SSD for SAM.pdf

NASA Fire Services Contract (NFSC) 1

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR THE

NASA FIRE SERVICES CONTRACT (NFSC)

On September 27, 2021, I, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA), along with other senior officials from NASA Headquarters, Ames Research Center (ARC), Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Johnson Space Center (JSC), Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Stennis Space Center (SSC), Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), and White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals for award of the NFSC.

s evaluation of proposals and the rationale for my selection decision are set forth in this Source Selection Statement.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The objective of this procurement is to acquire fire services at ARC, KSC, SSC, and WFF.

Additionally, the NFSC may also be used to support fire services requirements at WSTF. Fire services include fire operations and firefighting; emergency medical services-paramedic (advanced life support (ALS)); fire protection; fire prevention inspection program; fire services training; and fire investigations.

BACKGROUND

On November 5, 2020, the development of the NFSC Request for Proposals (RFP) commenced with the appointment of a Requirements Development Team (RDT). The Contracting Officer established 561990 (All Other Support Services) as the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the NFSC procurement, with a corresponding size standard of $12 million. On October 14, 2020, the Contracting Officer issued a sources sought synopsis, which defined the scope of the NFSC acquisition and sought information from potential sources to determine industry interest and capability and to facilitate consideration of small business set aside potential. Based on the capability packages received, the Contracting Officer, with concurrence of the KSC Small Business Specialist and the NFSC RDT Chairperson, determined that an adequate number of capable 8(a) small business concerns existed to justify setting aside the acquisition for 8(a) small business concerns. The RDT conducted market research, defined requirements for the work to be performed, developed the acquisition strategy, and created a NFSC website (which included a technical resource library).

On March 23, 2021, the KSC Procurement Officer appointed the SEB for the purpose of preparing the solicitation and evaluating proposals received in response to the solicitation. On April 30, 2021, the Contracting Officer issued a draft RFP for industry comment. The SEB held a presolicitation conference with industry on May 12, 2021, which provided information about the NFSC locations and acquisition. Following review and consideration of industry comments on the draft RFP, the Contracting Officer issued the RFP on June 4, 2021. The NFSC RFP

NASA Fire Services Contract (NFSC) 2 sought proposals from 8(a) small businesses and anticipated award of a single, firm fixed price, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The contract period of performance consists of a 22-month base period followed by six 1-year options, for a total potential period of performance of seven years, ten months. During the course of the procurement, the Contracting Officer issued an RFP amendment to incorporate minor changes and post responses to questions.

In response to the NFSC RFP, NASA received three timely proposals on or before the due date of July 12, 2021 from the following companies:

APSI-Centerra JV II Chenega Global Protection (CGP) Chugach Consolidated Solutions, LLC

EVALUATION PROCESS

The NFSC procurement utilized the Price Performance Trade-Off (PPTO) source selection process. The RFP established three evaluation factors: Technical Acceptability, Past Performance, and Price with assessment of the Technical Acceptability factor on a pass/fail basis and use of a trade-off process, as described at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.101, in making source selection with respect to the Past Performance and Price factors. The RFP advised offerors of the relative order of importance of the factors, stating the following: The Past Performance factor is approximately equal to the Price factor.

The SEB evaluated proposals using the applicable procedures, adjectival ratings, levels of confidence, definitions specified in the RFP, FAR subparts 15.3 and 15.4, and NFS subpart 1815.3, as applicable. Under the procedures established in the RFP and the applicable acquisition regulations, the SEB would first evaluate proposals against the Technical Acceptability factor

The RFP advised that the Government would hold exchanges with offerors whose proposals e conclusion of exchanges, would assign a rating for the respective area. Only proposals that were indi areas would be evaluated against the Past Performance and Price factors.

The Technical Acceptability factor consisted of the following areas: Facility Clearance, Key Personnel Résumés, and Letters of Commitment. For the Facility Clearance requirement area, the offeror was to provide proof of the required facility clearance(s) as of the due date for proposal receipt and any applicable certification in the case of a joint venture. For the Key Personnel Résumés area, the Offeror was to provide a résumé for the following key positions:

Contract Manager and WFF Site Manager. Individuals proposed were to meet or exceed the Contract Manager and Site Manager qualifications contained in Attachment D1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Annexes. For the Letters of Commitment, the Offeror was to include signed letters of commitment from the proposed Contract Manager and Site Manager, identifying full-time employment and a minimum length of commitment of 18 months from the date of the technical areas would result in an overall

NASA Fire Services Contract (NFSC) 3 ated the proposal from further consideration and made the proposal ineligible for award.

For Past Performance factor, the RFP advised offerors that evaluation would be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2) as applicable, and that the Government would evaluate the of recent and relevant past performance of work similar in size, content, and complexity to the NFSC requirements. Additionally, the RFP advised offerors that the Government would consider the resources of a parent/affiliate in its evaluation if the parent/affiliate were to participate meaningfully in the resultant contract. The RFP further provided that the Government may supplement the information contained in the proposal with information obtained from Government organizations and personnel, commercial sources, public information sources. The SEB also considered results from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System for contracts where the Offeror was the prime contractor as well as responses to past performance questionnaires.

Recent was defined as performance within the last five years, as of proposal due date, for ongoing or completed contracts. The RFP advised offerors that to be considered similar with respect to size, at least one of the contracts c subcontractor(s)) must have employed or employs a workforce of at least 100 personnel. The RFP further advised that to be considered similar with respect to content and complexity, each contract cited by the Offeror (excluding the included or includes, at a minimum, performance in all of the following areas: fire operations and firefighting; emergency medical services-paramedic (ALS); and fire prevention inspection program. The RFP instructed the offerors to provide rationale to demonstrate how cited contracts were comparable in size, content, and complexity to the NFSC requirements, and that the volume clearly detail what portions of the NFSC PWS the Offeror and its major subcontractor(s) would be responsible for. With respect to performance, the RFP advised offerors that the Government nagement, technical, and labor relations performance; safety reports; and any problems encountered and efficiency/effectiveness of resolution. Finally, the RFP advised that the Government would assign a level of confidence rating in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2).

For the Price factor, the RFP advised offerors the Government would evaluate price proposals in accordance with FAR subpart 15.4, and that the Government may use one or more of the various price analysis techniques and procedures found at FAR 15.404-1(b) to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Price analysis is the process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit. For purposes of selection, the total evaluated price consisted of the sum of the following: contract phase-in price and the contract price list for baseline services, IDIQ unit rates, and IDIQ hourly rates (all locations, CLINs, and contract periods). The Government provided minimum labor hours per year to support the development of baseline services prices, and Offerors were required to develop their own resource estimates that supported their unique management and technical approaches to meeting requirements and which met or exceeded the Government minimum labor hours.

NASA Fire Services Contract (NFSC) 4

The SEB conducted all evaluations using the above-described criteria as specified in the RFP. In addition to the evaluation of the factors identified above, the SEB ensured each proposal met all solicitation requirements established by the RFP. In accordance with this review, the SEB determined that the proposal submitted by Chugach Consolidated Solutions, LLC was ineligible for award based on representations and certifications provided in the System for Award Management.

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY EVALUATION

Following exchanges as defined in the RFP, the SEB rated the proposals from ASPI-Centerra nical Acceptability factor. The SEB rated both cility Clearance area based on proof of possession of the required secret facility clearance level and applicable certification (in the case of a joint venture) as of the due date for proposal receipt. The SEB rated both proposal Personnel Résumés area based on the résumés of the candidates proposed for Contracts Manager and WFF Site Manager, which met the minimum qualifications identified in the RFP for the respective positions. Finally, the SEB rated bot Commitment area for the Contract Manager and WFF Site Manager based on compliance with RFP requirements.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

APSI-Centerra

Contracts submitted by the APSI-Centerra team met the requirements prescribed in the RFP with respect to recency, size, content, and complexity. Collectively, contracts submitted by the APSI- Centerra team demonstrated very relevant experience performing work of similar content and complexity to the NFSC, including fire operations and firefighting, emergency medical services, fire operations safety, fire services training, fire prevention, fire protection program, and fire investigations. Specifically, under contracts submitted, the APSI-Centerra team: managed multiple fire stations, providing 24-7 response; provided ALS and advanced cardiovascular life support (ACLS) transport; conducted inspections and investigations, and performed code compliance; and developed training. Further, the APSI-Centerra team provided aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF), HAZMAT response, and launch services support. The APSI-Centerra performance across all contracts. Accordingly, APSI-Centerra received an ove Performance factor, meaning that the Government has a very high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform NFSC requirements based on its performance record.

CGP

Contracts submitted by the CGP team met the requirements prescribed in the RFP with respect to recency, size, content, and complexity. Collectively, contracts submitted by the CGP team demonstrated very relevant experience performing work of similar content and complexity to the

NASA Fire Services Contract (NFSC) 5

NFSC, including fire operations and firefighting, emergency medical services, fire operations safety, fire services training, fire prevention, fire protection program, and fire investigations.

Specifically, under contracts submitted, the CGP team: managed multiple fire stations, providing 24-7 response; provided ACLS transport; conducted inspections and investigations, and performed code compliance; and developed training. Further, the CGP team provided ARFF, HAZMAT response, and launch services support. The CGP team provid all contracts. Accordingly, CGP received an overall level of st Performance factor, meaning that the

Government has a very high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform NFSC requirements based on its performance record.

PRICE EVALUATION

The SEB performed a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-l(b). As part of its evaluation, the SEB determined that both offerors including proposing hours that met or exceeded the Government minimum labor hours, and that adequate price competition existed. The SEB found no instances of unbalanced pricing by either offeror. Therefore, the total evaluated prices for both Offerors were determined to be fair and reasonable. In terms of the total evaluated was lower than the total evaluated price of APSI-Centerra.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

During the presentation, I was fully briefed on the procurement process and given detailed evaluation materials concerning the proposal submitted. I questioned the SEB on the material presented and carefully considered the detailed findings presented by the SEB. I concluded that the SEB's evaluation was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. In addition, I solicited and considered the views of key senior officials in attendance. These key senior officials have responsibility related to this procurement and understood the application of the evaluation factors and selection process set forth in the RFP.

With regard to Technical Acceptability, I noted that both offerors received an overall rating of

(including Facility Clearance, Key Personnel Resumes, and Letters of Commitment areas), In determining the best value to the Government, I referred to the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors specified in the RFP, specifically that the Past Performance factor is approximately equal to the Price factor. Using these evaluation factors, I have reached the following conclusions.

With regard to Past Performanc tion of past performance and its explanation of how the board considered each element of past performance stated in the RFP. I noted that both offerors have an extensive breadth of experience with contracts similar in size, content, and complexity to the NFSC, worthy of