Source Selection Statement_CMOE II_Final.pdf

Source Selection Statement For

Center Maintenance, Operations, and Engineering II (CMOE II)

Solicitation Number 80LARC23R0001

On February 6, 2026, as the Source Selection Authority (SSA), I, along with senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC), met with members of the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to hear findings based on the evaluation of the proposals for the Center Maintenance, Operations, and Engineering II (CMOE II) procurement.

PROCUREMENT HISTORY & DESCRIPTION

This is a follow-on procurement to contract number NNL13AA14C (Center Maintenance, Operations, and Engineering (CMOE)). The purpose of this contract is to acquire Maintenance, Operations and Engineering related services for the LaRC’s institutional facilities and highly technical research facilities for mission success. The contractor shall provide core support services to LaRC in the areas of institutional and research operations, maintenance, and engineering. These technical services include: research facilities operations (e.g., highly specialized wind tunnels, laboratories, test stands, instrumentation calibration/repair); central utilities operations (e.g., steam, compressed air, electrical power distribution, potable water);

technology development/administration (e.g., Facility Automation Systems [FAS], Data Acquisition Systems [DAS]); research and institutional facility maintenance (e.g., preventive maintenance, trouble calls, Reliability Centered Maintenance [RCM], Integrated Operations Center [IOC]); and facility engineering (e.g., design, construction, configuration management, tactical engineering, pressure system recertification, project management/planning support).

The single award contract will consist of Cost-Plus Award Fee (CPAF) Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs) for the core mission services and an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) CLIN to accommodate programmatic uncertainty and potential new work within the scope of the contract at NASA LaRC, NASA Headquarters (HQ), or other NASA Centers and Facilities. The IDIQ CLIN provides the opportunities to utilize Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Cost- Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) or CPAF tasks. The contract period of performance is ten years.

The CMOE II Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on August 23, 2023, followed by the issuance of four amendments to the RFP. The initial proposal due date was October 17, 2023.

NASA conducted this acquisition as a full and open competition. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) is 561210 - Facilities Support Services.

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

Two timely proposals were submitted by Offerors. The two Offerors are:

KBR Wyle Services LLC (KBR) Amentum Technology Inc. (Amentum)

The RFP included the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition,” which sets forth the Government’s right to award a contract without discussions with Offerors.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

As NASA’s SSA for the CMOE II procurement, I appointed the SEB, which included technical and business members and consultants from appropriate disciplines, to assist in proposal evaluations.

The CMOE II SEB evaluated proposals received in response to the RFP in accordance with the evaluation factors contained in Section M of the RFP.

The RFP lists three evaluation factors that include Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Overall, in the selection of an Offeror for contract award, Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price Factors will be of approximately equal importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

The RFP states that this competitive best value source selection would be conducted using a Trade-off source selection process in accordance with FAR subpart 15.3 “Source Selection,” NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) part 1815.3, and the CMOE II RFP. The RFP sets forth that award will be made to the Offeror deemed responsible in accordance with FAR subpart 9.1 and L.24(d), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and is determined by the SSA’s integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria, including the relative importance of the evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the Government. The RFP also states that upon completion of the evaluation of proposals, the SEB would report its findings to the SSA, who is responsible for making the source selection decision. The RFP states that the SSA would perform a comparative assessment of proposals against the source selection criteria in the solicitation and select the proposal that is determined to be the best value to the Government based on the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation. While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by the SEB and others, the source selection decision would represent the SSA’s independent judgment.

The Mission Suitability Factor consists of the following three subfactors with assigned points as indicated:

Mission Suitability Subfactor Points Subfactor 1 Approach for Managing the Contract

(MGMT)

Subfactor 2 Understanding the Requirement and Technical Approach (URTA)

Subfactor 3 Small Business Utilization 100 Total 1000

The SEB evaluated each Offeror’s Mission Suitability proposal based on its approach to meeting the requirements in RFP section L.16(e), as outlined below:

SUBFACTOR 1: Approach for Managing the Contract (MGMT)

- MGMT 1: Management Plan

- MGMT 2: Integrated Staffing Approach

- MGMT 3: Proposal and Performance Risks (Applicable to Subfactor 1-MGMT)

SUBFACTOR 2: Understanding the Requirement and Technical Approach (URTA)

- URTA 1: Enhancements, Innovations, and Approaches to Provide Excellence

- URTA 2: Maintenance Excellence

- URTA 3: Operations Excellence

- URTA 4: Design and Construction Excellence

- URTA 5: Proposal and Performance Risks (Applicable to Subfactor 2-URTA)

SUBFACTOR 3: Small Business Utilization (SB)

The Mission Suitability subfactors were numerically scored using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The SEB evaluated each Offeror’s proposal against the subfactors to identify, document, and reach consensus on findings (i.e., significant strengths, strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses). Based on the consensus findings, the SEB assigned a consensus adjectival rating for each subfactor in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(3) and then assigned a consensus score within the percentile range allowed for the assigned adjective. The adjectival rating percentages in 1815.305(a)(3)(A) were applied to the subfactor weight to determine the point score for each subfactor. Next, the SEB computed the total Mission Suitability factor point score by adding all subfactor points assessed, with the maximum possible total point score for this factor being 1,000 points. Per NFS 1815.305, adjectival ratings were only assigned for each Mission Suitability subfactor, and an adjectival rating was not assigned to the overall Mission Suitability factor.

The Past Performance Factor evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), NFS 1815.305(a)(2), and the Solicitation provisions. The Government evaluated each Offeror’s recent and relevant record of performance of work similar in content, size, and complexity to the requirements of this solicitation. The evaluation considered the record of the Offeror and proposed significant subcontractors (which were defined in the solicitation as a subcontractor proposed to perform 20% or more annually for the phase-in CLIN 000 and Core CLINs 10X, 20X, and 30(x) (Total Evaluated Price)). The evaluation of Past Performance did not consider the performance of individuals who are proposed to be involved in the proposed work. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, “Neutral” ratings would be assigned.

For purposes of the Past Performance evaluation, the term “Offeror” refers to a prime contractor and its significant subcontractors (as described above). Accordingly, the past performance of significant subcontractors would be evaluated and attributed to the Offeror. The past performance of a prime and significant subcontractor was compared to the work the entity is proposed to perform.

For references to be considered in the Past Performance evaluation, they were required to meet the “recency” and “relevancy/pertinence” requirements of the solicitation in accordance with RFP section L.17(d). References that did not meet the recency and/or relevance/pertinence requirements stated in this solicitation were rated as “Not Pertinent,” and were not considered in the Past Performance rating.

Past Performance was evaluated to arrive at a Level of Confidence rating as set forth in NFS

1815.305. Each of the Level of Confidence ratings has a "pertinence" component and "performance" component that was evaluated by the Government and used to assign a Level of Confidence Rating for the Past Performance factor for each Offeror as described below.

In assessing recency, the Government only considered contract references ongoing or completed within the past three (3) years from the date of RFP issuance. (RFP section L.17(d)).

In assessing pertinence, the Government considered the degree of similarity of work performed in terms of content, size, and complexity of each relevant contract considering the amount and type of work each entity is proposed to perform to the requirements in this solicitation, as well as the recency and duration of the past performance. (RFP section M.6(d)(1)(f)) Based on the Government’s evaluation, a pertinence rating was assigned as follows: Very Highly Pertinent (VHP), Highly Pertinent (HP), Pertinent (P), Somewhat Pertinent (SP), Not Pertinent (NP), or Did Not Address (DNA).

For content pertinence, the Government evaluated relevance to the Technical Performance Areas (TPAs) on how the Offeror addresses the subsections identified under each TPA (SOW Areas) as listed in RFP section L.17(d)(11).

For size pertinence, the Government evaluated relevance to the Technical Performance Areas (TPAs) in terms “average annual dollars per year” over the last 3 years from RFP release for the work the specific entity is proposed to perform in comparison to the contract reference. (RFP sections L.17(d)(11))

For complexity pertinence, the Government evaluated relevance to the TPAs in terms of the performance challenges and risks experience under the Contract Reference number compared to the complexities of the technical performance area(s) the entity is proposed to perform. (RFP section L.17(d)(11)).

The evaluation of pertinence included the following Technical Performance Areas (TPAs):

• TPA 1: SOW Section 1 – Maintenance

1.0.2 Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)

1.1 Proactive Maintenance program

1.0.8 Integrated Operations /1.4.1 Steam Plant

• TPA 2: SOW Section 2 – Operations

2.1 Wind Tunnels

2.2.2 Compressor Stations

2.4 Ground Data systems

2.3 Metrology

• TPA 3: SOW Section 3 –Engineering

3.2 Configuration Management (CM) Services

3.3 Pressure System Recertification Services

• TPA 4: SOW Section 4 – Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity

4.3 Design Services

4.3 Construction Services

In assessing performance, the Government assessed each Offeror's performance record for each contract reference. The Government evaluated the Offeror’s record for demonstrated experience in the technical performance areas listed in RFP section L.17(d)(11) and L.17(d)(12). The performance assessment was based primarily on, but not limited to, past performance evaluation input provided through customer Past Performance Questionnaires and/or interviews (PPIs), and Government databases (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)).

Based on the Government’s evaluation, a performance rating was assigned as follows:

Exemplary (EX), Very Effective (VE), Effective (E), Minimum Acceptable (M), or Does Not Meet (DNM).

The Past Performance factor was not numerically weighted or scored, but was assigned a confidence rating, in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2) of “Very High Level of Confidence,” “High Level of Confidence,” “Moderate Level of Confidence,” “Low Level of Confidence,” “Very Low Level of Confidence,” or “Neutral.”

The Cost/Price Factor was evaluated in accordance with the solicitation in section M.7. The Government conducted a cost analysis in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1), NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3)(B). In addition, a price analysis was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 that included, but not limited to, comparing prices proposed by all Offerors in response to the solicitation, comparing the proposed prices to historical prices for the same or similar items purchased by the Government, and comparing the proposed prices to the independent Government cost estimate. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), the Government conducted a cost realism analysis by independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate, to determine whether the proposed cost elements were realistic for the work to be performed; reflected a clear understanding of the requirements; and were consistent with each Offeror’s unique methods of performance.

In addition to the Government’s evaluation of each Offeror’s total compensation plan (TCP) under the Mission Suitability factor (See L.16(e) and M.5(b),Subfactor 1, MGMT 2), the Government evaluated the Offeror’s total compensation plan (TCP) under the Cost/Price factor in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees and the RFP stated that the evaluation of the Total Compensation Plan may impact the Offeror’s Mission Suitability score (See M.7(e)(2).

In accordance with RFP section M.7, 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 realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analyses performed. The proposed and probable costs were presented to the SSA, along with any risks associated with the proposed costs.

FACTOR 1 – MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS

Each subfactor was evaluated in accordance with the RFP, as described in the evaluation procedures above. The table below shows the derivation of the total Mission Suitability score for each Offeror.

The summary for each of the SEB’s evaluation findings for Mission Suitability for all Offerors is presented below. The Mission Suitability findings were fully documented and considered in the SEB’s briefing to the SSA. However, unique, or confidential/proprietary aspects of an Offeror’s approach that the SEB identified in its findings have not been included in this document, since this document has been prepared for public release.

KBR

Under Subfactor 1, MGMT, KBR received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” and a point score of 475, with one Significant Strength and seven Strengths, with no weaknesses, significant weakness, or deficiencies.

MGMT 1 – Integrated Management Approach

(1) KBR received a Significant Strength for demonstrating a very strong approach to its comprehensive management plan that effectively integrates operations across its departments, teaming partners, and Langley customers, including third-party contractors. Their approach is designed to address issues quickly, minimize downtime, reduce costs, and efficiently execute tasks. KBR’s management plan, supported by the expertise of key personnel, aligns well with requirements, reducing performance risk and greatly enhancing the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(2) KBR received a Strength for demonstrating a strong management plan that featured a well-structured organizational approach that effectively manages work across the organization to fulfill the Statement of Work (SOW) requirements. The plan includes clear lines of control and communication between the contractor and the government, ensuring autonomy and effective collaboration at appropriate levels. This approach promotes effective decision-making and work execution throughout the contract, increasing the likelihood of successful performance.

(3) KBR received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach for its proposed use of a variety of tools and IT systems to manage contract performance efficiently. This approach facilitates effective collaboration on contract management, including tracking operational readiness and critical activities. The Offeror’s approach is expected to enhance operations and communication, increasing the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(4) KBR received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach to the rapid repair or replacement of critical facility components that impede ongoing mission operations. Their approach will offer immediate, focused support to execute these plans and fix system issues affecting mission operations. This approach improves the Offeror’s ability to quickly identify and address system failures, enhancing the likelihood of successful contract performance.

MGMT 2 – Integrated Staffing Approach

(5) KBR received a Strength for their strong staffing approach which focuses on retaining a technically proficient workforce through a multi-faceted career development strategy.

The Offeror proposed innovative methods and best practices to improve retention, employee development, recruitment, and retention. This integrated strategy aims to identify growth opportunities, reduce turnover, and retain key personnel essential for meeting contract requirements, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(6) KBR received a Strength for demonstrating a robust strategy for quickly forming teams with multiple partners and subject matter experts. This approach ensures they can swiftly gather the necessary expertise to handle varying government requirements and increased workloads. Overall, their plan aims to minimize performance risks, including those related to cost and schedule, and enhance the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(7) KBR received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach for recruiting, staffing, and retaining a skilled workforce to meet contract requirements. They enhance their staffing capability by looking across multiple sources to address challenging technical positions and strengthen their ability to fill hard-to-fill technical positions. Their approach for recruiting, staffing, and retaining a skilled workforce improves the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(8) KBR received a Strength for demonstrating a strong understanding of the importance of recruiting, building a pipeline, and retaining a technically proficient workforce. It reflects a sound strategy to fill the essential technical skills and capabilities required to perform CMOE II.

The Offeror's apprenticeship program will help ensure a technically proficient future workforce and increase the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Under Subfactor 2, URTA, KBR received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” and a point score of 392 points, two Significant Strengths and eight Strengths, with no weaknesses, significant weakness, or deficiencies.

URTA 1 – Enhancements, Innovations, and Approaches to Provide Excellence

(9) KBR received a Significant Strength for demonstrating a very strong approach for identifying opportunities for transformation, infusing emerging, capabilities, technologies, and other innovations which enhance performance. This approach is expected to expedite the execution of innovations, leading to cost savings and productivity improvements, thereby greatly increasing the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(10) KBR received a Significant Strength for demonstrating a very strong comprehensive approach to accomplish the technical requirement and drive innovation throughout the execution of the contract. KBR’s approach is centered around a multi-faceted approach to transform LaRC facilities and operations by increasing reliability, availability, and operational excellence. The Offeror’s overall approach reflects a strong understanding of CMOE II requirements and demonstrates a comprehensive plan that will improve quality, achieve efficiencies and associated cost savings, and result in better schedule adherence. The Offeror’s approach as described above will greatly enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

(11) KBR received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach for its strategy to meet technical requirements and drive innovation throughout the contract. Their approach focuses on enhancing LaRC’s facilities and operations by improving reliability, availability, and operational excellence. The approach highlights strong leadership and collaboration with key stakeholders to ensure transparency and alignment. KBR’s approach reflects a thorough understanding of CMOE II operations and a commitment to improving quality, achieving efficiencies, and will increase the probability of successful contract performance.

(12) KBR received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach to interconnecting government and contractor workforce. Their proposed approach aims to reduce risk and enhance asset availability for the Government. The proposed IDE reduces risk, increases operational availability, and reduces maintenance cost thereby increasing the probability of successful contract performance.

URTA 2 – Maintenance Excellence

(13) KBR received a Strength for demonstrating a strong comprehensive and integrated approach to establish measurable improvement for the Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) program. The Offeror’s strong approach to focused, proactive RCM and measurable improvement and increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(14) KBR received a Strength for demonstrating a strong a forward-looking and comprehensive strategy for RCM. The Offeror proposed a strong plan to implement the use of data analytics. The approach will provide beneficial data that will assist with decision making and resource utilization in performance of the CMOE II contract. The Offeror’s proposed approach increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

URTA 3 – Operations Excellence

(15) KBR received a Strength for demonstrating a strong staffing approach strategy to enhance the availability, productivity, and utilization of research facilities. Their approach aims to create a more diverse work environment, which will improve workforce skills and increase the likelihood of retaining critical capabilities essential for CMOE II. Overall, the proposed approach will increase the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(16) KBR received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach to implementing procedures that will improve operational readiness and productivity of research facilities. The proposed procedures will increase productivity and reduce procedural errors. KBR’s proposed procedures will help LaRC improves knowledge capture, this will positively impact CMOE II performance, which will increase the likelihood of successful contract performance.

URTA 4 – Design and Construction Excellence

(17) KBR received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach to manage design and construction management strategy, which includes thorough planning and integrated scheduling techniques. This approach fosters effective communication, adherence to schedule and budget, and accurate project estimates. Their overall approach to design and construction excellence increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(18) KBR received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach to providing and maintaining subject matter expertise (SME) throughout the life of the contract. This support is crucial for current and future research, engineering, and operations facilities. This approach effectively supports LaRC’s critical design and construction programs which increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Under Subfactor 3, Small Business Utilization, KBR received an adjectival rating of “Good” and a point score of 70 points, no Significant Strengths and two Strengths for Subfactor 3, with no weaknesses, significant weakness, or deficiencies.

(19) KBR received a Strength for proposing a SB Subcontracting Plan. Their approach improves the likelihood of meeting the contract's SB Subcontracting Plan goals. KBR proposed SB Subcontracting Plan overall goals and approach increases the probability of successful contract performance.

(20) KBR received a Strength for demonstrating a strong commitment to Commitment to the Small Business Programs. KBR’s Commitment to the Small Business Programs increases the probability of successful contract performance.

Amentum

Under Subfactor 1, MGMT, Amentum received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” and a point score of 465, with one Significant Strength and six Strengths, with no weaknesses, significant weakness, or deficiencies.

MGMT 1 – Integrated Management Approach

(1) Amentum received a Significant Strength for demonstrating a very strong, integrated team management approach. This approach promotes integration, ensures fair compensation, and provides effective training. The proposal reflects a strong understanding of the importance of all roles and their alignment with contract requirements, greatly increasing the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(2) Amentum received a Strength for demonstrating a strong integrated approach to managing contract operations includes a robust risk management strategy, based on established risk management principles and consistent with industry best practices. This approach facilitates effective communication and integrates contract risks into overall mission risk management.

This strong risk management strategy enhances and increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(3) Amentum received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach to rapidly repair or replace critical facility components. They identify and prioritize critical components to help make informed decisions on resource allocation. Their comprehensive plan enhances the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(4) Amentum received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach for its organizational structure, which clearly outlines roles and responsibilities. This approach promotes effective communication within their organization and with key partners, facilitating prompt collaboration and response to mission needs. This approach also demonstrates a solid understanding of communication and interface requirements, supports effective decision-making and execution of work, and enhances the likelihood of successful contract performance.

MGMT 2 – Integrated Staffing Approach

(5) Amentum received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach for recruiting and staffing a technically skilled workforce. The Offeror’s approach will ensure a technically proficient future workforce and increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(6) Amentum received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach to quickly assemble multi-partner teams and respond to increasing workloads efficiently. This approach ensures rapid adaptation to changing mission requirements and workload fluctuations, reducing performance risks, including cost and schedule impacts. The Offeror’s plan to rapidly assemble multi-partner teams increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(7) Amentum received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach for its effective strategy in recruiting and retaining a technically skilled workforce. The approach also includes adapting the workforce to meet growing demands and providing necessary training. This strategy enhances knowledge retention, technical expertise, and adaptability. The proposed approach increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Under Subfactor 2, URTA, Amentum received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” and a point score of 384 points, one Significant Strength and nine Strengths, with no weaknesses, significant weakness, or deficiencies.

URTA 1 – Enhancements, Innovations, and Approaches to Provide Excellence

(8) Amentum received a Significant Strength for demonstrating a very strong approach for its technology, innovation, and process improvement. The proposed innovations will be tracked and evaluated for their impact and savings. The program also enhances efficiency and exemplifies an approach for managing workload surges. This approach demonstrates a strong commitment to innovation, greatly improving the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(9) Amentum received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach for innovations to accomplish technical requirements and drive innovation through the execution of the contract.

The Offeror’s approach will motivate and accelerate innovation and cost savings in contract performance that will directly benefit the Government. This approach to drive innovation will enable the infusion of new innovative ideas and increases the probability of successful contract performance.

(10) Amentum received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach to advancing technology use throughout the contract performance. This comprehensive approach to advancing technology and developing innovative solutions increases the probability of successful contract performance.

(11) Amentum received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach to effectively integrating government and contractor workforces through data systems. Their approach supports collaboration and strategic decision-making, aiming to reduce costs, enhance agility, and improve access to project and performance data. This approach to interconnect government and contractor workforce through data systems increases the probability of successful contract performance.

URTA 2 – Maintenance Excellence

(12) Amentum received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach and comprehensive and forward-looking Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) strategy. The plan includes a scalable and prioritized approach to enhance asset performance. The proposed RCM strategy will improve maintenance for the aging infrastructure/facilities covered by the CMOE II contract and increases the probability of successful contract performance.

(13) Amentum received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach to Reliability- Centered Maintenance (RCM) transformation. Amentum’s approach to RCM transformation increases maintenance integration with efficient, timely research operations and increases the probability of successful contract performance.

URTA 3 – Operations Excellence

(14) Amentum received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach to capturing and maintaining institutional, operational, and testing knowledge. This strategy enhances knowledge retention and increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(15) Amentum received a Strength for demonstrating a strong and well-rounded approach to maximizing the utilization of LaRC research facilities. This approach reflects a comprehensive plan that optimizes the use of these facilities, increasing the likelihood of successful contract performance.

URTA 4 – Design and Construction Excellence

(16) Amentum received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach for its proposed initiative in industry-leading design and construction management. The initiative is expected to improve overall project quality, delivery, and contract performance, increasing the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(17) Amentum received a Strength for demonstrating a strong approach for maintaining subject matter expertise (SME) throughout the contract. This strategy is crucial to supporting LaRC's design and construction programs, which are vital for its research, engineering, and operations facilities. The approach enhances the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Under Subfactor 3, Small Business Utilization, Amentum received an adjectival rating of “Good” and a point score of 70 points, no Significant Strengths and two Strengths for Subfactor 3, with no weaknesses, significant weakness, or deficiencies.

(18) Amentum received a Strength for proposing a SB Subcontracting Plan. Their proposed approach improves the likelihood of meeting the contract's SB Subcontracting Plan goals. Amentum’s proposed SB Subcontracting Plan overall goals and approach increases the probability of successful contract performance.

(19) Amentum received a Strength for demonstrating a strong commitment to the Small Business Programs. Amentum’s Commitment to the Small Business Programs increases the probability of successful contract performance.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS

The SEB evaluated each Offerors’ past performance records (in alphabetical order) in accordance with RFP section M.6 Past Performance – Volume II, and a Level of Confidence rating was assigned for the Past Performance factor in accordance with NFS 1815.305. Below is a summary of the overall Pertinence, Performance, and Confidence Level ratings assigned to each Offeror.

KBR

The SEB assigned a Very High Level of Confidence rating to KBR for the Past Performance factor. This rating is based on an overall pertinence rating (considering content, size, and complexity) of Very Highly Pertinent, and an overall performance rating of Exemplary.

For content pertinence, KBR demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent past performance in TPA 1, Pertinent past performance in TPA 2 and TPA 3, and Highly Pertinent in TPA 4. Considering the content of all TPAs and ratings, the SEB assigned an overall content rating of Highly Pertinent.

For size pertinence, KBR demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent past performance in terms of size as compared to the CMOE II requirements.

For complexity pertinence, KBR demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent past performance.

The SEB considered KBR’s ratings in Content, Size and Complexity, and assigned an Overall Pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent.

For performance, the preponderance of KBR’s performance was Exceptional. Therefore, KBR was assigned an Overall Performance rating of Exemplary.

Amentum

The SEB assigned a Very High Level of Confidence rating to Amentum for the Past Performance factor. This rating is based on an overall pertinence rating (considering content, size, and complexity) of Very Highly Pertinent, and an overall performance rating of Exemplary.

For content pertinence, Amentum demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent past performance in TPAs 1, 2, 3 and 4. Considering the content of all TPAs and ratings, the SEB assigned an overall content rating of Very Highly Pertinent.

For size pertinence, Amentum demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent past performance in terms of size as compared to the CMOE II requirements.

For complexity pertinence, Amentum demonstrated Very Highly Pertinent past performance.

The SEB considered Amentum’s ratings in Content, Size and Complexity, and assigned an Overall Pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent.

For performance, the preponderance of Amentum’s performance was Exceptional. Therefore, Amentum was assigned an Overall Performance rating of Exemplary.

FACTOR 3 – INITIAL COST/PRICE EVALUATION RESULTS

The SEB and Price/Cost Analyst (PCA) evaluated the proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of both Offerors to assess price reasonableness and cost realism, and to determine whether the proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance, resources and materials described in each Offeror’s technical proposal.

The SEB also evaluated each Offeror’s Total Compensation Plan (TCP) in accordance with the Solicitation and found both Offerors’ TCPs consistent with their respective technical approaches under mission suitability. The SEB also assessed that both offerors’ TCPs indicate understanding of the requirements and the ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work.

The SEB believes both proposed approaches are adequate and realistic to recruit and retain a qualified workforce.

Based on the analysis conducted by the SEB and the PCA, the CO determined that both Offerors’ proposed prices are considered reasonable based on adequate price competition and price analysis. Both offerors’ proposed costs were upwardly adjusted based on the analyst’s assessment of cost realism.

Probable cost adjustments for each Offeror are as follows:

For Amentum, the SEB determined the proposed cost to be considered fair and reasonable and reflected a clear understanding of the CMOE II effort. However, cost realism adjustments were made, from the Total Evaluated Price (proposed) of $523,781,846 based on the analysis by the PCA using the indirect rates that were disclosed in the DCMA FPRR. Proposed indirect costs (overhead, General and Administrative (G&A), and indirect applied to Other Direct Costs (ODC)) were adjusted by calculating the difference between the proposed indirect rates and the DCMA FPRR indirect rates and then applying the difference to the proposed bases to derive at the probable indirect costs.

For KBR, adjustments were made to the proposed cost based on KBR’s subsequent proposal revisions, as detailed below in “Executive Order/Compliance.”

Based on the analysis conducted by the SEB of the FPR 2 submissions. Amentum has the lowest Total Evaluated Price (adjusted for probable cost) at $527,800,206 followed by KBR. In addition, the cost analyst assessed an unquantifiable cost risk to KBR due to the fact that it did not escalate WD proposed labor rates in its proposal.

Summary of Evaluation Findings for CMOE II Offerors:

Offeror Mission Suitability Ratings/Scores

Past Performance

Level of Confidence

Total Evaluated Price (adjusted for most probable cost)

KBR

Subfactor 1 (MGMT):

Excellent/475 points Subfactor 2 (URTA):

Excellent/392 points

Subfactor 3 (SB): Good/70 points

Total Score: 937 points

Very High Highest

Amentum

Subfactor 1 (MGMT):

Excellent/465 points Subfactor 2 (URTA):

Excellent/384 points

Subfactor 3 (SB): Good/70 points

Total Score: 919 points

Very High Lowest

PROTEST AND CORRECTIVE ACTION

On Sept 5, 2024, NASA awarded the CMOE II contract to Amentum. On Sept. 23, 2024, after debriefing, KBR filed a bid protest with GAO alleging, first, that NASA did not properly consider the effects of an impending corporate transaction by the awardee, Jacobs. On Sept. 27, 2024, Jacobs merged with Amentum Holdings, LLC (“Amentum”), changing ownership of Jacobs from Jacobs Solutions, Inc. to Amentum Holdings, Inc. So, NASA stayed performance of the contract and took corrective action to carefully review and assess the impact of the spin-off and merger between Jacobs and Amentum on Amentum’s (originally, Jacobs’) proposal.

On Oct. 31, 2024, NASA sent clarification questions to Jacobs/Amentum seeking explanations regarding the impact of the merger on aspects of Jacob’s/Amentum’s mission suitability, past performance, and cost/price proposals, as well as information related to the responsibility determination. Jacobs/Amentum responded in writing on Nov. 8, 2024. In its response, Jacobs/Amentum explained that no aspect of its proposal needed to be changed other than its corporate name as a result of the merger. Additionally, none of the resources that were available to Jacobs Technology, Inc. to complete the CMOE II contract would change. Jacobs/Amentum provided sufficient information to support these assertions. The contracting officer and SEB diligently analyzed these responses and determined that, as a result, the evaluation of Jacobs/Amentum’s proposal need not change. I concur with that conclusion as further detailed in the Corporate Transaction memorandum to file.

EXECUTIVE ORDER/COMPLIANCE

On January 30, 2025, an amendment to the solicitation was issued in accordance with the Executive Order titled Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions, signed by the President on January 20, 2025. This Executive Order repealed Executive Order 14035, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce. Amendment 0006 was issued to ensure compliance with the updated federal policy by removing evaluation sub-factor MBMT 3 Approach to Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility, and eliminating Exhibit O (DEIA Plan) and the related Exhibit B-Data Requirements Document

DRD C-29.

As a result of Amendment 00006, NASA Langley Research Center established a competitive range and opened discussions by issuing letters to both Offerors on April 22, 2025. The Offerors were directed to revise their proposals (all volumes, as applicable) to the extent materially impacted by Amendment 00006 and extend the expiration date of proposals submitted in response to the solicitation by 180 days. Offerors were required to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) no later than March 7, 2025.

Both offerors timely submitted their FPRs and extended the validity of their proposals by 180 days. Upon review, the SEB determined that neither offeror was fully responsive to the requirements outlined in the initial discussion letter accompanying the amendment, specifically regarding the removal of DEIA-related content from their proposals. As a result, the Government issued a second round of discussion letters on April 22, 2025, providing both Offerors an additional opportunity to revise their most recent FPRs to address their identified deficiencies.

Offerors were instructed to submit a FPR 2, no later than May 8, 2025.

Each offeror submitted its FPR 2 by the required deadline. The CO determined that both offerors’ FPR2 proposals complied with the revised solicitation. However, the cost analyst determined that KBR’s proposal needed upward adjustments to the number of proposed labor hours that KBR had proposed decreasing during the proposal revision period. This upward adjustment was in order to provide the Government with the most probable cost. After hearing briefing on the issue, I determine this is not a staffing issue with KBR’s mission suitability proposal because the labor mix and staffing approach remained constant across all volumes from the original proposal to the FPR 2 that eliminated DEIA. The rationale for the cost adjustment is because KBR’s reduction of non-productive hours associated with the removal of DEIA is improbable because the labor mix and staffing levels remained the same, which is further detailed in the cost report.

BASIS FOR SELECTION

As the SSA for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the SEB's initial and updated documentation including the "Source Selection Briefing for Center Maintenance, Operations, and Engineering II (CMOE II)” presentation, associated Past Performance Report and Cost Report. I have determined that the findings presented by the SEB, as documented in its presentation and the accompanying reports, are thorough and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the CMOE II RFP and provide a clear description of the merits and attributes of each Offeror’s proposal. I accept the SEB findings as my own, with one clarification which I will discuss in “Factor 2—Past Performance.” 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 Past Performance and Cost/Price. I concluded that the evaluation of proposals was thorough, and well-documented. Further, I solicited the views of ex-officio members of the SEB in their areas of expertise. I determined that the SEB’s findings were well-supported, reasonable, and aligned to the evaluation criteria for making a selection decision based on initial proposals.

Additionally, I concur with the contracting officer’s determination that Jacob’s corporate re-organization and merger with Amentum, effective Sept. 27, 2024, does not change the resources available for performance of the CMOE II contract. Therefore, I concur with the assessment that the evaluation results should not be changed.

In determining which proposal offers the best value to NASA, I conducted a comparative assessment of proposals and then conducted a trade-off among proposals utilizing the evaluation factors described in the solicitation. I referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in Section M.4 of the Solicitation.

- The Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost factors are approximately equal in importance.

- Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

In my independent judgment, after analyzing the evaluation findings and discriminators between and among proposals, I conclude that the successful Offeror is Amentum Technology Inc., formerly known as Jacobs Technology, Inc. A more detailed statement of the rationale for my decision follows.

FACTOR 1 – MISSION SUITABILITY

Subfactor 1 Approach to Managing the Contract (MGMT)

In comparing the Offerors in the Mission Suitability Factor, Subfactor 1, MGMT, I note that both KBR and Amentum received an adjectival rating of Excellent. KBR received a point score of 475/500 while Amentum received a point score of 465/500.

I note that KBR received one Significant Strength, under Subfactor 1, which relates to its management plan. KBR had no weakness in this area. I note that Amentum received one Significant Strength, under Subfactor 1, which relates to its management plan. Amentum had no weakness in this area. The SEB assigned KBR one more strength than Amentum in this area.

I find that KBR’s robust management plan (MGMT 1 – significant strength) ensuring a cross functional collaboration and utilizing Integrated Project Teams offsets Amentum’s management plan (MGMT 1 - significant strength) including its Integrated Team Management Approach.

Both approaches integrate projects across their respective organizations in a manner similarly advantageous to the Government.

Also, I find that KBR’s proposed rapid response team (MGMT 1) was slightly stronger than Amentum’s three-part approach to provide rapid repair of critical facility components because KBR proposes, in more detail, how it plans to maintain critical spares for components deemed critical to mission success. However, I did not find this to be a significant discriminator because Amentum does propose options for supply chain management for critical spares with in-house or local fabrication capabilities.

I find that KBR’s strength for its strong management plan (MGMT 1) that features a well-structured organizational approach to fulfill SOW requirements is similar to and offsets Amentum’s strength for demonstrating a strong integrated approach to managing contract operations.

I find that KBR’s strength for demonstrating a strong approach to its use of tools and IT systems (MGMT 1) to manage contract performance offsets Amentum’ strength for its organizational structure, which clearly outlines roles and responsibilities, because it will provide the contractor and government a real-time capability to monitor ongoing operations, including insight into both cost and schedule performance.

I find that KBR’s three strengths for its strong staffing approach (MGMT 2) focused on retaining a technically proficient workforce are equal to Amentum’s two strengths for demonstrating a strong approach for recruiting and staffing a technically proficient workforce. Both proposed approaches sufficiently ensure a technically proficient workforce.

I find that KBR’s strength for demonstrating a robust strategy (MGMT 2) for quickly forming teams with multiple partners is similar to and offsets Amentum’s strength for demonstrating a strong approach to quickly assemble multi-partner teams.

Accordingly, I identify one minor discriminator in KBR’s favor related to KBR’s proposed rapid response team. I identify no other discriminators in this sub-factor. So, for Subfactor 1, KBR has a minor advantage.

Subfactor 2 Understanding the Requirement and Technical Approach (URTA)

In comparing the Offerors in the Mission Suitability Factor, Subfactor 2, URTA, I noted that both KBR and Amentum received an adjectival rating of Excellent. KBR received a point score of 392/400 while Amentum received a point score of 384/400.

I note that KBR received two Significant Strengths, under Subfactor 2, one of which relates to its identifying opportunities for transformation, infusing emerging, capabilities, technologies, and the other relates to its approach to accomplishing technical requirements and driving innovation throughout the execution of the contract. KBR had no weakness in this area. I noted that Amentum received one Significant Strength under Subfactor 2, which relates to their proposed approach to drive innovation throughout the execution of the contract. Amentum had no weakness in this area. So, the SEB assigned KBR one more significant strength than Amentum, while it assigned Amentum one more strength than KBR; Amentum’s additional strength is related to its proposed investment in innovation.

KBR’s two significant strengths for innovation (URTA 1), one for its proposed investment and another for demonstrating a very strong approach to drive innovation through contract execution (plus one more related strength), is a moderate discriminator in KBR’s favor vs. Amentum’s single significant strength plus one strength in this area. This is because KBR’s proposed investment into innovation is more significant quantitatively than Amentum’s and because KBR proposes a monetary outcome if that innovation approach fails to deliver a monetary expectation promised by KBR.