PESS II Source Selection Statement.pdf

NASA – Ames Research Center Source Selection Statement

Project Engineering and Support Services II Solicitation No. 80ARC019R0003

On September 3, 2020, I, the Source Selection Authority (SSA), met with the NASA Source Evaluation Board (SEB) and ex-officio members to evaluate the proposals submitted for consideration of an award of the Project Engineering and Support Services II (PESS II) contract.

During this meeting, the SEB presented its final evaluation of findings, and we discussed those findings to assure I fully understood the SEB’s evaluation.

This Source Selection Statement reflects my independent judgment, which I based upon a comparative assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the proposals and the evaluation criteria prescribed in the Request for Proposal (RFP). The basis and rationale for my selection are set forth below.

Procurement Description

NASA has a continuing need for contractor services in support of flight and mission projects, and advance engineering capabilities for research and development missions.

Accordingly, the PESS II solicitation seeks a follow-on contract so that NASA can continue to receive these services without interruption. NASA conducted this solicitation as a Small Business Set-Aside, for a single award, hybrid contract consisting of:

1. Phase-In (Firm-Fixed-Price);

2. Contract Management Office (Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee);

3. Core Requirements (Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee); and

4. Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Task Order Requirements (Cost-Plus-

Fixed-Fee).1

The period of performance for PESS II consists of a sixty-day phase-in period, a two-year base period, and three one-year option periods, resulting in a maximum performance period of five years and sixty days.

Solicitation History and Receipt of Proposals

NASA posted all solicitation documents on the Federal Business Opportunities web portal (https://www.fbo.gov), as follows:

June 1, 2018 Draft RFP posted2 June 19, 2018 Pre-Proposal Conference Held2 Dec. 12, 2018 Final RFP Posted Jan. 18, 2019 Amendment 1 to RFP Posted Jan 29, 2019 Amendment 2 to RFP published

Feb. 20, 2019 Amendment 3 to RFP published Feb. 21, 2019 Amendment 4 to RFP published

1 The RFP set the IDIQ minimum value at $1,000,000 and maximum value at $35,000,000 2 The Draft RFP and Pre-Proposal Conference information were posted under RFP No. 80ARC018R0003.

The RFP stated March 7, 2019 as the deadline to submit proposals. By this deadline, NASA received three complete proposals from the following entities (in alphabetic order):

Aerodyne-SGT Engineering Services, LLC (ASES) Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc. (Columbus) Millennium Engineering and Integration Services, LLC (Millennium)

Summary of Evaluation Criteria

The RFP identified three evaluation factors: Mission Suitability; Past Performance; and Cost/Price. The RFP specified the relative order of importance of these three factors as follows:

Mission Suitability is significantly more important than Past Performance, and Past Performance is moderately more important than Cost/Price. Mission Suitability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

The Mission Suitability Factor consists of two subfactors: Technical Approach and Management Approach. The subfactors are shown below with their respective elements and point allocation, which signifies their weight.

MISSION SUITABILITY SUBFACTORS

Subfactor Title Elements2 Assigned Weight

Technical Approach

1. Technical Understanding

2. Sample Work Packages

Management Approach

1. Approach for Managing the Contract and organizational plan

550 2. Approach for Recruiting, Retaining, Motivating, and Incentivizing Employees

3. Subcontract Plan and Management Approach

TOTAL 1000

2 In accordance with section M of the RFP, this chart should not be contrued as an indication of the order of importance or relative weighting within individual elements of the Mission Suitability subfactors as there are no discrete point values to any of the elements.

The RFP stipulated that the overall Mission Suitability Factor would be numerically scored, and the Mission Suitability Subfactors would be evaluated for strengths and weakness and would be adjectivally rated and numerically weighted and scored in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(3).

With regard to the Past Performance Factor, the RFP stated that the Government would evaluate each Offeror’s record of performing services or delivering products in terms of the quality of goods and services as well as the similarity in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of this current acquisition. The RFP also provided that each Offeror’s record of performance would be evaluated for the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in performance of the Offeror and Major Subcontractors, predecessor companies, subcontractors or an organization that will substantially contribute to the proposed contract, or have the potential to significantly impact performance of the proposed contract. Specifically, the Government would evaluate Past Performance of the Offerors and Major Subcontractors in the following areas: Relevant Technical Performance, Contract Management, and Other Information.

The RFP required an evaluation of the Past Performance Factor using the following Level of Confidence ratings: Very High Level of Confidence, High Level of Confidence, Moderate Level of Confidence, Low Level of Confidence, Very Low Level of Confidence, and Neutral. Section M of the RFP defined these level of confidence ratings.

The RFP required a cost evaluation to be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B). The RFP stated that the Government would determine the “Probable Cost” of each Offeror’s proposal by evaluating the realism of the proposed costs to ensure the Offeror understood the magnitude and complexity of the effort. The Firm-Fixed-Price Phase-In was to be reviewed and evaluated for price reasonableness. The RFP further stated that the total evaluated cost/price would be the “Total Evaluated Cost/Price for Selection Purposes” proposed pursuant to Exhibit 1 of Section J. (b), Attachment 3, after the application of any probable cost adjustments.

SEB’s Evaluation Process

The submitted proposals were made available, electronically, to each of the SEB members.

The SEB evaluated all proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria contained in the RFP.

All SEB members read each volume of the proposals and then individually identified findings (significant strength, strength, significant weakness, weakness and/or deficiencies, as applicable) for each element under the Mission Suitability subfactors. The SEB members then met as a group to review all individual Mission Suitability findings and reached consensus on the findings for each Offeror.

The SEB established the appropriate adjectival ratings and numerical scores in accordance with the RFP. Mission Suitability subfactors were assigned adjectival ratings according to the definitions in the RFP. Once the adjectival rating was decided, a percentage score was agreed upon by all of the voting SEB members. The percentage score was then multiplied by the weighting of each subfactor to determine its numerical score. Numerical scores were given for each subfactor in Mission Suitability, and subfactor scores were added together to determine an overall numerical Mission Suitability score.

In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A), the SEB members individually evaluated the Past Performance F ctor, based on the past performance proposals, past performance questionnaires, and information obtained from the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The SEB members then met as a group, reached consensus, and assigned a level of confidence rating on the Past Performance Factor for each Offeror.

The SEB and the Cost Analysts reviewed and evaluated the Cost/Price Volume of each Offeror’s proposal. A cost realism analysis was performed to assess the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs for the Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee portion of the contract. In accordance with FAR 15.4, a price reasonableness analysis was performed for the Firm Fixed Price (Phase- In) portion of the contract. The SEB met with the Cost Analysts to review the analysis and assessment and concurred with the analysis and the resulting total evaluated cost/price for selection.

Mission Suitability Findings

ASES scored 394 out of a possible 1000 points in Mission Suitability, the lowest of the three Offerors. Of the Mission Suitability subfactors, under Technical Approach, it received the adjectival rating of Fair, 185 points out of a possible 450 points (41%), with two strength and ten weakness findings. Under the Management Approach subfactor, it received the adjectival rating of Fair, 209 points out of a possible 550 points (38%), with two strength and one significant weakness findings.

Columbus scored 550 out of a possible 1000 points in Mission Suitability, the second lowest of the three Offerors. Of the Mission Suitability subfactors, under Technical Approach, it received the adjectival rating of Fair, 225 points out of a possible 450 points (50%), with four strength and six weakness findings. Under the Management Approach subfactor, it received the adjectival rating of Good, 325 points out of a possible 550 points (59%), with two strength and two weakness findings.

Millennium scored 716 out of a possible 1000 points in Mission Suitability, the highest of the three Offerors. Of the Mission Suitability subfactors, under Technical Approach, it received the adjectival rating of Very Good, 342 points out of a possible 450 points (76%), with one significant strength, one strength, and one weakness findings. Under the Management Approach subfactor, it received the adjectival rating of Good, 374 points out of a possible 550 points (68%), with two strength findings.

A narrative summary of the individual strength and weakness findings for each Offeror are provided below.

ASES – Mission Suitability – Technical Approach Subfactor Strengths/Weaknesses Strengths:

1. ASES received a strength for its proposed approach to performing the Flight Processing Center requirements, describing clear capabilities and expertise to performing those requirements.

2. ASES received a strength for its effective proposed approach that demonstrated a thorough understanding to achieving some aspects of the requirements for Sample Work Package (SWP) 2.

Weaknesses:

1. ASES received a weakness for its lack of sufficient detail to adequately demonstrate its specific approach for requirements definition to meet the Systems Engineering requirements.

2. ASES received a weakness for its lack of a clear and coherent approach to successfully developing mechanical system designs to meet the System Design and Analysis requirements.

3. ASES received a weakness for its lack of a clear and coherent approach to successfully perform Fluid Mechanics Systems Design and Analysis requirements.

4. ASES received a weakness for its lack of sufficient detail to adequately describe its specific approach and demonstrate its understanding to meet the Mission Design Center Requirements.

5. ASES received a weakness for its proposed significant technical risks not representing risks that are clearly related to the scope of the Statement of Work (SOW) requirements, which does not demonstrate a full understanding of the contract requirements.

6. ASES received a weakness for its description of proposed program and project management processes, and strategies for tailoring its processes, and not providing adequate detail to demonstrate how the approach would specifically address the technical and schedule requirements of the SOW in an effective manner.

7. ASES received a weakness for its proposed technical communication strategies, between its personnel and NASA technical personnel, identifying multiple layers of interfaces between the Offeror’s technical staff and NASA Ames Code R directorate management without providing an adequate explanation of how those lines of communication support accomplishing the requirements of the SOW.

8. ASES received a weakness for its proposed approach to meeting the requirements on SWP 1 for failing to provide sufficient descriptions of some aspects of the proposed approach for the development of the detailed design of the risk analysis associated with the non-interference system testing.

9. ASES received a weakness for its proposed approach to accomplishing the work on SWP 2 for failing to provide sufficient descriptions of some aspects of its approach to achieving the requirements of the SWP and including unnecessary activities that do not directly support the requirements.

10. ASES received a weakness for its failure to provide sufficient descriptions of critical aspects to achieving the requirements of the work on SWP 3.

ASES – Mission Suitability – Management Approach Subfactor Strengths/Weaknesses

Strengths:

1. ASES received a strength for its proposed contract management processes representing a very comprehensive approach for long-term and day-to-day management for some aspects of the management requirements.

2. ASES received a strength for its proposed strategy for recruiting, retaining, motivation, and incentivizing employees representing a very comprehensive approach that clearly addressed the staffing needs necessary to support the SOW requirements.

Significant Weakness:

1. ASES received a significant weakness for its proposed organizational management structure including a large number of leadership positions with overlapping roles, responsibilities, and authorities, which creates a significant risk of conflict over the management resources needed to accomplish the SOW.

Columbus – Mission Suitability – Technical Approach Subfactor Strengths/Weaknesses

Strengths:

1. Columbus received a strength for its effective proposed approach to achieving the Systems Engineering requirements.

2. Columbus received a strength for its effective and efficient proposed approach to performing the Flight Project and Mission Operations IT Support requirements.

3. Columbus received a strength for its effective proposed approach that demonstrated a thorough understanding of Flight Processing center requirements.

4. Columbus received a strength for its effective proposed approach that demonstrated a thorough understanding of some of the requirements for SWP 2.

Weaknesses:

Columbus received a weakness for its ineffective approach to meeting the Mission Design Center requirements, which did not demonstrate an understanding of the technical requirements.

Columbus received a weakness for omitting properly posed risk statements within the context of the SOW requirements in its approach to identifying significant potential technical risk. As a result, a thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation approach was possible.

3. Columbus received a weakness for failing to provide sufficient detail to adequately describe its approach to program and project management processes and the strategies for tailoring those processes.

4. Columbus received a weakness for its proposed approach to accomplishing some of the requirements in SWP 1, failing to demonstrate a clear understanding of the associated work to modernize the Vertical Motion Flight Simulator.

5. Columbus received a weakness for its proposed approach to accomplishing the work SWP 2, failing to demonstrate a clear understanding of some of the requirements and processes associated with the requirements.

6. Columbus received a weakness for its proposed approach to accomplishing the work on SWP 3 including a work breakdown structure that does not conform with NASA standards and an inadequate description of the development efforts necessary to meet the requirements of SWP 3.

Columbus – Mission Suitability – Management Approach Subfactor Strengths/Weaknesses

Strengths:

1. Columbus received a strength for its comprehensive and highly automated approach to managing Work Packages/Task Orders, including processes to track, analyze, and report contract data, and optimize staffing across the contract.

2. Columbus received a strength for its proposed strategy for recruiting, retaining, motivating, and incentivizing employees representing a comprehensive approach that clearly addresses the staffing needs necessary to support the requirements of the SOW.

Weaknesses:

1. Columbus received a weakness for its proposed candidate to fill the key Electrical Group Lead position lacking the five years of experience supervising electrical engineers in aeronautics or aerospace, as required for Key Personnel in the SOW.

2. Columbus received a weakness for its proposed position descriptions for the two Key Personnel positions of Mechanical Group Lead and Electrical Group Lead, failing to include the minimum requirement of five years of supervisory experience as stated in the SOW.

Millennium – Mission Suitability – Technical Approach Subfactor Strengths/Weaknesses

Significant Strength:

1. Millennium received a significant strength for its very effective and comprehensive approach to conducting design studies, concept development, and an element of program documentation development in support of the requirements of SWP 3.

Strength:

1. Millennium received a strength for three of its proposed specific technical risks and mitigation techniques that are very pertinent and demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the potential challenges associated with specific SOW requirements within the context of the types of projects and missions in the SOW.

Weakness:

1. Millennium received a weakness for its proposed methods and work products that are inconsistent with the SWP 2 requirements and for failing to adequately address the processes related to ISS integration.

Millennium – Mission Suitability – Management Approach Subfactor Strengths/Weaknesses

Strengths:

1. Millennium received a strength for its comprehensive approach to managing the Work Packages/Task Orders that includes automated contract management tools and thorough problem resolution processes.

2. Millennium received a strength for its proposed comprehensive strategy for recruiting, retaining, motivating and incentivizing employees, which clearly addresses the staffing needs necessary to support the requirements of the SOW.

Past Performance Findings

With respect to the Past Performance Factor, the SEB assigned the following Levels of Confidence: ASES with High; Columbus with Very High; and Millennium with High.

Cost/Price Findings

The SEB determined that all three Offerors proposed reasonable prices for the Phase-In requirement. With respect to the Offerors’ total proposed cost/price, the SEB determined that Millennium was highest, ASES second highest, and Columbus the lowest. Following probable cost adjustments, the SEB determined that for total evaluated cost/price for selection, Columbus was highest, Millennium second highest, and ASES the lowest.

My Decision

Prior to my scheduled meeting with the SEB, I carefully reviewed the written presentation materials provided to me, which included the SEB’s findings under the Mission Suitability Factor, the SEB’s narrative assessments under the Past Performance Factor, and the proposed and probable cost/price evaluations under the Cost/Price Factor.

I subsequently met with the SEB on September 3, 2020 to hear the results of its evaluation.

During this presentation, I questioned the SEB on the material provided and carefully considered the detailed findings of the evaluation. In addition, I specifically discussed with the SEB its reasoning for the assigned strength and weakness findings under the Mission Suitability subfactors, as well as the substantive content of these findings relative to other strength and weakness findings.

I also discussed with the SEB its rationale for the adjectival ratings and scores under Mission Suitability, for its assignment of Level of Confidence ratings under Past Performance, and for the probable cost adjustments made to each of the Offerors’ proposals.

After the presentation, I again reviewed the SEB’s presentation materials and referred to the Offerors’ proposals to deepen my own understanding of the proposals and to better understand the SEB’s evaluation with respect to the Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price factors.

At the Mission Suitability subfactor level, I noted that the SEB assessed point scores consistently with the assigned adjectival ratings for each subfactor, which in turn were justified by the SEB’s underlying strength and weakness findings. I noted that the SEB also calculated the final overall Mission Suitability Factor total point scores consistently with the RFP. I found the Past Performance evaluation to be detailed and clearly documented. Within the Cost/Price Factor, I similarly found that the probable cost adjustments made were appropriate.

Overall, I observed that the SEB performed a comprehensive, thorough and well-documented evaluation of proposals. I concluded that the evaluation under each of the evaluation factors was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, and I adopted the SEB’s findings in their entirety, as my own, without exception.

I specifically referred to the following “Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors” prescribed by the RFP:

Mission Suitability is significantly more important than Past Performance, and Past Performance is moderately more important than Cost. Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost.

My Evaluation of the Mission Suitability Factor

Under Mission Suitability, the most important evaluation factor, Millennium stood out as having the strongest proposal. The Mission Suitability Factor is comprised of two subfactors:

Technical Approach and Management Approach.

1. Mission Suitability – Technical Approach Subfactor

In evaluating the Technical Approach subfactor, Millennium stood out as having earned the only adjectival rating of Very Good. Although Very Good is not the highest achievable adjectival rating, it was the highest adjectival rating achieved by any of the Offerors in this subfactor. In contrast, Columbus and ASES both received Fair adjectival ratings in this subfactor.

More importantly, I evaluated the underlying strength and weakness findings assigned to the Offerors to determine the potential impact and relevance to this proposed effort. Millennium was the only Offeror with an unmatched significant strength finding in the Technical Approach subfactor. Millennium also had one strength and one weakness in this subfactor. While Columbus’ proposal offered four stand-alone strengths, it was also assigned six weaknesses.

Similarly, while ASES’ proposal offered two strengths, it was also assigned ten weaknesses under this subfactor.

Significant Strengths Millennium stood out in a positive light over the other Offerors because it earned the only significant strength finding under the Technical Approach subfactor. Millennium earned this significant strength for proposing a very effective and comprehensive approach to conducting design studies, concept development, and program documentation development in support of the requirements in one of the Sample Work Packages. I was especially impressed by the quality of this stand-alone significant strength as it demonstrated to me that Millennium had a deeper insight as to the nuances and importance of design studies and concept development, compared to Columbus and ASES. In my judgment, this discriminator of a significant strength will greatly enhance the potential to achieve successful contract performance.

Strengths With respect to assigned strengths, I did not find meaningful qualitative discriminators among the individual strengths assigned to the Offerors. I did note, however, that Columbus had the most number of assigned strength findings (four), and as a result, had strengths spread across more aspects of the Technical Approach subfactor than ASES (two strengths), and even more so than Millennium (one strength). Although when considering the breadth of strength findings Columbus had more than ASES, and ASES more than Millennium, as discussed above, Millennium earned the only significant strength. Further, the breadth of advantages in strength findings that Columbus has over ASES, and ASES over Millennium, in my judgement, are negated and overshadowed by the numerous weakness findings assigned to Columbus and ASES in comparison to the single weakness assigned to Millennium under the Technical Approach subfactor.

Weaknesses With respect to assigned weaknesses under the Technical Approach subfactor, ASES stood out due to the numerous weakness findings assessed. ASES’ ten weaknesses spread across more aspects of the Technical subfactor than the other Offerors. The breadth of its weaknesses and the risks associated with those weaknesses, in my judgement, negated and significantly overshadowed the two strengths assigned to ASES. ASES had weakness findings spread across several aspects of the Technical Approach Subfactor, for example, the meeting Systems Engineering requirements; the development of designs; identifying technical risks related to the SOW;

technical communication strategies; its proposals for Sample Work Packages 1, 2, and 3; and other weaknesses described in the Mission Suitability Findings section above.

Similarly, but to a lesser degree than ASES, Columbus also stood out due to the six weaknesses that were found under its Technical Approach subfactor. Columbus’ weaknesses also spread across several aspects of the Technical subfactor. The breadth of the weaknesses and the risks associated with those weaknesses, in my judgement, negated and overshadowed the four strengths it was assigned. For example, Columbus’ weakness findings touched upon its Mission Design Center approach; its risk statements; its proposals for Sample Work Packages 1, 2, and 3;

and other weaknesses described in the Mission Suitability Findings above.

In comparison to ASES and Columbus, the single weakness assigned to Millennium

(arising under its proposal for Sample Work Package 2), in my judgment, had minimal negative implications in terms of the breadth of weaknesses relative to ASES and Columbus. Further, although Millennium’s weakness had a negating effect over its single strength finding, it did not have the same overshadowing effect because the the quality of the strength had a balancing effect on the single weakness assigned to Millennium; and because Millennium was the only offeror to earn a significant strength in this subfactor.

2. Mission Suitability – Management Approach Subfactor

In the Management Approach subfactor, the more heavily weighted of the two Mission

Suitability subfactors, both Columbus and Millennium received Good adjectival ratings, while ASES received an overall Fair adjectival rating.

In addition to a review of the adjectival ratings, I also evaluated the strength and weakness findings assigned to the Offerors under this subfactor. Millennium stood out in a positive light as the only Offeror that was not assigned any weaknesses. ASES also stood out, but in a negative light, as the only Offeror to receive a significant weakness in this subfactor; further, although Columbus did not have any assigned significant weakness, it was found to have two weaknesses.

With respect to strength findings, all Offerors were assigned two strengths.

Strengths With respect to the two assigned strengths that each Offeror earned, I did not find meaningful discriminators in terms of quantity or quality.

Weaknesses Columbus was the only Offeror to have been found with weaknesses under this subfactor.

The two weaknesses assigned to Columbus related to a candidate they proposed to fill the key position of Electrical Group Lead; and their failure to provide positions descriptions that met certain minimal requirements for the Mechanical Group Lead and Electrical Group Lead. In my judgment, the quality of these two risks had a somewhat negative effect against the potential positive impact of the two strengths it earned in this subfactor.

Significant Weaknesses

ASES stood out negatively as it was the only Offeror to have been assigned a significant weakness in this subfactor. In my judgment it was correct to identify this as a significant weakness, as opposed to just a weakness, because the nature of this finding implicated a large number of leadership positions – i.e., it was a weakness that spanned numerous positions, as opposed to a single position, thus making it significant. In my judgment, the quality of this single significant weakness had a negating effect against the potential positive impacts of the two strengths ASES earned in this subfactor.

3. Summary of My Mission Suitability Evaluation

In the Technical Approach subfactor, in my judgment, Millennium’s proposal is superior to Columbus’ and Columbus’ proposal is superior to ASES. Although Millennium had the least amount of strength findings, it also had the least amount of weakness findings of the Offerors.

Further, Millennium was the only Offeror to earn a “significant strength” and the quality of this significant strength really stood out to me for reasons previously mentioned. Although Columbus and ASES each had more strength findings to Millennium’s single strength finding, I found that the potential positive impacts of their respective strengths were negated and overshadowed by the breadth and quality of the weaknesses that they were also assigned.

Under the more heavily weighted subfactor of Management Approach, I found no meaningful discriminators with respect to the quality of strengths earned by the Offerors.

Therefore, I turned to the assigned weaknesses and significant weakness and the risks attendant to these weakness findings. Given that Millennium did not have any weaknesses or significant weaknesses assigned, it is my judgment that it was the most impressive under the Management Approach subfactor. As between ASES and Columbus under this subfactor, in my judgement, Columbus is slightly stronger that ASES. Although Columbus had two weaknesses to ASES’ single significant weakness, in my judgment, the quality of the single significant weakness posed more of a risk of resulting in unsuccessful contract performance than Columbus’ two weaknesses combined.

The risks that are attendant to the weakness and significant weakness findings that were assigned under the subfactors have the potential to materialize during performance of the contract.

In such instances, some of the potential negative impacts could be additional costs, incomplete technical work, missed deadlines, and delay.

In my judgment, the comprehensive overall understanding demonstrated by Millennium, in nearly all the technical requirements and the lack of any weaknesses in its management approach made its Mission Suitability proposal superior to ASES’ and Columbus’ proposals.

My Evaluation of the Past Performance Factor

In the Past Performance Factor, the second most important factor, Columbus’ proposal was assigned a Very High level of confidence rating, with Millennium’s and ASES’ proposals both assigned a High level of confidence.

I reviewed and agreed with the ratings assigned to each of the individual past performance contract references assigned to each offeror. Columbus was deserving of the Very High level of confidence, as opposed to the High level of confidence assigned to both ASES and Millennium.

Across Columbus’ and its major subcontractors’contract references, it demonstrated experience in all three SOW areas, and demonstrated considerable depth of experience of similar complexity with respect to specific areas within each of the three SOW areas. Further, the past performance ratings across all of Columbus’ contract references were Exceptional and Very Good.

I was also impressed by ASES’ and Millennium’s past performance, but to a lesser degree than my impression of Columbus. I agreed and adopted the SEB’s designation of a High level of confidence for ASES. ASES, however, lacked the same level of depth of experience with respect to specific areas within each of the three SOW areas for the contract compared to Columbus.

For Millennium, I also agreed and adopted the SEB’s designation of a High level of confidence. While the performance on most of the past performance references was of a very positive nature, the performance assessed under one of the referenced contracts was lower. When all the performance assessments of the past performance references were combined the overall past performance assessment was commensurate with that of a High Level of Confidence.

My Evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor

Finally, I evaluated the Cost/Price Factor, the least important Factor. I reviewed the total proposed cost/price of each proposal and the probable cost adjustments made to each proposal in calculating the total evaluated cost/price for selection purposes. I found the adjustments made to be appropriate. With respect to the total evaluated cost/price for selection purposes, after adjustments, ASES offered the lowest total overall evaluated cost/price for selection purposes, with Millennium being slightly higher than ASES, and Columbus being significantly higher than Millennium.

Selection of Awardee

In making my selection, I referred specifically to the relative importance of the evaluation Factors provided in the solicitation:

Mission Suitability is significantly more important than Past Performance, and Past Performance is moderately more important than Cost. Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost.

With respect to Mission Suitability, the most important factor, Millennium offered the most impressive Mission Suitability proposal, with Columbus’ second most impressive, and ASES the least impressive.

With respect to Past Performance, the second most important factor, Columbus had the most impressive Past Performance, given its Very High level of confidence rating compared to the High level of confidence ratings received by both ASES and Millennium. Further, I found no meaningful discriminators between ASES and Millennium with respect to Past Performance.

With respect to the Cost/Price Factor, the least important factor, ASES offered the lowest total evaluated cost/price for selection purposes, offering only a slight advantage over Millennium, and a significant advantage over Columbus’ Cost/Price proposal.

While Millennium’s proposal is the best of the three proposals, when comparing Columbus and ASES, I find Columbus’ proposal to be better than ASES’. Although ASES’ Cost/Price proposal was significantly better than Columbus’, it is important to note that the Cost/Price factor is the least important factor. In my judgment, Columbus’ Mission Suitability and Past Performance proposals were better than those of ASES. The Cost/Price advantage enjoyed by ASES does not offset Columbus’ superior Mission Suitability and Past Performance proposal to a degree that makes ASES’ proposal better than Columbus’.

Overall, when comparing Millennium’s and Columbus’ proposals, Millennium offers a better value to the Government. Millennium’s proposal was more impressive than Columbus’ in the most important factor of Mission Suitability and also in the least important factor of Cost/Price.

The only advantage Columbus’ proposal has against Millennium’s is in the second most important factor of Past Performance. The advantage in Past Performance, however, is only by one confidence ranking (i.e., Very High, as compared to High), and in my judgment, the advantage is not dramatic, given that both rankings are in the top levels of the confidence rating spectrum.

Further, the one advantage Columbus enjoys does not offset the advantages of Millennium’s Mission Suitability and Cost/Price factors to a degree that would make Columbus’ proposal a better value to the Government. Therefore, I find Millennium’s proposal to be superior to Columbus’, especially when considering the relative importance hierarchy of the factors stated in the RFP, and the dearth of weakness findings assigned to Millennium, compared to Columbus.

When comparing Millennium’s proposal to ASES’, Millennium’s proposal offers a better value to the Government. I found no meaningful discriminators between Millennium and ASES in terms of the second most important factor of Past Performance. However, in terms of the most important factor of Mission Suitability, Millennium’s proposal was significantly more impressive than ASES’. In terms of the Cost/Price factor, the least important factor, ASES was only slightly less costly than Millennium. The one slight advantage that ASES enjoys under the least important Cost/Price factor does not, in my judgment, offset the considerable advantage Millennium has in the most important factor of Mission Suitability to a degree that would make ASES’ proposal a better value to the Government. Therefore, I find Millennium’s proposal to be superior to ASES’ especially when considering the relative importance hierarchy of the factors stated in the RFP, and the dearth of weakness findings assigned to Millennium, compared to ASES’ numerous weakness and one significant weakness findings.

Accordingly, I select Millennium for award of the PESS II contract because it offers the best value to the Government.

Dr. David J. Korsmeyer Source Selection Authority