RECOM VI Source Selection Statement.pdf

Source Selection Statement Reliance Consolidated Models VI (RECOM VI)

Solicitation: 80LARC23R0008

On September 7, 2023, the Source Evaluation Team (SET) for the RECOM VI procurement presented its findings to me in a formal source selection briefing.

Background The Reliance Consolidated Models VI (RECOM VI) effort is for design and/or fabrication of aerospace model systems and developmental test hardware used for spaceflight, flight, spaceflight development, and ground-based tests supporting NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC), other Centers, and Agency missions (Aeronautics, Space, and Science). These precision experimental research models and hardware may consist of both mechanical and electrical/electronic hardware elements. These models may incorporate the use of new technologies such as smart materials, or new processes such as stereolithography and rapid prototyping using various materials from plastics, polymers, and metals.

Market research was conducted in order to determine the level of existing small business capabilities. A combined Request for Information/Sources Sought (RFI/SS) synopsis was published on December 2, 2022 seeking capability statements from potential sources under North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 541715, Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences with a size standard of 1,500 employees. Based on the responses received, the Contracting Officer with the concurrence of the Small Business Specialist, determined that an adequate number of small business concerns existed to allow the LaRC procurement to be conducted as a Total Small Business Set-Aside.

The LaRC Requirements Development Team (RDT) was appointed by me via e-mail dated January 20, 2023 for the purpose of analyzing the current and expected work content, assessing risk, and defining/developing the complete acquisition package. The LaRC SET was appointed by me via e-mail dated February 17, 2023, for the purpose of evaluating proposals received in response to the solicitation. A Procurement Strategy Meeting (PSM) was held on February 27, 2023. The Request for Proposal (RFP) was posted on April 27, 2023 with a proposal due date of June 12, 2023. Two amendments to the RFP were issued to add a FAR clause (Amendment 1, posted June 8, 2023) and add the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Plan requirement (Amendment 2, posted June 23, 2023) which extended the proposal due date to July 11, 2023.

The RECOM VI procurement was solicited as a multiple-award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) effort with a 5-year period of performance. The Government anticipated award of up to four (4) contracts as the result of the solicitation; however, reserved the right to award more or less for Offeror(s) determined by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) to represent the best value to the Government. Delivery orders issued against awarded contract(s) will be awarded on a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) or Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) basis. The Government will order a minimum quantity of work of $25,000 per contract. The total maximum cumulative value of the IDIQ contract(s) is $30,000,000.

Timely proposals were received on or before the due date of July 11, 2023 from the following Offerors (listed in alphabetical order):

• Advanced Technologies, Inc. (ATI)

• Eagle Technologies, LLC (Eagle)

Evaluation Summary This acquisition was a competitive best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Part 1815.3, Source Selection, and in accordance with the solicitation utilizing a Price Performance Tradeoff (PPTO) approach with technical proposals. Overall, in the selection of an Offeror for contract award, the Past Performance Factor was considered significantly more important than the Price Factor. An initial review of each proposal received was conducted to identify any unacceptable proposals in accordance with FAR 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. Both proposals were determined to be acceptable.

Evaluation of Technical Proposal (Technical Considerations): The SET performed a detailed evaluation of each Offeror’s Technical Proposal for acceptability based on the “Technical Considerations” set forth in RFP Section M.4 Volume I – Technical Proposal (Technical Considerations). Offerors had to receive an “Acceptable” rating in order to move on to the next step of evaluation. Offerors receiving an “Unacceptable” rating for one (1) or more of the areas were not considered for further evaluation. An award can only be made to an Offeror who has a technically “Acceptable” proposal. The technical criteria under RFP Section M.4 that were evaluated are summarized below:

Past Performance and Price Evaluation: All technically “acceptable” proposals were further evaluated using a tradeoff process between past performance and price factors in accordance with RFP Section M.5 Evaluation Factors. The SET performed a detailed evaluation of both Offerors’ past performance and price proposals to assess information submitted for the two evaluation factors.

Factor 1 – Past Performance: The evaluation of past performance was conducted in accordance with RFP Section M.5(a) Volume II – Past Performance Factor (Factor 1). The SET performed a detailed individual review of each Offerors’ Past Performance proposal, conducted interviews with the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and customers, and accessed Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) reports to evaluate the Offerors’ recent and relevant/pertinent performance for work similar in terms of size, content, and complexity to the requirements in the solicitation.

The RFP stated that all past performance references (contracts) must meet the “recency” and “relevancy/pertinence” requirements of the solicitation to be evaluated. Past performance was assessed to arrive at a Level of Confidence rating as set forth in NFS 1815.305. Each confidence rating has a “performance” component and a “pertinence” component. An Offeror must meet the requirements of both components to achieve a particular confidence rating and the lowest rated component is the highest confidence rating that can be achieved.

In assessing recency, the SET evaluated past performance references that had on-going performance or had completed performance within the past three (3) years from the date the RFP was issued. In assessing pertinence, the SET considered the degree of similarity of work performed in terms of size, content, and complexity of each relevant contract provided

Technical Consideration Description

Facility and Equipment Demonstration that Offeror has or will have the ability to obtain the facility/equipment needed to meet the task requirements of the contract.

Staffing Capability Demonstration that Offeror has or will have the labor skills as set forth in RFP Attachment 2 to meet the PWS requirements of the contract.

considering the amount and type of work each firm is proposed to perform to the requirements in the solicitation. To evaluate size, the SET compared the Offeror’s referenced contracts/task orders/delivery orders for similarity in size to the average/typical delivery order for RECOM V work. For determining content pertinence, the SET evaluated references based on the relevant experience to the Technical Performance Elements (Performance Work Statement (PWS) areas) listed in RFP L.16(b)(4), which are PWS Sections 3.1.1 Mechanical and Electrical/Electronic Conceptual Design, 3.2 Design Reviews, 3.3.1 & 3.3.2 Mechanical and Electrical/Electronic Safe Design Analysis, General Engineering Analysis, 3.4 Fabrication, 3.5 Quality Assurance, and 3.6 Calibration, Testing, Assembly, and Installation. To assess complexity, the SET compared references to the performance requirements outlined in the PWS sections. An Offeror had to receive a particular rating on only one reference to receive that rating overall for size, content, or complexity. The SET considered the assigned ratings for size, content, and complexity to arrive at an overall pertinence rating for each Offeror.

In assessing performance, the SET evaluated each Offeror's overall performance record for demonstrated experience in the technical performance elements listed in L.16(b)(4) for the work each firm is proposed to perform. The SET’s evaluation considered the information provided in each Offeror’s Past Performance proposal, interviews with the RECOM V COR and customers, and Contractor Performance Assessment System (CPARS) reports.

Once each SET member individually evaluated each Offeror for pertinence and performance, the team met and discussed all the past performance findings of the individual voting members. The SET used its collective judgement to develop consensus findings for the past performance factor and arrived at its consensus ratings for the pertinence, performance, and level of confidence rating for each Offeror. Based on the pertinence and performance components, the SET assigned a level of confidence rating in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2) of “Very High Level of Confidence,” “High Level of Confidence,” “Moderate Level of Confidence,” “Low Level of Confidence,” “Very Low Level of Confidence,” or “Neutral.”

Factor 2 – Price: The evaluation of the price factor was conducted in accordance with RFP Section M.5(b) Volume III - Price (Factor 2). The Government performed a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) by evaluating the prices proposed in response to the solicitation to determine if the prices were fair and reasonable. The evaluation included, but was not limited to, comparing all proposed prices to each other, and comparing each proposed price to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). The Government analyzed the total proposed price and other pricing data requested in Section L.16(c) Volume III – Cost or Price Proposal (Factor 2) for fairness and reasonableness and unbalanced pricing. Furthermore, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), the Government conducted a cost realism analysis by independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate, including labor rates, to determine whether the proposed cost elements were realistic for the work to be performed; reflected a clear understanding of the requirements; and were consistent with the unique methods of performance, resources, and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. Additionally, the Government evaluated each Offeror’s Pre-Priced Schedule of Rates and Labor Categories and Limitations on Subcontracting (FAR 52.219-14).

Evaluation of Technical Proposals (Technical Considerations) The SET conducted its evaluation of both Offerors’ technical proposals for acceptability based on the “Technical Considerations” set forth in the RFP, section M.4 Volume I – Technical Proposal (Technical Considerations). A summary of the assigned ratings is shown below:

Offeror Technical Consideration 1 Facility & Equipment

Technical Consideration 2 Staffing Capability

Advanced Technologies, Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Eagle Technologies, Inc. Acceptable Acceptable

Evaluation of Factor 1 – Past Performance:

The SET evaluated each Offeror’s past performance in accordance with Section M.5(a) of the RFP and a confidence rating was assigned in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2). The table below shows a summary of the Past Performance confidence ratings and findings for both evaluated Offerors:

Offeror Overall Pertinence Overall

Performance Level of

Confidence Advanced Technologies, Inc. Very Highly Pertinent Exemplary Very High

Eagle Technologies, LLC Very Highly Pertinent Very Effective High

Offeror 1: Advanced Technologies, Inc. (ATI):

The SET determined there is a Very High level of confidence that ATI would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the RECOM VI effort based on its record of past performance. A summary of the Past Performance Ratings for ATI is shown in the table below:

Size: The SET assigned a rating of Very Highly Pertinent (VHP) for Size. As the prime contractor, ATI demonstrated experience with delivery orders at the VHP level for size as compared to the size of an average/typical delivery order for RECOM V efforts.

Complexity: The SET assigned a Very Highly Pertinent (VHP) rating for Complexity. The contract reference encompassed the same or similar areas of responsibility as the RECOM VI PWS and handled a similar level of complexity specifications. The reference provided demonstrated that ATI has the requisite experience to achieve the requirements for RECOM VI.

Overall Content: The SET assigned a rating of Very Highly Pertinent (VHP) for Content based on the Offeror’s demonstrated experience in each of the six (6) Technical Performance Areas. ATI demonstrated content experience as an incumbent for the RECOM V effort. No significant changes were made from the requirements of RECOM V to RECOM VI effort.

Overall Pertinence: The SET assigned a rating of Very Highly Pertinent (VHP) for overall pertinence based on the evaluation of size, content, and complexity.

Overall Performance: The SET evaluated ATI’s Past Performance Volume using one (1) contract reference out of the four (4) references identified by ATI. Two (2) of the references were not evaluated for overall performance as no CPARS records existed for the efforts and no interview responses from the contract customer, as requested through e-mail, were received.

One (1) reference was not evaluated for overall performance due to a Size Rating of Not Pertinent (NP), therefore, it was removed from the evaluation process. The SET did find a CPARS report for the contract that was evaluated, and the ratings were Very Good or Exceptional in all categories. Additionally, based on the RECOM V COR’s knowledge of ATI’s recent performance that will be captured in the final RECOM V CPARS evaluation, ATI’s performance has been Exceptional. In the judgment of the SET, it assigned an Exemplary (E) performance rating for ATI based on the preponderance of the ratings.

Overall Confidence Level: In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SET arrived at an overall Confidence Rating of Very High (VH) level of confidence for ATI based on an overall pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent (VHP) experience and Exemplary

(E) performance.

Offeror 2: Eagle Technologies, LLC (Eagle):

The SET determined there is a High level of confidence that Eagle would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the RECOM VI effort based on its record of past performance. A summary of the Past Performance Ratings for Eagle is shown in the table below:

Size: The SET assigned a rating of Very Highly Pertinent (VHP) for Size. As the prime contractor, Eagle demonstrated experience with delivery orders at the VHP level for size, as compared to the size of an average/typical delivery order for RECOM V efforts.

Complexity: The SET assigned a Very Highly Pertinent (VHP) rating for Complexity. All four contract references were similar to the complexity in the RECOM VI requirements. The contracts encompassed the same or similar areas of responsibility as the RECOM VI PWS and handled a similar level of complexity specifications. The references provided demonstrated that Eagle has the requisite experience to achieve the requirements for RECOM VI.

Overall Content: The SET assigned a rating of Very Highly Pertinent (VHP) for Content based on the Offeror’s demonstrated experience in each of the six (6) Technical Performance Areas. Eagle demonstrated content experience as an incumbent for the RECOM V effort. No significant changes were made from the requirements of RECOM V to RECOM VI effort.

Overall Pertinence: The SET assigned a rating of Very Highly Pertinent (VHP) for overall pertinence based on the evaluation of size, content, and complexity.

Overall Performance: Eagle provided three (3) references which were all delivery orders under the RECOM V contract. In accordance with Section M.5(a)(2) of the RFP, in assessing the Offeror’s overall performance record, other references may be used for additional past performance information. Since Eagle used delivery orders from the RECOM V contract, the RECOM V base contract was added as a reference for evaluation allowing the SET to include the CPARS report in the evaluation process. Including the RECOM V contract increased Eagle’s references to four (4) that the SET was able to evaluate. In addition, the SET found a CPARS report for the RECOM V contract and the ratings were Very Good or Exceptional in all categories with the exception of one rating period where Eagle received Satisfactory in several categories and Marginal for schedule. In the judgment of the SET, it assigned a Very Effective (VE) performance rating for Eagle based on the preponderance of the ratings.

Overall Confidence Level: In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SET arrived at an overall Confidence Rating of High (H) level of confidence for Eagle based on an overall pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent (VHP) experience and Very Effective (VE) performance.

Evaluation of Factor 2 – Price:

The SET analyzed the total evaluated price (TEP), as well as other pricing data requested in Section L.16(c), for both Offerors to assess price reasonableness and cost realism, and to determine whether the proposed cost elements were realistic for the work to be performed;

reflected a clear understanding of the requirements; and were consistent with the unique methods of performance, resources, and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

A summary ranking of the total evaluated price, lowest to highest, is shown in the table below:

In accordance with FAR 15.402, the Contracting Officer determined that both of the Offeror’s proposed prices were fair and reasonable based on the comparison of proposed prices to each other, comparison of the proposed prices to the IGCE, and that adequate price competition existed. In addition, based on the cost realism analysis, it was determined that both Offeror’s probable cost is realistic for the work to be performed, reflected a clear understanding of the requirements, and is consistent with the unique methods of performance, resources, and materials described in each Offeror’s technical proposal. Due to the nature of the multiple award IDIQ contract with both FFP and CPFF delivery orders, cost or price will be a factor in the selection of each delivery order in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(1)(ii)(E). Therefore, a cost or price analysis will be conducted prior to the award of each delivery order. The total maximum cumulative value of the RECOM VI IDIQ contracts is $30,000,000.

Offeror 1 – Advanced Technologies, Inc. (ATI):

The SET determined that ATI’s price proposal is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the elements of the technical proposal. The cost realism analysis resulted in minor probable cost adjustments to two labor categories and the addition of overhead rates being applied for years two through five. It is noted that the probable cost adjustments did not result in any changes to the order of Offerors’ proposed costs from low to high. The SET and Contracting Officer (CO) determined the probable cost is realistic for the work to be performed; reflects a clear understanding of the requirements; and is consistent with the unique methods of performance, resources, and materials described in ATI’s technical proposal. ATI had no pricing concerns that would preclude an award of a contract.

Offeror 2 – Eagle Technologies, LLC (Eagle):

The SET determined that Eagle’s price proposal is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the elements of the technical proposal. The cost realism analysis resulted in the probable cost being the same as the proposed cost so no adjustments were required. The SET and the CO determined the probable cost is realistic for the work to be performed; reflects a clear understanding of the requirements; and is consistent with the unique methods of performance, resources, and materials

Offeror Technical Evaluated Price (TEP) Eagle Technologies, LLC 1st Advanced Technologies, Inc. 2nd described in Eagle’s technical proposal. Eagle had no pricing concerns that would preclude an award of a contract.

Basis for Selection The SET presented its findings to me on September 7, 2023. I reviewed and considered all significant evaluation findings that were documented in the SET’s presentation and reports in making my source selection decision. Based on this, I fully concur with the SET’s findings and I have determined that the SET conducted a thorough and impartial evaluation of both proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria that was established in the RFP.

I comparatively assessed the proposals against the evaluation factors in the RFP. I noted that both Offeror’s met the technical considerations required of the RFP. I also considered all factors, and their relative importance, in the selection of the Offeror(s) that can perform the contract in a manner most advantageous to the Government. Given that the RFP states that the past performance is significantly more important than price, I evaluated the offers relying more on past performance than price but used both as indicators of which Offeror(s) provide the best value to the Government. ATI’s Very High Level of Confidence rating for past performance consisted of a Very High pertinence rating and Exemplary performance rating. Eagle’s High Level of Confidence rating for past performance consisted of Very High pertinence rating and Very Effective performance rating. ATI received a Very High Level of Confidence rating and Eagle received a High Level of Confidence rating, which gave me assurance that they will both provide more than satisfactory performance in fulfilling the requirements for the RECOM VI contract. The price analysis/cost realism analysis indicated that both Offerors’ prices were fair, reasonable, and realistic for the work to be performed and the anticipation of competition at the delivery order level provided additional confidence that delivery order pricing will be fair and reasonable. I have no concern that the proposed pricing is the most advantageous and reasonable for the Government to fulfill the requirements for the RECOM VI contract.

Source Selection Decision In conclusion, based on the determinations above for Technical Considerations, Past Performance (Factor 1), and Price (Factor 2), I find that each Offeror’s proposal was reasonable, realistic, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the requirements of the RFP. I find it in the best interest of the Government to award to both Offerors to ensure adequate competition at the delivery order level and to maximize the skill sets and resources available to meet NASA’s requirements under these contracts. Therefore, I hereby select Advanced Technologies, Incorporated (ATI) and Eagle Technologies, LLC for award of contracts for RECOM VI.

Joseph F. Gasbarre Source Selection Authority