RVLTD Source Selection Statement.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center

Moffett Field, CA 94035-0001

Selection of Contractor(s) For

Rotorcraft Vertical Lift Technology Development

80ARC020R0011

On September 27, 2021, I, the Source Selection Authority (SSA), met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) members and ex-officio members appointed to evaluate proposals for the Rotorcraft Vertical Lift Technology Development (RVLTD) procurement at the NASA Ames Research Center (ARC). During this meeting, the SEB presented its findings to me and we discussed those findings to ensure that I had a full understanding of its evaluation. I assessed the SEB's findings and evaluation of proposals. This Source Selection Statement reflects my independent judgment, which I based upon a comparative assessment of the findings for each proposal and the evaluation criteria prescribed in the Request for Proposal (RFP). My selection is set forth below.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The RVLTD procurement provides technology development to meet NASA’s vertical lift research and development (R&D) mission, including work in the following R&D categories:

Advanced Rotorcraft Technologies;

Flight Controls and Health Management; and Rotorcraft Research Testing

ARC issued a competitive full and open solicitation for this requirement on July 7, 2020. The solicitation contemplated a multiple award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, under which Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) task orders could be issued. The minimum ordering quantity of IDIQ services that will be ordered during the effective period of this contract is $10,000 (per contract), and a shared maximum ordering quantity of $40,000,000. The ordering period for all awarded contracts is up to five-years.

EVALUATION PROCEDURE

The SEB evaluated proposals in accordance with the requirements set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, “Source Selection,” as supplemented by NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Subpart 1815.3, “Source Selection.”

The RFP identified two evaluation factors: Mission Suitability (Volume I) and Past Performance (Volume II). Price/Cost was not evaluated as part of the best value consideration for contract award in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii). Of these evaluation factors, the RFP instructed that Past Performance is more important than Mission Suitability.

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

MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR

Subfactors Assigned Weight

Technical Approach 850 Small Business Utilization Small Business Subcontracting Plan Commitment to the Small Business Program

TOTAL 1000

The SEB evaluated each Offeror’s Mission Suitability proposal based on the Offeror’s ability to fulfill the requirements. The RFP stipulated that the Mission Suitability factor would receive a numerical score, and the Mission Suitability subfactors would be assigned adjectival ratings and numerical scores. In accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(3), “Technical Evaluation,” the following were the potential Mission Suitability adjectival ratings: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor. In Section M.2, Evaluation Approach, the RFP defined these adjectival ratings and provided applicable percentage ranges at each rating level.

For the Past Performance factor, the RFP advised Offerors that relevancy will be assessed by each Offeror's and proposed major subcontractor’s record of performing services or delivering products similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the acquisition. The past performance evaluation was based on the information provided by the Offeror in its Past Performance Volume II, assessment of Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) submitted on behalf of each Offeror and of its Major Subcontractors, and information obtained from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), if available. The RFP required that the SEB evaluate each offeror’s Past Performance 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.

PROPOSALS

Seven (7) proposals were received in response to the RFP by the specified closing time and date.

The Offerors’ names (listed alphabetically) are as follows:

AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation (AWPC) Bell Textron, Inc. (Bell) Boeing Company (Boeing) Collins Aerospace (Collins) Georgia Tech Research Corporation (GTRC) Monterey Technologies, Inc. (MTI) Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky)

INITIAL EVALUATION

The SEB conducted its initial evaluation in accordance with the RFP. The SEB carefully reviewed each Offeror’s proposal, identifying as applicable significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies, as documented in its findings. The SEB then assigned an adjectival rating and point value for each subfactor. The SEB then calculated the final point value for each Offeror for the Mission Suitability factor by adding the point values for the two subfactors. In addition, the SEB completed its initial past performance evaluation and assigned Level of Confidence Ratings to each Offeror.

The SEB briefed me on its initial findings on May 7, 2021.

DISCUSSIONS

Based on all of the initial findings of the SEB, a competitive range was established which included all seven Offerors. Written discussions were held with all Offerors in the competitive range. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d)(3), the Contracting Officer advised each Offeror of all weakness, significant weakness, and/or deficiency findings, as well as any adverse past performance information for which the offeror had not yet had an opportunity to respond.

Between August 2, 2021 and August 13, 2021, the Contracting Officer issued a model contract, executed an amendment to the RFP, and required a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) from all Offerors. Following discussions, the following six Offerors remained eligible for award:

AWPC

Boeing Collins

GTRC

MTI

Sikorsky

FINAL EVALUATION

Following the same evaluation procedure used for the initial evaluation, the SEB completed the final evaluation of the Mission Suitability and Past Performance Factors. The SEB presented its final evaluation findings to me on September 27, 2021. A summary of those findings are included below.

AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation (AWPC)

Mission Suitability Factor

AWPCs Mission Suitability score is 633 out of a possible 1000 points, the third highest of all Offerors. It received the following adjectival ratings and numerical scores for each Mission Suitability subfactor: Technical Approach – Good/553 points out of a possible 850 points (65%), and Small Business Utilization – Good/80 points out of a possible 150 points (53%).

In the Mission Suitability Factor, AWPC met all of the requirements specified in the solicitation.

There were no strengths or weaknesses assigned by the SEB.

Past Performance Factor

In Past Performance, AWPC received a High Level of Confidence rating. The Offeror’s Past Performance Volume II proposal, PPQ responses, and CPARS data indicated the Offeror’s past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition demonstrating very effective performance that is fully responsive to contract requirements.

Boeing Company (Boeing)

Mission Suitability Factor

Boeing’s Mission Suitability score is 580 out of a possible 1000 points, the lowest score of all Offerors. It received the following adjectival ratings and numerical scores for each Mission Suitability subfactor: Technical Approach – Good/510 points out of a possible 850 points (60%), and Small Business Utilization – Fair/70 points out of a possible 150 points (47%).

In Mission Suitability, under the Technical Approach subfactor, Boeing met all of the requirements specified in the solicitation. There were no strengths or weaknesses assigned by the

SEB.

In Mission Suitability, under the Small Business Utilization subfactor, Boeing received one (1) weakness:

Boeing received a weakness for proposing less than 1% […] for all its subcategory subcontracting goals. The Offeror’s subcontracting plan does not provide reasonable subcontracting goals for this acquisition and may increase the risk of unsuccessful utilization of small business concerns during contract performance.

Past Performance Factor

In Past Performance, Boeing received a High Level of Confidence rating. The Offeror’s Past Performance Volume II proposal, PPQ responses, and CPARS data indicated the Offeror’s past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition demonstrating very effective performance that is fully responsive to contract requirements.

Collins Aerospace (Collins)

Mission Suitability Factor

Collins’ Mission Suitability score is 585 out of a possible 1000 points, the second lowest score of all Offerors. It received the following adjectival ratings and numerical scores for each Mission

Suitability subfactor: Technical Approach – Good/510 points out of a possible 850 points (60%), and Small Business Utilization – Fair/75 points out of a possible 150 points (50%).

In Mission Suitability, under the Technical Approach subfactor, Collins met all of the requirements specified in the solicitation. There were no strengths or weaknesses assigned by the

SEB.

In Mission Suitability, under the Small Business Utilization subfactor, Collins received one (1) weakness:

Collins received a weakness for proposing subcontracting goals that did not meet any of the recommended goals for the six subcategories while proposing a zero in one of the six individual subcategory goals with five other subcategories calculated below 1%. The Offeror’s subcontracting plan does not provide reasonable subcontracting goals for this acquisition and may increase the risk of unsuccessful utilization of small business concerns during contract performance.

Past Performance Factor

In Past Performance, Collins received a High Level of Confidence rating. The Offeror’s Past Performance Volume II proposal, PPQ responses, and CPARS data indicated the Offeror’s past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition demonstrating very effective performance that is fully responsive to contract requirements.

Georgia Tech Research Corporation (GTRC)

Mission Suitability Factor

GTRC’s Mission Suitability score is 648 out of a possible 1000 points, the highest of all Offerors. It received the following adjectival ratings and numerical scores for each Mission Suitability subfactor: Technical Approach – Good/553 points out of a possible 850 points (65%), and Small Business Utilization – Good/95 points out of a possible 150 points (63%).

In the Mission Suitability Factor, GTRC met all of the requirements specified in the solicitation.

There were no strengths or weaknesses assigned by the SEB.

Past Performance Factor

In Past Performance, GTRC received a High Level of Confidence rating. The Offeror’s Past Performance Volume II proposal, PPQ responses, and CPARS data indicated the Offeror’s past

Monterey Technologies, Inc. (MTI)

MTI’s Mission Suitability score is 610 out of a possible 1000 points, the fourth highest of all Offerors. It received the following adjectival ratings and numerical scores for each Mission Suitability subfactor: Technical Approach – Good/510 points out of a possible 850 points (60%), and Small Business Utilization – Good/100 points out of a possible 150 points (67%).

In the Mission Suitability Factor, MTI met all of the requirements specified in the solicitation.

There were no strengths or weaknesses assigned by the SEB.

Past Performance Factor

In Past Performance, MTI received a High Level of Confidence rating. The Offeror’s Past Performance Volume II proposal, PPQ responses, and CPARS data indicated the Offeror’s past

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky)

Sikorsky’s Mission Suitability score is 643 out of a possible 1000 points, the second highest of all Offerors. It received the following adjectival ratings and numerical scores for each Mission Suitability subfactor: Technical Approach – Good/553 points out of a possible 850 points (65%), and Small Business Utilization – Good/90 points out of a possible 150 points (60%).

In the Mission Suitability Factor, Sikorsky met all of the requirements specified in the solicitation. There were no strengths or weaknesses assigned by the SEB.

Past Performance Factor

In Past Performance, Sikorsky received a High Level of Confidence rating. The Offeror’s Past Performance Volume II proposal, PPQ responses, and CPARS data indicated the Offeror’s past

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Prior to meeting with the SEB, I reviewed the written presentation materials provided to me, including the SEB’s findings under the Mission Suitability Factor and the SEB’s narrative assessments under the Past Performance Factor. Based on the information presented at the briefing held September 27, 2021, and my comprehensive review of the SEB’s evaluation results for each of the Offerors’ proposals, I fully understand the evaluation process, and I concur with the SEB’s evaluation and findings.

At the briefing, I also specifically discussed with the SEB its reasoning for the assigned weaknesses as well as the substantive content of these findings. Moreover, I questioned the SEB regarding its rationale for the adjectival ratings and scores under Mission Suitability and for the assignment of Level of Confidence ratings under Past Performance for each of the Offeror’s proposals.

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

I next turned to the RFP, which notified offerors that the Government may elect to award two or more task order contracts for the same or similar supplies or services and that selection shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals pursuant to the source selection criteria prescribed in the solicitation. The solicitation advised that Awards were to be made to Offerors best able to successfully meet the Government’s needs in a manner most advantageous to the Government, all factors considered.

In making this determination, I first referred to the relative order of importance of the two evaluation factors as specified in the RFP:

Past Performance is more important than Mission Suitability.

My selection represents my independent judgement and is based on a comparative assessment of each proposal against each of these evaluation factors. In examining the SEB’s evaluation of each proposal under each evaluation factor, I did not simply tabulate the number of findings each Offeror received. Rather, I undertook a qualitative assessment of each Offeror’s proposal in order to understand the merits and drawbacks of each and to identify discriminating features.

I began with Past Performance, the most heavily weighted Factor. Initially, I noted that RFP section M.3, Weighting and Scoring, stated “Only those Offerors whose Past Performance level of confidence rating is ‘High Level of Confidence’ or better will be considered for award.” As detailed above, the SEB’s evaluation resulted in a “High” Level of Confidence assigned to each of the six Offerors eligible for award. After a thorough analysis of the offerors’ Past Performance, I agreed with the SEB’s assessment and have a high level of confidence that all six Offerors have the ability to perform the requirements of this contract based on their demonstrated prior experience.

Next, I turned to the Mission Suitability factor which is less important than the Past Performance factor. I noted that all six offerors eligible for award received the adjectival rating of “Good” in the Understanding the Requirement subfactor, the most heavily weighted subfactor. I also noted that under the Small Business Utilization subfactor, AWPC, GTRC, MTI and Sikorsky all received “Good” adjectival ratings whereas Boeing and Collins received a “Fair” adjectival rating.

Under the Understanding the Requirement subfactor, the most heavily weighted subfactor, there were no findings assigned to any of the offerors under this subfactor. In my judgment, as noted by the SEB and consistent with the point scores assigned under this subfactor, the approaches proposed by all six offerors reflected a reasonably sound approach to accomplishing the technical requirements of this contract.

Next, I reviewed the findings assigned to each of the offerors under the Small Business Utilization subfactor, the least heavily weighted subfactor. I observed that no offerors were assigned either strength or significant strength findings in this subfactor. Boeing and Collins each received a weakness finding under this subfactor. Boeing was assigned one (1) weakness for proposing less than 1% for all its subcategory subcontracting goals. Collins received one (1) weakness for proposing subcontracting goals that did not meet any of the recommended goals for the six subcategories while proposing a zero in one of the six individual subcategory goals with five other subcategories calculated below 1%. I examined each of the weaknesses in detail, and while they detracted slightly from each of the offeror's Mission Suitability proposal submissions, neither of the weakness findings were such that they demonstrated that either of the two offerors were incapable of successfully meeting the requirements of this contract. The remaining Offerors received “Good” ratings in the Small Business subfactor, indicating that the approaches proposed reflected a reasonably sound approach to accomplishing the requirements of this subfactor.

After reviewing all of the proposal evaluation data, I again referred back to the RFP evaluation criteria, which indicated that Past Performance is more important than Mission Suitability. As detailed above, the RFP required an overall “High” Past Performance level of confidence rating to be considered for award, and all remaining offerors eligible for award received High Level of Confidence ratings. As detailed above, with respect to the Mission Suitability Factor, all Offerors submitted Mission Suitability proposals which demonstrate a clear ability to successfully achieve NASA’s needs in a manner that is advantageous to the Government.

Considering both factors, I have determined that the proposals submitted by AWPC, Boeing, Collins, GRTC, MTI and Sikorsky present the best value to the Government and I therefore select each of these Offerors for award of a RVLTD contract.

Huy Tran Date Source Selection Authority

HUY

TRAN

Digitally signed by

HUY TRAN

Date: 2021.11.29 12:36:55 -08'00' 11/29/2021