Source Selection Statement.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center

Research Facilities and Engineering Support Services (RF&ESS) Solicitation No. 80AFRC19R0022

This Source Selection Statement documents the Procurement History, Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Findings, and Source Selection Decision for the Research Facilities and Engineering Support Services (RF&ESS) requirement. All information contained in this document is in compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) guidance.

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

The purpose of the Research Facilities and Engineering Support Services (RF&ESS) contract is to provide engineering and technical services to support the Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) Mission Operations Directorate. The contract type is a firm-fixed price with Time and Materials (T&M) Contract Line Item Numbers.

A Sources Sought synopsis was posted to FedBizOpps on February 26, 2019. The synopsis requested potential offerors to provide a capability statement containing sufficient information for the procurement team to determine if the potential offeror had the ability to satisfy the Government’s requirement. Eleven timely submissions were received from the Sources Sought Posting; 2 large businesses and 9 small businesses.

The results of the conducted market research established that a major subcontract/teaming arrangement would be required to meet the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirement.

The procurement team determined that there were small businesses with the capability to obtain a major subcontractor/teaming arrangement and meet or exceed the requirement as stated in the Sources Sought Synopsis. The acquisition was set-aside for Total Small Business.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) “80AFRC19R0022” for RF&ESS was released on December 6, 2019 with a proposal due date of January 23, 2020 at 4:00 PM PST. There were three (3) amendments to the RFP.

Amendment No. 00001 was released on December 09, 2019 to post answers to questions received from the Draft RF&ESS requirement.

Amendment No. 00002 was released on December 18, 2019 to correct the due date on the L03 Past Performance Questionnaire and revise the PWS.

Amendment No. 00003 was released on January 15, 2020 to post answers to questions received regarding the RF&ESS requirement and provide revisions to Section B-I, Terms and Conditions and Section J, List of Attachments: L01 PWS, J04 DRD, and L02 NASA RF&ESS Historical document as a result of the questions.

The RFP required three (3) volumes to be submitted: Technical Acceptability Volume I to include the technical approach with a 75-page limit, management plan with no page limit, total compensation plan with no page limit, phase-in plan with no page limit; Volume II, Past Performance with a 50-page limit; Volume III Price with no page limit.

Four (4) Offerors submitted proposals that met the date and time requirement of the RFP. The Offerors that submitted proposals were: (1) ASRC Federal System Solutions, LLC (AFSS), (2) Chenega Professional & Technical Services, LLC (CPTS), (3) INQU, LLC, and (4) Veteran Enterprise Technology Services, LLC. (VETS).

After proposal receipt, the Contracting Officer conducted an initial review of the proposals to determine acceptability in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. The Contracting Officer also conducted a record check through System for Award Management to ensure all offerors had an active registration and no active exclusions; and verified the Offerors Representations and Certifications were current and complete. A page verification for each volume was conducted to ensure compliance with the RFP.

During this review it was determined that clarification was required on the AFSS proposal. The DUNS number and Facility CAGE code located in Volume II: Past Performance, Section 6.0 Facility CAGE Code and DUNS Number, page 50 could not be verified in the System for Award Management (SAM). The DUNS number and CAGE Code were confirmed by ASRC Federal System Solution, LLC point of contact.

The initial review concluded, and it was determined that all 4 proposals were acceptable. The Source Evaluation Board (SEB) met and started the review of proposals for the Technical Acceptability evaluation factor.

The evaluation was conducted as a competitive Price Performance Trade-Off best value source selection where all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Section L of the solicitation set forth the following areas for evaluation:

1. Technical Acceptability

2. Past Performance

3. Price

Relative Order of Importance: Technical Acceptability and Past Performance (when combined) are significantly more important than Price.

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

The Technical Acceptability rating consists of evaluation of the Technical Volume I. To determine technical acceptability, NASA considered the Offeror’s technical approach to include an understanding of AS9100, and the management approach to include the management plan, the compensation plan, and the phase-in plan.

The SEB team evaluated the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable using the descriptions in the below table "Technically Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings." The Offeror's technical proposal was evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and existing capability meet the various requirements identified within the PWS and the solicitation.

The Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings descriptions are as follows:

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

All technically acceptable offers were treated equally except for their past performance records and price. Failure to meet a solicitation requirement would have resulted in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors had to clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Offerors rated technically unacceptable will not be further evaluated.

PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance: The past performance evaluation was an assessment of the Government's confidence in the Offeror's ability to perform the solicitation requirements. This factor indicated the relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of each Offeror's record of performing services or delivering products similar in size, content, and complexity as the requirements of the PWS and solicitation. The past performance evaluation was in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), NFS 1815.305(a)(2), and this section.

The two aspects to the past performance evaluation were:

• Relevancy: Evaluate the relevancy of the Offeror’s present/past performance

• Quality: Determine how well the contractor performed on similar present or past contracts

Relevancy The evaluation team reviewed the Offeror’s Past Performance references to determine consistency with the solicitation’s currency guidance of three years (i.e. no earlier than 2016).

The relevancy findings were categorized as follows:

• Size –Value

• Content – Tasking relation the PWS functional areas

• Complexity – Management, Technical, and Multi-discipline

The evaluation team assigned a Past Performance Relevancy Rating based on the findings using the following ratings and definitions:

Low Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards.

Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contracts requirements.

Very Low Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas.

Performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, adversely affected overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorable or unfavorable on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii) and (iv)).

PRICE

The evaluated price for the phase-in and the FFP was determined by multiplying the proposed monthly price for the CLIN by the Government quantity identified in the CLIN. The total evaluated price was determined by adding the evaluated price of the phase-in, base effort and all options to include the “Option to Extend Services”. The proposed fully burdened labor rates were evaluated in terms of reasonableness for selection purposes and were not included in the total price.

Description of Services Quantity (Months)

FFP

Monthly

Price

Total Extended

Price Phase-In 2 Base Period: RFESS Support 12 Base T&M CLIN 12 Option Period 1: RFESS Support

Option Period 1: T&M CLIN 12 Option Period 2: RFESS Support

Option Period 2: T&M CLIN 12 Option Period 3: RFESS Support

Option Period 3: T&M CLIN 12 Option Period 4: RFESS Support

Option Period 4: T&M CLIN 12

SEB FINDINGS

ASRC Federal Systems Solutions (AFSS)

Technical Acceptability Volume I AFSS presented sufficient information describing its capability to meet PWS requirements.

The proposal reflected a thorough understanding of the PWS requirements. AFSS’ proposal included a detailed description on how they plan to implement, accomplish and effectively manage the various requirements of the PWS. Overall, Team AFSS’ proposal met the minimum requirements of the PWS and solicitation. Volume I-Technical Acceptability and was therefore determined Technically Acceptable. (PWS 5.0)

The management/staffing approach addressed the proper allocation of resources, strength of corporate support, timely response to NASA’s requirements, adequacy of the organizational structure, and extent of local autonomy. The approach identified processes specifically required to accomplish the requirements and procedures that will be in place for contract compliance.

(DRD-2)

AFSS’ proposed key personnel resumes reflected the ability to perform and manage the complexity of work required in the PWS. (DRD-2)

AFSS’ phase-in plan clearly described working with NASA during contract transition by providing status and situational awareness, without undue burden or reliance on NASA. (DRD- 13)

AFSS demonstrated an understanding of AS9100 and third-party certification requirements.

(PWS 4.3)

The total compensation plan met the requirements of FAR 52.222-46. (DRD-16)

AFSS’ proposal had a list of assumptions. The SEB assessed the list and identified a notable assumption within the DATR System Administration (PWS 5.0):

Finally, WBS 100 DATR System Administration is a new cyber security requirement with no historical data to support the level of support required. To accurately staff this WBS, AFSS makes the following assumptions. (Vol I, Technical Acceptability, Page 2-41) Without a comprehensive appliance inventory AFSS assumes the Vendors have automated management tools. (Vol I, Technical Acceptability, Page 2-41)

The assumption is incorrect and may cause issues in performance.

Past Performance Volume II ASRC Federal Systems Solutions (AFSS) received a “Moderate Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. This rating was based on an overall relevancy rating of “Somewhat Relevant” and an overall quality assessment rating of “Exceptional” past performance.

The past performance submitted by AFSS was considered Somewhat Relevant to size, content, and complexity of the effort described in the PWS and solicitation. The evaluation team reviewed AFSS Past Performance and made an overall determination of the relevancy of current and past contract performance to the requirements of the PWS and solicitation.

AFSS’ past performance volume clearly identified their relationship to the sister company InuTeq and their parent company ASRC Federal. However, AFSS did not clearly demonstrate the meaningful contribution that InuTeq will be making to this follow-on effort with the exception of the transfer of Key Personnel that have specialized experience. The evaluation of Contract 1 NASA RF&ESS quantity, size, content, and complexity reflects this outcome.

AFSS provided two other contracts for review that showed that these companies benefited from using the shared services received from ASRC Federal.

AFSS proposed major subcontractor/team member contracts which were considered in size, content, complexity.

The information obtained was based on the relevant, similar current or past contracts listed by the AFSS in Volume II Past Performance. This assisted the SEB in assessing the quality level of past performance. The SEB used past performance information obtained from the Government-wide CPARS Assessment Reports, past performance questionnaires, and personal knowledge.

The evaluation team reviewed AFSS’ quality of past performance and assigned a Quality Assessment Rating of Exceptional.

Specialized experience gained in the area of RF&ESS quality will be transferred as Key Personnel will be familiar based on their RF&ESS unique experience and because of common quality practices between affiliate companies.

Based on AFSS performance record, there is a Moderate Level of Confidence that AFSS will successfully perform the required effort.

Price The pricing review was conducted to evaluate the price for the phase-in and the firm fixed price by multiplying the proposed monthly price for the CLIN by the Government quantity identified in the CLIN. The total evaluated price was determined by adding the evaluated price of the phase-in, base effort and all options to include the “Option to Extend Services”. Additionally, the proposed fully burdened labor rates were evaluated in terms of reasonableness for selection purposes.

The Contracting Officer verified the application of proposed overtime rates. The responses confirmed the overtime rates were in compliance with regulations.

Chenega Professional & Technical Services, LLC. (CPTS)

Technical Acceptability Volume I The proposal did not present sufficient information to reflect a thorough understanding of the PWS requirement. In Volume I, CPTS frequently provided past experience in lieu of a written technical approach. Overall, Team CPTS proposal did not meet the minimum requirements of the PWS and solicitation. Volume I-Technical Acceptability was therefore determined Technically Unacceptable.

WBS 100, DATR: CPTS did not sufficiently describe its capability to support the PWS requirement, to include operation within the WBS 100 Series General DATR Requirements, video systems, signal processing, play backs, video distribution system, real-time cameras, telemetry, radar systems, radios, recording, Flight Termination Systems/ Enhanced Flight Termination Systems (FTS/EFTS) nor the overall communications system within the WBS areas of 140, 150,160 requirements. (PWS 5.4, 5.5, 5.6)

WBS 200, Simulation: CPTS provided examples from past projects and contracts of task performed that are within the scope of the PWS requirements. Other than an approach that described installing and configuring software, CPTS does not address PWS requirements such as System Administrator’s special requirements of obtaining clearances, specialized training and experience in UNIX, LINUX and MS Windows, and responsibilities for IT security. CPTS is technically unacceptable in the WBS 220 area because it does not provide sufficient detail to give confidence to the SEB that it understands the requirements of the PWS. (PWS 5.7, 5.8)

WBS 300, IT Operations & Maintenance: CPTS did not provide a detailed description of how they will perform the listed web page support PWS requirements for flight projects, special event video, and closed-captioned embedded video. CPTS omits approach to the 508 compliance and forms development support. (PWS 5.9)

Critical and basic requirements were inadequately described in the areas of IT Computer System Administration, IT Computer System Administration Maintenance, Hardware/Software Purchase/License Maintenance Administration, and most critically IT System Security Administration. (PWS 5.10)

CPTS does not provide an approach for the System Security Plan (SSP) requirements. The approach to accomplish this mission critical requirement was not described; cyber security is mentioned only as an element of design techniques and not a critical service area. (PWS 5.13)

CPTS failed to propose an approach to support security cameras, Physical Security Control Center Surveillance Operations. (PWS 5.13)

CPTS does not address the Office of Protective Services (OPS) support services requirement to perform preventative maintenance, maintain and provide technical support pertaining to hardware and software, maintain work logs, inventories, and a searchable electronic archive of completed products. (PWS 5.13)

CPTS Management/Staffing approach lacks sufficient detail and procedures. CPTS lists policies which do not describe how policies will ensure an overall management approach to satisfy the contract requirement. (DRD-2)

CPTS’ proposed Key Personnel whose resumes reflect the ability to perform and manage the complexity of work required in the PWS. (DRD-2)

CPTS’ Phase-In Plan is sufficiently detailed. (DRD-13)

INQU, LLC (INQU)

Technical Acceptability Volume I The proposal did not present sufficient information to reflect a thorough understanding of the PWS requirement. Volume I-Technical Acceptability was therefore determined Technically Unacceptable.

WBS 100, DATR: INQU failed to provide an approach to implement, accomplish, and effectively manage critical PWS requirements: systems engineering support and the DATR information assurance engineering services. INQU did not demonstrate they possess a thorough understanding of how to implement the requirements identified within the PWS. (PWS 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6)

WBS 200, Simulation: INQU did not address the special requirements of LINUX, UNIX or MS Windows training or ISSO responsibilities. This indicated a potential risk that INQU did not fully understand the PWS requirements and may not provide the right skillset for successful contract performance. (PWS 5.7, 5.8)

WBS 300, IT Operations & Maintenance: INQU did not address SharePoint, Jira, and ARMD Flight Data Portal. (PWS 5.8)

INQU’s approach for WBS 330 Data Center and System Administration Services did not address essential PWS requirements for the lab and engineering computers: IT computer system administration and maintenance and IT system security administration. (PWS 5.10)

INQU’s approach for WBS 350 IT Systems Engineering Services did not demonstrate a thorough understanding of cybersecurity PWS requirements such as system security plan (SSP) support, and the development of the processes required to implement the IT Security controls.

(PWS 5.12)

INQU proposed Key Personnel whose resumes reflect the ability to perform and manage the complexity of work required in the PWS. (DRD-2)

INQU’s phase-in plan is sufficiently detailed. (DRD-13)

Total compensation plan met the requirements of FAR 52.222-46. (DRD-16)

Veteran Enterprise Technology Services, LLC (VETS)

Technical Acceptability Volume I VETS proposal included a detailed description of how VETS plans to implement, accomplish and effectively manage the various requirements of the PWS. Volume I-Technical Acceptability was therefore determined Technically Acceptable.

VETS sufficiently described an overall capability to meet requirements identified in the PWS and deliver quality service and products. The proposed methods are acceptable to ensure the quality of deliverables with minimal risk to NASA.

VETS demonstrated a basic understanding of AS9100 certification process and hired a consultant to assist with timely certification. VETS proposed a major subcontractor which is ISO 9001:2015, AS9100:2016, and ISO 27001:2013 certified. (PWS 4.3)

VETS approach to sourcing qualified personnel to maintain a corporate partnership and have qualified candidates ready is an effective method to recruitment and ensures no break in service to NASA. (DRD-2)

VETS phase-in plan clearly described working with NASA during contract transition by providing status and situational awareness, without undue burden or reliance on NASA. (DRD- 13)

The total compensation plan met the requirements of FAR 52.222-46. (DRD-16)

The proposed Key Personnel may increase performance risk due to minimal experience within the specialized areas. (DRD-2)

The Program manager’s management experience is largely within the manufacturing environment with little to no evidence of experience in the flight test ranges, test range, simulation, nor information technology.

The Systems Engineering Manager resume lacks evidence of management experience in applications software development and testing, and systems engineering software integration.

The Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manager for Range Services resume did not reflect experience working or managing flight test ranges.

The Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manager for IT Services resume did not demonstrate experience in managing an IT organization nor working the complexity and span of services within the requirement.

Past Performance Volume II Veteran Enterprise Technology Services, LLC (VETS) received a “Moderate Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. This rating was based on an overall

Relevancy rating of “Somewhat Relevant” and an overall Quality Assessment rating of “Very Good” past performance.

The past performance submitted by VETS was considered Somewhat Relevant to size, content, and complexity of the effort described in the PWS and solicitation. The SEB reviewed VETS Past Performance and made an overall determination of the relevancy of the current and past contract performance to the requirements of the PWS and solicitation.

The information obtained was based on the relevant, similar current or past contracts listed by the VETS in Volume II Past Performance. This assisted the SEB in assessing the quality level of past performance. The SEB used past performance information obtained from the Government-wide CPARS Assessment Reports, past performance questionnaires, and personal knowledge.

The SEB reviewed VETS quality of past performance and assigned a Quality Assessment Rating of Very Good.

Based on VETS’ performance record, there is a Moderate Level of Confidence that VETS will successfully perform the required effort.

Price The pricing review was conducted to evaluate the price for the phase-in and the Firm Fixed Price by multiplying the proposed monthly price for the CLIN by the Government quantity identified in the CLIN. The total evaluated price was determined by adding the evaluated price of the phase-in, base effort and all options to include the “Option to Extend Services”. Additionally, the proposed fully burdened labor rates were evaluated in terms of reasonableness for selection purposes. The Contracting Officer verified the application of proposed over time rates. The responses confirmed the overtime rates were in compliance with regulations.

AFSS’ written technical approach for WBS 100 DATR System Administration (PWS 5.0) addressed the broad range of system administration support that is required. (PWS 5.0 WBS 100)

AFSS’ proposed plans to implement, accomplish, and effectively manage the requirements. AFSS demonstrated a thorough understanding of the IT security requirements and the inherent time constraints of the remediation schedule to be met. (PWS 5.0 WBS 100, PWS 5.10 WBS 330)

AFSS proposed four total system administrators, which resulted in a net increase of two additional positions from the original proposed System Administrator Level II positions. The proposed positions have server-level experience to administer systems in the DATR operations environment. AFSS staffing strategy assumed there are currently no automated methods in place to manage DATR systems. The increase in System Administrator Level II staffing, combined with staffing strategy to support non-automated methods of system administration, increased the probability of successful system administration of the DATR, and mitigated the risk identified in the original proposal evaluation.

(Proposal DRD-2, 2.4.2 Staffing Plan; PWS 5.0 WBS 100)

Past Performance Volume II No changes were made to the Past Performance Volume by AFSS. Therefore, the SEB did not re-evaluate Past Performance Volume and ratings remain unchanged.

ASRC Federal Systems Solutions (AFSS) received a “Moderate Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. This rating was based on an overall Relevancy rating of “Somewhat Relevant” and an overall Quality Assessment rating of “Exceptional” past performance.

Price The pricing review was conducted to evaluate the price for the phase-in and the firm fixed price by multiplying the proposed monthly price for the CLIN by the Government quantity identified in the CLIN. The total evaluated price was determined by adding the evaluated price of the phase-in, base effort and all options to include the “Option to Extend Services”. Additionally, the proposed fully burdened labor rates were evaluated in terms of reasonableness for selection purposes.

Veteran Enterprise Technology Services, LLC (VETS)

Technical Acceptability Volume I Overall, the final proposed revised key personnel resumes demonstrated management experience which reduced risk to an acceptable level. The updated resumes reflect the ability to perform and manage the complexity of the work required in the PWS.

Program Manager resume showed some evidence of knowledge of flight test operations involving ground-based equipment, demonstrates experience in managing teams developing simulation and IT systems. The updated resume reflected the ability to perform and manage the complexity of the work required in the PWS. The revised resume reduced risk to an acceptable level.

Systems Engineering Manager resume reflected multiple years’ experience in software development. The resume stated that Systems Engineering Manager has over ten years of management experience however, the resume lacked supporting evidence. Overall, the System Engineer Manager’s resume reflected the ability to perform and manage the complexity of the work required within the PWS. The revised resume management experience reduced risk to an acceptable level.

VETS’ proposed Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manager for Range Services key personnel resume reflected the ability to perform and manage the complexity of the work. The new candidate resume for the O&M Range Manager Key Personnel has experience with LMR and RF voice communications systems, data distribution networks, data processing, data recording systems, maintenance of encryption device configurations and performance of vulnerability scans on classified systems. The new candidate resume showed experience in understanding general concepts of operations and maintenance.

The new candidate resume lacked operations and maintenance experience in (WBS 150) radar and telemetry assets, both are primary assets used at AFRC to support research missions. With engineering manager experience, candidate can learn from team about (WBS 150) radar and telemetry assets. Experience in supporting tactical training operations in a range reduces performance. The experience of the new candidate reduces risk to an acceptable level.

VETS’ proposed Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manager for IT Services key personnel resume minimally reflected the ability to perform and manage the complexity of the work required under the RF&ESS contract. The resume for the O&M Manager – IT demonstrated minimal experience managing an IT organization, and experience with the breadth and complexity of services within the PWS. The majority of the experience listed was procedural, strategic, roadmaps, or compliance. The FPR for the O&M Manager for IT Services did not further mitigate the risk identified in the original proposal.

Past Performance Volume II No changes were made to the Past Performance Volume by VETS. Therefore, the SEB did not re-evaluate Past Performance Volume and ratings remain unchanged.

Veteran Enterprise Technology Services, LLC (VETS) received a “Moderate Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. This rating was based on an overall Relevancy rating of “Somewhat Relevant” and an overall Quality Assessment rating of “Very Good” past performance.

Price The pricing review was conducted to evaluate the price for the phase-in and the firm fixed price by multiplying the proposed monthly price for the CLIN by the Government quantity identified in the CLIN. The total evaluated price was determined by adding the evaluated price of the phase-in, base effort and all options to include the “Option to Extend Services”. Additionally, the proposed fully burdened labor rates were evaluated in terms of reasonableness for selection purposes.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

The evaluation was conducted as a competitive Price Performance Trade-Off best value source selection where all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, were significantly more important than price. The SEB evaluated each proposal using the following factors as defined in the solicitation:

1. Technical Acceptability

2. Past Performance

3. Price

On August 18, 2020, the SEB presented the results of their evaluation to me, as the Source Selection Authority for the Research Facilities & Engineering Support Services acquisition.

Following the SEB presentation Executive discussions were held to further discuss SEB concerns. On August 18, 2020 in accordance with FAR 15.306(c), the Contracting Officer established a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals. Notifications of Inclusion and Exclusion in the Competitive Range were sent to the Offerors on August 25, 2020.

On September 22, 2020 the SEB presented the FPR results. Following the SEB presentation, I confirmed the process was consensus-based and each member concurred with the assessment contained in the briefing. I reviewed the detailed assessment of the SEB. The assessment presented supported the technical and past performance confidence ratings of each Offeror. I accepted the assessment in their entirety. Assessments for each technically acceptable offer were as follows:

ASRC Federal System Solutions (Team AFSS) ASRC Federal Systems Solutions (Team AFSS) provided a technical approach sufficient to reflect a thorough understanding of the PWS requirements. Team AFSS proposal included a detailed description of how Team AFSS plans to implement, accomplish and effectively manage the various requirements of the PWS. Team AFSS provided enough information for the SEB to determine that Team AFSS has the ability to implement and accomplish the requirements. Team AFSS sufficiently described an overall capability to meet requirements identified in the PWS and deliver quality service and products. Team AFSS proposal included approaches which were innovative, cost effective, and efficient. The methods ensured the quality of deliverables with minimal risk to the NASA.

Team AFSS demonstrated an understanding of AS9100 and third-party certification requirements. Team AFSS stated that they meet DD Form 254 secret facility requirements which mitigates risk of contract non-performance. Team AFSS utilizes a DCMA-approved purchasing system. (PWS 4.3, 4.4, 4.8)

The proposal described an approach for accomplishing WBS 100 Series General DATR Requirement.

Proposal approach to DATR operation and maintenance was identified in a workflow that demonstrated understanding of PWS requirements and how quality deliverables would be obtained with minimal risk to NASA. Proposal technical approach supported AFRC systems and software engineering processes.

Approach included writing plans to improve software performance and/or accuracy. Team AFSS provided detailed descriptions on their approach to accomplish real-time and post flight engineering and operations, weekly backups, an online list of assets, and personnel training. (PWS 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6)

AFSS’ proposal had a list of assumptions. The SEB assessed the list and identified a notable assumption within the DATR System Administration (PWS 5.0):

Finally, WBS 100 DATR System Administration is a new cyber security requirement with no historical data to support the level of support required. To accurately staff this WBS, AFSS makes the following assumptions. (Vol I, Technical Acceptability, Page 2-41)

Without a comprehensive appliance inventory AFSS assumes the vendors have automated management tools. (Vol I, Technical Acceptability, Page 2-41)

The assumption is incorrect and may cause issues in performance.

The notification of Inclusion of the Competitive Range addressed the above assumption. The results of the FPR evaluation were:

AFSS acknowledged that the system administration tasks for the DATR systems are not automated. AFSS incorporated the definition of “appliance” which was consistent with NASA AFRC’s definition and mitigated performance risk.

AFSS’ written technical approach for WBS 100 DATR System Administration (PWS 5.0) addressed the broad range of system administration support that is required. (PWS 5.0 WBS 100)

AFSS’ proposed plans to implement, accomplish, and effectively manage the requirements. AFSS demonstrated a thorough understanding of the IT Security requirements and the inherent time constraints of the remediation schedule to be met. (PWS 5.0 WBS 100, PWS 5.10 WBS 330)

AFSS’ proposed four total system administrators, which resulted in a net increase of two additional positions from the original proposed System Administrator Level II positions. The proposed positions have server-level experience to administer systems in the DATR operations environment. AFSS staffing strategy assumed there are currently no automated methods in place to manage DATR systems. The increase in System Administrator Level II staffing, combined with staffing strategy to support non-automated methods of system administration, increased the probability of successful system administration of the DATR, and mitigated the risk identified in original proposal evaluation. (Proposal DRD-2, 2.4.2 Staffing Plan; WBS 5.0)

Team AFSS adequately addressed the PWS sections that cover Simulation Laboratory. Team AFSS’ approach demonstrated an understanding of the requirements for CAD support, maintaining necessary documentation and drawings for configuration management, and 3D graphics modeling. Team AFSS proposed a “Linux Center of Excellence” comprised of a group of Subject Matter Experts (SME) which reduces risk of interruption of services due to multiple resources available to meet the requirements. (PWS 5.7, 5.8)

Team AFSS demonstrated a thorough understanding of application development, database programming, web design and maintenance, and centralized information technology engineering support services. Team AFSS’ approach responded to short term absences and surge to support Jira and SharePoint. Team AFSS proposed an upgrade to the SharePoint environment giving AFRC cost savings while reducing the on-premise infrastructure. Team AFSS demonstrated knowledge of work distribution and level of complexity associated with the AFRC IT environment. The approach showed a thorough understanding of the PWS and increased probability of successful contract performance. Team AFSS met the minimum service desk and business support requirement. (PWS 5.9,5.10,5.11, 5.12)

Team AFSS provided an approach to Administrative and In-Flight photography services demonstrating an understanding of the PWS requirements. Team AFSS proposed a team that is recognized in flight test industry to include air-to-air photography and special events. Team AFSS demonstrated an understanding that video formats emerge quickly and will require knowledge for the emerging new platforms. Team AFSS understood property management requirements necessary for high-value assets in this functional area. (PWS 5.14, 5.15)

Team AFSS demonstrated a good approach to implement and accomplish safety program requirements.

The individual proposed for this area is a seasoned safety professional. Team AFSS’ approach to facility management showed a thorough understanding of the PWS requirement. Team AFSS’ approach to facilities management inspection/audit requirement demonstrated their awareness to unique procurement requirements associated with federal construction work. This demonstrated high probability of contract compliance, mitigating the risk of fines and litigation which would ultimately impact NASA. (PWS 5.17)

Team AFSS provided a management/staffing approach to accomplish the PWS requirements. The approach addressed the proper allocation of resources, strength of corporate support, timely response to NASA’s requirements, adequacy of the organizational structure, and extent of local autonomy. The approach identified processes specifically required to accomplish the requirements and procedures that will be in place for contract compliance. Team AFSS’ approach provided qualified staff in a timely manner and understands the difficulties of hiring skilled staffing in a competitive and geographically remote area.

(DRD-2)

Team AFSS proposed key personnel whose resumes reflect the ability to perform and manage the complexity of work required in the PWS. Team AFSS management/staffing plan clearly stated that U.S.

Citizenship will be required for 100% of the contract. Team AFSS provided a detailed preliminary analysis of Potential Conflicts of Interest (COI) to include NASA GSFC, KSC, and Headquarters which resulted in no COI issues for this requirement. (DRD-2)

Team AFSS’ phase-in plan clearly described working with NASA during contract transition by providing status and situational awareness, without undue burden of reliance on NASA. This reduced risk to contract transition and enhanced the potential for successful contract performance. The proposed phase-in team’s experience with similar contract transitions from CPAF to FFP reduces the risk to NASA. AFSS’ approach to phase-in demonstrated a clear understanding of the top risks and risk mitigation methods. (DRD-13)

AFSS demonstrated a suitable approach to attract and retain qualified personnel to meet mission objectives.

The total compensation plan proposed salaries and fringe benefits which were acceptable. (DRD-16)

Technical Acceptability, Volume I Overall, AFSS proposal met the minimum requirements of the solicitation and PWS. Therefore, I determine Volume I- to be “Technically Acceptable.”

Veteran Enterprise Technology Services, LLC (VETS) Veteran Enterprise Technology Services, LLC (VETS) provided a technical approach sufficient to reflect an understanding of the PWS requirements. VETS proposal included a detailed description of how VETS plans to implement, accomplish and effectively manage the various requirements of the PWS. VETS sufficiently described an overall capability to meet requirements identified in the PWS and deliver quality service and products. The proposed methods were acceptable to ensure the quality of deliverables with minimal risk to NASA.

VETS demonstrated a basic understanding of the AS9100 certification process and has retained a third-party to assist with timely certification. The VETS proposed subcontractor is ISO 9001:2015, AS9100:2016, and ISO 27001:2013 certified.

VETS proposed an accounting system which is DCAA approved and will sufficiently support RF&ESS requirements for program reporting and subcontract management. VETS provided a plan to obtain a government approved purchasing system.

VETS demonstrated that they understand the requirements of WBS 100 Series. VETS described how to implement, accomplish, and effectively manage the WBS 110 Systems Engineering requirements and DATR Information Assurance Engineering (IAE) requirements. Described using Kanban to manage tasks, using Agile to develop software, using DevSecOps to develop systems. Proposed to accomplish WBS 110 DATR Information Assurance Engineering (IAE) requirements using ITSE (IT Systems Engineers) from WBS 350. VETS demonstrated an understanding of the importance of cross training of WBS 130,140,150 and 160 employees to ensure a correct mix of qualified personnel to complete the DATR mission. They presented a method of ensuring that work performed by WBS 120 is tracked and approved without impacting real time missions. VETS showed that they understood the mobile system requirement of WBS 150 as well as the LMR requirements of the contract. (PWS 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6)

The VETS team presented a written technical approach which sufficiently describes its plan to meet the PWS WBS 200 requirements. The proposal described an acceptable approach for providing graphics modeling, CAD design, drawings, and documentation for AFRC’s simulation labs. Their proposal described an approach to provide systems administration and computer buildup services to support simulation activities. The VETS team approach would provide NASA with the services it needs with minimal to no risk. (PWS 5.7, 5.8)

Plans for WBS 310 Applications Development and Operational Support Services (PWS 5.9) addressed PWS requirements. The approach utilized the iterative, incremental aspects of Kanban for an application development project which decrease the risk of re-work and increases the likelihood of customer satisfaction at completion.

An understanding of the PWS requirements is possessed by VETS. The plans for WBS 350 IT Systems Engineering Services (PWS 5.12) demonstrated a thorough understanding of the requirement to provide project offices with the IT security expertise and would ensure quality cybersecurity services with minimal risk to NASA. The approach provided support for solution design, assessment and accreditation, and system security plans.

The proposed key personnel may increase performance risk due to minimal experience within the specialized areas. (DRD-2)

The notification of Inclusion of the Competitive Range addressed the Key Personnel concerns and the results of the FPR evaluation are:

Overall, the final proposed revised key personnel resumes demonstrated management experience which reduced risk to an acceptable level. The updated resumes reflect the ability to perform and manage the complexity of the work required in the PWS.

Program Manager resume showed some evidence of knowledge of flight test operations involving ground-based equipment, demonstrates experience in managing teams developing simulation and IT systems. The updated resume reflected the ability to perform and manage the complexity of the work required in the PWS. The revised resume reduced risk to an acceptable level.

Systems Engineering Manager resume reflected multiple years’ experience in software development. The resume stated that Systems Engineering Manager has over ten years of management experience however, the resume lacked supporting evidence. Overall, the System Engineer Manager’s resume reflected the ability to perform and manage the complexity of the work required within the PWS. The revised resume management experience reduced risk to an acceptable level.

VETS proposed Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manager for Range Services key personnel resume reflected the ability to perform and manage the complexity of the work.

The new candidate resume for the O&M Range Manager Key Personnel has experience with LMR and RF voice communications systems, data distribution networks, data processing, data recording systems, maintenance of encryption device configurations and performance of vulnerability scans on classified systems. The new candidate resume showed experience in understanding general concepts of operations and maintenance.

The new candidate resume lacked operations and maintenance experience in (WBS 150) radar and telemetry assets, both are primary assets used at AFRC to support research missions. With engineering manager experience, candidate can learn from team about (WBS 150) radar and telemetry assets. Experience in supporting tactical training operations in a range reduces performance risk due to minimal experience within the specialized areas. The experience of the new candidate reduces risk to an acceptable level.

VETS’ proposed Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manager for IT Services key personnel resume minimally reflects the ability to perform and manage the complexity of the work required under the RF&ESS contract. The resume for the O&M Manager – IT demonstrates minimal experience managing an IT organization, and working the breadth and complexity of services within the PWS. The majority of the experience listed is procedural, strategic, roadmaps, or compliance. The Final Proposal Revision for the O&M Manager for IT Services did not further mitigate the identified risk.

VETS management approach included a subcontractor which it has a pre-established teaming business relationship, reducing risks associated with a new teaming relationship. VETS staffing approach was acceptable, with some risk in the area of key personnel. (DRD-2)

VETS proposed an overall total compensation plan which considers industry pay indexes, allows employees to accrue paid time off at start of employment and provides 401(k) benefits. VETS’ TCP reflects an acceptable management approach to recruit and retain high-quality employees and provide uninterrupted service, with some risk. (DRD-16)

VETS phase-in plan clearly described working with NASA during contract transition by providing status and situational awareness, without undue burden of reliance on NASA. This reduced risk to contract transition and enhances the potential for successful contract performance. (DRD-13)

Overall, Team VETS proposal meets the minimum requirements of the PWS and solicitation.

Volume I-Technical Acceptability was therefore determined Technically Acceptable.

Technical Acceptability, Volume I Overall, VETS’ proposal met the minimum requirements of the solicitation and PWS.

Therefore, I determine Volume I- to be “Technically Acceptable.”

Past Performance Volume II ASRC Federal System Solutions (Team AFSS) ASRC Federal Systems Solutions (AFSS) received a “Moderate Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. This rating was based on an overall Relevancy rating of “Somewhat Relevant” and an overall Quality Assessment rating of “Exceptional” past performance.

The past performance submitted by AFSS was considered Somewhat Relevant to size, content, and complexity of the effort described in the PWS and solicitation. The evaluation team reviewed AFSS Past Performance and made an overall determination of the relevancy of the current and past contract performance to the requirements of the PWS and solicitation.

AFSS past performance volume clearly identified their relationship to the sister company InuTeq and their parent company ASRC Federal. However, AFSS did not clearly demonstrate the meaningful contribution that InuTeq will make to this follow-on effort with the exception of the transfer of key personnel that have specialized experience. The evaluation of Contract 1 NASA RF&ESS quantity, size, content, and complexity reflects this outcome.

AFSS provided two other contracts for review that showed that these companies benefited from using the shared services received from ASRC Federal.

AFSS proposed major subcontractor/team member contracts which were considered in size, content, and complexity.

The information obtained was based on the relevant, similar current or past contracts listed by the AFSS in Volume II Past Performance. This assisted the SEB in assessing the quality level of past performance. The SEB used past performance information obtained from the Government-wide CPARS Assessment Reports, past performance questionnaires, and personal knowledge.

The evaluation team reviewed AFSS’ quality of past performance and assigned a Quality Assessment Rating of Exceptional.

Specialized experience gained in the area of RF&ESS quality will be transferred as key personnel will be familiar based on their RF&ESS unique experience and because of common quality practices between affiliate companies.

Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a Moderate Level of Confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Past Performance I concur with the overall Past Performance Confidence Rating of “Moderate Level of Confidence.”

Veteran Enterprise Technology Services, LLC (VETS) Veteran Enterprise Technology Services, LLC (VETS) received a “Moderate Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. This rating was based on an overall Relevancy rating of “Somewhat Relevant” and an overall Quality Assessment rating of “Very Good” past performance.

The past performance submitted by VETS was considered Somewhat Relevant to size, content, and complexity of the effort described in the PWS and solicitation. The evaluation team reviewed VETS Past Performance and made an overall determination of the relevancy of the current and past contract performance to the requirements of the PWS and solicitation.

The information obtained was based on the relevant, similar current or past contracts listed by the VETS in Volume II Past Performance. This assisted the SEB in assessing the quality level of past performance. The SEB used past performance information obtained from the Government-wide CPARS Assessment Reports, past performance questionnaires, and personal knowledge.

The evaluation team reviewed VETS quality of past performance and assign a Quality Assessment…