PACE V - Source Selection Statement.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration John H. Glenn Research Center Lewis Field Cleveland, OH 44135-3191

Source Selection Statement

Professional, Administrative, Computational, and Engineering

Service contract (PACE V)

80GRC020R0010

PROCUREMENT HISTROY/DESCRIPTION

The Professional, Administrative, Computational, and Engineering Service contract (PACE V) is the primary contract whereby the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Glenn Research Center (NASA GRC or GRC or Government) receives Information Technology (IT) services supporting the mission of NASA GRC. This includes but is not limited to:

• Computer Science

• Computer and Software Engineering

• Security

• Networking

• Application Development

• IT Project Management

• Web Services

Services provided under the PACE V Contract will primarily be performed at NASA GRC, the contractor’s local facility, or at other locations as needed to support authorized contract work activity.

This procurement is a follow-on to Contract NNC14BA04B.

To accomplish the PACE V requirement, the Government anticipates a contract consisting of a base work effort plus an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) effort. The PACE V Contract will be a cost plus fixed-fee contract and have a period of performance that will not exceed five (5) years.

A Request for Information / Sources Sought Synopsis was issued on August 1, 2019. A Draft Request for Proposals (DRFP) was released on February 7, 2020. An Industry Day was held on February 25, 2020 attended by 103 interested offerors representing 62 different companies. The final Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on March 24, 2020, as a 100% Small Business set-aside.

Twelve (12) proposals were received by the proposal due date of May 8, 2020. After an initial review, all were considered initially acceptable and included in the formal evaluation process.

Proposals were submitted by:

§ Alpha Omega Integration and Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc. (Joint Venture)

(ACES)

§ ASRC Federal System Solutions, LLC. (AFSS) § Banner Quality Management, Inc. and Peerless Technologies Corporation (Joint Venture)

(B-P JV)

§ Diligent Consulting, Inc.

§ Dynanet Corporation § Genex Systems

§ INNOVIM, LLC.

§ Mission Multiplier Consulting, LLC and All Points Logistics, LLC (Joint Venture)

(Mission Innovate) § New Direction Technologies Inc. and DB Consulting Group, Inc. (Joint Venture) (NDB

Tech) § Rothe Development, Inc. (RDI) § SaiTech, Inc.

§ Wichita Tribal Enterprises, LLC and THE CENTECH GROUP (Joint Venture) (WCJV)

EVALUATION CRITERIA/PROCEDURES

All proposals were evaluated by a designated Source Evaluation Board (SEB) in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 – Source Selection, NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3 – Source Selection, and the evaluation criteria included in the RFP. Offerors were notified in the RFP that the Government may award a contract based on the initial offers received, without discussion of such offers and accordingly, each Offeror should submit its initial proposal to the Government using the most favorable terms from a cost and technical standpoint. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation and provides the best value to the Government.

The RFP evaluation criteria consisted of the following factors: Mission Suitability, Relevant Experience and Past performance, and Cost.

As stated in RFP sections M.1, M.2. and M.7, the Mission Suitability Factor was divided into three Mission Suitability Sub Factors, which were evaluated by adjectival ratings and numerical scores. The relative weights, in terms of maximum numerical scores established for each subfactor, were as follows:

Mission Suitability (1,000 points TOTAL)

a. Management Approach (350 points TOTAL)

Organization Structure and Management Plan (125 points)

Phase In Plan (25 points) Recruitment, retention, staffing, and compensation (125 points) Key Personnel (75 points)

b. Overall Understanding of Requirements (500 points TOTAL)

Technical Approach to Meeting the Requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) (300 points) Technical Scenario 1 (100 points) Technical Scenario 2 (100 points)

c. Innovation Approach (150 points TOTAL)

Innovation Plan (50 points) Innovation Scenario 1 (50 points) Innovation Scenario 2 (50 points)

Evaluation of the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor was conducted in accordance with RFP section M.3. The SEB did not numerically score Relevant Experience and Past Performance but assigned level of confidence ratings to assess the SEB’s confidence in each offeror’s ability to perform the PACE V requirements. The SEB’s evaluation utilized three areas of information: Past Performance Narrative (PPN) provided by the offeror, Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) submitted by the offerors’ customers, and Past Performance Databases (CPARS).

Pursuant to RFP section M.4, the Cost evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1), NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3)(B). Cost was not numerically scored and did not receive an adjectival rating. A cost realism analysis was conducted, and the proposed costs were adjusted for each offeror, as needed, to establish a probable cost to the Government.1 Of the evaluation factors identified above, Section M.7 of the RFP stated that Mission Suitability is approximately equal to Relevant Experience and Past Performance, which is approximately equal to Cost. Additionally, Mission Suitability and Relevant Experience & Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost.

The Mission Suitability Factor evaluation process utilized by the SEB consisted of the SEB voting members independently reviewing each offeror’s proposal. The SEB voting members then met to establish consensus findings, adjectival ratings, and scorings for each offeror’s proposal.

The Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor was evaluated by a Relevant Experience and Past Performance Committee. In accordance with the evaluation criteria in the RFP, the committee members individually evaluated the proposals, summarized data from the PPQs, and

1 Pursuant to RFP section M.5, offerors’ business volumes were neither numerically scored nor given an adjectival rating but were reviewed to assess that the offeror understands the solicitation and the resources required. The SEB did not identify any risks from the business volume evaluation.

performed searches in CPARS and summarized the data found therein. The information was reported to the SEB voting members. The SEB voting members considered the committee findings and then established SEB consensus findings. The SEB then assigned a level of confidence to each offeror’s Relevant Experience and Past Performance.

The Cost factor was evaluated by the Cost Committee. The proposal costs were reviewed for compliance with the RFP instructions, consistency with the technical approach, mathematical errors, and overall cost realism. Each proposal cost was compared with other proposal costs and the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), which the Government had developed prior to the release of the RFP. Analysis of cost information includes an analysis of proposed indirect rates (labor overhead/fringe, material handling, G&A), as well as analysis of fixed fee amounts and fee rates. The Cost Committee then reported a summary of their analysis and findings to the SEB voting members. The SEB voting members considered the committee findings and then established SEB consensus findings.

EVALUATION FINDINGS

SUMMARY

Offeror Mission Suitability

Relevant Experience and Past Performance

Proposed Cost

Probable Cost

RDI 854 Very High 8th LOWEST 8th LOWEST AFSS 905 Very High 3rd LOWEST 6th LOWEST

Dynanet 655 Moderate 12th LOWEST 12th LOWEST B-P JV 982 Very High 4th LOWEST 2nd LOWEST Genex 778 Very High 6th LOWEST 5th LOWEST

NDB Tech 953 Very High 7th LOWEST 7th LOWEST Diligent 821 Very High 5th LOWEST 3rd LOWEST SaiTech 799 Very High 11th LOWEST 11th LOWEST WCJV 694 Moderate 9th LOWEST 9th LOWEST

INNOVIM 900 Very High LOWEST 4th LOWEST Mission Innovate 646 Very High 2nd LOWEST LOWEST

ACES 885 Very High 10th LOWEST 10th LOWEST

RDI

Mission Suitability Factor -854 Points

In the Management Approach subfactor, RDI’s proposal was rated “Very Good”, receiving 306 out of 350 possible points. The proposal contained four Significant Strengths and five Strengths for this subfactor. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Organizational Structure and Management Plan for proposing an approach that included complete, realistic, and highly effective processes and systems that will be used to ensure that performance meets requirements. The proposal also contained a Strength in Organizational Structure and Management Plan for its proposed complete and effective organizational structure. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Phase-In Plan for a plan that is complete, realistic and highly effective. Additionally, RDI’s proposal contained two Strengths in Phase-in Plan for an effective approach to transition current activities while minimizing disruption to on-going work and a realistic and effective transition approach. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Recruitment, Retention, Staffing, and Compensation for having a realistic and complete approach. Additionally, the proposal contained two Strengths in Recruitment, Retention, Staffing, and Compensation for an effective approach to the necessary decrease in staffing due to project cancellation and a realistic approach to adjusting the workforce skill mix to meet changing requirements. The proposal contained a Significant Strength for a reasonable and highly effective approach to Key Personnel.

In the Overall Understanding of the Requirements subfactor, RDI’s proposal was rated “Very Good”, receiving 399 of 500 possible points. The proposal contained ten Significant Strengths, two Significant Weaknesses, nineteen Strengths, and thirteen Weaknesses for this subfactor. With respect to RDI’s Technical Approach to Meeting the Requirements of the SOW and the two Technical Scenarios, the SEB evaluated RDI’s proposal as follows:

Applications: RDI’s approach to Custom Application Development received a Significant Strength for being complete, highly effective, and realistic. The proposal contained a Strength for RDI’s innovative and effective approach to Electronic Workflow and Business Process Automation. The proposal contained a Strength for RDI’s effective approach to supporting Scientific Applications and Services. The proposal contained a Strength for RDI’s innovative and effective application modernization approach in support of Custom Application Development.

Communications: The proposal contained a Significant Strength for an approach to Space Communication that includes realistic and highly effective support of Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking. The proposal contained a Significant Strength for providing complete and highly effective techniques for supporting complex systems engineering tasks in support of Highly Specialized IT Communications. The proposal also contained Strengths for RDI’s efficient approach to supporting the Media Services capability and a complete and effective approach to supporting Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the National Airspace Systems.

Computing: The proposal contained a Significant Strength for demonstrating a high level of effectiveness in their ability to lead a data center modernization initiative in support of Data Center Management. The proposal contained a Significant Strength for RDI’s efficient and highly effective approach to High-Performance Computing (HPC). The proposal received a Significant Weakness for not adequately addressing the highly specialized skills and expertise required to support Test Facility Data Systems. The proposal contained a Strength for RDI’s complete and effective approach to Storage Administration. The proposal contained a Strength for RDI’s effective approach to providing modification, replacement, and upgrade proposals and schedules based on sound business value in support of Test Facilities. The proposal contained a Weakness for an incomplete and inadequate approach to Test Facility cybersecurity.

CyberSecurity: The proposal contained a Significant Strength for RDI’s complete and highly effective approach to supporting the Traffic Capture and Analysis capability. The proposal contained a Significant Strength for RDI’s complete and highly effective approach to adapting and adjusting to the potential influx of new cybersecurity work. The proposal contained a Strength for RDI’s innovative approach to supporting incident response. The proposal contained a Strength for RDI’s complete understanding of how to address changing requirements, propose test enhancements and implement government-approved enhancements.

The proposal contained a Strength for an approach to integrating Industrial Control System/Operational Technology environments that will have some positive impact on successful contract performance. The proposal contained a Weakness for an incomplete approach to the potential movement of Cybersecurity work to an Agency Office of CyberSecurity Services (OCSS) contract. The proposal contained a Weakness for not adequately addressing the requirement for supporting the OCSS. The proposal contained a Weakness for not adequately addressing the requirements of the IT Security Awareness and Training Center (ITSATC). The proposal contained a Weakness for not adequately addressing the requirements of the CyberSecurity Engineering Team (CSET).

End-User: The proposal contained a Strength for RDI’s complete and effective approach to provisioning a User Assistance Team. The proposal contained a Weakness for an incomplete approach to Electronic Document Management. The proposal contained a Weakness for an incomplete and inadequate approach to Engineering Support.

Information Management: The proposal contained a Significant Strength for RDI’s complete and highly effective approach to putting Machine Learning models into production. The proposal contained a Strength for RDI’s realistic approach to supporting Information Management Software and Services.

IT Management and Governance: The proposal contained a Significant Strength for RDI’s complete and highly effective approach to the support of Asset Management. The proposal contained a Strength for RDI’s effective approach to the use of IT Service Management. The proposal contained a Strength for RDI’s complete and effective approach to the support of Enterprise Architecture. The proposal contained a Strength for RDI’s effective approach to IT Management and Governance.

Risk Management: The proposal contained a Strength for a complete approach to Risk Management that is realistic and effective.

Technical Scenario 1: The proposal contained a Significant Strength for RDI’s complete and highly effective approach to Technical Scenario 1. The proposal contained a Strength for RDI’s innovative and effective approach to interacting with the end user during the response process. The proposal contained a Strength for RDI’s realistic approach to identifying the skills and level of effort to address the scenario. The proposal contained a Weakness for an inadequate approach to maintaining evidence chain-of-custody during an incident.

Technical Scenario 2: The proposal contained a Significant Weakness for an incomplete and inadequate remedial maintenance process. The proposal contained a Strength for RDI’s effective approach to communications planning in support of its Facility Servicing Model. The proposal also contained five Weaknesses for an inadequate approach to New System Installations, an incomplete and inadequate approach to developing work timelines in support of the Facility Servicing Model, an incomplete Logistics Process, an incomplete documentation process in support of the Facility Servicing Model, and for proposing inadequate skills and level of effort.

In the Innovation Approach subfactor, RDI’s proposal was rated “Excellent”, receiving 149 of 150 possible points. The proposal contained four Significant Strengths and two Strengths for this subfactor. The proposal contained a Significant Strength for an Innovation Plan that included a complete, realistic, and highly effective list of value-added innovations that the Government will realize at no additional cost upon award. The proposal contained a Strength for RDI’s realistic and effective innovative processes that will be implemented to enhance the efficiency of existing services and solutions. The proposal contained a Strength for RDI’s complete and effective understanding of how to identify, implement, and manage its proposed innovations. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Innovation Scenario 1 for RDI’s approach to Current Portfolio Management, which included a complete and realistic list of techniques that add value to their overall process. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Innovation Scenario 1 for RDI’s complete and innovative approach to Application Modernization. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Innovation Scenario 2 for RDI’s complete and highly effective approach to Data Center Modernization.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor

The RDI proposal received a “Very High Level of Confidence” in Relevant Experience and Past Performance with a Significant Strength in Relevancy and two Significant Strengths in performance. RDI received a Significant Strength in Relevancy because the SEB determined that, overall, the RDI team had Highly Relevant experience to the PACE V SOW and overall requirements of the RFP. RDI provided a “Highly Relevant” reference and a “Relevant” reference for itself; one “Highly Relevant” reference and one "Relevant" reference for their major subcontractor ARES; and one "Relevant" reference for their major subcontractor Booz Allen Hamilton. RDI received a Significant Strength in Performance because Team RDI’s overall performances for the PPQ reference submitted were rated "Excellent" or “Very Good”, with substantive comments substantiating the ratings in areas of technical performance, business performance, and management performance in aspects of relevant and highly relevant contracts that pertain to the present requirement. Of the 90 responses to the PPQs, 83% of them were “Excellent” and 17% were “Very Good.” RDI received a Significant Strength in Performance because 100% of the CPARS ratings for the references provided by Team RDI were “Exceptional or Very Good”, with substantive comments substantiating the ratings in areas of technical performance, business performance, and management performance in aspects of relevant and highly relevant contracts that pertain to the present requirement.

Cost Factor

RDI’s probable cost is the 8th lowest of all offerors and higher than the IGCE. No probable cost adjustments were made to RDI’s proposed cost.

AFSS

Mission Suitability Factor - 905 Points

In the Management Approach subfactor, AFSS’s proposal was rated “Very Good”, receiving 315 out of 350 possible points. The proposal contained six Significant Strengths, one Significant Weakness, seven Strengths, and one Weakness for this subfactor. The proposal contained two Significant Strengths in Organizational Structure and Management Plan for a complete and highly effective Organizational Structure that demonstrates a realistic approach to meeting contract requirements and highly effective processes and systems that will be used to assure that performance meets requirements and deliver the estimated cost and schedule. Additionally, the proposal contained three Strengths in Organizational Structure and Management Plan for AFSS’s realistic and effective approach to cost reporting, cost tracking, and cost controls; effective support for the business aspects of the contract management; and an approach to remote workforce management that completely and effectively demonstrates their commitment to promoting telework. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Phase-In Plan for a complete, realistic and highly effective approach to meeting the contract requirements. Additionally, AFSS’s proposal contained two Strengths in Phase-in Plan for the effective management, scheduling, staffing, and responsibilities of the Phase-in Team and a realistic and effective plan to assume full contract responsibility by contract start date. The proposal contained two Significant Strengths in Recruitment, Retention, Staffing, and Compensation for having a highly effective and complete approach and a complete and realistic approach to employee training, mentoring, and development. Additionally, the proposal contained two Strengths in Recruitment, Retention, Staffing, and Compensation for a complete and effective approach to recruiting and retaining employees with critical skills and an effective strategy to adjust the workforce skill mix to meet changing requirements. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Key Personnel for a reasonable and highly effective proposed Program Manager (PM). The proposal contained a Significant Weakness in Key Personnel for an ineffective approach to providing additional Key Personnel. Additionally, the proposal contained one Weakness in Key Personnel for an unreasonable and ineffective approach to providing backup and continuity to the PM.

In the Overall Understanding of the Requirements subfactor, AFSS’s proposal was rated “Very Good”, receiving 442 of 500 possible points. The proposal contained six Significant Strengths, fourteen Strengths, and eight Weaknesses for this subfactor. With respect to AFSS’s Technical Approach to Meeting the Requirements of the SOW and the two Technical Scenarios, the SEB evaluated AFSS’s proposal as follows:

Applications: AFSS’s approach to Custom Application Development received a Significant Strength for being complete, highly effective, and realistic. The proposal contained a Strength for AFSS’s effective approach to Application Portfolio Rationalization in support of Application Portfolio Management. The proposal contained a Strength for innovative and effective understanding of Software Life-Cycle Management using NPR 7150.2 methodologies. The proposal contained a Strength for an innovative, complete, and effective approach to Application Modernization.

Communications: The proposal contained a Strength for an innovative and effective approach to Media Services support.

Computing: The proposal contained a Strength for a realistic approach to Data Center Management. The proposal contained a Strength for a realistic approach to supporting HPC.

The proposal received a Weakness for an inadequate approach to developing an alternate processing site in support of Data Center Management. The proposal received a Weakness for not adequately discussing custom hardware and software configuration management in support of Test Facility data systems.

CyberSecurity: The proposal contained a Significant Strength for AFSS’s complete and highly effective approach to supporting the OCSS. The proposal contained a Strength for an innovative approach to supporting the NASA Account Management System. The proposal contained a Strength for a complete and realistic approach to meeting the requirements of Data Loss Prevention. The proposal contained a Weakness for not adequately addressing the CSET requirements.

End-User: The proposal contained a Weakness for an incomplete and inadequate approach to Engineering Environment Support. The proposal contained a Weakness for an incomplete and inadequate approach to Enhance System Administration support. The proposal contained a Weakness for an incomplete overall approach to meeting the requirements of the End User Work Area.

Information Management: The proposal contained a Significant Strength for AFSS’s innovative and highly effective approach to supporting the Data Science capability. The proposal contained a Strength for an effective approach to meeting the requirements of the Information Management Work Area.

IT Management and Governance: The proposal contained a Strength for AFSS’s realistic approach to supporting Asset Management. The proposal contained a Weakness for an inadequate approach to meeting the Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) requirements.

Technical Scenario 1: The proposal contained a Significant Strength for demonstrating a complete and thorough understanding of the technologies involved in incident response and the expertise to implement an incident response process. The proposal contained a Strength for an effective approach to identifying the targets of the compromised home computer. The proposal contained a Strength for identifying innovative tools and techniques to determine the extent of the compromise. The proposal contained a Strength for providing effective response techniques that add value to their overall incident response process.

Technical Scenario 2: The proposal contained a Significant Strength for an innovative and highly effective Logistics Process. The proposal contained a Significant Strength for a realistic and efficient end-to-end Next Generation System Production and Delivery Process. The proposal contained a Strength for including an effective assignment of an “outage coordinator” to manage the communications requirements of each servicing event in its Facility Servicing Model. The proposal contained a Weakness for incomplete Test Facility Data Systems Processes.

In the Innovation Approach subfactor, AFSS’s proposal was rated “Excellent”, receiving 148 of 150 possible points. The proposal contained four Significant Strengths and four Strengths for this subfactor. The proposal contained a Significant Strength for realistic and innovative value-added innovations. The proposal contained a Strength for an Innovation Plan that provides effective unique benefits to the government. The proposal contained a Strength for effective innovative processes that can be implemented in a reasonable amount of time. The proposal contained a Strength for realistic innovations for potential government funding. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Innovation Scenario 1 for AFSS’s realistic and highly effective proposed Application Rationalization

Framework. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Innovation Scenario 1 for AFSS’s innovative and highly effective Application Value Mining (AVM) service that preserves business functionality and facilitates migration to a modern application development platform. The proposal contained a Strength in Innovation Scenario 1 for a feasible and innovative approach to the application of user-centered design principals. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Innovation Scenario 2 for demonstrating a complete and thorough understanding of the need to partner with the Agency Computing Services Office.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor

The AFSS proposal received a “Very High Level of Confidence” in Relevant Experience and Past Performance with a Strength in Relevancy and two Significant Strengths in Performance.

AFSS received a Strength in Relevancy because the SEB determined that, overall, the AFSS team had Highly Relevant experience to the PACE V SOW and overall requirements of the RFP.

AFSS provided a “Somewhat Relevant” reference and a “Not Relevant” reference for themselves. Additionally, AFSS’s sister companies ASRC Research & Technology Solutions (ARTS) and Arctic Slope Technical Services (ASTS), which entities the SEB determined have the potential to significantly impact performance of the proposed contract, provided two “Highly Relevant” references. Lastly AFSS' major subcontractor SAIC provided one "Highly Relevant" reference. AFSS received a Significant Strength in Performance because AFSS’s overall performances for the PPQ reference submitted were rated "Excellent/Very Good,” with substantive comments substantiating the ratings in areas of technical performance, business performance, and management performance in aspects of relevant and highly relevant contracts that pertain to the present requirement. Of the 65 responses to the PPQs 75% of them were “Excellent”, 17% were “Very Good”, and 8% were “Good.” AFSS received a Significant Strength in Performance because 90% of AFSS’s CPARS ratings were Exceptional or Very Good, with substantive comments substantiating the ratings in areas of technical performance, business performance, and management performance in aspects of relevant and highly relevant contracts that pertain to the present requirement.

Cost Factor

AFSS’s probable cost is the 6th lowest of all offerors and lower than the IGCE. A probable cost adjustment was made to AFSS’s proposed cost to include OCSS Option costs in contract years three through five per the RFP.

Dynanet

Mission Suitability Factor - 655 Points

In the Management Approach subfactor, Dynanet’s proposal was rated “Very Good”, receiving 293 out of 350 possible points. The proposal contained four Significant Strengths and three Strengths. The proposal contained one Significant Strength in Organizational Structure and Management Plan for complete and highly effective processes for ensuring that performance meets requirements and delivers at the estimated cost and schedule. Additionally, the proposal contained two Strengths in Organizational Structure and Management Plan for Dynanet’s effective roles for each of its Subcontractors and effective approach to supporting a remote workforce. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Phase-In Plan for a complete and highly effective approach to the management, schedule, staffing, and responsibilities of the Phase-In team. Additionally, Dynanet’s proposal contained a Significant Strength in Recruitment, Retention, Staffing, and Compensation for a realistic and highly effective Total Compensation Plan. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Key Personnel for a highly effective approach to providing Key Personnel in addition to the PM. The proposal contained a Strength for an effective approach to providing backup and continuity during any short-term absences of the PM.

In the Overall Understanding of the Requirements subfactor, Dynanet’s proposal was rated “Fair”, receiving 215 of 500 possible points. The proposal contained three Significant Strengths, thirteen Significant Weaknesses, six Strengths, and thirteen Weaknesses for this subfactor. With respect to Dynanet’s Technical Approach to Meeting the Requirements of the SOW and the two Technical Scenarios, the SEB evaluated Dynanet’s proposal as follows:

Applications: Dynanet’s approach to Custom Application Development received a Significant Strength for being innovative and highly effective. The proposal contained a Significant Weakness for an incomplete and inadequate approach to the Applications Work Area. The proposal contained a Strength for Dynanet’s Software Development LifeCycle including a realistic and effective software development maturity model. The proposal contained a Weakness for an incomplete approach to provisioning Website Hosting as a Service.

Communications: The proposal contained a Significant Weakness for an incomplete and ineffective approach to supporting Highly Specialized Computing services.

Computing: The proposal contained a Significant Weakness for an incomplete and inadequate approach to Test Facility Support. The proposal contained a Strength for an effective approach to supporting the development of GRC’s future hosting services environment. The proposal contained a Strength for an effective and efficient approach to Storage Administration. The proposal contained a Weakness for an inadequate approach to supporting HPC. The proposal contained a Weakness for an inadequate approach to supporting Embedded Computing.

CyberSecurity: The proposal contained a Significant Weakness for Dynanet’s incomplete and inadequate approach to supporting the OCSS. The proposal contained a Weakness for not adequately addressing the potential movement of a large part of Cybersecurity work currently done under PACE to an Agency OCSS contract. The proposal contained a Weakness for not adequately addressing the requirements of the CSET. The proposal contained a Weakness for an inadequate approach to the support of Data Loss Prevention.

End-User: The proposal contained a Significant Weakness for an incomplete approach to supporting the User Assistance Team. The proposal contained a Strength for an effective approach to Team Adoption in support of Collaborative Tools. The proposal contained a Weakness for an inadequate approach to Engineering Support. The proposal contained a Weakness for an inadequate approach to providing Enhanced System Administration support.

Information Management: The proposal contained a Significant Weakness for an incomplete and ineffective approach to addressing the requirements of the Information Management Work Area.

IT Management and Governance: The proposal contained a Significant Strength for Dynanet’s complete and highly effective approach to CPIC. The proposal contained a Significant Strength for Dynanet’s complete and highly effective approach to supporting the Enterprise Architecture capability. The proposal contained a Weakness for an inadequate approach to Information Systems Engineering and Installation. The proposal contained a Weakness for an inadequate approach to Asset Management. The proposal contained a Weakness for an incomplete approach to License Management. The proposal contained a Weakness for an inadequate approach to IT Management and Governance.

Skills, Disciplines, and Techniques: The proposal contained a Significant Weakness for Dynanet’s incomplete, inadequate, and ineffective response to providing a detailed description of the disciplines, skills, and techniques they plan to use in the performance of work on PACE V.

Scheduling, Assigning, and Tracking Work Activity: The proposal contained a Strength for an innovative approach to scheduling, assigning, and tracking work activity.

Technical Scenario 1: The proposal contained a Strength for Dynanet’s Response Process including techniques that add value and will have some positive impact on contract performance. The proposal contained a Weakness for an incomplete response to the scenario.

Technical Scenario 2: The proposal contained a Significant Weakness for an incomplete Facility Service Request Process. The proposal contained a Significant Weakness for an incomplete Facility Serving Model. The proposal contained a Significant Weakness for an incomplete Remedial Maintenance Process. The proposal contained a Significant Weakness for an inadequate Logistics Process. The proposal contained a Significant Weakness for an incomplete New Systems Installation Process. The proposal contained a Significant Weakness for an incomplete Communication Plan.

In the Innovation Approach subfactor, Dynanet’s proposal was rated “Excellent”, receiving 148 of 150 possible points. The proposal contained four Significant Strengths and one Strength for this subfactor. The proposal contained a Significant Strength for a complete and highly effective approach to the management of transformation. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Innovation Scenario 1 for discussing value-added processes that are innovative and achievable. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Innovation Scenario 1 for Dynanet’s complete and innovative approach to the modernization of the Speaker’s Bureau application. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Innovation Scenario 2 for Dynanet’s complete and achievable proven recommendations for enhancements to the operating environment through cloud services.

The proposal contained a Strength for feasible and achievable proven recommendations on how to assess the current state of the data center.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor

The Dynanet proposal received a “Moderate Level of Confidence” in Relevant Experience and Past Performance with a Meets/No Finding in Relevancy and a Strength and a Weakness in performance. Dynanet received a Meets/No Finding in Relevancy because the SEB determined that, overall, the Dynanet team was considered to have Relevant/Somewhat Relevant experience to the SOW and overall requirements of the RFP. Dynanet provided a “Relevant” reference and a “Somewhat Relevant” reference for themselves. Dynanet received a Strength in Performance because Dynanet’s overall performances for the PPQ references submitted were rated "Very Good,” with substantive comments substantiating the ratings in areas of technical performance, business performance, and management performance in aspects of relevant and somewhat relevant contracts that pertain to the present requirement. Of the 44 responses to the PPQs, 73% of them were “Very Good” and 27% were “Good.” Dynanet received a Weakness in Performance because 53.5% of Dynanet’s CPARS ratings were Exceptional or Very Good, with substantive comments substantiating the ratings in areas of technical performance, business performance, and management performance in aspects of relevant and somewhat relevant contracts that pertain to the present requirement.

Cost Factor

Dynanet’s probable cost is the 12th lowest of all offerors and higher than the IGCE. A probable cost adjustment was not made to Dynanet’s proposed cost.

B-P JV

Mission Suitability Factor - 982 Points

In the Management Approach subfactor, B-P JV’s proposal was rated “Excellent”, receiving 350 out of 350 possible points. The proposal contained six Significant Strengths and three Strengths. The proposal contained one Significant Strength in Organizational Structure and Management Plan for the complete and highly effective planned use of subcontracting. The proposal contained another Significant Strength in Organizational Structure and Management Plan for a complete and highly effective approach to cost reporting, cost tracking, and cost controls. Additionally, the proposal contained one Strength in Organizational Structure and Management Plan for B-P JV’s realistic and effective proposed management and organizational structure. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Phase-In Plan for a plan that is complete, realistic, and highly effective. B-P JV’s proposal contained a Significant Strength in Recruitment, Retention, Staffing, and Compensation for a complete and highly effective approach to staffing. B-P JV’s proposal contained another Significant Strength in Recruitment, Retention, Staffing, and Compensation for a realistic and highly effective strategy to adjust the workforce skill mix to meet changing requirements. B-P JV’s proposal contained two Strengths in Recruitment, Retention, Staffing, and Compensation for an effective approach to ensuring staffing flexibility and a realistic approach to decreasing staffing when required. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Key Personnel for a complete and highly effective approach to providing Key Personnel.

In the Overall Understanding of the Requirements subfactor, B-P JV’s proposal was rated “Excellent”, receiving 482 of 500 possible points. The proposal contained thirteen Significant Strengths, sixteen Strengths, and two Weaknesses for this subfactor. With respect to B-P JV’s Technical Approach to Meeting the Requirements of the SOW and the two Technical Scenarios, the SEB evaluated B-P JV’s proposal as follows:

Applications: B-P JV’s proposal contained a Significant Strength for a complete, highly effective, efficient, and innovative approach to supporting the Applications Work Area. The proposal contained a Strength for an effective approach to Website Development and Maintenance. The proposal contained a Strength for a complete and effective understanding of Software Life-Cycle Management using NPR 7150.2 methodologies.

Communications: The proposal contained a Significant Strength for a complete and highly effective approach to supporting the Communications Work Area. The proposal contained a Significant Strength for a complete, innovative, and highly effective approach to supporting the Space Communications capability. The proposal contained a Significant Strength for a realistic and highly effective approach to supporting the Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking (DTN) capability. The proposal contained a Strength for a complete and effective approach to supporting the Media Services capability.

Computing: The proposal contained a Significant Strength for a highly effective and complete approach to Test Facility Support. Additionally, the proposal contained two Strengths for a complete, efficient, and realistic approach to Performance Monitoring in support of Data Center Management and an innovative approach to IT Facilities Management.

CyberSecurity: The proposal contained a Significant Strength for B-P JV’s complete and highly effective approach to supporting Information Protection. The proposal contained a Significant Strength for B-P JV’s innovative, complete, highly effective, and efficient approach to supporting NASA’s CSET. The proposal contained a Significant Strength for B-P JV’s innovative and highly effective support for Web and Application cybersecurity requirements. The proposal contained a Strength for a complete and effective approach to supporting FISMA-compliant security planning. The proposal contained a Strength for an innovative approach to supporting the NASA Account Management System (NAMS). The proposal contained a Strength for B-P JV’s approach to supporting ITSATC that acknowledges and addresses the unique skills required to staff this capability. The proposal contained a Strength for a complete and effective approach to supporting Logging and Central Logging. The proposal contained a Strength for a complete and realistic approach to meeting the requirements of Data Loss Prevention (DLP). The proposal contained a Weakness for not adequately addressing the fact the potential cybersecurity work may move to an Agency OCSS contract.

End-User: The proposal contained a Strength for a complete and effective approach to Collaborative Tools. The proposal contained a Weakness for an incomplete and inadequate approach to User Assistance Team.

Information Management: The proposal contained a Significant Strength for a complete, realistic, and highly effective approach to Taxonomy Development. The proposal contained a Strength for an effective approach to the support of Data Science Technologies and Services.

IT Management and Governance: The proposal contained a Strength for B-P JV’s complete and effective approach to supporting the Project Management capability. The proposal contained a Strength for B-P JV’s complete and effective approach to meeting the Capital Planning and Investment Control requirements.

Risk Management: The proposal contained a Strength for a realistic and effective risk management process.

Technical Scenario 1: The proposal contained a Significant Strength for B-P JV’s complete and highly effective understanding of the technologies involved in identifying and responding to cybersecurity incidents. The proposal contained a Strength for an effective approach to prevent future occurrences of this incident.

Technical Scenario 2: The proposal contained a Significant Strength for an innovative and highly effective Remedial Maintenance Process. The proposal contained a Significant Strength for a highly effective Service Request Process. The proposal contained a Significant Strength for a complete and highly effective end-to-end Next Generation System Production and Delivery Process.

In the Innovation Approach subfactor, B-P JV’s proposal was rated “Excellent”, receiving 150 of 150 possible points. The proposal contained six Significant Strengths and three Strengths for this subfactor. The proposal contained a Significant Strength for an innovative, efficient, and realistic approach to innovation. The proposal contained a Significant Strength for innovative and highly effective innovations that will enhance NASA’s products, services, solutions, outcomes, or deliverables given an initial investment. Additionally, the proposal contained two Strengths for including implementation of innovative processes and an effective approach to the management of transformation and innovation. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Innovation Scenario 1 for B-P JV’s realistic and highly effective Application Rationalization Framework. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Innovation Scenario 1 for B-P JV’s complete and highly effective approach to modernizing the Speaker’s Bureau application. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Innovation Scenario 2 for B-P JV’s complete and highly effective recommendations on how to strategically assess the current state of the data center. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Innovation Scenario 2 for B-P JV’s realistic and highly effective approach to building a business case for data center modernization. The proposal contained a Strength for a complete and realistic approach to elastic computing.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor

The B-P JV proposal received a “Very High Level of Confidence” in Relevant Experience and Past Performance with a Strength in Relevancy and two Significant Strengths in performance. B- P JV received a Strength in Relevancy because the SEB determined that, overall, B-P JV team was considered to have Highly Relevant experience to the SOW and overall requirements of the RFP. B-P JV provided one “Highly Relevant” reference. B-P JV received a Significant Strength in Performance because the overall performances for the PPQ reference submitted were rated "Excellent,” with substantive comments substantiating the ratings in areas of technical performance, business performance, and management performance in aspects of relevant and somewhat relevant contracts that pertain to the present requirement. Of the 46 responses to the PPQs, 100% of them were “Excellent.” B-P JV received a Significant Strength in Performance because 100% of B-P JV’s CPARS ratings were Exceptional or Very Good, with substantive comments substantiating the ratings in areas of technical performance, business performance, and management performance in aspects of relevant and somewhat relevant contracts that pertain to the present requirement.

Cost Factor

B-P JV’s probable cost is the 2nd lowest of all offerors and lower than the IGCE. A probable cost adjustment was not made to B-P JV’s proposed cost.

Genex

Mission Suitability Factor - 778 Points

In the Management Approach subfactor, Genex’s proposal was rated “Very Good”, receiving 289 out of 350 possible points. The proposal contained three Significant Strengths, two Strengths, and two Weaknesses. The proposal contained one Strength in Organizational Structure and Management Plan for realistic and adequate processes and systems to assure performance meets cost and schedule.

The proposal contained a Weakness in Organizational Structure and Management Plan for an incomplete description of the functions of each organizational unit. The proposal contained a Weakness in Organizational Structure and Management Plan for an incomplete approach to cost reporting, cost tracking, and cost controls. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Phase-In Plan for a complete, realistic, and highly effective approach to transitioning current activities while minimizing disruption to ongoing work. Genex’s proposal contained a Significant Strength in Recruitment, Retention, Staffing, and Compensation for a complete and highly effective Total Compensation Plan. Genex’s proposal contained a Strength in Recruitment, Retention, Staffing, and Compensation for a realistic and effective approach to identifying sources of personnel. The proposal contained a Significant Strength in Key Personnel for a complete and highly effective approach to providing Key Personnel.

In the Overall Understanding of the Requirements subfactor, Genex’s proposal was rated “Very Good”, receiving 365 of 500 possible points. The proposal contained three Significant Strengths, five Significant Weaknesses, fifteen Strengths, and ten Weaknesses for this subfactor. With respect to Genex’s Technical Approach to Meeting the Requirements of the SOW and the two Technical Scenarios, the SEB evaluated Genex’s proposal as follows:

Applications: Genex’s proposal contained a Strength for an effective approach to Electronic Work flow and Business Process Automation. The proposal contained a Strength for an innovative approach to Scientific Applications and Services Support. The proposal contained a Weakness for an inadequate approach to Software Life-Cycle Management.

Communications: The proposal contained a Significant Weakness for an incomplete and inadequate approach to supporting the Communications Work Area. The proposal contained a Significant Weakness for an inadequate approach to supporting the Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking capability. The proposal contained a Significant Weakness for an incomplete and inadequate approach to supporting the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace Systems (NAS) capability. The proposal contained a Strength for an effective approach to Media Services. The proposal contained a Weakness for an incomplete approach to Space Communications.

Computing: The proposal contained a Significant Strength for a realistic, highly effective, and efficient approach to HPC. The proposal contained a Strength for a complete approach to Storage Administration. The proposal contained a Strength for a complete, innovative, and effective approach to Test Facility Support. The proposal contained a Weakness for an inadequate approach to Data Center Management.

CyberSecurity: The proposal contained a Significant Weakness for an incomplete and inadequate approach to supporting the CSET.