Source Selection Statement_KGMPCIII 020124.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR THE

KENNEDY GROUNDS MAINTENANCE AND PEST CONTROL SERVICES III (KGMPC III)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) 80LARC23R0009

On December 12, 2023, I, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA), for the KGMPC III procurement, along with other senior officials, met with the Source Evaluation Team (SET) appointed to evaluate proposals. I have set forth in this Source Selection Statement relevant portions of the SET’s proposal evaluation and my decision on selection of the successful Offeror.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this acquisition was to procure services for grounds maintenance (grass mowing, edging, herbicide treatment, vegetation control for railroad tracks, landscaping, and tree and shrub pruning, fertilization), pest control services (pest identification and management, wildlife control, pesticide) and IDIQ task orders (removal of trees, shrubs and stumps, repair and replacement of grasses areas, land clearing, fire line clearing, emergency clean-up, and pest control services, in addition to the baseline pest control services). The place of performance would be at John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC).

BACKGROUND

Market Research was conducted to determine the existing small business opportunities in comparison with the requirement. Based on the responses received in connection with the Sources Sought issued on October 19, 2022, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Small Business Specialist and the SET, determined that an adequate number of capable small business concerns existed to justify conducting the procurement as a Total HUBZone small business set aside. The Contracting Officer established 561730 (Landscaping Services with the small business size standard of $9,500,000) as the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the KGMPC III procurement. The SET prepared an acquisition plan, provided a site tour, and developed a draft solicitation for industry comment.

The Contracting Officer (CO) issued the KGMPC III RFP on July 28, 2023, with a total competitive HUBZone set-aside. The Government anticipated award of a Hybrid Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) with the ability to issue Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) task orders. The resultant contract would have a total potential period of performance of five (5) years, including a 30-day phase-in, four (4) 12-month option periods, and an option to extend services for up to 6-months beyond the 5-year period of performance. Each period (except for the Phase-in period) would include four (4) CORE CLINs for sustaining Grounds Maintenance and Pest Control Services as follows: CLIN 1 – Mowing and Herbicide; CLIN 2 – Landscaping and Tree Maintenance; CLIN 3 – Pest Control; and CLIN 4 – IDIQ. The Phase-in period would be provided on a separate CLIN. During the course of the procurement, the Contracting Officer issued a total of three amendments to incorporate minor changes and posted three (3) documents to include the modified Standard Form (SF) 1449, responses to Offeror questions, and modified Pricing Schedule Template (Attachment E-02).

In response to the KGMPC III RFP, NASA received three (3) timely proposals on or before the due date of September 1, 2023, from the following companies (listed in alphabetical order):

KIRA Facilities Maintenance, LLC Ryan Slaughter SC Jones Services, Inc.

EVALUATION SUMMARY

The SET evaluated the proposals in accordance with the RFP and the source selection procedures provided in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, NASA FAR Supplement Part 1815, with of the objective of determining the best value for the Government utilizing the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. The RFP advised Offerors that of the proposals submitted, the Government would determine which proposal had the lowest overall proposed price using the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Only the Offeror with the lowest priced TEP was evaluated for the Technical Acceptability and Past Performance Factor. If the lowest priced proposal was not technically acceptable, the Government would evaluate the second lowest priced proposal and so on. Selection for award consideration would be given to the lowest-priced Offeror whose proposal conformed to the solicitation requirements with a technical and past performance rating of “Acceptable”, determined to be fair, reasonable, and otherwise eligible for award based on a responsibility determination in accordance with the FAR Part 9.

Proposals were ordered from lowest to highest to determine the lowest priced proposal. To identify the lowest proposed price, the Government utilized the TEP which was the amount proposed in RFP Section B, Contract Pricing Schedule Table B.2.2-1, and Attachment E-03, Price Proposal Template (Total base and option periods, excluding the IDIQ CLINs).

With regard to the Technical Acceptability Factor, as set forth in Section E.3.2.3, the RFP described in detail the areas the SET would evaluate, including Technical Capability and Management Approach, which focused on past experience of three (3) grounds maintenance service projects that were similar to the requirements outlined in the PWS, as well as a staffing plan to ensure contract requirements were successfully carried out. Additionally, Pesticide/Herbicide Applications Certifications and Licenses were evaluated.

Based on the lowest-priced Offeror’s ability to meet all technical considerations, the SET evaluated the Technical Proposal using the following ratings:

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable The Technical Proposal will be rated “Acceptable” where each technical consideration is determined to meet the material requirements of the solicitation, may contain minor issues that have no adverse impact on contract performance, and does not contain any deficiencies (See FAR 15.001). The Technical Proposal is considered “Acceptable” if no technical consideration is rated “Unacceptable” as defined below.

Unacceptable The Technical Proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” where one or more technical consideration(s) is determined to not meet the material requirements of the solicitation.

The Technical Proposal is considered “Unacceptable” if it contains deficiencies (See

FAR 15.001).

For Past Performance, the SET evaluated Past Performance in accordance with the RFP Section E.3.2.4, and FAR

15.305 (however, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) did not apply). The RFP advised Offerors that the SET would evaluate the lowest-priced Offeror determined technically “Acceptable,” for recent and relevant performance of work similar in size, scope, and complexity to the KGMPC III requirements. The SET evaluated the past performance of the Prime Offeror and Significant Subcontractors to determine the degree to which current and previous contract efforts indicated the probability of the Offeror successfully accomplishing/performing the requirements of the Performance Work Statement. The Past Performance Factor was not numerically weighted or scored. The SET evaluated the Past Performance Factor using the following ratings:

RATINGS DESCRIPTION

Acceptable The Offeror's relevant past performance meets the minimum acceptable standards.

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown (see note).

Note: If an Offeror does not have a record of relevant past performance information, the Offeror may not be rated favorably or unfavorably. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, an Offeror with neutral past performance shall be considered “acceptable.”

Unacceptable The Offeror's relevant past performance does not meet the minimum acceptable standards. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Finally, for the Price Factor, RFP Section E.3.2.5 advised Offerors that the Government would perform a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) to ensure that price was fair, reasonable, and balanced.

Certified cost and pricing data was not required. The Government analyzed the TEP and other pricing data requested in RFP for fair and reasonableness. In addition, the Government evaluated the Offeror’s proposed prices for the Pricing Schedule and Labor Categories, compliance with prevailing and Collective findings presented by the SET. I concluded that the SET’s evaluation was comprehensive thorough, well-documented, and consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. In addition, I solicited and considered the views of other senior officials in attendance. These officials included individuals with responsibilities related to the procurement or who represent key customers, who understood the application of the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP. After consideration of the evaluation results presented, I completed an independent assessment based solely on the evaluation of proposals against the criteria set forth in the solicitation to determine the best value to the Government.

With a lowest price technically acceptable source selection process, SC Jones was identified as the lowest-priced Offeror. Using the evaluation factors specified in the RFP, I have reached the following conclusions.

For Technical Acceptability, SC Jones received an “Acceptable” rating in Technical Capability/Management Approach, and “Acceptable” in Pesticide/Herbicide Applications Certifications and Licenses. I concur with the SET’s evaluation of the technical considerations and the overall rating for Technical Acceptability based on SC Jones demonstrative capability to meet the minimum requirements.

Regarding Past Performance, SC Jones has a wide breath of past performance with contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to the KGMPC III, receiving an overall past performance rating of “Acceptable”. SC Jones’ relevant past performance met the minimum acceptable performance standards.

Therefore, I have a reasonable expectation that SC Jones will deliver satisfactory performance in fulfilling the required effort.

Under the Price factor, the SET found SC Jones’ proposal to be the lowest priced, reflecting fair, reasonable, and balanced pricing. I agree with the SET’s evaluation of the price factor.

In summary, my independent assessment of the source selection process revealed that SC Jones Services, Inc. submitted a proposal that presented the best overall value to the Government. Accordingly, as the lowest price technically acceptable proposal with a total proposed price of $12,700,736, I select SC Jones Services Inc. for award of the Kennedy Grounds Maintenance and Pest Control Services III Contract.

Source Selection Authority

HELENA

WILKAS

Digitally signed by

HELENA WILKAS

Date: 2024.02.01 09:05:01 -05'00'