NRESS-II Source Selection Statement md.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR

NASA RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES-II

(NRESS-II)

SOLICITATION NUMBER 80HQTR20R0001

On November 20, 2020, other senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Headquarters and I met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals for the NASA Research and Education Support Services-II (NRESS-II) acquisition. This memorandum documents my decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY

The purpose of the NRESS-II contract is to facilitate the announcement of research opportunities and/or outreach programs, collect and manage proposals/applications, review proposals/applications, and provide support for selection of proposals/applications for award.

The NRESS-II contract will provide professional support services, information technology support, and other related services for the NRESS program that supports the agency’s peer review life cycle and the research objectives of the customer directorates.

The NRESS-II requirement was issued as an 8(a) set-aside procurement under NAICS Code 561110: Office Administrative Services. The resultant contract is an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Single Award Contract with Cost Plus Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Task Orders. The effective ordering period is 5 years from the effective date of the contract with no options.

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

NASA issued the Request for Proposal (RFP) on April 3, 2020. One amendment was issued to the RFP on May 5, 2020.

The following companies submitted timely proposals by May 18, 2020:

Agile Decision Sciences, LLC (ADS) Chiricahua-Logical Joint Venture (C-L JV)

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

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The RFP defined evaluation factors as Mission Suitability, Cost and Past Performance. The RFP specified the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors as follows:

The Cost Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual Factors, the Past Performance Factor is less important than the Mission Suitability Factor but is more important than the Cost Factor.

The RFP established that the Mission Suitability Factor would be point scored in the evaluation process. In accordance with the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NFS) 1815.304-70(b)(1), the Mission Suitability Factor was weighted and scored on a 1,000-point scale. The points associated with each Mission Suitability Subfactor are as follows:

Mission Suitability Subfactor Points Subfactor A Technical Approach (RTO 1 and RTO 2) 300 Subfactor B IT Requirements Analysis (RTO 3) 300

Subfactor C Management Approach 400 Total 1000

The Mission Suitability Factor was evaluated using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The maximum points available for each Subfactor were multiplied by the assessed percent rating for each Subfactor to derive the score for the particular Subfactor.

The Cost Factor was evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B), and solicitation provision M.3 – Cost Evaluation Factor. The proposed costs of the Government Pricing Model (GPM), and the rates proposed in Attachment B, Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates and Fee Matrices, were assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism. The GPM was used to represent estimated work under the IDIQ contract. During proposal evaluation, the Government made probable cost adjustments to one of the Offeror’s proposed GPM costs. Both the proposed and probable costs assessments were presented, along with the proposed Phase-in price. Both the proposed and probable costs reflected the Offeror’s proposed fee amount. Proposed fee was not adjusted in the probable cost assessment.

The Past Performance Factor was evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15 and solicitation provision M.4 – Past Performance Evaluation Factor. In evaluating past performance, the SEB evaluated each Offeror’s record (including the record of significant subcontractors 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 also relied on narratives of relevant past and current contracts provided by the Offerors, past performance evaluation input provided via customer interviews, and on information retrieved from the government-wide Contract Performance Assessment Reporting 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.”

MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

The table below provides the adjectival ratings assigned in each Mission Suitability subfactor after evaluating each subfactor in accordance with RFP section M.2.

Offeror Subfactor A Subfactor B Subfactor C ADS Excellent Very Good Excellent C-L JV Fair Good Fair

The substance of the SEB’s evaluation of Mission Suitability for each Offeror is represented below.

ADS

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach (RTO 1 and RTO 2), ADS received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” with two Significant Strengths, six Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

ADS received the following two Significant Strengths:

1. ADS received a Significant Strength for its proposed efforts to increase reviewer diversity and facilitate the use of anonymous peer review.

2. ADS received a Significant Strength for understanding the peer review process, recognizing and accounting for variances among different review panels and proposing effective strategies to provide peer reviewers that possess tailored expertise and the requisite performance record.

ADS received the following six Strengths:

1. ADS received a Strength for identifying export control risks and the proposed mitigation efforts that decrease the risk of release of such materials (e.g., ITAR/EAR).

2. ADS received a Strength for the proposed use of various software tools to improve the document review cycle, reduce or avoid reviewer conflict of interest, automate and organize logistics tasks for meetings and reviews, and identify new reviewers.

3. ADS received a Strength for proposing to provide data that supports NASA’s ability to plan for and manage Agency technical resources.

4. ADS received a Strength for proposed risk mitigation and working proactively with the Translational Institute for Space Health (TRISH) staff.

5. ADS received a Strength for recognition of TRISH's unique mission, and its proposed tailored strategies, demonstrating its ability to effectively support TRISH workshops.

6. ADS received a Strength for proposing position management and development tools, thereby increasing the likelihood of effective science discipline support.

Under Subfactor B, IT Requirements Analysis (RTO 3), ADS received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one Significant Strength, one Strength, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

ADS received a Significant Strength for providing a comprehensive response in its approach to developing software tools and IT solutions to facilitate panel management, working with the development contractor, recognizing the need for a wide range of information about reviewer expertise and performance, and proposing to make this information available in internal

NSPIRES.

ADS received a Strength for identifying multiple ways in which the NRESS contractor can work with the External Development Contractor to achieve mutual success.

Under Subfactor C, Management Approach, ADS received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” with four Significant Strengths, no Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

ADS received the following four Significant Strengths:

1. ADS received a Significant Strength for demonstrating a deep understanding of the challenge associated with rapidly starting and thereafter managing multiple task orders simultaneously, and providing an effective approach to ensure timely and efficient Task Order Management.

2. ADS received a Significant Strength for providing a thorough and detailed phase-in plan that addressed every aspect of contract transition and included tools and efficiencies that greatly reduce the risk of disruption to operations during transition.

3. ADS received a Significant Strength for proposing a Hiring and Staffing plan that substantially minimizes risk of staffing delays or gaps and includes tools, resources and approaches that ensure a qualified workforce throughout performance.

4. ADS received a Significant Strength for proposing a contract program manager that has considerable authority over contract execution, personnel decisions, and contract expenses.

C-L JV

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach (RTO 1 and RTO 2), C-L JV received an adjectival rating of “Fair” with no Significant Strengths, two Strengths, one Weakness, one Significant Weakness, and no Deficiencies.

C-L JV received the following two Strengths:

1. C-L JV received a Strength for the proposed approach to incorporate engagement with NASA OSTEM programs, and use of a database of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)/ Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), to identify a new, diverse group of potential reviewers and proposers.

2. C-L JV received a Strength for proposing a suite of methods, techniques, and technologies that, taken together, enhance the potential for successful performance of RTOs 1 & 2.

C-L JV received a weakness for not demonstrating an understanding of responsibilities, by proposing to conduct the Technical, Management, and Cost (TMC) review for RTO1, which the RTO identifies as responsibilities of the Science Office for Mission Assessments (SOMA) at NASA Langley.

C-L JV received a Significant Weakness for insufficient labor allocated for RTO 2. In its response to each of the four activities comprising RTO #2, the C-L JV proposal severely underestimates the Support Scientist hours necessary to perform the specified work. This indicates a lack of understanding of the requirements of the RTO.

Under Subfactor B, IT Requirements Analysis (RTO 3), C-L JV received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, two Strengths, one Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

C-L JV received the following two Strengths:

1. C-L JV received a Strength for proposing a thorough plan for collection of requirements for the new electronic peer review support information system and validating system performance relative to requirements.

2. C-L JV received a Strength for providing a detailed and thorough description of its approach to managing changeover and migration of the NSPIRES system, demonstrating familiarity with the challenges of operation and maintenance of a secure system in the Federal IT environment.

C-L JV received a Weakness for failing to meaningfully address the use of software tools to facilitate panelist management.

Under Subfactor C, Management Approach, C-L JV received an adjectival rating of “Fair” with no Significant Strengths, no Strengths, one Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

C-L JV received a Weakness for not providing an adequate plan for existing NSPIRES hardware or keeping NSPIRES software resources up to date as part of the Phase-In plan.

COST EVALUATION

The SEB evaluated the total proposed cost (including the fixed price phase-in and proposed fee) and determined the Government’s probable cost for all Offerors. The following chart shows the relative order of proposed and probable cost for both Offerors, from lowest to highest, including the phase-in price:

Proposed Cost Probable Cost

ADC ($91,464,689) ADC ($92,729,240)

C-L JV C-L JV

ADS received minor direct labor rate adjustment increases for a small number of labor categories that were underestimated, compared to historical cost data.

Though the SEB made no adjustments to C-L JV’s proposed cost, its proposed indirect rates were determined to present a cost risk because historical data was only submitted for one of the two JV partners and the JV itself lacked historical cost data. Overall, the SEB considered this risk to be relatively low, as the rates were partially supported by one Team member’s historical data.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

As a result of the evaluation process, the NRESS-II SEB’s Past Performance Level of Confidence rating for each Offeror is as follows:

Offeror Level of Confidence Rating

ADS Very High

C-L JV High

ADS

ADS was assigned an overall level of confidence of Very High based on the combination of Very High Overall Relevance and Very High Overall Performance. The Offeror’s past performance is of exceptional merit and very highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating exemplary performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements in a timely, efficient, and economical manner. ADS demonstrated very effective performance in all key SOW functional areas on contracts comparable to NRESS-II, including the incumbent NRESS contract.

C-L JV

C-L JV was assigned an overall level of confidence rating of High based on the combination of High Overall Relevance and Very High Overall Performance. C-L JV's overall relevance was determined to be High based on overall relevance ranging from moderate to high on references submitted for the prime and for the significant subcontractor. This High rating resulted from the facts that 1) both the prime and the significant subcontractor had at least one high relevance contract; 2) the prime demonstrated content relevance in most questionnaire areas and the significant subcontractor demonstrated content relevance in all questionnaire areas; 3) the prime only demonstrated low size relevance on all references; and 4) the content relevance is weighted more highly than size. The combination of High relevance and Very High performance yielded an overall confidence rating of High.

DECISION

As the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the SEB’s evaluation documentation. Following this review, on November 20, 2020, I met with the NRESS-II SEB to hear the SEB’s evaluation presentation. I determined that the findings presented by the SEB, as documented in its presentation and the accompanying “NRESS-II Cost Report” were detailed, consistent with the evaluation criteria in the NRESS-II RFP, and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal.

I noted that the SEB assessed the Mission Suitability point scores consistently with the assigned adjectival ratings for each subfactor, which in turn were justified by the SEB’s underlying findings. I found the Past Performance evaluation to be detailed and clearly documented.

Within the Cost factor, I similarly found that the cost adjustments made by the SEB were logical and sound, and that cost risks were specifically identified. I observed that the evaluation of proposals by the SEB was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. I concluded that the SEB’s evaluation under each of the evaluation factors was reasonable and in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, and I accepted the SEB’s evaluation results in their entirety.

In determining which proposal offered the best value to NASA, I referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP.

The Cost Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual Factors, the Past Performance Factor is less important than the Mission Suitability Factor but is more important than the Cost Factor.

My selection was based on a comparative assessment of each proposal against each of these source selection evaluation factors.

I began with the Mission Suitability Factor, the most heavily weighted factor. I noted that ADS received an Excellent adjectival rating in Subfactor A, a Very Good adjectival rating in

Subfactor B, and an Excellent adjectival rating in Subfactor C. ADS was the only Offeror to receive a combination of a Significant Strength and Strengths, with no Deficiencies, Significant Weaknesses, or Weaknesses in the Mission Suitability Factor. C-L JV received a Fair adjectival rating in Subfactor A, a Good adjectival rating in Subfactor B, and a Fair adjectival rating in Subfactor C.

For Subfactor A, I found substantial advantages to the Agency in ADS’ proposed efforts to increase reviewer diversity and facilitate the use of anonymous peer review, as well as their demonstrated understanding of the peer review process. C-L JV received two Strengths in Subfactor A, but they were not comparable in merit to the Significant Strengths from ADS. C-L JV also received two Weaknesses in Subfactor A for lack of understanding of responsibilities and insufficient labor allocated for RTO 2. Overall, ADS’s proposal had the clear advantage in this Subfactor.

For Subfactor B, ADS received a Significant Strength for its comprehensive approach to developing software tools and IT solutions to facilitate panel management, while also receiving a Strength for identifying multiple ways to work successfully with the External Development Contractor, both of which enhance its ability to perform successfully. C-L JV proposed a thorough plan for collecting requirements for the new electronic peer review support information system and validating system performance and provided a detailed description of its approach to the migration to the new NSPIRES system, both of which were identified as Strengths.

However, C-L JV also received a Weakness for failing to meaningfully address the use of software tools to facilitate panelist management. In comparing the relative benefits to the Agency, I found ADS’ proposal to be superior in this subfactor.

The NRESS-II RFP assigned the greatest weight to Subfactor C, Management Approach. ADS was the only proposal rated Excellent in Subfactor C, based on four Significant Strength findings and no Deficiencies, Significant Weaknesses, or Weaknesses. I was particularly impressed with the ADS Significant Strengths related to its hiring and staffing plan that substantially minimizes risk and their effective approach to ensure timely and efficient Task Order Management. In contrast, C-L JV was rated Fair and received one Weakness for not providing an adequate plan for existing NSPIRES hardware or keeping NSPIRES software resources up to date as part of the Phase-In plan. I found ADS’ proposal to be significantly superior in this subfactor.

For the Past Performance Factor, I noted that ADS received a Very High Level of Confidence rating. C-L JV received a High Level of Confidence rating primarily because the contracts reviewed were low in size at the prime offeror level in comparison to the NRESS-II contract.

Therefore, I determined that ADS had an advantage in the Past Performance Factor.

I next considered the Cost Factor. I reviewed the proposed and probable costs and phase-in costs, recognizing that ADS had the lowest proposed and probable cost. I noted the risk identified for C-L JV, but ultimately this did not impact my deliberation as ADS’ probable cost was slightly lower than C-L JV’s proposed cost, which would increase should the risk materialize. Given the fact that the Cost Factor was the least heavily weighted factor in the RFP and the difference in proposed and probable costs were not significant, cost was only a minor consideration.

I have concluded that ADS’ superior Mission Suitability proposal, Very High past performance Level of Confidence rating and lower proposed and probable cost represent the more advantageous option, providing the higher probability of successful contract performance.

Accordingly, based on my analysis of the SEB’s evaluation results, and in accordance with the NRESS-2 RFP evaluation criteria, I have determined that the ADS proposal offers the best value to the Government, and have selected ADS for contract award.

Dr. Michael H. New Date Source Selection Authority

MICHAEL

NEW

Digitally signed by

MICHAEL NEW

Date: 2020.12.04 11:39:55 -05'00'