NPSC-SR Source Selection Statement.pdf

NASA Protective Services Contract–South Region (NPSC-SR) 1

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR THE

NASA PROTECTIVE SERVICES CONTRACT – SOUTH REGION (NPSC-SR)

On September 27, 2021, I, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA), along with other senior officials from NASA Headquarters, Johnson Space Center (JSC), Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and Stennis Space Center (SSC) met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals for award of the NPSC-SR.

Relevant portions of the SEB’s evaluation of proposals and the rationale for my selection decision are set forth in this Source Selection Statement.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The objective of this procurement is to acquire protective services at JSC, White Sands Test Facility/White Sands Complex (WSTF/WSC), KSC, MSFC, MAF, and SSC. Protective services include: physical security operations, information security (INFOSEC) and communications security (COMSEC), emergency management, protective services communication center (PSCC) operations, facility security assessment, identity credential access management (ICAM), identity management and personnel security (PERSEC), vehicle management, and NASA protective services training.

BACKGROUND

On September 29, 2020, the development of the NPSC-SR Request for Proposals (RFP) commenced with the appointment of a Requirements Development Team (RDT). The Contracting Officer established 561612 (Security Guards and Patrol Services) as the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the NPSC-SR procurement, with a corresponding size standard of $22M annually. The Contracting Officer issued a Sources Sought Synopsis, seeking potential sources for the performance of NPSC-SR. This Sources Sought Synopsis defined the scope of the NPSC-SR acquisition and sought information from potential sources to determine industry interest and capability and to facilitate consideration of small business set aside potential. Based on the capability packages received, the Contracting Officer, with concurrence of the KSC Small Business Specialist and the NPSC-SR RDT Chairperson, determined that an adequate number of capable 8(a) small business concerns existed to justify setting aside the acquisition for 8(a) small business concerns. The RDT conducted market research, defined requirements for the work to be performed, developed an acquisition strategy, and created a NPSC-SR website (which included a technical resource library).

On March 23, 2021, the KSC Procurement Officer appointed the SEB for the purpose of preparing the solicitation and evaluating proposals received in response to the solicitation. On April 26, 2019, the Contracting Officer issued a draft RFP for industry comment. The SEB held a presolicitation conference with industry on May 13, 2021, which provided information about

NASA Protective Services Contract–South Region (NPSC-SR) 2 the NFSC locations and acquisitions. Following review and consideration of industry comments on the draft RFP, the Contracting Officer issued the NPSC-SR RFP on May 24, 2021. The NPSC-SR RFP sought proposals from 8(a) small businesses and anticipated award of a single, firm fixed price Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The contract period of performance consists of a 22-month base period followed by three 1-year options, for a total potential period of performance of four years, ten months. During the course of the procurement, the Contracting Officer issued a total of two RFP amendments to incorporate minor changes and post responses to questions.

In response to the NPSC-SR RFP, NASA received five timely proposals on or before the due date of June 30, 2021 from the following companies:

Ahtna Professional Services, Inc (APSI) Chenega Global Protection, LLC (CGP) Gold Point, LLC (Gold Point) S1S Alpha, LLC (S1S) Sunik, LLC (Sunik)

EVALUATION PROCESS

The NPSC-SR procurement utilized the price performance trade-off (PPTO) source selection process. The RFP established three evaluation factors: Technical Acceptability, Past Performance, and Price with assessment of the Technical Acceptability factor on a pass/fail basis and use of a trade-off process, as described at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.101, in making source selection with respect to the Past Performance and Price factors. The RFP advised offerors of the relative order of importance of the factors, stating the following: The Past Performance factor is approximately equal to the Price factor.

The SEB evaluated proposals using the applicable procedures, adjectival ratings, levels of confidence, definitions specified in the RFP, FAR subparts 15.3 and 15.4, and NFS subpart 1815.3, as applicable. Under the procedures established in the RFP and the applicable acquisition regulations, the SEB would first evaluate proposals against the Technical Acceptability factor and assign a rating of “Acceptable,” “Unacceptable,” or “Potentially Acceptable,” for each area.

The RFP advised that the Government would hold exchanges with offerors whose proposals were rated as “Potentially Acceptable” and, at the conclusion of exchanges, would assign a rating for the respective area. Only proposals that were individually rated “Acceptable” in all three areas would be evaluated against the Past Performance and Price factors.

The Technical Acceptability factor consisted of the following areas: Facility Clearance, Key Personnel Résumés, and Letters of Commitment. For the Facility Clearance requirement area, the offeror was to provide proof of the required facility clearance(s) as of the due date for proposal receipt and any applicable certification in the case of a joint venture. For the Key Personnel Résumés area, the Offeror was to provide a résumé for the following key positions:

Contract Manager and KSC, JSC, MSFC, MAF and SSC Site Managers. Individuals proposed were to meet or exceed the Contract Manager and Site Manager qualifications contained in

NASA Protective Services Contract–South Region (NPSC-SR) 3

Attachment D1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Annexes. For the Letters of Commitment, the Offeror was to include signed letters of commitment from the proposed Contract Manager and the Site Managers, identifying full-time employment and a minimum length of commitment of 18 months from the date of contract award. An “Unacceptable” rating in any of the technical areas would result in an overall proposal being rated “Unacceptable”, which eliminated the proposal from further consideration and made the proposal ineligible for award.

For Past Performance factor, the RFP advised offerors that evaluation would be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2) as applicable, and that the Government would evaluate the offeror’s and its major subcontractor(s)’ or individual partner(s)’ recent and relevant past performance of work similar in size, content, and complexity to the NPSC-SR requirements. Additionally, the RFP advised offerors that the Government would consider the resources of a parent/affiliate in its evaluation if the parent/affiliate were to participate meaningfully in the resultant contract. The RFP further provided that the Government may supplement the information contained in the proposal with information obtained from Government organizations and personnel, commercial sources, public information sources. The SEB also considered results from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System for contracts where the Offeror was the prime contractor as well as responses to past performance questionnaires.

Recent was defined as performance within the last five years, as of proposal due date, for ongoing or completed contracts. The RFP advised offerors that to be considered similar with respect to size, at least one of the contracts cited by the Offeror (excluding the Offeror’s major subcontractor(s)) must have employed or employs a workforce of at least 150 personnel. The RFP further advised that to be considered similar with respect to content and complexity, each contract cited by the Offeror (excluding the Offeror’s major subcontractor(s)) must have included or includes, at a minimum, performance in all of the following areas: emergency communications (i.e., radio dispatch of fire, armed security officer, or security police operations); armed security officer or security police operations; ICAM (i.e., badging operations); and resource protection (includes locksmiths and physical security). The RFP instructed the offerors to provide rationale to demonstrate how cited contracts were comparable in size, content, and complexity to the NPSC-SR requirements, and that the volume clearly detail what portions of the NPSC-SR PWS the Offeror and its major subcontractor(s) would be responsible for. With respect to performance, the RFP advised offerors that the Government would evaluate the Offeror’s and its major subcontractor(s)’ management, technical, and labor relations performance; safety reports; and any problems encountered and efficiency/effectiveness of resolution. Finally, the RFP advised that the Government would assign a level of confidence rating in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2).

For the Price factor, the RFP advised offerors the Government would evaluate price proposals in accordance with FAR subpart 15.4, and that the Government may use one or more of the various price analysis techniques and procedures found at FAR 15.404-1(b) to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Price analysis is the process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit. For purposes of selection, the total evaluated price consisted of the sum of the following: contract phase-in price and the contract price lists for baseline services, IDIQ unit rates, and IDIQ hourly rates (all locations, NASA Protective Services Contract–South Region (NPSC-SR) 4

CLINs, and contract periods). The Government provided minimum labor hours per year to support the development of baseline services prices, and Offerors were required to develop their own resource estimates that supported their unique management and technical approaches to meeting requirements and which met or exceeded the Government minimum labor hours.

The SEB conducted all evaluations using the above-described criteria as specified in the RFP. In addition to the evaluation of the factors identified above, the SEB ensured each proposal met all solicitation requirements established by the RFP.

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY EVALUATION

Following exchanges as defined in the RFP, the SEB rated the proposals from APSI, Gold Point, S1S, and Sunik overall as “Unacceptable,” based on “Unacceptable” ratings in the Key Personnel Résumés area under the respective proposals. Therefore, in accordance with the RFP, an “Unacceptable” rating in any of the technical areas resulted in an overall proposal being rated “Unacceptable,” which eliminated the proposal from further consideration and made the proposal ineligible for award.

The SEB rated the proposal from CGP overall as “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability factor. The SEB rated CGP proposal as “Acceptable” in the Facility Clearance area based on proof of possession of the required top secret facility clearance level as of the due date for proposal receipt. The SEB rated CGP’s proposal as “Acceptable” in the Key Personnel Résumés area based on the résumés of the candidates proposed for Contracts Manager and Site Managers at KSC, JSC, MSFC, MAF and SSC, which met the minimum qualifications identified in the RFP for the respective positions. Finally, the SEB rated CGP’s proposal as “Acceptable” in the Letters of Commitment area for the Contract Manager and Site Managers at KSC, JSC, MSFC, MAF and SSC, based on compliance with RFP requirements.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Contracts submitted by the CGP team met the requirements prescribed in the RFP with respect to recency, size, content, and complexity. Collectively, contracts submitted by the CGP team demonstrated very relevant experience performing work of similar content and complexity to the NPSC-SR, including: program management; armed security and security police operations including 24-7 patrol, facility walkthroughs, parking and traffic control, and investigations;

emergency management; PSSC operations including 911, computer aided, and radio dispatch, and alarm/CCTV monitoring; resource protection (includes locksmiths and physical security);

ICAM or badging operations; PERSEC; and NASA protective services training. Additionally, the CGP team demonstrated relevant experience providing INFOSEC and COMSEC. The CGP team provided “Very Good” to “Exceptional” performance across all contracts. Accordingly, CGP received an overall level of confidence rating of “Very High” under the Past Performance factor, meaning that the Government has a very high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform NPSC-SR requirements based on its performance record.

NASA Protective Services Contract–South Region (NPSC-SR) 5

PRICE EVALUATION

The SEB performed a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-l(b). As part of its evaluation, the SEB determined that the offeror complied with the RFP’s pricing instructions, including proposing hours that met or exceeded the Government minimum labor hours, and that adequate price competition existed. The SEB found no instances of unbalanced pricing by the offeror. Based on SEB’s evaluation, the total evaluated price for CGP was determined to be fair and reasonable. CGP’s total evaluated price was $468,433,802.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

During the presentation, I was fully briefed on the procurement process and given detailed evaluation materials concerning the proposal submitted. I questioned the SEB on the material presented and carefully considered the detailed findings presented by the SEB. I concluded that the SEB's evaluation was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. In addition, I solicited and considered the views of key senior personnel at NASA Headquarters and the centers subject to this solicitation. These key senior personnel have responsibility related to this procurement and understood the application of the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP.

In determining the best value to the Government, I referred to the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors specified in the RFP, specifically, that the Past Performance factor is approximately equal to the Price factor. Using these evaluation factors, I have reached the following conclusions:

With regard to Technical Acceptability, I noted that CGP was the only offeror rated “Acceptable” in all three areas: Facility Clearance, Key Personnel Résumés, and Letters of Commitment. I concur with the SEB’s evaluation in these areas. With regard to Past Performance, I noted that CGP has an extensive breadth of experience with contracts similar in size, content, and complexity to the NPSC-SR, worthy of a Very High Level of Confidence rating. I concur with the SEB’s evaluation of this factor. With regard to the Price factor, the SEB found that CGP’s proposal was fair and reasonable, and lower than the Government estimate. I concur with the SEB’s evaluation of this factor.

Considering the evaluation factors, I find that CGP’s proposal represents the best value to the Government. Accordingly, I select Chenega Global Protection, LLC for award of the NASA Protective Services Contract – South Region.

Joseph S. Mahaley Date Source Selection Authority

JOSEPH

MAHALEY

Digitally signed by JOSEPH

MAHALEY

Date: 2021.10.01 11:57:19 -04'00'