SSC ITS21 Signed Source Selection Statement.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 2021 (ITS21)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 80SSC021R0001

On June 29, 2021, I met with the Acquisition Buying Team (ABT) (evaluation team) appointed to evaluate proposals for the Information Technology Services 2021 (ITS21)

Contract. During this meeting, the ABT presented the procurement history and findings resulting from the evaluation process. I discussed the relative merits of each proposal with the ABT members, as well as with other attendees, to ensure I had a full understanding of the ABT's evaluation.

This document summarizes the procurement, the evaluation process, the results of that process, and the basis of my selection of an offeror for award. My decision is based on the Source Selection Presentation and the ABT evaluations, which included the

Technical Acceptability Evaluation, the Price Analysis Evaluation, and the Past

Performance Evaluation.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this procurement is to provide a follow-on acquisition for the current

Stennis Space Center (SSC) Information Technology Services (ITS) contract. This acquisition will provide information technology support services to Stennis Space

Center (SSC), Mississippi, and its tenant organizations and contractors. The successful offeror will be required to provide the following services: Information Technology

Planning, Policy and Management Services, Application and System Services, Technology

Support Services and Audio Visual/Video/Still Photography services.

This acquisition was conducted as a 100% Women Owned Small Businesses (WOSB) Program competition under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 541512 through the General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) 54151S -

Information Technology (IT) Professional Services in accordance with (IAW) Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Parts 8 and 12. The ITS21 services will be provided under a Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) and FFP Level of Effort

(LOE) Task Order. The period of performance solicited was five (5) years six (6) months

(to include potential extensions) with one (1) 14-month Base period, three (3) 1-year Option periods, and one (1) 10-month Option period (IAW FAR 52.217-9), as well as a 45-day Phase-in period.

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

The ABT appointment memorandum (as revised) was signed by the Source Selection

Authority (SSA), Rodney McKellip, and issued on December 28, 2020. ABT voting members were responsible for evaluating proposals received in response to the solicitation in accordance with the solicitation evaluation criteria, the FAR, and the NFS to enable the SSA to make the final source selection decision. Appointed voting members represented the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO), the Safety and Mission

Assurance Directorate, the Office of Procurement, the Engineering & Test Directorate, and the Center Operations Directorate.

The current ITS Task Order was conducted as a competitive Small Business set-aside against the GSA Information Technology (IT) Schedule 70. Market research was conducted in order to determine if small businesses with the appropriate capabilities and experience were available via the GSA IT schedules to conduct the current procurement as a competitive WOSB program set-aside. On July 27, 2020, a special Request for

Information (RFI) Sources Sought notice was posted to GSA Ebuy advising industry of

SSC’s intent to conduct a procurement for information technology services to be performed at SSC. The Contracting Officer conducted virtual vendor engagement meetings from January 22 through January 29, 2021, by appointment and limited to 20 minutes per session. Sessions were not jointly conducted with multiple interested parties. Each engagement was with one company only. Only 5 companies requested engagements, but the virtual process was successful and productive. Based on the response from industry, it was determined to conduct the procurement as a competitive

WOSB Program set-aside.

The final Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued on February 5, 2021 with an offer due date of March 12, 2021. RFP Amendments 1 and 2 were issued on March 1, 2021 and March

9, 2021, respectively, to incorporate Offeror questions and corresponding answers, minor corrections to solicitation documentation, and an extension to the due date for receipt of offers

(proposals) to 3:00pm local time on March 16, 2021.

A virtual pre-proposal conference was held on February11, 2021. A total of 21 NASA employees and 43 vendor personnel were in attendance.

Five (5) Offerors submitted timely proposals in response to the RFP as amended. RFP

Attachment 13 - Solicitation Provisions, FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors-Commercial

Items (OCT 2018) and associated Addenda, on pages 2 through 13, instructed offerors to provide information responsive to the items set forth in the RFP. The RFP also stated in Attachment 13, in FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items and associated Addenda, on pages 13 through

17, that the basis for award would be a Price Performance Trade-off (PPTO) Evaluation and

Award, noting on page 13, “This competitive best value source selection will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 and 8. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements, and is determined, by an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria, to represent the Best Value to the Government consistent with Price

Performance Trade-Off (PPTO) procedures.”

Therefore, the Government reviewed each of the five (5) proposals for responsiveness to the RFP prior to starting the evaluation process. The ABT conducted an initial review of the proposals to determine whether all of the required information had been provided and whether each offeror had made a reasonable attempt to present an acceptable proposal. One (1) of the Offerors was determined to be ineligible to compete due to not meeting the size standard for NAICS 541512 and for not being classified as a WOSB Concern Eligible Under the WOSB Program under

NAICS 541512. Therefore, their proposal was not evaluated. The offeror was notified on May

13, 2021, of their ineligibility to propose on this requirement. All of the remaining four (4) offerors were determined to be an eligible WOSB having submitted a responsive proposal.

Offerors were assigned alphabetical identifiers at random. All offerors are identified in accordance with their assigned alphabetical identifiers in Table 1, ITS21 List of Offerors, below:

Table 1 – ITS21 List of Offerors

OFFEROR SUBCONTRACTOR, TEAMING PARTNER, JV, ETC.

A

Business Integra

Technology Solutions, Inc.

dba Business Integra (BI) *

No major subcontractors were noted.

B Rothe Development Inc. Two major subcontractors (Sub 1 and Sub 2) were noted.

C Global Commerce and

Services (GCS) Two major subcontractors (Sub 1 and Sub 2) were noted.

D LogiCore Corporation Three major subcontractors (Sub 1, Sub 2, and Sub 3) were noted.

E SaiTech, Inc. No major subcontractors were noted.

* Offeror was determined to be ineligible to compete as noted above.

EVALUATION PROCEDURE

The ABT evaluated proposals in accordance with (IAW) the requirements of the solicitation.

RFP Attachment 13, Addenda to 52.212-2 -Evaluation-Commercial Items, identified the following evaluation methodology:

“Price Performance Trade-off (PPTO) Evaluation and Award. Basis for Contract Award. This competitive best value source selection will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) Part 12 and 8. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements, and is determined, by an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria, to represent the Best Value to the Government consistent with Price Performance Trade-Off (PPTO) procedures. The

Government reserves the right to award without discussions, but may conduct discussions if the

Government determines it is necessary. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the Offeror’s proposal is acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal submitted.” The Evaluation factors identified in the RFP to be used to evaluate offers were Technical Acceptability, Past Performance, and Price. Technical acceptability would be assessed on a pass/fail basis. Past Performance was noted as significantly more important than Price.

The RFP further defined the Evaluation Factors as follows:

Evaluation Factor i - Technical Acceptability

Technical acceptability shall be assessed on a Pass (Acceptable)/Fail (Unacceptable) basis. A rating of “Acceptable” will be required in all Technical areas in order to be eligible for award. A proposal will “PASS” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, where ALL areas are individually rated acceptable based on the level of completeness, feasibility, and reasonableness such that associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. A proposal will “FAIL” under the Technical Acceptability Factor where ANY area is individually rated unacceptable based on the level of completeness, feasibility, and reasonableness such that associated risks do jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

The Technical Acceptability proposal will also be evaluated for consistency with the Price proposal. The Government will evaluate the labor resources proposed in the Technical proposal for consistency with the labor resources proposed in the Price proposal. This consistency evaluation is distinct from the evaluation of the Price factor. A lack of consistency across a proposal may adversely impact the Government’s evaluation of “Acceptability” under the

Technical Acceptability Factor. Therefore, it is possible to “FAIL” the Technical Acceptability factor if the Technical Acceptability is not consistent with other elements of the proposal.

The following technical acceptability subfactors apply:

1. Phase-In Plan: The proposed Phase-in Plan will be evaluated for reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness. A technically acceptable Phase-in Plan will be at a level of reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

2. Management Plan: The proposed Management Plan will be evaluated for reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness. A technically acceptable Management Plan will be at a level of reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. (Management plan includes: Staffing Plan and

Quality Plan.)

3. Facility Security Clearance: Offerors shall possess a facility security clearance equal to or higher than the classification stated on the DD Form 254 at the time of proposal submission.

Offeror shall submit their Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) and company name as identified on its Facility Clearance.

Evaluation Factor ii - Past Performance

Using performance information submitted by the Offeror, responses to the questionnaire, and performance information independently obtained by the Government, past performance will be evaluated, and Offerors will be assigned one of the confidence assessment ratings described below. The rating represents an integrated assessment of (1) the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance and (2) the recent and relevant/pertinent performance of any major subcontractor(s) whose efforts will significantly influence performance of the contract if applicable. “Recent” and

“Relevant” are defined in paragraphs i and ii of page 11. Offerors with no recent relevant past or present performance history shall receive a Neutral rating, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Confidence assessment ratings are defined as follows:

Very High Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. (One or more significant strengths exist. No significant weaknesses exist.)

High Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Offeror’s past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. (One or more significant strengths exist. Strengths outbalance any weakness.)

Moderate Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. (There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both.)

Low Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards.

Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Changes to the Offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements. (One or more weaknesses exist. Weaknesses outbalance strengths.)

Very Low Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas. Performance problems occurred in one or more areas which adversely affected overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. (One or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses exist.)

Neutral: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].

Evaluation Factor iii – Price

To ensure that the final agreed-to prices are fair and reasonable, the Government will perform a price analysis of the technically “Acceptable” proposals using one or more price analysis techniques, evaluating offeror's CLIN pricing as compared to its detailed pricing proposal for all

CLINs for the Phase-in, Base period, and Option periods, to determine whether the Offeror’s proposed prices are fair and reasonable. As part of the price evaluation, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services under FAR 52.217-8 by adding six (6) months of the

Offeror’s final option period price to the Offeror’s total price. Offerors are required only to price the phase-in, base, and option periods. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six-month extension of services period. The Government may choose to exercise the Extension of

Services at the end of any performance period (base or option periods), utilizing the rates of that performance period. The 6-month extension of services period will not be included in the contract award price.

The RFP Price Performance Trade-Off (PPTO) Evaluation Methodology states:

a) Step 1: Technical Acceptability. Initially, the Government will evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability. If an offer receives an “Unacceptable” rating, that Offeror will no longer be considered for award.

b) Step 2: Price/Past Performance. First, the Government will rank the Technically

Acceptable proposals by price from lowest to highest. Second, the Government will evaluate price fairness and reasonableness of the lowest priced Technically “Acceptable” proposal. Then, the government will evaluate the lowest priced Technically “Acceptable” offeror’s past performance. If the lowest priced Technically “Acceptable” offeror is assigned a confidence rating of “Very High Level of Confidence” with a fair and reasonable price, the evaluation process will be complete, as that offer represents the best value to the Government. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers. Therefore, the remaining offeror’s proposals will not be further evaluated.

If the lowest priced Technically “Acceptable” offeror’s past performance is not assigned a confidence rating of “Very High Level of Confidence”, the Government will then evaluate the next lowest priced Technically “Acceptable” Offeror’s price for fairness and reasonableness and its past performance. The Government will continue evaluating the next lowest priced

Technically “Acceptable” offeror’s price for fairness and reasonableness and its past performance until there is an offeror assigned a confidence rating of “Very High Level of

Confidence”. At that point, the evaluation will be considered complete and the SSA will proceed with an integrated best value assessment of all of the lowest priced Technically “Acceptable” evaluated offers. Award shall be made to the offer in this group that represents the overall best value for the Government and the evaluation process is complete without further consideration of any other offers. Therefore, the remaining Offeror’s past performance proposals will not be evaluated.

If, after all offers have been evaluated, no offerors are assigned a confidence rating of “Very

High Level of Confidence”, the SSA will proceed with an integrated best value assessment of all offers. Award shall be made to the offeror that represents the overall best value for the

Government and the evaluation process is complete. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to a higher priced offeror if a lower priced offeror has a lower or equal performance confidence assessment rating.

The RFP also noted that The Government would evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options, to include potential extension(s), to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

EVALUTION OF PROPOSALS: STEP ONE

The four (4) eligible WOSB offerors having submitted responsive proposals were evaluated in accordance with the RFP.

The four (4) eligible, responsive proposals were evaluated for Technical Acceptability and all of the proposals were determined to be “Technically Acceptable.” The results of the Technical

Acceptability evaluation are summarized in Table 2 below.

Table 2 - Technically Acceptable Proposals Rating Summary

OFFEROR Phase-In Plan Management

Plan

Facility

Security

Clearance

Overall

Acceptable /

Unacceptable

B Rothe Development Inc Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

C Global Commerce and

Services Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

D LogiCore Corporation Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

E SaiTech Inc. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS: STEP TWO

In accordance with the ITS2021 RFP Price Performance Trade-Off (PPTO) Evaluation

Methodology, Step 2: Price/Past Performance, all technically “Acceptable” offers were then ranked by price from lowest to highest. The ranking by price is summarized in Table 3 below:

Table 3 – Technically Acceptable Proposals Ranked by Price

Next, for step 2 in the evaluation process, the evaluation team evaluated the price fairness and reasonableness of the offerors’ price proposal and the offerors’ past performance using performance information submitted by the offerors in their past performance proposals, responses provided in the questionnaires, and information independently obtained by the

Government (i.e. the federal Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)).

The evaluation team began the Step 2 evaluation, following the PPTO evaluation methodology, by first evaluating the lowest priced “Technically Acceptable” offeror’s, Global Commerce and

Services (GCS), price for fairness and reasonableness and their past performance. While there were some minor issues identified within GCS’ pricing proposal that would need to be corrected if the proposal were selected for award, these did not constitute material proposal deficiencies and GCS’ Total Evaluated Price (TEP) was determined to be fair and reasonable based upon adequate price competition in comparison with other offers in accordance with FAR 15.404-

1(b)(2)(i).

Next, the evaluation team presented the past performance information submitted by GCS in the past performance matrix submitted with their proposal as well as past performance information found independently by the Contracting Officer.

GCS submitted four (4) past performance references in their proposal matrix, which were reviewed by the evaluation team. Two (2) of the references reviewed were for GCS as a subcontractor. These two (2) references were determined to be Not Relevant overall, though they received Very Good and Exceptional quality of performance ratings, respectively. One (1) of the references reviewed was for GCS’ proposed major subcontractor, Sub 2, which was performed as a subcontractor. This reference was determined to be Somewhat Relevant and received an Exceptional quality of performance rating. One (1) of the references reviewed was for GCS’ proposed major subcontractor, Sub 1. This reference was determined to be Very

OFFEROR TOTAL PROPOSED PRICE

1 Global Commerce and Services Lowest

2 LogiCore Corporation Second Lowest

3 SaiTech Inc. Third Lowest

4 Rothe Development Inc. (RDI) Highest

Relevant and received an Exceptional quality of performance rating. A Strength was assigned for this reference.

The evaluation team then presented past performance information for seven (7) past performance references, found independently by the Government, where GCS performed as the Prime

Contractor. Six (6) of these references were determined to be Not Relevant overall, receiving one (1) Very Good and five (5) Satisfactory performance ratings. One (1) of these references was determined to be Somewhat Relevant overall, receiving a Satisfactory performance rating.

The evaluation team did not evaluate three (3) references identified for the Offeror and their proposed major Subcontractors via search of CPARS records, as no performance information was available to evaluate.

The evaluation team summarized their findings for GCS’ overall evaluated past performance information determined to be at least Somewhat Relevant. One (1) evaluated reference was determined to be Somewhat Relevant and two (2) were determined to be Very Relevant in size to the $5M per year or greater than $25M over 5 years required by the ITS21 solicitation. Three (3) evaluated references were determined to be Somewhat Relevant and one (1) was determined to be Very Relevant in scope as compared to the ITS21 requirements. Two (2) evaluated references were determined to be Somewhat Relevant and one (1) was determined to be Relevant in complexity as compared to the ITS21 requirements. Two (2) evaluated references were determined to be Somewhat Relevant and one (1) was determined to be Very Relevant overall as compared to the ITS21 requirements. The evaluation team determined GCS’s overall past performance to be Satisfactory, demonstrating performance in an effective manner, with one

Strength (Overall Performance) identified and no weaknesses identified.

Based on Global Commerce and Services (GCS) overall relevant past performance, to include their proposed major subcontractors, and considering one strength and no weaknesses identified, the evaluation team assigned GCS an overall “Moderate Level of Confidence” assessment rating.

Since GCS was not assigned a confidence rating of “Very High Level of Confidence”, the evaluation team then followed the PPTO methodology as outlined in the RFP and began evaluation of the next lowest priced “Technically Acceptable” offeror’s, LogiCore Corporation, price for fairness and reasonableness and their past performance.

LogiCore’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) was determined to be fair and reasonable based upon adequate price competition in comparison with other offers in accordance with FAR 15.404-

1(b)(2)(i).

Next, the evaluation team presented the past performance information submitted by LogiCore in the past performance matrix submitted with their proposal as well as past performance information found independently by the Contracting Officer.

LogiCore submitted three (3) past performance references in their proposal matrix, which were reviewed by the evaluation team. One (1) of the references reviewed was for LogiCore as the prime contractor. This reference was determined to be Somewhat Relevant and received an

Exceptional quality of performance rating. One (1) of the references reviewed was for

LogiCore’s proposed major subcontractor, Sub 1, which was performed as the prime contractor.

This reference was determined to be Relevant and received an Exceptional quality of performance rating. A Strength was assigned for this reference. The reference provided by the offeror for their proposed major subcontractor, Sub 2a, (three contract numbers were provided for the reference) was not evaluated. The past performance reference information submitted in the matrix was for Sub 2b. The matrix noted that Sub 2b is a “sister subsidiary to team member

Sub 2a”. However, the proposal failed to clearly demonstrate that the resources of Sub 2b would meaningfully affect the performance of the proposed contract. The proposal did not provide an adequate explanation regarding the proposed performance of and/or relationship between Sub 2b and the Offeror’s proposed Subcontractor, Sub 2a. Considering this, the evaluation team did not evaluate the past performance information of Sub 2b. A Weakness was assigned to the past performance proposal because the proposal does not clearly delineate LogiCore’s approach concerning the Prime to Subcontractor relationship, resulting in incomplete association of relevant past performance of the ITS requirements with the proposed major subcontractors.

The evaluation team then presented past performance information for eleven (11) past performance references found independently by the Government. In five (5) of the references reviewed, LogiCore performed as the Prime Contractor. However, these references were determined to be Not Relevant overall, receiving three (3) Very Good and two (2) Exceptional performance ratings. In one (1) of the references reviewed, the offeror’s proposed major subcontractor, Sub 1, performed as the Prime Contractor. This reference was determined to be

Not Relevant overall, receiving a Very Good performance rating. In two (2) of the references reviewed, the offeror’s proposed major subcontractor, Sub 3, performed as the Prime Contractor.

These references were determined to be Somewhat Relevant overall, receiving one (1)

Satisfactory and one (1) Exceptional performance rating. In two (2) of the references reviewed, the offeror’s proposed subcontractor, Sub 2a, performed as the Prime Contractor. These references were determined to be Not Relevant overall, receiving one (1) Satisfactory and one

(1) Very Good performance rating. The evaluation team did not evaluate four (4) references identified for the Offeror and their proposed major Subcontractors via search of CPARS records, as no performance information was available to evaluate.

The evaluation team summarized their findings for LogiCore’s overall evaluated past performance information determined to be at least Somewhat Relevant. Six (6) evaluated references were determined to be Very Relevant, and two (2) were determined to be Somewhat

Relevant in size to the $5M per year or greater than $25M over 5 years required by the ITS21 solicitation. One (1) evaluated reference was determined to be Relevant and one (1) was determined to be Somewhat Relevant in scope as compared to the ITS21 requirements. Four (4) evaluated references were determined to be Somewhat Relevant and one (1) was determined to be Relevant in complexity as compared to the ITS21 requirements. Three (3) evaluated references were determined to be Somewhat Relevant and one (1) was determined to be Relevant overall as compared to the ITS21 requirements. The evaluation team determined LogiCore’s overall past performance to be Very Good, demonstrating performance in a very effective manner, with one (1) Strength (Overall Performance) and one (1) Weakness (Overall) identified.

Based on LogiCore Corporation’s overall relevant past performance, to include their proposed major subcontractors, and considering one strength and one weakness identified, the evaluation team assigned LogiCore an overall “Moderate Level of Confidence” assessment rating.

Since LogiCore was not assigned a confidence rating of “Very High Level of Confidence”, the evaluation team then followed the PPTO methodology as outlined in the RFP and began evaluation of the next lowest priced “Technically Acceptable” offeror’s, SaiTech Inc., price for fairness and reasonableness and their past performance.

In SaiTech’s pricing proposal two minor clerical errors were noted. A clerical error in the calculation of the monthly unit price for Option Period 4 and a minor error in one labor classification title and PWS reference were identified. The total evaluated price is unaffected by these errors, as the TEP was calculated based on the total Option Period 4 price, which was calculated correctly. The correction of these clerical errors does not displace any other offeror, as SaiTech’s total proposed pricing is unaffected by the errors. While the minor errors identified within SaiTech’s pricing proposal would need to be corrected if the proposal were selected for award, these did not constitute material proposal deficiencies and SaiTech’s Total Evaluated

Price (TEP) was determined to be fair and reasonable based upon adequate price competition in comparison with other offers in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i).

Then the evaluation team presented the past performance information submitted by SaiTech in the past performance matrix submitted with their proposal as well as past performance information found independently by the Contracting Officer.

SaiTech submitted three (3) past performance references in the proposal matrix, which were reviewed by the evaluation team. One (1) of the references reviewed was for SaiTech as a prime contractor. This reference was determined to be Very Relevant and received an Exceptional quality of performance rating. Two (2) Significant Strengths were assigned for this reference.

One (1) of the references reviewed was for SaiTech as a partner in a Joint Venture. This reference was determined to be Very Relevant and received a Very Good quality of performance rating. One (1) of the references reviewed was for SaiTech as a subcontractor. This reference was determined to be Relevant and received an Exceptional quality of performance rating.

The evaluation team then presented past performance information for past performance references found independently by the Government. It was noted that the evaluation team did not evaluate the one (1) past performance reference found, where SaiTech performed as the

Prime Contractor, as no performance evaluation information was available for the base contract and no Task Order evaluation information was available.

The evaluation team noted that their findings for SaiTech’s overall evaluated past performance information determined to be at least Somewhat Relevant encompassed all of SaiTech’s performance references provided in the past performance matrix. The evaluation team determined SaiTech’s overall past performance to be Exceptional indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner, with two Significant Strengths

(Overall Performance and Mission Capability) and no Weaknesses identified.

Based on SaiTech Inc.’s overall relevant past performance and considering two significant strengths identified, the evaluation team assigned SaiTech an overall “Very High Level of

Confidence” assessment rating.

In accordance with the RFP PPTO methodology, the evaluation team did not evaluate any proposals after the third lowest priced offeror was assigned a confidence assessment rating of

“Very High Level of Confidence”. The evaluation team evaluated GCS, LogiCore and SaiTech in order of lowest to highest price. Each of the offeror’s pricing was determined to be fair and reasonable, but the evaluation team did not assign GCS’s or LogiCore’s relevant past performance a confidence rating of “Very High Level of Confidence” and evaluations continued to the next lowest priced offeror. The evaluation team assigned SaiTech’s relevant past performance a confidence rating of “Very High Level of Confidence”, which meant the evaluation process was concluded. The summary of all of the offeror’s overall evaluation is presented in Table 4 below:

Table 4 – Proposal Evaluation Summary

OFFEROR

OVERALL

TECHNICAL

ACCEPTABILITY

STRENGTHS /

WEAKNESSES

ASSIGNED

PAST

PERFORMANCE

CONFIDENCE

RATING

TOTAL

EVALUATED

PRICE

Global

Commerce and

Services

Acceptable

S-01 Overall

Performance

No Weakness noted

Moderate

Lowest

LogiCore

Corporation Acceptable

S-01 Overall

Performance

W-01 PWS

Coverage

Moderate

Second Lowest

3 SaiTech Inc. Acceptable

SS-01 Overall

Performance

SS-02 Mission

Capability

No Weakness noted

Very High

Highest

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

On June 29, 2021, the evaluation team (ABT) presented their findings for the Information

Technologies Services 2021 (ITS21) solicitation, 80SSC021R0001. Four (4) eligible

WOSB offerors having submitted responsive proposals were evaluated in accordance with solicitation Attachment 13, FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items and associated

Addenda, on pages 13 through 17, as defined in the solicitation.

During my meeting with the ABT on June 29, 2021, regarding the ITS21 evaluation, I posed a number of questions to better understand the process and the overall evaluation. I concluded that the evaluation criteria had been followed and the evaluation of the proposals was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. As the Source Selection Authority, I concurred with the findings of the ABT and adopted those findings without exception. I made my selection decision based on a comparative assessment of the proposals against the criteria in the RFP. I determined that it is in the Government's best interest to award on initial offers and hereby select SaiTech Inc. to receive this Task Order award. Additional support for my decision is provided below.

Under Step One, the ABT determined that, of the 4 responsive proposals received from eligible

WOSB offerors, all were determined Technically Acceptable.

Under Step Two, the Contracting Officer (CO) determined Global Commerce and Services’

(GCS) price to be fair and reasonable based on adequate price competition IAW FAR 15.404-

1(b)(2)(i), and the ABT assigned a Moderate Level of Confidence assessment rating for past performance, identifying one (1) Strength (Overall Performance) and no Weaknesses. I concur with the ABT’s use, assessment, and evaluation of the recent and relevant past performance information submitted by GCS and independently obtained by the Government for GCS and its proposed major subcontractors. GCS received the third highest possible past performance confidence assessment rating and submitted the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Considering the evaluation and findings of the ABT, I concur with these findings.

Under Step Two, the Contracting Officer (CO) determined LogiCore’s price as fair and reasonable based on adequate price competition IAW FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i), and the ABT assigned a Moderate Level of Confidence assessment rating for past performance, identifying one (1) Strength (Overall Performance) and one (1) Weakness (PWS Coverage). I concur with the ABT’s use, assessment, and evaluation of the recent and relevant past performance information submitted by LogiCore and independently obtained by the Government for

LogiCore and its proposed major subcontractors. LogiCore received the third highest possible past performance confidence assessment rating and submitted the second lowest TEP.

Considering the evaluation and findings of the ABT, I concur with these findings.

Under Step Two, the Contracting Officer (CO) determined SaiTech Inc.’s price as fair and reasonable based on adequate price competition IAW FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i), and the ABT assigned a Very High Level of Confidence assessment rating for past performance, identifying two (2) Significant Strengths (Overall Performance and Mission Capability) and no Weaknesses.

I concur with the ABT’s use, assessment, and evaluation of the recent and relevant past performance information submitted by SaiTech Inc. and independently obtained by the

Government for SaiTech, who proposed no major subcontractors. SaiTech received the highest possible past performance confidence assessment rating and submitted the third lowest TEP.

Considering the evaluation and findings of the ABT, I concur with these findings.

At the conclusion of the ABT’s briefing outlining the evaluation team’s findings, I was presented with two options. The first option was to select a potential awardee from the four (4) proposals evaluated for price and past performance and award without discussions. The second option was to enter into discussions with the evaluated offerors.

I found that GCS had the third highest possible rating for past performance with the lowest TEP.

The evaluation was complete for GCS, and I had no further questions. Therefore, I determined that it was not necessary to initiate discussions with this offeror.

I found that LogiCore also had the third highest possible rating for past performance with the second lowest TEP. The evaluation was complete for LogiCore, and I had no further questions.

Therefore, I determined that it was not necessary to initiate discussions with this offeror.

I found that SaiTech Inc. had the highest possible rating for past performance with the third lowest TEP. The evaluation was complete for SaiTech Inc., and I had no further questions.

Therefore, I determined that it was not necessary to initiate discussions with this offeror.

In accordance with (IAW) solicitation Attachment 13, FAR Addenda to 52.212-2 Evaluation-

Commercial Items, paragraph (a) on page 13, “The Government reserves the right to award without discussions, but may conduct discussions if the Government determines it is necessary.

The Government may make a final determination as to whether the Offeror’s proposal is acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal submitted.”

Based on the findings presented from the initial proposals, I have determined it is not necessary to open discussions. Therefore, I have elected to select the first option and award without discussions.

To make the selection without holding discussions, I proceeded with an integrated best value assessment of all of the lowest priced “Technically Acceptable” evaluated offers. I first considered the evaluation of the initial proposals against evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP.

Solicitation Attachment 13, FAR Addenda to 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items, paragraph

(a) on page 13 states that “Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements, and is determined, by an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria, to represent the Best Value to the Government consistent with Price Performance Trade-Off (PPTO) procedures.”

Additionally, paragraph (a) also states, on page 14, that “Technical acceptability will be assessed on a pass/fail basis. Past Performance is significantly more important than Price.”

Because Past Performance is stated as being significantly more important than price, I considered any trade-off to be among the offerors based on their past performance above price. In the end, my decision was based upon each offeror’s past performance information, which included their relevant contract references, customer quality of service ratings, the ABT’s quality of service assessment, assigned strengths or weaknesses, and consideration of the total evaluated price for each offeror.

The ABT explained that one (1) of GCS’s evaluated references was determined to be Somewhat

Relevant and two (2) were determined to be Very Relevant in size to the $5M per year or greater than $25M over 5 years required by the ITS21 solicitation. Three (3) evaluated references were determined to be Somewhat Relevant and one (1) was determined to be Very Relevant in scope as compared to the ITS21 requirements. Two (2) evaluated references were determined to be

Somewhat Relevant and one (1) was determined to be Relevant in complexity as compared to the

ITS21 requirements. Two (2) evaluated references were determined to be Somewhat Relevant and one (1) was determined to be Very Relevant overall as compared to the ITS21 requirements.

In GCS’s references evaluated per the Past Performance Matrix, the Offeror, Global Commerce and Services, performed as a Subcontractor on the two references provided. GCS received

Exceptional to Very Good performance ratings for these efforts. These references were rated as

Not Relevant in size, being significantly lower ($5M each) than the $5M per year or greater than

$25M over 5 years required by the ITS21 solicitation. The efforts were rated as Not Relevant or

Somewhat Relevant in Scope, Not Relevant in Complexity, and Not Relevant Overall.

The offeror identified Sub 1 and Sub 2 as “major subcontractors” consistent with the instruction stated in the RFP, and therefore the evaluation team considered the past performance of proposed major subcontractors Sub 1 and Sub 2. The past performance information submitted by the offeror and independently researched by the evaluation team demonstrated the following. GCS had very little relevant Prime contractor experience and, although they had more relevant experience as a subcontractor, this past performance did not demonstrate experience in several areas of the PWS which the proposal indicates GCS is to perform. The majority of relevant experience in the offeror's overall past performance, as compared to the ITS21 requirements, was performed by the offeror's proposed major subcontractor, Sub 1. However, based on the offeror’s proposal, Sub 1 has a limited role (approx. 20%) in the overall performance of the

ITS21 requirement and Sub 1 did not demonstrate experience in element 4.1 of the PWS, which the proposal indicates Sub 1 is to perform. Sub 2 demonstrated relevant past performance evaluated as Somewhat Relevant but did not adequately demonstrate experience in elements 3.1 and 3.2 of the PWS, which the proposal indicates Sub 2 is to perform.

Based on Global Commerce and Services (GCS) and proposed major subcontractor’s overall past performance, the evaluation team concluded that the offeror’s overall past performance effort across the evaluated efforts involved little or none of the size, scope, or complexity of the ITS21

PWS. Their past performance is overall Satisfactory, demonstrating performance in an effective manner, with one strength (Overall Performance) and no weaknesses identified. As a result, there is a Moderate Level of Confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Considering the evaluation and findings of the ABT, I concur.

After the ABT completed briefing GCS, they then moved on to the second lowest priced offeror, LogiCore, following the same format. The ABT explained that six (6) of LogiCore’s evaluated references were determined to be Very Relevant, and two (2) were determined to be Somewhat

Relevant in size to the $5M per year or greater than $25M over 5 years required by the ITS21 solicitation. One (1) evaluated reference was determined to be Relevant and one (1) was determined to be Somewhat Relevant in scope as compared to the ITS21 requirements. Four (4) evaluated references were determined to be Somewhat Relevant and one (1) was determined to be Relevant in complexity as compared to the ITS21 requirements. Three (3) evaluated references were determined to be Somewhat Relevant and one (1) was determined to be Relevant overall as compared to the ITS21 requirements.

The ABT explained that, of the performance references for efforts in which LogiCore performed as the Prime Contractor, LogiCore received Exceptional performance ratings for these efforts.

Six (6) of the references were rated as Not Relevant in scope as the Offeror demonstrated little to no experience performing the requirements of the ITS21 solicitation. These efforts were rated as

Not Relevant to Very Relevant in Size, Not Relevant or Somewhat Relevant in Complexity, and

Not Relevant or Somewhat Relevant Overall.

The offeror identified Sub 1, Sub 2a, and Sub 3 as “major subcontractors” consistent with the direction for identifying “major subcontractors” noted in the RFP and Amendments. Therefore, the evaluation team considered the past performance of proposed major subcontractors Sub 1, Sub 2a, and Sub 3. The past performance information submitted by the offeror and independently researched by the evaluation team demonstrated the following.

LogiCore Corporation demonstrated experience in PWS areas 1.0–1.9, and, although LogiCore demonstrated experience performing PWS areas 2.1, 2.3, and 5.1, the proposal indicates that

LogiCore is not performing these PWS elements. Sub 1 demonstrated overall past performance evaluated as Somewhat Relevant, but did not adequately demonstrate experience in elements 3.3 and 4.1 of the PWS, which the proposal indicates Sub 1 is to perform. Sub 2a demonstrated overall past performance evaluated as Not Relevant and did not adequately demonstrate experience in elements 2.0–2.5 and 5.0–5.3 of the PWS, which the proposal indicates Sub 2a is to perform. Sub 3 demonstrated overall past performance evaluated as Somewhat Relevant and demonstrated experience in elements 1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, and 3.2, which the proposal indicates Sub 3 is not to perform.

Based on LogiCore’s overall relevant past performance, to include their proposed major

Subcontractors, the evaluation team concluded that the offeror’s overall past performance effort across the evaluated efforts involved little to none of the size, scope, or complexity of the ITS21 solicitation. Their past performance is overall Very Good demonstrating performance in an effective manner, with one strength (Overall Performance) and one weakness (PWS Coverage) identified. As a result, there is a Moderate Level of Confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Considering the evaluation and findings of the ABT, I concur.

The ABT then moved on to the final evaluated Offeror, which was the third lowest priced offeror, SaiTech, again, following the same format. The ABT explained that two (2) of SaiTech, Inc.’s evaluated references were determined to be Very Relevant and one (1) was determined to be Relevant in size to the $5M per year or greater than $25M over 5 years required by the ITS21 solicitation. Two (2) evaluated references were determined to be Very Relevant and one (1) was determined to be Somewhat Relevant in scope as compared to the ITS21 requirements. One (1) evaluated reference was determined to be Very Relevant and two (2) were determined to be

Relevant in complexity as compared to the ITS21 requirements. Two (2) evaluated references were determined to be Very Relevant and one (1) was determined to be Relevant overall as compared to the ITS21 requirements.

In SaiTech’s references evaluated per the Past Performance Matrix, the Offeror, SaiTech, Inc.

performed as the Prime Contractor on two of the three references provided and as a

Subcontractor on the third. The evaluation team found no other evaluated performance references for SaiTech. SaiTech received Satisfactory to Exceptional performance ratings for the evaluated efforts. Two (2) of these efforts had essentially the same size, scope, and complexity that the ITS21 requires.

The past performance information submitted by the offeror and independently researched by the evaluation team demonstrated the following. SaiTech, Inc. demonstrated overall relevant past performance evaluated as Very Relevant and experience in all of the PWS elements and sub elements, which the proposal indicates SaiTech is to perform.

Based on SaiTech’s overall relevant past performance, the evaluation team concluded that the offeror’s overall past performance effort across the evaluated efforts involved is very highly pertinent in size, scope, and complexity. Their overall past performance is Exceptional indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner, with two significant strengths (Overall Performance and Mission Capability) and no weaknesses identified. As a result, there is a Very High Level of Confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.