NTSS_Source Selection Statement.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA Shared Services Center Stennis Space Center, MS 39529-6000

Source Selection Statement for NASA Transformation Shared Services (NTSS)

Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 80NSSC23R0001

On June 2, 2023, I, along with several other senior officials from NASA Headquarters (HQ), and the NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC), met with the members of the NTSS Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to discuss the SEB’s final findings based on their evaluation of the final proposal revisions for the NTSS procurement.

I. PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION/HISTORY

The NTSS contract is being procured to provide NASA with services to support a broad range of functional activities to include but not limited to Financial Management (FM), Human Resources (HR), Procurement Services (PR), Agency Business Services (ABS), Intelligent Automation Services (IAS), and other related services for the NSSC.

This effort will be performed under a Single Award, Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract, with a Fixed Unit Price (FUP) Transactional Service component and a Fixed Price Level-of-Effort (LOE) component. Special Project Task Orders will be awarded on either a FFP completion basis or a FFP LOE basis. Contract Phase-in will be awarded as a separate Purchase Order.

The NTSS contract will consist of a two-year base period of performance, one (1) two-year option period, and one (1) one-year option period. To incentivize the NTSS contractor to provide excellent service, the contract also provides the contractor the opportunity to earn up to three additional one-year Award Term Option periods, which, if earned, could extend the contract’s period of performance to a total of eight years. To be eligible for an Award Term Option, the NTSS Contractor will be required to earn an average overall performance evaluation rating of Excellent (91 – 100) based on a 100-point performance scale, as described in contract Attachment I-4, Award Term Option Plan. The contract also includes a six-month Option to Extend Services clause in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.217-8. If all options are exercised the contract’s total period of performance would be 8 years and 6 months.

On September 2, 2022, NASA released a Draft Request for Proposals (DRFP) for the NTSS contract. On September 21, 2022, an Industry/Reverse Industry Day was held to discuss the DRFP with interested offerors. On October 27, 2022, the final NTSS Request for Proposals (RFP or solicitation) was released as a full and open competition. This procurement was conducted in accordance with FAR part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services, with the evaluation conducted under FAR part 15, Contracting by Negotiation.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541611

– Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services. The small business size standard is $21.5M.

NASA issued a total of 11 amendments to the RFP. These amendments answered questions from industry and revised various sections of the solicitation, which included the Performance Work Statement (PWS), the Instructions to Offerors, and the Evaluation Criteria for Award.

Amendment 00011 was issued to the two Offerors that were included in the Competitive Range.

On November 17, 2022, the NTSS SEB received a total of five, Volume II Past Performance proposal submissions.

On December 12, 2022, three Offerors submitted the remaining volumes of their proposals— Volume I: Mission Suitability, Volume III: Price, and Volume IV: Model Contract. The three Offerors that submitted timely and responsive proposals for all four volumes are listed below in alphabetical order:

COLSA Corporation (COLSA) General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT) Mackenzie Sloane LLP (Mackenzie Sloan)

The two additional Offerors that submitted a Volume II: Past Performance proposal did not submit any of the additional three required volumes for a complete proposal. Specifically, they did not submit Volume I: Mission Suitability, Volume III: Price proposal, or a Volume IV:

Model Contract. Since these two Offerors did not submit complete and responsive proposals, they were excluded from further consideration and their Past Performance proposals were not evaluated by the SEB.

On January 9, 2023, pursuant to NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305-70(a)(1) and (3), the NTSS Contracting Officer (CO) determined that Mackenzie Sloane’s proposal was unacceptable and advised the SEB to discontinue its evaluation. In accordance with FAR 15.503 (a)(1), Notifications to Unsuccessful Offerors, the CO notified Mackenzie Sloane of its unacceptable proposal. On January 19, 2023, a pre-award debriefing was provided to this firm. On January 19, 2023, Mackenzie Sloane filed a pre-award bid protest at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) challenging NASA’s determination that the proposal was unacceptable. On February 17, 2023, NASA submitted the Agency Report in response to this protest. On February 28, 2023, GAO dismissed the protest due to the Protestor’s failure to file a response to the Agency Report.

II. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The NTSS SEB included four voting members who represented the NSSC and NASA’s Mission Support Enterprise Office’s (MSEO) (Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO), and the Office of Procurement (OP)). To assist in the evaluation, the SEB appointed several evaluators with expertise in certain technical disciplines to provide assessments of Strengths, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies for each Offeror’s proposal, as measured against the solicitation’s evaluation criteria for award, while following procedures in the NTSS Source Evaluation Plan. Ex-officio members served as consultants to the SEB and to me, the Source Selection Authority (SSA).

The NTSS solicitation at Section IV, Paragraph 4.0 also set forth the three evaluation factors for contract award (Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Price) and their relative importance, stating:

The following evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance with Mission Suitability being most important and Past Performance being least important:

Factor 1: Mission Suitability Factor 2: Price Factor 3: Past Performance

However, as Offerors’ proposals approach equivalent ratings under the non-price factors, the importance of price will increase.

The solicitation also advised that the Mission Suitability factor was comprised of three subfactors: Management Approach, Technical Approach, and Subcontracting Management and Goals, weighted as follows, for a total of 1,000 points:

Subfactor Points Management Approach 450 Technical Approach 400 Subcontracting Management and Goals 150

TOTAL 1,000

As required by the RFP, the NTSS SEB carefully reviewed each Offeror’s proposal, identifying as applicable: Significant Strengths, Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, and Deficiencies. The SEB then documented these criteria in its initial findings. Next, the SEB assigned an adjectival rating and point value for each Mission Suitability subfactor. Finally, the SEB calculated the final point value for the Mission Suitability factor by adding the point values for each of the three subfactors. In accordance with NFS 1815.370(h)(2)(viii), the Mission Suitability factor was not assigned an overall adjectival rating; ratings were only utilized at the subfactor level.

For the Price factor, the RFP advised offerors that the Government would perform a price analysis of each Offeror’s proposal in accordance with FAR 15.305, Proposal Evaluation, and 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques. Offerors were advised that the Government may use any of the various price analysis techniques and procedures identified in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to determine price reasonableness. Offerors were further advised that their price would be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and performance risk. Also, Offerors were advised that their estimating assumptions, techniques, and/or pricing models must be reasonable, and must be based on current and anticipated labor market conditions. To this end, the RFP stated: “[The]

Government would evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement …. [t]he Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.” The RFP further explained that the Phase-in price must be included in the total proposed contract price.

For the Past Performance factor, the RFP advised Offerors to submit no more than five recent and relevant Government or commercial contracts. Recency was defined as active or physically completed contracts no more than three years from the issuance of the RFP. Relevancy (i.e., relevant experience) was defined as the accomplishment of work that is comparable in content, complexity, and size to the work required under this procurement. Relevancy would be assessed by considering: (1) services performed comparable in content, (2) size and complexity of the contract, (3) subcontract management, and (4) customer relationship management. All Offerors were allowed to submit past performance for subcontractors that would perform major or critical aspects of the requirements when such information was relevant to the NTSS acquisition, provided that experience was as a prime contractor. Past Performance was evaluated using the following level of confidence ratings as defined in NFS 1815.305(a)(2): Very High, High, Moderate, Low, Very Low, or Neutral.

III. DISPOSITION AND EVALUATION OF INITIAL PROPOSALS

On March 22, 2023, the NTSS SEB presented its initial findings to me as the NTSS SSA. Based on those findings, I agreed with the NTSS CO’s recommendation to establish a competitive range consisting of the most highly rated proposals. I subsequently concurred with the CO’s recommendation that the proposals submitted by COLSA and GDIT should be included in the competitive range.

On March 27, 2023, the CO advised COLSA and GDIT by letter that their proposals were included in the competitive range. The letters also informed each Offeror of their respective Significant Weaknesses, Weaknesses, and Price risks that the SEB had assessed during the initial proposal evaluations. The letter also listed several clarification questions to each Offeror. In addition, the CO provided COLSA and GDIT with Amendment 00011, which included several changes to the PWS and the RFP. The two Offerors were given until April 10, 2023, to respond.

The letters provided dates for oral discussions with NASA: April 12, 2023 (COLSA) and April 13, 2023 (GDIT). Oral discussions were conducted and concluded as scheduled.

On April 14, 2023, the NTSS CO sent letters to COLSA and GDIT requesting Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) that were due by April 27, 2023. On April 24, 2023, discussions were reopened in accordance with NFS 1815.307(b)(ii), to allow the CO to respond to three questions received from the two Offerors. After receipt of the FPRs, the SEB evaluated them consistent with the evaluation factors in the RFP and the NTSS Source Evaluation Plan.

IV. EVALUATION OF FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

The final evaluation results of the Offerors’ FPRs are summarized below:

Offeror Total Mission

Suitability (MS) Score

Management Approach

(MS

Subfactor 1)

Technical Approach

(MS

Subfactor 2)

Subcontracting Management and Goals

(MS

Subfactor 3)

Past Performance

Level of Confidence

Rating

Price

COLSA 839.5 out of 1,000

Very Good Very Good Very Good High Reasonable

GDIT 550 out of 1,000

Good Fair Good Very High Reasonable

COLSA Corporation

Under the Mission Suitability Factor, COLSA’s proposal received an overall score of 839.5 points (out of a possible 1,000 points). Across the three Mission Suitability subfactors, COLSA’s proposal had three Significant Strengths, 23 Strengths, and no Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, COLSA received an adjectival rating of “Very Good.” COLSA received one Significant Strength, four Strengths, and no Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies. The Significant Strength that the SEB identified was for COLSA’s Phase-in approach.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, COLSA received an adjectival rating of “Very Good.” COLSA’s proposal received one Significant Strength, 18 Strengths, and no Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies. The Significant Strength that the SEB identified was for COLSA’s proposed corporate investments in response to PWS requirements 3.10.1 Innovation and Continuous Improvement Program (ICIP) and 3.10.2 Intelligent Automation Services (IAS).

Under the Subcontracting Management and Goals subfactor, COLSA received an adjectival rating of “Very Good.” COLSA’s proposal received one Significant Strength, one Strength, and no Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies. The Significant Strength that the SEB identified was for COLSA’s proposed subcontracting goals. The proposed subcontracting goals significantly exceeded the RFP small business goal of 34%. In addition, COLSA’s proposed subcontracting goals exceeded the RFP subcontracting goals in three of the six small business socioeconomic categories.

Under the Past Performance factor, COLSA’s proposal received a High Level of Confidence rating.

Under the Price factor, COLSA proposed the lower price of the two Offerors in the competitive range. The SEB evaluated COLSA’s price for reasonableness and for unbalanced pricing to validate its ability to perform the NTSS requirements. This evaluation included, but was not limited to, a comparison of COLSA’s price proposal against the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). The SEB concluded that COLSA’s price was reasonable and that no unbalanced pricing existed.

General Dynamics Information Technology

Under the Mission Suitability factor, GDIT received an overall score of 550 points (out of a possible 1,000 points). Across the three subfactors, GDIT’s proposal had no Significant Strengths, 18 Strengths, two Weaknesses, five Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, GDIT received an adjectival rating of “Good.”

GDIT’s proposal had no Significant Strengths, eight Strengths, and no Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, GDIT received an adjectival rating of “Fair.”

GDIT’s proposal had no Significant Strengths, seven Strengths, two Weaknesses, five Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. Two Significant Weaknesses that the SEB identified in GDIT’s proposal pertained to this Offeror not displaying the knowledge of and capability to use the various major systems utilized by NASA to provide innovative and transformational NTSS services for Human Resources and Procurement Services. Three Significant Weaknesses that the SEB identified in GDIT’s proposal pertained to this Offeror demonstrating a limited understanding of and did not display the technical capability to implement the NTSS requirements to provide Financial Management Services, Procurement Services, and Agency Business Services.

Under the Subcontracting Management and Goals subfactor, GDIT received an adjectival rating of “Good.” GDIT’s proposal had no Significant Strengths, three Strengths, and no Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies.

Under the Past Performance factor, GDIT’s proposal received a “Very High” Level of Confidence rating.

Under the Price factor, GDIT proposed the higher price of the two Offerors in the competitive range. The SEB evaluated GDIT’s price for reasonableness and for unbalanced pricing to validate its ability to perform the NTSS requirements. This evaluation included, but was not limited to, a comparison of GDIT’s price proposal against the IGCE. The SEB concluded that GDIT’s proposed price was reasonable and that no unbalanced pricing existed.

V. SELECTION DECISION

I select COLSA as the successful NTSS offeror. My decision to award to COLSA is based on its proposal representing the best overall value for the Government in accordance with the RFP’s stated evaluation criteria for contract award. I reviewed the SEB’s evaluation, posed questions to the SEB during the final findings briefing, and expressed my own views to direct, confirm, and/or clarify questions I had about the proposals. I also requested and considered the comments of the senior NASA officials in attendance at the final findings briefing. The information presented at the final findings briefing with the SEB provided an accurate summary of its analysis of the two proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria for award outlined in the

RFP.

Prior to the final findings briefing, I carefully examined the SEB's detailed report describing the Mission Suitability findings together with the Board’s analysis of Past Performance and Price.

As the SSA, I spent several hours examining the SEB's evaluation of each factor and subfactor and I carefully considered these factors and subfactors against each proposal. I recognized that it was my responsibility to make an independent judgment of the SEB's evaluation results and to determine if I agreed with the evaluation. I determined that the Board performed a careful and thorough job of evaluating each proposal. The SEB likewise did a thorough job documenting its evaluations, identifying, and substantiating its findings, including all the Significant Strengths, Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, and Price risks for each of the proposals.

Additionally, the Board provided thorough answers to the follow-up questions I had during the final findings briefing. I agree with the information presented by the SEB and take no exception to the Board’s actions or assessments. I hereby adopt the SEB’s findings as my own.

In making my selection decision, I reviewed the relative importance of the evaluation factors for contract award. For this solicitation, these factors were listed in the descending order of importance with Mission Suitability being most important and Past Performance being least important: Factor 1: Mission Suitability, Factor 2: Price, Factor 3: Past Performance. However, I also understood that as Offerors’ proposals approached equivalent ratings under the non-price factors, the importance of Price would increase.

In support of my decision, I first turned my attention to the evaluation of each of the Offeror’s Mission Suitability proposals.

Mission Suitability

At the outset I observed notable quantitative and adjectival differences in the SEB’s evaluation in favor of COLSA’s proposal over that of GDIT.

I also noticed COLSA received three Significant Strengths and no Weaknesses (Significant or otherwise) under the Mission Suitability factor. GDIT’s proposal received no Significant Strengths and was assessed five Significant Weaknesses. Having made this quantitative observation first, I then turned to the qualitative review of the proposals and noted several distinguishing factors within the Mission Suitability evaluation.

Management Approach: Subfactor 1

I first reviewed each Offeror’s overall Management Approach within the Mission Suitability factor. I then noted the adjectival ratings for each Offeror (described above). Here, I took a closer look behind the rationale for COLSA receiving the higher adjectival rating of “Very Good” compared to GDIT’s adjectival rating of “Good.”

COLSA received one Significant Strength and four Strengths and had no Weaknesses. GDIT received no Significant Strengths, eight Strengths, and no Weaknesses.

COLSA received a Significant Strength for Phase-in for its commitment to provide a senior-level executive to serve as the Phase-in manager, a detailed four phased approach that includes pre-award, contract initiation, Phase-in execution, and Phase-in completion. COLSA also provided an extensive and comprehensive Phase-in schedule with key details and activities that anticipate potential issues, and a 60-day window to solve them. In addition, COLSA proposed a corporate investment to conduct Phase-in at no cost to the Government, as well as risk identification and mitigation that would cover incumbent retention rates, new employee badging, and entry approval. These proposal features represent a Significant Strength that greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

COLSA received four Strengths for its Management Approach in terms of how its management structure is built for innovation and transformation, Customer Relationship Management, its organizational structure (corporate and local/NTSS) and lines of communication, and resource retention/staffing plan. These proposal features represent Strengths that enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

By comparison, GDIT received eight Strengths for its Management Approach to innovate and transform its management structure, its organization structure and lines of communication, resource pooling, Pay for Performance, employee training, resource retention/staffing plan, a key personnel position for service delivery, and its approach to Phase-in. These proposal features represent Strengths that enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

Given its one Significant Strength, four Strengths, and no Weaknesses, as compared to GDIT’s eight Strengths and no Weaknesses, I have determined that COLSA’s Management Approach is superior to GDIT’s. The quantitative difference between COLSA’s one Significant Strength and four Strengths compared to GDIT’s eight Strengths led me to take a closer look at the substance of the evaluation findings. Although both Offerors’ Management Approaches offered additional value to the Government and demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the NTSS requirements, I find that overall COLSA’s Management Approach with its one Significant Strength in the important area of contract Phase-In combined with its four Strengths represent a superior approach to satisfying the NTSS requirements as compared to GDIT’s eight Strengths.

Technical Approach: Subfactor 2

I first reviewed each Offeror’s overall Technical Approach within the Mission Suitability factor.

I then noted the adjectival ratings for each Offeror (described above). Here, I took a closer look behind the rationale for COLSA receiving the higher adjectival rating of “Very Good” compared with GDIT’s rating of “Fair.”

COLSA received one Significant Strength and 18 Strengths for its response to all six Technical Approach subfactors (i.e., TA-1 Shared Services Administration, TA-2 Financial Management

Services, TA-3 Human Resources Services, TA-4 Procurement Services, TA-5 Agency Business Services, and TA-6 Enterprise Services).

By comparison, GDIT received seven Strengths, two Weaknesses, and five Significant Weaknesses for its response to all six Technical Approach subfactors listed immediately above.

The Significant Strengths and Strengths identified in COLSA’s Technical Approach proposal, and the Strengths, Weaknesses, and Significant Weaknesses identified GDIT’s proposal are referenced by TA section below for ease of identification.

For subfactor TA-1, Shared Services Administration, COLSA received three Strengths and GDIT received five Strengths.

COLSA received three Strengths for its Technical Approach to the PWS requirements for Service Provider Employee Requirements, Security, and Safety and Occupational Health, Customer Satisfaction, NTSS Integration Requirements with Other Contractor. These proposal features represent Strengths that enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

In comparison, GDIT received five Strengths for its Technical Approach to the PWS requirements for Service Provider Employee Requirements, Security, and Safety and Occupational Health, Customer Satisfaction, NTSS Integration Requirements with Other Contractors, and Knowledge Article Support. These proposal features represent Strengths that enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

These Strengths in both Offeror’s technical approaches to Shared Services Administration represent features that enhance the potential for successful contract performance and were not discriminators in my award decision.

Both COLSA and GDIT received an overarching Strength for subfactors TA-2 through TA-6.

Findings for each Offeror’s proposal specific to subfactors TA-2 through TA-6 are addressed below.

COLSA and GDIT each received one Strength for their overall Technical Approach to the PWS Requirements in TA-2 Financial Management Services, TA-3 Human Resources Services, TA-4 Procurement Services, TA-5 Agency Business Services, and TA-6 Enterprise Services, to implement changes to processes and procedures that occur to ensure they are documented and updated. These features in both Offerors’ Technical Approaches to implement these changes enhance the potential for successful contract performance and were not discriminators in my award decision.

Specific findings for subfactor TA-2, Financial Management Services, COLSA received three Strengths and GDIT received one Strength, one Weakness, and one Significant Weakness.

COLSA received three Strengths for its Technical Approach to the PWS requirements for Accounts Payable, Travel Services, and NSSC Travel Authorization/Voucher Support.

Specifically, COLSA received Strengths for these PWS requirements based on the degree to which its proposal demonstrated an effective understanding of the NTSS requirements to provide Financial Management Services and the technical capability to implement these requirements.

These proposal features represent Strengths that enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

GDIT received the first of five Significant Weaknesses for its Technical Approach to the PWS Requirements in the following important areas of Financial Management (FM) Services for Accounts Payable, Funds Balance with Treasury, Travel Services, Permanent Chance of Station (COS) and Temporary Change of Station (TCS) Relocation Support, and NSSC Travel Authorization/Voucher Support. GDIT’s proposal displayed a limited understanding of the PWS requirements to provide FM Services and did not display the technical capability to implement these requirements. These proposal features represent a Significant Weakness that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

GDIT also received one Weakness that was introduced in its FPR for its misunderstanding of the volume of activity within Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable, and Funds Balance with Treasury during the months of August and September each fiscal year (the Government’s fiscal year ends on September 30). These proposal features represent a Weakness that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Specific findings for subfactor TA-3 Human Resources (HR) Services, COLSA received five Strengths and GDIT received one Weakness and one Significant Weakness.

COLSA received five Strengths for its Technical Approach to the PWS requirements for Human Resources (HR) Services for Personnel Programs, Employee Benefits, Personnel Action Requests, Maintenance of Electronic Official Employee Records, Payroll/Time and Attendance Processing, Classifications, Staffing Services, and the Federal Workers Compensation Program and Unemployment Compensation. Specifically, four of these Strengths pertain to HR Information Systems (HRIS), and the risk identification and mitigation that could result from the introduction of, or upgrades to, different HR systems, and COLSA’s approach to ensure compliance with Federal regulations and NASA policy. COLSA’s fifth Strength pertains to its demonstrated knowledge of and its capability to use the various major systems utilized by NASA to provide innovative and transformational NTSS HR Services. These proposal features represent Strengths that enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

To compare, the second of GDIT’s five Significant Weaknesses was assessed for its Technical Approach to HR Services. Specifically, GDIT’s proposal did not demonstrate the knowledge of and capability to use the various major systems used by NASA to provide innovative and transformational NTSS HR Services. These proposal features represent a Significant Weakness that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

GDIT also received one Weakness for its Technical Approach to the PWS requirements for HR Services for Staffing Services, Unemployment Compensation, and Training Administration and Purchasing Support. Specifically, GDIT’s proposal displayed a limited understanding of the NTSS requirements to provide HR Services and did not display the technical capability to implement these requirements. These proposal features represent a Weakness that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Specific findings for subfactor TA-4 Procurement Services, COLSA received three Strengths and GDIT received two Significant Weaknesses.

COLSA received two Strengths in its Technical Approach to the PWS requirement for Procurement (PR) Services for Procurement Operations (Agency and Enterprise Software Procurement), NASA’s Purchase Card Program, and Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) Purchase Support, along with its quality management approach for ensuring all procurement services are provided in accordance with applicable regulations and policies. Specifically, COLSA proposed a quality mitigation plan for changes to regulations, policy, and guidance.

COLSA received a third Strength for its Technical Approach for demonstrated knowledge of and the capability to use the various major systems utilized by NASA to provide innovative and transformational NTSS PR Services. These proposal features represent Strengths that enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

To compare, the third of GDIT’s five Significant Weaknesses was assessed for its Technical Approach to Procurement Services. Specifically, GDIT did not demonstrate the knowledge of and capability to use the various major systems used by NASA to provide innovative and transformational NTSS PR Services. These proposal features represent a Significant Weakness that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Additionally, under TA-4 Procurement Services, GDIT’s fourth of five Significant Weaknesses was assessed for its Technical Approach for overall Procurement Services, NASA Procurement Programs Support, Grants and Cooperative Agreements, Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfers (STTR), Procurement Operations, NASA’s Purchase Card Program, and Grants Management Services for Science Mission Directorate (SMD), and the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. Specifically, GDIT’s proposal demonstrated a limited understanding of the NTSS requirements to provide PR Services and did not display the technical capability to implement these requirements. These proposal features represent a Significant Weakness that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Specific findings for subfactor TA-5 Agency Business Services, COLSA received three Strengths and GDIT received one Significant Weakness.

COLSA received three Strengths for its Technical Approach to the PWS requirement for Agency Business Services (ABS) for Information Technology Business Services (ITBS) and the National Center for Critical Information Processing and Storage (NCCIPS). Specifically, COLSA’s proposal demonstrated knowledge of and the capability to use the various major systems utilized by NASA to provide innovative and transformational NTSS ABS Services. COLSA also demonstrated an effective understanding of the NTSS requirements to provide ABS Services and the technical capability to implement these requirements. Lastly, COLSA demonstrated an enhanced depth of knowledge and understanding of applicable regulations and policies to these ABS Services and how these changes will be addressed. These proposal features represent Strengths that enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

GDIT’s fifth of five Significant Weaknesses was assessed for its Technical Approach to ABS Services for ITBS and NCCIPS. Specifically, GDIT’s proposal displayed a limited understanding of the NTSS requirements to provide ABS Services and did not display the technical capability to implement these requirements. These proposal features represent a Significant Weakness that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Specific findings for subfactor TA-6 Enterprise Services, COLSA received one Significant Strength and one Strength, and GDIT received one Strength.

COLSA received one Significant Strength for its Technical Approach to the PWS requirements for Enterprise Services. Specifically, COLSA proposed an annual corporate investment to support the NSSC’s Innovation and Continuous Improvement Program throughout the performance of the NTSS contract, along with an annual investment to upgrade its internal Learning Management System (LMS) to add new or improved training for robotic process automation, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and UiPath training. (Both investments are at no additional cost to NASA). These proposal features represent a Significant Strength that greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

COLSA also received one Strength for its Technical Approach to Enterprise Services for Intelligent Automation Services (IAS). Specifically, COLSA’s proposal demonstrated an increased understanding of the innovation lifecycle and articulated the need for upfront due diligence in addressing change improvement ideas along with an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) approach for delivering innovative and transformational ideas. These proposal features represent a Strength that enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

To compare, GDIT received one Strength for its Technical Approach to Enterprise Services for IAS and NASA Enterprise Automation Services (NEAS). Specifically, GDIT’s proposal demonstrated an effective understanding of the overall Automation process lifecycle while clearly and knowledgably articulating its approach in a five-step process to deliver IAS and NEAS Services. These proposal features represent a Strength that enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

Overall, based on the above discussion, COLSA proposed a superior Technical Approach than GDIT. Based on the underlying findings associated with COLSA’s one Significant Strength, 18 Strengths, and the absence of any Weaknesses, as compared to the underlying findings associated with GDIT’s seven Strengths, two Weaknesses, and five Significant Weaknesses, I concluded that COLSA has the advantage under this subfactor.

Subcontracting Management and Goals: Subfactor 3

I first reviewed the Offerors’ overall approach to Subcontracting Management and Goals within the Mission Suitability factor. I then noted the adjectival ratings for each Offeror (described above). I took a closer look behind the rationale for COLSA receiving the higher adjectival rating of “Very Good” compared with GDIT’s rating of “Fair.”

COLSA received one Significant Strength and Strength and no Weaknesses, and GDIT received three Strengths and no Weaknesses.

COLSA received a Significant Strength for its approach to Subcontracting Management and Goals. Specifically, COLSA proposed to exceed the RFP’s overall subcontracting goals by 6% by specifically exceeding the RFP’s goals for three of six socioeconomic subcategories. COLSA proposed to exceed Small Disadvantages Business (SDB) goals by 13%, Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) goals by 6%, and Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) goals by 4%.

These proposal features represent a Significant Strength that greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

COLSA also received one Strength for its approach to Subcontracting Management and Goals, specifically for its approach to address subcontractors that submit untimely invoices. This proposal feature represents a Strength that enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

To compare, GDIT received a first Strength for its Subcontracting Management and Goals.

Specifically, GDIT proposed to exceed the RFP’s overall subcontracting goals by 2% by specifically exceeding the RFP’s goals for two of six socioeconomic subcategories. GDIT proposed to exceed SDB goals by 1% and Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZone) goals by 1%. GDIT received a second Strength for its approach Subcontracting Management and Goals, specifically for its approach to address subcontractors that submit untimely invoices. GDIT received a third Strength for its approach to Subcontracting Management and Goals for its subcontracting teaming structure that proposed to ensure a seamless, effective, integrated, and efficient approach to provide NTSS services.

These proposal features represent Strengths that enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

Although both Subcontracting Management and Goals Approaches offer additional value to the Government and demonstrated an understanding of the NTSS requirements, given the underlying findings associated with COLSA’s one Significant Strength, one Strength, and no Weaknesses, as compared to the underlying findings associated with GDIT’s three Strengths and no Weaknesses, I concluded that COLSA has the advantage under this subfactor.

Price Factor

The Offerors’ Price proposals were evaluated according to the evaluation criteria in RFP Section IV and in accordance with FAR 15.305 - Proposal Evaluation, FAR 15.404-1 – Proposal Analysis, and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305 - Proposal Evaluation. The SEB evaluated each Offeror’s proposed price for completeness, reasonableness, and risks.

The SEB briefed me on each of the Offeror’s proposed prices and I independently reviewed the SEB’s documentation on these prices. I further discussed with the SEB their evaluation of each Offeror’s proposed price.

For the Price factor, COLSA proposed the lower price of the two Offerors in the competitive range for the entire NTSS contract period of performance. GDIT’s proposed price was slightly higher. The SEB concluded that both COLSA’s and GDIT’s prices were reasonable and that no unbalanced pricing existed.

COLSA’s proposed price, which includes Phase in at no cost to the Government, is lower than the Government Independent Cost Estimate (IGCE) and is slightly lower than GDIT’s total proposed price. GDIT’s proposed price, which includes a cost for Phase-in, is slightly higher than the IGCE.

Overall, because COLSA has the lower proposed overall price, I concluded that COLSA has the advantage under the Price Factor.

Past Performance Factor

Lastly, I turned my review to the evaluation of the Offerors’ Past Performance, which I noted was the least important evaluation factor.

All contracts proposed by each Offeror were determined by the SEB to be recent. So, I considered all contracts proposed by each Offeror.

Subsequently, and in performing my review of results under the Past Performance factor, I agreed with the SEB’s High Level of Confidence rating for COLSA and Very High Level of Confidence rating for GDIT.

For the COLSA team, one contract for the prime contractor and four contracts for major subcontractors were submitted. Of the five contracts submitted, the SEB determined that four contracts were Relevant, and one contract was Somewhat Relevant. Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) for the five contracts contained ratings ranging from Exceptional to Satisfactory. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) received for four of the five contracts contained ratings that ranged from Exceptional to Satisfactory. A sixth contract (independently evaluated pursuant to RFP Section IV, Paragraph 6 by the SEB as information that was “close at hand” because it is an existing NSSC contract) was deemed Somewhat Relevant. The sixth contract contained CPARs ratings ranging between Exceptional to Marginal. Furthermore, a PPQ for this contract contained ratings ranging between Exceptional and Very Good.

Of COLSA’s six contracts evaluated by the SEB, it was determined that collectively the six contracts represented past performance for all six major NTSS PWS elements.

For the GDIT team, three contracts for the prime contractor and two contracts for major subcontractors were submitted. Of the five contracts submitted, the SEB determined that three of these contracts were Very Relevant, and two contracts were Relevant. CPARs for the five contracts contained ratings ranging from Exceptional to Satisfactory. PPQs received for the five contracts contained ratings that ranged from Exceptional to Satisfactory.

Of GDIT’s five contracts evaluated by the SEB, the first contract was for the incumbent NSSC NexGen contract. This is the only contract that closely aligned with six major NTSS PWS elements. GDIT’s four other contracts were considered to align with one or more of the six major NTSS PWS elements.

Given GDIT’s higher-rated performance, which ranged from Exceptional to Satisfactory and the fact that all five contracts were determined by the SEB to be Very Relevant or Relevant, I concluded that GDIT has the advantage under the Past Performance factor.

In my selection decision, I referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors for award specified in the RFP. Under Mission Suitability, the most important factor, I determined that COLSA offered the superior proposal for all three subfactors. In Subfactor 1, Management Approach, the most heavily weighted subfactor, COLSA offered the stronger proposal and was superior to GDIT’s. Under Subfactor 2, Technical Approach ̧the second most heavily weighted subfactor, COLSA’s proposal was far superior to GDIT’s. COLSA also offered the strongest proposal under Subfactor 3, Subcontracting Management and Goals. For Price, I compared COLSA’s proposed price with the proposal that had the next highest rated Mission Suitability rating, namely GDIT, and noted that COLSA’s proposed price is slightly lower than GDIT’s proposed price. For Past Performance, the least important evaluation factor, I noted that GDIT received a slightly higher rating than COLSA (i.e., Very High vs. High level of confidence rating).

Since COLSA has the higher Mission Suitability scores and ratings (as a result of higher ratings in each subfactor as supported by the underlying narratives), coupled with the lower Price, and a slightly lower Past Performance rating, I have determined that COLSA’s proposal represents the best value for the Government. That is, NASA will obtain a technically superior solution to the NTSS requirements and a high level of confidence that COLSA will successfully perform the requirements at a lower price than that offered by GDIT.

For the above-stated reasons, I select COLSA as the awardee of the NASA Transformation Shared Services contract.

Anita Harrell Date Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Integration Mission Support Directorate NTSS Source Selection Authority

Anita Harrell

Digitally signed by Anita Harrell Date: 2023.06.13 16:41:38 -05'00' June 13, 2023