Source Selection Statement SMAS II .pdf

Selection Statement for the Safety and Mission Assurance Services (SMAS) II

Request for Proposal (RFP) 80MSFC25R0004

On September 23, 2025, 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 SMAS 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 DESCRIPTION

The SMAS II Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on November 15, 2024. The RFP requires the successful offeror to provide:

1) Surveillance and analysis of assigned in-house and contracted design, development, manufacturing, and testing activities for both hardware and software utilizing NASA/MSFC Safety, Reliability, Maintainability, and Quality Assurance (SRM&QA) policies, requirements, and controls or those of NASA partners;

2) Government contract quality assurance functions at various locations nationwide;

3) Management assessment information to the Government in a timely manner to support the decision-making process regarding open problems, hazards, and risks pertaining to accomplishing MSFC's mission; and

4) Operation of SMA management information processes.

The effort will be performed under a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) and potentially cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) task orders.

The contract will consist of a 60-day phase-in period overlapping the incumbent contract, a 47-month base period, and two two-year option periods.

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

Three amendments were issued to the RFP to provide responses to questions provided by industry and make minor changes to the solicitation.

On January 13, 2025, NASA received and evaluated two acceptable proposals from the following companies (the order corresponds to the order of evaluation [i.e., reverse alphabetical]):

Bastion Technologies, Inc. (Bastion) A-P-T Research, Inc. (A-P-T)

On June 18, 2025, a competitive range consisting of both proposals was established. The evaluation of final proposal revisions is summarized below.

CUI//SP-PROCURE/SP-SSEL

II. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

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

The SEB conducted a full evaluation of the three factors (i.e., Mission Suitability, Cost, and Past Performance). The RFP stated that Mission Suitability and Past Performance are considered to be essentially equal to each other, each of 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 trade-off 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:

Management Approach 550 points Technical Approach 450 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 the first subfactor based upon the documented findings (e.g., significant strengths, strengths). 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 the second Mission Suitability subfactor by offeror. The final point value for the Mission Suitability factor was then calculated as the sum of both 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

Offerors were referred to FAR 2.101(b) for a definition of “cost realism” and to FAR 15.404-1(d) for a discussion of "cost realism analysis” and “probable cost.”

Consistency between the Mission Suitability factor and the Cost factor volumes was considered in determining if the Offeror’s proposed costs are reasonable and realistic. Additionally, failure by an Offeror to provide all required Excel Pricing Model data (e.g., IDIQ labor rates for all labor categories for all years of performance, for all Centers, if multiple) adversely impacted the Offeror’s Mission Suitability score or resulted in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable (see NFS 1815.305-70(a)(3)).

The Offeror’s proposed and probable costs for the contract requirements were established as the sum of (1) the phase-in services price; (2) 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 location, for the contract period of performance, including all options; (3) a calculated value using the Offeror-provided Other Direct Cost Indirect Rates applied to a pre-populated cost estimate for each location, for the contract period of performance, including all options; (4) calculation of fee based on Government determined award fee/fixed fee formula applied to the total cost before fee (See Excel Pricing Model (EPM) Tab A-1, Summary of Total Cost); and (5) a calculated value for the six-month option to extend services period (i.e., FAR 52.217-8) determined by the Government by prorating the cost proposed for the last year of services.

Past Performance:

In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2), the Offeror’s past performance, including 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 evaluation was based on the information provided by the Offeror in its Past Performance volume. However, the Government also considered Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) database records, completed past performance questionnaires, and any other relevant information obtained independently by the Government.

Any Offeror rebuttals, if applicable, regarding adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond was also made part of the evaluation record and included in the evaluation. Information provided to, or obtained by the Government, was utilized to assess the relevant aspects of each Offeror's record of performing services or delivering products similar in size, content, and complexity, in correlation to the requirements of this acquisition.

This factor was not numerically scored but was assigned an adjectival rating. The applicable adjectival ratings were "Very High Level of Confidence," "High Level of Confidence," "Moderate Level of Confidence," "Low Level of Confidence," "Very Low Level of Confidence," and "Neutral" in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A).

III. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

(Presented in the reverse alphabetical order evaluated)

Bastion

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the Bastion proposal received a total score of 828 (out of a possible 1,000 points) and the two subfactor ratings earned were "Excellent" (in Management Approach) and "Good" (in Technical Approach). In support of these ratings, the proposal received two significant strengths and five strengths. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management and Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of "Excellent" and 517 points (out of a possible 550 points) resulting from two significant strengths and three strengths. The two significant strengths were assessed for (1) the proposed organizational structure approach that provides for an efficient, well-structured, and readily executable management hierarchy which should streamline communication and accountability for the contract to accommodate changes in program emphasis and support requirements; and (2) the proposed management approach to accommodate workload fluctuations which reduces the risk of unfilled SMAS II positions and associated unperformed tasks resulting from SMAS II workload fluctuations. The three strengths were assessed for (1) a proposed management innovation which should result in more effective and consistent oversight and/or insight across the “shared-accountability” contract environment; (2) the proposed approach for recruitment and retention which should enhance the offeror’s ability to provide for a readily available and capably trained workforce as needs arise; and (3) the proposed approach for implementing an Industrial Safety, Occupational Health, and Environmental Program that increases employee safety awareness.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of "Good" and 311 points (out of a possible 450 points) resulting from two strengths. The two strengths were assessed for (1) the proposed development, implementation, and maintenance of informal data tools used to interact with established reliability tools and applications to perform the labor-intensive Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA); and (2) proposed technical innovations which should both enhance the offeror’s quality assurance capabilities and improve the management of pressure vessel systems (PVS) components.

Under the Cost factor, the SEB determined the proposal to have the lowest total proposed and probable cost (i.e., $354,425,351) and further determined it to be fair and reasonable.

Under the Past Performance factor, the proposal received a rating of "Very High Level of Confidence" resulting from two significant strengths which were assessed for (1) the exceptional performance of Bastion Technologies, Inc., when serving as prime contractor on the very highly relevant Marshall Space Flight Center, Safety and Mission Assurance Service (SMAS) contract 80MSFC18C0005; and (2) the exceptional performance of Bastion Technologies, Inc., when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant Ames Research Center Safety Mission Assurance (SMA) contract 80ARC020D0012.

A-P-T Research

For the Mission Suitability factor, the A-P-T proposal received a total score of 771 (out of a possible 1,000 points) and the two subfactor ratings earned were "Excellent" (in Management Approach) and "Good" (in Technical Approach). In support of these ratings, the proposal received one significant strength and five strengths. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of "Excellent" and 501 points (out of a possible 550 points) resulting from one significant strength and four strengths. The significant strength was assessed for the proposed management approach to accommodate workload fluctuations which reduces the risk of unfilled SMAS II positions and associated unperformed tasks resulting from SMAS II workload fluctuations. The strengths were assessed for (1) the proposed employee recruitment and retention approach to capture and retain specialized personnel and technical subject matter experts which should enhance the offeror’s ability to perform the functions described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS); (2) the proposed SMAS II contract phase in approach to ensure a smooth and complete transition which should successfully position the offeror for full operational readiness at contract start; (3) proposed management innovations to enhance and optimize SMAS II work processes; and (4) the proposed organizational structure approach that provides a well-structured model to facilitate the performance and communication required to successfully execute the contract.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of "Good" and 270 points (out of a possible 450 points) resulting from one strength. The strength was assessed for the proposed approach to perform PWS 3.2 which should improve the Government’s ability to conduct Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA).

Under the Cost factor, the SEB determined the proposal to have the highest total proposed and probable cost and further determined it to be fair and reasonable.

Under the Past Performance factor, the proposal received a rating of "Very High Level of Confidence" resulting from three significant strengths and two strengths. The three significant strengths were assessed for (1) the exceptional performance of A-P-T Research, Inc., when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant Kennedy Space Center Safety and Mission Assurance Support Services IV (SMASS IV) contract 80KSC023CA003; (2) the exceptional performance of A-P-T Research, Inc., when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant Kennedy Space Center Safety & Mission Assurance Support Services (SMASS) III contract 80KSC018C0007; and (3) the very good performance of ARES, A-P-T Research, Inc.'s proposed subcontractor, when serving as a subcontractor on the very highly relevant Johnson Space Center Human Space Flight Technical Integration Contract (HSFTIC) contract 80JSC020C0017. The strengths were assessed for (1) the very good performance of ARES, A-P- T Research, Inc.'s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the relevant Missile Defense Agency Technical, Engineering, Advisory, and Management Support (TEAMS) Next Safety contract HQ085821C0011; and (2) the exceptional performance of SAIC, A-P-T Research, Inc.'s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant NASA Johnson Space Center Safety & Mission Assurance Engineering Contract

(SMAEC) II 80JSC019D0008.

IV. 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 the Mission Suitability findings, adjectival ratings, point scores, the total proposed and probable cost values, and the Past Performance findings and 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. I also concluded that the evaluation plan for this procurement was followed, the evaluation of proposals was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented, and that the SEB's findings were reasonable and valid for the purpose of making a selection decision. While I agreed with the SEB's findings, I also recognized my responsibility as the SSA to examine the Mission Suitability findings, adjectival ratings, point scores, the total proposed and probable cost values, 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 the two proposals against the three evaluation factors for award and the relative importance of these factors, I selected the proposal submitted by Bastion Technologies, Inc., for award of the SMAS II contract. The rationale for my selection decision follows.

Mission Suitability

In comparing Bastion’s proposal to the A-P-T proposal under the Mission Suitability factor, I noted that Bastion’s proposal had an advantage (i.e., 828 points) over the A-P-T proposal (i.e., 771 points). Looking beyond these scores and the underlying adjectival ratings, I determined they are supported by the corresponding findings for the two Mission Suitability subfactors. To better understand the respective evaluations, I compared the findings for each proposal under each of the two Mission Suitability subfactors. Overall, Bastion’s proposal was assessed two significant strengths and five strengths, while A-P-T’s proposal was assessed one significant strength and five strengths.

Under the Management Approach subfactor, I reviewed the subfactor findings and noted that both the Bastion and A-P-T proposals were comprehensive, thorough, and of exceptional merit, with both proposals providing approaches that were beneficial to the SMAS II contract.

Bastion’s first significant strength for the proposed organizational structure approach that provides for an efficient, well-structured, and readily executable management hierarchy should significantly increase overall operational efficiency and effectiveness of program management for the SMAS II contract. The second significant strength for the proposed management approach to accommodate workload fluctuations should successfully position the offeror to address short and long-term workload fluctuations while realizing greater productivity associated with the performance of IDIQ tasks. The first strength for a proposed management innovation should result in more effective and consistent risk management oversight and/or insight across the “shared-accountability” contract environment. The second strength for the proposed approach for recruitment and retention should enhance the offeror’s ability to effectively recruit and retain a fully qualified and capably trained workforce over the life of the contract. The third strength for the proposed approach for implementing an Industrial Safety, Occupational Health, and Environmental (SHE) program should ensure employees are appropriately trained in SHE related topics immediately upon and throughout their employment regardless of work location.

A-P-T’s significant strength for the proposed management approach to accommodate workload fluctuations should similarly successfully position the offeror to address short and long-term workload fluctuations while realizing greater productivity associated with the performance of IDIQ tasks. A-P-T’s first strength for the proposed employee recruitment and retention approach to capture and retain specialized personnel and technical subject matter experts should provide multiple avenues to enhance workforce culture, productivity, and longevity, thereby positively impacting overall program management. The second strength for the proposed SMAS II contract phase-in approach should provide a strong framework of processes and procedures to successfully assume contract responsibilities. The third strength for proposed management innovations should strengthen the offeror’s ability to foster a culture of innovation, enhance employee engagement and morale, and improve safety and compliance. Finally, the fourth strength for the proposed organizational structure approach that provides a well-structured model to facilitate the performance and communication required to successfully execute the contract should ensure appropriate mission focus, internal corporate visibility and oversight, and effective task order response and implementation across multiple SMAS II performance locations.

In comparing the Bastion and A-P-T proposals under the Management Approach subfactor, I noted that both Bastion and A-P-T had a significant strength for the approach to accommodate workload fluctuations which I considered to be critically important in ensuring both offerors are successfully positioned to manage the IDIQ contract, particularly in this time of budget uncertainty. I also noted the Bastion proposal had an additional significant strength for a proposed organizational structure approach that I considered important due to the necessity of ensuring that the SMAS II contract is appropriately structured to provide clear and effective internal and external accountability for all levels of contract activities. Both the Bastion and A-P- T proposals had a strength associated with the proposed approach for recruitment and retention, each of which I considered important in helping to ensure each offeror can successfully provide a fully qualified and capable workforce over the life of the contract. Likewise, both the Bastion and A-P-T proposals had strengths for proposed management innovations. The Bastion strength should enhance the offeror’s ability to effectively identify and manage risk which I considered important given the nature of SMAS II services. Likewise, the A-P-T strength should help to instill a culture of innovation and cost efficiency which I also considered important given increasingly restrained budgets. The Bastion proposal also had a strength for the proposed SHE approach which I considered important in helping to ensure the SMAS II workforce is successfully positioned to perform contract activities safely. Finally, the A-P-T proposal had a strength for the proposed phase-in approach which I considered important in ensuring the offeror is successfully positioned to assume contract activities by the end of the phase-in period.

While both proposals had strengths for recruitment and retention as well as for proposed management innovations, I considered the merits of the Bastion significant strengths, coupled with the Bastion safety strength, to outweigh the merits of the A-P-T significant strength and strengths to include the additional phase-in strength. Based on the above, I considered the Bastion proposal to have a slight advantage over the A-P-T proposal under the more heavily weighted Management Approach subfactor.

Under the Technical Approach subfactor, I noted that both proposals demonstrated a reasonably sound response and provided approaches that were beneficial to the SMAS II contract.

Bastion’s first strength for the proposed development, implementation, and maintenance of informal data tools used to interact with established reliability tools and applications to perform the labor-intensive PRA should increase the efficiency of PRA practitioners thereby resulting in a more comprehensive characterization and communication of quantitative safety risk. The second strength for proposed technical innovations to both enhance the offeror’s quality assurance capabilities and improve the management of PVS components should help to ensure the consistency of workforce quality assurance training, adherence to required quality assurance practices, and the optimization of pressure vessel operations.

A-P-T’s strength for the approach to perform PWS 3.2 should enhance the offeror’s ability to quickly characterize and communicate risk thereby positively impacting mission success.

In comparing the Bastion proposal with the A-P-T proposal under the Technical Approach subfactor, I noted that both Bastion and A-P-T had a strength related to PRA, both of which I considered important based on the critical need to ensure that safety risks are appropriately identified and managed. However, I also noted that Bastion had an additional strength for proposed technical innovations which I considered important based on the critical need for the SMAS II workforce to be adequately trained while also leveraging effective data tools to manage pressure vessel systems components. Therefore, based on the relative merits of both approaches, I determined the Bastion proposal to have an advantage over the A-P-T proposal under this less heavily weighted subfactor.

In comparing the Bastion proposal with the A-P-T proposal across both subfactors, the Bastion proposal had a slight advantage over the A-P-T proposal under the Management Approach subfactor and an advantage over the A-P-T proposal under the Technical Approach subfactor.

Based on this, I determined that the Bastion proposal had an advantage over the A-P-T proposal under the Mission Suitability factor.

Cost

In comparing the Bastion proposal with the A-P-T proposal under the Cost factor, the Bastion proposal had the lowest total proposed and probable cost. I noted that both proposal's total proposed costs were determined to be fair and reasonable. However, as offeror compensation plans were an essential element of each offeror’s proposed cost, I probed the SEB regarding any findings associated with proposed compensation, noting that while issues were identified with both plans as part of the initial evaluation, these issues were resolved during discussions. As a result, proposed total compensation plans were considered to be adequate and the analysis thoroughly documented. I also noted that no probable cost adjustments were necessary. I therefore determined the Bastion proposal had an advantage over the A-P-T proposal under the Cost factor.

Past Performance

In comparing Bastion’s proposal to the A-P-T proposal under the Past Performance factor, I noted that both proposals received a “Very High Level of Confidence” rating. 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 Bastion proposal’s "Very High Level of Confidence" rating resulted from two significant strengths which were assessed for (1) the exceptional performance of Bastion Technologies, Inc., when serving as prime contractor on the very highly relevant Marshall Space Flight Center, SMAS contract 80MSFC18C0005; and (2) the exceptional performance of Bastion Technologies, Inc., when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant Ames Research Center SMA contract 80ARC020D0012.

The A-P-T proposal’s "Very High Level of Confidence" rating resulted from three significant strengths and two strengths. The three significant strengths were assessed for (1) the exceptional performance of A-P-T Research, Inc., when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant Kennedy Space Center Safety and Mission Assurance Support Services IV (SMASS IV) contract 80KSC023CA003; (2) the exceptional performance of A-P-T Research, Inc., when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant Kennedy Space Center Safety & Mission Assurance Support Services (SMASS) III contract 80KSC018C0007; and (3) the very good performance of ARES, A-P-T Research, Inc.'s proposed subcontractor, when serving as a subcontractor on the very highly relevant Johnson Space Center Human Space Flight Technical Integration Contract (HSFTIC) contract 80JSC020C0017. The strengths were assessed for (1) the very good performance of ARES, A-P-T Research, Inc.'s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the relevant Missile Defense Agency Technical, Engineering, Advisory, and Management Support (TEAMS) Next Safety contract HQ085821C0011; and (2) the exceptional performance of SAIC, A-P-T Research, Inc.'s proposed subcontractor, when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant NASA Johnson Space Center Safety & Mission Assurance Engineering Contract (SMAEC) II 80JSC019D0008.

I also considered whether the performance demonstrated by each offeror in relation to the requirements of the PWS demonstrated relevant performance across the breadth of these activities. First, I noted that the Bastion proposal demonstrated relevant coverage across all eight PWS elements (i.e., PWS 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1, and 4.2) while the A-P-T proposal demonstrated relevant coverage in seven of eight PWS elements (i.e., PWS 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 4.1, and 4.2). I further noted that both offerors demonstrated relevant performance as a prime contractor. Also, both Bastion and A-P-T demonstrated exceptional performance history (i.e., quality of performance) on very highly relevant or highly relevant contracts. The Bastion proposal received two significant strengths. Both significant strengths related to the exceptional performance of Bastion on a very highly relevant contract and a highly relevant contract respectively. The A-P-T proposal received three significant strengths and two strengths. The first significant strength related to the exceptional performance of A-P-T on a very highly relevant contract. The second significant strength related to the exceptional performance of A-P-T on a highly relevant contract. The third significant strength related to the very good performance of subcontractor ARES on a very highly relevant subcontract. The first strength related to the very good performance of subcontractor ARES on a relevant contract while the second strength related to the exceptional performance of subcontractor SAIC on a very highly relevant contract.

I then considered the greater depth of demonstrated relevant experience of the A-P-T proposal, given the number of relevant contracts, and whether this provided any advantage over the Bastion proposal, noting that both proposals were assigned a “Very High Level of Confidence” under this factor. While initially I considered this possibility, I further noted that across all eight applicable PWS elements, only the Bastion referenced contracts provided relevant coverage across all eight applicable PWS elements, while the A-P-T referenced contracts provided relevant coverage across seven of the eight applicable PWS elements.

I then probed the SEB regarding their analysis of the A-P-T proposal regarding the determination that PWS 3.5, Quality Assurance, was not relevant across the five referenced contracts provided, particularly the SMASS III and SMASS IV contracts performed by A-P-T. The SEB indicated that the narrative provided in the A-P-T volume did not adequately address PWS sub-elements

3.5.2 Supporting the management of a quality record center; 3.5.3 Managing a corrective/preventative action system; and 3.5.4 Maintaining organizational issuances. In order to confirm this assessment, the SEB conducted extensive communications with the contracting officers of both contracts, obtaining the PWS for each, in order to more thoroughly assess relevancy in this area. Careful scrutiny of these documents confirmed to the SEB that the referenced contracts did not adequately contain requirements to perform these identified tasks. I therefore concurred with the SEB’s assessment that performance of PWS 3.5 was not relevant across the five referenced contracts. I further noted that as the lack of relevant coverage for this PWS element was not related to adverse performance of these requirements, the SEB was not obligated to address the issue during discussions, particularly in light of the SEB’s thorough scrutiny of the actual PWS documents for each contract. Finally, I noted that both offerors demonstrated experience as prime contractors on very highly relevant NASA safety and mission assurance contracts.

Based on consideration of both the greater depth of demonstrated relevant experience of the A-P-T referenced contracts and the lack of relevant coverage for PWS element 3.5, which I found to be adequately substantiated and documented, for these contracts I determined that the missing PWS element coverage tended to negate any perceived greater depth of experience (i.e., larger number of findings) of the A-P-T proposal, particularly as both offerors demonstrated very highly relevant experience on NASA safety and mission assurance contracts. Therefore, I found no meaningful basis to differentiate between the two proposals under the Past Performance factor.

I then proceeded with my best value tradeoff evaluation of the two proposals. The Bastion proposal had an advantage over the A-P-T proposal under the Mission Suitability factor.

Additionally, the Bastion proposal had an advantage over the A-P-T proposal under the Cost factor. Finally, the Bastion and A-P-T proposals were considered to be essentially equal under the Past Performance factor. As a result, I determined the Bastion proposal offered an advantage over the A-P-T proposal based on the advantages in both the Mission Suitability and Cost factors, noting that the Mission Suitability and Past Performance factors were established as essentially equal in importance, both of which were more important than the Cost factor.

As a result, I determined the Bastion proposal represents the best value to the Government and select that firm for award of the SMAS II contract.

Roger Baird Source Selection Authority