SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center

Western Regional Multiple Award Construction Contract (WRMACC) Solicitation No. 80AFRC25R0001

On April 15, 2026, I, along with other senior officials from NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) and NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposal in connection with the Western Regional Multiple Award Construction Contracts

(WRMACC).

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

The purpose of the Western Region Multiple Award Construction Contracts (WRMACC) is to perform construction services with two distinct pool bases, one for both Northern California and Southern California. The work acquired under this contract is for construction services of government facilities at various locations within the western region area of responsibly. The contract type is a multiple award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract.

A Sources Sought synopsis was posted to SAM.gov on March 06, 2023. 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. Forty-one (41) timely submissions were received from the Sources Sought Posting; 40 small businesses and 1 large business.

The procurement team determined that there were small businesses with the capability to meet or exceed the requirement as stated in the Sources Sought Synopsis. The acquisition was set-aside for Total Small Business. The SBA Procurement Center Representative concurred in this decision on May 30, 2023 as recorded on the NF1787 “Small Business Coordination” Form.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) “80AFRC25R0001” for the WRMACC was released on July 1, 2025, with a proposal due date of August 20, 2025, at 10:00 AM PST. There were thirteen (13) amendments to the

RFP.

Amendment No. 00001 was released on July 18, 2025, to post the virtual preproposal pre-bid conference slide presentation and attendees list.

Amendment No. 00002 was released on July 19, 2025, to revise the RFP, incorporate the initial Request for Information (RFI) responses and clarifications, provide revised attachments, update the Wage Determination for both Pool 1 and Pool 2 Model Task Orders, and add additional attachments.

Amendment No. 0003 was released on July 22, 2025, to provide the July 22, 2025, Pool 2 Southern California Pre-proposal/Pre-Bid Conference/Site Walk presentation slides and provide the Pool 2 Southern California Pre-proposal/Pre-Bid Conference/Site Walk sign-in sheet.

Amendment No. 0004 was released on July 28, 2025, to provide the July 24, 2025, Pool 1 Northern California Pre-proposal/Pre-Bid Conference/Site Walk presentation slides and provide the Pool 1 Northern California Pre-proposal/Pre-Bid Conference/Site Walk sign-in sheet.

Amendment No. 0005 was released on July 28, 2025, to provide the WRMACC Pool 2 Southern California site walk photos for requirement “Repair Apron and Taxiway Pavements and underground Fire suppression system”.

Amendment No. 0006 was released on August 18, 2025, to extend the proposal submission date from August 20, 2025, to September 9, 2025, at 10:00a.m. PST.

Amendment No. 0007 was released on August 19, 2025, to provide responses to Request for Information (RFIs)/Questions and incorporate resulting updates by issuing revised documents and attachments, as applicable.

Amendment No. 0008 was released on August 19, 2025, to update solicitation as a result of the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul, provide updated Pool 2 Southern California documents, as a result of Q&A responses, and Acknowledgement of Amendments must include ALL Amendments.

Amendment No. 0009 was released on August 19, 2025, to correct Amendment 008, box 11, The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is not extended. Proposals are due: September 9, 2025, 10:00 a.m. PDT.

Amendment No. 0010 was released on August 19, 2025, to provide updated “2 Pool 2 So Cal Rev 4”, supplies AND/OR SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED, CLIN 3 has been updated for clarity.

Amendment No. 0011 was released on August 18, 2025, to extend the proposal submission date from September 9, 2025, to September 16, 2025, at 10:00am PST.

Amendment No. 0012 was released on September 8, 2025, to provide updated CLIN structure for “2 Pool 2 So Cal”, and clarification, and all amendments must be acknowledged, if additional space is required to acknowledge all amendments on the SF1442, Offerors shall reference a separate sheet identifying each amendment by number and date.

Amendment No. 0013 was released on September 10, 2025, to provide additional clarifications for Pool 1.

The RFP required four (4) volumes to be submitted:

Volume I , Technical Acceptability, to include Performance Bonding Capacity with a five (5) page limit and General Building Contractor Licensing Requirement with a two (2) page limit;

Volume II, Price, to include J-02 Pool 1: Task Order Solicitation complete package, SF1442 and bid bond requirements for Northern California (if applicable) and/or J-03 Pool 2: Task Order Solicitation complete package SF1442 and bid bond requirements for Southern California (if applicable) with unlimited page limit;

Volume III, Past Performance, to include Past Performance summary with a fifteen (15) page limit;

and

Volume IV, Other, to include WRMACC-SF1442 Amendments Acknowledgement with unlimited page limit, Section K Requirements (if applicable) with unlimited page limit, A&E partnering agreement, join venture, teaming agreements, and/or mentor protégé agreements, and Small business Certification (If applicable) with unlimited page limit.

Forty (40) Offerors submitted proposals that met the date and time requirement of the RFP. One (1) Notice of Elimination was sent to (13) FAR West Contractors Corporation, as it was determined during initial evaluation to be a Large Business for the NAICS code being used. The Offerors that submitted proposals are indicated in Table 1.

METHODOLOGY USED FOR PROPOSAL EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate proposals using a structured, multi-step process designed to ensure fairness, consistency, and compliance with applicable acquisition regulations. This methodology provides for an initial screening for acceptability, followed by technical, price, and past performance evaluations, and culminates in best-value award decisions across the applicable small business categories. Each step is intended to efficiently identify proposals that represent the best value to the Government while maintaining transparency and adherence to the stated evaluation criteria.

STEP 1: INITIAL REVIEW OF PROPOSALS: An initial review of proposals will be conducted to determine acceptability of the proposal. Unacceptable proposals will be handled in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. All unacceptable proposals will be eliminated from further evaluation.

STEP 2: TECHNICAL EVALUATION: Evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability.

Technically unacceptable proposals will not be further evaluated, and will be eliminated from competition.

STEP 3: CATEGORIZE AND LIST BY LOWEST PRICE: For Evaluation purposes only in the award of the IDIQ contracts, the proposals will be placed into two separate pools of interest, then additionally into Small Business categories for which they are eligible for further evaluation.

STEP 4: EVALUATE PAST PERFORMANCE: Evaluation and Selection will use the following order of business categories:

Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB), Historically Under-utilized Business Zones (HUBZone), Woman Owned Small Businesses (WOSB), Small Disadvantage Businesses (SDB), inclusive of 8(a) program Small Businesses (SB).

Evaluation of Past Performance will start with the first category of SDVOSB. All responsive proposals eligible in that category will be listed by price, from lowest to highest.

The past performance evaluation process in the SDVOSB category ceases when a sufficient amount of Very High Level of Confidence proposals are identified, or, when all proposals in the SDVOSB category have been evaluated, whichever occurs first. Once the team identifies a sufficient amount of Very High Level of Confidence proposals, the past performance of all remaining offerors in the SDVOSB category will not be evaluated.

Once the past performance evaluation for the SDVOSB category is completed, evaluation will shift to the next category of HUBZone. The team will carry over the evaluation results of offerors eligible in any of the subsequent categories, in this case the SDVOSB category.

Evaluations will continue until a sufficient number of offerors not previously evaluated in earlier categories receive a “Very High Level of Confidence” rating or until evaluation of all proposals within that category has been evaluated.

For example, the evaluation of the HUBZone category will end when a sufficient amount of HUBZone proposals which were not previously evaluated in the SDVOSB category receive a past performance rating of Very High Level of Confidence, or all proposals in the HUBZone category have been evaluated, whichever occurs first. Evaluation then will shift to the WOSB category. The past performance of all remaining offerors in the HUBZone category will not be evaluated.

This procedure will continue category-by-category in the order stated in Step 3. The team will continue to evaluate performance for each category subsequent to the previous category until a sufficient number of proposals, not previously identified per category receive a past performance rating of Very High Level of Confidence, or all proposals in that category have been evaluated, whichever occurs first. Once the evaluation within any given category ceases, the past performance of all remaining offerors in that category will not be evaluated.

Offerors must understand there is the potential their Past Performance proposals will not be evaluated. When an offeror’s past performance is evaluated, it will only be evaluated once.

Those evaluation results will be used in any subsequent categories for which the offeror is eligible.

STEP 5: SELECTION DECISION FOR IDIQ CONTRACTS: The evaluation results will be forwarded to the SSA to conduct a performance price trade-off within each category, and to make a best value award decision resulting in awards in each of the five (5) categories, for a potential maximum total of thirty (30) awards which represent the best value for the government. The SSA will use the order stated in Step 3. The SSA may award what is considered a sufficient number in a specific category or request further evaluation from the SEB before proceeding to the next category identified in Step 3.

STEP 6: PROCESS IDIQ AWARDS: Award a maximum of thirty (30) IDIQ Contracts based on the Source Selection Authority’s decision. Offerors can only receive one award. Only offerors selected for one of the IDIQ awards will be eligible to receive a task order for Pool 1 or Pool 2.

STEP 7: SELECTION FOR AWARD OF THE MODEL TASK ORDERS (POOL 1 AND

POOL 2): IDIQ contract holders will be eligible to compete for Pool 1 and/or Pool 2 model task orders. If NASA awards the model task orders, it will be to the lowest price offer from among all the IDIQ contract holders in the corresponding pool. An offeror awarded one or both model task orders will meet the guaranteed minimum amount of work.

STEP 8: AWARD OF MINIMUM GUARANTEED TASK ORDER (POOL 1 AND POOL 2):

All other awardees will receive a $1,000.00 Task Order for the Safety and Health Plan submission to meet this guaranteed minimum.

FINDINGS BY THE SOURCE EVALUATION TEAM

STEP 1: INITIAL REVIEW OF PROPOSALS:

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 (SAM.gov) 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.

As part of the acceptability review, the Contracting Officer evaluated each Offeror’s business size status as represented in the SAM.gov, in accordance with FAR 19.301-1 and FAR 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations.

1 Abide International, Inc Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

2 Able Heating and Air Conditioning Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

3 Advanced Technology Construction Unacceptable Acceptable Unacceptable

4 Anderson Burton Construction, Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

5 Anna Lisa Luna Construction Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

6 Barkley Andross Corporation Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

7 Bilbro Construction Company, Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

8 Borja Engineering & Construction Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

9 Construction Corporation DBA CIC Unacceptable Acceptable Unacceptable

10 CM Construction Services Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

11 CMS Construction, Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

12 Creative Builds Corporation Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

14 FASONE Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

15 G-1 Lead Builders JV LLC Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

16 Gideon Contracting, LLC dba Gideon USA Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

17 Good-men Roofing & Construction Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

18 Groundlevel Construction, Inc Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

19 IPI Construction, Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

11 CMS Construction, Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

20 Innovative Project Solutions, Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

21 Ironwood Commercial Builders, Inc Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

22 J.I. Garcia Construction, Inc Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

23 JG Contracting Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

24 Lead Builders, Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

25 Martinez Construction Services, Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

26 MX Construction, Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

27 OCS Construction Services, Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

28 Pacific Tech Construction, Inc Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable

29 Patricia I. Romero, Inc dba Pacific West Builders Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

30 Gustav Keoni dba Precision Construction Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

31 Prime MIK JV LLC Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

32 Spectrum Builders and renovations, Inc Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

33 Sea Pac Engineering, Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

34 Sergent Construction Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

35 SJD&B, Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

36 Souza Construction, Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

37 TLI Construction Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

38 V. Lopez Jr. and Sons, Gen Engineering Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

39 Wu & Associates, Inc Unacceptable Acceptable Unacceptable

40 Yerba Buena Engineering & Construction, Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Based on the results of the Technical Acceptability evaluation, thirty-five (35) proposals were determined to be technically acceptable, having met all minimum requirements of the solicitation. Four (4) proposals were determined to be technically unacceptable due to failure to satisfy one or more mandatory Technical Acceptability requirements; the specific basis for each determination is addressed as follows:

3 Advanced Technology Construction: Per Section L of the solicitation, Offerors were required to submit a signed letter supported by a corporate surety whose name appears on the list contained in U.S. Department of the Treasury Circular 570, demonstrating compliance with the Performance Bonding Capacity requirement. While Advanced Technology Construction provided a letter which referenced the name of a current bonding company, the Offeror did not provide a bond agreement or any supporting documentation from the listed bonding company to substantiate its bonding capacity. Although the Offeror satisfied the General Building Contractor Licensing requirement, the solicitation required Offerors to meet both the Performance Bonding Capacity and the Licensing requirements in order to be found technically acceptable. As the Offeror failed to demonstrate compliance with the Performance Bonding Capacity requirement, the proposal was determined to be technically unacceptable and was not considered further for award.

9 Construction Corporation dba CIC: Per Section L of the solicitation, Offerors were required to submit a signed letter supported by a corporate surety whose name appears on the list contained in U.S. Department of the Treasury Circular 570, demonstrating compliance with the Performance Bonding Capacity requirement, including a minimum single-project bonding capacity of $10 million and an aggregate bonding capacity of $30 million. The Offeror submitted a letter from a surety that does not appear in Treasury Department Circular 570. The letter states a bonding capacity of $7 million for a single project and $14 million in aggregate, which does not meet the minimum bonding thresholds required by the solicitation. Although the Offeror satisfied the General Building Contractor Licensing requirement, the solicitation required Offerors to meet all

16. 7- Bilbro Construction Company, Inc.

Bilbro Construction Company, Inc. received a “Very High Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. The projects were found to be “Very Relevant” with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work products exhibited “Very Good” level of quality with respect to the contractual requirement of the projects.

17. 21- Ironwood Commercial Builders, Inc.

Ironwood Commercial Builder, Inc. received a “Very High Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. The projects were found to be “Relevant” with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work products exhibited “Exceptional” level of quality with respect to the contractual requirement of the projects.

18. 5- Anna Lisa Luna Construction

Anna Lisa Luna Construction received a “Very High Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. The projects were found to be “Relevant” with respect to the requirements

19. 6-Barkley Andross Corporation Barkley Andross Corporation received a “Very High Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. The projects were found to be “Relevant” with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work products exhibited “Exceptional” level of quality with

20. 14- Fasone Construction Fasone Construction received a “High Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating.

The projects were found to be “Relevant” with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work products exhibited “Satisfactory” level of quality with respect to the contractual requirement of the projects.

*15-G-1 Leader Builders JV, LLC: Previously evaluated under HUBZone evaluation number 10.

*Patricia I. Romero, Inc. dba Pacific West Builders: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 14.

*Bilbro Construction Company, Inc.: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 16.

21. 26-MX Construction, Inc.

MX Construction Inc. received a “High Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating.

The projects were found to be “Relevant” with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work products exhibited “Very Good” level of quality with respect to the

*19-IPI Construction, Inc.: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 12.

* 5 Anna Lisa Luna Construction Acceptable Very High Level of

Confidence

28 12 Creative Builds Corporation Acceptable Moderate Level of

Confidence

* 32 Spectrum Builders and renovations, Inc Acceptable High Level of

Confidence

* 6 Barkley Andross Corporation Acceptable Very High Level of

Confidence

* 14 FASONE Acceptable High Level of Confidence

29 17 Good-men Roofing & Construction Inc. Acceptable High Level of

Confidence

30 11 CMS Construction, Inc. Acceptable High Level of Confidence

31 37 TLI Construction Inc. Acceptable High Level of Confidence

* 8 Borja Engineering & Construction Acceptable Moderate Level of

Confidence

* 36 Souza Construction, Inc. Acceptable High Level of

Confidence

32 23 JG Contracting Acceptable High Level of Confidence

* 24 Lead Builders, Inc. Acceptable High Level of Confidence

* 15 G-1 Lead Builders JV LLC Acceptable High Level of

Confidence

* 29 Patricia I. Romero, Inc dba Pacific West Builders

Acceptable High Level of Confidence

33 35 SJD&B, Inc. Acceptable Low Level of Confidence

* 27 OCS Construction Services, Inc Acceptable High Level of

Confidence

* 26 MX Construction, Inc. Acceptable High Level of Confidence

* 19 IPI Construction, Inc. Acceptable High Level of Confidence

*19-IPI Construction, Inc.: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 12.

*10- CM Construction Services: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 13.

*32- Spectrum Builders and Renovation, Inc.: Previously evaluated under HUBZone evaluation number 7.

*26- MX Construction, Inc.: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 21.

*40-Yerba Buena Engineering & Construction Inc.: Previously evaluated under HUBZone evaluation number 9.

*18- Ground Level Construction, Inc.: Previously evaluated under SDVOSB evaluation number 2.

22. 24-Lead Builders, Inc.

Lead Builders, Inc. received a “High Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating.

The projects were found to be “Relevant” with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work products exhibited “Very Good” level of quality with respect to the contractual requirement of the projects.

*29-Patricia I. Romero, Inc. dba Pacific West Builders: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 14.

*15-G-1 Leader Builders JV, LLC: Previously evaluated under HUBZone evaluation number 10.

23. 2- Able Heating and Air Conditioning Able Heating and Air Conditioning received a “High Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. The projects were found to be “Relevant” with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work products exhibited “Satisfactory” level of quality with

*25-Martinez Construction Services: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 15.

24. 1- Abide International, Inc.

Abide International, Inc. received a “High Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. The projects were found to be “Relevant” with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work products exhibited “Very Good” level of quality with respect to the

25. 27- OCS Construction Services, Inc.

OCS Construction Services, Inc. received a “High Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. The projects were found to be “Relevant” with respect to the requirements

26. 30- Gustav Keoni dba Precision Construction

Gustav Keoni dba Precision Construction received a “Very High Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. The projects were found to be “Relevant” with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work products exhibited “Exceptional” level of quality with respect to the contractual requirement of the projects.

27. 36- Souza Construction, Inc.

Souza Construction, Inc. received a “High Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. The projects were found to be “Relevant” with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work products exhibited “Satisfactory” level of quality with respect to the

*38 V. Lopez Jr. and Sons: Previously evaluated under SDVOSB evaluation number 4.

*5 Anna Lisa Luna Construction: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 5.

28. 12- Creative Builds Corporation Creative Builds Corporation received a “Moderate Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. The projects were found to be “Somewhat Relevant” with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work products exhibited “Very Good” level of quality with respect to the contractual requirement of the projects.

*32-Spectrum Builders and Renovations, Inc: Previously evaluated under HUBZone evaluation number 7.

*6- Barkley Andross Corporation: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 19.

*14- Fasone Construction: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 20.

29. 17- Good-men Roofing & Construction Inc.

Good-men Roofing & Construction Inc. received a “High Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. The projects were found to be “Relevant” with respect to the requirements

30. 11- CMS Construction, Inc.

CMS Construction, Inc. received a “High Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. The projects were found to be “Relevant” with respect to the requirements identified in the

31. 37- TLI Construction, Inc.

TLI Construction, Inc. received a “High Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating.

The projects were found to be “Relevant” with respect to the requirements identified in the

32. 23- JG Contracting, Inc.

JG Contracting, Inc. received a “High Level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating.

The projects were found to be “Relevant” with respect to the requirements identified in the

33. 35- SJD&B, Inc.

SJD&B, Inc. received a “Low level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. The projects were found to be “Somewhat Relevant” with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work products exhibited “Satisfactory” level of quality with respect to the

*27- OCS Construction Services, Inc.: Previously evaluated under SDB evaluation number 25.

* 23 JG Contracting Acceptable High Level of

* 24 Lead Builders, Inc. Acceptable High Level of Confidence

* 22 J.I. Garcia Construction, Inc Acceptable High Level of

Confidence

* 15 G-1 Lead Builders JV LLC Acceptable High Level of

Confidence

* 29 Patricia I. Romero, Inc dba Pacific West Builders

Acceptable High Level of Confidence

* 35 SJD&B, Inc. Acceptable Low Level of Confidence

* 7 Bilbro Construction Company, Inc. Acceptable Very High Level of

Confidence

* 34 Sergent Construction Acceptable High Level of Confidence

* 27 OCS Construction Services, Inc Acceptable High Level of

Confidence

* 26 MX Construction, Inc. Acceptable Very High Level of Confidence

* 19 IPI Construction, Inc. Acceptable High Level of

*19- IPI Construction, Inc.: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 12.

*16- Gideon USA: Previously evaluated under HUBZone evaluation number 6.

*10- CM Construction Services: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 13.

*32- Spectrum Builders and Renovation, Inc.: Previously evaluated under HUBZone evaluation number 7.

*20- Innovation Project Solutions, Inc.: Previously evaluated under SDVOSB evaluation number 1.

*26- MX Construction, Inc.: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 21.

34. 31- Prime MIK JV LLC Prime MIK JV LLC received a “High level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating.

The projects were found to be “Relevant” with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work products exhibited “Satisfactory” level of quality with respect to the contractual requirement of the projects.

*33- Sea Pac Engineering, Inc: Previously evaluated under HUBZone evaluation number 8.

*40- Yerba Buena Engineering & Construction Inc.: Previously evaluated under HUBZone evaluation number 9.

*18- Ground Level Construction, Inc.: Previously evaluated under SDVOSB evaluation number 2.

*24- Lead Builders, Inc.: Previously evaluated under SDB evaluation number 22.

*29- Patricia I. Romero, Inc. dba Pacific West Builders: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 14.

*15- G-1 Leader Builders JV, LLC: Previously evaluated under HUBZone evaluation number 10.

*2- Able Heating and Air Conditioning: Previously evaluated under SDB evaluation number 23.

*34- Sergent Construction: Previously evaluated under SDVOS evaluation number 3.

*25- Martinez Construction Services: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 15.

*22- J.I Garcia Construction, Inc.: Previously evaluated under HUBZone evaluation number 11.

*1- Abide International, Inc.: Previously evaluated under SDB evaluation number 24.

*27- OCS Construction Services, Inc.: Previously evaluated under SDB evaluation number 25.

*7- Bilbro Construction Company, Inc.: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 16.

*30- Gustav Keoni dba Precision Construction: Previously evaluated under SDB evaluation number 26.

*36- Souza Construction, Inc.: Previously evaluated under SDB evaluation number 27.

*21- Ironwood Commercial Builders, Inc.: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 21.

*38- V. Lopez Jr. and Sons, Gen Engineering Inc.: Previously evaluated under SDVOSB evaluation number 4.

*5- Anna Lisa Luna Construction, Inc.: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 18.

*12- Creative Builds Corporation: Previously evaluated under SDB evaluation number 12.

*31- Prime MIK JV LLC: Previously evaluated under SB evaluation number 34.

*32- Spectrum Builders and Renovations, Inc.: Previously evaluated under HUBZone evaluation number 7.

*6- Barkley Andross Corporation: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 19.

*14- Fasone: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 20.

*33- Sea Pac Engineering, Inc.: Previously evaluated under HUBZone evaluation number 8.

*17- Good-men Roofing & Construction, Inc.: Previously evaluated under SDB evaluation number 29.

35. 4-Anderson Burton Anderson Burton received a “High level of Confidence” past performance confidence rating. The projects were found to be “Relevant” with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation, and the work products exhibited “Very good” level of quality with respect to the contractual requirement of the projects.

*11- CMS Construction, Inc. Previously evaluated under SDB evaluation number 11.

*16- Gideon USA: Previously evaluated under HUBZone evaluation number 6.

*37- TLI Construction, Inc.: Previously evaluated under HUBZone evaluation number 6.

*8- Borja Engineering & Construction: Previously evaluated under SDVOSB evaluation number 8.

*36- Souza Construction, Inc.: Previously evaluated under SDB evaluation number 27.

*23- JG Contracting: Previously evaluated under SDB evaluation number 33.

*24- Lead Builders, Inc.: Previously evaluated under SDB evaluation number 22.

*15- G-1 Lead Builders, Inc.: Previously evaluated under HUBZone evaluation number 10.

*22- J.I. Garcia Construction, Inc.: Previously evaluated under HUBZone evaluation number 11.

*29- Patricia I. Romero, Inc. dba Pacific West Builders: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 14.

*35- SJD&B, Inc.: Previously evaluated under SDB evaluation number 34.

*34- Sergent Construction: Previously evaluated under SDVOS evaluation number 3.

*27- OCS Construction Services, Inc.: Previously evaluated under SDB evaluation number 27.

*26- MX Construction, Inc.: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 21.

*19- IPI Construction, Inc.: Previously evaluated under WOSB evaluation number 12.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

During the presentation, I questioned the SEB on the material presented and carefully considered the detailed findings the SEB presented. I concluded that the evaluation of proposals by the SEB was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. In addition, key Center representatives attended the final presentation and provided me with their insights. These key personnel have responsibility related to this procurement and understand the application of the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP.

I recognized this procurement was a streamlined Price Performance Tradeoff as described in the first section of the Source Selection Statement. The findings the SEB presented involved those offerors that were evaluated and deemed to be technically acceptable. Once a proposal was evaluated as technically acceptable, the next step of the process required me to make a tradeoff between Price and Past Performance.

In determining which proposals offered the best value to NASA, I relied on the order of importance in the RFP, which specified “As individual factors, Past Performance is significantly more important than price.”

Technical Acceptability was assessed on an acceptable or unacceptable basis based on the offerors’ bonding ability to meet the minimum single and aggregate project bonding capacity and a General Building Contractors Class A or Class B License in good standing.

Pricing evaluation was an assessment of proposed prices for each “Model” task order under one or both pools described in the solicitation. Past Performance evaluation was an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform the solicitation requirements.

Using past performance information submitted by the offeror, and past performance information independently obtained by the Government, the SEB integrated the recency, relevancy and quality of all efforts evaluated for the offeror. The SEB rating represented an integrated assessment of (1) the offeror’s recent, relevant, and quality of performance; and (2) the recent, relevant, and quality of performance of any teaming partner(s) or joint venture participant whose efforts will meaningfully influence performance of the contract. This factor indicated the relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of each offeror’s record of performing projects similar in size, scope and complexity with respect to the requirements identified in the solicitation.

There were two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first was to evaluate the relevancy of the offeror’s recently performed work, relevant to the types of effort and types of requirements in the solicitation that met the recency criteria. Relevant performance included performance similar or greater in size, scope and complexity described in the solicitation. The evaluation team reviewed the offeror’s Past Performance and made an overall determination of the relevancy of the recent performance to the requirements of the solicitation, then assigned a Past Performance Relevancy Rating based on the ratings and definitions found in the solicitation.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation was to determine how well the contractor performed the recently performed work. Past performance information was obtained on relevant, similar recent projects listed by the offeror in Volume II—Past Performance, to assist in the determining the quality level of past performance. The Government also used past performance information obtained from the Government wide Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), questionnaires or personal knowledge.

My selection was based on a comparative assessment of each proposal against each of the source selection factors. Under the multiple award assessment, the potential maximum number of awards was thirty (30) total awards as representing the best value for the government. As the SSA, I can determine what is considered a sufficient number of awards for each category.

Best Value Continuum, Performance, Price Trade-Off (PPTO)

Pool 1: Northern California 40- Yerba Buena Engineering & Construction, Inc. is the 9th lowest-priced offeror, its Moderate Level of Confidence rating reflects an increased level of performance risk when compared to higher-rated offerors.

The Offeror submitted past performance projects that were recent and demonstrated some experience with construction efforts involving multiple subcontractors and elements of design-build; however, these projects were assessed as Somewhat Relevant due to limited and generalized statements of work and a lack of clear detail necessary to fully evaluate scope, complexity, and applicability to the requirement. In terms of quality, while the Offeror demonstrated Very Good performance in meeting contractual requirements and exceeding some requirements to the Government’s benefit, the overall record reflects inconsistencies, including schedule delays, cost growth, and variability in reporting, which diminish confidence in sustained performance. Although these issues were addressed through corrective actions with limited overall impact, they nonetheless contribute to an elevated risk profile.

Given that non-price factors are significantly more important than price, the evaluated performance risk associated with Yerba Buena Engineering & Construction, Inc. proposal outweighs the benefit of its relatively lower price. Higher-confidence offerors, whose past performance demonstrates greater relevance, consistency, and reliability, provide the Government with a higher likelihood of successful performance and therefore represents a better overall value. Accordingly, this Offeror is not selected for award.

Pool 2: Southern California 38-V. Lopez Jr. and Sons, Gen Engineering, Inc. Low Level of Confidence rating reflects a significant level of performance risk when compared to higher-rated offerors. The Offeror demonstrated recent past performance on projects within the required timeframe and provided examples of work involving heavy civil and regulated federal efforts; however, these projects were assessed as Somewhat Relevant due to a primary focus on less complex, exterior civil/site work and limited demonstrated capability in managing complex, multi-discipline construction efforts. This lack of depth in comparable scope, size, and complexity reduces the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully execute the full range of requirements under this solicitation.

In terms of quality, the Offeror’s performance was assessed as Satisfactory, indicating that contractual requirements were generally met; however, the record reflects recurring concerns related to cost control, schedule management, and overall project execution. While corrective actions were implemented, they appeared only partially effective and did not fully mitigate the impact of these issues, resulting in only adequate overall performance. These factors collectively contribute to a lower level of confidence and indicate that process improvements may be necessary for successful contract performance.

Given that non-price factors are significantly more important than price, the elevated performance risk associated with V. Lopez Jr. and Sons, Gen Engineering, Inc. proposal outweighs any potential price advantage. Higher-rated offerors with stronger past performance records, greater relevance, and more consistent execution provide the Government with a higher likelihood of successful performance and therefore represent a better overall value. Accordingly, this Offeror is not selected for award.

12- Creative Builds Corporation is competitively priced, its Moderate Level of Confidence rating reflects an increased level of performance risk when compared to higher-rated offerors. The Offeror demonstrated recent past performance within the required timeframe and submitted projects generally aligned with WRMACC construction requirements, including secure-site execution and concurrent project management.

However, these efforts were assessed as Somewhat Relevant due to narrow scope descriptions, lack of clear delivery method identification, and limited detail regarding complexity, schedule control, and full multi-discipline integration, reducing the Government’s ability to fully assess applicability to the requirement.

In terms of quality, the Offeror demonstrated Very Good performance, meeting contractual requirements and exceeding some to the Government’s benefit. While overall outcomes were effective, the record reflects early challenges related to schedule adherence and project management, including delays in mobilizing specialty subcontractors. Although corrective actions and personnel changes ultimately improved performance and mitigated impacts, these issues contribute to a moderate level of risk in consistent execution.

Given that non-price factors are significantly more important than price, the performance risk associated with this Offeror’s proposal outweighs any potential price advantage. Higher-rated offerors with stronger relevance, clearer demonstration of multi-discipline integration, and more consistent performance provide the Government with a higher likelihood of successful execution and therefore represent a better overall value. Accordingly, this Offeror is not selected for award.

8- Borja Engineering & Construction is competitively priced, its Moderate Level of Confidence rating reflects an increased level of performance risk when compared to higher-rated offerors. The Offeror demonstrated recent past performance within the required timeframe and provided a mix of relevant and somewhat relevant experience across certain key disciplines, with stronger alignment in mechanical work.

However, the overall record was assessed as Somewhat Relevant due to limited demonstrated experience in civil and electrical disciplines, as well as insufficient detail regarding coordination of multiple subcontractors. Additionally, the submitted projects reflect relatively lower magnitude and narrower scope, which reduces the Government’s ability to fully assess applicability to the breadth and complexity of the requirement.

In terms of quality, the Offeror demonstrated Very Good performance, exceeding contractual requirements through superior workmanship, effective quality control, and proactive management. Minor deficiencies were promptly corrected, resulting in minimal rework and, in some cases, early project completion. While these strengths reflect strong execution within the scope of the projects performed, they do not fully offset the limitations in scope, scale, and multi-discipline experience.

Given that non-price factors are significantly more important than price, the performance risk associated with this Offeror’s proposal outweighs any potential price advantage. Higher-rated offerors with more comprehensive, clearly demonstrated experience across all required disciplines and greater project magnitude provide the Government with a higher likelihood of successful performance and therefore represent a better overall value. Accordingly, this Offeror is not selected for award.

35- SJD&B, Inc. was rated a Low Level of Confidence reflecting a significant level of performance risk when compared to higher-rated offerors. The Offeror demonstrated recent past performance within the required timeframe and provided experience in civil-focused repair, stabilization, and multi-discipline coordination under a SABER framework. However, these efforts were assessed as Somewhat Relevant due to limited statement of work detail, unclear scope across engineering disciplines, and a predominant focus on civil and earthwork activities with relatively low demonstrated complexity. This reduces the Government’s ability to fully assess applicability to the broader, multi-discipline requirements of this procurement.

In terms of quality, the Offeror demonstrated Satisfactory performance, meeting contractual requirements with some minor issues that were addressed through adequate corrective actions. While overall outcomes reflect acceptable execution, the record shows limited evidence of complex, multi-disciplinary performance and does not demonstrate a consistent ability to manage higher complexity efforts. Additionally, the lack of sufficient detail within the proposal further limits the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirement.

Given that non-price factors are significantly more important than price, the elevated performance risk associated with this Offeror’s proposal outweighs any potential price advantage. Higher-rated offerors with stronger relevance, greater demonstrated complexity, and more consistent performance provide the Government with a higher likelihood of successful execution and therefore represent a better overall value.

Accordingly, this Offeror is not selected for award.

Pool 2 offerors 38, 12, 8, and 35 were evaluated and determined to present either Moderate or Low Levels of Confidence, reflecting varying degrees of performance risk when compared to higher-rated offerors.

While all four Offerors demonstrated recent past performance, their projects were assessed as Somewhat Relevant due to limitations in scope detail, narrow discipline focus, or insufficient demonstration of complex, multi-discipline coordination required under this procurement. Although several Offerors exhibited Very Good or Satisfactory quality performance, including effective execution and corrective actions, recurring concerns such as schedule delays, cost control issues, limited complexity, and gaps in demonstrated experience reduce overall confidence in successful contract performance.

Given that non-price factors are significantly more important than price, the collective performance risk associated with Pool 2 offerors 38, 12, 8, and 35 outweighs any potential price advantages. Higher-rated offerors with stronger relevance, more consistent performance, and clearly demonstrated capability across required disciplines provide the Government with a higher likelihood of successful execution and therefore represent a better overall value. Accordingly, Pool 2 offerors 38, 12, 8, and 35 are not selected for award.

Selection Summary of Contractor Schedule

As the Source Selection Authority, I have independently determined, based on the information presented and the evaluation results, that a total of 30 awards will be made under this procurement.

This competitive best value source selection was conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 and NASA FAR Supplement 1815.3. For technically acceptable offerors, tradeoffs were performed between past performance and price, with non-price factors significantly more important than price. Based on this analysis, I determined that the selected offerors provide the greatest overall value to the Government, representing the best combination of performance confidence and reasonable pricing.

The resulting awards establish a pool of highly qualified contractors to support mission requirements across both Northern and Southern California, with 15 companies selected to support both regions, including 8 designated for Northern California and 7 designated for Southern California. These selections ensure a schedule of balanced, capable, and competitive contractors to effectively support current and future requirements.

Eddie Zavala, Source Selection Authority

Date