SpectRE Source Selection Statement.pdf

Selection Statement for NASA Headquarters Spectrum and Resource Management, Programmatic and Engineering

Support Services Support (SpectRE) RFP 80HQTR20R0011

On January 12, 2021, I along with senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), met with members of the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the NASA Headquarters’ (HQs) Spectrum and Resource Management, Programmatic and Engineering Support Services (SpectRE) procurement. This memorandum documents my selection decision.

I. PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION and HISTORY

The SpectRE requirement was issued as a small-business set-aside competitive procurement to acquire support for the Space Communication and Navigation (SCaN) Division within the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) at NASA HQ. SCaN serves as the Program Office, providing management and direction for the agency's space communication and navigation capabilities and activities. This includes management and operation of the ground-based facilities for NASA's three space communication networks: the Deep Space Network (DSN), the Near Earth Network (NEN), and the Space Network (SN), as well as the space-based segment of the SN, the Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS). The purpose of this contract is to acquire domestic and international spectrum management and regulatory services; space communication and navigation engineering services; programmatic management accounting tools services; web presences and applications, and education and public outreach activities for the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate

(HEOMD).

Pursuant to Task Orders issued by the Contracting Office, the SpectRE contractor will provide SCaN with professional expert support in the disciplines of regulation management, engineering, budget formulation and execution, public engagement, and general program and mission directorate support.

The resultant contract will be a Single-Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with the ability to issue Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) and Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) task orders. The contract will have an effective ordering period of 5 years from the contract effective date and have a 60-day Phase-In period. Phase-In will be conducted under a separate contract or purchase order, during the 60-day period prior to the effective date of the contract.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541330 Engineering Services, with a small business size standard of $16.5M. The maximum ordering value inclusive of fee for this procurement is $74.8M.

The SpectRE Request for Proposal (RFP) was released on February 25, 2020.

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 & 3.104) 2

There were five (5) amendments issued to the RFP. Amendment #1 was published on March 10, 2020, answered questions received from industry and revised the following RFP sections: L.13(c) Sub factor A- Technical Approach; L.14 (b) (2) Attachment B- Direct Labor rates, Indirect rates, Profit and Fee Matrices; L.15(b) Prior Customer Evaluations (Past Performance Questionnaires); and RFP exhibits to include 1A-11A in addition to 11B.

Amendment #2 was published March 18, 2020 to extend the proposal deadline from March 25, 2020 to April 9, 2020.

Amendment #3, published on March 20, 2020, answered questions received from industry and provided instructions for paperless submission as result of the COVID-19 2020 National Pandemic. Amendment #3 revised the following RFP sections: K.1 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications; L.10 GSFC 52.215-201 Proposal Preparation—General Instructions; L.12 Proposal Marking and Delivery; L.13(c) B.1 Subfactor B- Representative Task Order (RTO) Technical Approach; L.13(c) C.10 Subfactor C- Management Approach paragraph 4; and L.15(b) Prior Customer Evaluations (Past Performance Questionnaires).

Amendment #4, published April 1, 2020, extended the proposal submission deadline from April 9, 2020 to April 15, 2020, answered questions from industry and revised the following RFP sections: L.12 Proposal Marking and Delivery; L.14 (b)(2) Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates Profit and Fee Matrices; Attachment B- IDIQ Rate Matrix;

Attachment E- DD254- Secret Clearance; Attachment E1- DD254 Top Secret Clearance;

Enclosure 1- RTO1; Enclosure 1a- RTO2; Enclosure 3- GPM Specified Non- Management DL Categories, Hours and Position Descriptions; and GPM Exhibits.

Amendment #5, published April 9, 2020, answered questions from industry and revised exhibit 1A to include the chart for "Offeror Management and Administrative Labor Categories and/or Labor-oriented Recurring Other Direct Costs (ODCs)/Cost Estimating Relationships (CERs)".

II. PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

The following four (4) companies submitted timely proposals by April 15, 2020:

Advantage Consulting & Engineering Services (ACES) Agile Decision Sciences, LLC (ADS) Bryce Space and Technology (BST) eSimplicity

The SpectRE Solicitation contained a pass/fail determination within Provision L.11, Offer Volume (GSFC 25.215-203) paragraph (c)(8) Contract Security Classification. To pass, an Offeror was required to possess a Secret level facility clearance by the proposal

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 & 3.104) 3 due date. For proposals submitted as joint ventures, the facility clearance must have been granted in the name of the joint venture. All Offerors passed and the SpectRE SEB proceeded to evaluate these proposals against the three evaluation factors of Mission Suitability, Cost, and Past Performance.

The RFP stated that the Government intended to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions with Offerors. The RFP also stated that the Government reserved the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer (CO) later determined them to be necessary. After evaluating proposals, the CO found that establishment of a competitive range was not necessary, a determination with which I concurred.

III. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

NASA’s Source Selection Authority (SSA) for this procurement appointed the SEB, which included a team of technical and business members and consultants from appropriate disciplines, to assist in proposal evaluations.

The SpectRE SEB evaluated proposals in accordance with the source selection procedures identified in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 "Source Selection" and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3. The SEB procedures at NFS 1815.370, NASA Source Evaluation Boards, were applied.

The RFP listed three evaluation factors for award: Mission Suitability, Price/Cost, and Past Performance. Section M.3 of the RFP specified the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors, as follows:

The Price/Cost Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual Factors, the Price/Cost Factor is less important than the Mission Suitability Factor but more important than the Past Performance Factor.

The RFP established that only the Mission Suitability Factor would be point scored in the evaluation process. The Mission Suitability Factor consisted of the following three (3) subfactors with assigned points as indicated.

Mission Suitability Subfactor Points Subfactor A Technical Approach 400 Subfactor B Representative Task Order Technical Approach 300 Subfactor C Management Approach 300

Total 1000

The Mission Suitability Factor was evaluated using the adjectival ratings, definitions and percentile ranges in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The SEB first reviewed each proposal and generated consensus findings (i.e., significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, and

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 & 3.104) 4 significant weaknesses) within each subfactor. Next, the SEB considered the findings under each subfactor and applied the adjectival rating definitions set forth in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A) to assign a rating based on the merit of the proposal within that subfactor. After assigning the adjectival rating for the subfactor, the SEB determined the associated percentile score with the range set forth in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The maximum points available for each subfactor were then multiplied by the assigned percent for each subfactor to derive the score for the particular subfactor. For example, if a subfactor has a possible 200 points and receives a percent rating of 80, then the score of that subfactor would be 160 points.

Regarding the Price/Cost Factor, the proposed costs of the Government Pricing Model (GPM), and the rates proposed in Attachment B, DIRECT LABOR RATES, INDIRECT RATES AND FEE or PROFIT MATRICES, were assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism. As stated in the RFP, the cost evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B). 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.” Both the “proposed and probable” costs reflected the Offeror’s proposed fee and profit amount. Proposed amounts were corrected to resolve mathematical errors, if any. Proposed fee or profit was not adjusted as a result of any cost realism adjustments to establish a probable cost. The total FFP Phase-In price and the proposed and probable Government Pricing Model evaluated cost (including proposed fee and profit amount) was presented to the SSA, along with any risks associated with the proposed costs.

For the Past Performance Factor, the past performance evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 and provision M.5 of the solicitation. Each Offeror’s contract references were evaluated to determine the degree of relevance based on size and content (type and complexity of services). In evaluating Past Performance, the SEB relied on the Government-wide Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) database and customer feedback, in addition to the narrative on relevant past/current contracts provided by the Offerors. The Past Performance factor was not point scored, but was assigned an adjectival rating of “Very High Level of Confidence”, “High Level of Confidence”, Moderate Level of Confidence”, “Low Level of Confidence”, “Very Low Level of Confidence”, or “Neutral.”

IV. MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUTION RESULTS

Mission Suitability has three subfactors as follows: Subfactor A- Technical Approach, Subfactor B- Representative Task Order (RTO) Technical Approach, and Subfactor C- Management Approach.

Each subfactor was evaluated in accordance with the weights delineated in the RFP. The following table provides the adjectival ratings assigned in each Mission Suitability Subfactor for the four (4) SpectRE proposals:

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 & 3.104) 5

Offeror (alphabetical sorting)

Subfactor A Technical Approach (400 pts.)

Subfactor B

RTO

Technical Approach (300 pts.)

Subfactor C Management

Approach (300 pts.)

Total Mission

Suitability Pts.

ACES Fair Good Good 579

ADS Excellent Excellent Good 840

BST Good Good Good 641 eSimplicity Very Good Excellent Good 774

The substance of the SEB’s evaluation of Mission Suitability for all Offerors is presented below.

ACES

Under Subfactor A, ACES received an adjectival rating of “Fair” with no Significant Strengths, three (3) Strengths, three (3) Weaknesses, one (1) Significant Weakness, and no Deficiencies.

ACES received three (3) Strengths in the following areas: (1) effective flexible resourcing model that demonstrates a sound knowledge of specific IT application development requirements specific to spectrum management; (2) detailed understanding of administrative support actions in support of major Spectrum meetings; and (3) the ability to efficiently leverage one IT platform across multiple NASA users which demonstrates good information systems development expertise. These strengths increase the likelihood of successful contract performance.

ACES received three (3) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) failing to adequately address the planning, logistics, and implementation of three medium-to-large scale meetings and to demonstrate understanding of the FACA requirements for such meetings;

(2) failing to adequately address managing program risk activities; and (3) failing to adequately address all elements of the development and maintenance of web-based modules and systems. These weaknesses increase the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

ACES received a Significant Weakness for ineffective risk management methodologies and failing to identify potential contract specific risk management as called for in Mission Suitability A.2. ACES’ approach appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor B, ACES received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 & 3.104) 6

ACES received two (2) Strengths in the following areas: (1) support for the U.S.

domestic spectrum regulatory processes; and (2) supporting lifecycle document management for the NASA Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) standards. These strengths enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

Under Subfactor C, ACES received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, three (3) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

ACES received three (3) Strengths in the following areas: (1) effective prime-subcontractor relationship approach; (2) detailed phase-in plan for transitioning services from the predecessor contractor; and (3) a well-developed and effective staffing approach that exemplifies a comprehensive and efficient hiring plan. These strengths increase the likelihood of successful contract performance.

ADS

Under Subfactor A, ADS received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” with three (3) Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

ADS received three (3) Significant Strengths in the following areas: (1) proposing an outstanding technical approach to develop and maintain web-based applications and websites (SOW A21) that support domestic and international spectrum management and coordination activities. ADS' highly beneficial plan will provide a solid foundation for building reasonable systems and to provide a baseline for future improvements which will greatly enhance NASA’s web-based capabilities to communicate with other spectrum stakeholders (domestically and internationally) efficiently and effectively; (2) proposing an extensive risk management approach that will provide SCaN management with a detailed explanation of risk to the Program and recommendations for risk mitigation that enables clear and effective decision making opportunities for SCaN; and

(3) providing an extremely comprehensive and detailed approach to the management, development and maintenance of intranets and websites (SOW C2) on behalf of the SCaN Program that enhances NASA and the contractors ability to remain cost effective and compliant with security policies and procedures while also implementing modern technology by developing new online applications. These significant strengths greatly enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

ADS received two (2) Strengths in the following areas: (1) presenting a clear understanding of the administrative function, activities and deadlines required to support the Spectrum Offices, and excellent capabilities and detailed plans on providing support to the logistics of planning, executing, and supporting post-meeting activities of medium-to large-scale meetings; and (2) its demonstrated understanding of potential risks and effective corporate/contract risk management approach. These strengths increase the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 & 3.104) 7

Under Subfactor B, ADS received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” with one (1) Significant Strength, one (1) Strength, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

ADS received a Significant Strength for providing an excellent and extremely effective plan to support NASA’s domestic and international spectrum regulatory process. The approach details a comprehensive coordination processes for ensuing domestic and international spectrum regulatory procedures are adhered to for critical meetings. The approach includes detailed plans to address the complexities with the technical, programmatic, interagency, commercial, and international space administrations. This approach greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

ADS received one (1) Strength for identifying means to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) organization and processes. This strength enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

Under Subfactor C, ADS received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

ADS received one (1) Strength for the management and staffing approach to provide a continuity and smooth transition of services. This strength enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

BST

Under Subfactor A, BST received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths, two (2) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

BST received two (2) Strengths in the following areas: (1) a holistic approach to develop and maintain web-based applications and websites to support domestic and international spectrum management and coordination activities; and (2) identifying a five-step process for (a) identifying risks, (b) analyzing impacts, (c) planning risk management actions, (d) implementing selected course of action (COA), and (e) tracking and monitoring outcomes to manage contract risks. These strengths enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

BST received two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) failing to provide detailed Program risk management processes and activities across the process life cycle, including researching, identifying, tracking, monitoring, and reporting as described in SOW element B4; and (2) lacking a defined approach to all sub-level SOW elements related to SCaN specific web based modules for task agreements (SOW C2.A), travel module (SOW C2.B), Lists and Technical Library (SOW C2.C), SCaN Virtual Assistant Space (SCaNVAS) (SOW C2.D) and a ticketing system for logging and tracking website service request and inquiries (SOW C2.E) for the development and maintenance of web-

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 & 3.104) 8 based modules and systems. BST’s weaknesses increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor B, BST received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

BST received two (2) Strengths in the following areas: (1) a beneficial understanding of the challenges/risks surrounding spectrum management activities and plans for mitigation; and (2) a full understanding of the strengths, weakness, opportunities and recommendations for updating the current CCSDS secretariat activities. These strengths enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

Under Subfactor C, BST received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths, one (1) Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

BST received two (2) Strengths for the following items: (1) providing a detailed phase-in plan that effectively identifies risks and provides efficient and reasonable risk mitigation plans; and (2) a reasonable, in-depth, and thorough management approach for task order management. These strengths enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

BST received one (1) Weakness for failing to clearly define the relationship between prime and subcontractors. The approach is unclear as to how the prime will manage the potential complex arrangements, competing priorities, and potential split of responsibilities between the prime and subcontractor. This weakness enhances the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

eSimplicity Under Subfactor A, eSimplicity received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one

(1) Significant Strength, one (1) Strength, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

eSimplicity received one (1) Significant Strength for the development and maintenance of web-based applications and websites that support domestic and international spectrum management by demonstrating a detailed account for document management solutions and workflow features, while retaining existing systems. Further the Offeror’s plan will greatly enhance NASA’s capabilities to enable the consolidation of documents and other important information while attending domestic and international spectrum coordination meetings. This significant strength greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

eSimplicity received a Strength for a well-developed strategy and approach to the development and maintenance of intranets and websites on behalf of the SCaN Program.

eSimplicity’s overall approach enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 & 3.104) 9

Under Subfactor B, eSimplicity received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” with one (1) Significant Strength, one (1) Strength, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

eSimplicity received a Significant Strength for leveraging its comprehensive technical knowledge, experiences, and capabilities to support NASA’s domestic and international spectrum management and regulatory functions. eSimplicity also demonstrated significant aptitude of the U.S. domestic spectrum regulatory process, interdependencies between NASA and the U.S. Spectrum Regulators and international regulatory process.

This approach significantly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

eSimplicity received one (1) Strength for their approach to improve effectiveness and efficiency of the CCSDS organization and processes. This strength enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

Under Subfactor C, eSimplicity received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, three (3) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

eSimplicity received three (3) Strengths for the following: (1) a detailed and effective subcontractor management approach; and (2) a contract management approach that clearly identifies a task area lead and simplified approach for identifying a point of contact for a specific task; and (3) a robust approach for financial management to track and analyze all cost per tasks. eSimplicity’s strengths enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

V. COST EVALUATION RESULTS

The SEB evaluated the total proposed cost and determined that a probable cost adjustment was not necessary for any of the four Offerors. While each of the Offeror’s costs were acceptable as proposed, the SEB noted the following cost risks: ACES inconsistent incumbent capture approach; ADS’s escalation approach; and BST’s offsite overhead, G&A, and subcontract handling indirect rates. ACES had the lowest total cost, which was very slightly lower than eSimplicity’s total cost, which was slightly lower than BST’s total cost. BST’s total cost was very slightly lower than ADS ($61,912,560).

VI. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS

In evaluating Past Performance of the Offerors, the SEB found:

ACES

ACES was determined to have an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of "Low" based on the combination of Low Overall Relevance and Very High Overall

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 & 3.104) 10

ADS

ADS was determined to have an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of "Very High" based on the combination of Very High Overall Relevance and Very High Overall performance.

BST

BST was determined to have an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of “High" based on the combination of High Overall Relevance and Very High Overall eSimplicity eSimplicity was determined to have an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating of "High" based on the combination of High Overall Relevance and Very High Overall performance.

VII. SELECTION DECISION

As the SSA for this procurement, I thoroughly reviewed the SEB's documentation entitled, “Spectrum and Resource Management, Programmatic and Engineering Support Services (SpectRE) Procurement Presentation to the Source Selection Authority” and associated cost report. On January 12, 2021, I met with the SpectRE SEB, along with several ex-officio members, to receive the SEB findings.

I determined that the findings presented by the SEB, as documented in its presentation and the accompanying "SpectRE Cost Evaluation Report" were detailed and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the SpectRE RFP, and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal. I discussed with the SEB its rationale for the findings and the adjectival ratings and scores for the Mission Suitability Subfactors, and also discussed the rationale for the evaluation of Cost and Past Performance. Further, I solicited the views of ex-officio members in their areas of expertise. I determined that the findings were reasonable and valid for the purpose of making a selection decision based on initial proposals. Thus, I accept the SEB's findings and concur with the Contracting Officer that a competitive range and discussions are not necessary.

In determining which proposal offered the best value to NASA, I referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP:

The Price/Cost Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual Factors, the Price/Cost Factor is less important than the Mission Suitability Factor but more important than the Past Performance Factor.

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 & 3.104) 11

My selection was based on the comparative assessment of each proposal against each of the RFP evaluation factors to determine which proposal represented the best value.

Mission Suitability

Regarding Mission Suitability overall, I found a discriminator in that the ADS proposal was more highly rated than all other Offerors in both Subfactor A- Technical Approach and Subfactor B- RTOs Technical Approach. Under Subfactor A, ADS was the only Offeror to receive multiple Significant Strengths and the only Offeror receiving an adjectival rating of “Excellent”. Under Subfactor B, while both ADS and eSimplicity received “Excellent” ratings compared to the other two Offerors’ “Good” ratings, there was a slight discriminator in favor of ADS for its excellent and extremely effective RTO1 approach. Under Subfactor C, all Offerors earned a “Good” rating with a very slight advantage in favor of eSimplicity for its effective contract and subcontract management approach.

Subfactor A- Technical Approach

I noted that ACES received a “Fair” rating and BST received a “Good,” rating within Subfactor A- Technical Approach. ACES was the only Offeror to receive a Significant Weakness in this Subfactor and both BST and ACES received two or more Weaknesses in this Subfactor in contrast to no Weaknesses for ADS and eSimplicity. Further, unlike ADS and eSimplicity, neither BST nor ACES received any Significant Strengths.

Therefore, I concluded that these two Offerors were not competitive in this Subfactor, and thus I focused my comparative assessment on ADS and eSimplicity.

Under Subfactor A, the most heavily weighted subfactor, ADS was the only Offeror to receive an “Excellent” rating with three (3) Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths, and no Significant Weaknesses or Weaknesses. I noted that eSimplicity, the next highest rated Offeror within this Subfactor, received a “Very Good” rating with one (1) Significant Strength, one (1) Strength, and no Significant Weakness or Weaknesses. I found that ADS and eSimplicity earned similar Significant Strengths for proposing a very good technical approach to develop and maintain web-based applications and websites (SOW A21) that support domestic and international spectrum management activities.

ADS received a second Significant Strength for an extensive risk management approach that will provide SCaN management with a detailed explanation of risk to the Program and recommendations for risk mitigation that enables clear and effective decision making opportunities for SCaN management. I found that ADS’ excellent risk approach will streamline the process of maintaining and managing program level risk, which will contribute toward significantly exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the government. In contrast, eSimplicity received no finding in this area. ADS was assessed a third Significant Strength for providing an extremely comprehensive and detailed approach to the management, development and maintenance of intranets and websites (SOW C2) on behalf of the SCaN Program that enhances NASA and the contractor’s ability to remain cost effective and compliant with security policies

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 & 3.104) 12 and procedures while also implementing modern technology by developing new online applications and moving IT infrastructure into a cloud based system. By comparison, I noted eSimplicity received a Strength in this area (SOW C2) for a well-developed strategy and approach to the development and maintenance of intranets and websites on behalf of the SCaN Program. While I noted that eSimplicity’s Strength in this area would enhance the potential for successful performance, I found that ADS’ more comprehensive approach of using and implementing website management tools offers greater benefit and will significantly enhance SCaN’s ability to ensure the multiple websites meet SCaN’s goals and objectives.

In addition, I noted that ADS received two (2) Strengths. One Strength was for providing a thorough approach to the challenges of coordinating Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) and Spectrum Manager’s group meetings to include administrative functions, logistics of planning, executing, and post-meeting activities. The Second Strength was for a good understanding of corporate/contract risk management that includes interchange between the PM, COR, and NASA CO. I found that these strengths enhance the potential for successful performance and noted that eSimplicity received no findings in these areas.

Overall for Subfactor A, I found a clear and distinct advantage in favor of ADS with its “Excellent” rating compared to eSimplicity’s “Very Good” rating. Specifically, ADS’ Significant Strengths for an extremely comprehensive and detailed approach to the management, development and maintenance of intranets and websites and its program risk management approach are meaningful discriminators, which will contribute significantly toward exceeding the contract requirements. By comparison, as described above, eSimplicity’s Significant Strength and Strength under Subfactor A were matched or exceeded by ADS. Therefore, overall for Subfactor A, I found that the advantages of ADS’ superior proposal, as noted above, outweighed those of eSimplicity’s proposal.

Subfactor B- RTOs Technical Approach

Within Mission Suitability Subfactor B, RTOs Technical Approach, I acknowledged that ACES and BST received “Good” ratings, whereas ADS and eSimplicity were the only Offerors to receive Significant Strength findings, and ratings of “Excellent” in Subfactor B. Therefore, I did not consider ACES and BST to be among the most competitive in this Subfactor. Accordingly, I focused my comparative assessment on ADS and eSimplicity.

Both eSimplicity and ADS received one (1) Significant Strength for their RTO 1 technical approach and one (1) Strength for their RTO 2 technical approach. Though both Offerors presented significant contributions, the Significant Strength identified in ADS’ RTO 1 technical approach is slightly more advantageous to the Government due to its approach and detailed plans to address the complexities of the technical, programmatic, interagency, commercial, and international aspects of supporting spectrum management activities. ADS’ approach significantly contributes to the successful execution of SpectRE and gives the Government a high level of confidence of exceeding the RTO 1 requirements. Notwithstanding eSimplicity’s “Excellent” rating in Subfactor B, I noted a slight discriminator in favor of ADS for its proposed technical approach to RTO 1.

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 & 3.104) 13

Subfactor C- Management Approach

Within Mission Suitability Subfactor C- Management Approach, all four Offerors received a rating of “Good.” Both, eSimplicity and ACES, were assessed three (3) Strengths. BST received one (1) Weakness, which was balanced out by the two (2) Strengths received. ADS received one (1) Strength and no weaknesses. While all the Offerors received the same rating and the management approaches were of comparable merit relative to each other, I found a slight edge in favor of eSimplicity for an effective contract and financial management approach.

Cost Factor

Regarding the Cost factor, I noted that ACES had the lowest total cost, which was very slightly lower than eSimplicity’s total cost, which was slightly lower than BST’s total cost. BST’s total cost was very slightly lower than ADS. I noted the respective cost risks for ACES, ADS, and BST. However, I found these risks to be relatively minor.

Past Performance Factor

Regarding the Past Performance factor, I noted that ADS received a Very High Level of Confidence rating. ACES received a Low Level of Confidence rating; whereas, BST and eSimplicity both received High Level of Confidence ratings. I found that BST and eSimplicity were less competitive in this factor in comparison to ADS who received the highest Past Performance rating.

Decision

In making my selection decision, I referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP. Under Mission Suitability, the most important factor, I determined that ADS offered the strongest proposal and was superior to all Offerors. For Past Performance, I concluded that ADS with a Very High Level of Confidence Rating had a competitive advantage over BST and eSimplicity with High Level of Confidence Ratings and ACES with a Low Level of Confidence Rating. I found that ADS demonstrated very effective performance, which provides me confidence in their ability to successfully perform the SpectRE contract. Although ACES’ total cost was lowest, I concluded that ADS’s significant Mission Suitability advantage, primarily under Subfactors A and B, and much higher Past Performance rating, far outweighed ACES’ advantage in cost. While I recognized that eSimplicity offered a slightly lower total cost than ADS (less than 5%), I found that ADS’s stronger Mission Suitability proposal, the most important factor, along with higher Past Performance rating outweighed eSimplicity’s slight cost advantage.

For the above reasons, ADS’ proposal offers the best value to the Government.

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 & 3.104) 14

Therefore, I select ADS for award of the NASA Headquarters’ (HQs) Spectrum and Resource Management, Programmatic and Engineering Support Services (SpectRE) contract.

Victor Sparrow, Source Selection Authority Date NASA HQs Director, Spectrum Policy and Planning Division Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate