operate, maintain, and sustain LSP’s

C&T systems at both KSC and VAFB. Residing within PWS 7, C&T is critical not just for capturing data flows during the actual flight of the launch vehicle but also during payload processing and vehicle testing.

a.i. solutions’ proposal laid out a comprehensive and effective methodology for accomplishing these requirements. For example, a.i. solutions defined the roles and responsibilities of its engineers in this area and effectively demonstrated how they will interface with the LSP Mission Integration Team. C&T understanding during a launch campaign is extremely critical and a.i. solutions understood the role they are expected to execute during the launch site operations phase of the mission life cycle. a.i. solutions demonstrated a thorough understanding of LSP’s systems and the complex interfaces between those systems and those of the commercial launch vehicle contractor. ERC’s proposal is simply not as strong in the area of C&T and provides a meaningful contrast and resultant discriminator. For instance, ERC entirely omitted staffing for the C&T function on the west coast at VAFB. They also significantly underestimated the experience needed to successfully operate and maintain C&T systems at KSC, particularly in the area of telemetry engineering. They either proposed inexperienced personnel to handle critical tasks, omitted necessary labor classifications, or in some instances, both. It is extremely important that the skills brought to bear in C&T are capable of carrying out the tasks set forth in PWS 7 across the various launch vehicle fleets and spacecraft. Because this is ultimately the final stage of a mission and the culmination of years of integration work, the depth of understanding and the approach to operating these systems must be sound to ensure no perturbations to the launch schedule are encountered.

I note that the SEB found two other significant weaknesses associated with ERC’s technical approach.

First, it found that ERC’s approach for accomplishing PWS 5, that is, launch site support engineering, was lacking in understanding. Viewing the proposal, it is difficult to reach any other conclusion. In addition to entirely omitting an approach for a critical component within the PWS section (i.e., PWS 5.3), they described and staffed tasks that are not contemplated by the PWS and were simply far beyond the scope of the ELVIS 3 contract including physical handling and fueling of spacecraft. I agree, and this is a concerning misunderstanding of the scope of work required under PWS 5. Finally, the SEB found the quality engineering function within the resident offices to be insufficiently staffed. After reviewing the proposal, I agree there does seem to be a disconnect between their approach and their proposed staffing level that would require one engineer to be in multiple places at the same time.

It is important to note that the work contained in PWS section 7 and 10 constitutes well over half of the total scope of work of the ELVIS 3 contract, work at which the ELVIS contractor must clearly excel. The significant disparities illuminated above, between a.i. solutions and ERC in those two areas, begins to demonstrate the qualitative superiority of a.i. solutions’ proposal within the Technical subfactor of

Mission Suitability and these differences are easily my two most critical discriminators. The other two significant weaknesses, while glaring, are of less importance in my decision when compared to the disparities within PWS 7 and 10.

Finally, for the Technical subfactor, I recognize that the SEB assigned a.i. solutions four strengths and two weaknesses and assigned ERC one strength and seven weaknesses. While I agree with the collective articulated rationale behind these findings, they did not emerge as a significant discriminator in my decision as their impact to ELVIS 3 performance is relatively minor in comparison to the significant discriminators delineated above.

With regard to the Management subfactor, a.i. solutions received an adjective rating of “Very Good” and garnered three significant strengths, one of which I consider to be a significant discriminator between these two proposals, a.i. solutions’ approach to identifying and staffing key personnel. a.i. solutions proposed nine key personnel positions and articulated sound rationale as to why they were considered

“key,” recognizing the integrated nature of the Government and contractor LSP combined workforce and skillfully aligning those key positions with the functional areas of the ELVIS 3 PWS. But even more importantly, they have staffed these key positions with highly qualified, experienced individuals (with letters of commitment) across each of the functional areas. These individuals possess decades of directly correlated aerospace experience, strong job-related technical backgrounds, and strong leadership skills necessary to not only carry out the engineering work required across the ELVIS 3 PWS but successfully manage the workforce as well. ERC on the other hand only identified one key position, that of the

Program Manager. And while I believe that there are multiple approaches for identifying those roles that are most critical to the successful performance of ELVIS 3, I believe proposing solely a Program

Manager as “key” represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the ELVIS 3 PWS and the dynamic, complex environment in which LSP works. Without those key positions identified and staffed with experienced, qualified managers, these functional areas will be rudderless and unaccountable. At the very least, ERC failed to substantiate how one Program Manager can ensure this accountability across these diverse and highly complicated PWS sections. Further, ERC’s single-fault approach to simply capture the incumbent workforce as a methodology for staffing the remainder of their management team is problematic should they not be successful in doing so. Without a credible backup plan, there is significant risk that ERC’s leadership team could be lacking in the experience, knowledge, and leadership skills necessary to successfully perform ELVIS 3. The discrepancy in proposed approaches in this area represents a meaningful discriminator in my mind.

I found that both a.i. solutions and ERC did a superior job in their overall management approach to performing the ELVIS 3 contract. I agree with the significant strengths that the SEB assigned to both offerors in this area. a.i. solutions’ approach is truly integrated, aligning their own organizational structure with that of LSP. This seamless integration between the Government and contractor teams will be instrumental in gaining efficiencies, quickly adapting to changing priorities as work ebbs and flows in the operational environment, and allocating resources appropriately as these shifts occur. a.i. solutions’

Program Manager will have the autonomy necessary to execute these shifts in resource prioritization quickly and efficiently. This integrated approach was present throughout much of the PWS but nowhere is it more evident (and has a greater impact) than in C&T, where the workload is so incredibly dynamic between support for launch campaigns and spacecraft testing. Overall, I believe a.i. solutions’ management approach will lead to the successful integration of the contractor and Government team which is extremely important in carrying out LSP’s core role. ERC’s proposed management approach was impressive as well. Their proposal in this area demonstrated a good understanding of integration not only between LSP and the contractor but between ERC and their partner. They proposed to operate as a truly “badgeless” environment with the same management chain, the same pay schedules, and the same processes. This elimination of company affiliation would have a positive impact on the cohesiveness of the company which in turn allows for a rapid response to LSP’s dynamic work environment and priority shifts. It also enables the Government to coordinate with a single entity, reducing any cumbersome necessity to engage multiple contractors because of differences in affiliation and related processes.

Overall, I think ERC’s management plan would posture them to efficiently and effectively carry out the

ELVIS 3 PWS by being integrated both with the Government and within themselves.

Within the Management subfactor, I finally take note of another finding that the SEB categorized as a significant strength within a.i. solutions’ proposal. Their proposal demonstrates a credible approach to extending a preexisting agreement with NPO Energomash, the foreign (Russian state) producer of the

RD-180 engine which is used to power the first stage of the Atlas V launch vehicle. Historically, gaining access to the proprietary propulsion data of a foreign country has proven incredibly challenging and lengthy. I agree that a.i. solutions’ approach to securing this agreement will be beneficial to LSP’s ability to carry out our insight role, especially given the four Atlas V missions that are currently on the NLS II contract for LSP.

Additionally, the SEB identified three strengths within a.i. solutions’ proposal within the Management subfactor and four strengths and one weakness for ERC. I agree with the findings as written but also recognize their relatively small impact on the performance of the ELVIS 3 contract, as compared to the differences articulated above.

The final subfactor within Mission Suitability is Small Business Utilization. And while I find no meaningful difference between a.i. solutions’ and ERC’s proposals in this regard, I applaud both companies on their significant commitment to small business utilization in general, amongst the small business subcategories, and their assignment of meaningful work to these companies. Both identified significant high technology pieces of the PWS for small business performance. Given the aggressive small business goals that are contemplated by the ELVIS 3 RFP, I was impressed with their approaches. I wholeheartedly agree with the SEB’s assignation and rationale supporting their respective significant strengths in this area.

Past Performance

The a.i. solutions team1 submitted five contracts which, when combined, were rated to be very highly pertinent to the ELVIS 3 acquisition. Given the scope of work contained within these submittals, I agree with this assessment. As to a.i. solutions particularly, they demonstrated very similar past performance with their submission of the ELVIS 2 contract which is intuitive given that the size, content, and complexity between ELVIS 2 and this procurement are nearly identical. Both require performance of a wide array of disciplines, including launch vehicle and mission analysis, operations and maintenance of facilities, support equipment, C&T systems, IT systems, and quality/safety engineering. Other citations presented by a.i. solutions were also similar, but less so than the ELVIS 2 contract in their scope. I thought their EELV IV&V contract was relevant, given the similarity in that scope of work to ELVIS 3’s

PWS 10, a critical piece of scope. As to a.i. solutions’ actual performance, the SEB found that they performed exceptionally well across all five contract submissions in all areas, including contract management, technical performance, and cost control. Award fee scores consistently 97+ under the

ELVIS 2 and EELV IV&V contracts show that they are clearly getting the job done and this gives me confidence in their ability to successfully carry out the complicated and diverse work that encompasses

ELVIS 3. Schedule is a big driver in the launch vehicle market and a.i. solutions consistently demonstrated the ability to meet or exceed customer demands in this area in their ELVIS 2 citation, their

EELV IV&V contract, their MiDAESS contract, and their SpaceDOC-2 contract. Given that ELVIS 3 is a cost reimbursement contract, their demonstrated ability to control costs is important, given the budgetary environment within which the Agency currently operates. Ultimately, the SEB assigned a.i.

solutions a Very High level of confidence. After independently reviewing their submitted contracts and the evaluation documentation considered by the SEB, I concur in this assessment.

The ERC team submitted a number of contracts and while I note that none of them contained demonstrated experience in all of ELVIS 3’s PWS sections, I also note that if you take all of their citations together, they demonstrate at least relevant and in many instances, very relevant experience across the ELVIS 3 scope of work. I took particular note of their work on TOSC and its applicability to

PWS 5 and 7 and also their performance on ETSS as a good indicator that they have done similar work in the areas of launch site engineering and C&T. I do note that ERC has done somewhat similar work within PWS 10 (as demonstrated by their FTD and CDP submissions) with insight work into aircraft hardware and missile systems. Launch vehicle systems work and spacecraft integration are extremely unique and complex but I do recognize this work is partially analogous. I note a similar pattern in their

ETSS and TOSC work as it relates to PWS 4. They have done safety/quality engineering in an aircraft

1 For both contractors, I considered the past performance of each offeror as an integrated “team” and thus any reference to a.i. solutions or ERC should be interpreted accordingly.

flight system environment but not necessarily in a launch vehicle environment. Again, of some applicability but not as relevant. As to ERC’s actual performance across these contracts, I note that they have done a very good job across the board, garnering excellent customer ratings in the areas of contract management, technical competency, and cost control. I believe their submitted citations are backed up by other information considered by the SEB, including their database ratings and their customer interviews.

The ability to manage surge and lull and rapidly shift priorities is important in LSP’s dynamic operational environment and ERC has consistently demonstrated their ability to manage schedule in this regard through the ETSS, CDP, and TOSC contracts. Given that ELVIS 3 is a cost reimbursement contract, their demonstrated ability to control costs is a benefit to the Agency, given the budgetary environment within which the Agency currently operates. Ultimately, the SEB assigned ERC a High level of confidence.

After independently reviewing their submitted contracts and the evaluation documentation considered by the SEB, I agree with this assessment. If I compare the demonstrated past performance between these two companies, I think both have done a tremendous job across all of their recent contracts. But I do note that a.i. solutions has an appreciable edge in the relevancy of their work, particularly within PWS 4 and

10. I find that this difference, particularly within the launch vehicle insight and spacecraft integration work, is a discriminator between these two proposals, given the criticality and relative volume of work that this portion of the ELVIS 3 scope entails.

Cost

I first note that both offeror’s costs have been evaluated both for reasonableness and realism in accordance with the RFP. The SEB evaluated a.i. solutions’ proposal and found their proposed cost to be realistic for the work to be performed and found that it reflected a good understanding of the requirements of ELVIS 3. No probable cost adjustments were made to account for any perceived resource realism concerns on the part of the SEB. I note that a.i.