NNK16CA05C_-_Source_Select_State.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

Install LH2 Vent In-Line Liquid Separator, LC-39B at Kennedy Space Center, Florida

SOLICITATION NUMBER: NNK16570600R

1. DESCRIPTION OF ACQUISITION:

A. This acquisition is for the installation of liquid hydrogen separator for launch complex 39B at the Kennedy Space Center, FL. The scope of work to be performed under this project consists of installing an additional liquid hydrogen separator vessel, vaporizer and associated piping to prevent liquid hydrogen from reaching the flare stack from the ML disconnect vent at Launch Complex 39B. The work also includes new support structures, site improvements, tank access platform and deluge type fire protection system.

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. Two (2) amendments were issued (Amendment 01, January 22, 2016 and Amendment 02, January 27, 2016). Past Performance Questionnaires and the proposals were received no later than February 1, 2016.

C. Three (3) offers were received: J. P. Donovan Construction, Inc., Precision Mechanical, Inc., and Sauer Group, Inc. All Offerors were checked against the Excluded Parties List System. None of the offerors appeared on the List. The apparent lowest priced offeror was also checked against Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System and there were no reports. The bond was verified for the raised seal and a bond checklist performed with no issues. They also acknowledged both of the amendments.

D. The Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) consisted of Don Pittman (KSC–NEF20), Nick Rivieccio (KSC-NEF10), Eli McDivitt (KSC-SAE20), Joyce McDowell (KSC- OP000) and Randall A. Gumke (KSC –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 five factors: (i) Price (ii) Project Execution Plan (iii) Technical Experience (iv) Past Performance and (v) Small Business Utilization.

C. Evaluation of Price Proposals

Prices proposed by the offerors were checked for minor errors and apparent mistakes and none were noted. Per 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 average or mean of 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 Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET). The identity of the offerors was not revealed on the spreadsheet, but each offeror’s proposal was assigned an alphabetical letter (A through C), and listed in order of the lowest price for the base bid. Offeror A, later identified as Precision Mechanical, Inc., proposed the lowest price for the base bid. Offeror A’s base bid was found to be fair and reasonable as it was 13% below the IGE and 12% below the average or mean price of all the other proposals.

The price submitted by Offeror A is determined to be fair and reasonable when compared to the Government estimate and the other offerors’ prices and is the lowest offered price.

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 was then given to the technical evaluators who assessed the lowest priced offeror’s project execution plan, technical experience, past performance, and small business utilization as required by the solicitation. The 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) Section one (1) will be evaluated to determine whether:

o The high level performance schedule includes critical milestones and ensures work is accomplished within the stated contract performance period.

(2) Section two (2) will be evaluated to determine whether:

o The offeror’s proposed methodology will enable the offeror to meet the contract’s required schedule.

o The offeror’s proposed plan to test and install the liquid separator and vaporizer includes dye penetrant, radiographic, hydrostatic, and cold shock testing as well as mass spectrometer leak testing that is technically comprehensive and demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements.

o The offeror’s proposed plan for testing and installing the stainless steel cryogenic piping includes dye penetrant, radiographic, hydrostatic, and cold shock testing as well as mass spectrometer leak testing that is technically comprehensive and demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements.

o The offeror’s proposed plan to achieve required cleanliness level of new system components and maintain the required cleanliness level of clean components describes handling, cleaning, sampling, testing and analysis, environmental control and certification that 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:

Offeror A’s high level performance schedule has critical milestones including, Pre-Construction activities; Demolition; Shop Fabrication; Site Work; Precision Cleaning and Testing; Installation of Piping, Separator, and Vaporizer; Testing;

and Project Close Out.

The proposed methodology by Offeror A will enable the offeror to meet the contract’s schedule.

Plans proposed by Offeror A to install the liquid separator and vaporizer include dye penetrant, radiographic, hydrostatic, and cold shock testing as well as mass spectrometer leak testing that is technically comprehensive and demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements.

The plans for testing and installing the stainless steel cryogenic piping include dye penetrant, radiographic, hydrostatic, and cold shock testing, as well as mass spectrometer leak testing that is technically comprehensive and demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements by Offeror A.

Completing the required cleanliness level of new system components and maintaining the required cleanliness level of clean components is achievable with Offeror A’s plan which describes handling, cleaning, sampling, testing and analysis, environmental control and certification that is technically comprehensive and demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements.

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

(1) Refurbishment of the Environmental Control System (ECS) at LC-39B, Kennedy Space Center, FL. (Currently being work, 60% complete for $11,403,466)

(2) Eastern Processing Facility (EPF) Construction at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL. (Completed April 2013 for $29,866,491)

(3) Lockheed Vacuum Jacketed Pipe Installation, Lockheed Martin Waterton Plant Colorado. (Currently being work, more than 50% complete for $12,744,363)

The Government evaluated Offeror A’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 seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation December 23, 2015.

(2) At least two of the projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have been individually valued at or over $1,000,000.

(3) At least two of the projects must have included work on cryogenic systems using stainless steel piping.

(4) At least two of the projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have involved development of cleaning plans and procedures and achievement of particulate cleanliness levels to specification ISO 14952 Level 1000, KSC-C-123 Level 1000, or the substantially equivalent level in ASTM G93.

(5) In aggregate, the projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have involved testing of stainless steel cryogenic piping to include dye penetrant, radiographic, hydrostatic, and cold shock testing as well as mass spectrometer leak testing.

The evaluation of the Technical Experience Summary is as follows:

(1) All three projects submitted met the relevance criteria of being at least 50% completed or successfully completed within seven years.

(2) All three projects met the value criteria of having a dollar value over $1,000,000.

(3) Two of the projects met the requirement to include work on cryogenic systems using stainless steel piping.

(4) Two of the projects met the requirement involving the development of cleaning plans and procedures and achievement of particulate cleanliness levels to specification ISO 14952 Level 1000, KSC-C-123 Level 1000, or the substantially equivalent level in ASTM G93.

(5) In aggregate the projects met the requirement involving testing of stainless steel cryogenic piping, including dye penetrant, radiographic, hydrostatic, and cold shock testing, as well as mass spectrometer leak testing.

Offeror A 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 A’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 A’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 timely 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) Providing appropriately marked product data cut sheets; highlighting the particular model # / part #s, sizes, options, and other applicable data for the products to be provided and installed.

(6) Providing coordination, communication, and teaming between owner, owner’s representatives, and any other on-site contractors or personnel as applicable.

(7) 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

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

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

(10) 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 A as follows:

Eastern Processing Facility, CCAFS – All questions were answered with all but two being Exceptional. “Ability to provide project completion within 10% of the original cost and schedule” was rated Very Good and “Contractor’s compliance with contract subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business concerns” rated N/A. There were no additional comments provided, however, they did state that they would select them again.

Lockheed Martin SSL Shroud Replacement – All questions were answered with Exceptional ratings except for one N/A rating on subcontracting plan goals for SDB.

They also stated the following “All changes were from Owner/Design Engineer. The facility that this Subcontractor is working in is on-line and still processing flight hardware while construction is on-going. Many temporary systems and work-arounds were implemented by this Subcontractor to allow Lockheed Martin to continue their process during the construction”. They also stated that they would select them again.

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 timely 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) Compliant with providing appropriately marked product data cut sheets;

highlighting the particular model # / part #s, sizes, options, and other applicable data for the products to be provided and installed.

(6) Compliant with providing coordination, communication, and teaming between owner, owner’s representatives, and any other on-site contractors or personnel as applicable.

(7) 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 A’s OSHA 300 and 300A logs for years 2013 to 2015 indicated the company’s Days Away Restricted or Transferred (DART) and Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) were better than industry average. Offeror A’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 compling 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

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

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

(10) Complying with contract subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business concerns was not evaluated. The completed past performance questionnaires state this criteria was not applicable to their projects.

The Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition, it demonstrates effective performance; and is fully responsive to contract requirements.

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

IV. Factor 4 – Small Business Utilization

The Government evaluated Offeror A’s small business utilization against the following standards listed in Section M.1(b)(4) of the solicitation:

Offerors must meet all of the following standards to receive an “Acceptable” rating on this factor:

(1) The large businesses’ Small Business Subcontracting Plan addresses all of the eleven (11) requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, paragraphs (d)(1) thru (11). (Applicable to only large business offerors)

(2) The rationale provided for any proposed subcontracting goal that is less than the Contracting Officer’s recommended goal includes an independent assessment of the small business opportunities and demonstrates a reasonable attempt was made to meet the Contracting Officer’s recommended small business subcontracting goals. (Applicable to both large and small business offerors)

(3) The offeror’s proposal demonstrates a reasonable commitment to the use of small business subcontractors. (Applicable to both large and small business offerors)

The evaluation of the Small Business Utilization is as follows:

(1) Offeror A has addressed all eleven (11) requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9.

The subcontracting plan is thorough, and demonstrates procedural processes that are well established. No significant weakness or deficiency exists in any of the required subsections.

(2) The Offeror has proposed to meet the recommended goals in all socioeconomic categories.

(3) The proposal demonstrates a commitment to the use of small business subcontractors and describes Small Business (SB) outreach, market research, and SB identification.

Offeror A met all of the of the Small Business Utilization standards identified in the solicitation and is, therefore, assessed as having a Small Business Utilization rating of “Acceptable”.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Offeror A (Precision Mechanical, Inc.) submitted the lowest evaluated price for this acquisition.

Precision Mechanical’s price was evaluated in accordance with the solicitation and determined to be fair and reasonable. Precision Mechanical’s Project Execution Plan, Technical Experience, Past Performance, and Small Business Utilization were evaluated in accordance with the solicitation and determined to be “Acceptable”. Based on the criteria established in Section M of this solicitation the Government has determined the proposal submitted by Precision Mechanical, Inc. provides the lowest price and is technically acceptable to satisfy Kennedy Space Center’s requirement for Install LH2 Vent In-Line Liquid Separator, LC-39B at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Precision Mechanical, Inc. is awarded the Install LH2 Vent In-Line Liquid Separator, LC-39B at Kennedy Space Center, Florida contract for $4,876,900.00.

Randall A. Gumke Sherry L. Gasaway Contracting Officer Source Selection Authority