Source Selection Statement.pdf

Source Selection Statement X-59 Community Response Testing

Request For Proposal: 80LARC20R0004

On April 15, 2021, the Source Evaluation Team (SET) for the X-59 Community Response Testing (CRT) procurement presented its findings to me in a formal source selection briefing.

Procurement History

The X-59 CRT contract is for planning and execution of large-scale surveys of community response to low sonic boom utilizing the X-59 Quiet Supersonic Technology Aircraft. The scope of this contract includes community survey methods, noise exposure planning and estimation, and acoustical and meteorological data collection and analysis across a large geographical area.

Market research was conducted in order to determine the level of existing small business capabilities. A sources sought synopsis was issued on June 7, 2019, seeking capability statements from potential sources under North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 541715, Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences, with a size standard of 1,000 employees. Based on the responses received, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Small Business Specialist, determined there was not a reasonable expectation that offers would be received from at least two responsible small business concerns to allow the procurement to be conducted as a total small business set-aside. Therefore, the decision was made to conduct the X-59 CRT procurement as a full and open competition utilizing the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Part 1815.

On August 12, 2019, the Source Evaluation Team (SET) was appointed by me for the purpose of evaluating proposals received in response to the solicitation. A Procurement Strategy Meeting was held on March 23, 2020, and the procurement strategy was subsequently approved. A Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued on May 15, 2020, to obtain comments from industry.

The Final RFP was released on July 1, 2020, followed by a Pre-Proposal Conference held on July 9, 2020. Two amendments were issued to the RFP to respond to questions received from potential Offerors and to revise the solicitation as a result of the questions received.

The X-59 CRT procurement was solicited as a single-award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. The period of performance will be eight (8) years, with task orders being issued on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis for the community test planning phase and for the test execution phase. The maximum IDIQ contract value for the total period of performance is $29M.

Timely proposals were received from the following companies by the due date of August 14, 2020:

General Dynamics – Applied Physical Sciences Corporation (APS) Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc. (HMMH)

Evaluation Factors

The appointed SET conducted an evaluation of proposals received in response to the solicitation.

The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the evaluation factors and instructions set forth in the solicitation. The RFP set forth the following three evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Mission Suitability

Subfactor 1: Understanding the Requirement and Technical Approach (URTA) Subfactor 2: Management Subfactor 3: Small Business Utilization (SBU)

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

The RFP stated award would be made to the Offeror that is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, whose proposals conforms to the solicitation requirements, and is determined, by the Source Selection Authority’s (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 provided that award could be made without discussions. Each evaluation factor was considered approximately equal in importance, and in accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, were significantly more important than Cost/Price.

Factor 1 – Mission Suitability

The RFP stated Volume I – Technical/Mission Suitability Proposal Factor 1, Mission Suitability, would be evaluated based on a 1,000 point scale. The Mission Suitability Subfactors and their relative weights are provided below. The areas under each Subfactor were evaluated, but not separately rated or scored.

Subfactor 1: Understanding the Requirement and Technical Approach (URTA) - 450 points

1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to data collection and integration, including specific tools and techniques, to perform the SOW requirements as identified in a)

– f) below, to support two (2) community tests per year.

a) Planning Stage 1.1.1 (Noise Exposure Planning)

b) Planning Stage 1.1.4 (Survey Data Processing and Analysis)

c) Planning Stage 1.1.9 (Combining Post-flight Noise Exposure Data and Matching to Survey Data)

d) Execution Stage 1.2.3 (Community Survey)

e) Execution Stage 1.2.4 (Noise Exposure Estimation)

f) Execution Stage 1.2.5 (Data Analysis from Each Community Test)

2. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for surge capability to perform the SOW requirements identified below to support three (3) community tests per year.

a) Execution Stage 1.2.3 (Community Survey)

b) Execution Stage 1.2.4 (Noise Exposure Estimation)

c) Execution Stage 1.2.5 (Data Analysis from Each Community Test)

Subfactor 2: Management - 450 points

Approach for Managing the Contract - The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for efficiently and effectively managing the contract requirements, including subcontract management. This evaluation shall consider at a minimum the Offeror’s:

a) Management approach, including recognition of essential management functions, challenges, organizational structure, and overall project integration

b) Approach to managing multiple teams, including identification of the full proposed contractor team and corresponding skillsets, how they will be retained, and the approach to management of multiple geographically dispersed teams

c) Identification of significant risks, approach to managing the risks and adapting to changes throughout the life of the contract, such as potential acceleration or delay of task order or project milestones

Subfactor 3: Small Business Utilization (SBU) - 100 points

a) Small Business Subcontracting Plan (applicable to other than small businesses)

NASA will evaluate the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan required to be submitted in this volume in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DEVIATION) - Alternate II and FAR 19.704 Subcontracting Plan Requirements. NASA will consider the amount of work being retained for performance by the prime contractor in-house when determining whether a subcontracting plan is acceptable. The evaluation of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be on the basis of the maximum IDIQ value (i.e., $29,000,000).

b) Since small businesses are not required to submit subcontracting plans, NASA will only evaluate the amount of work proposed to be performed by the small business prime and any small business at the first-tier subcontract level.

c) Commitment to Small Businesses

(1) NASA will evaluate the work that will be performed by small businesses, including the extent to which any work performed by a small business subcontractor(s) is identified as “high tech.”

(2) NASA will evaluate the extent to which the identity of the small business subcontractor is specified in the proposal. NASA will also evaluate the extent of commitment to use the subcontractor(s) (enforceable vs. non-enforceable commitments, letters of commitment, etc.).

For small business Offerors, NASA will evaluate this only if subcontracting opportunities exist.

(3) NASA will evaluate the Offeror’s extent of commitment to utilize small business concerns and to support their development. Evaluation will include the description of established or planned procedures and organizational structure for small business outreach, assistance, participation in the Mentor Protégé program, counseling, market research and small business identification, and relevant purchasing procedures.

The RFP also stated the adjectival and numerical ratings from NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305(a)(3)(A) will be used in the evaluation of the Mission Suitability Factor. In addition, the SET used the definitions for classification of the Mission Suitability findings (strengths, weaknesses, etc.) as identified in the RFP.

Factor 2 – Past Performance

The RFP Section M.6 Volume II – Past Performance Factor stated the evaluation of past performance will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), NFS 1815.305(a)(2), and the solicitation. Under the Past Performance Factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s recent and relevant record of performance (including the record of significant subcontractors) of work similar in content, size, and complexity to the requirements of this acquisition. The RFP defined a “significant subcontractor” as a subcontractor proposed to perform greater than or equal to $500,000 on the Planning Stage task order (SOW 1.1). The evaluation of past performance will not consider the performance of individuals who are proposed to be involved in the proposed work. The RFP further stated as part of the past performance evaluation, the Government may attribute the past performance of a parent or affiliated or predecessor company (including Joint Venture prime partner companies and/or a parent or affiliated company that is being otherwise proposed as a subcontractor on this effort) to the proposed prime contractor and/or significant subcontractor(s) where the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company will affect the performance of the proposed prime contractor and/or significant subcontractor(s). The Government will take into consideration whether the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company (e.g. its workforce, management, facilities) are proposed to be provided and/or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, see “Neutral” definition NFS 1815.305(a)(2).

The RFP stated all past performance references (contracts) must meet the “recency” and “relevancy/pertinence” requirements of the solicitation to be considered. The Government will assess the information provided for each of the referenced contracts to determine its recency. If the contract is deemed recent, the Government will then determine its relevance/pertinence based on content, size, and complexity. At any time during the evaluation, references that do not meet the recency and/or relevance/pertinence (at all) requirements will not be considered.

The RFP stated Past Performance will be assessed to arrive at a Level of Confidence rating as set forth in NFS 1815.305. Further, each confidence rating has a "pertinence" component and "performance" component. The Offeror must meet the requirements of both components to achieve a particular confidence rating and the lowest-rated component is the highest confidence rating that can be assigned. The term “pertinence”, as used in NFS 1815.305, is used interchangeably with the word “relevance” in the solicitation.

Pertinence Component: In assessing pertinence , the RFP stated the Government will consider the degree of similarity of work performed in terms of content, size, and complexity of each relevant contract of the prime and each significant subcontractor considering the amount and type of work each entity is proposed to perform to the requirements in the solicitation, as well as the recency and duration of the past performance. In addition, the RFP stated the Government will consider the Offeror’s work performance table for which teaming partner (e.g. prime, JV member, significant subcontractor) will perform in the technical performance areas and the percentage of work each will perform.

Based on the Government’s evaluation, a pertinence rating will be assigned as follows: Very Highly Pertinent (VHP), Highly Pertinent (HP), Pertinent (P), Somewhat Pertinent (SP), Not Pertinent (NP), or Did Not Address (DNA).

Performance Component: In assessing performance , the RFP stated the Government will assess the Offeror's performance record for each contract reference. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance record for demonstrated experience in the technical performance areas for the work each entity is proposed to perform. The RFP further stated the performance assessment will be based primarily on, but not limited to, past performance evaluation input provided through customer Past Performance Questionnaires and/or interviews, and other references, if any, that the Government may contact for additional past performance information, and Government databases (e.g., CPARS/PPIRS). Isolated or infrequent problems that were not severe or persistent, and for which the Offeror took immediate and appropriate corrective action, may not reduce the Offeror's confidence rating. On the other hand, confidence ratings will be reduced when problems were within the Contractor's control and were significant, persistent, or frequent, or when there is a pattern of problems or a negative trend of performance.

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

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

The Government may review and consider past performance information on other contracts and/or sources that it is aware of or that are made available from other sources and inquiries with previous customers. These contracts, if any, must meet the “recency” and “relevancy/pertinence” requirements of the solicitation to be considered.

Past Performance Factor Confidence Rating: The Past Performance factor is not numerically weighted or scored. The RFP stated the Government will assign a confidence rating in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2).

Factor 3 – Cost/Price

The RFP Section M.7 Volume III – Cost/Price stated that in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), the Government will conduct a price analysis by evaluating the prices proposed in response to the solicitation. Specifically, the evaluations will include, but are not limited to, comparing the prices proposed by all Offerors in response to the solicitation, comparing the proposed prices to historical prices for the same or similar research services purchased by the Government, and comparing the proposed prices to the independent Government cost estimate.

The RFP stated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), the Government will conduct 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 are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. The Government will derive a probable cost, which is determined by adjusting each Offeror’s proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analyses performed. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of each Offeror’s proposal based on the Offeror’s technical approach. In addition, a lack of resource realism may adversely affect the Offeror's Mission Suitability score.

The RFP stated the Government’s derived probable cost for the Planning Stage Task Order #1 (Attachment L-1, Cost Form 1) will serve as the basis for the SSA’s integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria and selection of the best value proposal for award. In addition, the Government will review the Form 2, IDIQ Schedule of Estimated Labor Rates, for price reasonableness and consistency in pricing for the Planning Stage TO #1 as well as reasonableness of estimated labor rates proposed for the Planning and Execution Stage.

The RFP also stated the Offeror’s Total Compensation Plan will be evaluated in accordance with NFS 1852.231-71, Determination of Compensation Reasonableness, and FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees to include compensation plans for significant subcontractors. In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, realism of the Offeror’s total compensation plan will be evaluated. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, may adversely impact the Offeror’s Mission Suitability score or may result in rejection of the proposal.

Evaluation Procedures

The evaluation of proposals was conducted in accordance with Section M of the RFP. The SET conducted an initial review of each Technical Proposal (Volume I) and Past Performance Proposal (Volume II), and the Cost/Price Analyst reviewed the Cost/Price Proposal (Volume III) to determine if any were unacceptable proposals as defined in NASA FAR Supplement 1815.305-70. The Contract Specialist reviewed the Business Proposal (Volume IV), model contract, applicable terms and conditions, and Representations and Certifications for each Offeror. Both proposals were found to be acceptable and warranted a full evaluation.

Factor 1 – Mission Suitability - The SET members performed a detailed individual review of each of the Offerors’ Technical Proposal Volume and documented strengths and weaknesses for each Mission Suitability Subfactor. The SET consultants also independently reviewed specific areas of each proposal relevant to the factor for which they possess subject matter expertise and provided input to the SET voting members for consideration. After completion of the individual evaluations for each subfactor, the SET convened to discuss individual findings and to develop consensus on strengths and weaknesses for each of the Offerors. The SET then reviewed the findings for each Offeror to ensure that all proposals were evaluated consistently and objectively.

Upon completion of the evaluation of all subfactors for both Offerors, the SET assigned adjectival ratings and percentage scores to each subfactor based on the consensus findings, calculating a point score for each subfactor by multiplying the assigned percentage score and the available points, then summing the subfactor point scores to derive the overall Mission Suitability point score in accordance with NFS 1815.305.

Factor 2 – Past Performance - Under the Past Performance Factor, the SET evaluated the Offerors’ recent and relevant record of performance (including the record of significant subcontractors) of work similar in content, size, and complexity to the requirements of this acquisition. This included a detailed individual review of each Offeror’s Past Performance Proposal Volume, feedback received from customer interviews, and performance records from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

In assessing recency, the SET evaluated past performance references with ongoing performance or performance that had completed within the past five (5) years (from the date of RFP issuance).

In assessing pertinence, the SET considered the degree of similarity of work performed in terms of content, size, and complexity of each relevant contract of the prime and each significant subcontractor considering the amount and type of work each entity is proposed to perform to the requirements in the solicitation, as well as the recency and duration of the past performance. For determining content pertinence, the SET evaluated references based on the relevant experience in the technical performance areas (SOW areas) listed in RFP Section L.20(c)(13). To evaluate size pertinence, the SET compared the Offeror’s referenced contracts/task orders for similarity in size to the average annual value stated in the RFP. The RFP stated to be considered at least “Somewhat Pertinent”, the contract reference of the entity proposed to perform the technical performance area must meet or exceed an average annual price or cost/fee of $300,000. To assess complexity, the SET considered relevance in terms of performance challenges and risk experienced under the contract reference compared to the complexities of the technical performance area(s) the entity is proposed to perform. The SET then assigned an overall pertinence rating for each Offeror based on an integrated assessment of the size, content, and complexity ratings for each Offeror.

In assessing performance, the SET evaluated each Offeror's overall performance record for demonstrated experience in the technical performance areas listed in RFP Section L.20(c)(13) for the work each firm is proposed to perform. The SET’s evaluation considered the information provided in each Offeror’s Past Performance Proposal Volume, feedback from interviews conducted, and CPARS reports, when available.

The SET then reviewed each Offerors’ pertinence and performance ratings and assigned an overall past performance level of confidence using the definitions in NFS 1815.305(a)(2).

Factor 3 – Cost/Price - The SET reviewed each Offeror’s Cost/Price Proposal Volume to determine whether the costs proposed were reasonable, realistic, and consistent with the technical approach. The SET provided the results of its review to the NASA Cost/Price Analyst who incorporated the results into the detailed analysis of each Offeror’s cost proposals.

Evaluation Findings

The SET’s initial evaluation found that additional Technical and Cost/Price information was needed from each of the Offerors in order to complete the evaluation. In accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Contracting Officer (CO) determined that based on the SET’s initial evaluation, award without discussions could not be made. As discussions were deemed necessary, a competitive range consisting of both highly rated proposals was established in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). The SET briefed me on December 17, 2020, regarding the competitive range determination, and I agreed with the CO that discussions needed to be held in order to allow the Offerors to address weaknesses identified during the initial evaluation. Two rounds of discussions were held with the Offerors; discussions were opened January 22, 2021, and closed March 17, 2021. Final Proposal Revisions were requested on March 18, 2021, with a response date of March 25, 2021. The integrated evaluation of both proposals, to include the information received during discussions and final proposal revisions, is documented below.

Factor 1 – Mission Suitability

Set forth below is a summary of the Mission Suitability findings for the Offerors.

APS

APS received a Mission Suitability score of 737. APS’s evaluation includes one significant strength and eight strengths. A summary of APS’s Mission Suitability findings is provided below.

Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirement and Technical Approach (URTA)

APS received an adjectival rating of Good for Subfactor 1.

APS received a strength for its approach to develop a baseline noise exposure schedule (SOW 1.1.1.1), which reflects a thorough understanding of the requirement and an ability to perform as proposed. The approach considers how to avoid several specifically identified undesirable factors. The avoidance of these factors when developing a baseline noise exposure schedule improves the efficiency of survey data collection, increasing the likelihood that flight passes will yield useable survey data.

APS received a strength for its approach for survey data processing and analysis (SOW 1.1.4), which employs a highly effective method to prevent duplicate survey records. The specified approach simplifies single-event survey data processing and analysis. Controlling the survey timeframe leads to a more robust and usable dataset by reducing ambiguity in association of responses with specific booms.

APS received a strength for its approach to execute community surveys (SOW 1.2.3) and minimize attrition of survey participants through specified incentives and recruiting approaches.

These practices will enhance the recruitment and retention of survey participants, encourage more survey responses from each participant, and potentially provide cost savings (if fewer participants are needed).

APS received a strength for its very effective measurements-based approach to identifying specific Ground Recording System (GRS) locations, which includes a favorable process for conducting ambient noise measurements (SOW 1.2.4). The approach mitigates the risk associated with low signal-to-noise-ratio.

APS received a strength for its approach to surge capability data storage. This approach enables a deployment surge as needed without advance commitment of additional resources.

Incorporation of this data storage capability would be an efficient use of resources for a deployment surge.

APS also received a strength for its approach to surge capability, which identified a workforce control strategy during a surge. Incorporation of this additional workforce strategy would be an efficient and cost-effective use of resources for a deployment surge, since they will be engaged only when needed.

Subfactor 2, Management

APS received an adjectival rating of Very Good for Subfactor 2.

APS received a significant strength for its identification of significant risks, which reflects a clear understanding of significant project risks and proposes viable approaches to manage and mitigate these risks throughout the planning and execution stages. In particular, APS recognizes key risks associated with: interaction between CRT and GRS contractors, uncontrollable factors that influence noise exposure, non-responses to low booms, dose measurement uncertainty, high respondent burden, a surge capability, and management of geographically dispersed teams.

APS's identification of these relevant and significant risks demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of project challenges; its proactive development of viable mitigations will greatly help ensure mission success.

APS received a strength for its management approach, which includes a review board process to provide technical direction and guidance. APS’s proposed review process increases the likelihood of project success by managing risk, providing technical guidance to the contractor team, and addressing concerns early.

Finally, APS received a strength for its approach to managing the contract, which identifies top-level planning factors to guide the contractor team's strategy. APS's identification of top-level planning factors demonstrates a recognition of overall program objectives, which will help prioritize key deliverables.

Subfactor 3, Small Business Utilization (SBU)

APS received an adjectival rating of Good for Subfactor 3.

The SET had no findings for this Subfactor.

HMMH

HMMH received a Mission Suitability score of 764. HMMH’s evaluation includes one significant strength and nine strengths. A summary of HMMH’s Mission Suitability findings is provided below.

Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirement and Technical Approach (URTA)

HMMH received an adjectival rating of Excellent for Subfactor 1.

HMMH received a significant strength for its multifaceted approach to successfully provide for a surge capability to perform the requirements of SOW 1.2.3 and 1.2.4. The well-founded and thorough approach includes a surge protocol, access to additional skilled staff members, and a strategy to accommodate GRS deployment logistics in a compressed time. HMMH’s approach reflects a comprehensive understanding of the complexities and risks associated with supporting multiple community tests per year. In particular, developing a surge protocol in advance mitigates the risk of inadvertently omitting the scheduling and execution of key activities, especially if the need to accelerate schedule occurs on short notice. The approach includes the ability to quickly mobilize additional skilled staff to support a surge. HMMH’s multifaceted approach increases the likelihood of successfully executing community tests at an increased tempo.

HMMH received a strength for its approach for noise exposure planning (SOW 1.1.1), which includes a comprehensive noise exposure schedule. HMMH’s approach facilitates schedule adjustments. The proposed automated solution allows for an efficient evaluation of multiple schedule options before a modification is implemented.

HMMH received a strength for its approach to survey data processing and analysis (SOW 1.1.4), which includes multiple automated methods with specified practices to minimize erroneous survey data. HMMH’s approach reduces the amount of invalid data collected and allows for more efficient analyses.

HMMH received a strength for its approach to survey data processing and analysis (SOW 1.1.4), which provides a strong method for fitting statistical models, and includes consideration of specified factors. The approach demonstrates subject matter expertise and understanding of the SOW technical requirements, and provides assurance in HMMH's ability to perform comprehensive dose-response analyses.

HMMH received a strength for its approach to combining post-flight noise exposure data (SOW 1.1.9), which includes an effective means to address the uncertainty in GRS measurements using two detailed methods. HMMH’s approach will lead to more scientifically defensible results for dose-response analysis.

HMMH received a strength for its approach to perform the community survey (SOW 1.2.3), utilizing a detailed execution plan for recruitment with various incentives for survey enrollment, and additional incentives for continued participation. HMMH’s approach enables more efficient recruitment and greater retention, thus requiring fewer participants (reducing survey costs).

HMMH received a strength for its approach for collecting survey data (SOW 1.2.3) during the X-59 community test. The approach includes a highly efficient method for developing survey instruments by leveraging its own existing and mature web survey platform for data collection.

The approach provides assurance in HMMH's ability to use survey instruments in a timely and cost-effective manner for the specific needs of this mission.

HMMH received a strength for its comprehensive approach to survey data quality assurance (SOW 1.2.3.5), which includes a nonresponse bias analysis (NRBA). HMMH's approach considers nonresponse bias, reflecting its strong expertise in conducting survey analyses.

HMMH also received a strength for its proposed approach to combining post-flight noise exposure data (SOW 1.1.9), which demonstrates a strong understanding of the technical skills needed to meet the technical requirements. HMMH's data assimilation framework for combining post-flight noise exposure data provides an especially innovative and comprehensive process.

HMMH’s approach recognizes the importance of obtaining credible noise exposure estimates over the entire test site.

Subfactor 2, Management

HMMH received an adjectival rating of Good for Subfactor 2.

HMMH received a strength for its approach to managing the contract, which includes a comprehensive and especially effective quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) process for all tasks and deliverables, including noise measurements and modeling, survey implementation, and statistical analyses. The subject matter expertise overlap across the team and establishment of a QC manager allow for internal (but independent) QA review. HMMH’s effective QA/QC approach will positively impact task performance and help ensure high-quality deliverables. The approach recognizes the importance of internal reviews of deliverables, reducing the risk of needing multiple, iterative NASA reviews.

Subfactor 3, Small Business Utilization (SBU)

HMMH received an adjectival rating of Good for Subfactor 3.

The SET had no findings for this Subfactor.

Factor 2, Past Performance

The SET evaluated the Offerors’ past performance records in accordance with RFP Section M.6 Volume II – Past Performance Factor, and a confidence rating was assigned in accordance with

NFS 1815.305.

Offeror Pertinence Rating Performance Rating Level of Confidence APS Pertinent Very Effective Moderate HMMH Pertinent Exemplary Moderate

APS

The SET assigned a confidence rating of Moderate to Factor 2, Past Performance, for the APS team.

For size, APS received a Very Highly Pertinent rating as five of the references were rated Very Highly Pertinent. For overall content, APS was rated as Somewhat Pertinent. The APS team demonstrated somewhat pertinent past performance experience in all seven of the Technical Performance Areas. For complexity pertinence, APS was assigned a rating of Pertinent, as the complexity exhibited in reference contract NNL15AA00C had much of the performance challenges and risks of the current NASA requirement, albeit at a much smaller scale. The remaining references also had some of the same complexities as the X-59 CRT requirement but on a much smaller scale. Based on a rating of Very Highly Pertinent for size, Somewhat Pertinent for overall content, and Pertinent for complexity, APS was assigned an overall pertinence rating of Pertinent.

For overall performance, the APS team was assigned a rating of Very Effective based on interviews conducted by the team and a comprehensive review of the APS team’s past performance information obtained from CPARS. APS provided a total of seven (7) past performance references, which included three (3) for APS and four (4) for its significant subcontractors. Performance ratings across the referenced contracts ranged from Effective to Exemplary. APS had three (3) references rated as Exemplary, two (2) rated Very Effective , and two (2) rated Effective . The SET weighted contract references for APS (NNL15AA00C), Fidell, and KBR Wyle more heavily due to their similarity to the current NASA requirement and arrived at a Very Effective overall performance rating.

The APS team’s overall pertinence rating of Pertinent and overall performance rating of Very Effective resulted in a Moderate Level of Confidence for the Past Performance Factor.

HMMH

The SET assigned a confidence rating of Moderate to Factor 2, Past Performance, for the HMMH team.

For size, HMMH received a Very Highly Pertinent rating as four of the references were rated Very Highly Pertinent. For overall content the HMMH team was rated as Pertinent. The

HMMH team demonstrated pertinent past performance experience in four of the Technical Performance Areas. For complexity pertinence, HMMH was assigned a rating of Pertinent, as the complexity exhibited in reference contract DTFACT-15-D-00008 had much of the complexity of the NASA requirement. The remaining references also had some of the same complexities as the X-59 CRT requirement. Based on a rating of Very Highly Pertinent for size, Pertinent for overall content, and Pertinent for complexity, HMMH was assigned an overall pertinence rating of Pertinent.

For overall performance, the HMMH team was assigned a rating of Exemplary based on interviews conducted by the team. There were no CPAR reports available for review. HMMH provided a total of seven (7) past performance references, which included three (3) for HMMH and four (4) for its significant subcontractors. Performance ratings across the referenced contracts ranged from Effective to Exemplary. HMMH had five (5) references rated as Exemplary, one (1) rated Very Effective and one (1) rated Effective . The SET took into account the performance of the prime and the significant subcontractors, and determined that the preponderance of both HMMH’s and significant subcontractors’ performance ratings was Exemplary.

The HMMH team’s overall pertinence rating of Pertinent and overall performance rating of Exemplary resulted in a Moderate Level of Confidence for the Past Performance Factor.

Factor 3 – Cost/Price

The SET and Cost/Price Analyst performed an analysis of the proposed prices 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 and materials described in the Offerors’ technical proposals. The SET derived probable cost for the Planning Stage Task Order #1, which will serve as the basis for the SSA’s integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria and selection of the best value proposal for award. Based on the analysis conducted by the SET and Cost/Price Analyst, the Contracting Officer has determined both Offeror’s prices are fair and reasonable based on adequate price competition and price analysis; that no cost realism adjustments were necessary to either Offeror’s proposed price; and both Offeror’s total costs are realistic based on the cost realism analysis performed. A ranking summary of the proposed price and probable cost for each Offeror is shown in the table below:

Offeror Proposed Price Ranking Probable Cost Ranking APS Highest Highest HMMH Lowest Lowest

APS

The SET determined APS’s proposed price to be fair and reasonable based on adequate price competition. The SET determined the proposed price is consistent with APS’s technical approach. In addition, cost analysis was performed on significant individual cost elements and no exceptions were noted.

The Cost/Price analyst performed an assessment of APS’s Total Compensation Plan, including an analysis of salaries and benefits, and found the plan to be reasonable and realistic. No adjustment was made to labor rates and proposed rates were found to be realistic for the work to be performed.

The Cost/Price analyst also determined the schedule of rates was reasonable and consistent with Planning Stage Task Order 1 pricing.

HMMH

The SET determined HMMH’s proposed price to be fair and reasonable based on adequate price competition. The SET determined the proposed price is consistent with HMMH’s technical approach. In addition, cost analysis was performed on significant individual cost elements and no exceptions were noted.

The Cost/Price analyst performed an assessment of HMMH’s Total Compensation Plan, including an analysis of salaries and benefits, and found the plan to be reasonable and realistic.

No adjustment was made to labor rates and proposed rates were found to be realistic for the work to be performed.

The Cost/Price analyst also determined the schedule of rates was reasonable and consistent with Planning Stage Task Order 1 pricing.

Basis for Selection

The SET presented its findings, as summarized above, and I am convinced that the SET conducted a thorough, fair, and objective evaluation of both proposals in accordance with the established evaluation criteria in the RFP. I am also convinced that for specific areas of the evaluation criteria where no strengths or weaknesses were identified, the SET fully assessed the proposals and found that the Offeror met the contract requirements for that area. I asked questions about specific aspects of the mission suitability, past performance and cost evaluations in order to enhance my understanding. After all questions were answered and I fully understood the SET’s findings, I comparatively assessed the proposals against the evaluation factors and subfactors in the RFP. I also considered all factors, and their relative weights, in the selection of the Offeror that can perform the contract in a manner most advantageous to the Government.

In comparing the Offerors in Factor 1, Mission Suitability, Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirement and Technical Approach (URTA), I noted that HMMH had an adjectival rating of Excellent, compared to APS’s adjectival rating of Good. I noted that APS received no Significant Strengths for Subfactor 1; however, APS did receive six (6) strengths which were related to APS’s approach to develop a baseline noise exposure schedule; survey data processing and analysis; execution of the community survey; identifying specific Ground Recording System locations; and the approach for surge capability (two strengths). HMMH received one (1) Significant Strength for Subfactor 1, which I found particularly notable, related to its multifaceted approach to successfully provide for a surge capability to perform the requirements of SOW sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.4, which included the development of a surge protocol. In addition to the significant strength, HMMH received eight (8) strengths for its approach to noise exposure planning; survey data processing and analysis (two strengths); combining post-flight noise exposure data; performing the community survey; collecting survey data; survey data quality assurance; and the approach for combining post-flight noise exposure data. For Mission Suitability Subfactor 1, I note HMMH had the superior proposal in its understanding of the requirements and technical approach, and HMMH’s proposal provides greater value to the Government when compared to APS.

In comparing the Offerors in Factor 1, Mission Suitability, Subfactor 2, Management, I noted that APS had an adjectival rating of Very Good compared to HMMH’s adjectival rating of Good.

I noted APS received one (1) Significant Strength for identifying significant risks and providing viable approaches to manage and mitigates the risks. APS also received two (2) strengths, one for recognizing the need for top level planning factors to guide its team strategy, and the other for its internal Senior Review Board. Additionally, I noted that HMMH only received one (1) strength for its effective Quality Assurance/Quality Control process. However, given the criticality of creating a defensible, high-fidelity data set to the achievement of the Low Boom Flight Demonstration Mission Critical Commitment, I place elevated importance on this finding and overall find the proposals similar in this subfactor.

In comparing the Offerors in Factor 1, Mission Suitability, Subfactor 3, Small Business Utilization, I noted both Offerors had an adjectival rating of Good, with no strengths or weaknesses identified for either Offeror. I found both Offerors’ proposals to be similar and therefore not a discriminator in my selection decision.

Overall, for Factor 1, Mission Suitability, I conclude that HMMH’s proposal provides a slightly greater value given the significant strength and strengths under the Subfactor 1, URTA, which are not displaced by APS’s significant strength and strengths under the Subfactor 2, Management.

Regarding Factor 2, Past Performance, both APS and HMMH received a confidence rating of Moderate.

The SET rated Overall Pertinence based on the degree of similarity in size, content, and complexity to the X-59 CRT requirements, as well as recency of the past performance. While both Offerors received an Overall Pertinence rating of Pertinent, I noted that HMMH received a rating of Pertinent for overall content pertinence, while APS received a rating of Somewhat Pertinent. Both Offerors received a Very Highly Pertinent rating for managing contracts of similar size, and a Pertinent rating for managing contracts of comparable complexity to the X-59 CRT requirements.

For the performance component of past performance, HMMH received the highest Overall Performance rating of Exemplary, while APS received an Overall Performance rating of Very Effective. HMMH’s performance under the National Aircraft Noise and Annoyance Technical Support Contract (DTFACT-15-D-00008), which most closely aligns with the X-59 CRT requirements for a nationally representative database, was rated by the SET as Exemplary. This, along with HMMH’s superior Overall Performance rating provides me with more confidence that they will successfully perform the X-59 CRT requirements.

Regarding Factor 3, Cost/Price, I concur with the SET’s analysis that the proposed prices of both Offerors are realistic for the work to be performed based upon each Offeror’s unique technical approach, and that no probable cost adjustments were necessary. HMMH’s proposed price was slightly lower than APS’s proposed price, with both Offerors being determined fair and reasonable based upon adequate price competition.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

In making the selection decision, I conducted an integrated assessment of each proposal and considered the relative weight of the evaluation factors and subfactors as indicated in the RFP, recognizing that Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

After a review of all the information and based on my assessment of both proposals in accordance with the specified evaluation criteria, my comparative analysis is that HMMH’s proposal clearly illustrates the best value to the Government. For Factor 1, Mission Suitability, both HMMH and APS received a significant strength, however HMMH received a higher overall score. In comparing the strengths that were identified for both Offerors, I find that HMMH’s proposal provides superior benefit in Subfactor 1, URTA compared to APS. For Subfactor 1, HMMH’s strengths consistently substantiate their understanding that throughout performance of the contract there needs to be consistent emphasis on: extracting from the collected data clear results that withstand scrutiny from the international community; understanding the exposure, including variation from the planned exposure; accurately processing survey data; and attention to data quality assurance. From a technical perspective, HMMH’s proposal demonstrates a necessary focus on ensuring the delivered dataset is of as high a quality as can be obtained and that uncertainty in the data is understood. HMMH offered a superior technical approach that provides me confidence that they will be able to perform the contract work successfully.

Although APS received a significant strength for Subfactor 2, Management, this significant strength does not overcome HMMH’s significant strength and overall strengths under Subfactor 1, URTA and HMMH’s strength related to quality assurance in Subfactor 2. In terms of Factor 2, Past Performance, although the confidence rating for both Offerors is Moderate, a detailed review of the pertinence and performance components revealed HMMH had a superior overall performance rating, which provides me a higher level of confidence in HMMH’s ability to successfully perform the contract requirements. I find significant value in HMMH’s overall performance rating of Exemplary which is driven by HMMH’s recent support of a national airport study, the scope of which closely aligned with what we are trying to accomplish with this procurement. Given HMMH’s overall performance rating, I have a higher level of confidence that HHMH will successfully perform this contract based on its demonstrated past performance.

Finally, although HMMH’s cost of $8.58M is determined to be fair and reasonable, and slightly lower than APS’s proposed cost, I conclude that there is no significant discriminator in Factor 3, Cost/Price between HMMH and APS.

Therefore, I find HMMH’s proposal is the most advantageous to the Government. In making this decision I have considered the three evaluation factors to be approximately equal in importance, with Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, significantly more important than Cost/Price. Accordingly, I hereby select HMMH for award of the X-59 Community Response Testing contract.

Peter G. Coen Source Selection Authority

PETER COEN

Digitally signed by PETER COEN Date: 2021.04.28 15:56:26 -04'00'