SMASS IV Source Selection Statement.pdf

SMASS IV 1

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR

SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE SUPPORT SERVICES (SMASS) IV

On November 3, 2022, I, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the SMASS IV contract, along with other senior officials from Kennedy Space Center (KSC), met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals. I have set forth in this source selection statement relevant portions of the SEB’s evaluation of proposals and my decision on selection of the successful offeror.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The objective of this procurement is to acquire the following support services: system safety engineering and analysis, quality assurance and engineering, mission assurance and integration, reliability and maintainability, software assurance, range safety, independent assessment, launch vehicle payload safety, and metrology and calibration. The successful offeror will perform these support services primarily at KSC; however, NASA may require resident support services at other NASA centers, facilities, or sites.

BACKGROUND

On August 25, 2021, the acquisition development process of the SMASS IV contract commenced with the appointment of a Requirements Development Team (RDT). The Contracting Officer established 541330 (Engineering Services) as the North American Industry Classification System code for the SMASS IV procurement, with a corresponding size standard of $41.5 million. On August 31, 2021, and October 12, 2021, the Contracting Officer conducted market research through the issuance of sources sought synopses, which defined the scope of the SMASS IV acquisition and sought information from potential sources to determine industry interest and capability and to facilitate consideration of small business set aside potential. Based on the capability packages received, the Contracting Officer, with concurrence of the Small Business Specialist and the SMASS IV RDT Chairperson, determined an adequate number of capable small business concerns existed to justify setting aside the acquisition for small business.

The RDT developed the acquisition strategy, defined requirements for the work to be performed, and created an SMASS IV website.

On March 16, 2022, the Contracting Officer issued a draft request for proposals (RFP) for industry comment. On March 22, 2022, the KSC Procurement Officer appointed the SSA. On March 30, 2022, the SSA appointed the SEB for the purpose of preparing the solicitation and evaluating proposals received in response to the solicitation. Following review and consideration of industry comments on the draft RFP, the Contracting Officer issued the RFP on April 8, 2022.

The SMASS IV RFP sought proposals from small businesses and anticipated award of a fixed-price level-of-effort contract. The contract period of performance consists of a 20-month base period followed by one 24-month option period and one 16-month option period, for a total

SMASS IV 2

potential period of performance of five years. During the course of the procurement, the Contracting Officer issued two RFP amendments to incorporate minor changes and post responses to questions. The Contracting Officer issued a third RFP amendment during the competitive range phase to revise the Price factor to include the price of the option to extend services under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.217-8.

In response to the SMASS IV RFP, NASA received three timely proposals on or before the due date of May 24, 2022, from the following companies (listed in alphabetical order):

• APT Research, Inc. (APT)

• BQMI-Peerless Joint Venture (B-P JV)

• GHG Corporation (GHG)

EVALUATION PROCESS

The SEB evaluated proposals in accordance with the RFP and the source selection procedures provided in FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Subpart 1815.3, Source Selection. The RFP advised offerors that the Government would use a trade-off process, as described in FAR 15.101-1, in making the source selection.

The solicitation prescribed the following three evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Price, which the SEB evaluated using the applicable procedures, adjectival ratings, levels of confidence, definitions, and percentile ranges specified in the RFP, FAR, and NFS. The RFP advised offerors of the relative order of importance of the factors, stating the following: “Mission Suitability and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price factor. As individual factors, the Mission Suitability factor is more important than the Price factor, which is more important than the Past Performance factor.”

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the SEB evaluated each offeror’s proposed approach to accomplishing requirements. The solicitation further identified two subfactors, which the SEB was to weigh and consider in evaluating Mission Suitability as follows:

Technical Approach 600 points Management Approach 400 points Total Mission Suitability 1,000 points

Under the procedures established in the RFP and the applicable acquisition regulations, the SEB evaluated Mission Suitability proposals under each subfactor to identify significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. Using these findings, the SEB assigned an adjectival rating and numerical score for each subfactor using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges at NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The total Mission Suitability point score is the sum of the points assigned for each subfactor.

The RFP described in detail the areas that the SEB would evaluate under Technical Approach, including contract staffing and the technical approach to performing, supporting, and/or

SMASS IV 3

assessing review boards, launch risks, design and operational safety and mission assurance risks, mishap investigations, hardware and software investigations, nonconformance dispositions, and independent assessments. The RFP also described the areas that the SEB would evaluate under the Management Approach subfactor—namely, contract management, key positions and minimum qualifications, total compensation plans, and the contract phase-in plan.

Under the Past Performance factor, the SEB evaluated each offeror’s past performance and assigned one of the following levels of confidence ratings in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2): very high, high, moderate, low, very low, and neutral. The RFP advised that the Government would evaluate the offeror’s and its major subcontractors’, individual partners’, or parent/affiliates’ recent and relevant performance of work similar in size, content, and complexity to the SMASS IV requirements. Areas of performance included management, technical, schedule, safety and health, and contract phase-in (as applicable). To demonstrate recent and relevant performance, the solicitation instructed offerors to submit past performance information on prior contracts and to provide, among other requirements, rationale that described how those efforts were similar in size, content, and complexity to the SMASS IV requirements.

For past performances purposes, the solicitation defined “major subcontractor” as a subcontractor that would perform major or critical aspects of the requirement. The solicitation instructed offerors to clearly detail the portions of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) for which the offeror and its major subcontractors would be responsible. The RFP defined “recent” as performance within the last 5 years prior to the proposal due date with a minimum of 12 months of performance occurring within that 5-year period (excluding phase-in). The RFP advised offerors that the Government could supplement the information contained in the proposal, if necessary, with information obtained from Government organizations and personnel, commercial sources, and public information sources.

The SEB evaluated each offeror’s and its major subcontractors’, individual partners’, or parent/affiliate(s)’ recent past performance by assessing the relevancy of work performed under prior contracts to the Government’s requirements in the SMASS IV solicitation. Further, the SEB assessed the management, technical, schedule, phase-in, and safety and health performance on contracts that it determined to be recent and relevant.

Under the Price factor, the SEB evaluated each offeror’s proposal in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4, Contract Pricing, to ensure a fair and reasonable price. The RFP, as amended, advised offerors that the Government could use one or more of the various price analysis techniques and procedures found at FAR 15.404-1(b). The RFP, as amended, defined an offeror’s total evaluated price as the offeror’s pricing for the base period and all option periods, including the following: phase-in; the proposed firm fixed price labor rates (fully burdened with indirect rates and profit) multiplied by the Government-provided “Base” hours for the contract periods to include options; the Government-provided non-proposed cost; and the proposed firm fixed price labor rates (fully burdened with indirect rates and profit) for ‘Flex’ level of effort hours multiplied by the Government-provided best estimated quantities for each Government fiscal year. The RFP also stated that, for evaluation purposes, the Government would calculate the total value of the Option to Extend Services for 6-month extension in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, and that, to quantify the 6-month extension value, the Government would use the following formula: Option Period 2 divided by 16 months and multiplied by 6 months.

SMASS IV 4

INITIAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS,

COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION AND DISCUSSIONS

Using the above-described evaluation criteria as specified in the RFP, the SEB conducted initial evaluations of the three proposals received in response to the RFP. In addition to the evaluation of the factors and subfactors identified above, the SEB ensured each proposal met all solicitation requirements established by the RFP. The resulting Mission Suitability rating, Past Performance rating, and Price evaluation of each offeror’s proposal provided the basis for making a competitive range determination. On September 19, 2022, the SEB presented the results of its evaluation to me. The evaluation record and presentation included a complete and detailed evaluation of each proposal against all evaluation criteria for each evaluation factor. The evaluation record and presentation documented the findings, adjectival ratings, point scores, past performance confidence ratings, and total evaluated price for each proposal. I reviewed the Mission Suitability findings for each offeror, as well as the past performance assessments and results of the price analyses for each offeror.

Based on the results of the SEB’s evaluation and in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Contracting Officer determined discussions were necessary, and in the Government’s best interest. Pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(1), the Contracting Officer, with my concurrence, determined the APT proposal was within the competitive range. The Contracting Officer concluded B-P JV’s and GHG’s proposals were not among the most highly rated and, therefore, the Contracting Officer did not include them in the competitive range. On September 30, 2022, the Contracting Officer notified the offerors excluded from the competitive range. GHG timely requested a pre-award debrief; the Government provided the debrief on October 12, 2022.

Although B-P JV’s request for a debrief was untimely, the Government voluntarily provided a pre-award debrief on October 18, 2022.

The SEB conducted written discussions with APT during the period of September 30, 2022, through October 18, 2022. The SEB focused the discussions on the findings that the SEB identified during the initial evaluation. Upon the conclusion of the discussions, the Contracting Officer requested a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) from APT with a due date of October 21, 2022; APT submitted a timely FPR, dated October 21, 2022. The SEB conducted a final evaluation of APT’s FPR and reported its findings to me as discussed below.

FPR MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

The evaluation of the FPR resulted in an increased Mission Suitability score for APT. No significant weakness, weakness, or uncertainty requiring clarification remained in APT’s Mission Suitability proposal.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the SEB found no significant strength, strength, or remaining significant weakness or weakness in its FPR. Based on these findings, the SEB rated APT’s proposal under the Technical Approach subfactor as “Good.”

SMASS IV 5

Under the Management Approach subfactor, the SEB found no significant strength, strength, or remaining weakness in its FPR. Based on these findings, the SEB rated APT’s proposal under the Management Approach subfactor as “Good.”

As a result of the SEB’s evaluation and rating of the Technical Approach and Management Approach subfactors, the overall Mission Suitability score for APT was 600 out of 1,000 points available.

FPR PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

APT received an overall level of confidence rating of “Very High,” meaning the Government has a very high level of confidence that APT will successfully perform the required effort based on the assessed Past Performance records. The SEB evaluated APT’s Past Performance as very highly pertinent to this acquisition. The SEB found that APT demonstrated very relevant experience for the cited contracts, similar in size, content, and complexity to the SMASS IV requirements in PWS 2.0, Contract/Program Management, PWS 3.0, Technical Integration, and PWS 4.0, Technical Disciplines. APT’s experience is highlighted by its performance as the incumbent contractor on the current SMASS III contract. APT demonstrated overall exemplary performance on relevant contracts in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance in the areas assessed.

FPR PRICE EVALUATION

The SEB performed a price analysis of APT’s total evaluated price, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). The SEB determined adequate price competition existed, and there was no instance of unbalanced pricing or inconsistencies with total compensation plans. APT’s total evaluated price consists of the pricing for the base period and all option periods, including phase-in, proposal price, and potential price for the option to extend services under FAR 52.217-8. Based on the foregoing, APT’s total evaluated price is $73,654,704, which the Government determined to be fair and reasonable.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

During the presentation, the SEB and other participants fully briefed me on the procurement process and provided to me detailed evaluation materials concerning the proposal submitted. I questioned the SEB on the material presented and carefully considered the detailed findings presented by the SEB. I concluded the SEB’s evaluation was comprehensive, thorough, and well documented. In addition, I solicited and considered the views of key senior personnel in attendance. These key senior personnel have responsibility related to this procurement and understood the application of the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP.

SMASS IV 6

In determining the best value to the Government, I referred to the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors specified in the RFP (i.e., Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Price); specifically, that Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price, and that Mission Suitability is more important than Price, which is more important than Past Performance. Using these evaluation factors, I have reached the following conclusions:

On Mission Suitability, the most important factor, I noted APT received an adjectival rating of “Good” in Technical Approach, and “Good” in Management Approach. I noted there is no significant strength, strength, or weakness in its Technical Approach, and no significant strength, no strength or weakness in its Management Approach. I concur with the SEB’s evaluation in these areas.

On Past Performance, I noted APT has demonstrated “Very Relevant” experience on contracts that the SEB evaluated. APT’s experience is highlighted by its performance of the incumbent SMASS III contract, which is very similar in size, content, and complexity to the SMASS IV requirements, worthy of a Very High Level of Confidence rating. I concur with the SEB’s evaluation in this area.

On the Price factor, the SEB found that APT’s proposal satisfied the requirements of price reasonableness. I agree with the SEB’s evaluation of the Price factor.

Considering the three evaluation factors and their relative order of importance, I find APT's proposal represents the best value to the Government. Accordingly, I select APT for award of the SMASS IV contract.

P.R. Rodriquez Source Selection Authority

PEDRO

RODRIGUEZ

Digitally signed by

PEDRO RODRIGUEZ

Date: 2022.11.30 15:07 00 -05'00'