MMPS_Source_Selection_Statement.pdf

Selection Statement for the

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center and

Michoud Assembly Facility Protective Services

RFP NNM17558047R

On March 17, 2017, I along with other senior officials of the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) met with the source evaluation team (SET) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the acquisition of MSFC and Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) Protective Services (MMPS). The SET presented their findings to me for the purpose of making a source selection decision.

This procurement provides MSFC and MAF with the continued day-to-day requirements of protective services. The awardee will provide services by performing physical security, personnel security, technology protection, emergency management, and training requirements and range operations as defined in the performance work statement (PWS).

The MMPS solicitation was designated as a small business set-aside and was assigned North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561612, Security Guards and Patrol Services. The MMPS solicitation is for the acquisition of services, which will be performed under a performance-based, firm-fixed-price (FFP) mission services with FFP indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. The Government anticipates a five-year period of performance with a separately priced FFP 30-day phase-in period which is scheduled to begin on April 1, 2017. The contract consists of a one-year base period with four one-year option periods. The contract also includes FAR clause 52.217- 8, Option to Extend Services, providing the ability to extend the period of performance for an additional six months.

The MMPS solicitation also incorporated FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors, Competitive Acquisition, referenced in Provision L.16, Solicitation Specific Instructions to Offerors. In accordance with Provision M.3, Award Without Discussions, Offerors were notified that the Government intended to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except for clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)).

Selection Statement - MMPS / RFP #NNM17558047R

I. PROCUREMENT HISTORY

A request for information (RFI NNM15558047L) was published on FedBizOpps on August 24, 2015. Ten firms expressed interest in the procurement and submitted capability statements. This information, along with additional market research, was used to determine that a small business set-aside was appropriate for this acquisition. A draft request for proposal (RFP) was posted on November 28, 2016. Subsequently, 12 firms attended the Industry Day Virtual Meeting on December 5, 2016. The final RFP NNM17558047R was released on December 28, 2016. Prior to the receipt of proposals on February 9, 2017, three amendments to the RFP were issued.

Nine proposals were submitted on February 9, 2017, by 12:00 p.m. Central Time (CT) as required by the solicitation. The RFP required the submission of proposals in four volumes: Volume I, Technical Considerations; Volume II, Price; Volume III, Past Performance; and Volume IV, Complete Model Contract.

Proposals were received from the following companies (listed alphabetically):

Acadia Protective Services, LLC Alutiiq Security and Technology, LLC Chenega Infinity, LLC Excalibur Associates, Inc.

Fiore Industries, Inc.

FSA Technology, LLC Golden Svcs, LLC Security Walls, LLC The Hana Group, Inc.

II. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

In accordance with Provision M.5, Basis for Contract Award, the procurement was conducted as a Price Performance Tradeoff (PPTO) source evaluation in accordance with FAR Part 15, Contracting By Negotiation, and NASA FAR Supplement Part 1815. The Government sought to select an Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, considering Price and Past Performance.

The evaluation process proceeded as follows:

Step 1: An initial review of proposals by the SET was conducted to determine acceptability of the proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. All Offerors were checked against the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non-Procurement Programs and were reviewed for compliance with the solicitation instructions. All proposals were determined to be acceptable.

Step 2: The SET evaluated the proposals against Section M.6, Technical Considerations, to ensure the Offeror could satisfy the technical requirements of the solicitation. To be considered technically acceptable, the proposal had to satisfy all of the following technical considerations.

(1) Proof of possession of a final Top Secret Facility Security Clearance level as of the due date for receipt of proposals.

(2) Fulfillment, by the effective date of the contract, of the required quantity and types of uniforms for each security police officer.

(3) Fulfillment, by the effective date of the contract, of the required quantity and type of duty gear for each security police officer.

(4) Fulfillment, by the effective date of the contract, of the required quantity and type of each vehicle.

(5) Fulfillment, by the effective date of the contract, of the required quantity and type of equipment for each vehicle.

(6) Fulfillment, by the effective date of the contract, of the required command structure for supervision for all employees.

(7) A description, by the effective date of the contract, of the required staffing profile for each labor category.

(8) A description, by the effective date of the contract, of the mandatory training, education, qualification, and certification requirements for all employees.

Five proposals (Alutiiq Security and Technology, Chenega Infinity, Excalibur Associates, Security Walls, and The Hana Group) satisfactorily met all technical requirements and were determined to be technically acceptable. Four proposals (i.e., Acadia Protective Services, Fiore Industries, FSA Technology, and Golden SVCS) did not satisfactorily meet all of the requirements and were determined to be technically unacceptable.

Step 3: The SET evaluated all technically acceptable proposals remaining from Step 2 for fair and reasonable pricing. To ensure that the final prices were fair and reasonable, the SET performed a price analysis of the Offeror’s Mission Services pricing and IDIQ rates in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). The five technically acceptable proposals were determined to have fair and reasonable prices for Mission Services.

Step 4: The SET ranked the proposals remaining after Step 3 in order of lowest to highest Mission Services price as proposed in Section B.3, Table B.3, Matrix of CLINs, “Sum of Total Contract Value (MSFC & MAF) – Base Plus Options.” The proposal from Security Walls had the lowest price, the proposal from Excalibur Associates had the second lowest price, the proposal from Alutiiq Security and Technology had the third lowest price, the proposal from Chenega Infinity had the fourth lowest price, and the proposal from The Hana Group had the highest price.

Step 5: The past performance evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), Past Performance Evaluation, NFS 1815.305(a)(2), and Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award of the solicitation. The SET relied upon the narrative provided in the proposals, completed past performance questionnaires submitted by the Offerors’ customers, and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

All past performance evaluations assessed the degree of confidence the Government has in the Offeror’s ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements for the contract while meeting schedule, budget, and performance quality constraints. The past performance evaluation considered each Offeror’s demonstrated record of past performance. This factor was not numerically scored but was assigned an adjectival rating. The applicable adjectival ratings were “Very High Level of Confidence,” “High Level of Confidence,” “Moderate Level of Confidence,” “Low Level of Confidence,” “Very Low Level of Confidence,” and “Neutral” in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2). The RFP stated the order of evaluation for Past Performance would begin with the proposal having the lowest fair and reasonable price and end with either the proposal receiving the highest adjectival rating of “Very High Level of Confidence” or after all the proposals were evaluated in the event no proposal received the highest adjectival rating. The proposal with the lowest fair and reasonable price received an adjectival rating of “High level of Confidence” and the proposal with the second lowest fair and reasonable price received an adjectival rating of “Very High Level of Confidence.”

This evaluation process resulted in two proposals being eligible for selection: the proposal from Excalibur Associates and the proposal from Security Walls.

Excalibur Associates, Inc.

Under the Technical Considerations factor, since the proposal demonstrated the Offeror will satisfactorily meet all technical requirements, the proposal was determined to be technically acceptable.

Under the Price factor, the proposal had the second lowest fair and reasonable price for Mission Services.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Excalibur proposal received an adjectival rating of “Very High Level of Confidence” resulting from two significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The significant strengths related to Excalibur’s past performance as a prime contractor on the current NASA MMPS Contract NNM12AA08C and the past performance of a proposed subcontractor (i.e., ISS Action) as the prime contractor on the NASA Stennis Space Center Contract

NNS12AA11C.

Security Walls, LLC

Under the Technical Considerations factor, since the proposal demonstrated the Offeror will satisfactorily meet all technical requirements, the proposal was determined to be technically acceptable.

Under the Price factor, the proposal had the lowest fair and reasonable price of $49,844,675 for Mission Services.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Security Walls proposal received an adjectival rating of “High Level of Confidence” resulting from one significant strength, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The significant strength related to Security Walls’ past performance as a prime contractor on the Internal Revenue Service Contract PIRMS-14-C-00001. One strength related to Security Walls’ past performance as a prime contractor on the Department of Energy (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Contract WIPP1-PO406476. The other strength related to the safety performance of Security Walls, which included an exceptional safety performance record for the referenced contracts and award of the OSHA Voluntary Protection Program Star from the Department of Energy.

III. SELECTION DECISION

My decision is based on the RFP’s stated evaluation criteria, which requires me to select the proposal offering the best value, giving full consideration to the findings and the data presented to me by the SET. I commended the SET on the thoroughness of their evaluation of the proposals, which I accepted as presented to me. I also requested and received the opinions of the advisors present, and asked for their comments, objections, and concerns with the material presented.

As provided for in the RFP, the Government will award to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government considering a trade-off between the factors of Price and Past Performance (among those Offerors still in consideration at this stage). Therefore, I thoroughly examined the SET’s evaluation, and noted that the RFP stated that Price and Past Performance factors were considered to be of essentially equal importance.

In comparing the proposals submitted by Security Walls and Excalibur Associates, I first reviewed the total prices proposed by both Offerors. I had a high degree of confidence that the prices proposed were fair and reasonable, both in terms of comparison to the Government Independent Cost Estimate and to the range of prices offered by the other proposals.

I next noted that the proposal submitted by Security Walls had a somewhat lower price than Excalibur. I noted that the price difference was not a large difference, but neither was it insignificant and therefore Security Walls had a clear advantage in this factor.

I next compared the proposals in the Past Performance factor. I noted that the proposal submitted by Security Walls had a “High Level of Confidence” as determined by the SET based on a significant strength and two strengths. Considering these findings, the proposal offered (1) relevant past performance coverage across all PWS elements except one (i.e. Technology Protection), (2) included uniformed operations which was considered primary and vital under the solicitation, and (3) predominantly exceptional performance.

I then noted that Excalibur Associates had a “Very High Level of Confidence” assigned by the SET based on two significant strengths. Considering these findings, the proposal offered (1) relevant past performance coverage across all PWS areas (2) included uniformed operations which was considered primary and vital under the solicitation, and

(3) predominately exceptional performance.

In comparing both proposals in this factor, while I noted that the proposal submitted by Excalibur Associates had a higher confidence level adjectival rating, I noted that both proposals demonstrated exceptional performance across the PWS areas, with both proposals demonstrating relevant past performance in the PWS area that the solicitation clearly indicated as being the primary and vital aspect of the contract. I also noted that each proposal had one significant strength relating to performance as a prime contractor on a contract highly relevant to this effort, although the performance inputs on Excalibur’s contract were slightly stronger than for Security Walls’ contract.

Based on the findings presented to me and the information presented above, I determined that, while there was an adjectival difference between the proposals in the Past Performance factor, the magnitude of Excalibur’s advantage under this factor was slight.

Comparing both proposals across the two factors, I noted the advantage of the Security Walls proposal in the Price factor. I also noted the slight advantage of the Excalibur Associates proposal in the Past Performance factor, considering the adjectival rating difference between the two proposals. I noted that both of the Offerors had a significant strength for their performance on a highly relevant contract. I also considered the additional significant strength of the Excalibur proposal, which related to the proposed subcontractor’s performance on a highly relevant contract, to be somewhat offset by the two additional strengths of the Security Walls proposal, one of which related to the Offeror’s exceptional record of safety as a prime contractor.

I assessed that the exceptional performance and the extent of the PWS scope on prior contracts for both proposals provided me a high degree of assurance that both Offerors could successfully perform this effort at the prices proposed.

Considering the clear advantage in the Price factor offered by the Security Walls’ proposal and the slight advantage of the Excalibur Associates’ proposal in the Past Performance factor, I determined that the slight advantage of the Excalibur Associates’ proposal in Past Performance did not warrant the additional Price premium that would result from award to this Offeror. Based on my assessment of the SET’s findings and in accordance with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria, I considered the proposal submitted by Security Walls to be the most advantageous offer, Price and Past Performance factors considered. I therefore select Security Walls for award of the MMPS effort.

Steven C. Miley Source Selection Authority