LSS_Selection_Statement-Final_Signed.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC) Logistics Support Services (LSS)

Request For Proposal (RFP): NNL16ZB1002R

On October 26, 2016, I, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the subject acquisition, met with the Source Evaluation Team (SET) appointed to evaluate proposals for the LaRC LSS effort.

Procurement History

The NASA LaRC LSS effort will provide comprehensive logistics services covering all aspects of general transportation and delivery, fleet management and vehicle maintenance, stores stock support, property disposal and storage, shipping, receiving and materials management, equipment management, furniture management, recycle program and carpet installation. Warehousing facilities totaling approximately 85,000 square feet in 15 facilities on LaRC are provided on-site to support vehicle maintenance, materials management, equipment management, warehouse operations, and property disposal.

Market research was conducted to determine the existing small business capabilities and assess how well they compare with LaRC requirements. A sources-sought synopsis was issued on December 16, 2015, seeking capability statements from potential sources under NAICS code 561210 – Facilities Support Services ($38.5M million size standard). Based on the responses received, the Contracting Officer determined, with the concurrence of the Small Business Specialist and the Small Business Administration (SBA) Procurement Center Representative that an adequate number of 8(a) concerns existed to allow the LaRC solicitation to be conducted as an 8(a) set aside with a NAICS code of 561210, with a single award contemplated.

An 8(a) Competitive Offer Letter was sent on March 21, 2016, to the SBA Richmond District Office in accordance with the Section 8(a)(1)(A) of the Small Business Act and FAR 19.804-2 to solicit competitive offers for eligible section 8(a) program participants. The SBA accepted the offer submitted on March 21, 2016.

The SSA appointed the LaRC SET on June 23, 2016, for the purpose of evaluating proposals received in response to the solicitation. A Procurement Strategy Meeting was held on May 04, 2016. A Draft RFP was posted June 16, 2016, and a Pre-Solicitation Conference was conducted on June 29, 2016. The final RFP was issued on July 18, 2016. One amendment to the RFP was issued to respond to questions received from potential Offerors and to make minor corrections.

The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed price contract with a potential period of performance of five years (a one-year base plus four one-year options). The contemplated contract includes an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity component and using the Government’s Purchase Card to allow for issuing fixed priced task orders for additional services within the general scope of the contract.

Timely proposals were received on or before the due date of August 18, 2016, from the following five Offerors (listed in alphabetical order):

• Alutiiq Commercial Enterprises, LLC (ACE)

• PrimeTech International, Inc. (PTi)

• Red River Science & Technology, LLC (RRST)

• The Severson Group, LLC (TSG)

• Vulcan Group, Inc. (Vulcan)

Evaluation Factors and Process

This best value source selection was conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Part 1815. Initially, the SET reviewed each proposal in sufficient depth to identify any proposals unacceptable in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. All proposals, in accordance with RFP Section M.2, were found to warrant a full evaluation.

In accordance with RFP Section M.2 all five proposals were evaluated in the areas of Price and Past Performance as explained in M.3 Evaluation Factors. The SET reviewed, in depth, the five (5) proposals, as set out below.

Factor 1 - Price: The evaluation of the price factor was conducted in accordance with the RFP. The Government performed a price analysis (FAR 15.404-1(b)) that included a comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation; comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), and analysis of the pricing information provided by the Offerors.

The price analysis documented the reasonableness of the proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP is the amount proposed in Part I, Section B.4, Pricing Schedule, “SUM OF TOTAL AMOUNTS -- BASE PLUS OPTIONS” (excluding total IDIQ amount). Although not included in the TEP, the Government also evaluated the reasonableness of the Offerors proposed rates for Section B, Clause B.5 “PRE-PRICED SCHEDULE OF RATES & LABOR CATEGORIES FOR IDIQ SUPPORT.” The Price Proposal evaluation was not adjectivally rated or numerically scored. The price analysis also ensured that all offerors met the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Wage Determination minimums, as well the Limitations on Subcontracting Rule (FAR 52.219-14(b)(1)).

Factor 2 – Past Performance: Under the Past Performance factor the SET members individually evaluated each Offeror’s recent and relevant performance record (including the past performance of specific subcontractors per the RFP ) similar in size, content, and complexity to the LSS effort.

The SET members considered the degree of similarity in size (in dollars per year), content (based on PWS sections elements in Attachment 1, Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)), and complexity to the requirements in this solicitation, as well as the recency, and duration of the past performance with more recent and/or longer duration work being considered more pertinent. As stated in the RFP, at M.3(b), size and complexity were not evaluated for subcontractors. If a subcontractor is proposed to perform all of the work under any one of the specific PWS sections identified in Attachment I, PPQ, the Government considered the similarity in content of the subcontractor’s past performance with those specific PWS section(s). The RFP stated that each of the past performance confidence ratings has a "performance" component and a "pertinence" component with the Offeror having to meet the requirements of both components to achieve a particular rating. The RFP description of the past performance levels of confidence ratings is set out below:

The SET met and discussed all of the past performance findings of the individual voting members and used their collective judgment to develop consensus findings for the past performance factor and arrived at their consensus pertinence, performance, and level of confidence rating for each Offeror as set out in the table under the heading “Factor 2 – Past Performance,” below (Page 5).

The Contracting Officer carefully reviewed the facts from the initial findings and discussed the findings with the SET. The RFP stated the Government anticipated award would be made without discussions [RFP provision FAR 52.215-1(f)(4) and RFP provision L.13 D(1)]. Based on the initial evaluation of the

In accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2) past performance shall be evaluated for each offeror using the following levels of 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; indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; 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 with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part with only minor problems with 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; fully responsive to contract requirements;

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;

adequate results; 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 required in one or more areas;

problems in one or more areas which, adversely affect 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)].

SET, it was evident that the potential for an award without discussions existed. Therefore, no Competitive Range was determined and the SET met with me, the SSA, on October 26, 2016 to present its findings.

Evaluation Findings

The following is a summary of the results of the SET evaluation:

Offeror Total Evaluated Price

Past Performance Level of

Confidence

ACE Third Lowest VHLC PTi Second Lowest HLC RRST Fourth Lowest MLC TSG Lowest LLC Vulcan Highest Neutral

VHLC – Very High Level of Confidence LLC – Low Level of Confidence HLC – High Level of Confidence VLLC - Very Low Level of Confidence MLC – Moderate Level of Confidence

Factor 1 - Price

The SET analyzed the price proposals to determine price reasonableness. Offerors’ price proposals were evaluated in accordance with RFP Section M.3(a), Price Factor. A summary of the TEP (Lowest to Highest) for each offeror is shown in the table below:

Offeror Total Evaluated Price

TSG Lowest PTi Second Lowest ACE Third Lowest RRST Fourth Lowest Vulcan Highest

In accordance with FAR 15.402, the Contracting Officer has determined that four (4) of the five (5) Offeror’s proposed prices are fair and reasonable based on the comparison of the proposed prices, comparison of the proposed prices to the IGCE, and the fact that adequate price competition was obtained.

ACE:

The SET found the price proposal to be fair and reasonable, reflected a clear understanding of the LSS effort, and was consistent with the elements of the price proposal.

PTi:

The SET found the price proposal to be fair and reasonable, reflected a clear understanding of the LSS effort, and was consistent with the elements of the price proposal.

RRST:

The SET found the price proposal to be fair and reasonable, reflected a clear understanding of the LSS effort, and was consistent with the elements of the price proposal.

TSG:

The SET found the Offeror did not provide sufficient information regarding Other Direct Costs (ODCs).

The SET found the Offeror provided only one type of ODC, so that the Offeror’s proposal did not evidence ODCs adequately to perform the Performance Work Statement (PWS). This precluded the SET from establishing the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the Offeror’s TEP. Therefore, the SET recommended the SSA not award to TSG unless discussions result in a successful determination of TSG’s ODCs.

Vulcan:

The SET found the price proposal to be fair and reasonable, and was consistent with the elements of the price proposal.

Factor 2 - Past Performance

The SET evaluated the Offerors’ past performance in accordance with Section M.3(b) of the RFP and a confidence rating was assigned in accordance with NFS 1815.305. Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance confidence ratings and findings for the five (5) evaluated Offerors:

Offeror Pertinence Rating Performance Rating Level of Confidence

ACE Very High Exemplary VHLC PTi High Very Effective HLC RRST Pertinent Very Effective MLC TSG Somewhat Pertinent Exemplary LLC Vulcan Did Not Address Did Not Address Neutral

ACE:

The SET determined that there is a “Very High Level of Confidence” that ACE would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the LSS effort based on its past performance.

ACE demonstrated performance based on their contract performance at NASA LaRC, Hampton, VA;

Army Research Laboratory at Adelphi, MD; and the Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake, CA. The SET assigned an overall pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent, in terms of size, content, and complexity to the LSS effort, based on their assessment that ACE’s proposal demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent experience in five of the six technical work areas and Highly Pertinent experience in one technical work area (in accordance with RFP section L.12(b)(9)).

The SET arrived at an “Exemplary” overall performance rating. Of three referenced contracts, two were rated as “Exemplary” and one as “Very Effective.” The SET determined the relevant experience to be recent and of a meaningful duration to judge performance. The SET’s assessment also considered feedback from PPQs and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports.

Positive comments from customers were noted and no persistent or recurring problems were evident. In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SET assigned an overall Very High Level of Confidence.

The following is a summary of the SET’s ratings of ACE’s past performance factor.

PTi:

The SET determined that there is a “High Level of Confidence” that PTi would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the LSS effort based on its past performance.

PTi demonstrated experience based on their contract performance at Marines Corps Logistics Command in Barstow, CA and the Marine Corps Logistics Command in Albany, CA; and their subcontractor, Accent Controls, Inc.’s (ACI), work at the Detroit Arsenal in Warren, MI. The SET assigned an overall pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent, in terms of size, content, and complexity to the LSS effort, based on their assessment that PTi’s proposal demonstrated Highly Pertinent experience in four of the six technical work areas and Pertinent experience in two technical work areas (in accordance with RFP section L.12(b)(9)).

The SET arrived at a “Very Effective” overall performance rating. Of two PTi referenced contracts one was rated as “Exemplary” and the one as “Very Effective.” ACI’s referenced contract was rated as “Very Effective.” The SET determined the relevant experience to be recent and of a meaningful duration to judge performance. The SET’s assessment also considered feedback from PPQs and CPARS reports.

Positive comments from customers were noted and no persistent or recurring problems were evident. In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SET assigned an overall High Level of Confidence.

The following is a summary of the SET’s ratings of PTi’s past performance factor.

RRST:

The SET determined that there is a “Moderate Level of Confidence” that RRST would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the LSS effort based on its past performance.

RRST demonstrated experience based on their contract performance at Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA;

Fort Lee, VA; and Fort Still, OK and their subcontractor, Data Monitoring Systems’ (DMS) work at the NOAA Pacific Regional Center, HI; and Grissom Air Reserve Base, IN. The SET assigned an overall pertinence rating of Pertinent, in terms of size, content, and complexity to the LSS effort. This rating was based on the SET’s assessment that RRST’s proposal demonstrated Highly Pertinent experience in three of the six technical work areas, Pertinent experience in two technical work areas, and Somewhat Pertinent experience in one technical work area (in accordance with RFP section L.12 (b) (9)).

The SET arrived at a “Very Effective” overall performance rating. Of the three RRST’s referenced contracts one was rated “Exemplary” and two were rated “Very Effective.” The Subcontractor DMS was

Offeror Pertinence Rating Performance Rating Level of Confidence ACE Very Highly Pertinent Exemplary VHLC

Offeror Pertinence Rating Performance Rating Level of Confidence PTi Highly Pertinent Very Effective HLC rated “Very Effective” for one referenced contract. For the second DMS referenced contract the SET was unable to retrieve any performance information.

The SET determined the relevant experience to be recent and of a meaningful duration to judge performance. The SET’s assessment also considered feedback from PPQs and CPARS reports. Positive comments from customers were noted and no persistent or recurring problems were evident. In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SET assigned an overall Moderate Level of Confidence.

The following is a summary of the SET’s ratings of RRST’s past performance factor.

TSG:

The SET determined that there is a “Low Level of Confidence” that TSG would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the LSS effort based on its past performance.

TSG demonstrated experience based on their contract performance at Northrop Grumman in Bernardo, CA; Northrop Grumman in Miramar, CA; Los Angeles National Cemetery; and their subcontractor, ALOG’s, work at Fort Campbell; Fort Bliss; and TACOM Omnibus. The SET assigned an overall pertinence rating of Somewhat Pertinent, in terms of size, content, and complexity to the LSS effort, based on their assessment that TSG’s proposal demonstrated Somewhat Pertinent experience in two of the six technical work areas and Did Not Address experience in the other four technical work areas (in accordance with RFP section L.12(b)(9)).

The SET arrived at an “Exemplary” overall performance rating. Of the three TSG’s referenced contracts two were rated as “Exemplary” and the one as “Very Effective.” The SET determined the relevant experience to be recent and of a meaningful duration to judge performance. The SET’s assessment also considered feedback from PPQs and CPARS reports. Positive comments from customers were noted and no persistent or recurring problems were evident. In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SET assigned an overall Low Level of Confidence.

The following is a summary of the SET’s ratings of TSG’s past performance factor.

Vulcan:

The SET determined that there is a “Neutral Level of Confidence” that Vulcan would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the LSS effort based on its past performance.

Vulcan’s subcontractor, Pride Industries (PI), demonstrated experience based on their contract performance at Fort Rucker, AL; and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ. The Offeror received a Did Not Address rating for “Overall Pertinence” and a Did Not Address rating for “Performance,” as the Offeror (Vulcan) did not provide relevant past performance references. Section M.3(b) of the RFP states, “if a subcontractor is proposed to perform all of the work under any one of the specific PWS sections identified in Attachment I, Past Performance Questionnaire, the Government will consider the similarity in content of the subcontractor’s past performance with those specific PWS section(s).” However, the

Offeror Pertinence Rating Performance Rating Level of Confidence RRST Pertinent Very Effective MLC

TSG Somewhat Pertinent Exemplary LLC

Vulcan Group proposal did not provide the work performance matrix (RFP Section L12 (b)) Attachment VI); therefore the Government cannot determine which PWS sections the subcontractor will perform.

The SET was unable to determine if the subcontractor was proposed to perform all the work under any one of the specific PWS sections. Therefore, the ratings for PI were not considered in the area of pertinence or performance as the Offeror did not have a record of relevant past performance. In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SET assigned an overall Level of Confidence of Neutral.

The following is a summary of the SET’s ratings of Vulcan’s past performance factor.

BASIS FOR SELECTION

The SET presented its findings to me on October 26, 2016, and I am convinced that the SET conducted a thorough, fair, and objective evaluation of all proposals in accordance with the established evaluation criteria in the RFP. I asked questions about aspects of the price and the past performance evaluations to enhance my understanding. After all questions were answered, I fully understood the SET’s findings.

I comparatively assessed the proposals against the evaluation factors in the RFP. Given that the RFP states that the price and past performance factors are of approximately equal importance, I evaluated the offers using price and past performance as indicators of which Offeror provides the best value to the Government.

Starting with Vulcan, I noted that Vulcan was the highest priced offeror and could not represent the best value considering the RFP criteria and my comparative analysis of competing offerors’ prices. Vulcan’s price was significantly higher than competing offerors and the IGCE. Vulcan’s Past Performance rating of neutral did not impact my comparative analysis and decision, as I saw it as neither favorable nor unfavorable for the Government. I did not continue with the comparative assessment of Vulcan’s proposal.

Then I considered in my comparative analysis RRST’s higher priced offer and lower Past Performance confidence rating compared to ACE and PTi and determined that RRST could not represent a better value than either ACE or PTi. I did not continue the comparative assessment of RRST’s proposal.

Next, I considered TSG’s price and confidence rating compared to offerors still in consideration (ACE and PTi). I compared TSG’s lowest price to the next low, PTi. TSG’s proposed price was slightly less than PTi’s. I found this nominal difference in price could not represent the best value to the Government, as I compared TSG’s Low Level of Confidence to PTi’s faintly higher price and High Level of Confidence. PTi’s proposal reflects significant superiority (2 levels above) in their Past Performance Level of Confidence. Because discussions with TSG regarding its proposal’s insufficient representation of ODCs could only result in an adjustment of price, and not affect TSG’s confidence rating, I determined discussions would not benefit the Government. Therefore, I did not continue with the comparative assessment of TSG’s proposal.

I then continued my comparative assessment of the two remaining offerors still in consideration, ACE and PTi. I compared the relative strengths of both offeror proposals. I considered the analyses and findings of the SET related to the offerors’ proposed prices and found that both offerors proposed fair and reasonable prices. I noted that ACE’s price is not more than 10% higher compared to PTi’s price. In my comparison

Vulcan Did Not Address Did Not Address Neutral of Factor 2, Past Performance, for ACE and PTi, I considered ACE’s higher past performance rating of Very High Level of Confidence compared to PTi’s rating of High Level of Confidence. I considered closely the differences in ACE’s and PTi’s Past Performance Ratings, which included the analyses performed by the SET for the pertinence and performance components of the past performance confidence rating. In reviewing the detailed findings, ACE’s pertinence ratings were higher than PTi in all six (6) areas of the SET’s evaluation of content pertinence. ACE received higher ratings of very highly pertinent for Area 1 – General Transportation & Delivery Services and highly pertinent for Area 5 – Equipment Management, whereas PTi was rated as pertinent in these two (2) areas. For the remaining four (4) areas that included Area 2 – Fleet Management & Vehicle Maintenance, Area 3 – Shipping Operations, Area 4 – Receiving Operations, and Area 6 – Property Disposal and Storage, ACE received higher ratings of very highly pertinent for these four (4) areas; whereas, PTi received highly pertinent ratings. I found ACE’s overall pertinence to be superior to PTi’s. I considered ACE’s experience in Equipment Management is one level higher in pertinence and included notable demonstrated experience in standing up a RFID inventory program, while PTi’s offer lacked detailed experience regarding updating and maintaining related data in an enterprise data system. In Area 1, General Transportation & Delivery Schedule, ACE’s experience is two levels higher in pertinence (Very Highly Pertinent as compared to PTi’s Pertinent rating) as PTi did not demonstrate experience in: maintaining move schedule data using shared access or web enabled software; pickup and delivery of hazardous, non-hazardous, sensitive but unclassified materials, and sensitive instruments; or on and near site office relocation scheduling and services including furniture delivery services. For the performance component, I found ACE’s “Exemplary” to be superior compared to PTi’s “Very Effective” rating. Overall, I found ACE’s past performance to be superior and of higher value compared to PTi’s past performance.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

As Source Selection Authority I fully understand and agree with the overall findings of the SET and relied on their findings in making my decision. In conclusion, ACE’s proposal provides the greater benefit to the Agency based on my integrated assessment against the evaluation criteria in the RFP. First, ACE’s superior rated past performance is beneficial to the Center due to the reduced risk and higher confidence of successful performance. I have a very high confidence in ACE’s ability to perform the effort based on their proposal’s record of demonstrated past performance. While PTi’s and TSG’s lower prices, compared to ACE’s price, would equate to monetary savings for the Center, I considered the superior aspects of ACE’s higher rated past performance factor more than offsets the proposed savings.

ACE’s higher confidence rating outweighs the price savings of PTi’s and TSG’s proposals. I also noted that ACE’s proposed price is below the IGCE. I found ACE’s higher ratings in both pertinence and performance would result in significant benefit to the Center based on the reduced performance risk. In the area of pertinence, ACE received a rating of Very Highly Pertinent and the next highest offeror, PTi, received a Highly Pertinent. Also, in the area of performance ACE received a rating of Exemplary, while PTi received a rating of Very Effective. TSG also received a rating of Exemplary, but I considered that rating not a persuasive reason for selection in the context of TSG’s overall pertinence rating of Somewhat Pertinent. Therefore, based on my assessment of the proposals against the specified evaluation criteria, it is my decision that Alutiiq Commercial Enterprises, LLC’s (ACE) proposal offers the best overall value to the government, as its proposal is reasonably priced and evidences higher rated pertinence in every performance work area, along with exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner.

I hereby select Alutiiq Commercial Enterprise, LLC for award with a TEP of $9,299,716.

Richard T. Cannella Source Selection Authority