SRACES 80MSFC19R0024 - Source Selection Statement (SSS) (2020-07-31).pdf

Selection Statement for the

Strategic Research and Analysis, Communications, and Exhibits Services (SRACES)

Request for Proposal (RFP) #80MSFC19R0024

On July 21, 2020, I along with officials from the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), met with members of the source evaluation board (SEB) for the SRACES acquisition. The SEB presented its findings to me for the purpose of making a source selection decision.

I. BACKGROUND

RFP #80MSFC19R0024 for the SRACES acquisition was released on September 5, 2019. The

RFP required offerors to provide all necessary management, personnel, materials, equipment/supplies, travel, and training necessary to perform the services defined in the

Performance Work Statement (PWS).

The SRACES contract is a mission services contract. MSFC's Office of Strategic Analysis and

Communications (OSAC) has a continuing need for comprehensive strategic research and analysis, communications, and exhibits services. These services are key in implementing and maintaining an overarching communication strategy that clearly and consistently communicates

NASA's strategic vision and guidance, along with MSFC's goals and business strategy, to both internal and external stakeholders. Mission services efforts will be performed in accordance with

PWS Sections 2.0 through 6.0, with supporting indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) task orders (TOs) performed in accordance with PWS Section 7.0.

Functional components of the SRACES PWS include:

2.0 Contract Management and Control

3.0 Strategic Research and Analysis

4.0 Communication Strategy, Planning, Integration, and Key Messaging

5.0 Communication Products and Services

6.0 Exhibit Support

7.0 Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ)

Three amendments were issued to the RFP as follows:

(1) Amendment 001, issued on September 17, 2019, provided answers to written questions that were received in response to the RFP and made minor revisions to various sections of the RFP, as well as provided supplemental background and historical information in relation to the existing/predecessor Strategic Analysis and Communications Support

Services (COMMSS) contractor workforce having seniority/experience levels above those currently stated in SRACES requirements;

(2) Amendment 002, issued on September 25, 2019, provided answers to additional written questions that were received in response to the RFP, provided answers to written questions that were received in response to Amendment 001, made additional minor

SRACES Selection Statement

RFP #80MSFC19R0024

revisions to various sections of the RFP, and provided clarification that as applicable, proposed subcontractor(s) had the option of submitting total compensation plan (TCP) information inside a sealed envelope through the offeror, or directly to the Government in accordance with the due date, time, and location for proposal delivery specified in the solicitation; and

(3) Amendment 003, issued on September 30, 2019, provided answers to written questions that were received in response to Amendment 002.

The SRACES effort will be performed under a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract that includes an

FFP IDIQ component, along with performance-based deductions. The IDIQ component will support: (1) supplemental communications products and services not included in mission services;

(2) materials, equipment, and supplies purchases in support of the PWS; and (3) travel and training as directed by the Government. The contract consists of a one-year base period and four one-year options to be exercised at the Government's discretion.

NASA designated this procurement as a small business set-aside competition. On October 7, 2019, NASA received five acceptable proposals from the following companies (the listed order is alphabetical and corresponds to the order of evaluation):

(1) Abacus Technology Corporation (Abacus)

(2) Analytical Services, Inc. (ASI)

(3) Genex Systems, LLC (Genex)

(4) Media Fusion, LLC (Media Fusion)

(5) Trident Technologies, LLC (Trident)

II. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The SEB conducted its evaluation of proposals in accordance with all of the evaluation criteria stated in the RFP, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, and

NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Part 1815, Contracting by Negotiation. Specifically, evaluation of offers was conducted in accordance with NFS Subpart 1815.370, NASA Source Evaluation

Boards. A best value tradeoff process was performed between the factors of Mission Suitability, Price, and Past Performance. In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.304(e), the relative importance of these factors was established as: (1) Mission Suitability, Price, and Past Performance are considered essentially equal to one another and (2) Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

Mission Suitability: Each offeror's proposal was evaluated in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3 and NFS Subpart 1815.3, with information provided in this volume evaluated to assess the offeror's demonstrated understanding of Mission Suitability requirements and the offeror's approach for accomplishing those requirements, including the ability to perform as proposed.

The information provided in the Mission Suitability volume was evaluated as follows:

(1) Subfactor 1 - Management/Technical Approach and Innovation (M/TA&I):

(i) Management Approach - the SEB evaluated each offeror's proposed overall management approach, and

(ii) Technical Approach - the SEB evaluated each offeror's proposed overall technical approach, and

(iii) Innovation - the SEB evaluated each offeror's approach to any innovation(s) and/or efficiency(ies) proposed in performing any SRACES requirements; and

(2) Subfactor 2 - Staffing Approach and Total Compensation Plan (SA&TCP):

(i) Staffing Approach - the SEB evaluated each offeror's proposed overall staffing approach, and

(ii) Total Compensation Plan - the SEB evaluated each offeror's proposed total compensation plan.

In addition, in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional

Employees, realism of each offeror's total compensation plan was evaluated. Professional compensation that was determined to be unrealistically low, or that was not in reasonable relationship to the RFP's various NASA labor categories, adversely impacted each offeror's

Mission Suitability score. Consistency between all proposal volumes was also validated, and any inconsistencies that indicated a lack of understanding were identified and adversely impacted the offeror's adjectival rating(s) and Mission Suitability score.

Subfactors were scored in accordance with the 1,000-point scale provided below:

Subfactor 1 - Management/Technical Approach and Innovation (M/TA&I) 600

Subfactor 2 - Staffing Approach and Total Compensation Plan (SA&TCP) 400

Total 1,000

Numerical scores were assigned to each subfactor utilizing the adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges set forth at NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A), as follows: "Excellent," "Very Good,"

"Good," "Fair," or "Poor." The SEB arrived at a total Mission Suitability point score by adding all subfactor points assessed. A summary adjectival rating was not assigned to this factor.

Price: The total evaluated price of each offeror's proposal was assessed to determine fair and reasonable pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques. Total evaluated price included the sum of: (1) the fully burdened labor (mission services) price for the contract period of performance, including all options; (2) a calculated IDIQ labor price using offeror-provided fully burdened rates applied to a pre-populated estimate of labor hours for each labor category for the contract period of performance, including all options; and (3) a calculated price using offeror-provided other direct cost (ODC) burden rates applied to pre-populated ODC values for the contract period of performance, including all options.

Consistency between the Mission Suitability factor, the Price factor, and the Past Performance factor volumes was considered in determining if each offeror's proposed price was fair and reasonable. Each offeror's proposed phase-in price did not factor into the total evaluated price determination.

Past Performance: Each offeror's past performance, to include the past performance of any proposed subcontractors, was evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS

1815.305(a)(2). Any offeror rebuttals, if applicable, regarding adverse past performance information to which the offeror had not previously had an opportunity to respond, was also made part of the evaluation record and included in the evaluation.

Each offeror's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reportable injury rates

(Days Away From Work Injury or Illness (DAFWII) and Total Case Rate (TCR)) were evaluated.

DAFWII and TCR data was segregated by the North American Industry Classification System

(NAICS) code for each referenced contract and evaluated by averaging the DAFWII and TCR data by the applicable NAICS code. Those averages were compared to the latest available Department of Labor (DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) DAFWII and TCR national averages for the applicable NAICS code.

This factor was not numerically scored; however, offerors were assigned a confidence level rating in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A), as follows: "Very High Level of Confidence," "High

Level of Confidence," "Moderate Level of Confidence," "Low Level of Confidence," "Very Low

Level of Confidence," or "Neutral."

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

(1) Abacus

For the Mission Suitability factor, the Abacus proposal received a total score of 454 out of a possible 1,000 points. The proposal received one significant strength, one strength, two significant weaknesses, and two weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two

Mission Suitability subfactors:

Under the Management/Technical Approach and Innovation subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of "Good" and 366 points resulting from one significant strength, one strength, one significant weakness, and no weaknesses. The significant strength related to the proposed utilization of an innovative tool to provide OSAC personnel with situational awareness of Congressional information in direct correlation to supporting PWS Section 3.1, Environmental Monitoring, Analysis, and Assessments, as well as additionally providing indirect support to supplemental PWS efforts. The strength related to the proposed proactive approach for ensuring accurate narrative control of MSFC executive and senior leadership messages to stakeholders in support of PWS Section 5.1, Executive Communications, and PWS

Section 5.2, Senior Leadership Communications. The significant weakness related to the proposed approach for SRACES product delivery which appears contradictory and could result in considerable product delays.

Under the Staffing Approach and Total Compensation Plan subfactor, the Abacus proposal received an adjectival rating of "Poor" and 88 points resulting from no significant strengths, no strengths, one significant weakness, and two weaknesses. The significant weakness related to the proposed staffing approach not providing adequate staffing levels necessary to satisfy

SRACES requirements. The weaknesses related to: (1) the proposal's staffing and total compensation approach for Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) labor category positions;

and (2) the proposed approach for personnel hiring which does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of FAR limitations relative to personal services contracts.

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the Abacus proposal to have the lowest total evaluated price among the five proposals received.

For the Past Performance factor, the Abacus proposal received an adjectival confidence level rating of "High Level of Confidence" resulting from one significant strength, one strength, three adequates, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The significant strength related to

Abacus' performance as the prime contractor on the Information Management and

Communications Support (IMCS) contract, #NNK08OH01C, with this referenced contract determined to be highly relevant overall based on the individual assessments of size (i.e., highly relevant), content (i.e., highly relevant), and complexity (i.e., highly relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly very good based upon a review of Contractor

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) information, and with safety history determined to be exceptional based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information. The strength related to Abacus' performance as a subcontractor on the

Communications, Outreach, Multimedia and Information Technology (COMIT) contract, #NNJ16JA52B, with this referenced contract determined to be relevant overall based on the individual assessments of size (i.e., relevant), content (i.e., highly relevant), and complexity (i.e., relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly very good based upon a review of PPQ information, and with safety history determined to be exceptional based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information. The adequates related to: (1) Abacus' proposed subcontractor Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc. (AMA's) performance as the prime contractor on the Technology, Engineering, and Aerospace Mission Support (TEAMS) II contract, #NNL12AA09C, having a work-share of 5% of total proposed contract value, which was determined insufficient to have a positive impact on the successful performance of the contract deserving of a strength, with this referenced contract determined to be highly relevant overall based on individual assessments of size (i.e., highly relevant), content (i.e., relevant), and complexity

(i.e., highly relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly exceptional based upon a review of CPARS and PPQ information, and with safety history determined to be exceptional based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information; (2) Abacus' proposed subcontractor Mori Associates, Inc. (Mori's) performance as the prime contractor on the COMIT contract, #NNJ16JA52B, having a work-share of 11% of total proposed contract value, which was determined insufficient to have a positive impact on the successful performance of the contract deserving of a strength, with this referenced contract determined to be highly relevant overall based upon individual assessments of size (i.e., highly relevant), content (i.e., highly relevant), and complexity (i.e., highly relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly very good based upon a review of CPARS and PPQ information, and with safety history determined to be very good based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information; and (3)

Abacus' proposed subcontractor Aetos Systems, Inc. (Aetos') performance as the prime contractor on the Office of Human Capital Support Services (OHCSS) contract, #NNM14AA15C, having a work-share of 13% of total proposed contract value, which was determined insufficient to have a positive impact on the successful performance of the contract deserving of a strength, with this referenced contract determined to be highly relevant overall based on individual assessments of size (i.e., highly relevant), content (i.e., highly relevant), and complexity (i.e., relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly exceptional based upon a review of

CPARS and PPQ information, and with safety history determined to be exceptional based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information. Finally, the offeror demonstrated skills sufficiently similar to the skills and banding levels (i.e., quantity of work) required in 26 of 27 PWS sections.

(2) ASI

For the Mission Suitability factor, the ASI proposal received a total score of 532 out of a possible

1,000 points. The proposal received no significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and three weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two an adjectival rating of "Good" and 312 points resulting from no significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and two weaknesses. The weaknesses related to: (1) an inadequate approach to perform multiple aspects of the PWS; and (2) an inconsistent approach to satisfying SRACES purchasing requirements.

Under the Staffing Approach and Total Compensation Plan subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of "Good" and 220 points resulting from no significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and one weakness. The weakness related to (1) the proposal's inadequate supporting data to substantiate the methodology described for the establishment of proposed base direct labor rate ranges, (2) inadequate description of the methodology utilized to tailor aspects of the professional compensation approach for the establishment of these ranges, and (3) five professional labor categories having a minimum total compensation that appears unrealistic to attract and retain personnel with the requisite skills and experience.

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the ASI proposal to have the highest total evaluated price among the five proposals received.

For the Past Performance factor, the ASI proposal received an adjectival confidence level rating of "Very High Level of Confidence" resulting from two significant strengths, one strength, no adequates, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The significant strengths related to: (1)

ASI's performance as the prime contractor on the COMMSS contract, #NNM12AA53C, with this referenced contract determined to be highly relevant overall based on the individual assessments of size (i.e., highly relevant), content (i.e., highly relevant), and complexity (i.e., highly relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly exceptional based upon a review of

CPARS and PPQ information, and safety history determined to be very good based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information in conjunction with supplemental safety narrative information;

and (2) ASI's performance as the prime contractor on the Strategic Analysis and NASA Program

Analysis and Control IV (PAAC IV) contract, #NNG15VN01C, with the referenced contract determined to be highly relevant overall based on the individual assessments of size (i.e., highly relevant), content (i.e., highly relevant), and complexity (i.e., highly relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly exceptional based upon a review of CPARS and PPQ information, and with safety history determined to be very good based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information in conjunction with supplemental safety narrative information. The strength related to ASI's performance under Artic Slope Technical Services, Inc. (ASTS) (a Native

American Small Business Development Act affiliate) as the prime contractor on the Spectrum

Management Engineering Services (Spectrum) and Programmatic Resource Management Support contract, #NNH16CO60C, with this referenced contract determined to be relevant overall based on the individual assessments of size (i.e., highly relevant), content (i.e., relevant), and complexity

(i.e., relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly exceptional based upon a review of CPARS and PPQ information, and with safety history determined to be exceptional based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information. Finally, the offeror demonstrated skills sufficiently similar to the skills and banding levels (i.e., quantity of work) required across all 27 PWS sections.

(3) Genex

For the Mission Suitability factor, the Genex proposal received a total score of 520 out of a possible

1,000 points. The proposal received no significant strengths, one strength, one significant weakness, and two weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two an adjectival rating of "Fair" and 288 points resulting from no significant strengths, one strength, one significant weakness, and one weakness. The strength related to the proposed approach to providing a systematic, structured framework to manage the innovation life-cycle process. The significant weakness related to the proposal's inconsistent management approach in relation to integrating aspects of the offeror's management/supervisory hierarchy. The weakness related to the proposal not providing an adequate approach to perform aspects of

Section 5.10, Technical Documents, in relation to the PWS.

an adjectival rating of "Good" and 232 points resulting from no significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and one weakness. The weakness related to the proposed approach for personnel hiring which does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of FAR limitations relative to personal services contracts.

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the Genex proposal to have the second highest total evaluated price among the five proposals received.

For the Past Performance factor, the Genex proposal received an adjectival confidence level rating of "High Level of Confidence" resulting from one significant strength, two strengths, one adequate, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The significant strength related to Genex's performance as the managing partner of GenTech Partners Joint Venture (JV) as the prime contractor on the Langley Administrative, Multimedia, and Professional Services (LAMPS) contract, #NNL12AA06B, with this referenced contract determined to be highly relevant overall based on the individual assessments of size (i.e., highly relevant), content (i.e., highly relevant), and complexity (i.e., relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly exceptional based upon a review of CPARS and PPQ information, and with safety history determined to be exceptional based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information. The strengths related to: (1) Genex's performance as the managing partner of GenTech Partners Joint

Venture (JV) as the prime contractor on the US Marine Corps (USMC) Warfighting Laboratory

(MCWL) contract, #M0026412C0014, with this referenced contract determined to be relevant overall based on the individual assessments of size (i.e., highly relevant), content (i.e., relevant), and complexity (i.e., relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly exceptional based upon a review of CPARS information, and with safety history determined to be exceptional based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information; and (2) Genex's proposed subcontractor Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. (TBE's) performance as the prime contractor on the Mission Operations and Integration (MO&I) contract, #NNM13AA29C, having a work-share of 20% of total proposed contract value, which was determined sufficient to have a positive impact on the successful performance of the contract deserving of a strength, with this referenced contract determined to be highly relevant overall based on the individual assessments of size (i.e., highly relevant), content (i.e., highly relevant), and complexity (i.e., relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly exceptional based upon a review of CPARS and PPQ information, and with safety history determined to be exceptional based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information. The adequate related to Genex's proposed subcontractor Bryce Space and

Technology, LLC (Bryce's) performance as the prime contractor on the Space Technology Mission

Directorate (STMD) Strategic Planning and Integration (SPI) Office contract, #NNH14CL24Z, having a work-share of 5% of total proposed contract value, which was determined insufficient to have a positive impact on the successful performance of the contract deserving of a strength, with this referenced contract determined to be relevant overall based on the individual assessments of size (i.e., highly relevant), content (i.e., relevant), and complexity (i.e., relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly exceptional based upon a review of CPARS and PPQ information, and with safety history determined to be exceptional based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information. Finally, the offeror demonstrated skills sufficiently similar to the skills and banding levels (i.e., quantity of work) required in 24 of 27 PWS sections.

(4) Media Fusion

For the Mission Suitability factor, the Media Fusion proposal received a total score of 600 out of a possible 1,000 points. The proposal received no significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and one weakness. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two an adjectival rating of "Good" and 360 points resulting from no significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and one weakness. The weakness related to the proposal not providing an adequate approach to perform aspects of Section 5.10, Technical Documents, in relation to the PWS.

Under the Staffing Approach and Total Compensation Plan subfactor, the proposal received an adjectival rating of "Good" and 240 points resulting from no significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses.

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the Media Fusion proposal to have the third lowest total evaluated price among the five proposals received, at $44,031,635.

For the Past Performance factor, the Media Fusion proposal received an adjectival confidence level rating of "Very High Level of Confidence" resulting from one significant strength, two strengths, one adequate, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The significant strength related to

Media Fusion's performance as the minority partner of Alutiiq-Fusion Joint Venture (JV) as the prime contractor on the Langley Administrative, Multimedia, and Professional Services II

(LAMPS II) contract, #80LARC18C0002, with this referenced contract determined to be highly relevant overall based on the individual assessments of size (i.e., highly relevant), content (i.e., highly relevant), and complexity (i.e., relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly exceptional based upon a review of CPARS and PPQ information, and with safety history determined to be exceptional based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information. The strengths related to: (1) Media Fusion's performance as a subcontractor on the Centerwide

Administrative and Technical Support Services (CATSS) II contract, #NND16AA03B, with this referenced contract determined to be relevant overall based on the individual assessments of size

(i.e., relevant), content (i.e., relevant), and complexity (i.e., relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly very good based upon a review of CPARS and PPQ information, and with safety history determined to be exceptional based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information; and (2) Media Fusion's proposed subcontractor LSINC Corporation

(LSINC's) performance as a subcontractor on the COMMSS contract, #NNM12AA53C, having a work-share of 21% of total proposed contract value, which was determined sufficient to have a positive impact on the successful performance of the contract deserving of a strength, with this referenced contract determined to be relevant overall based on the individual assessments of size

(i.e., relevant), content (i.e., highly relevant), and complexity (i.e., relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly exceptional based upon a review of PPQ information, and with safety history determined to be exceptional based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information. The adequate related to Media Fusion's proposed subcontractor Manufacturing

Technical Solutions, Inc. (MTS') performance as the prime contractor on the Marshall Integrated

Program Support Services (MIPSS) contract, #NNM13AA04Z, having a work-share of 11% of total proposed contract value, which was determined insufficient to have a positive impact on the successful performance of the contract deserving of a strength, with this referenced contract determined to be highly relevant overall based on the individual assessments of size (i.e., highly relevant), content (i.e., highly relevant), and complexity (i.e., highly relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly exceptional based upon a review of CPARS and PPQ information, and with safety history determined to be very good based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information. Finally, the offeror demonstrated skills sufficiently similar to the skills and banding levels (i.e., quantity of work) required across all 27 PWS sections.

(5) Trident

For the Mission Suitability factor, the Trident proposal received a total score of 570 out of a possible 1,000 points. The proposal received one significant strength, no strengths, one significant weakness, and no weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation under the two an adjectival rating of "Good" and 330 points resulting from one significant strength, no strengths, one significant weakness, and no weaknesses. The significant strength related to the proposed innovative approach for populating and synchronizing an electronic integrated calendar of strategic events and reports of interest to OSAC/MSFC/NASA in support of PWS

Section 3.1.2. The significant weakness related to the proposed approach for SRACES product submission which could result in considerable product delays.

an adjectival rating of "Good" and 240 points resulting from no significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses.

For the Price factor, the SEB determined the Trident proposal to have the second lowest total evaluated price among the five proposals received.

For the Past Performance factor, the Trident proposal received an adjectival confidence level rating of "Moderate Level of Confidence" resulting from no significant strengths, three strengths, two adequates, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses. The strengths related to: (1) Trident's performance as the prime contractor on the Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM)

Expedited Professionals and Engineering Support Services (EXPRESS) Blanket Purchase

Agreement (BPA) for the Programmatic Domain, #W31P4Q16A0015 - Task Order 0001, with this referenced contract determined to be relevant overall based on the individual assessments of size (i.e., highly relevant), content (i.e., relevant), and complexity (i.e., relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly exceptional based upon a review of CPARS and PPQ information, and with safety history determined to be exceptional based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information; (2) Trident's performance as the prime contractor on the Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) Service

Contract, #W912HZ17D0004, with this referenced contract determined to be relevant overall based on the individual assessments of size (i.e., relevant), content (i.e., relevant), and complexity

(i.e., relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly exceptional based upon a review of CPARS and PPQ information, and with safety history determined to be exceptional based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information; and (3) Trident's proposed subcontractor Harlan Lee & Associates, LLC (HLA's) performance as the prime contractor on the

Visual Information Production Center (VIPC) contract, #HQ014717C0020, having a work-share of 20% of total proposed contract value, which was determined sufficient to have a positive impact on the successful performance of the contract deserving of a strength, with this referenced contract determined to be highly relevant overall based on the individual assessments of size (i.e., highly relevant), content (i.e., highly relevant), and complexity (i.e., relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly exceptional based upon a review of CPARS and PPQ information, and with safety history determined to be very good based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information in conjunction with supplemental safety narrative information. The adequates related to: (1) Trident's proposed subcontractor Strategic Alliance Business Group, LLC

(SABG's) performance as the prime contractor on the Technical Engineering, Advisory, and

Management Support (TEAMS) Strategic Planning contract, #HQ014716C0057, having a work-share of 14% of total proposed contract value, which was determined insufficient to have a positive impact on the successful performance of the contract deserving of a strength, with this referenced contract determined to be highly relevant overall based on the individual assessments of size (i.e., highly relevant), content (i.e., highly relevant), and complexity (i.e., relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly exceptional based upon a review of CPARS and PPQ information, and with safety history determined to be exceptional based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information; and (2) Trident's proposed subcontractor Total Solutions, Inc. (TSI's) performance as the prime contractor on the Operations and Programmatic Support Services

(OPSS) contract, #80HQTR18A0003, having a work-share of 17% of total proposed contract value, which was determined insufficient to have a positive impact on the successful performance of the contract deserving of a strength, with this referenced contract determined to be highly relevant overall based on the individual assessments of size (i.e., highly relevant), content (i.e., highly relevant), and complexity (i.e., relevant), with performance evaluations determined to be predominantly very good based upon a review of CPARS and PPQ information, and with safety history determined to be exceptional based upon a review of DAFWII and TCR information.

Finally, the offeror demonstrated skills sufficiently similar to the skills and banding levels (i.e., quantity of work) required in 17 of 27 PWS sections.

III. SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

The SEB presented its evaluation findings for each proposal to me, and I carefully considered the detailed findings and the board's responses to my questions about those findings, the adjectival ratings, the point scores, the total evaluated prices, and the confidence level ratings. I also solicited and considered the views of the officials who attended the SEB presentation. These officials 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, and provided clear descriptions of the merits of each proposal. 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 adjectival ratings, the point scores, the total evaluated prices, and the confidence level ratings for each proposal, and use my independent judgement to determine the appropriate discriminators for purposes of the selection.

It was clear from the initial findings the majority of the offerors understood the overall requirements of the RFP, and I concluded there was nothing to be gained by establishing a competitive range and subsequently proceed with 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 essentially equally weighted factors, I select the proposal submitted by Media Fusion, LLC for award of the

SRACES contract. The rationale for my selection is as follows:

Abacus vs. Media Fusion

Comparing the Abacus proposal to the Media Fusion proposal under the Mission Suitability factor, I noted the Media Fusion proposal had a significant advantage (i.e., 600 points) over the Abacus proposal (i.e., 454 points) based on the merits of Abacus' one significant strength, one strength, two significant weaknesses, and two weaknesses when compared to Media Fusion's no significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and one weakness. I also determined the scores were supported by the underlying findings. In an effort to understand the respective scores, I compared the findings under each of the Mission Suitability subfactors.

Under the Management/Technical Approach and Innovation subfactor, the Abacus proposal received an adjectival rating of "Good" and a numerical score of 366 points out of a possible 600 points based on the merits of one significant strength, one strength, one significant weakness, and no weaknesses.

In reviewing the findings under this subfactor, I noted the Abacus proposal received one significant strength and one strength. In particular, the significant strength included the proposed use of an innovative tool that will provide OSAC personnel with situational awareness and greater insight into Congressional stakeholders, committees and hearings, and proposed legislation and funding related to aeronautics and space activities. This innovative tool supports the SRACES goal of timely strategic research and analysis into the legislative and political environment, thereby enabling OSAC to quickly and effectively prepare and use this information in the MSFC communication products and services under PWS Sections 3.1, Environmental Monitoring, Analysis, and Assessments, 4.0, Communication Strategy, Planning, Integration, and Key

Messaging, and 5.0, Communication Products and Services. Furthermore, the strength included a proactive approach for ensuring accurate narrative control of MSFC executive and senior leadership messages to stakeholders in support of PWS Sections 5.1, Executive Communications, and 5.2, Senior Leadership Communications. This proactive approach will help ensure that accurate and approved information is circulated prior to any executive or senior leadership engagement through the pre-release of one or more media messages that should (1) mitigate the impact of any inaccurate information in relation to programs, projects, and technology events and

(2) avoid stakeholder misconceptions and misunderstandings. When combined, the proposed innovative tool and proactive approach enhance OSAC's ability to gain insight into relevant

Congressional activities and also improve the speed and quality of MSFC's communication products and services across PWS Sections 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0, thereby ensuring better messaging and narrative control to all stakeholders.

I was mindful of the one significant weakness the Abacus proposal received under this subfactor.

In particular, the significant weakness related to the proposed approach for product delivery which includes several inconsistencies in relation to PWS Section 1.2.4, Approach to Providing

Deliverables On-Time, regarding which managers and technical leads are responsible for the daily direction, monitoring, and quality and control check of product and service deliveries. The apparent contradictory approaches will decrease efficiency and may create a stovepipe process that causes significant product delivery delays for the estimated, annual minimum of 12,500 products and services, thereby appreciably increasing the risk of unsuccessful contract performance across the entire SRACES effort.

Under the Management/Technical Approach and Innovation subfactor, the Media Fusion proposal received an adjectival rating of "Good" and a numerical score of 360 points out of a possible 600 points based on the merits of no significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and one weakness.

In reviewing the findings under this subfactor, I was mindful the Media Fusion proposal received only one weakness. In particular, the weakness related to the inadequate description of its approach to perform aspects of merely one element within PWS Section 5.10, Technical

Documents, (i.e., PWS Section 5.10.4) with regard to support of the MSFC science and technology proposal team. Specifically, the proposal does not describe the technical approach for assisting with proposal planning and development or maintaining proposals, proposal evaluation reports, and an online toolkit of proposal development resources in a Government-provided SharePoint database. This lack of technical approach to perform aspects of PWS Section 5.10.4 may limit the

Center's ability to compete for future science and technology opportunities; however, it does not impact a majority of the SRACES efforts.

I compared the Abacus proposal with the Media Fusion proposal under the Management/Technical

Approach and Innovation subfactor. Both offerors provided a reasonably sound response with an adjectival rating of "Good." However, I noted the Media Fusion proposal had only one weakness, and the Abacus proposal had one significant strength, one strength, and one significant weakness.

I was mindful the Media Fusion weakness related to the proposal's inadequate description of how the offeror would perform aspects of merely one element within PWS Section 5.10 (i.e., PWS

Section 5.10.4), but this weakness would not adversely impact the majority of the SRACES effort.

The Abacus proposal included a significant strength for a proposed innovative tool and a strength for a proactive approach to narrative control on executive and senior leadership messaging to stakeholders. When combined, these strengths enhance OSAC's ability to gain insight into relevant

Congressional activities and improve the speed and quality of MSFC's communication products and services across PWS Sections 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0, thereby ensuring better messaging and narrative control across all stakeholders. I considered, however, the serious concerns associated with the significant weakness which would adversely impact the entire SRACES effort.

Specifically, the apparent contradictory approaches to providing deliverables in a timely manner in accordance with PWS Section 1.2.4 will decrease efficiency and create a stovepipe process that causes significant product delivery delays for the estimated, annual minimum of 12,500 products and services, thereby appreciably increasing the risk of unsuccessful contract performance across the entire PWS. For these reasons, I determined the Abacus proposal had a slight advantage over the Media Fusion proposal under this subfactor based upon the benefits to be gained by the strengths.

Under the Staffing Approach and Total Compensation Plan subfactor, the Abacus proposal received an adjectival rating of "Poor" and a numerical score of 88 points out of a possible 400 points based on the merits of no significant strengths, no strengths, one significant weakness, and two weaknesses.

In reviewing the findings under this subfactor, I was mindful the Abacus proposal received one significant weakness and two weaknesses. In particular, the significant weakness related to the proposed staffing approach which included inadequate rationale to substantiate whether the staffing levels, as proposed, could fulfill the SRACES requirements; specifically, the proposal does not provide adequate rationale for the staffing levels associated with seven Communication

Strategists (i.e., two Communication Strategist I and five Communication Strategist II) who would be required to perform up to 3,688 annual actions. In addition, the proposal includes one Exhibit

Technician III who is responsible for executing complex technical exhibit/model work; the proposed approach would require this Exhibit Technician III to perform up to 648 annual actions.

Without additional detail regarding the proposed management and technological innovations to justify the staffing levels, the quantity of work year equivalent personnel proposed appears inadequate in relation to the estimated annual banding levels, thereby appreciably increasing the risk of significant delays in the delivery of products and services. Furthermore, the two weaknesses related to: (1) the proposal included erroneous reclassification of one exempt and one non-exempt SCLS labor category position (i.e., Media Specialist II and Exhibit Property

Custodian) without adequate rationale to justify the alternate classifications. In addition, the proposal did not adhere to the SCLS minimum hourly wage requirements for four, non-exempt

NASA labor categories (i.e., Media Specialist II, Exhibit Technician I, II, and III) in accordance with the Attachment J-6, Wage Determination; the proposed reclassification of SCLS employees and failure to adhere to minimum hourly wage requirements increase the risk that these employees may not be accurately compensated; and (2) the proposed approach for personnel hiring does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of FAR limitations relative to personal services contracts.

Specifically, the proposal required the Government to identify critical incumbent employees and review the offeror's staffing selections prior to the extension of offers; as a result, the proposed approach would violate FAR Part 37.104, Personal Services Contracts.

Under the Staffing Approach and Total Compensation Plan subfactor, the Media Fusion proposal received an adjectival rating of "Good" and a numerical score of 240 points out of a possible 400

I compared the Abacus proposal with the Media Fusion proposal under the Staffing Approach and

Total Compensation Plan subfactor. I noted the Media Fusion proposal provided (1) a reasonably sound response that adequately addressed staffing across the entire PWS and (2) a sufficient total compensation plan that should attract and retain qualified personnel. As a result, the Media Fusion proposal received an adjectival rating of "Good," and I noted that the Media Fusion proposal had no weaknesses. In contrast, I noted the Abacus proposal received an adjectival rating of "Poor" with a significant weakness for its proposed staffing approach which included inadequate rationale to justify the proposed staffing levels necessary to fulfill the SRACES requirements in relation to the seven Communication Strategists and one Exhibit Technician III. This proposed approach lacks supporting rationale to substantiate how the proposed skill mix could successfully satisfy the estimated SRACES annual actions and appreciably increases the risk of significant delays in delivery of products and services. Moreover, the Abacus proposal received two additional weaknesses: (1) the proposal included erroneous reclassification of one exempt and one non-exempt SCLS labor category position (i.e., Media Specialist II and Exhibit Property Custodian) without adequate rationale and did not comply with the SCLS minimum hourly wage requirements for four, non-exempt NASA labor categories (i.e., Media Specialist II, Exhibit Technician I, II, and III), thereby increasing the risk that these employees may not be accurately compensated; and

(2) the proposed approach for personnel hiring does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of FAR limitations relative to personal services contracts. For these reasons, I determined the

Media Fusion proposal had a significant advantage over the Abacus proposal under this subfactor.

Comparing the Abacus proposal and the Media Fusion proposal under both Mission Suitability subfactors, I determined the Media Fusion proposal had a significant advantage over the Abacus proposal resulting primarily from its reasonably sound response and one weakness across this factor. Although Abacus had one significant strength (i.e., innovative tool) and one strength (i.e., proactive approach to narrative control and messaging) in the more heavily weighted

Management/Technical Approach and Innovation subfactor, the significant weakness raised such serious concerns regarding delays in product delivery and services across the entire SRACES effort that the benefits generated by the strengths barely outweighed the risks associated with the significant weakness. In comparison, the Media Fusion proposal had a single weakness (i.e., inadequate description of approach to perform aspects of merely one element within PWS Section

5.10.4 with regard to support of the MSFC science and technology proposal team) that would not affect the majority of the SRACES efforts. Based upon the strengths, the Abacus proposal had a slight advantage over the Media Fusion proposal under this subfactor. However, the Media Fusion proposal had a significant advantage over the Abacus proposal in the Staffing Approach and Total

Compensation Plan subfactor. In this subfactor, the Abacus proposal had one significant weakness

(i.e., lack of rationale to justify low staffing levels) and two weaknesses (i.e., erroneous reclassification of SCLS labor categories and failure to adhere to SCLS minimum hourly wage requirements, and violation of the personal services contract restrictions) in comparison to no weaknesses for the Media Fusion proposal. Based upon the weighting of the two subfactors and the individual findings, I determined the Media Fusion proposal had a significant advantage over the Abacus proposal in the Mission Suitability factor.

I next considered the Price factor. Comparing the two proposals, I noted the Abacus proposal had the lowest total evaluated price; whereas the Media Fusion proposal had the third-lowest, total evaluated price of ~$44.0M. I was also mindful that Abacus' total evaluated price advantage was based upon a lower proposed annual number of WYEs which generated a corresponding significant weakness in the Staffing Approach and Total Compensation Plan subfactor for its lack of rationale (i.e., impact of proposed management and technological…