Source Selection Statement - NCS.pdf

CUI//SP-SSEL//DL ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR THE

NASA COMMUNICATION SERVICES (NCS) CONTRACT

On February 14, 2023, I, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Communication Services (NCS) contract, along with other senior NASA officials, met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals solicited under Request for Proposals (RFP) Number 80KSC022R0012. I have set forth in this source selection statement relevant portions of the SEB’s evaluation of proposals and my decision on selection of the successful offeror.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The purpose of the NCS procurement is to acquire communication services for all NASA centers, NASA Headquarters, and Mission Directorates, to provide the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning NASA’s activities and the results thereof.

Communication services include, but are not limited to, strategic communications, planning, and integration services; stakeholder relations and public engagement support; media relations services; history and archives services; library services; and services in support of Freedom of Information Act requests. The NCS contract will be a firm-fixed-price contract with an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) ordering mechanism providing for obtaining additional services via task orders. The contract period of performance consists of a 16-month base period, followed by one 20-month option period, and two one-year option periods.

BACKGROUND

On November 27, 2020, the acquisition development process for the NCS contract commenced with the appointment of the Requirements Development Team (RDT). The RDT conducted market research, defined requirements for the work to be performed, released a draft performance work statement for industry comment, met with industry representatives to discuss NCS requirements, developed the acquisition strategy, released a draft solicitation for industry comment, conducted a virtual preproposal conference, and held one-on-one meetings with interested offerors.

On February 24, 2022, the NASA Kennedy Space Center Procurement Officer appointed the NCS SEB for the purpose of evaluating proposals received in response to the NCS solicitation.

Following review and consideration of industry comments on the draft solicitation, the Contracting Officer established the North American Industry Classification System code for the NCS procurement as 541820, Public Relations Agencies, with a corresponding size standard exception of $16.5 million. The Contracting Officer issued the Request for Proposal (RFP) on April 8, 2022, as a competitive 8(a) small business set-aside. During the course of the procurement, the Contracting Officer issued a total of five amendments to make corrections and other administrative changes; update solicitation terms, conditions, and provisions; respond to questions; and revise the period of performance.

In response to the NCS RFP, the Government received four timely proposals on or before the due date of May 23, 2022, from the following companies (listed in alphabetical order):

Chiricahua-Logical Joint Venture (C-L JV) Ensemble Government Services LLC (Ensemble) N4 Solutions LLC (N4S) PCI Productions LLC (Team Creek)

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

The SEB evaluated proposals in accordance with the RFP and the source selection procedures provided in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Part 1812, Acquisition of Commercial Items, in conjunction with the procedures for solicitation, evaluation, and award prescribed in FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection and NFS Subpart 1815.3, Source Selection.

The RFP advised offerors that the Government would use a trade-off process, as described in FAR 15.101-1, in making its source selection.

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

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the SEB evaluated each offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the Mission Suitability subfactor requirements and proposed approach for accomplishing those requirements, the appropriateness of the offeror’s proposed resources, and associated programmatic risk. The RFP further identified two subfactors, which the SEB was to weight and consider in evaluating Mission Suitability, as follows:

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

With regard to the Management Approach subfactor, the RFP described in detail the areas the SEB would evaluate, including management approach, phase-in approach, and total compensation plan. The RFP also described in detail the areas the SEB would evaluate under the Technical Approach subfactor, including specific technical approaches to NCS requirements, key personnel qualifications and commitment to the contract, and staffing approach.

Under the procedures established in the RFP and the applicable acquisition regulations, the SEB reviewed each offeror’s Mission Suitability proposal, identifying any significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies, and documented its findings. The

SEB voting members came to a consensus on all findings, then assigned an adjectival rating for each subfactor in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A), and then came to a consensus on a percentile score and point value for each subfactor. The SEB then determined the final point value for the Mission Suitability factor as the sum of the two subfactor point values.

Under the Past Performance factor, the SEB evaluated each offeror’s past performance and assigned one of the following levels of confidence ratings in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2): very high, high, moderate, low, very low, or neutral. The RFP advised that the Government would evaluate the offerors’ and their major subcontractors’, individual partners’, or parent/affiliates’ recent performance of relevant work similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the solicitation; the management, technical, labor relations, and contract phase-in performance; and safety reports. The RFP defined “recent” as performance within the last five years prior to the initial solicitation release date, with a minimum of 12 months of performance performed within the five-year period. The RFP advised that the Government could supplement the information contained in the proposal with information obtained from Government organizations and personnel, commercial sources, public information sources, and, if applicable, data gathered during the discussion phase of the evaluation. Further, the RFP advised that the evaluation would consider the scope of work the offeror and its major subcontractors are proposing to perform to determine the relevancy of their past performance information, and the Government would consider the resources of a parent/affiliate in its evaluation if the parent/affiliate participates meaningfully in the resultant contract. For purposes of the Past Performance evaluation, the RFP defined a “major subcontractor” as a subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, and defined a “parent/affiliate” as a parent or affiliate company, corporation, division, business unit or segment.

The SEB verified that all contracts identified in the proposal met the RFP’s requirement for recency and that those contracts were consistent with the performance areas identified in the RFP. The SEB evaluated each offeror’s and its major subcontractors’, individual partners’, or parent/affiliate(s)’ recent past performance by assessing the relevancy of work performed under prior contracts to the Government’s requirements in the NCS solicitation. The SEB also considered the scope of work that each offeror proposed its major subcontractors, individual partners, and parent/affiliates would perform to determine the relevancy and applicability of the past performance information. Further, the SEB assessed the management, technical, labor relations, and contract phase-in performance, as well as safety reports on contracts that it determined to be recent and relevant. After the SEB assessed each contract for relevancy and past performance, the SEB assigned a level of confidence rating.

Under the Price factor, the RFP advised offerors that the Government would not weight or score the factor and that the Government would evaluate price proposals in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4, Contract Pricing, and that the Government could use one or more of the price analysis techniques and procedures found at FAR 15.404-1(b) to ensure a fair and reasonable price. For the purposes of source selection, the solicitation advised that the total evaluated price would be the sum of the phase-in price (if proposed); contract price for Management and Reporting Requirements/Core Services for the base period and option periods; the price for FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services (calculated using the formula provided in the solicitation);

IDIQ Center Specific Fully Burdened Labor Rates for the base period and option periods multiplied by the Government-provided best estimated quantities; and the total other direct costs for non-proposed values. The SEB reviewed each proposal to ensure there were no revisions of formulas within the spreadsheet price templates. The SEB also reviewed each proposal for obvious errors or omissions and to ensure that each offeror priced all CLINs. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), the SEB performed price analysis by comparing the proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. The SEB also analyzed proposals for unbalanced pricing.

The SEB conducted all evaluations using the above-described evaluation criteria as specified in the RFP. The SEB comprised consultants and evaluators in appropriate disciplines to provide specific expertise needed in the evaluation process and to provide findings and requests for clarification to the SEB voting members. Using the analysis of the consultants and evaluators, the SEB generated initial evaluation consensus findings that identified and assessed strengths and weaknesses and rated and scored each proposal accordingly. In addition to the evaluation of the factors and subfactors identified above, the SEB ensured that each proposal met all requirements established by the RFP.

INITIAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS, COMPETITIVE RANGE

DETERMINATION, AND DISCUSSIONS

The SEB conducted the initial evaluation of the four proposals received in response to the RFP.

The resulting Mission Suitability rating, Past Performance rating, and Price evaluation of each offeror’s proposal provided the basis for making a competitive range determination. On November 18, 2022, the SEB presented the results of its evaluation to me. The evaluation record and presentation included a complete and detailed evaluation of each proposal against all evaluation criteria for each evaluation factor. The evaluation record and presentation documented the findings, adjectival ratings, point scores, past performance confidence rating, and evaluated price for each proposal. For each offeror, I reviewed the Mission Suitability finding, Past Performance assessments, and Price analysis.

In accordance with FAR 52.212-1, the Contracting Officer determined that discussions were necessary. Pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(1), the Contracting Officer, with my concurrence, established a competitive range consisting of only Team Creek’s proposal. Proposals from CL- JV, N4S, and Ensemble were not among the most highly rated; therefore, the Contracting Officer did not include them in the competitive range.

The SEB conducted written and oral discussions with Team Creek during the period of December 16, 2022, through February 6, 2023. The SEB focused discussions on the findings that the SEB identified during the initial evaluation. Upon the conclusion of the discussions, the Contracting Officer requested a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) from Team Creek with a due date of February 9, 2023. Team Creek submitted a timely FPR. Following the same procedures that the SEB followed in the initial evaluation, the SEB then completed a final evaluation of Team Creek’s FPR and reported its findings to me as discussed below.

FPR MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

Under the Management Approach subfactor, the SEB found one significant strength, one strength, and no weakness. The significant strength was for proposing a comprehensive approach for managing the work through an effective work control system that provides detailed reporting and tracking capabilities, as well as other data analytics capabilities to enhance the Government’s insight into activities across the enterprise. The strength was for an effective management approach that includes effective methodologies to support continuous improvement and drive innovation, and that is adaptable to meet the operational requirements of the NCS contract.

Based on these findings, the SEB rated Team Creek’s proposal under the Management Approach subfactor as “Very Good.”

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the SEB found one significant strength, six strengths, and no weakness. The significant strength was for a comprehensive approach to exhibition design that is efficient and economical and includes enhanced capabilities to create high-quality exhibits. Three of the six strengths were for effective approaches, strategies, and tools for tracking and measuring public opinion; monitoring and reporting legislation and other policy related activities that impact aeronautics or space-related programs; and providing strategic library services. The fourth strength was for a comprehensive approach to communications planning. The fifth strength was for a proactive and effective approach to supporting Speakers Bureau and speaking engagements, maximizing opportunities to more effectively utilize NASA Office of Communications (OCOMM) resources. The last strength was for the proposal of key personnel, all of which are highly qualified with relevant experience exceeding the RFP’s qualification requirements to the Government’s benefit. Based on these findings, the SEB rated Team Creek’s proposal under the Technical Approach subfactor as “Excellent.”

As a result of the SEB’s evaluation and rating of the Management and Technical Approach subfactors, the overall Mission Suitability score for Team Creek was 916 out of 1,000 points available.

FPR PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Team Creek received an overall level of confidence rating of “Very High,” meaning the Government has a very high level of confidence that Team Creek will successfully perform the required effort based on the assessed past performance records. Team Creek demonstrated very relevant experience performing work similar in content and complexity to all areas of the NCS performance work statement. Various contracts submitted by Team Creek involved diverse work scopes, similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of NCS. Based on the foregoing, the SEB determined Team Creek’s past performance is very highly pertinent to this acquisition. With respect to performance on relevant contracts, Team Creek demonstrated exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner in the areas assessed with any reportable problems being addressed and having little identifiable effect on overall performance.

FPR PRICE EVALUATION

The SEB performed price analysis, as previously described, and determined Team Creek’s total evaluated price of $217,122,058 to be fair and reasonable on the basis of adequate price competition. The SEB found no instance of unbalanced pricing.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

During the presentation, I questioned the SEB on the material presented and carefully considered the detailed findings presented by the SEB. I concluded that the SEB’s evaluation was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. In addition, I solicited and considered the views of key senior personnel within OCOMM, the NASA Office of Procurement, and at the Kennedy Space Center. These key senior personnel have responsibility related to this procurement and understood the application of the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP.

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

With regard to Mission Suitability, I noted that Team Creek received a rating of “Very Good” in Management Approach and “Excellent” in Technical Approach. I concur with the SEB’s evaluation in these areas and find that the aforementioned strengths and significant strengths and their relative merits is reflected in the subfactor ratings and scores. Team Creek clearly demonstrated it understands the nature, criticality, and magnitude of NCS requirements, and the proposal set forth effective and efficient approaches which, collectively, appreciably increase the likelihood of successful contract performance. In particular, the methods and tools Team Creek will use to track and measure public opinion; monitor and report legislation and other policy-related activities; and support Speakers Bureau and speaking engagements will be instrumental to OCOMM’s ability to survey the media landscape, to engage more people more effectively, and to expand awareness. Team Creek also provided strong technical solutions in the areas of library services, and its approach to exhibits was of exceptional merit. Furthermore, Team Creek did a superior job in its overall management approach to performing the NCS requirements, and it proposed a highly qualified key personnel management team with extensive experience and clear lines of authority and autonomy.

With regard to Past Performance, I noted that Team Creek has very relevant experience performing work under contracts similar in size, content, and complexity to the NCS requirements, and it has a consistent record of exemplary performance, reflective of a “Very High” level of confidence rating. Therefore, I am confident that Team Creek will successfully perform the NCS requirements.

With regard to the Price factor, the SEB found that Team Creek’s proposal satisfied the requirements of price reasonableness. I agree with the SEB’s evaluation of the Price factor.

Considering the three evaluation factors and their relative order of importance, I find that Team Creek’s proposal represents the best value to the Government. Accordingly, I select PCI Productions, LLC, prime offeror of Team Creek, for award of the NCS contract.

Johnny Stephenson Source Selection Authority

Johnny Stephenson

Digitally signed by Johnny Stephenson Date: 2023.02.22 09:47:36 -06'00'