SESIII Source Selection Statement 6-27-22.pdf

Source Selection Statement For

Software Engineering Services III (SES III)

Solicitation Number 80GSFC20R0019

On June 14, 2022, I, along with senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), met with members of the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to hear findings based on the evaluation of the proposals for the Software Engineering Services III (SES III) procurement. This memorandum documents my selection decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The SES III requirement was issued as an 8(a) competitive procurement to acquire services for the Software Engineering Division (SED) of the Engineering and Technology Directorate (ETD) which provides quality software products, services and expertise to ensure the success of NASA missions and stakeholders. Products and services expertise include flight software systems, ground software systems, science data systems, software technology infusion, mission environments, software engineering, software systems engineering, secure coding, software/data systems project management, mission operations and mission validation capabilities. SED focuses on the development of reusable, secure flight and ground architectures and frameworks to reduce mission cost, maximize development schedule, minimize customer programmatic/technical risks, and increase the scientific value of information products.

The work will primarily be at GSFC’s Greenbelt campus and may be required at the contractor’s facility and other NASA centers and TDY locations specified in the SOW and IDIQ task orders.

Pursuant to task orders issued by the Contracting Officer, the SES III contractor shall provide services for the continued development and sustaining engineering of software and information systems through all phases (formulation through on-orbit operations/decommissioning) of NASA programs and projects for the SED Directorate as specified in the SES III Statement of Work

(SOW).

The Request for Proposal (RFP) was released on August 28, 2020. Three amendments were issued to the RFP:

• Amendment 1 was issued on October 8, 2020, to revise solicitation provision L.26 GSFC 52.215-201 PROPOSAL PREPARATION-GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS (Mar 2020);

solicitation provision L.30 GSFC 52.215-223 COST VOLUME (IDIQ SERVICES- GPM) (Dec 2018); revise GPM language and update Government Pricing Model (GPM) Enclosure CC; revise phase-in date from February 1, 2021 to June 4, 2021; and extend offerors due date in SF33 and Cover Letter from October 12, 2020 to October 16, 2020.

• Amendment 2 was issued on October 9, 2020, to extend offerors due date in SF33 and Cover Letter from October 16, 2020 to October 21, 2020.

• Amendment 3 was issued on September 24, 2021, to revise solicitation provision L.26

GSFC 52.215-201 PROPOSAL PREPARATION-GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS (MAR

2020), Section (b) PROPOSAL CONTENT AND PAGE LIMITATIONS; provide Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) instructions; and revise provision L.28 GSFC 52.215-205 PROPOSAL DELIVERY which was deleted and replaced with Provision L.28

ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS-PROPOSAL MARKING AND

DELIVERY THROUGH NASA’s EFSS BOX (JUL 2021).

The resultant contract will be an 8(a) set-aside that will result in a Single-Award Cost-Plus- Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) task order contract with an effective ordering period of five (5) years. A 60-day phase-in period will be accomplished under a separate Firm-Fixed-Price contract vehicle issued at contract award.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541715 and the size standard in number of employees is 1000. The maximum ordering value, inclusive of fee, for this procurement is $359M.

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

The following six (6) companies submitted timely proposals by October 21, 2020:

Alpha Columbus Engineering Services (ACES) Unpopulated Joint Venture (JV) - Made up of Alpha Omega Integration (AOI) and Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc.

ADNET-Heartland Joint Venture (AHJV) Unpopulated JV - Made up of Heartland Consulting (HC) and ADNET Systems

ASRC Federal System Solutions, LLC (AFSS)

Cavalry Aerospace Unpopulated JV - Made up of Aviation Management Analytical Consultants (AVMAC) and Engineering Research and Consulting (ERC)

McCallie Associates, Inc.

Mitchell Vantage Systems (MVS) Unpopulated JV - Made up of MCSG Technologies and Vantage Systems, Inc

The RFP stated that the Government intended to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions with Offerors. The RFP also stated that the Government reserved the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer (CO) later determined them to be necessary. After the initial evaluations, the CO found that establishment of a competitive range was necessary, a determination with which the original SSA, since retired, concurred. On September 2, 2021, AHJV, AFSS, and MVS were included in the competitive range and ACES, Cavalry, and

McCallie were eliminated from the competition. Discussions were concluded on September 16, 2021 and the Final Proposal Revisions were received on October 7, 2021.

On December 21, 2021, NASA selected MVS for award of SES III. A timely bid protest was received from AFSS on January 19, 2022 at the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Following GAO’s alternative dispute resolution in the form of an outcome prediction conference on March 31, 2022, NASA decided to take corrective action and re-evaluate proposals. This source selection statement documents NASA’s new selection decision after that reevaluation.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The SEB included a team of technical and business members and consultants from appropriate disciplines to assist in proposal evaluations.

The SES III SEB evaluated proposals in accordance with the source selection procedures identified in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15.3 "Source Selection" and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3. The SEB procedures at NFS 1815.370, NASA Source Evaluation Boards, were applied.

The RFP listed three (3) evaluation factors for award: Mission Suitability, Cost, and Past Performance. The RFP specified the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors as follows:

The Cost Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual factors, the Cost Factor is less important than the Mission Suitability Factor but more important than the Past Performance Factor.

The RFP established that only the Mission Suitability Factor would be point scored in the evaluation process. The Mission Suitability Factor consisted of the following two (2) subfactors with assigned points as indicated.

Mission Suitability Factor Points

Subfactor A A-Technical Understanding/Scenarios 600

Subfactor B B-Management Plan 400 Total 1000

The Mission Suitability Factor was evaluated using the adjectival ratings, definitions and percentile ranges in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The SEB first reviewed each proposal and generated consensus findings (i.e., significant weaknesses, weaknesses, strengths, and significant strengths) within each subfactor. Next, the SEB considered the findings under each subfactor and applied the adjectival rating definitions set forth in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A) to assign a rating based on the merit of the proposal within that subfactor. After assigning the adjectival rating for the subfactor, the SEB determined the associated percentile score with the range set forth in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The maximum points available for each subfactor were then multiplied by the assigned percent for each subfactor to derive the score for the particular subfactor. For example, if a subfactor has a possible 200 points and receives a percent rating of 80, then the score of that subfactor would be 160 points.

Regarding the Cost Factor, the proposed costs of the Government Pricing Model (GPM), and the rates proposed in Attachment B, DIRECT LABOR RATES, INDIRECT RATES AND FEE MATRICES, were assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism. As stated in the RFP, the cost evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B). Offerors were referred to FAR 2.101(b) for a definition of “cost realism” and to FAR 15.404-1(d) for a discussion of “cost realism analysis” and “probable cost.” The proposed costs, including direct labor, other direct costs, and indirect rates, were assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism. Both the “proposed and probable” costs reflected the Offeror’s proposed fee amount. Proposed fee was not adjusted in the probable cost assessment.

The proposed and probable costs were presented to the SSA, along with any issues and risks associated with the proposed costs.

For the Past Performance Factor, the Past Performance evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 and provision M.5 of the solicitation. Each Offeror’s contract references were evaluated to determine the degree of relevance based on size, content, and/or complexity. In evaluating Past Performance, the SEB relied on the Government-wide Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) database and customer feedback, in addition to the narrative on relevant past/current contracts provided by the Offerors. The Past Performance factor was not point scored, but was assigned an adjectival rating 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.”

The following evaluation determination is based on the extensive information presented to the SSA on June 14, 2022 and documented in the accompanying post-reevaluation presentation materials.

MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

The Mission Suitability factor has two subfactors as follows: Subfactor A, Technical Understanding/Scenarios; and Subfactor B, Management Plan.

Each subfactor was evaluated in accordance with the weights delineated in the RFP. The table below provides the adjectival ratings assigned in each Mission Suitability subfactor for the three

(3) SES III proposals in the competitive range.

Offeror Subfactor A Subfactor B Mission Suitability Points

AHJV Good Excellent 792

AFSS Good Good 666

MVS Very Good Very Good 892

The substance of the SEB’s evaluation of Mission Suitability for all three Offerors is presented below.

AHJV

Under Subfactor A, Technical Understanding/Scenarios, AHJV received an adjectival rating of “Good,” with no Significant Strengths, three (3) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

AHJV received three (3) Strengths in the following areas: (1) a phased approach to acquire the MPS system, which provided a detailed approach to satisfy the requirements in taking over the development and operations of a Mission Planning and Scheduling (MPS) system. The Offeror summarized an integrated plan demonstrating their understanding of supporting software in a mission operations environment with complex interfaces, accounting for multiple versions of the software in operational use, and a rolling tide of security mandates while planning for the evolution of the system taking advantage of new and innovative technologies; (2) innovative tools proposed for Scenario 1 which could be implemented in the SED environment to enhance system performance and security, while quantifying efficiencies; and (3) an effective approach to Scenario 2 which demonstrates a clear understanding of the challenge being presented, and provides a complete, realistic, and effective approach that appropriately balances traditional GSFC technologies with innovation and disruptive technologies. These Strengths enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

Under Subfactor B, Management Plan, AHJV received an adjectival rating of “Excellent,” with two (2) Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

AHJV received two (2) Significant Strengths in the following areas: (1) an effective and comprehensive management structure highlighting the Program Manager’s autonomy from the parent companies making up the AHJV team down to the subcontractor teams. The Offeror’s outstanding management approach demonstrates flexibility, growth opportunities, and a commitment to push the appropriate authority down to the lowest level; and (2) a very detailed workforce management plan for attracting a diverse workforce, engaging and developing the employees, and promoting employee retention. The Offeror’s proposal includes several AHJV team investments and processes created to directly support SED by increasing the pipeline of employees, expanding the distribution of early to senior career talent, and decreasing costs by ensuring all employees are compensated in accordance with their individual performance and the prevailing salary level for their job category. These Significant Strengths greatly enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

AHJV received two (2) Strengths in the following areas: (1) the utilization of an established suite of Management Information System (MIS) tools that provides management controls needed to manage cost, performance, and schedule requirements for NASA task orders regardless of size, scope, or duration. Additionally, the Offeror provided a comprehensive breadth of discussion of their tools which gives the Government a high level of confidence that these tools will be highly useful; and (2) a Phase-In-Plan (PIP) that provides an effective multi-phase approach to maintain the continuity of operations during the transition including an experienced phase-in team, extensive preparation to mitigate anticipated risks, a structured phase-in approach, a proven set of management tools, and an active communication plan with incumbents and Government personnel. These Strengths enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

AFSS

Under Subfactor A, Technical Understanding/Scenarios, AFSS received an adjectival rating of “Good,” with no Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths, no Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

AFSS received two (2) Strengths in the following areas: (1) the approach to Acquisition and Operation of the Mission Planning and Scheduling (MPS) system (Scenario 1) contains several statements, best practices, and utilization of standard technology demonstrating they understand how to take ownership of an existing software system with little technical handoff from a prior development organization; and (2) an innovative mission design proposing a smart (artificial intelligent) based constellation swarm in its approach to Scenario 2. This innovative mission design enables the potential benefit of maintaining the life of the mission as CubeSats fail.

These Strengths enhance the potential for successful performance.

Under Subfactor B, Management Plan, AFSS received an adjectival rating of “Good,” with no Significant Strengths, five (5) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

AFSS received five (5) Strengths in the following areas: (1) a Phase-In Plan (PIP) that maintains the continuity of operations during the transition; (2) a management structure, capitalizing on technical knowledge, management acumen, and intimate familiarity with the scope of the SES III contract; (3) the use of institutional capabilities such as proposing to provide their Centers for Technology Advancement to Team AFSS, SED, and SES III Stakeholders which will enhance the talent of current and new employees on SES III; (4) a workforce management plan to incentivize the workforce for continued engineering excellence and long-term staff retention while maintaining morale; and (5) the utilization of an established tool that provides management visibility into ongoing task order work activities enhancing contract performance through communication for the execution of SES III. These Strengths enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

MVS

Under Subfactor A, Technical Understanding/Scenarios, MVS received an adjectival rating of “Very Good,” with one (1) Significant Strength, three (3) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

MVS received one (1) Significant Strength in the following area: (1) an extremely thorough and detailed technical approach to infuse innovations/efficiencies which demonstrates their capability to fully carry out essential engineering functions in order to meet and exceed the objectives of both scenarios. Additionally, the Offeror’s proposal provided exceptional technical detail to incorporate cloud-based technology, automated documentation development and emerging software development processes. This Significant Strength greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

MVS received three (3) Strengths in the following areas: (1) proposing to develop an approach to build security into code produced and reused on the SES III contract from a secure software and IT perspective. The Offeror demonstrated a systematic approach in addressing both scenarios, incrementally increasing security on current systems in Scenario 1 and planning for security at the design phase of a new software development task in Scenario 2; (2) an effective software systems engineering approach in defining the overall software system supporting an interplanetary constellation of CubeSats (Scenario 2). Several of the activities defining the software system demonstrate the Offeror’s value-added engineering leadership ensuring software systems engineering activities are completed and infused during the development lifecycle, ensuring software is ready to support a planetary launch window; and (3) proposing to address multiple versions of the MPS system across the environment, by discussing upgrading the Configuration Management (CM) system, automating the test and integration of code updates, and approach to automate the build process. These Strengths enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

Under Subfactor B, Management Plan, MVS received an adjectival rating of “Very Good,” with one (1) Significant Strength, four (4) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

MVS received one (1) Significant Strength in the following area: (1) a comprehensive workforce management plan for attracting a diverse workforce, developing the employees, and promoting employee retention. The proposed plan encompasses all aspects of the workforce pipeline, from obtaining the current workforce while continuing to attract a diverse workforce throughout the other areas of the pipeline. The Offeror proposes specific programs/incentives to ensure the start of the pipeline is continually replenished. This Significant Strength greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

MVS received four (4) Strengths in the following areas: (1) proposing the use of an established tool that provides management visibility into task order work activities enhancing contract performance through communication for the execution of SES III; (2) proposing to establish a value-added engineering Center of Innovation (COI) which will infuse new technologies, approaches, and tools into the various products and teams within the SES III current and future tasks; (3) a Phase-In-Plan (PIP) that detailed a transition ensuring full continuity of service for mission support at the start of the contract; and (4) a detailed plan for addressing subcontractor performance issues using the Corrective Action Request (CAR) process to report and resolve issues and provide corrective actions to minimize/eliminate performance impact. These Strengths enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

COST EVALUATION

The SEB evaluated the total proposed cost, inclusive of fee, and determined the Government’s probable cost for the three Offerors. The total proposed cost for AFSS was slightly lower than the total proposed cost for MVS - (MVS: $274,693,510), which was moderately lower than the total proposed cost for AHJV. The evaluation team made no probable cost adjustments to AFSS and MVS. For the AHJV proposal, the SEB adjusted a few direct labor rates resulting in a slight upward probable cost adjustment. Based on the SEB’s evaluation results, AFSS had the lowest total probable cost, which was slightly lower (approximately 1%) than the total probable cost for MVS and moderately lower than the total probable cost for AHJV.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

In evaluating the Past Performance of the Offerors, the SEB determined the Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating for AHJV and AFSS to be "Very High" based on the combination of “Very High” Overall Relevance and “Very High” Overall Performance. MVS received a “High” Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating, based on “High” Overall Relevance and “Very High” Overall Performance. MVS’ “High” rating was due, in part, to a neutral rating for its proposed significant subcontractor, which did not have an adequate reference contract to evaluate relevancy.

SELECTION DECISION

As the SSA for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the SEB's post-reevaluation documentation entitled "Software Engineering Services III (SES III) Procurement Presentation to the Source Selection Authority” and the associated Cost Report. On June 14, 2022, I met with the SES III SEB, along with several ex-officio members, to receive the revised findings of the

SEB.

I determined that the findings presented by the SEB, as documented in its presentation and the accompanying "SES III Cost Evaluation Report" were detailed and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the SES III RFP, and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal. I discussed with the SEB its rationale for the findings, adjectival ratings, and scores for the Mission Suitability Subfactors, and discussed the rationale for the evaluation of Cost and Past Performance. Further, I solicited the views of ex-officio members in their areas of expertise.

In determining which proposal offered the best value to NASA, I referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP:

The Cost Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual factors, the Cost Factor is less important than the Mission Suitability Factor but more important than the Past Performance Factor.

My selection was based on the comparative assessment of each proposal against each of the RFP evaluation factors to determine which proposal represented the best value.

Regarding the Mission Suitability factor overall, I found a significant discriminator in Subfactor A, Technical Understanding/Scenarios, as MVS received a Very Good rating while AHJV and AFSS each received a Good rating. In Subfactor B, Management Plan, AHJV received an Excellent, MVS received a Very Good, and AFSS received a Good. I acknowledge that AHJV had a slight advantage over MVS in this Subfactor, because they received an additional Significant Strength. However, Subfactor B, Management Plan, is weighted less important than Subfactor A, Technical Understanding/Scenarios. Therefore, MVS received the higher cumulative score between the two Subfactors.

Within Mission Suitability Subfactor A, Technical Understanding/Scenarios, I noted that MVS had one (1) Significant Strength, three (3) Strengths, and no Weaknesses. AHJV had no Significant Strengths, three (3) Strengths, and no Weaknesses. AFSS had no Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths, and no Weaknesses.

I noted that MVS received a Significant Strength for their infusion of innovations/efficiencies.

The Offeror’s proposal provided an extremely thorough and detailed technical approach to infuse innovations/efficiencies demonstrating their capability to fully carry out essential engineering functions in order to meet and exceed the objectives of both scenarios.

Additionally, the Offeror’s proposal provided exceptional technical detail to incorporate cloud-based technology, automated documentation development and emerging software development processes. The exceptional innovations and technical detail included in the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an understanding of the scenarios’ objectives, provides benefit to the Government by greatly reducing risk, and significantly enhances the potential for successful contract performance. In addition to the Significant Strength, I noted that MVS received noteworthy Strengths for its forward-thinking and effective approach to software security, which provides benefit to the Government by reducing cost and security risks; their detailed Software Systems Engineering Approach to Scenario 2, working with the Government to offer technical options in leading the development of an interplanetary CubeSat constellation; and provided an extremely detailed plan to address multiple versions of the Mission Planning and Scheduling (MPS) system Version Control and to automate code delivery in the current mixed mission control environments requiring mission specific versions of MPS. I found these Strengths will potentially reduce inefficiencies and improve operational performance, reduce overall contract risks, and provide cost benefits, thereby enhancing the potential for successful performance.

These features noted above will contribute toward exceeding or greatly exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the Government.

In Subfactor A, I noted that both AHJV and AFSS received a Good rating. AHJV received Strengths for 1) an effective phased approach to acquire the MPS System; 2) a Scenario 1 innovative tool use; and 3) an effective approach to Scenario 2. AFSS received Strengths for 1) an effective acquisition and operation of the Mission Planning and Scheduling (MPS) System -

Scenario 1; and 2) the use of an innovative Mission Design for Scenario 2. I found that these Strengths will enhance the potential for successful performance.

Overall, for Subfactor A, Technical Understanding/Scenarios, I found a clear and distinct advantage in favor of MVS with its Very Good adjectival rating compared to the Good adjectival ratings for AHJV and AFSS. In comparing the findings for MVS, AHJV and AFSS, I found meaningful discriminators with the one Significant Strength assigned to MVS, whereas AHJV and AFSS did not receive any Significant Strengths. Specifically, for MVS, this discriminator was their excellent response detailing a comprehensive approach to their infusion of innovations/efficiencies. In addition, MVS proposed the most comprehensive and effective approach to software security. Therefore, overall, for Subfactor A, I found that the advantages of the MVS proposal, particularly the one Significant Strength and Strengths noted above, provided significantly more value than AHJV’s and AFSS’s proposal.

Within Mission Suitability Subfactor B, Management Plan, I noted that AHJV received two (2) Significant Strengths and MVS received one (1) Significant Strength. AHJV and MVS both received similar Significant Strengths for their workforce management plans, while AFSS received only a Strength in their workforce management plan. AHJV received an additional Significant Strength for their management structure and Program Manager autonomy. AFSS did not receive any Significant Strengths in this Subfactor. AFSS, however received five (5) Strengths, MVS received four (4) Strengths, and AHJV received two (2) Strengths. I found that each of the three Offerors received similar Strengths for their comprehensive and well-developed Phase-In Plan and their use of Management Information System (MIS) tools. AFSS received additional Strengths for their management structure, and their use of institutional capabilities, while MVS received additional Strengths for their detailed and established Center of Innovation, and for their subcontractor performance strategy. Overall, I found that AHJV’s proposal for Mission Suitability Subfactor B, Management Plan, was slightly stronger than MVS based on their Significant Strength for management structure and Program Manager authority.

Based on the above information, which is consistent with the information presented by the SEB, I found that MVS had the strongest Mission Suitability proposal when compared to the Mission Suitability proposals of AHJV and AFSS. This is consistent with the SEB’s technical findings and scores, with which I agree.

Regarding the Cost factor, I noted that the probable cost for AFSS was slightly lower, by approximately 1%, than the probable cost for MVS resulting in the slightest cost advantage for AFSS. The probable cost for AHJV was moderately higher than AFSS and MVS.

Regarding the Past Performance factor, I found a slight discriminator whereas AFSS and AHJV both received “Very High” Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence ratings compared to MVS’ “High” Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence rating. I noted that all three prime Offerors demonstrated relevant experience with very high performance, with the difference being MVS’ significant subcontractor’s neutral rating resulting in an overall High Past Performance rating for MVS. Upon closer examination, I noted that MVS’s significant subcontractor is proposed to perform a relatively small percentage of the overall effort with primary responsibility in only one of the fifteen Statement of Work (SOW) elements. I found that the MVS JV partners, Vantage and MCSG, collectively demonstrated relevant experience in all SOW elements with a very strong performance record. Further, in accordance with the RFP, I considered that the past performance of the prime was weighted more heavily than the significant subcontractor which mitigates MVS’ lower rating compared to AFSS and AHJV’s higher ratings. Therefore, overall, I found that AFSS and AHJV’s Very High Level of Confidence Past Performance ratings to be only slightly more advantageous than MVS’ High Level of Confidence Past Performance rating, despite the difference in adjectival ratings.

In making my selection decision, I referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP. Under Mission Suitability, the most important factor, I determined that MVS offered the superior proposal, based primarily on its significant advantage in Subfactor A, Technical Understanding/Scenarios, the most heavily weighted subfactor. While the total probable cost of MVS was not the lowest, it was only slightly higher (approximately 1%) than AFSS. For Past Performance, I concluded that AFSS and AHJV’s Very High ratings were equally beneficial and slightly more advantageous than MVS’ High rating. While MVS did not receive a “Very High” performance rating, I found that MVS demonstrated exceptional performance on its very highly relevant contract references which provides me confidence in their ability to successfully perform the SES III contract.

Additionally, I noted that Past Performance is the least important of the three evaluation factors.

I conclude that the significant Mission Suitability advantage for MVS over AFSS as described in this document and the SEB presentation, outweighed the slight advantage for AFSS in Cost and Past Performance. I find that MVS’ significant advantage over AHJV in Subfactor A outweighed AHJV’s slight advantage over MVS in Subfactor B. Further, MVS’ probable cost was moderately lower than AHJV’s probable cost. MVS’s stronger Mission Suitability proposal and moderately lower probable cost more than offset AHJV’s slight Past Performance advantage. For these reasons, the MVS proposal offers the best value to the Government.

Therefore, I select MVS for award of the Software Engineering Services III contract.

Thomas McCarthy Date Source Selection Authority

Thomas McCarthy June 29, 2022