Source Selection Statement_signed.pdf

Selection Statement for the Consolidated Program Support Services

Project Coordination Request for Proposals 80MSFC19R0011

On December 16, 2020, I, along with other senior officials from the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the Consolidated Program Support Services (CPSS) Project Coordination (PC) acquisition. The SEB presented their findings to me for the purpose of making a source selection decision.

I. PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The CPSS-PC Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on September 17, 2019. The RFP requires the successful Offeror to provide planning, coordinating, tracking, and reporting support for programs, projects, and organizations, and to coordinate with directorates and offices that exercise responsibility for these activities.

This effort will be performed under a firm-fixed-price (FFP) type contract with an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) component. The contract will consist of a one-year base period with seven one-year option periods.

Nine amendments were issued to the RFP in order to provide updates to contract clauses, provide an Agency Task Order Management System (ATOMS) reference guide, modify the solicitation’s Mission Labor requirements (Appendix A and Attachment J-1A), update the Excel Pricing Model (EPM), revise the annualized contract value calculation for past performance, and revise the proposal submission due date.

The Government designated this procurement as a 100% Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) set-aside under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 19.5. The procurement was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, and NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NFS) Part 1815, Contracting by Negotiation.

On November 22, 2019, proposals were received from the following ten companies (listed in the order of proposal evaluation):

(1) Ambit Group (Ambit)

(2) Barrios Technology, Ltd. (Barrios)

(3) LogiCore Corporation (LogiCore)

(4) Manufacturing Technical Solutions, Inc. (MTS)

(5) MORI Associates (MORI)

(6) Craig Technologies (Craig)

(7) Leo Tech, LLC (LeoTech)

(8) Total Solutions, Inc.

(9) Aetos Systems, Inc. (Aetos)

(10) Logical Innovations, Inc.

II. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The proposals were evaluated in accordance with the RFP, FAR Part 15, NFS Part 1815, and the CPSS-PC Source Evaluation Plan.

The RFP listed three evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Price, and Past Performance.

The RFP stated Mission Suitability is considered slightly more important than either Price or Past Performance. Price and Past Performance are essentially equal in importance. Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. In accordance with the RFP, a best value tradeoff process, as described at FAR 15.101-1, was 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: Management Approach 600 points Subfactor 2: Technical Approach 400 points TOTAL 1,000 points

Price: The Government performed a price analysis of all responsive proposals received in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques.

For evaluation purposes, the Offeror’s proposed price for the contract requirements was established as: (1) the sum of the PC mission services price for the contract period of performance, including all options; (2) an IDIQ PC price using the Offeror-provided fully burdened rates applied to a pre-populated estimate of labor hours for each labor category, for each Center, for the contract period of performance, including all options; and (3) a calculated value using the Offeror-provided Other Direct Cost (ODC) Indirect Rates applied to a pre-populated PC IDIQ ODC value, for the contract period of performance, including all options.

Past Performance: The Offeror’s past performance, to include relevant Federal, State, and local government and private contracts, and the past performance of any proposed subcontractors, 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).

The initial evaluation results for each of the ten proposals are summarized below.

III. EVALUATION OF INITIAL PROPOSALS

Ambit Group (Ambit)

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the Ambit proposal received a total score of 408 out of a possible 1,000 points. Across the two subfactors, the proposal received no significant strengths, one strength, one significant weakness, and eight weaknesses.

Under Subfactor 1: Management Approach, the Ambit proposal received an adjectival rating of “Fair” and 240 points based on one strength and six weaknesses.

The strength is the proposed management approach for designating certain positions other than the Program Manager (PM) as key, along with well-defined roles and responsibilities provided for the proposed positions.

The six weaknesses are:

(1) the proposed management approach which appears to place heavy reliance on the development and implementation of separate management software tools which could pose multiple risks to NASA by introducing information security concerns and potential redundancy in data management;

(2) the proposal's lack of clarity in the organization chart and management structure, lines of authority, and interfaces with the Government;

(3) the proposal does not adequately describe the rationale to substantiate the proposed low incumbent capture rate or the approach to mitigate the impact of recruiting a relatively low percentage of incumbent workforce;

(4) the proposed deduction schedule and supporting rationale associated with Performance Element 2 in Attachment J-8, Performance Requirements Summary, which does not adequately demonstrate the Offeror’s commitment to maintaining a high level of performance over the life of the contract;

(5) the proposed teaming and subcontracting arrangement’s assignment of work by company which does not adequately account for all work year equivalent (WYE) personnel for the contract base period as required by the RFP, Section L, Volume I –Mission Suitability Factor Instructions, Subfactor 1-Management Approach (MA-1 (3)) nor comply with solicitation requirements for assigning work beyond the contract base period; and

(6) the proposed approach to corporate governance describes activities requiring the inappropriate coordination with the Government on hiring and termination of personnel.

Under Subfactor 2: Technical Approach, the Ambit proposal received an adjectival rating of “Fair” and 168 points based on one significant weakness and two weaknesses.

The significant weakness is the proposed technical approach does not adequately demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of Performance Work Statement (PWS) 4.3, Space Act Agreements (SAA) and Enhanced Use Leases (EUL) Support.

The two weaknesses are:

(1) the proposed technical approach does not adequately demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of certain aspects of PWS 4.1, General PC Support, and proposes activities that are outside the scope of the CPSS-PC contract; and

(2) the proposed technical approach does not adequately demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of specific aspects of PWS 4.2, Office Information Technology Management (OITM) Support.

Under the Price factor, the Ambit proposal had the highest total evaluated price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Ambit proposal received a level of confidence rating of "High Level of Confidence" based on one significant strength and two strengths that collectively covered three (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, and 4.2) of the four PWS elements (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3).

The significant strength is the very good performance of Ambit, when serving as the prime contractor on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Strategic Management Services (SMS) contract ST-1330-14-BU-0002.

The two strengths are:

(1) the very good performance of Adnet, Ambit’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) SMS for Space and Earth Science Data Analysis (SESDA) IV contract, 80GSFC17C0003; and

(2) the very good performance of Tripoint, Ambit's proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Rental Facilities Management Information System (RFMIS) contract, W912HQ-19- P-0037.

Barrios Technology, Ltd. (Barrios)

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the Barrios proposal received a total score of 770 out of a possible 1,000 points. Across the two subfactors, the proposal received three significant strengths, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses.

Under Subfactor 1: Management Approach, the Barrios proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 390 points based on two strengths. The two strengths are:

(1) the proposed Phase-in plan which includes a strategic approach for attracting, recruiting, and interviewing incumbent personnel; and

(2) the proposed deduction schedule and supporting rationale associated with Performance Element 2, in Attachment J-8, Performance Requirements Summary, which demonstrates a commitment to maintaining a high-level of performance over the life of the contract.

Under Subfactor 2: Technical Approach, the Barrios proposal received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” and 380 points based on three significant strengths. The three significant strengths are:

(1) the proposed technical approach’s demonstration of a comprehensive understanding of PWS 4.1, General PC Support, to include associated technologies and necessary skill sets;

(2) the proposed technical approach’s demonstration of a comprehensive understanding of PWS 4.2, OITM Support; and

(3) the proposed technical approach’s demonstration of a comprehensive understanding of PWS 4.3, SAA/EUL Support.

Under the Price factor, the Barrios proposal had the lowest total evaluated price (i.e., $87.1M).

Under the Past Performance factor, the Barrios proposal received a level of confidence rating of "Very High Level of Confidence" based on two significant strengths and two strengths that collectively covered four (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) of the four PWS elements (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3).

The two significant strengths are:

(1) the exceptional performance of Barrios, when serving as the prime contractor on the

NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Mission and Program Integration contract, NNJ12GA46C; and

(2) the very good performance of Barrios, when serving as a subcontractor on the NASA JSC Boeing Engineering and Technical Service (BETS) contract, NAS15-10000.

(1) the exceptional performance of AMA, Barrios’ proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the NASA Langley Research Center Technology, Engineering and Aerospace Mission Support 3 (TEAMS 3) contract, 80LARC17C0003; and

(2) the exceptional performance of Summit Technologies, Barrios’ proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the NASA Glenn Research Center Project Management Support Services (PMSS) contract, NNC14BA03B.

LogiCore Corporation (LogiCore)

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the LogiCore proposal received a total score of 272 out of a possible 1,000 points. Across the two subfactors, the proposal received no significant strengths, no strengths, four significant weaknesses, and five weaknesses.

Under Subfactor 1: Management Approach, the LogiCore proposal received an adjectival rating of “Fair” and 192 points based on one significant weakness and four weaknesses.

The significant weakness is the proposal does not adequately describe several aspects of the proposed Phase-in plan.

The four weaknesses are:

(1) the proposed staffing approach’s inconsistent incumbent capture percentages and the lack of an adequate description regarding the approach for corporate staffing of appropriately skilled personnel;

(2) the proposed management approach’s ambiguity regarding key management positions, associated organizational structure, roles, responsibilities, interfaces, and lines of authority and delegation;

(3) the approach and timeline to provide fully qualified staff and support for hypothetical IDIQ Scenarios 1 and 2 does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of solicitation requirements; and

(4) the proposed deduction schedule associated with Performance Element 2 in Attachment J-8, Performance Requirements Summary, does not demonstrate an adequate commitment to maintain a high level of performance over the life of the contract.

Under the Subfactor 2: Technical Approach, the LogiCore proposal received an adjectival rating of “Poor” and 80 points based on three significant weaknesses and one weakness.

The three significant weaknesses are:

(1) the proposed technical approach does not adequately demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of specific aspects of PWS 4.1, General PC Support, and Appendix A, Mission Services Requirements;

(2) the proposed technical approach does not adequately demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of specific aspects of PWS 4.2, OITM Support; and

(3) the proposal does not describe the technical approach to perform PWS 4.3, SAA/EUL Support.

The weakness is the proposal does not adequately describe the approach for innovation or standardization for the PWS requirements as required by the solicitation.

Under the Price factor, the LogiCore proposal had the second highest total evaluated price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the LogiCore proposal received a level of confidence rating of "High Level of Confidence" based on one significant strength and two strengths that collectively covered three (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, and 4.2) of the four PWS elements (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3).

The significant strength is the exceptional performance of LogiCore, when serving as the prime contractor on the U.S. Army Material Command Redstone Arsenal Logistics Support Services contract, W31P4Q-09-A-0010 (Task Order 0007).

(1) the exceptional performance of NJVC, LogiCore’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency Information Technology/ Information Services (IT/IS) Bridge contract, HM0476- 17-C-0010; and

(2) the exceptional performance of NJVC, LogiCore's proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency IT/IS contract, HM0176-15-C-0001.

Manufacturing Technical Solutions, Inc. (MTS)

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the MTS proposal received a total score of 766 out of a possible 1,000 points. Across the two subfactors, the proposal received three significant strengths, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses.

Under Subfactor 1: Management Approach, the MTS proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 378 points based on one strength.

The strength is the proposed performance deduction schedule and supporting rationale associated with Performance Element 2, in Attachment J-8, Performance Requirements Summary, which demonstrates a commitment to maintaining a high level of performance over the life of the contract.

Under Subfactor 2: Technical Approach, the MTS proposal received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” and 388 points based on three significant strengths and one strength.

The three significant strengths are:

(1) the proposed technical approach’s demonstration of a comprehensive understanding of PWS 4.1, General PC Support;

(2) the proposed technical approach’s demonstration of a comprehensive understanding of PWS 4.3, SAA/EUL Support; and

(3) the proposed technical approach’s demonstration of a comprehensive understanding of PWS 4.2, OITM Support.

The strength is the proposed technical approach for innovation, process improvement, and standardization across all PC disciplines which demonstrates efficiency and standardization and leverages the Offeror's structured process to drive innovation across the Agency.

Under the Price factor, the MTS proposal had the fourth highest total evaluated price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the MTS proposal received a level of confidence rating of "Very High Level of Confidence" based on three significant strengths and two strengths, with the Offeror covering four (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) of the four PWS elements (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3).

The three significant strengths are:

(1) the exceptional performance of MTS, when serving as the prime contractor on the NASA MSFC Marshall Integrated Program Support Services (MIPSS) PC contract NNM13AA04Z, Task Order NNM13AA67T;

(2) the exceptional performance of MTS, when serving as the prime contractor on the NASA MSFC MIPSS Program, Planning, and Control (PP&C) contract NNM13AA04Z, Task Order NNM13AA65T; and

(3) the exceptional performance of MTS, when serving as the prime contractor on the NASA MSFC MIPSS Subject Matter Expert (SME) contract NNM13AA04Z, Task Order NNM13AA02T.

(1) the very good performance of SAIC, MTS’ proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the NASA Shared Services Center Enterprise Applications Service Technologies (EAST) 2 contract, NNX16MB01C; and

(2) the exceptional performance of SAIC, MTS’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the NASA JSC Safety and Mission Assurance Engineering Contract (SMAEC) contract, NNJ13RA01B.

MORI Associates (MORI)

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the MORI proposal received a total score of 536 out of a possible 1,000 points. Across the two subfactors, the proposal received no significant strengths, one strength, no significant weaknesses, and four weaknesses.

Under Subfactor 1: Management Approach, the MORI proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 348 points based on one strength and two weaknesses.

The strength is the proposed management approach for designating certain positions other than the PM as a key position, along with defined roles and responsibilities provided for the proposed position.

(1) the proposed management approach and associated organization chart which appear to create an untenable management oversight workload; and

(2) the proposed deduction schedule associated with Performance Element 2 in Attachment J-8, Performance Requirements Summary, does not demonstrate an

Under Subfactor 2: Technical Approach, the MORI proposal received an adjectival rating of “Fair” and 188 points based on two weaknesses.

(1) the technical approach for PWS 4.1, General PC Support, appears to duplicate existing database systems, is largely document-centric, and does not adequately demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of this PWS discipline; and

(2) the proposed technical approach does not adequately demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of specific aspects of PWS 4.2, OITM Support, and describes activities for performing PC that are outside the scope of the PWS 4.2 requirements.

Under the Price factor, the MORI proposal had the fourth lowest total evaluated price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the MORI proposal received a level of confidence rating of "Very High Level of Confidence" based on two significant strengths and three strengths that collectively covered four (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) of the four PWS

The two significant strengths are:

(1) the exceptional performance of MORI, when serving as the prime contractor on the NASA JSC Communications, Outreach, Multimedia, and Information Technology (COMIT) contract, NNJ16JA52B; and

(2) the exceptional performance of MORI, when serving as the prime contractor on the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Information Technology Infrastructure Support and Services (ITISS) contract, 1487146.

The three strengths are:

(1) the exceptional performance of All Points Logistics, MORI’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the NASA MSFC Information Technology Services II (MITS II) contract, NNM16AA01C;

(2) the exceptional performance of Peerless, MORI’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the NASA Glenn Research Center Professional Administrative, Computational, and Engineering (PACE) IV contract, NNC14BA04B; and

(3) the very good performance of Peerless, MORI’s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the U.S. Air Force F-22 Program Office Advisory and Assistance Support contract, FA8622-15-F-8103.

Craig Technologies (Craig)

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the Craig proposal received a total score of 460 out of a possible 1,000 points. Across the two subfactors, the proposal received no significant strengths, one strength, two significant weaknesses, and three weaknesses.

Under Subfactor 1: Management Approach, the Craig proposal received an adjectival rating of “Fair” and 300 points based on three weaknesses.

The three weaknesses are:

(1) the proposal does not adequately describe proposed organizational interfaces with the Government, how the PM will effectively perform proposed roles, and the distribution of personnel across the Offeror’s team;

(2) an aspect of the proposed management approach which does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of PC support and is based upon proposed management tools for services that exceed the scope of the contract; and

(3) the proposal does not adequately describe the approach and timeline for providing fully qualified staff, support, and managerial oversight for hypothetical IDIQ Scenarios 1 and 2.

Under Subfactor 2: Technical Approach, the Craig proposal received an adjectival rating of “Fair” and 160 points based on one strength and two significant weaknesses.

The strength is the proposed technical approach for innovation, process improvement, and standardization PC support which establishes an effective avenue to actively pursue quality, innovation, and continuous improvement through an Integrated Process Team

(IPT).

The two significant weaknesses are:

(1) the proposal does not adequately demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of PWS 4.1, General PC Support, and Appendix A, MSFC Mission Services Requirements, and proposes activities that are outside the scope of the solicitation;

and

(2) the proposed technical approach does not adequately demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of PWS 4.2, OITM Support, and describes activities and tasks that are outside the scope of the solicitation.

Under the Price factor, the Craig proposal had the second lowest total evaluated price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Craig proposal received a level of confidence rating of "High Level of Confidence" based on two significant strengths and three strengths, with the Offeror covering four (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) of the four PWS

The two significant strengths are:

(1) the exceptional performance of Craig Technologies, when serving as a subcontractor on the NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Engineering Services contract, NNK11EA08C, subcontract S10-104000; and

(2) the exceptional performance of Craig Technologies, when serving as a subcontractor on the U.S. Air Force Launch & Test Range System (LTRS) Integrated Support Contract (LISC), FA8806-15-C-0001, subcontract # 0000001.

(1) the exceptional performance of MRI, Craig Technologies’ proposed subcontractor, when serving as a subcontractor on the NASA JSC Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) Space Operations Contract (ESOC) contract, NNJ10TB01C, subcontract/PO 5411267;

(2) the exceptional performance of MRI, Craig Technologies’ proposed subcontractor, when serving as a subcontractor on the NASA JSC Lockheed Martin Civil Space (LMCS) Services contract, NNJ06TA25C, subcontract 4400007019 (active follow on contract 4400008787; and

(3) the exceptional performance of Boecore, Craig Technologies’ proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command / Army Strategic Command’s Command Information Management System II (CIMS II) contract, W9126013D0001.

LeoTech, LLC

Subsequent to receipt of the proposal submitted by LeoTech, LLC, the Government conducted a review in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. As a result of this review and in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70(a)(1) and (a)(3), it was determined that the proposal was unacceptable and was not further evaluated.

Total Solutions, Inc. (Total Solutions)

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the Total Solutions proposal received a total score of 552 out of a possible 1,000 points. Across the two subfactors, the proposal received no significant strengths, one strength, no significant weaknesses, and four weaknesses.

Under Subfactor 1: Management Approach, the Total Solutions proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 360 points based on one strength and two weaknesses.

The strength is the proposed deduction schedule and supporting rationale associated with Performance Element 2 in Attachment J-8, Performance Requirements Summary, which demonstrates a strong commitment to ensuring that poor or unsatisfactory performance does not occur over the life of the contract.

(1) the proposal does not adequately describe the approach to provide fully qualified staff and support for hypothetical IDIQ Scenario 2; and

(2) the proposed deduction schedule associated with Performance Element 2 in Attachment J-8, Performance Requirements Summary, does not demonstrate an adequate commitment [with respect to good and satisfactory performance] to maintain a high level of performance over the life of the contract.

Under Subfactor 2: Technical Approach, the Total Solutions proposal received an adjectival rating of “Fair” and 192 points based on two weaknesses.

(1) the proposal does not adequately describe the approach to perform aspects of PWS 4.1, General PC Support, which does not demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of these requirements; and

(2) the proposed technical approach which does not adequately demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of specific aspects of PWS 4.2, OITM Support.

Under the Price factor, the Total Solutions proposal had the third lowest total evaluated price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Total Solutions’ proposal received a level of confidence rating of "Very High Level of Confidence" based on one significant strength and three strengths that collectively covered four (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) of the four PWS elements (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3).

The significant strength is the very good performance of Total Solutions, when serving as the prime contractor on the NASA Headquarters Operational and Programmatic Support Services (OPSS) contract, 80-HQTR-18A0003.

(1) the very good performance of Abacus, Total Solutions’ proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the NASA KSC Information Management and Communications Support (IMCS) contract, NNK08OH0IC;

(2) the exceptional performance of Qualis, Total Solutions’ proposed subcontractor, when serving as a subcontractor on the NASA MSFC Engineering and Science Services and Skills Augmentation (ESSSA) contract, NNM12AA41C, subcontract ESSSA-T-005; and

(3) the very good performance of Qualis, Total Solutions’ proposed subcontractor, when serving as a subcontractor on the NASA MSFC Engineering Services and Science Capability Augmentation (ESSCA) contract, 80MSFC18C0011, Subcontract# Teammate 008.

Aetos Systems, Inc. (Aetos)

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the Aetos proposal received a total score of 546 out of a possible 1,000 points. Across the two subfactors, the proposal received no significant strengths, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, and four weaknesses.

Under Subfactor 1: Management Approach, the Aetos proposal received an adjectival rating of “Fair” and 294 points based on three weaknesses.

The three weaknesses are:

(1) the proposed general management approach and associated organizational chart which lacks clarity regarding a proposed management position and the associated areas to be supported;

(2) the proposal does not adequately describe the approach for managing new efforts under hypothetical IDIQ Scenario 2; and

(3) the proposed deduction schedule associated with Performance Element 2 in Attachment J-8, Performance Requirements Summary, does not demonstrate an

Under Subfactor 2: Technical Approach, the Aetos proposal received an adjectival rating of “Good” and 252 points based on two strengths and one weakness.

(1) the proposed technical approach’s demonstration of a thorough understanding of PWS 4.1, General PC Support, and the associated technologies and skill sets necessary to support this discipline; and

(2) the proposed technical approach’s thorough demonstrated understanding of PWS 4.3, SAA/EUL Support.

The weakness is an aspect of the proposed approach to perform PWS 4.1, General PC Support, which discusses the performance of activities outside the scope of the contract.

Under the Price factor, the Aetos proposal had the third highest total evaluated price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Aetos proposal received a level of confidence rating of "Very High Level of Confidence" based on one significant strength and two strengths that collectively covered four (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) of the four PWS elements (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3).

The significant strength is the exceptional performance of Aetos, when serving as the prime contractor on the NASA MSFC Marshall Engineering Technicians and Trades Support (METTS) contract, NNM15AA19C.

(1) the exceptional performance of InuTeq, Aetos’ proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the NASA GSFC Program Analysis and Control Services (PAAC) IV contract, NNG15VN01C; and

(2) the exceptional performance of S3, Aetos’ proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the U.S. Army Missile and Space Project Office General Engineering and Technical Support Precision Fires Rocket and Missile Systems (PFRMS) contract, W31P4Q-09-A-0019, Delivery Order # 0004.

Logical Innovations, Inc. (Logical Innovations)

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the Logical Innovations proposal received a total score of 416 out of a possible 1,000 points. Across the two subfactors, the proposal received no significant strengths, one strength, two significant weaknesses, and five weaknesses.

Under Subfactor 1: Management Approach, the Logical Innovations proposal received an adjectival rating of “Fair” and 276 points based on four weaknesses.

The four weaknesses are:

(1) the proposed management approach and associated organizational chart’s ambiguity relative to the types and number of lead positions;

(2) two aspects of the time-phased approach for phasing in contract activities which do not demonstrate an adequate understanding of mission services in relation to IDIQ Task Order requirements;

(3) the proposed deduction schedule and supporting rationale associated with Performance Element 2 in Attachment J-8, Performance Requirements Summary, does not demonstrate an adequate commitment to maintaining an excellent level of performance over the life of the contract; and

(4) the proposal does not adequately describe key aspects of the approach and timeline for providing fully qualified staff and management of the personnel to perform IDIQ tasks as defined in hypothetical Scenarios 1 and 2.

Under the Subfactor 2: Technical Approach, the Logical Innovations proposal received an adjectival rating of “Fair” and 140 points based on one strength, two significant weaknesses, and one weakness.

The strength is the proposed comprehensive technical approach and demonstrated understanding of PWS 4.1, General PC Support, and the associated governing documents of this discipline.

The two significant weaknesses are:

(1) the proposal does not describe the technical approach to perform PWS 4.3, SAA/EUL Support; and

(2) the proposal does not adequately describe the technical approach to perform PWS 4.2, OITM Support.

The weakness is the proposal does not describe the approach for continuous improvement or innovation for the PWS requirements as required by the solicitation.

Under the Price factor, the Logical Innovations proposal had the fifth highest total evaluated price.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Logical Innovations proposal received a level of confidence rating of "Very High Level of Confidence" based on four significant strengths, with the Offeror covering four (i.e., 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) of the four PWS

The four significant strengths are:

(1) the very good performance of Logical Innovations, when serving as the prime contractor on the NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) Financial Support Services contract, NNA14AC46C;

(2) the exceptional performance of Logical Innovations, when serving as the prime contractor on the NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) Center Administrative and Technical Support Services contract, NND16AA03B;

(3) the exceptional performance of Logical Innovations, when serving as the Joint- Venture prime contractor on the NASA KSC Institutional Support Services (KISS) IV (Apache-Logical Joint Venture) contract, 80KSC017D0003; and

(4) the exceptional performance of ARES, Logical Innovations’ proposed subcontractor, when serving as a subcontractor on the NASA JSC Mission and Program Integration (MAPI) contract, NNJ12GA46C.

IV. 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, the point scores, the total evaluated prices, and the past performance level of confidence ratings. I also solicited and considered the views of the officials who attended 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 it believed those findings would affect performance. The findings were detailed, consistent with the RFP, provided clear descriptions of the merits of each proposal, and supported the various ratings assigned. While I agreed with the findings of the SEB, I also recognized my responsibility as the source selection authority (SSA) to examine the findings, the point scores, the total evaluated prices, and the past performance level of confidence ratings for each proposal, and use my independent judgement to determine the appropriate discriminators for purposes of the selection.

Based on this information, I concluded there was nothing to be gained by establishing a competitive range and conducting subsequent discussions, given there was sufficient data to make a reasoned source selection. Therefore, I decided to make a selection and award based on the initial proposals received. Based on a comparison of all proposals against the three evaluation factors and relative importance of those factors, I select the proposal submitted by Barrios Technology, Ltd., for award of the CPSS-PC contract. The rationale for my selection follows.

Barrios vs. Ambit

Comparing the Barrios proposal to the Ambit proposal under the Mission Suitability factor, the SEB assigned the Barrios proposal 770 points based on the merits of Barrios’ three significant strengths, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses, and assigned the Ambit proposal 408 points based on the merits of Ambit’s no significant strengths, one strength, one significant weakness, and eight weaknesses. In an effort to understand the respective evaluations, I compared the findings under both of the Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, the Barrios proposal received two strengths.

In reviewing the findings under this subfactor, the Barrios proposal received a strength for the proposed Phase-in plan which includes a strategic approach for attracting, recruiting, and interviewing incumbent personnel based on three distinct and unique elements/corporate actions which demonstrate a thorough understanding of the complexities associated with these activities and a commitment to the needs and concerns of the current workforce. The additional strength related to the proposed deduction schedule and supporting rationale associated with Performance Element 2, in Attachment J-8, Performance Requirements Summary, which demonstrates a corporate commitment to maintaining a high-level of performance over the life of the contract.

The Ambit proposal, on the other hand, received one strength and six weaknesses under the Management Approach subfactor. In reviewing the findings under this subfactor, the Ambit proposal received a strength for the proposed management approach for designating certain positions other than the PM as key, along with well-defined roles and responsibilities provided for the proposed positions. However, I was mindful of the six weaknesses assigned which included: (1) the proposed management approach which appears to place heavy reliance on development and implementation of separate management tools which could pose multiple risks to NASA by introducing information security concerns and potential redundancy in data management; (2) the lack of clarity in the organization chart and management structure, lines of authority and interfaces with the Government; (3) the lack of rationale to substantiate the low incumbent capture rate or approach to mitigate the impact of recruiting a relatively low percentage of incumbent workforce; (4) the proposed deduction schedule and supporting rationale associated with Performance Element 2 in Attachment J-8, Performance Requirements Summary, which does not adequately demonstrate the Offeror’s commitment to maintaining a high level of performance over the life of the contract; (5) the proposed teaming and subcontracting arrangement’s assignment of work by company which does not adequately account for all WYE personnel for the contract base period as required by the RFP, nor comply with solicitation requirements for assigning work beyond the contract base period; and (6) the proposed approach to corporate governance includes inappropriate coordination with the Government on hiring and termination of personnel.

In comparing the Barrios proposal with the Ambit proposal under the Management Approach subfactor, the Barrios proposal was assigned two strengths and no weaknesses which demonstrated a reasonably sound response. For example, the Phase-in strength should position Barrios to successfully assume contract activities based on a demonstrated commitment to the needs of the current workforce, while the strength associated with the proposed deduction schedule should positively impact performance over the potential eight-year term of the contract. Conversely, the Ambit proposal was assigned one strength and six weaknesses, with weaknesses significantly outbalancing any strengths. The strength for designating certain positions other than the PM as key, along with well-defined roles and responsibilities, should positively impact both the transition and quality of deliverables over the life of the contract. However, I also noted the impact of the multiple weaknesses assigned. For example, the first weakness concerning developing and implementing separate software management tools could result in both a violation of information technology policies and data redundancy.

Additionally, the second weakness for the proposal’s organizational structure ambiguity could result in managerial inefficiencies and confusion relative to interaction with the Government. The third weakness regarding the lack of rationale to substantiate the proposed low incumbent capture rate and approach to mitigate this risk which does not appear sufficient to maintain the level of service required could result in the loss of critical knowledge and jeopardize a successful contract start. The fourth weakness regarding the proposed deduction schedule could result in not achieving the desired level of performance over the life of the contract. Further, the fifth weakness regarding assignment of work by company based on a lack of compliance with solicitation instructions could result in inefficient staffing of contract efforts. Finally, the sixth weakness concerning corporate governance coordination with the Government for personnel decisions could violate FAR restrictions relative to personal services contracts.

For these reasons, I determined the Barrios proposal to have an advantage over the Ambit proposal under this subfactor.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the Barrios proposal received three significant strengths. In reviewing the findings under this subfactor, the Barrios proposal received significant strengths for: (1) the proposed technical approach’s demonstration of a comprehensive understanding of PWS 4.1, General PC Support, to include associated technologies and necessary skill sets; (2) the proposed technical approach’s demonstration of a comprehensive understanding of PWS 4.2, OITM Support; and (3) the proposed technical approach’s demonstration of a comprehensive understanding of PWS 4.3, SAA/EUL Support.

The Ambit proposal, on the other hand, received one significant weakness and two weaknesses under the Technical Approach subfactor. The significant weakness is the proposed technical approach does not adequately demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of PWS 4.3, SAA/EUL Support. The weaknesses related to: (1) the proposed technical approach not adequately demonstrating the Offeror’s understanding of certain aspects of PWS 4.1, General PC Support and proposes activities that are outside the scope of the CPSS-PC contract; and (2) the proposed technical approach does not adequately demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of specific aspects of PWS 4.2, OITM Support.

In comparing the Barrios proposal with the Ambit proposal under the Technical Approach subfactor, the Barrios proposal was assigned three significant strengths and no weaknesses which indicated the proposal was comprehensive and thorough and of exceptional merit. For example, the significant strengths which related to the proposal’s comprehensively demonstrated understanding of all three PWS discipline areas (i.e., PWS 4.1, General PC Support, PWS 4.2, OITM Support, and PWS 4.3, SAA/EUL Support) greatly enhance the likelihood of successful performance of these areas.

Conversely, the Ambit proposal was assigned a significant weakness and two weaknesses for the proposal’s lack of adequately demonstrated understanding of all three PWS discipline areas, which either appreciably increase or increase the risk of unsuccessful performance of these discipline areas, with weaknesses significantly outbalancing any strengths, of which there were none. For these reasons, I determined the Barrios proposal to have an advantage over the Ambit proposal under this subfactor.

In comparing the Barrios proposal with the Ambit proposal across both subfactors, the Barrios proposal had an advantage over the Ambit proposal under the Management Approach subfactor (i.e., the most heavily weighted factor) and an advantage over the Ambit proposal under the lower weighted Technical Approach subfactor. Based on these advantages, I determined the Barrios proposal to have a significant advantage over the Ambit proposal under the Mission Suitability factor.

In comparing the Barrios proposal with the Ambit proposal under the Price factor, the Barrios proposal had the lowest total evaluated price, whereas the Ambit proposal had the highest total evaluated price. I reviewed the difference between the total evaluated prices of the two proposals and determined the Barrios proposal to have a significant advantage over the Ambit proposal under the Price factor.

In an effort to understand the respective level of confidence ratings assigned under the Past Performance factor, I compared the findings for each proposal.

The Barrios proposal received two significant strengths and two strengths. The significant strengths related to: (1) Barrios’ exceptional performance as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant NASA JSC Mission and Program Integration contract; and (2) Barrios’ very good performance as a subcontractor on the overall highly relevant NASA JSC BETS contract. The strengths related to: (1) subcontractor team member AMA’s exceptional performance as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant NASA Langley Research Center TEAMS 3 contract; and (2) subcontractor team member Summit Technologies’ exceptional performance as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant NASA Glenn Research Center PMSS contract.

The Ambit proposal received one significant strength and two strengths. The significant strength related to Ambit’s very good performance as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant NOAA SMS contract. The strengths related to: (1) subcontractor team member Adnet’s very good performance as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant NASA GSFC SMS for SESDA IV contract; and (2) subcontractor team member Tripoint’s very good performance as the prime contractor on the overall highly relevant USACE RFMIS contract.

I also considered the performance demonstrated by each Offeror in relation to the requirements of the PWS and whether it demonstrated relevant performance across the breadth of these activities. Both Barrios and Ambit demonstrated exceptional or very good performance history (i.e., quality of performance) as a prime contractor. However, while the Barrios proposal had one more significant strength than the Ambit proposal, I also noted that Barrios demonstrated relevant coverage across all PWS elements, while none of the Ambit references demonstrated relevant coverage for PWS 4.3, which I considered to be the primary distinction between the two proposals. Thus, in consideration of the above, I determined the Barrios proposal to have an advantage over the Ambit proposal under the Past Performance factor.

I then proceeded with my best value tradeoff evaluation of the two proposals. The Barrios proposal had a significant advantage over the Ambit proposal under the Mission Suitability factor, which is the most heavily weighted factor. The Barrios proposal also had a significant advantage over the Ambit proposal under the Price factor. Further, the Barrios proposal had an advantage over the Ambit proposal under the Past Performance factor. As a result, based on the advantages of the Barrios proposal under all three factors, I determined that the Barrios proposal represents the best value to the Government.

Barrios vs. LogiCore

Comparing the Barrios proposal to the LogiCore proposal under the Mission Suitability factor, the SEB assigned the Barrios proposal 770 points based on the merits of Barrios’ three significant strengths, two strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses, and assigned the LogiCore proposal 272 points based on the merits of LogiCore’s no significant strengths, no strengths, four significant weaknesses, and five weaknesses. In an effort to understand the respective evaluations, I compared the findings under both of the Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, the Barrios proposal received two strengths.

In reviewing the findings under this subfactor, the Barrios proposal received a strength for the proposed Phase-in plan which includes a strategic approach for attracting, recruiting, and interviewing incumbent personnel based on three distinct and unique elements/corporate actions which demonstrate a thorough understanding of the complexities associated with these activities and a commitment to the needs and concerns of the current workforce. The additional strength related to the proposed deduction schedule and supporting rationale associated with Performance Element 2, in Attachment J-8, Performance Requirements Summary, which demonstrates a corporate commitment to maintaining a high-level of performance over the life of the contract.

The LogiCore proposal, on the other hand, received one significant weakness and four weaknesses under the Management Approach subfactor. In reviewing the findings under this subfactor, the LogiCore proposal received a significant weakness for the proposal not adequately describing several aspects of the proposed Phase-in plan. The weaknesses related to: (1) the proposed staffing approach’s inconsistent incumbent capture percentages and lack of an adequate description regarding the approach for corporate staffing of appropriately skilled personnel; (2) the proposed management approach’s ambiguity regarding key management positions, associated organizational structure, roles, responsibilities, interfaces, and lines of authority and delegation; (3) the approach and timeline to provide fully qualified staff and support for hypothetical IDIQ Scenarios 1 and 2 does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of solicitation requirements; and

(4) the proposed deduction schedule associated with Performance Element 2 in Attachment J-8, Performance Requirements Summary, does not demonstrate an adequate commitment to maintain a high level of performance over the life of the contract.

In comparing the Barrios proposal with the LogiCore proposal under the Management Approach subfactor, the Barrios proposal was assigned two strengths and no weaknesses which demonstrated a reasonably sound response. For example, the Phase-in strength should position Barrios to successfully assume contract activities based on a demonstrated commitment to the needs of the current workforce, while the strength associated with the proposed deduction schedule should positively impact performance over the potential…