NPS-ER SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT Signed 20221128.pdf

SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

PROTECTIVE SERVICES – EASTERN REGION (NPS-ER) REQUEST FOR

PROPOSAL (RFP) 80GSFC22R0004

On November 4, 2022, I along with senior officials from the NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and Headquarters (HQ) met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the NPS-ER procurement. This memorandum documents my decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY

The Office of Protective Services (OPS) serves as the NASA focal point for policy formulation, oversight, coordination, and management of the Agency physical security, intelligence, counterintelligence, counterterrorism, emergency management, continuity of operations, national security, Information Security and Communications Security, classified information security, identity and credential management, electronic physical access management, insider threat, and protective services training programs.

The purpose of this contract is to acquire regional protective services for NASA GSFC, HQ, Glenn Research Center (GRC), and Langley Research Center (LaRC). The Contractor will provide protective services including, but not limited to; Communications Security, Security Operations, Information Security, Program Security, Resource Protection, Physical Security, Credentialing, 911 Phone Center and Protective Services Communications Center, Emergency Management, and NASA Protective Services Training.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 561612 and the small business size standard is $22 Million. The contract Maximum Ordering Value is $198M, with a unilateral upward adjustment capability of 30% for programmatic uncertainties, if needed, not to exceed $257M.

The NPS-ER requirement was issued as a Competitive 8(a) Small Business Set-aside procurement. This procurement will result in a Single Award, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Tasks Orders. The contract has a 60-day Phase-in followed by a 5-year effective ordering period. The 60-day Phase-in will be acquired by via separate Firm-Fixed-Price Purchase Orders. The contract Phase-in for GRC, HQ, and LaRC will be acquired via one single Purchase Order and the contract Phase-in for GSFC will be acquired by a separate Purchase Order.

NASA issued the RFP on June 3, 2022. Five amendments were issued to the RFP as stated below.

Amendments Issued (Date/Reason)

1. June 9, 2022 – Revise the Proposal Due Date

2. June 16, 2022 – Revise Exhibit 1 – Past Performance Questionnaire

3. June 30, 2022 – Revise the Proposal Due Date

4. July 18, 2022 – Revise the Proposal Due Date

5. July 21, 2022 – Revise one (1) clause to incorporate ten (10) updated Attachments and three

(3) provisions and provided Exhibit 3, which documented the Government’s responses to industry questions received in response to the RFP.

The following seven (7) companies submitted timely proposals by August 1, 2022:

1. ACIS, LLC (ACIS)

2. AreaProbe, Inc. (AreaProbe)

3. Chenega Global Protection, LLC (Chenega)

4. EH Investigations, LLC (EHI)

5. Gold Point, LLC (Gold Point)

6. S1S Alpha, LLC (S1S Alpha)

7. Tatitlek Federal Services, Inc. (Tatitlek)

After a preliminary review of the Offerors’ proposals, the Contracting Officer (CO) found that the initial evaluation of proposals for AreaProbe and EHI could not be completed because these proposals were unacceptable pursuant to NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals, (a)(1). These proposals did not represent a reasonable initial effort to address the essential requirements of the RFP or clearly demonstrated the Offerors did not understand the requirements. On September 7, 2022, the CO sent notifications letters to AreaProbe and EHI detailing the respective reasons for eliminating them from the competition.

The NPS-ER SEB proceeded to evaluate proposals from the remaining five Offerors; ACIS, Chenega, Gold Point, S1S Alpha, and Tatitlek against the RFP evaluation criteria (see Evaluation Procedures).

The RFP stated that the Government intended to evaluate the proposals and award the contract without discussions with Offerors. The RFP also stated that the Government reserved the right to conduct discussions if the CO later determined them to be necessary. After evaluating the proposals, the CO found the establishment of a competitive range was not necessary, a determination with which I concurred.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The SEB, which I appointed, included a team of technical and business members and consultants from appropriate disciplines, to assist in proposal evaluation.

The NPS-ER SEB evaluated proposals in accordance with the source selection procedures identified in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 12.203, Procedures for Solicitation, Evaluation, and Award, 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, and 15.3 Source Selection. The SEB procedures at NFS 1815.370, NASA Source Evaluation Boards, were also applied.

The RFP, Part 6, Provision 6.1(a), listed three (3) evaluation factors for award: Technical Acceptability, Past Performance, and Price. Technical Acceptability was evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis. The RFP indicated a tradeoff process as described in FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, would be used in making source selection with respect to the Past Performance Factor and the Price Factor. Also, RFP, Part 6, Provision 6.1(a), specified the relative order of importance as follows:

The Past Performance Factor is approximately equal to the Price Factor.

The RFP, Part 6, Provision 6.1(b), established that proposals were first evaluated against the Technical Acceptability Factor in three (3) areas: Facility Clearance, Key Personnel Resumes, and Letters of Commitment as identified in Provision 6.1.1(c). The SEB evaluated proposals and then assigned a rating as defined in Provision 6.1.1(b) for each area.

As specified in Provision 6.1(b)(2), only proposals that were individually rated “Acceptable” in all three areas would then be evaluated for Past Performance and Price Factors. An “Unacceptable” rating in any of the three areas resulted in an overall Technical Acceptability Factor rating of “Unacceptable”, which eliminated the proposal from further consideration and made the proposal ineligible for award.

Regarding the Price Factor, the proposed price of Exhibit 2, Baseline Price, Non-baseline Hours, and Phase-in Price For Evaluation; Attachment B, Baseline Services Price Schedule; and Attachment C, IDIQ Fixed Price Rate Matrix were assessed in accordance with the RFP, Part 6, Provision 6.1.4. As stated in the RFP, a price analysis was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1). Price analysis is described at FAR 15.404-1(b). This analysis was done to ensure that a "fair and reasonable" price is paid by the Government. The Government evaluated an Offeror’s price proposal by considering the following: (a) Completeness, (b) Reasonableness, (c) Unbalanced Pricing, (d) Options, and (e) Total Price, which included (1) Baseline Services, (2) Non-baseline Services, and (3) Phase-in.

The Past Performance Factor was evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15 and RFP, Part 6, Provision 6.1.3 GSFC 52.215-330, Past Performance Evaluation Factor (Services). In evaluating past performance, the SEB evaluated an Offeror’s record (including significant subcontractors as necessary as defined in the RFP) for performing services that are similar in size and content to the requirements of the RFP in terms of relevance and performance. The SEB considered only recent contracts, as defined in the NPS-ER RFP. The SEB relied on narratives of relevant past and current contracts provided by the Offerors, past performance input provided via requiring activity and/or customer interviews, and information retrieved from the Government-wide Contractor Performance Assessment System (CPARS) database. The Past Performance Factor was not point scored, but was assigned an adjectival rating of “Very High Level of Confidence,” “High Level of Confidence,” “Moderate Level of Confidence,” “Low Level of Confidence,” “Very Low Level of Confidence,” or “Neutral.”

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY EVALUATION

The table below provides the adjectival ratings assigned for the final evaluation in each Technical Acceptability area after evaluating each area in accordance with RFP, Part 6, Provision 6.1.1. Chenega’s proposal was evaluated overall as “Acceptable” while proposals from ACIS, Gold Point, S1S Alpha, and Tatitlek were evaluated as “Unacceptable.”

OFFEROR LETTERS OF

COMMITMENT

FACILITY

CLEARANCE

KEY

PERSONNEL

RESUMES

OVERALL

Chenega Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable ACIS Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable

Gold Point Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable S1S Alpha Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable

Tatitlek Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable

The Chenega proposal received an overall rating of “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor. The SEB rated Chenega’s proposal as “Acceptable” in the Letters of Commitment area for the Program Manager and Site Managers at GRC, GSFC, HQ, and LaRC because it demonstrated it met the RFP qualification requirements. The SEB rated Chenega’s proposal as “Acceptable” in the Facility Clearance area based on proof of possession of the required Top Secret Facility Clearance as of the due date of proposal receipt, which demonstrated it met the RFP qualification requirement. The SEB rated Chenega’s proposal as “Acceptable” in the Key Personnel Resumes area based on the proposal demonstrating that all key personnel candidates met all of the qualification requirements identified in the RFP.

The ACIS proposal received an overall rating of “Unacceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor. The SEB rated ACIS’ proposal as “Acceptable” in the Letters of Commitment area for the Program Manager and Site Managers at GRC, GSFC, HQ, and LaRC because it demonstrated it met the RFP qualification requirements. The SEB rated ACIS’ proposal as “Acceptable” in the Facility Clearance area based on proof of possession of the required Top Secret Facility Clearance as of the due date of proposal receipt, which demonstrated it met the RFP qualification requirement. The SEB rated ACIS’ proposal as “Unacceptable” in the Key Personnel Resumes area because the proposal did not demonstrate all qualification requirements identified in the RFP were met for each of the proposed key personnel candidates.

The Gold Point proposal received an overall rating of “Unacceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor. The SEB rated Gold Point’s proposal as “Acceptable” in the Letters of Commitment area for the Program Manager and Site Managers at GRC, GSFC, HQ, and LaRC because it demonstrated it met the RFP qualification requirements. The SEB rated Gold Point’s proposal as “Acceptable” in the Facility Clearance area based on proof of possession of the required Top Secret Facility Clearance as of the due date of proposal receipt, which demonstrated it met the RFP qualification requirement. The SEB rated Gold Point’s proposal as “Unacceptable” in the Key Personnel Resumes area because the proposal did not demonstrate all qualification requirements identified in the RFP were met for each of the proposed key personnel candidates.

The S1S Alpha proposal received an overall rating of “Unacceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor. The SEB rated S1S Alpha’s proposal as “Acceptable” in the Letters of Commitment area for the Program Manager and Site Managers at GRC, GSFC, HQ, and LaRC because it demonstrated it met the RFP qualification requirements. The SEB rated S1S Alpha’s proposal as “Acceptable” in the Facility Clearance area based on proof of possession of the required Top Secret Facility Clearance as of the due date of proposal receipt, which demonstrated it met the RFP qualification requirement. The SEB rated S1S Alpha’s proposal as “Unacceptable” in the Key Personnel Resumes area because the proposal did not demonstrate all qualification requirements identified in the RFP were met for each of the proposed key personnel candidates.

The Tatitlek proposal received an overall rating of “Unacceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor. The SEB rated Tatitlek’s proposal as “Acceptable” in the Letters of Commitment area for the Program Manager and Site Managers at GRC, GSFC, HQ, and LaRC because it demonstrated it met the RFP qualification requirements. The SEB rated Tatitlek’s proposal as “Acceptable” in the Facility Clearance area based on proof of possession of the required Top Secret Facility Clearance as of the due date of proposal receipt, which demonstrated it met the RFP qualification requirement. The SEB rated Tatitlek’s proposal as “Unacceptable” in the Key Personnel Resumes area because the proposal did not demonstrate all qualification requirements identified in the RFP were met for each of the proposed key personnel candidates.

In accordance with the RFP, Part 6, Provision 6.1.2(b)(2), an “Unacceptable” rating in any of the three areas resulted in an overall Technical Acceptability Factor rating of “Unacceptable”, which eliminated the proposals from ACIS, Gold Point, S1S Alpha, and Tatitlek from further consideration under the Past Performance and Price Evaluation factors and rendered the proposals ineligible for award.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

As a result of the evaluation process, the SEB’s Past Performance Level of Confidence rating for Chenega was Very High based on the combination of Very High Overall Relevance and Very High Performance ratings. All key NPS-ER PWS content areas were performed on past contracts by Chenega. Also, Chenega demonstrated Very High size relevance. Overall performance ratings were Very High on two of the three contract references submitted and High on the third. The questionnaires received were overwhelmingly positive with no performance concerns.

PRICE EVALUATION

The SEB performed a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1), as described at FAR 15.404-1(b). As part of its evaluation, the SEB determined that Chenega’s proposal complied with the RFP’s pricing instructions in Provision 5.2.14. The SEB found no instances of unbalanced pricing in Chenega’s proposal. Based on the SEB’s evaluation, the total proposed price of $181,898,738 (including phase-in) for Chenega was determined to be balanced, fair, and reasonable.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

As the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the SEB’s evaluation documentation “NASA Protective Services – Eastern Region (NPS-ER) Presentation to the Source Selection Authority.” On November 4, 2022, I met with the NPS-ER SEB, along with several ex-officio members, including key senior personnel at NASA, to discuss the SEB’s findings and application of the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP. I determined the findings presented by the SEB, as documented in its presentation, were detailed, thorough, and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the NPS-ER RFP.

For the Technical Acceptability factor, I noted that Chenega was the only Offeror rated “Acceptable” in all three areas: Letters of Commitment, Facility Clearance, and Key Personnel Resumes. I concur with the SEB’s evaluation of these areas and this factor. I also considered the SEB findings with respect to each of the other proposals under the Technical Acceptability factor. I concur with the SEB’s determinations that each of these proposals is rated as Unacceptable. Since Chenega was the only Offeror rated Acceptable in the Technical Acceptability factor, it was the only Offeror eligible for award and the only Offeror that was further evaluated in the Past Performance and Price Factors.

Regarding the Past Performance factor, I noted that Chenega demonstrated very high performance on very highly relevant contracts with similar size, content, and complexity to the NPS-ER, substantiating the Very High Level of Confidence rating. I concur with the SEB’s evaluation of this factor.

For the Price factor, the SEB found that Chenega’s proposal price was fair and reasonable, which included a comparison to the Independent Government Cost Estimate. I concur with the SEB’s evaluation of this factor.

Therefore, I have determined that Chenega Global Protection, LLC presented the proposal that offered the best value to the Government and select it for award of the NASA Protective Services

– Eastern Region contract.

Joseph S. Mahaley Date Source Selection Authority

11/28/22JOSEPH

MAHALEY

Digitally signed by JOSEPH

MAHALEY

Date: 2022.11.28 14:28:37 -05'00'