Source Selection Statement SIGNED 09 01 2022.pdf

Selection Statement for the

Marshall Operations Systems, Services, and Integration (MOSSI) II Contract

Request for Proposals (RFP) 80MSFC21R0006

On August 18, 2022, I, along with other senior officials from NASA’s George C.

Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), met with the source evaluation board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the MOSSI II acquisition. The SEB presented their findings to me as the source selection authority (SSA) for the purpose of making a source selection decision.

I. PROCUREMENT HISTORY

The MOSSI II Request for Proposal (RFP or solicitation) was released on August 5, 2021. The RFP requires the successful offeror to provide the ground systems and operations services necessary to meet the requirements delegated to the Payload and

Mission Operations Division (PMOD) within the Human Exploration Development and

Operations (HEDO) Office located at MSFC, with performance occurring at MSFC, Johnson Space Center (JSC), and Kennedy Space Center (KSC).

The effort will be performed under a cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contract. The contract consists of a two-year base period with six one-year options. Contract phase-in will be performed as a separate firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract line item number (CLIN).

The Government designated this procurement as a full and open competition under

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, and NASA

FAR Supplement (NFS) part 1815, Contracting by Negotiation.

Two amendments were issued to the RFP on August 24, 2021, and August 27, 2021.

These amendments responded to questions from industry and updated various portions of the RFP.

On September 9, 2021, NASA received two acceptable proposals from the following companies corresponding to the alphabetical order of evaluation:

1. KBR Wyle Services, LLC (KBR)

2. Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. (TBE)

II. EVALUATION SUMMARY

The proposals were evaluated in accordance with the RFP, FAR part 15, NFS part 1815, and the MOSSI II Source Evaluation Plan.

The RFP listed three evaluation factors for award: Mission Suitability, Cost, and Past

Performance. In accordance with FAR subpart 15.304(e), Mission Suitability is more important than Past Performance, which is more important than Cost. Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost. In accordance with the RFP, a best value tradeoff process, as described at FAR 15.101-1, is to be used in making the source selection.

The three evaluation factors are described as follows:

Mission Suitability: The subfactors used in evaluating Mission Suitability and their corresponding weights are listed below:

Subfactor 1: Technical and Staffing Approach (TSA) 500 points

Subfactor 2: Management Approach (MA) 250 points

Subfactor 3: Small Business (SB) 150 points

Subfactor 4: Innovations 100 points

TOTAL 1,000 points

After evaluating each proposal, the SEB voting members collectively developed a consensus adjectival rating (i.e., “Excellent,” “Very Good,” “Good,” “Fair,” or “Poor”) for each of the four subfactors based upon the documented findings (i.e., strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies). Following the establishment of a consensus adjectival rating, the SEB voting members collectively developed a consensus percentile rating that corresponded with the adjectival rating. Once the percentile rating was established, the numerical score for that subfactor was computed by taking the consensus percentile rating for that subfactor and multiplying it by the maximum points available for that subfactor (see listing above). This represented the numerical score for a given subfactor.

This process was repeated for each of the four Mission Suitability subfactors by offeror. The final point value for the Mission Suitability factor was then calculated as the sum of the four subfactors’ point values. In accordance with NFS 1815.370(h)(viii), the SEB did not assign an overall adjectival rating for the Mission Suitability factor.

Cost: Each offeror’s proposed cost, including the offeror’s fully burdened indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) labor rates, was assessed in accordance with FAR

15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(A) and (B).

For evaluation purposes, each offeror’s proposed and probable costs for the contract requirements was established as the sum of: (1) the phase-in services price; (2) the mission services cost and fee for the contract period of performance, including all options; (3) an IDIQ value using the offeror-provided fully burdened rates applied to a pre-populated estimate of labor hours for each labor category, for each NASA Center, for the contract period of performance, including all options; and (4) a calculated value using the offeror-provided Other Direct Cost Indirect Rates applied to a pre-populated cost estimate for each NASA Center, for the contract period of performance, including all options. For purposes of evaluating the option to extend services (i.e., FAR 52.217-8), the

Government determined the six-month cost by prorating the cost proposed for the last year of mission services.

Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance, to include relevant federal, state, and local government and private contracts, and the past performance of any proposed subcontractors and individual joint venture partners, if applicable, was evaluated. This factor was not numerically scored but was assigned a level of confidence rating (i.e., “Very High Level of Confidence,” “High Level of Confidence,” “Moderate Level of

Confidence,” “Low Level of Confidence,” “Very Low Level of Confidence,” or

“Neutral”) in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2).

On May 5, 2022, a competitive range consisting of both proposals was established, and the offerors were so notified. The evaluation of final proposal revisions (FPR) is summarized below. Multiple rounds of discussions were held with both offerors beginning on May 19, 2022, and concluding on July 13, 2022. Both offerors were advised of any remaining issues or weaknesses that were not resolved during discussions in order to allow both to incorporate any narrative to address these items as part of their FPR submission.

Evaluation Results for KBR’s Proposal

For the Mission Suitability factor, KBR’s proposal received a total score of 837 (out of a possible 1000 points), and the four subfactor ratings earned were “Very Good” (in

Technical and Staffing Approach), “Excellent” (in Management Approach), “Very

Good” (in Small Business), and “Good” (in Innovations) (see discussion below). In support of these ratings, the proposal received four significant strengths, eight strengths, one significant weakness, and one weakness. The following is a summary of the evaluation results under the four Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Technical and Staffing Approach subfactor, KBR’s proposal received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” and earned 410 points (out of a possible 500 points) resulting from two significant strengths, six strengths, one significant weakness, and no weaknesses. The two significant strengths were assessed for: (1) the proposed approach to perform Performance Work Statement (PWS) 2.1, Payload Mission Operations

Division (PMOD) Internal Action Integration, to provide technical oversight and project integration across all functional and technical areas, which should facilitate effective technical integration of both ground systems and flight operations disciplines; and (2) the proposed approach to perform PWS 6.6, NASA Information Technology Systems

Engineering and Integration, which provides for enhanced security monitoring for the

Huntsville Operations Support Center (HOSC), thus increasing the contractor’s ability to provide rapid response to security incidents as well as enable more active security engineering during the design phase of system changes.

The six strengths were assessed for: (1) the proposed approach to perform PWS 6.2, Software Development and Sustaining Engineering, which has been proven in both private and public sectors to decrease cost, shorten schedules, and mitigate the risk of anomalies in operations; (2) the proposed approach to perform PWS 4.2, Flight operations personnel, Flight Controller, Integrated Support Team (IST), and Instructor

Training, which utilizes a structured training development process and collaboration to develop coursework; (3) the proposed approach to perform PWS 2.4, Operations Concept

Development and Enhancement, which provides for collecting, developing, and integrating operational concepts; (4) the proposed approach to perform PWS 7.1, Problem Management and Resolution, for an information management system that improves problem management and resolution workflow by utilizing automation to streamline the problem tracking process; (5) the proposed approach to provide a single integrated framework for staff management, which is comprised of a combination of processes and enabling tools for proactive recruiting, retention, and resource planning over the life of the contract; and (6) the proposed approach to manage single-point of failure personnel dependencies, which is critical to sustaining on going 24x7x365 operations. The one significant weakness was assessed for an insufficient staffing rationale, based on the proposed technical approach and basis of estimate, to execute the requirements of the MOSSI II PWS, and which appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, KBR’s proposal received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” and earned 230 points (out of a possible 250 points) resulting from one significant strength, one strength, and no significant weaknesses or weaknesses. The significant strength was assessed for the proposed centralized information management system, which provides seamless integrated management functions across the MOSSI II contract and a centralized and secure system for automated workflow management. The strength was assigned for the proposed approach for Phase-in, which should reduce the risk of transition from two contracts into the one integrated MOSSI II contract.

Under the Small Business subfactor, KBR’s proposal received an adjectival rating of

“Very Good” and earned 135 points (out of a possible 150 points) resulting from one significant strength, one strength, no significant weaknesses, and one weakness. The significant strength was assessed for the proposed commitment and approach to utilize small business concerns for the performance of work under the contract. The strength was assessed for the proposed small business subcontracting goals, which slightly exceed the solicitation’s recommended small business subcontracting goals in all socioeconomic categories. The weakness was assessed for persistent inconsistencies and errors within the offeror’s small business subcontracting plan.

Under the Innovations subfactor, KBR’s proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and earned 62 points (out of a possible 100 points) resulting from no significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, or weaknesses.

For the Cost factor, KBR proposed the higher cost of the two offerors. The SEB made a significant upward probable cost adjustment, which was required in order to make work year equivalent (WYE) skill mix adjustments correlating to the significant weakness assigned to the proposal under the Technical and Staffing Approach subfactor under

Mission Suitability. KBR’s probable cost was also the higher of the two offerors.

For the Past Performance factor, KBR’s proposal received a rating of “Very High Level of Confidence” resulting from three significant strengths, one strength, and no significant weaknesses or weaknesses. The significant strengths were assessed for: (1) KBR’s performance as the prime contractor on the highly relevant referenced NASA Integrated

Mission Operations Contract II (IMOC II) contract; (2) KBR’s performance as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant referenced NASA Mission Systems Operations

Contract (MSOC) contract; and (3) KBR’s performance as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant referenced NASA Ground Systems and Mission Operations 2

(GSMO-2) contract. The strength was assessed for KBR’s proposed subcontractor’s performance as the prime contractor on the highly relevant referenced NASA Huntsville

Operations Support Contract (HOSC) contract.

Evaluation Results for TBE’s Proposal

For the Mission Suitability factor, TBE’s proposal received a total score of 867 (out of a possible 1000 points), and the four subfactor ratings earned were “Excellent” (in

Technical and Staffing Approach), “Good” (in Management Approach), “Excellent” (in

Small Business), and “Good” (in Innovations) (see discussion below). In support of these ratings, the proposal received six significant strengths, nine strengths, no significant weaknesses, and one weakness. The following is a summary of the evaluation results under the four Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Technical and Staffing Approach subfactor, TBE’s proposal received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” and earned 480 points (out of a possible 500 points) resulting from four significant strengths, eight strengths, no significant weaknesses, and one weakness. The four significant strengths were assessed for: (1) the proposed approach to perform PWS 2.2, Project Integration, which provides for effective technical integration across the MOSSI II contract, PMOD organization, each of PMOD’s project customers, and their respective user customers, which significantly improves communications and ensures seamless information flow; (2) the proposed approach to support each of the multiple PMOD project customers, which improves customer satisfaction and streamlines the PMOD workflow; (3) the proposed approach to increase efficiencies resulting from MOSSI II contract integration which increases efficiency in the management of personnel resources across projects, and increases integration of disciplines, processes, and practices to provide a more cohesive, integrated response to operations services and project changes; and (4) the proposed approach to perform PWS

5.2, Real-Time Flight Control, and PWS 5.4, Ground Systems Operational Support, to improve situational awareness of the integrated ground and flight system activities required to be performed and improve efficiency in response time for integrated anomaly resolution, which reduces the risk of failure to meet science objectives.

The eight strengths were assessed for: (1) the proposed approach to provide cross-enterprise integration across the MOSSI II contract to drive synergies for process improvements; (2) the proposed approach to perform PWS 2.1, PMOD Internal Action

Integration, to provide an information management system that streamlines the collection, assessment, integration, coordination, dissemination, and reporting of both programmatic and technical information for ground and flight disciplines to perform data analysis and trending across the contract; (3) the proposed approach to manage single-point of failure personnel dependencies which is critical to sustaining on going 24x7x365 operations; (4) the proposed approach to perform PWS 3.2, Mission Safety, to support the development of on-orbit operational controls to meet NASA mission safety requirements which reduces risk to the on-orbit crew and vehicle; (5) the proposed approach to perform PWS

4.3, Crew Training, which reduces the payload crew training schedule; (6) the proposed approach to perform PWS 4.2, Flight operations personnel, Flight Controller, Integrated

Support Team (IST), and Instructor Training, which utilizes a combination of proven and innovative concepts to provide efficient, effective, and consistent training across all operations disciplines and projects within PMOD; (7) the proposed approach to perform

PWS 6.1, Ground Systems Development and Sustaining Engineering, which increases emphasis on ground system efficiencies and improvement at the highest level within the organization; and (8) the proposed approach to perform PWS 6.2, Software Development and Sustaining Engineering, which streamlines the design and development of software applications. The one weakness was assessed for apparent discrepancies between the intentions stated in the proposed Total Compensation Plan (TCP) included in the Mission

Suitability Volume and the detailed implementation of the TCP described in the Mission

Suitability and Cost volumes.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, TBE’s proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and earned 175 points (out of a possible 250 points) resulting from no significant strengths, one strength, and no significant weaknesses or weaknesses. The one strength was assessed for the proposed approach to Phase-in, which reduces risk of transition from two contracts into the one integrated MOSSI II contract.

Under the Small Business subfactor, TBE’s proposal received an adjectival rating of

“Excellent” and earned 150 points (out of a possible 150 points) resulting from two significant strengths, and no strengths, significant weaknesses, or weaknesses. The two significant strengths were assessed for: (1) the proposed small business subcontracting goals, which exceed or substantially exceed the solicitation’s recommended small business subcontracting goals in all socioeconomic categories; and (2) the proposed commitment and approach to utilize small business concerns for the performance of work.

Under the Innovations subfactor, TBE’s proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and earned 62 points (out of a possible 100 points) resulting from no significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, or weaknesses.

For the Cost factor, TBE’s proposed cost of $680.1M was the lower of the two offerors.

The SEB made a minor upward probable cost adjustment to TBE’s cost proposal, which was required due to the inadequate compensation proposed and which correlates to the weakness assigned to the proposal under the Technical and Staffing Approach subfactor under Mission Suitability. TBE’s probable cost was also the lower of the two offerors.

For the Past Performance factor, TBE’s proposal received a rating of “High Level of

Confidence” resulting from one significant strength, no strengths, significant weaknesses, or weaknesses, and three adequate findings. The one significant strength was assessed for

TBE’s performance as the prime contractor on the highly relevant referenced NASA

Mission Operations and Integration (MO&I) contract. The adequate findings related to:

(1) TBE’s performance as the prime contractor on the highly relevant referenced Missile

Defense Agency (MDA) Objective Simulation Framework (OSF) contract; (2) the performance of a TBE-proposed subcontractor (non-major) as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant referenced NASA Space Flight Systems Development and

Operations Contract - 2 (SpaceDOC-2): and (3) the performance of a TBE-proposed subcontractor (non-major) as the prime contractor on the highly relevant referenced

NASA Integrated Communication Services (NICS) contract.

III. SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

The SEB presented its evaluation findings for each proposal to me, and I carefully considered the detailed findings and the Board's responses to my questions about those findings, the adjectival ratings, point scores, the total proposed/probable costs, and the

Past Performance level of confidence ratings. I also solicited and considered the views of the officials attending the SEB presentation who have responsibility related to this procurement and understand the application of the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP.

I determined the SEB conducted a thorough and accurate review of the proposals according to the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP, identifying findings and explaining how those findings would affect contract performance. The findings were detailed, consistent with the RFP, provided clear descriptions of the merits of each proposal, and supported the various ratings assigned. I also concluded that the evaluation plan for this procurement was followed, and the evaluation of proposals was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. I concluded that the Board’s findings were reasonable and valid for purposes of making a selection decision. While I agreed with the SEB’s findings, I also recognized my responsibility as the SSA to examine the findings, the adjectival ratings, point scores, the total proposed/probable costs, and the

Past Performance level of confidence ratings for each proposal, and to use my independent judgment to determine the appropriate discriminators for purposes of making a best value award selection for the Government.

Based on a comparison of both proposals against the three evaluation factors for award and the relative importance of these factors, I select the proposal submitted by Teledyne

Brown Engineering, Inc., for award of the MOSSI II contract. The rationale for my selection follows.

Mission Suitability

In comparing KBR’s proposal to TBE’s proposal under the Mission Suitability factor, I noted that TBE’s proposal appears to have an advantage (i.e., 867 points) over KBR’s proposal (i.e., 837 points). Looking beyond these scores, I determined they are supported by the underlying adjectival ratings and corresponding findings for the four Mission

Suitability subfactors.

To better understand the respective evaluations, I compared the findings for each proposal under all four Mission Suitability subfactors. Overall, KBR’s proposal was assessed four significant strengths, eight strengths, one significant weakness, and one weakness, while TBE’s proposal was assessed six significant strengths, nine strengths, no significant weaknesses, and one weakness.

In comparing the two proposals under the Technical and Staffing Approach subfactor, which was the most heavily weighted subfactor, I noted the adjectival rating difference between the two proposals. That is, KBR’s proposal earned a rating of “Very Good” and

TBE earned a rating of “Excellent.” In reviewing the findings under this subfactor, I studied the beneficial impacts and potential risks, as applicable, to the MOSSI II contract.

KBR’s two significant strengths (described above) should greatly increase the likelihood of successful integration across the contract and improve communications between the contractor and PMOD, but also increase support to, and satisfaction of, the PMOD customer base; and greatly increase the ability to provide for more real-time focus on cyber-security and a more proactive monitoring approach to mitigate and better posture

PMOD-managed systems to be protected from ever-evolving cyber security threats. KBR also earned six strengths (described above), which should increase the likelihood of both a reduction in costs and schedule impacts while mitigating the risk of software development anomalies; benefit PMOD by providing well-qualified flight/ground controllers and instructors; enhance customer satisfaction by providing engagement with stakeholders to develop fully integrated operations concepts in support of requirements and product development; should provide an effective means of providing automated problem resolution tracking; enhance the offeror’s ability to continuously perform data analytics to successfully meet current and future staffing needs; and enhance the offeror’s ability to sustain round-the-clock operations without disruption.

In this same subfactor, TBE’s four significant strengths (described above) should establish a very effective means of streamlining communications while improving information flow across the customer base as well as internal to PMOD; result in increased customer satisfaction and PMOD responsiveness both within PMOD and external to their project customer base; greatly increase the likelihood of achieving the successful integration of disciplines, processes, and practices into a more cohesive, integrated response to operations services and project changes; and create a more comprehensive environment of situational awareness while improving efficiencies in response time to reduce the risk of failing to meet PMOD science objectives while maximizing utilization of on orbit crew time. Additionally, TBE’s eight strengths

(described above) should increase both contract efficiencies and customer satisfaction;

provide a very effective information management platform across the contract for the efficient use of technical and programmatic data, processes, and tools; increase the likelihood of sustaining round-the-clock operations without service disruption; result in the development of safer payload hardware and implementable operational controls while reducing on-orbit crew and vehicle risks; enhance payload crew training while maximizing efficiencies within the payload crew training schedule; result in the successful certification of ground and flight operators to support PMOD customers such as ISS as well as other project teams; provide a program level emphasis to help ensure ground system architecture efficiencies and improvements; and provide an effective means of deploying software applications for use by the PMOD organization, thereby increasing the likelihood of quality product delivery over the life of the contract.

However, I also noted in this same subfactor the significant weakness in KBR’s proposal in contrast to the one weakness in TBE’s proposal. KBR’s significant weakness

(described above), which factored in the unique aspects of KBR’s staffing approach and basis of estimate, was assessed for the insufficient staffing rationale relative to the proposed technical approach and basis of estimate, which resulted in a significant reduction in personnel in critical PWS areas and could appreciably increase the risk of unsuccessful performance of these critical mission activities. Specifically, the inadequately staffed areas are responsible for the development of payload operations products; therefore, the inadequate staffing could negatively impact the ability to develop operations products in a timely and efficient manner, thus resulting in potential processing backlogs, loss of on orbit payload opportunities, and inefficient utilization of on orbit resources. I also note that the SEB conducted multiple rounds of discussions with this offeror regarding the identified staffing issues. While many of the identified issues were resolved, a significant weakness remained throughout all rounds of discussions, noting that while the supporting rationale provided was sufficient to support some of the delineated staffing reductions, the rationale as provided in KBR’s FPR remained insufficient to substantiate the reductions as identified in the significant weakness finding. I also noted that the discussions documents provided to both offerors made no distinction between ordinary findings and significant findings in order for offerors to appropriately focus on the resolution of all findings identified. Additionally, as part of the

FPR request letter, KBR was notified of the issues which remained unresolved and that the FPR was KBR’s final opportunity to address any remaining issues, such as the provision of adequate rationale to support the significant decreases in staffing in the identified areas. However, KBR’s FPR failed to fully address these concerns to the SEB’s satisfaction, and so the significant weakness finding remained.

On the other hand, TBE was assessed a weakness for inadequate compensation for a small number of labor categories. However, based on the small value of the actual probable cost adjustment relative to TBE’s weakness, I considered the potential risk to unsuccessful contract performance to be minor. I concluded that TBE’s proposal under the Technical and Staffing Approach subfactor is comprehensive and thorough and of exceptional merit. Therefore, based on all the above, I consider TBE’s proposal, which was rated “Excellent,” to have a significant advantage over KBR’s proposal, which was rated “Very Good,” under this most heavily weighted subfactor.

In comparing the two proposals under the Management Approach subfactor (the second most heavily weighted subfactor), I noted the adjectival rating difference between the two proposals. That is, KBR’s proposal earned a rating of “Excellent” and TBE’s proposal earned a rating of “Good.” In reviewing the findings under this subfactor, I studied the beneficial impacts and potential risks, as applicable, to the MOSSI II contract. KBR’s proposal received one significant strength, one strength, and no significant weaknesses or weaknesses. The significant strength (described above) assessed for the proposed centralized information management system should provide a very effective information management system for use by the PMOD organization to materially enhance project and contract management performance. Likewise, the strength (described above) assessed for the proposed approach for Phase-in should increase the likelihood of a successful transition to the MOSSI II contract.

Also, under the Management Approach subfactor, TBE’s proposal received one strength

(described above). This strength was assessed for the proposed approach for Phase-in should increase the likelihood of a successful transition to the MOSSI II contract.

I noted that both proposals received similar strengths for their proposed Phase-in approaches, which should help to mitigate the risk associated with combining two contracts into the one integrated MOSSI II contract during the transition period.

However, I noted the additional significant strength that KBR earned for its proposed centralized information management system to provide seamless integrated management functions across the MOSSI II contract, and a secure system for automated workflow management, which should greatly benefit performance across the entire period of performance. I agree with the SEB’s determination that this portion of TBE’s proposal provided a reasonably sound response; however, KBR’s proposal was comprehensive and thorough and of exceptional merit. As a result, I consider KBR’s proposal, which was rated “Excellent,” to have a notable advantage over TBE’s proposal, which was rated

“Good,’ under this second most heavily weighted subfactor.

Under the Small Business subfactor, I noted the adjectival rating difference between the two proposals. That is, KBR’s proposal earned a rating of “Very Good” and TBE’s proposal earned a rating of “Excellent.” In reviewing the findings under this subfactor, I studied the beneficial impacts and potential risks, as applicable, to the MOSSI II contract.

KBR’s proposal received one significant strength, one strength, and one weakness. The significant strength (described above) assessed for the proposed commitment and approach to utilize small business concerns should greatly increase the likelihood of providing small businesses with greater opportunities to participate in NASA procurements while strengthening NASA's industrial base. The strength (described above) assessed for the proposed small business subcontracting goals, should increase the likelihood of achieving MOSSI II small business subcontracting objectives. However, I was also cognizant of the weakness assessed for the persistent inconsistencies and errors within the offeror’s small business subcontracting plan, which could increase the risk of failure to implement the proposed small business subcontracting goals.

Also, under the Small Business subfactor, TBE’s proposal received two significant strengths. The first significant strength (described above) assessed for the proposed small business subcontracting goals, which exceed or substantially exceed the solicitation’s recommended small business subcontracting goals in all socioeconomic categories, should greatly increase the likelihood of the offeror achieving the small business subcontracting objectives of the MOSSI II contract. Additionally, the second significant strength (described above) assessed for the proposed commitment and approach to utilize small business concerns should also greatly increase the likelihood of providing small businesses with greater opportunities to participate in NASA procurements while strengthening NASA's industrial base.

I note that KBR’s proposal has one significant strength, one strength, and one weakness while TBE’s proposal has two significant strengths. Both proposals received significant strengths for the proposed commitment and approach to utilize small business concerns.

However, TBE’s proposal also earned a significant strength for its proposed approach to exceed or substantially exceed the solicitation’s recommended small business subcontracting goals, while KBR earned a strength for its approach to slightly exceed those same goals. Additionally, KBR’s proposal earned a weakness for persistent errors in its small business subcontracting plan, which pose a potential risk to the implementation of the proposed small business goals. As a result, I consider TBE’s proposal to provide the stronger approach relative to its proposed subcontracting goals, which should foster greater small business opportunities over that of KBR’s approach.

Additionally, the weakness related to inconsistencies and errors in KBR’s subcontracting plan decreases my confidence in this offeror’s ability to successfully manage a subcontracting program of this size. I agree with the SEB’s determination that this section of KBR’s proposal demonstrated overall competence; however, TBE’s proposal under this subfactor was comprehensive and thorough and of exceptional merit. As a result, I consider TBE’s proposal, which received a rating of “Excellent,” to have an advantage over KBR’s proposal, which received a rating of “Very Good," under this third most heavily weighted subfactor.

Under the Innovations subfactor, the least heavily weighted one, I note there were no findings assessed to either KBR’s or TBE’s proposal. Therefore, both proposals received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 62 points. I agree with the SEB’s determination that this section of KBR’s and TBE’s proposals provided a reasonably sound response. As a result, neither proposal offered an advantage over the other under this least heavily weighted subfactor. Therefore, I conclude that the evaluation results under this subfactor are not a discriminator in my selection decision.

As a result of the comparison of KBR’s and TBE’s proposal under all four Mission

Suitability subfactors, I am mindful that TBE has a significant advantage under the

Technical and Staffing Approach subfactor (the most heavily weighted subfactor), while

KBR’s proposal has a notable advantage under the Management Approach subfactor (the second most heavily weighted subfactor). However, I am also cognizant of the remaining significant weakness for KBR under the Technical and Staffing Approach subfactor

(again, the most heavily weighted subfactor), which was assessed for understaffing in critical PWS areas and the weakness under the Small Business subfactor, which was assessed for potential risks to the offeror’s implementation of the proposed small business goals. I also note that TBE’s proposal has no significant weaknesses in any Mission

Suitability subfactor and this proposal offers a significant advantage under the Technical and Staffing Approach subfactor, as well as an advantage under the Small Business subfactor. I am also cognizant of TBE’s weakness in the Technical and Staffing

Approach subfactor, which was assessed for inadequate compensation for a small number of labor categories; however, I consider the potential risk to unsuccessful contract performance given this weakness to be minor based on the resulting minor probable cost adjustment that was made in consideration of this weakness. Further, neither proposal offered an advantage under the Innovations subfactor. Therefore, I have determined that for the Mission Suitability factor overall, TBE’s proposal has an advantage over KBR’s proposal.

Cost

In comparing KBR’s proposal to TBE’s proposal under the Cost factor (and noting the probable cost adjustments that were necessary for each offeror), since KBR’s proposal has both a higher proposed and probable cost than TBE’s proposal, I have determined that TBE’s proposal has a significant advantage over KBR’s proposal for this factor.

However, in order to understand this significant advantage, I reviewed the probable cost adjustments necessary for each offeror as well as any corresponding findings relative to staffing or compensation that could impact each offeror’s ability to perform the MOSSI II contract at the costs proposed.

Specifically, in the Technical and Staffing Approach subfactor under Mission Suitability, KBR received a significant weakness for insufficient staffing rationale, based on its proposed technical approach and basis of estimate, to execute the requirements of the

MOSSI II PWS, which resulted in a probable cost adjustment to account for the requisite staffing increase. On the other hand, in this same subfactor, TBE received a weakness for compensation rates that appeared to be lower than industry average for a small number of labor categories, which resulted in a minor probable cost adjustment to account for the requisite compensation increase.

I also analyzed whether TBE’s advantage under the Cost factor could result in TBE’s inability to perform at the cost proposed. For example, I note that the SEB adequately considered the unique aspects of TBE’s approach as described in its Mission Suitability proposal, particularly the technical, staffing and compensation, and management approaches. Also, any associated concerns associated with those approaches, as noted by the SEB, were adequately addressed as part of TBE’s FPR, with the exception of the minor probable cost adjustment associated with inadequate compensation rates for a small number of labor categories that are not frequently utilized. Based on this, I have determined that the SEB adequately considered the unique aspects of TBE’s approach in assessing whether its proposed staffing and compensation posed unacceptable risks to performance over the life of the contract, and I agree with the SEB’s determination and supporting documentation that they do not. Additionally, even if no probable cost adjustments had been made to either proposal, TBE’s proposed cost still provides a significant advantage over KBR’s proposed cost. Furthermore, TBE’s probable cost provides a significant advantage over KBR’s proposed cost. As a result, for the Cost factor overall, I consider TBE’s proposal to have a significant advantage over KBR’s proposal.

Past Performance

In comparing KBR’s proposal to TBE’s proposal under the Past Performance factor, KBR’s proposal received a “Very High Level of Confidence” rating while TBE’s proposal received a “High Level of Confidence” rating. To understand the respective evaluations, I compared the Past Performance findings for each proposal.

Under this factor, KBR’s proposal received three significant strengths and one strength.

As discussed above, the significant strengths were assessed for: (1) KBR’s performance as the prime contractor on the highly relevant referenced NASA IMOC II contract; (2)

KBR’s performance as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant referenced NASA

MSOC contract; and (3) KBR’s performance as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant referenced NASA GSMO-2 contract. The strength was assessed for the performance of KBR’s proposed subcontractor (non-major), as the prime contractor on the highly relevant referenced NASA HOSC contract.

Also, under this factor, TBE’s proposal received one significant strength and three adequate findings. As discussed above, the significant strength was assessed for the performance of TBE as the prime contractor on the highly relevant referenced NASA

MO&I contract. The adequate findings related to: (1) TBE’s performance as the prime contractor on the highly relevant referenced MDA OSF contract; (2) the performance of

TBE’s proposed subcontractor (non-major) as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant referenced NASA SpaceDOC-2 contract; and (3) the performance of TBE’s proposed subcontractor (non-major), as the prime contractor on the highly relevant referenced NASA NICS contract.

Comparing the respective findings, I note that both offerors demonstrated highly relevant or very highly relevant experience as a prime contractor. I also note that both offerors demonstrate relevant coverage by the offeror, as a prime contractor, across the full breadth of the PWS. Nevertheless, in my view, KBR’s proposal has an advantage over

TBE’s proposal under the Past Performance factor due to the depth of its demonstrated experience. For example, while KBR’s proposal earned three significant strengths and one strength, TBE proposal’s earned one significant strength and three adequate findings.

I note that while KBR itself provided relevant coverage across all PWS areas, TBE also provided relevant coverage across all PWS areas noting, however, that coverage of PWS

6.0 and 7.0 is provided by a referenced contract determined to have adequate performance. Additionally, I note that while two TBE subcontractor references provided very highly relevant or highly relevant contracts with strong performance ratings, neither subcontractor has been assigned sufficient workshare under MOSSI II to be considered a major subcontractor in accordance with the threshold established in the solicitation.

Based on the above, for the Past Performance factor overall, I consider KBR’s proposal, which was assessed a “Very High” level of confidence, to have an advantage over TBE’s proposal, which was assessed a “High” level of confidence.

I then proceeded with my best value tradeoff of the two proposals, noting that in accordance with the RFP, Mission Suitability is more important than Past Performance, which is more important than Cost. Also, Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost. While I conclude that both offerors are capable of performing the services required, under the Mission Suitability factor overall, TBE’s proposal has an advantage over KBR’s proposal. Under the Past

Performance factor, KBR’s proposal has an advantage over TBE’s proposal. Finally, under the Cost factor, TBE’s proposal has a significant advantage over KBR’s proposal.

Given the relative importance of the three factors, when considering Mission Suitability and Past Performance combined, and the Cost factor, I have determined that TBE’s proposal provides benefits over KBR’s proposal based on the advantage and significant advantage TBE’s proposal demonstrates over KBR’s proposal under the Mission

Suitability and Cost factors, respectively. Therefore, I have determined that TBE’s proposal represents the best value to the Government.

To sum, based on my integrated assessment of both proposals, in accordance with the evaluation criteria and their relative importance established for the MOSSI II acquisition, it is my decision that the proposal submitted by TBE represents the best overall value to the Government. I therefore select Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc., for award the

Marshall Operations Systems, Services, and Integration (MOSSI) II contract.

Joe L. Leopard

Source Selection Authority