SA3 Source Selection Statement.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

John H. Glenn Research Center Lewis Field Cleveland, OH 44135-3191

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

SAFETY & MISSION ASSURANCE, AUDITS, ASSESSMENTS AND ANALYSIS (SA3)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) 80GRC022R0029

Procurement Background________________________________________________________

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has a requirement for Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA), audits, assessments, and analysis services. SA3 is a follow-on contract to the previous Safety & Mission Assurance, Audits, and Assessments (SMA3) contract, NNC16BA04B, which provided similar services. These services will be provided through the NASA Safety Center (NSC) to support multiple NASA Centers, programs/projects, and activities and will include the following:

o Agency SMA Audit/Assessment/Analysis Support

- NSC Assessment and Investigations Office (AIO) support

• Institutional, Facility and Operational Safety Audit (IFOSA)

• Quality, Audit, Assessment and Review (QAAR)

• Interim Center Assessments (ICA)

• Pre-Audit Discovery and Analysis

• SMA Investigations

- Supplier Quality Management Assessments

- Supplier/Supply Chain Risk Assessments

- Internal Quality Management Audits/Assessments

- Programmatic Audits, Assessments, Reviews and Investigations

- Independent Assessments and Investigations

- Organizational Safety Assessments o Other Support

- Institutional Safety Assessment and Hazard Analysis

- Program/Project System Safety Hazard Analysis

- Project Reliability and Maintainability Analysis

- Project and Organizational Risk Analysis and Management

- Supplier/Supply Chain Data Management and Analytics

- Software Safety and Assurance

- Training and Outreach (which includes working group)

- Audit and Investigation Program Support o Quality and Safety Engineering Assurance o Assessment and Investigation Information Systems Support

- System for Tracking Audits/Assessments and Reviews (STAR)

- Meta Information System Support

To accomplish this requirement, the Government intends to award a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) – Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The full period of performance (POP) will be five years with a three-year base, a two-year option and a six-month optional extension.

The POP will also include a thirty-day phase-in. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 541690 - Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services. This procurement was issued as a full and open competition.

A Sources Sought Notice was issued on August 11, 2020. Responses to the Sources Sought synopsis were received from fourteen companies. A draft RFP was issued on January 6, 2021. An Information Exchange (Microsoft Teams) presentation was provided on January 19, 2021. Fifteen potential Offerors were in attendance. The final RFP was issued on February 12, 2021. Three proposals were timely received by March 29, 2021. No proposals were identified as unacceptable as described in NASA FAR Supplement

(NFS) 1815.305-70.

Proposals were submitted by the following Offerors (listed in alphabetical order):

• ARES Technical Services Corporation (ARES)

• Bastion Technologies, Inc. (Bastion)

• KBR Wyle Services, LLC (KBR)

Evaluation Criteria____________________________________________________________________

The proposals were evaluated by a Source Evaluation Board (SEB) in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, “Source Selection,” NFS 1815.3, “Source Selection,” and the evaluation criteria included in the RFP.

The RFP provided that the Government may award a contract based on initial offers received without discussion. Additionally, 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 to be submitted as individual proposal volumes: Mission Suitability (Volume I), Relevant Experience and Past Performance (Volume II), and Cost/Price (Volume III). Additionally, Offerors were required to submit a Business Volume (Volume IV) containing information about the company’s capabilities, resources, plans, and organizations. Per the RFP, the Business Volumes were neither numerically scored nor given an adjectival rating, but the SEB considered them for risks and for whether Offerors understood the solicitation and the resources required.

In accordance with the RFP, Mission Suitability is more important than Relevant Experience and Past Performance, which is approximately equal to Cost/Price. Mission Suitability and Relevant Experience and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

Mission Suitability (1,000 points TOTAL)

In accordance with the RFP, each proposal received a Mission Suitability score based on the following subfactors and associated numerical weights.

• Subfactor A: Understanding the Requirements (UTR) (500 points)

- UTR1: Understanding the Requirements

- UTR2: Sample Tasks

• Subfactor B: Management Approach (MA) (400 points)

- MA1: Management Plan

- MA2: Organizational Structure/Partnering Approach

- MA3: Staffing, Recruitment, Retention and Compensation

- MA4: Key Personnel

- MA5: Phase-In Plan

• Subfactor C: Small Business Utilization (SBU) (100 points)

- SBU1: Small Business Subcontracting Plan

- SBU2: Commitment to the Small Business Program

Relevant Experience and Past Performance

In accordance with the RFP, the Relevant Experience and Past Performance factor was not numerically scored but was evaluated using the Level of Confidence ratings as outlined in the RFP and NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A).

The Relevant Experience and Past Performance factor was evaluated with consideration given to the three, equally weighted areas:

• Past Performance Narrative (PPN)

• Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ)

• Past Performance Databases (PPD)

Cost/Price

Pursuant to the RFP, and in accordance with FAR 52.217-5, “Evaluation of Options,” the total proposed cost/price was evaluated. The total proposed cost/price consisted of phase in, base period plus all options and the optional extension period. The cost evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1), FAR 15.404, NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(b) and (a)(3)(b), and NFS 1815.404.

A cost realism analysis was conducted to ensure a realistic cost was determined and considered by the Government. The Government derived a probable cost, which was determined by adjusting each Offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to a realistic level based on the results of the cost realism analysis performed. A price analysis was also performed to determine reasonableness by comparison of Offerors to each other and to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). Cost/Price was not numerically scored and did not receive an adjectival rating.

Evaluation Process and Corrective Action_________________________________________________

Mission Suitability was evaluated by each member of the SEB independently. The members then met to establish consensus on adjectival ratings and scoring for each proposal.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance was evaluated by the Past Performance subcommittee. The Past Performance subcommittee assembled and evaluated past performance information in the three areas listed above. The subcommittee shared its findings with the SEB who reviewed and used them to establish consensus findings. As stated in the RFP, a Level of Confidence rating was then assigned by the SEB to each Offeror.

Cost/Price was evaluated by the SEB with the assistance of a Senior Cost/Price Analyst. The proposal costs and prices were reviewed for compliance with the RFP instructions, consistency with the proposed technical approach, mathematical errors, and overall cost and price reasonableness. A cost realism analysis was performed to establish the probable cost for each proposal. The Government developed an

IGCE prior to the release of the RFP. The Senior Cost/Price Analyst identified that changes were needed to the IGCE to decrease/unburden the labor rates for certain positions involving subcontractors that were inadvertently burdened twice due to inclusion of subcontractor rates. Therefore, a revision to the IGCE was made June 3, 2021.

After the Government completed its evaluation of proposals, a briefing was held on August 30, 2021, which detailed the SEB findings. Prior to the briefing, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) was provided the charts for review. Attendance at the briefing included the SSA, SEB voting members, SEB nonvoting members, and SEB Ex-Officio members. During the meeting, the overall evaluation process and findings on Mission Suitability, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, and Cost/Price were presented and discussed. At the conclusion of the briefing, the SSA concurred with the Contracting Officer’s (CO) determination that award on the basis of initial proposals was not in the Government’s best interest and the determination that all three Offerors should be included in the competitive range to conduct discussions.

NASA conducted a round of discussions with Offerors on September 20, 2021. In these discussions, NASA notified Offerors of all weaknesses and significant weakness, PPN contracts determined to be ‘not relevant’ and the effects of that determination on other Relevant Experience and Past Performance factors, and cost-volume risks identified. Discussions were closed on October 8, 2021. At the conclusion of these discussions, the CO requested that Offerors submit Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) to NASA.

After the Government completed its evaluation of FPRs, a briefing was held on December 16, 2021, which detailed the revised SEB findings. Prior to the briefing, the SSA was provided the charts for review. Attendance at the briefing included the SSA, SEB voting members, SEB nonvoting members, and SEB Ex-Officio members. During the meeting, the changes resulting from FPRs were presented and discussed. An executive session was held on January 5, 2022, to further discuss the SEB’s findings. In attendance were the SSA, the SEB Chair, CO, and key SEB advisors.

The SA3 contract was awarded to KBR February 28, 2022. On March 14, 2022, a timely protest challenging the award was filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Performance of the contract was stayed in accordance with the requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act. In response to the protest, the Agency filed a notice of voluntary corrective action, and GAO subsequently dismissed the protest as academic on April 13, 2022.

During corrective action, the Government requested Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plans and preliminary OCI disclosures and assessments (Preliminary OCI Assessments) from the Offerors, all of whom provided timely submissions. Additionally, in July 2023 the Government requested specific proposal updates resulting from the passage of time, including a revised cost proposal with the Cost Narrative/Contractor Basis of Estimate (BOE), a revised Total Compensation Plan (TCP) with source data for the rates, and revised and signed SF33s extending proposal validity dates. All Offerors timely submitted these proposal updates.

A new IGCE was also prepared during this time to account for the passage of time and to address other issues that had been identified with the prior IGCE. Until the new IGCE was finalized, the CO did not release any updated proposal documents received to the other SEB members. The CO also did not take part in any communication regarding the new IGCE’s development.

The SEB re-evaluated proposals along with proposal updates and prepared new findings, where necessary, in the Mission Suitability evaluation to ensure consistent treatment across Offerors and consistency with the RFP’s evaluation criteria, and to assess each technical approach against the updated Cost/Price volumes. The Relevant Experience and Past Performance evaluation was reviewed to confirm the evaluation’s consistency with the RFP and its application among the proposals, and the SEB made new findings, where necessary. The SEB also performed new Cost/Price evaluations. OCI plans and Preliminary OCI Assessments were evaluated in accordance with FAR 9.5.

TCPs were evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees and NFS 1852.231-71 Determination of Compensation Reasonableness.

The SEB’s findings are summarized below.

Evaluation Results_____________________________________________________________________

Three Offerors’ proposals were evaluated, and the following is a summary of their Mission Suitability scores, Level of Confidence ratings, and relative probable costs:

Mission Suitability

(1,000 pts)

Relevant Experience and Past Performance

(Level of Confidence)

Relative Probable Cost

ARES Technical Services Corporation

740 High Second Lowest

Bastion Technologies, Inc.

745 Very High Lowest

KBR Wyle Services, LLC

845 Very High Highest

On review of the TCPs submitted, the total compensation offered, including pay rates, leave benefits, and fringe benefits, was deemed reasonable for each Offeror. Additionally, for each Offeror, the compensation levels proposed concerning professional employees were found realistic and reasonable in relation to the various job categories proposed, and each Offeror should be able to maintain uninterrupted, high-quality work and attract and retain competent professional service employees.

The CO determined that all Offerors’ OCI Plans were sufficient and compliant with NFS 1852.237-72, Access to Sensitive Information. No OCI that would prevent an Offeror or subcontractors from performing the SA3 contract was identified. The CO further determined that all Offerors were eligible for award of the SA3 contract.

Summary of Findings__________________________________________________________________

The findings of these three Offerors are summarized below.

ARES Technical Services Corporation (ARES)

Mission Suitability: 740 points

In the UTR Subfactor, ARES’ proposal was rated “Good.” The proposal contained one Strength in UTR1 for demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the technical requirements required to fulfill the Statement of Work (SOW).

In the MA Subfactor, ARES’ proposal was rated “Very Good.” The proposal contained one Significant Strength and three Strengths. The proposal received a Significant Strength in MA1 for providing a very detailed approach to managing the contract requirements, meeting fluctuations in qualified staffing and implementing effective techniques for continuous improvement. The proposal received Strengths in: MA2 for an in-depth approach to resolving poor performance of subcontractors; MA3 for demonstrating an in-depth understanding and complete approach to staffing, training, and certifications needed to adequately fulfill the requirements of the contract; and MA5 for presenting a complete, realistic Phase-in Plan to ensure continuity and a smooth transition.

In the SBU Subfactor, ARES’ proposal was rated “Very Good.” The proposal contained one Significant Strength and one Strength. The proposal received a Significant Strength in SBU1 for providing a well-documented, comprehensive plan to exceed small business utilization goals and requirements and a Strength in SBU2 for demonstrating a strong commitment to the Small Business Program and provided a clear understanding of the requirements.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance: “High Level of Confidence”

The proposal received a Significant Strength in the PPN for having one contract that was determined highly relevant and two contracts that were determined relevant to the SA3 requirements.

The proposal received a Strength in the PPQ section for 59.38% Excellent ratings, 26.56% Very Good ratings, and 9.38% Good ratings from former customers on contracts relevant to the SA3 requirements, along with supporting comments that validated the ratings.

ARES’ proposal received 51.85% Exceptional ratings, 24.07% Very Good ratings, and 3.70% Satisfactory ratings from former customers on contracts relevant to the SA3 requirements, along with supporting comments that validated the ratings and was found to have met the requirements of the RFP in the PPD section.

ARES’ one highly relevant and two relevant contracts, as well as the PPQ and PPD information on these contracts, demonstrated a very effective performance that would be fully responsive to the SA3 requirements, with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part with only minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Ultimately, the SEB determined that ARES’ pertinent experience was supported by multiple contracts that were performed very effectively, meriting a High Level of Confidence rating.

Cost/Price

ARES’ proposed cost was lower than the IGCE and was the second lowest of the three offers. The proposal received probable cost adjustments for a total increase of 10.67%. Specifically, ARES’ proposed cost received upward adjustments to prime labor, indirect rates, Other Direct Costs (ODCs), and General and Administrative (G&A) costs. These adjustments were due to labor rate escalation based on outside sources not representative of ARES’ actuals, labor rate realism analyses, training costs not addressed, and associated indirect and G&A total increases. The following risks were also identified in ARES’ proposal:

the Offeror did not provide proof of financial capability, did not provide historical indirect pool and base costs, and trips proposed did not meet the requirements for number of travelers and duration of trip as detailed in RFP Attachment J.2(L.2). ARES’ probable cost was also lower than the IGCE and the second lowest of the three probable costs.

Bastion Technologies, Inc. (Bastion)

Mission Suitability: 745 points

In the UTR Subfactor, Bastion’s proposal was rated “Good.” The proposal contained two Strengths. The proposal received a Strength in UTR1 for including a complete understanding of the technical requirements included in SOW 3.1 and a Strength in UTR2 for providing a complete and realistic response to the technical requirements of the Surveillance Sample Task.

In the MA Subfactor, Bastion’s proposal was rated “Very Good.” The proposal contained one Significant Strength and two Strengths. The proposal received a Significant Strength in MA3 for including a very effective approach to staffing, retention, and training. The proposal received a Strength in MA1 for including a complete approach to managing and tracking all task orders from initiation to completion, providing an adequate and well-planned approach to staffing the contract with trained and certified personnel and an effective plan for accommodating fluctuations in support needs including rapid surges.

The proposal received a Strength in MA2 for including an effective management structure to support the contract.

In the SBU Subfactor, Bastion’s proposal was rated “Excellent.” The proposal contained two Significant Strengths. The proposal received a Significant Strength in SBU1 for providing a very detailed and comprehensive plan to exceed all small business utilization goals and requirements and a Significant Strength in SBU2 for demonstrating a very strong commitment to the Small Business Program and providing a clear understanding of the requirements.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance: “Very High Level of Confidence”

The proposal received a Significant Strength in the PPN for having one contract that was determined highly relevant and three contracts that were determined to be relevant to the solicitation requirements.

The proposal received a Significant Strength in the PPQ section for 89.84% Excellent ratings and 3.13% Very Good ratings from former customers on contracts relevant to the SA3 requirements, along with supporting comments that validated the ratings.

The proposal received a Strength in the PPD section for 84.62% Exceptional ratings, 5.13% Very Good ratings, and 2.56% Satisfactory ratings from former customers on contracts relevant to the SA3 requirements, along with supporting comments that validated the ratings.

Bastion’s one highly relevant and three relevant contracts, as well as the PPQ and PPD information on these contracts, demonstrated a very effective performance that would be fully responsive to the SA3 requirements. Ultimately, the SEB determined that Bastion had highly pertinent experience from multiple contracts and received very effective past performance ratings, especially in the PPQ section, all of which merited a Very High Level of Confidence rating.

Cost/Price

Bastion’s proposed cost was lower than the IGCE and was the lowest offer. The proposal received probable cost adjustments for a total increase of 10.38%. Specifically, Bastion’s proposed cost received upward adjustments to prime labor, indirect rates, and G&A costs. These adjustments were due to labor rate realism analyses, labor hours proposed not aligning with RFP provided hours, and associated indirect and G&A total increases. The following risk was also identified in Bastion’s proposal: the Offeror’s trips proposed did not meet the requirements for number of travelers and duration of trip as detailed in RFP Attachment J.2(L.2). Bastion’s probable cost was also lower than the IGCE and the lowest of the three probable costs.

KBR Wyle Services, LLC (KBR)

Mission Suitability: 845 points

In the UTR Subfactor, KBR’s proposal was rated “Excellent.” The proposal contained one Significant Strength and one Strength. The proposal received a Significant Strength in UTR2 for providing an extremely realistic and effective response to the Sample Tasks including important details that indicate a depth of understanding of the technical requirements and risks associated with planning support for surveillance and audit activities and a Strength in UTR1 for demonstrating a complete understanding of the technical requirements in the SOW.

In the MA Subfactor, KBR’s proposal was rated “Very Good.” The proposal contained one Significant Strength and three Strengths. The proposal received a Significant Strength in MA3 for demonstrating an exceptionally effective approach to staffing, retention and compensation and includes a complete list of supported training and continuing education opportunities. The proposal received Strengths in: MA1 for demonstrating a complete and realistic plan to managing the contract requirements and task work; MA4 for providing a complete plan for providing backup for all key personnel; and MA5 for presenting a complete and realistic Phase-in Plan that will ensure continuity of services and a smooth transition to full contract performance.

In the SBU Subfactor, KBR’s proposal was rated “Very Good.” The proposal contained one Significant Strength and one Strength. The proposal received a Significant Strength in SBU2 for demonstrating exceptional commitment to small business concerns and their development and a Strength in SBU1 for providing a well-documented, comprehensive plan to exceed small business utilization goals and requirements.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance: “Very High Level of Confidence”

The proposal received a Significant Strength in the PPN for having one contract that was determined highly relevant and two contracts that were determined to be relevant to the solicitation requirements.

The proposal received a Significant Strength in the PPQ section for 80.00% Excellent ratings, 18.95 % Very Good ratings, and 1.05% Good ratings from former customers on contracts relevant to the SA3 requirements, along with supporting comments that validated the ratings.

The proposal received a Strength in the PPD section for 75.00% Exceptional ratings and 13.46% Very Good ratings from former customers on contracts relevant to the SA3 requirements, along with supporting comments that validated the ratings.

KBR’s one highly relevant and two relevant contracts, as well as the PPQ and PPD information on these contracts, demonstrated a very effective performance that would be fully responsive to the SA3 requirements. Ultimately, the SEB determined that the fact that KBR’s had highly pertinent experience was supported by from multiple contracts and that it received a very effective past performance ratings on multiple contracts, especially in the PPQ section, all of which merited a Very High Level of Confidence rating.

Cost/Price

KBR’s proposed cost was lower than the IGCE and the highest offer. The proposal received probable cost adjustments for a total increase of 4.34%. Specifically, KBR’s proposed cost received upward adjustments to prime labor, indirect rates, and G&A costs. These adjustments were due to labor rate escalation based on outside sources not representative of KBR’s actuals, labor rate realism analyses, and associated indirect and G&A total increases. The following risk was also identified in KBR’s proposal:

the Offeror’s financial capability support letter was not updated when the proposal was updated. KBR’s probable cost was also lower than the IGCE and the highest of the three probable costs.

Selection Briefing____________________________________________________________________

A Final Source Selection Authority (SSA) Briefing was held on May 13, 2024, to present the final findings resulting from the Government’s voluntary corrective action. Before this briefing the SSA was provided a copy of the Final SSA Briefing Charts, which are in the form of a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation, and which contain the final evaluation results. Attendance at the final briefing included the SSA, SEB voting members, the Contracting Officer (CO), and various nonvoting and ex-officio members.

Prior to the briefing, the SSA was provided updates about the corrective action re-evaluation. This selection decision results from the May 13, 2024, Final SSA Briefing and is based on the information presented in the Final SSA Briefing Charts.

Selection Decision_____________________________________________________________________

This source selection statement represents my independent judgment. Based on the information presented to me, I fully understand the evaluation process, the SEB findings, and concur with the overall SEB evaluation and findings. I agree with the information presented in the Final SSA Briefing Charts and take no exception to the actions or findings of the SEB.

I understand relative to the three Evaluation Factors—Mission Suitability, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, and Cost/Price—that Mission Suitability is more important than Relevant Experience and Past Performance, which is approximately equal to Cost/Price. Additionally, I understand that Mission Suitability and Relevant Experience and Past Performance, when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price. I considered the relative importance of the Evaluation Factors in my decision. I also understand that award should be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal meets the requirements of the RFP and provides the best value to the Government.

I offer the following to support my selection.

Mission Suitability

Under the Mission Suitability Evaluation Factor, each proposal received at least two Significant Strengths and multiple Strengths, and no proposal received any Weaknesses or Significant Weaknesses. ARES’ proposal received nearly 75% of the 1,000 available points as well as a “Very Good” adjectival rating in Subfactor B: MA and in Subfactor C: SBU, along with a “Good” adjectival rating in Subfactor A: UTR.

Bastion’s proposal received close to 75% of the available points as well as the highest adjectival rating, “Excellent,” in SBU, along with “Good” in UTR, and “Very Good” in MA. KBR’s proposal received nearly 85% of the available points as well as “Excellent” in UTR and “Very Good” in both MA and SBU.

I address the Mission Suitability subfactors in turn and then address the Mission Suitability factor as a whole.

Understanding the Requirements

In UTR, ARES was rated “Good” with one Strength in UTR1 for its comprehensive understanding of the technical requirements of the contract. Consistent with the Strength given to ARES in UTR1, ARES’ proposal provided realistic and complete information to demonstrate ARES’ understanding of the SOW.

The proposal stood out by offering several unique technical benefits that I believe would be advantageous to contract performance. ARES showed that it has expertise and an ability to adapt to changes within relevant international quality management standards, which would enhance the support ARES would provide to NASA organizations under the contract. Additionally, ARES proposed the use of an innovative supply chain analysis tool developed by ARES’ team that will provide supplier insights and help focus audit and surveillance activities on supply chain areas containing risks. Finally, ARES demonstrated unique expertise in Government-owned information systems that will be used in performing the SA3 SOW, which will benefit contract performance.

Bastion was rated “Good” with two Strengths, one in UTR1 and one in UTR2. Under UTR1, Bastion’s proposal demonstrated a complete and realistic understanding of the technical requirements of the SOW, especially SOW Section 3.1 (i.e., Agency SMA Audit/Assessment/Analysis Support). Bastion provided a very detailed description of the audit process, from planning through corrective action, which indicated a clear understanding of processes used to effectively perform audits for the NSC. Under UTR2, Bastion proposed a complete and realistic response to the surveillance sample task and also included several unique features that would benefit task order performance. These included efficient use of virtual surveillance activities; a complete and detailed listing of the quality assurance surveillance requirements needed to perform the task; and the use of several relevant processes to ensure effective oversight of the supplier.

In UTR, KBR was rated “Excellent” with one Significant Strength (UTR2) and one Strength (UTR1). I concur with the Strength KBR received in UTR1 but also consider that Strength particularly noteworthy.

The proposal demonstrated a realistic and complete understanding of the contract’s technical requirements in general yet stood out both in the level of knowledge demonstrated and the technical benefits offered. KBR demonstrated technical knowledge by including an extremely detailed and effective process diagram and milestones for the IFOSA and QAAR, both of which are major audit programs in the Assessments and Investigations Office of the NSC. Further, KBR described a comprehensive understanding of NASA Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) standards and regulations, including how they relate to each specific SOW area. KBR’s proposed unique technical benefits included conducting regular assessor meetings and developing an innovative database for contract quality clauses and Data Requirement Descriptions (DRDs) for flight-hardware procurements. The regular assessor meetings will facilitate knowledge sharing, foster coordination, and improve efficiency in meeting surveillance and supply chain management requirements. The innovative database would improve audit focus and efficiency to the benefit of SA3 contract performance. All these features make KBR’s Strength in UTR1 especially noteworthy.

With respect to UTR2, KBR proposed an extremely realistic and effective response to both sample tasks, which showed an in-depth understanding of the tasks’ technical requirements as well as a high level of risk management and planning. In both sample task responses KBR identified assumptions made relevant to the performance of the sample tasks but not explicitly provided in the request for proposals, which effectively clarified the scope of performance and conveyed a sophisticated understanding of the task requirements. For the audit sample task, KBR proposed a lessons-learned activity in the schedule, which would help improve and sustain audit performance. KBR also identified and addressed unique challenges of conducting an audit at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), such as the existence of multiple tenants at the site and the fact that the audit was scheduled during hurricane season. This Center-specific risk identification demonstrates an advanced understanding and ability to perform efficient and effective audits for NASA. Meanwhile, KBR’s surveillance sample task response was remarkably comprehensive and effective. The proposal included: a list of all potential safety hazards associated with the surveillance needed at the launch site as well as appropriate methods to address them; significant planning details such as a review of risks associated with the life-cycle stage of the project at the time of surveillance as well as advanced surveillance services in support of the shortened build and launch schedule; advanced notification of Government Mandatory Inspection Points (GMIPs); an appropriate mix of virtual surveillance and onsite support; and identification of several realistic technical and process risks, such as risks associated with meeting the demands of a compressed schedule.

Overall, in the UTR subfactor, I find that KBR’s proposal has a significant advantage over both ARES’ and Bastion’s proposals, with Bastion’s proposal having a moderate advantage over ARES’ proposal.

As between the proposals of ARES and KBR, although both proposals received Strengths in UTR1, I find that KBR’s proposal has an advantage in UTR1. Both proposals reflect a solid understanding of the technical requirements of the contract, and both Offerors propose unique technical benefits that I find advantageous. However, I consider KBR’s extremely detailed and effective approach to the critical IFOSA and QAAR audit activities, as well KBR’s demonstrated comprehensive understanding of SMA standards and regulations as they apply to the SA3 SOW, to be material discriminators in favor of KBR.

While I acknowledge ARES’ proficiency in international quality management standards, its relevant information systems expertise, and its proposed supply chain analysis tool as potential advantages in contract performance, I do not find that they outweigh the benefits proposed by KBR, including regular assessor meetings and the innovative database for identifying and tracking contract quality clauses and DRDs in flight-hardware procurements. I also find that KBR has an advantage over ARES in UTR2. I view KBR’s Significant Strength in UTR2, including all the outstanding features of KBR’s sample task responses that support that Significant Strength, to be material discriminators over ARES’ proposal, which received no Strength at all in UTR2. Because of the advantages I find that KBR has over ARES in UTR1 and UTR2 and the material discriminators I see in favor of KBR, I have determined that KBR’s proposal carries a significant advantage over ARES’ proposal in the UTR subfactor.

As between the proposals of Bastion and KBR, although both proposals received Strengths in UTR1, I find that KBR’s proposal has an advantage in UTR1. Both proposals reflect a solid understanding of the technical requirements of the contract. However, I consider KBR’s extremely detailed and effective approach to the critical IFOSA and QAAR audit activities, as well KBR’s demonstrated comprehensive understanding of SMA standards and regulations as they pertain to the SOW, to be material discriminators in favor of KBR. I acknowledge that Bastion’s proposal provided a very detailed description of the audit process and reflected a clear understanding of effective audit processes, but this aspect of Bastion’s proposal does not outweigh the coverage of IFOSA and QAAR audit activities or the comprehensive knowledge of relevant NASA standards and regulations detailed in KBR’s proposal. I also view the particular technical benefits proposed by KBR, namely regular assessor meetings and the innovative database for tracking quality clauses and DRDs in flight-hardware procurements, to be material discriminators for KBR in UTR1.

As to UTR2, here too I find that KBR’s proposal has an advantage over Bastion’s, and I view KBR’s Significant Strength in UTR2 as a material discriminator over Bastion’s Strength in UTR2. I recognize the merit in Bastion’s surveillance sample task response and the technical benefits proposed, including efficient use of virtual surveillance activities, a complete and detailed listing of quality assurance surveillance requirements, and the use of relevant processes to ensure effective supplier oversight. Yet, I find KBR’s surveillance sample task response to be even more remarkable. Not only did KBR’s surveillance sample task response propose effective use of virtual and onsite activities along with comprehensive and effective planning details (including life-cycle stage risk review, availability of a Safety Engineer for real-time assistance, and advanced notification and distribution of GMIPs), but the response also demonstrated an advanced level of risk identification and management, including risks associated with safety hazards at the launch site as well as technical and process risks associated with a compressed schedule. Likewise, I consider KBR’s recognition and effective handling of KSC-specific challenges in its audit sample task response, including KSC’s multiple tenants and local weather conditions, as a particularly strong indicator of successful contract performance. Similarly, the fact that KBR identified assumptions made but not stated in the sample task orders conveys a deep understanding of the audit and surveillance work to be performed under the SA3 contract. Because of the advantages I find that KBR has over Bastion in UTR1 and UTR2 and the material discriminators I see in favor of KBR, I have determined that KBR’s proposal carries a significant advantage over Bastion’s proposal in the UTR subfactor.

Finally, between the proposals of ARES and Bastion, I find Bastion’s proposal to have a moderate advantage. I acknowledge that both Offerors received a Strength in UTR1, with Bastion’s proposal distinguishing itself through a very detailed description and understanding of audit processes and ARES’ proposal standing out for international quality management standards proficiency, information systems expertise, and a unique supply chain analysis tool. Weighing these, I find a slight advantage in ARES’ proposal, which not only demonstrated a complete understanding of the SOW but also included advantageous technical benefits. However, while ARES received no Strength finding at all under the UTR2 sample tasks, Bastion received a Strength in UTR2 for its notable surveillance sample task response. Thus, Bastion’s proposal has a distinct advantage over ARES’ in UTR2. Accordingly, on the whole, I have determined that Bastion’s proposal carries a moderate advantage over ARES’ proposal in the UTR subfactor.

Management Approach

Under the MA subfactor, ARES’ proposal was rated “Very Good” with one Significant Strength and three Strengths. The proposal received a Significant Strength for its Management Plan (MA1). ARES’ proposal contained a very detailed and effective approach to managing the contract that included several advantageous features. ARES proposed using its project-based accounting system that will advantageously allow ARES to track contract performance and measure it against set goals and outcomes.

ARES also proposed using its operational resource database system to effectively staff tasks by skills and availability and to meet changes in demand, which I consider beneficial to contract performance. The proposal also identified that ARES has local business operations near all NASA centers and a majority of NASA suppliers, plus a willingness to add more local office space as needed, which I recognize may improve efficiency in meeting NASA’s requirements. ARES further proposed detailed processes to address and disposition poor performance and Government feedback on all contract matters as well as to improve management practices. I view these processes as effective and beneficial to performance. In addition, ARES described its level 3 certification in the organizational performance measurement program, Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), which indicates a likelihood of successful project management.

As to Organization Structure/Partnering Approach (MA2), the proposal provides a complete and realistic closed-loop corrective action process to resolve any poor performance by subcontractors, including methods that I find effective and beneficial to subcontractor management.

Turning to Staffing, Recruitment, Retention, and Compensation (MA3), ARES proposed an effective and complete approach to meet the staffing, training, and certification requirements of the SA3 contract. In this respect ARES proposed retaining a certain amount of the incumbent workforce to ensure transition without interruption to services; demonstrated wide geographic reach and personnel reach-back capacity to ensure the availability of qualified subject matter expertise; proposed using a unique ARES training system that monitors employee training; and identified a number of relevant training and certifications courses ARES can provide for its workforce. I acknowledge all of these features of ARES’ MA3 proposal and find that they would benefit contract management. ARES also proposed a total compensation plan that was determined to be consistent with the proposed technical approach, reasonable, and adequate to maintain uninterrupted, high-quality work by qualified personnel.

Finally, ARES received a Strength for its Phase-In Plan (MA5). ARES’ complete and realistic phase-in plan will ensure a smooth transition, which I consider noteworthy to minimize any disruptions in service.

The phase-in plan addresses critical and long-lead items; includes review of the plan prior to award;

arranges to timely obtain necessary non-disclosure agreements; utilizes phase-in work packages; and assigns teams for each existing task order plus a point-of-contact for each area of performance.

Turning to Bastion, its proposal was rated “Very Good” with one Significant Strengths and two Strengths under MA. Bastion received a Strength in MA1 for its complete approach to managing task orders and adequately staffing the contract with trained and certified personnel. Bastion’s MA1 proposal featured a wide range of capabilities to effectively manage task plan development and staffing, task order approval, cost collection, tracking, reporting, and closeout, including a portfolio quality management process and enterprise, financial, and resource management systems. Bastion also proposed the use of a services distribution model that provides qualified personnel from its network to offer immediate availability and local expertise, all of which I acknowledge may improve efficiency in SA3 services. Further, Bastion proposed established methods to address staffing changes, which I consider effective and beneficial to successful contract performance. Additionally, Bastion is level 3 certified in CMMI, which indicates a likelihood of successful project management.

As to MA2, Bastion received a Strength for an effective organizational structure, which includes a dedicated program manager, part-time deputy program manager, and a number of technical leads. I view this structure as effective and beneficial to contract performance.

Lastly, Bastion received a Significant Strength in MA3. Bastion’s proposal included a highly detailed and effective plan for staffing and retaining qualified personnel to support the contract, along with a comprehensive approach to managing the training of its workforce. Bastion proposed to recapture a certain amount of the incumbent workforce, with a backup plan to obtain and provide qualified personnel otherwise, which would provide transition without interruption to services. The proposal also demonstrated the capacity for reach-back of a large number of qualified personnel across a wide geographic scope to ensure the availability of adequate subject matter expertise. Additionally, Bastion proposed a complete and effective infrastructure for training employees using its web-based technology system that has a variety of useful functionalities. Bastion’s proposal also described a very comprehensive list of training and continuing education opportunities it will provide to SA3 personnel, as well as training plans and career development opportunities for each employee . Similarly, Bastion’s proposal demonstrated a strong retention approach. I consider all these features of Bastion’s MA3 proposal advantageous to contract management. In addition, Bastion proposed a total compensation plan that was determined to be consistent with the proposed technical approach, reasonable, and adequate to maintain uninterrupted, high-quality work by qualified personnel.

KBR’s proposal in MA was rated “Very Good” with one Significant Strength and three Strengths. In MA1, KBR received a Strength. KBR’s proposal demonstrated a complete, effective, and realistic approach to managing the contract requirements and task work. To this end, KBR proposed using a NASA contract management system designed by KBR that provides tracking, monitoring, and other capabilities. KBR also proposed three unique and separate actions to ensure that all proposal elements are met. I find KBR’s proposed contract management system and its unique and effective approach to monitoring contract deliverables and information all to be beneficial to contract performance.

Additionally, KBR is level 3 certified in CMMI, which indicates a likelihood of successful project management.

Under MA3, KBR received a Significant Strength. KBR plans to retain all incumbent employees and identified a very large number of personnel across a wide geographic scope available to support anticipated future growth in demand. KBR also proposed the use of its existing web-based suite of staffing processes and tools that help manage dynamic staffing requirements. Additionally, KBR proposed using a skills and capability matrix within its contract management system that helps efficiently staff tasks and monitor training and certifications. Furthermore, KBR proposed a unique technical benefit in that it can efficiently leverage certified instructors from another NASA contract that KBR is the prime contractor on in order to provide applicable workmanship training to its workforce. Also concerning MA3, KBR’s proposal contained an effective retention strategy that includes a variety of components. I consider all these features of KBR’s MA3 proposal advantageous to contract management. In addition, KBR proposed a total compensation plan that was determined to be consistent with the proposed technical approach, reasonable, and adequate to maintain uninterrupted, high-quality work by qualified personnel.

Turning to Key Personnel (MA4), KBR received a Strength for proposing a second layer of succession planning with current training and mentoring, which will reduce staffing risk for key positions in the future and which I consider a benefit to contract performance.

Finally, KBR received a Strength for its Phase-In Plan (MA5). KBR’s complete and realistic phase-in plan will ensure continuity and a smooth transition, which I consider noteworthy to minimize any disruptions in service. In this respect KBR proposed including work packages for each contract functional area; included preparations for critical events that will occur immediately after phase-in; and highlighted that it requires little to no recruitment or hiring as the incumbent contractor to support continuing task order requirements.

Overall, in the MA subfactor, I do not discern any material advantage of one proposal over the other. All three proposals received a Significant Strength and various Strengths, and consistent with the adjectival ratings given by the SEB, all proposals contain very good approaches to managing the contract.

Under MA1, I view ARES as having an advantage for its Significant Strength compared to Bastion’s and KBR’s Strengths. All three Offerors proposed a complete and effective approach to managing the contract. All Offerors are level 3 CMMI certified. Each Offeror proposed the use of effective accounting and resource database systems that track task activities, costs, and staffing details. All three Offerors described effective techniques to address changes in staffing demands. However, ARES’ proposal distinguished itself by including detailed processes to address and disposition performance issues and Government feedback as well as to improve management practices.

I note a distinction in the approaches of ARES and Bastion versus that of KBR. Specifically, ARES’ and Bastion’s proposals included higher levels of local staffing. ARES identified that it has local operations near all NASA centers and a majority of NASA suppliers, and it generally proposed using local staffing except in certain instances where ARES lacks local personnel. Bastion proposed the use of its services distribution model and included using local staff for substantially all activities. Although I acknowledge the benefits and potential increased efficiency associated with ARES’ local operations and with Bastion’s services distribution-approach for local staffing, I do not view these as material discriminators over KBR’s proposal. KBR’s proposal, too, incorporates local staffing in certain areas of performance, especially in surveillance activities. Yet, even where KBR proposes to use non-local personnel who must travel—which is largely KBR’s approach for audit activities—I see technical benefits in this approach as well; highly qualified personnel will be performing the work and will even further develop their expertise and proficiency in conducting SA3 audits.