NOC II SSS_signed.pdf

Source Selection Statement Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory Operations Contract II

Solicitation Number 80JSC023R0007 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

On July 10, 2023, I appointed the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to evaluate proposals for the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) Operations Contract II (NOC II). On April 10, 2024, the SEB briefed me in my capacity as the Source Selection Authority (SSA); the briefing detailed the final SEB’s evaluation findings.

Prior to the briefing, the SEB provided me with the final NOC II evaluation findings, and I reviewed these before attending the briefing. In addition to myself, the briefing was attended by members of the SEB and key management officials. During the briefing, the SEB reported its final evaluation results, and I provided the SEB with my independent judgment relative to the final evaluation results and asked several questions regarding the information presented. This award decision results from my independent consideration of the information presented during the evaluation results briefing.

BACKGROUND

The NOC II contract serves as the follow-on contract succeeding the current contract NOC, 80JSC017C0001. The purpose of NOC II is to specify technical, managerial, administrative, safety, and dive operations work needed to ensure the availability, integrity, and reliability of the systems and subsystems of integrated hardware and software used in the preparation for and performance of mission operations at the NBL supporting NASA human spaceflight programs. The objectives of this contract are to provide support (labor and expertise) to ensure the continuing safe operation of the NBL and support all required events and increase opportunities for synergy across all functions, processes, and systems.

The NBL is a key Agency asset that supports human spaceflight training and operations. The facility supports the International Space Station (ISS) Program, Orion Program, Commercial Crew Program, Artemis Program, Commercial/Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Program, and other future space programs. It provides capabilities for astronaut training, real-time mission troubleshooting, flight hardware development and verification, water survival training, and support of external customers. The NBL also includes a Logistics and Mockup Facility (LMF) that provides fabrication, repair, and maintenance of mockups.

The NOC II procurement is a Single-Award, Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) completion form contract with the option to transition to Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) and an Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite- Quantity feature (IDIQ). The contract has an option to transition back to CPAF provided that the Government, in its sole discretion, determines this to be in its best interest. The Core contract value is $161,163,760, this includes Phase-In, Base, Options and Extension Of Services. The guaranteed IDIQ minimum for NOC II is $20,000 and the maximum not-to-exceed (NTE) is $104M. The total contract value is $265.2M. The NOC II period of performance is the following:

Contract Phase-In:

August 1, 2024 – September 30, 2024

Base Period:

October 1, 2024 – September 30, 2026

Option 1:

October 1, 2026 – September 30, 2027

Option 2:

October 1, 2027 – September 30, 2029

Option 3:

October 1, 2029 – September 30, 2031

Option 4:

October 1, 2031 – September 30, 2032

Option 5:

October 1, 2032 – September 30, 2033

Extension of Services:

October 1, 2033 – March 31, 2034

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

Request for Information (RFI)/Sources Sought Synopses (SSS) On February 03, 2023, NASA issued an RFI/SSS to solicit capability statements from Industry through SAM.gov under notice ID 80JSC023NOC02. The draft NOC II Statement of Work (SOW) was posted on February 17, 2023, to provide Industry with the anticipated requirements of NOC II.

Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)/RFI On February 03, 2023, NASA issued an OCI/RFI for NOC II. The Government provided the NOC II SOW for Industry to consider when identifying any potential OCI.

Industry Day On March 29, 2023, NASA held a hybrid (in-person and virtual) Industry Day with 17 companies.

Six (6) one-on-one meetings were held with 7 companies. In addition, a guided tour of the NBL was provided with 12 companies in attendance.

Posting of Industry Day Questions and Answers On April 28, 2023, and May 11, 2023, NASA provided official responses to questions received during the NOC II Industry Day. All potential offerors were made aware on SAM.gov of all questions asked during Industry Day and apprised of NASA’s answers thereto.

Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) On July 12, 2023, NASA posted the NOC II DRFP and solicited questions and feedback from potential offerors.

Pre-solicitation Synopsis On August 11, 2023, NASA posted a pre-solicitation synopsis to notify potential Offerors of NASA’s intent to post the NOC II solicitation.

Pre-Proposal Conference On August 11, 2023, NASA posted Pre-Proposal Bulletin Charts to discuss and highlight the RFP requirements. The virtual pre-proposal conference was held on September 12, 2023. In addition, NASA held a virtual pre-proposal pricing conference on September 12, 2023, to review the Excel Pricing Model (EPM) workbook with Industry.

DRFP Question and Answers Posted On August 31, 2023, NASA posted Industry Questions and Answers for the NOC II DRFP.

Request for Proposal (RFP) On August 31, 2023, NASA released the NOC II RFP and associated documents on SAM.gov. The RFP responses were due on October 03, 2023, at 12:00 p.m. Central Time. Three (3) modifications were issued to the RFP:

The purpose of Modification 1, posted on September 06, 2023, included Amendment 1 of the final RFP which updated Section C – Statement of Work, J-10 - DRD-NOCII-04 External Customer Plan, L.16 – Security Requirements and Instructions to Offerors and M.3 – Source Evaluation Board Evaluations Factors for Award of the RFP and posted NOC II Final RFP Questions and Answers Set 1 in the "Attachments" section.

The purpose of Modification 2, posted on September 11, 2023, included Amendment 2 of the final RFP which updated L-5 – NOC II Cost-Plus Template and L-10 – TCP Templates. In addition, a copy of the Pre-Proposal Conference presentation was posted in the “Attachment” section.

The Purpose of Modification 3, posted on September 21, 2023, included Amendment 3 of the final RFP which updated Section A – Table of Content, J-6 - Contract Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) to Statement of Work (SOW) Dictionary, J-10 – DRD-NOC11-14 Safety and Health Plan, J-21 - Standard Labor Categories (SLC) Definitions, J-23 - DD Form 254, Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specification, L-19 - Proposal Arrangement, Page Limitations, Copies, and Due Dates, L-22 - Past Performance Information (JSC 52.215-114) - Volume II, L-23 - Cost and Price Factor – Volume III, Attachment L-2 – Small Business Subcontracting Tables, Attachment L-9

– Technical Resources Summary Template and BOE template, M.6 – Cost and Price Factor and Incorporated Clause I.23 – Performance-Based Payments (FAR 52.232-32)(APR 2012).

RFP Questions and Answers On September 6, 2023, NASA posted RFP Questions and Answers as part of the RFP, Amendment 1. On September 21, 2023, NASA posted additional RFP Questions and Answers as part of the RFP, Amendment 3.

Receipt of Proposals Proposals were timely received by the due date of October 03, 2023. No late proposals were received. The following Offerors submitted proposals in response to the NOC II RFP (listed in alphabetical order):

ASCEND Aerospace and Technology, LLC Team Vertex Aerospace LLC

Presentation of Competitive Range to SSA On April 10, 2024, the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) presented its evaluation briefing to the SSA.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The proposals were evaluated in strict accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Part 1815, and the NOC II RFP. The RFP details the SEB Evaluation factors and criteria in Section M.

Upon receipt of the proposals, the SEB conducted an initial review of the proposals to determine acceptability in accordance with NASA FAR NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. The SEB determined all proposals were acceptable in accordance with the solicitation.

Per the NOC II Evaluation Plan, the order of evaluation was determined by alphabetical order and the Past Performance Volume II was evaluated in the order in which it was received. Proposals were then evaluated by the SEB in accordance with the FAR and the NFS. Subfactors were evaluated in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The SEB carried out the evaluation activities for reporting its findings to me, as the individual responsible for making the final source selection decision per NFS 1815.308.

The Government plans to award a contract resulting from the solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. This procurement was conducted utilizing a combination of Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price evaluation factors, acknowledging that the lowest price proposal may not necessarily receive an award. Likewise, the highest technically rated proposal may not necessarily receive an award. The evaluation factors were weighed in accordance with the criterion in the RFP:

• Mission Suitability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

• As individual factors, Mission Suitability is more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price.

The Government evaluated each Offeror’s proposal using the factors and subfactors below. Although proposals were organized by factors and subfactors, the Government conducted an integrated evaluation to consider consistency among proposal information. The Offerors were cautioned that a lack of consistency could lead to a weakness or deficiency in one or more of the factors or sub factors below.

MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR

Mission Suitability Subfactors Weight

Management Approach 300 points Technical Approach 500 points Small Business Participation 200 points TOTAL 1000 points

The Government evaluated Mission Suitability as required by Sections L.21 and Section M.4 of the RFP. The Mission Suitability factor and associated subfactors were evaluated in accordance with Section M.4 of the RFP. Mission Suitability was weighted and scored on a 1,000-point scale and included three (3) subfactors.

Subfactors were scored using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges specified in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). Overall, only Mission Suitability was numerically scored.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 1, Management Approach, evaluated each Offeror’s management requirements including Contract Management Plan, Staffing and Critical Skills Plan and Total Compensation Approach, and Contract Phase-In Plan for overall demonstrated understanding, reasonability, feasibility, and completeness and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 2, Technical Approach, evaluated each Offeror’s response to the technical requirements (including Change Control Process and Plan, Maintenance Plan), one technical scenario, and the Safety and Health Plan for demonstrated understanding, reasonability, feasibility, and completeness and any ensuing associated impact and risk to the Government. In addition, Subfactor 1 evaluated the Offeror’s Efficiencies and Innovative Techniques.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 3, Small Business Utilization, evaluated each Offeror’s Small Business

Subcontracting Plan for overall reasonability and soundness. Subfactor 3 also evaluated the Offeror’s commitment to the Small Business Program.

For each Mission Suitability subfactor, the Board identified “findings” of Significant Strengths, Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies. The Board then determined a consensus adjectival rating and percentile score for each subfactor using the definitions and percentile ranges in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The adjectival ratings for each of the three (3) Mission Suitability subfactors were Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, or Poor.

PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

The Government evaluated Past Performance as required by Sections L.22 and M.5 of the NOC II RFP.

Recency, relevancy, and performance, as described in RFP Section M.5, were taken into consideration by the SEB to determine each Offeror’s Past Performance confidence rating.

COST AND PRICE FACTOR

The Government conducted a price analysis and cost realism analysis to ensure that the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable as required by Section L.23 and M.6 of the NOC II RFP. Additionally, the Government evaluated proposed costs and established the probable cost of doing business with the Offeror. The Offeror’s cost/price was evaluated for realism and reasonableness of each cost proposal for the probable cost that would be incurred in the performance of this effort. The probable cost included adjustments to the Offeror’s proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on each Offeror’s identified Mission Suitability findings.

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

In making my decision, I considered the Mission Suitability score, Past Performance confidence rating, and Cost/Price, as well as the content of the SEB’s findings for each proposal in their entirety. This determination is based on the criteria specified in the solicitation. Regarding each proposal, I reviewed the SEB’s evaluations and agreed with the following:

ASCEND Proposal Evaluation

ASCEND Mission Suitability The ASCEND proposal was evaluated in accordance with the RFP and resulted in the following findings.

Mission Suitability (MS) Score 1,000 points

MS

Subfactor A

MS

Subfactor B

MS

Subfactor C

Offeror Management

Approach 300 Points

Technical Approach 500 Points

Small Business Participation

200 Points

ASCEND 698 198

Good

Good

Excellent

ASCEND’s proposal received a total of 698 points for the overall Mission Suitability Factor Score.

Subfactor A: In Mission Suitability Subfactor A (Management Approach), the SEB noted one (1) Strength and two (2) Weaknesses in ASCEND's proposal.

The Strength pertained to ASCEND’s Staffing and Critical Skills Plan. ASCEND’s Staffing and Critical Skills Plan contained a reasonable and feasible approach for retaining employees over the life of the contract. ASCEND’s Plan would mitigate the risk to the Government by increasing the likelihood of retaining personnel possessing the unique technical expertise and experience needed to meet NOC II requirements and ensure operational safety and efficient execution of the NOC II contract.

The first Weakness was related to ASCEND's External Customer approach. ASCEND’s incomplete External Customer (EC) approach did not adequately address cost savings or indicate the supervision requirements of EC operations, as well as the constraints on ECs’ access to critical systems.

ASCEND’s approach would increase the likelihood of issues with reimbursement and the communication of safety constraints with ECs. The approach would also increase the risk to the Government of inadequate or insufficient cost savings return, miscommunication or confusion impacting EC integration, and ECs’ compliance or safety violations.

The second Weakness was related to ASCEND’s Staffing and Critical Skills Plan. ASCEND’s incomplete Staffing and Critical Skills Plan did not demonstrate an understanding of all certifications and certified positions across the contract. The Plan increases the likelihood of inadequate staffing of the NOC II contract with certified personnel required for contract execution and increases the risk to the Government of negative impacts to the continuity of operations.

Subfactor B: For Mission Suitability Subfactor 2 (Technical Approach), the SEB found one (1) Significant Strength and three (3) Weaknesses in ASCEND’s proposal.

The Significant Strength was related to ASCEND’s Safety and Health Plan. ASCEND proposed a reasonable, feasible, and complete Safety and Health Plan containing enhanced features exceeding JSC requirements. Enhanced features included commitment to Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) Star recognition, BeyondZero safety program, employee involvement, and trending of leading indicators. The Plan demonstrated ASCEND’s ability to create a safe and healthy work environment which would greatly decrease the potential risk to the Government of injury, death, or significant equipment damage.

The first Weakness was ASCEND’s Suited Event Support approach. ASCEND proposed an incomplete Suited Event Support approach that did not demonstrate understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the NOC II contract. By not proposing the resources to supply an important role, ASCEND’s approach increases the likelihood of a missing skill set causing inaccurate and inadequate pool configurations impacting NBL training events and increases the risk to the Government of impacts to the continuity of operations.

The second Weakness was related to ASCEND’s Basis of Estimate for Core Work (BOE).

ASCEND’s BOE proposed an unreasonable and incomplete seniority profile for the NBL Dive Operations Specialists and Technicians. ASCEND did not demonstrate an understanding of the seniority profile of the current NBL workforce which increases the likelihood that critical skills and certifications possessed only by the senior incumbent workforce would be lost during contract transition. Such a loss would result in inefficient operations, inadequate knowledge of NBL systems, and increases the risk to the Government of a disruption to the continuity of operations.

The third Weakness involved ASCEND’s Technical Approach. ASCEND proposed an incomplete Technical Approach that did not demonstrate an understanding of the aspects of work required under the NOC II contract and provided infeasible approaches to event support, critical systems operation, use of procedures, roles and responsibilities, and maintenance aspects. ASCEND’s approach increases the likelihood of inadequate systems maintenance and inefficient use of resources which increases the risk to the Government of disruption to the continuity of operations and slightly increases the risk of critical system failures creating high severity safety impacts.

Subfactor C: Per the NOC II RFP, ASCEND was not required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan due to their status as a Small Business.

ASCEND Past Performance As outlined in RFP M.5, the SEB evaluated ASCEND’s past performance, and that of its proposed Program Manager as defined in RFP L.22 (Past Performance – Volume II). ASCEND is a newly formed Mentor Protégé Joint Venture (JV) consisting of Aerodyne Industries LLC, the managing protégé partner, and Jacobs Technology, Inc, the mentor partner. Past performance by each partner was reviewed. The aggregated past performance of the JV partners was evaluated in accordance with 13 CFR § 125.8 and the NOC II RFP. The SEB examined multiple resources in evaluating the past performance records of Aerodyne and Jacobs, Inc. The SEB used the narrative provided by ASCEND in its Volume II, Past Performance; the Past Performance Questionnaires submitted by customers of Aerodyne Industries LLC and Jacobs Technology on prior contracts similar to NOC II; interviews with Contracting Officers (CO) and Contracting Officer’s Representatives (COR); past performance reports from the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and the Enhanced Data Warehouse (EPDW); Safety Assessments, including OSHA logs; and the Award Fee Evaluation System (AFES) module of the NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS).

The SEB reviewed a total of nine (9) past performance samples: four (4) for Aerodyne, and five (5) for Jacobs, submitted in the Past Performance Volume II or found independently in CPARS and other sources by the SEB. Of the four (4) past performance samples for Aerodyne, two (2) were determined to be Somewhat Relevant and two (2) were determined Not Relevant. One (1) was submitted in the Past Performance Volume II: Test and Operations Support Contract (TOSC); one (1) was identified in EPDW: MIST II (Mechanical Integrated Services and Technology II); and two (2) were identified by data obtained from other Government sources: Mission Systems Operations Contract (MSOC) and Safety and Mission Assurance Engineering Contract II (SMAEC II).

Of the five (5) past performance samples for Jacobs, two (2) were determined to be Very Relevant, one (1) was determined Relevant, one (1) was determined Somewhat Relevant and one (1) was determined Not Relevant. Two (2) were submitted in the Past Performance Volume II: Johnson Space Center Engineering, Technology, and Science (JETS) and TOSC; two (2) were identified in CPARS:

Engineering Services and Science Capability Augmentation (ESSCA) and Test, Evaluation, and Support Team 2 (TEST2); and one (1) was identified by data obtained from other Government sources: JETS II. All contracts were initially evaluated for relevancy in accordance with the requirements of the RFP.

Aerodyne, as the managing protégé partner, is proposed to perform 53% of the NOC II requirements, including all sections of the SOW except for 1.10, Documentation Management. Jacobs, as the mentor partner, is proposed to perform 47% of the NOC II requirements, including all sections of the SOW except for 1.19, Training Coordination and Records, and 2.5.3, Training.

Aerodyne:

The TOSC at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) was submitted by Aerodyne in their Past Performance submission. Acting as a subcontractor, Aerodyne concluded their responsibilities on TOSC in April 2023. TOSC is a multifaceted processing contract for KSC, supporting various customers and functions such as program management, safety and mission assurance, information management, and logistics, among others. Aerodyne's portion of the contract amounted to approximately $110 million over a span of about 10 years, with an average annual value of just under $11 million and employing 107 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). The SEB evaluated Aerodyne's role on TOSC as essentially the same in size to the NOC II contract with overlapping responsibilities including engineering, testing, facility operations, and more. Aerodyne's experience on TOSC, supporting programs like Exploration Ground Systems, Space Launch System, Orion, and the ISS, showcased their ability to manage complexity and changing priorities similar to NOC II. The past performance contractual efforts by Aerodyne on TOSC involved some of the content and complexity, and essentially the same size of effort the NOC II solicitation requires. The SEB, therefore, determined the TOSC contract for Aerodyne to be Somewhat Relevant.

The Mechanical Integrated Services and Technology II (MIST II) contract at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) was identified in the EPDW. Aerodyne is the mentee in a Mentor-Protégé JV (Aerodyne-SGT Engineering Services) for MIST II, which has an annual contract value of approximately $106 million and employs around 300 employees. MIST II provides engineering services and related services for the formulation, design, development, fabrication, integration, testing, verification, and operations of space flight and ground system hardware, including development and validation of new technologies to enable future space and science missions. The SEB assessed MIST II's size as essentially the same as the size of NOC II's requirements. The complexity of supporting various projects at NASA Centers, along with the demand for a skilled workforce, entails similar complexity to NOC II in support of multiple customers with changing priorities and workloads. The use of various chambers (thermal, humidity, and vacuum) on MIST II involves some of the complexity of managing the hazards, operations, and systems encountered in human in the loop testing on NOC II. The past performance contractual effort of Aerodyne on MIST II involves some of the content, some of the complexity, and essentially the same size of effort the NOC II solicitation requires. The SEB, therefore, determined that the MIST II contract was Somewhat Relevant.

The Mission Systems Operations Contract (MSOC) at JSC and the Safety and Mission Assurance Engineering Contract II (SMAEC II) at JSC were deemed Not Relevant since they involved little to none of the content, complexity, or size of effort expected on NOC II. The SEB, therefore, determined the MSOC and SMAEC II contract for Aerodyne to be Not Relevant.

Jacobs:

The JSC Engineering, Technology, and Science (JETS) contract was submitted by Jacobs in their Past Performance submission. As the prime contractor, Jacobs completed performance on the JETS contract in September 2022. This contract involved providing engineering and scientific products and technical services at JSC, including engineering design, analysis, technology development, and facility operation and maintenance for the JSC Engineering Directorate. With an average annual value of approximately $207 million over nine

(9) years and employing over 1400 FTEs, the SEB determined the size of the JETS contract to be similar to that of NOC II. Jacobs' experience on JETS covered a wide range of activities, including engineering support for spaceflight projects, payload planning, and processing, anomaly resolution, and support for ISS missions.

Their past performance on JETS demonstrated strong alignment with the requirements of NOC II, particularly in sustaining operations and upgrades, and operation of suited testing and training in vacuum chambers, although underwater operations were not included. The past performance contractual efforts by Jacobs on JETS involved essentially the same content, complexity, and size of effort the NOC II solicitation requires.

The SEB, therefore, determined the JETS contract for Jacobs to be Very Relevant.

The JSC Engineering, Technology, and Science II (JETS II) contract was identified by data obtained from other Government sources. Jacobs initiated performance on the JETS II contract as the prime in October 2022.

This contract, with an average annual value of approximately $390 million over 10 years and employing around 1600 FTEs, was determined to be of similar size to NOC II. Jacobs' performance on JETS II exhibited strong alignment with the requirements of NOC II, particularly in sustaining operations and upgrades, although underwater operations were not included. The past performance contractual efforts by Jacobs on JETS II involve essentially the same content, complexity, and size of effort the NOC II solicitation requires. The SEB, therefore, determined the JETS II contract for Jacobs to be Very Relevant.

The TOSC at KSC was submitted by Jacobs in their Past Performance submission. Jacobs completed performance on the TOSC as the prime in April 2023. TOSC supported various functions at KSC, including program management, safety and mission assurance, and ground systems operations, with an average annual value of approximately $210 million over 10 years. Employing approximately 2200 FTEs, TOSC's size was deemed similar to NOC II. Jacobs' performance on TOSC demonstrated experience across various areas relevant to NOC II, particularly in complex operations, upgrades, and safety and mission assurance, although underwater operations were not included. The past performance contractual efforts by Jacobs on TOSC involved much of the same content and complexity, and essentially the same size of effort the NOC II solicitation requires. The SEB, therefore, determined the TOSC contract for Jacobs to be Relevant.

The Test, Evaluation, and Support Team 2 (TEST2) contract at JSC was identified in CPARS. Jacobs completed performance on the TEST2 contract as the prime in January of 2022. TEST2 provided a range of services to the White Sands Test Facility (WSTF), including facility maintenance, test activities, and management services. With an average annual contract value of approximately $80 million over five (5) years, TEST2's size aligned with NOC II’s size. Jacobs' performance on TEST2 demonstrated some alignment with the requirements of NOC II, particularly in managing hazardous testing environments and facility maintenance, although underwater operations were not included. The past performance contractual efforts by Jacobs on TEST2 involved some of the content, complexity, and essentially the same size of effort the NOC II solicitation requires. The SEB, therefore, determined the TEST2 contract for Jacobs to be Somewhat Relevant.

The Engineering Services and Science Capability Augmentation (ESSCA) contract at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) was identified in CPARS. The past performance contractual efforts by Jacobs on ESSCA involved little or none of the content and complexity, but essentially the same size of effort as NOC II. The SEB, therefore, determined the ESSCA contract for Jacobs to be Not Relevant.

The Proposed Program Manager demonstrated recent experience from his role as Senior Vice President of Operations and Training (from 2023 to present) overseeing multiple contracts within Aerodyne Industries LLC. Prior to this, he served as Chief Information Officer (from 2017 to 2023) supporting contracts such as the

TOSC and the COMET (Consolidated Operations, Management, Engineering, and Test) contract. In these positions, he managed an annual budget of $80 million and led a workforce of approximately 600 technical personnel, including software engineers, testing specialists, system operations and maintenance staff, and project managers. His responsibilities encompassed various aspects relevant to the Program Manager role on NOC II, such as contract management, safety coordination, technical performance monitoring, and budget oversight. The Program Manager's extensive experience aligns closely with the requirements outlined for the NOC II Program Manager role. Based on the evaluation of his submitted resume, his experience was deemed Relevant to the NOC II requirements.

Overall, ASCEND’s Past Performance Rating was High. In determining a confidence rating, the SEB considered ASCEND’s recent, relevant contracts. The SEB noted that, as a newly established JV, ASCEND does not have any past performance. However, per 13 CFR § 125.8, the Government looked to the past performance of the JV partners in the aggregate since the JV itself did not demonstrate past performance.

ASCEND has, in aggregate, performed in the Excellent category on one (1) Very Relevant, one (1) Relevant, and two (2) Somewhat Relevant contracts. The SEB also considered the data for one (1) Relevant and one (1) Somewhat Relevant contract for which performance ratings could not be established. The SEB also considered ASCEND’s proposed Program Manager, whose experience was determined to be Relevant and whose performance was rated Excellent.

The SEB noted that, in aggregate across the range of contracts, ASCEND demonstrated performance of essentially the same size, with essentially the same content (though notably with no past performance involving the commercial diving trade), and essentially the same complexity (although with little to no experience with underwater operations). Balanced against these gaps and considering the relevant performance ratings, the SEB determined that, in aggregate, ASCEND had demonstrated Excellent performance in a significant range of critical technical activities in unique and hazardous environments. The SEB also considered the demonstrated strength of JV Mentor Partner Jacobs in managing a significant array of contracts with highly successful results. The SEB’s limited insight into JV Protégé/Managing Partner Aerodyne’s capabilities in successfully managing the challenges and complexities associated with priming a contract the size of NOC II was also considered.

Overall, ASCEND’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition, demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. ASCEND’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 the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

ASCEND’s Cost/Price Under the Cost/Price factor, other than certified cost or pricing data is required. The SEB conducted a cost realism analysis and a price analysis on ASCEND’s proposed Total Evaluated Cost and Price to ensure the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable in accordance with NOC II RFP section M.6. The Government’s price analysis determined the Offeror’s price to be considered fair and reasonable based on a comparison of proposed prices received in response to the NOC II solicitation, as well as compared to the Government’s Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). The CO determined that adequate competition was present based on two or more responsible/responsive Offerors, competing independently, submitted prices satisfying the Government’s expressed requirement and there was no finding that the prices were unreasonable. Based on the cost realism analysis to evaluate the realism and reasonableness, the Government determined ASCEND’s labor cost to be unrealistic for the work to be performed, did not reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and was not consistent with the various elements of the ASCEND proposal. In determining ASCEND’s probable cost of performance, the SEB made probable cost adjustments in accordance with the NOC II RFP and identified Mission Suitability findings (i.e., Ascend-NOC II-TA1-W-1 and Ascend-NOC II-

TA1-W-2). NASA’s probable cost adjustment increased ASCEND’s overall cost by approximately 5%, to an adjusted probable cost of which represents the lower probable cost of the two (2) Offerors. ASCEND’s evaluated probable cost/price was determined to be fair and reasonable, as well as realistic. Additionally, ASCEND proposed to perform Phase-In at a price which the Government determined to be fair and reasonable.

Team Vertex Proposal Evaluation

Team Vertex Mission Suitability The Team Vertex proposal was evaluated in accordance with the RFP and resulted in the following findings.

Offeror

Team Vertex

Mission Suitability (MS)

Score 1,000 points

MS

Subfactor A

Management Approach 300 Points

Excellent

MS

Subfactor B

Technical Approach 500 Points

Excellent

MS

Subfactor C

Small Business Participation

200 Points

Excellent

Team Vertex’s proposal received a total of 927 points for the overall Mission Suitability Factor Score.

Subfactor A: In Mission Suitability Subfactor A (Management Approach), the SEB found three (3) Significant Strengths and two (2) Weaknesses in Team Vertex’s proposal.

The first Significant Strength was related to Team Vertex’s External Customer (EC) Plan. Team Vertex proposed a complete, reasonable, and feasible EC Plan, which demonstrated understanding of the processes to thoroughly identify and recruit ECs and proposed a complete and rigorous approach for determining and reporting the cost savings to the JSC Flight Operations Division (FOD) for each EC agreement. Team Vertex’s Plan greatly decreases the risk to the Government of inaccurate reimbursement or missed EC opportunities.

The second Significant Strength was related to Team Vertex’s Staffing and Critical Skills plan. Team Vertex proposed a complete, reasonable, and feasible Staffing and Critical Skills Plan which emphasized retention of the NBL’s highly skilled workforce throughout the life of the contract. Team Vertex’s Plan increases the likelihood of retaining a workforce with unique technical expertise and experience while ensuring adequate staffing of certified and highly skilled positions. Overall, this approach would greatly reduce the risk to the Government of impacts to the safe and efficient execution of NOC II operations and NBL sustainment.

The third Significant Strength related to Team Vertex’s Phase-In Plan. Team Vertex proposed a feasible Phase-In Plan, which clearly demonstrated an understanding of the challenges related to seamlessly continuing operations and minimizing risks during contract transition. Team Vertex’s Plan decreases the potential for issues during Phase-In and significantly reduces risk to the Government of an interruption to critical operations.

The first Weakness identified related to Team Vertex’s Total Compensation Plan (TCP). Team Vertex subcontractor MRI proposed an unreasonable TCP which was inconsistent with Team Vertex’s proposed 100% incumbent capture approach. MRI’s Plan increases the likelihood of losing critical skills in the IT work area supported by MRI and increases the risk to the Government of impacts to the continuity of operations at contract transition for IT work.

The second Weakness concerned Team Vertex’s Labor Rate escalation. Team Vertex proposed an unreasonable Labor Rate escalation which was lower than their Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR) escalated labor rates, as well as NASA’s escalation guidance. Team Vertex’s low escalation rate slightly decreases the likelihood of successfully recruiting and retaining personnel with critical skills late in the contract if Team Vertex compensation does not keep up with market rates and, therefore, slightly increases the risk to the Government of impacts to the continuity of operations.

Subfactor B: For Mission Suitability Subfactor 2 (Technical Approach), the SEB found three (3) Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths and two (2) Weaknesses in Team Vertex’s proposal.

The first Significant Strength related to Team Vertex’s Maintenance of NBL systems. Team Vertex proposed a complete, reasonable, and feasible Technical Approach to Maintenance of NBL systems, including critical systems, which demonstrated understanding of the complexities of the work required under the NOC II contract. Team Vertex’s approach significantly increases the likelihood of successful system maintenance and operations. This approach greatly decreases the risk to the Government of interrupted operations and critical system failures creating high severity safety impacts.

The second Significant Strength was related to Team Vertex’s NBL operations Technical Approach.

Team Vertex proposed a complete, reasonable, and feasible Technical Approach which demonstrated understanding of the work required by the NOC II contract, as well as feasible approaches to the conduct of critical NBL activities such as Suited Events and projects. Team Vertex’s approach significantly increases the likelihood of successfully and safely supporting all NBL events, which greatly reduces the risk to the Government of disruption to the continuity of operations, project delays, and safety incidents during testing.

The third Significant Strength related to Team Vertex’s Safety and Health Plan.

Team Vertex proposed a reasonable, feasible, and complete Safety and Health Plan containing enhanced features which exceeded JSC requirements. Enhanced features include commitment to Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) Star recognition, approach to hazardous operations, employee involvement, and emergency preparedness. Team Vertex’s Plan demonstrated the ability to create a safe and healthy work environment which would greatly decrease the potential risk to the Government of injury, death, or significant equipment damage.

The first Strength related to Team Vertex’s Efficiencies and Innovative Techniques Plan. Team Vertex proposed a reasonable and feasible Efficiencies and Innovative Techniques Plan, which could improve project communication and streamline procurement timelines. Team Vertex’s Plan increases the likelihood of projects being successfully completed on schedule, decreasing risk to the Government of project delays impacting the ability to conduct training and perform necessary flight product evaluations.

The second Strength related to Team Vertex’s Workload Flexibility scenarios. Team Vertex proposed a reasonable, feasible, and complete response to the Workload Flexibility scenarios. Team Vertex’s response outlined plans, with options, to adapt to each of the proposed scenarios, thoroughly detailing changes to their operations plans and staffing adjustments that could enhance consistent facility readiness to support training events and reduce the risk to the Government of interrupted continuity of operations.

The first Weakness related to Team Vertex’s Technical Resources approach regarding the integration of new hardware. Team Vertex proposed an incomplete Technical Approach for collaborating with entities who are bringing suits and/or hardware into the NBL for testing, development, or training.

Team Vertex’s approach increases the likelihood of inadequate integration, which increases risk to the Government of disruption to the continuity of operations and potential impacts to new programs due to delays related to an inability to train or assess new hardware.

The second Weakness related to Team Vertex’s Technical Resources approach. Team Vertex proposed a Technical Resources approach which did not include a reasonable level of staffing for IT Professionals. Team Vertex’s approach increases the likelihood of insufficient resources to meet all IT Security needs for NBL systems and lack of availability of personnel to respond to critical systems anomalies, thereby increasing the risk to the Government of IT security breaches or delays in responding to critical systems anomalies.

Subfactor C: For Mission Suitability Subfactor 3 (Small Business Utilization) the SEB found one (1) Significant Strength and one (1) Strength in Team Vertex’s proposal.

The Significant Strength related to Team Vertex’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Reports.

Team Vertex proposed a reasonable and sound Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Reports exceeding the Government-identified Small Business (SB) subcontracting goals in almost all of the SB categories. Team Vertex’s SB Subcontracting Plan demonstrated an understanding of the importance to NASA of supporting small businesses and significantly decreases the risk to the Government that Team Vertex will not achieve their proposed SB goals.

The Strength related to Team Vertex’s Commitment to the Small Business Program. Team Vertex proposed a full Commitment to the Small Business Program, which included having subcontractors perform work across the SOW in areas of high technology, clear commitments to small businesses, and established plans for SB outreach. Team Vertex’s Commitment demonstrated an understanding of the importance to NASA of supporting small businesses and decreases the risk to the Government of not meeting NASA’s commitment to using small businesses and supporting their development.

Team Vertex Past Performance As outlined in RFP M.5, the SEB evaluated the past performance of Team Vertex, its major subcontractors, and its proposed Program Manager as defined in RFP L.22 (Past Performance – Volume II). The SEB examined multiple resources in evaluating Vertex, Bastion Technologies Inc.

(Bastion), Rothe Development Inc. (Rothe), and Oceaneering International Inc. (Oceaneering) Past Performance records. The SEB used the narrative provided by Vertex, Bastion, Rothe, and Oceaneering in Team Vertex’s Volume II, Past Performance, the Past Performance Questionnaires submitted by customers of the prime and major subcontractors on prior contracts relevant to NOC II, interviews with COs and CORs, past performance reports from CPARS and EPDW, Safety Assessments including OSHA logs, and AFES module of NAIS.

The SEB reviewed a total of 13 past performance samples: three (3) for Vertex, four (4) for Bastion, three (3) for Rothe, and three (3) for Oceaneering. These samples were either submitted in the Past Performance Volume II or found by SEB members in CPARS and other sources. Of the three (3) past performance samples for Vertex, one (1) was determined to be Very Relevant, and two (2) were determined Somewhat Relevant. All three (3) of them were submitted in the Past Performance Volume II: Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory Operations Contract (NBL)(Very Relevant), Mobile Sensors Program -17 (Somewhat Relevant) and Mobile Sensors Program -22 ( Somewhat Relevant).

All the contracts were evaluated for relevancy in accordance with the RFP.

Of the four (4) past performance samples for Bastion, one (1) was determined Very Relevant and three (3) were determined Not Relevant. One (1) was submitted in the Past Performance Volume II:

Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory Operations Contract (NBL) (Very Relevant); and three (3) were independently found through other Government sources: Safety and Mission Assurance Contract (SMAEC) (Not Relevant), Specialized Engineering, Aeronautics, and Manufacturing (SEAM) (Not Relevant) and Specialized Engineering, Aeronautics, and Manufacturing II (SEAM II) (Not Relevant).

All the contracts were evaluated for relevancy in accordance with the RFP.

Of the three (3) past performance samples for Rothe, one (1) was determined Very Relevant and two

(2) were determined Somewhat Relevant. One (1) was submitted in the Past Performance Volume II:

Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory Operations Contract (NBL) (Very Relevant); one (1) was identified in CPARS: Joint Operations and Integrated Systems Technology (JOIST) (Somewhat Relevant); and one

(1) was independently found through other Government sources: Mission Enabling Services Contract (MESC) (Somewhat Relevant). All the contracts were evaluated for relevancy in accordance with the

RFP.

Of the three (3) past performance samples for Oceaneering, one (1) was determined Very Relevant and two (2) were determined Not Relevant. One (1) was submitted in the Past Performance Volume II: Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory Operations Contract (NBL) (Very Relevant); and two (2) were independently found through other Government sources: Research, Engineering, and Mission Integration Services (REMIS) (Not Relevant) and Specialized Engineering, Aeronautics, and Manufacturing (SEAM) (Not Relevant). All the contracts were evaluated for relevancy in accordance with the RFP.

Vertex:

The Neutral Buoyancy Operations Contract (NOC) at JSC was submitted by Vertex in their Past Performance submission. Acting as the Prime contractor and as the incumbent on NOC, Vertex has an ongoing contract, which serves as the precursor to NOC II. The NOC requirements are essentially the same as NOC II, encompassing contract management, administration, support for training events, NBL systems operations, maintenance, repair, upgrades of systems and mockups, fabrication, external customer support, and provision of services. The content of NOC aligns closely with NOC II, with an annual contract value of around $21 million and approximately 140 WYEs, making its size comparable to NOC II. NOC also shares the same complexity in supporting multiple customers, managing operations, and dealing with hazards encountered in testing, underwater operations, and maintenance. The past performance contractual efforts by Vertex on NOC involve essentially the same content, complexity, and size of effort the NOC II solicitation requires. The SEB, therefore, determined the NOC contract for Vertex to be Very Relevant.

Mobile Sensors Program In the Past Performance Volume II, Vertex provided a reference to its work on the Mobile Sensors Program. The provided contract number FA702221F0019, is for a Task Order issued under contract Mobile Sensors FA702217D0001, but the other information (Contract Size, Period of Performance) referenced Mobile Sensors FA702222D0001, the follow-on contract. The description of work and performance drew on performance from both Task Order FA702221F0019 and Contract FA702222D0001. The SEB determined that, in accordance with the RFP, performance on each contract must be evaluated individually and that the full scope of work performed under each contract would be evaluated. Therefore, the SEB individually evaluated performance on contract

FA702217D0001 (Mobile Sensor Program – 17) and on Contract FA702222D0001 (Mobile Sensor Program – 22).

Mobile Sensors Program – 17 The Mobile Sensor Program - 17 at the Department of Defense was submitted by Vertex in their Past Performance submission. As the prime contractor, Vertex completed performance on the Mobile Sensor Program – 17 on May 30, 2022. The contract encompassed a spectrum of responsibilities including management, operations, maintenance, logistics, engineering, design, security, and sustainment of Mobile Sensors, complex radar systems with sophisticated command, control, computer, and communications interfaces. While some functions overlapped with NOC II, there were distinct differences, particularly regarding NBL systems. The SEB found similarities in content between Mobile Sensors Program - 17 and NOC II, with both having an average annual value of approximately $15.3 million and employing around 52 individuals. However, while the Mobile Sensors Program - 17 demonstrated some complexity in managing multiple customers and retaining skilled personnel, it lacked certain operational complexities encountered in NOC II, such as human in the loop testing and underwater operations. The past performance efforts of Vertex on the Mobile Sensors Program - 17 effort involved some of the content, little of the complexity, and much of the same size of effort the NOC II solicitation requires, and the SEB, therefore, determined the Mobile Sensors Program - 17 was Somewhat Relevant.

Mobile Sensors Program – 22 The Mobile Sensor Program - 22 at the Department of Defense was submitted by Vertex in their Past Performance submission. As the prime contractor, Vertex has an ongoing contract which is the follow on to the Mobile Sensors Program – 17.