TWEEDS Source Selection Statement - Final.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

John H. Glenn Research Center Lewis Field 21000 Brookpark Road Cleveland, OH 44135-3191

Source Selection Statement for the

Technical Workforce Education and Expertise Development Services (TWEEDS) Contract

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Solicitation Number 80GRC022R0013)

On February 16, 2023, the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals for the Technical Workforce Education and Expertise Development Services (TWEEDS) procurement under Solicitation Number 80GRC022R0013 presented the results of its evaluation of offerors’ initial proposals to me as Source Selection Authority (SSA), as well as other senior officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA or Government).

PROCUREMENT HISTORY/DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this acquisition is to support the Office of the Chief Engineer’s (OCE) Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership Knowledge Services (APPEL KS) activities.

Through its world-class training curriculum, knowledge-sharing initiatives, development resources, and strategic communications, APPEL KS helps ensure NASA’s technical workforce has the skills and knowledge needed to advance mission success. APPEL KS is NASA’s internal resource for program and project management and systems engineering training and development of the NASA technical workforce.

The Contractor shall provide support services and analysis across a wide range of activities to support NASA mission success. Some of these services include: executive management, web-based tool and data collection, APPEL KS course development and delivery and logistics support for all course attendees, knowledge events and panels, strategic communications support including website, social media, and podcast development and management, webinars, event software management, support for specific financial management tasks, and configuration management services to meet the needs of the agency’s practitioners and the overall mission of

NASA.

This is a consolidated follow-on acquisition to contract number NNC16BA06B / NNC16TA99T (Glenn Research Center) with FSPRIME, LLC (DBA FedStar, LLC) and NNK16OL05C (Kennedy Space Center) with ASRC Federal Data Solutions, LLC.

The Contract will be a hybrid type including Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF), Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), and Cost-Reimbursement (CR) Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs).

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code and Size Standard for the procurement is 611430- Professional and Management Development Training (preponderance of the effort) with a Size Standard of $12 Million.

The Government used historical cost information to develop an Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) in order to evaluate offerors’ costs for this procurement. The IGCE is the Government’s estimate of projected cost/price for the contract.

A Sources Sought Notice was issued on May 21, 2021. A Procurement Strategy Meeting (PSM) was held May 12, 2022. A Notification to the public of consolidation of contract requirements was posted on July 11, 2022. A draft solicitation (Solicitation or Request for Proposals (RFP)) for this procurement was issued on August 24, 2022, followed by an Industry Day on August 31, 2022. The final RFP for the TWEEDS procurement was issued on October 14, 2022, requiring proposals to be submitted by November 18, 2022.

Three (3) proposals were received on-time in response to the TWEEDS Final RFP. All proposals were considered initially acceptable and included in the evaluation.

Proposals were submitted by the following offerors:

• Banner Quality Management, Inc. (BQMI)

• ASRC Federal Technology Solutions, LLC (AFTS)

• Osi Vision, LLC (Osi Vision)

EVALUATION CRITERIA/PROCEDURES

The proposals were evaluated by a Source Evaluation Board (SEB), in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3, and the evaluation criteria included in the TWEEDS RFP.

The TWEEDS RFP stated that the Government intended “to evaluate proposals and award a contract based on initial proposals” but reserved the Government’s right to conduct discussions if it determined that discussions would be in the best interest of the Government. Additionally, the RFP stated that the award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal met the requirements of the Solicitation and provided the best value to the Government.

The RFP allowed offerors to take exception to any required clauses. However, the RFP also stated that taking exception to any required clauses may be evaluated as a weakness or a deficiency.

The RFP evaluation criteria was comprised of the following factors: Mission Suitability, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, and Cost/Price. The Cost/Price Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and Past Performance Factor. As individual factors, the Mission Suitability Factor is more important than the Past Performance Factor which is more important than the Cost/Price Factor.

In accordance with the RFP, each proposal received a Mission Suitability score based on the following subfactors and associated numerical weights:

Volume I: Mission Suitability

Subfactor A. Management Approach (MA) 600 points

MA1: Organizational Structure MA2: Key Positions & Qualifications MA3: Labor Skill Mix MA4: Total Compensation Plan MA5: Performance Management Plan MA6: Portfolio Management Plan MA7: Subcontractor Use MA8: Phase-In Plan

Subfactor B. Technical Approach Scenario 1 – Curriculum 250 points

TAS1C1: Curriculum Quality

Subfactor C: Technical Approach Scenario 2 – Knowledge 150 points

TAS2K1: Knowledge Services

Total 1,000 points

As stated in the RFP, evaluation of the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.304-70. Only contracts the Government considered relevant, as compared with the overall requirements of the RFP, were considered. The results were combined into an overall, single, Level of Confidence rating to assess the SEB’s confidence in each offeror’s ability to perform the TWEEDS requirements.

These evaluations focused on three areas: the Past Performance Narratives (PPN) of the offeror’s proposal, Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) submitted by the offerors’ customers, and Past Performance Databases (PPD) utilized by the Government.

Pursuant to the RFP, the Cost/Price evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.4 (price analysis) and FAR 15.305(a)(1), NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3)(B) (cost analysis).

Cost was not numerically scored and did not receive an adjectival rating. A cost realism analysis was performed, and the proposed costs were adjusted for each offeror, as needed, to establish a probable cost to the Government. A price analysis was also performed.

The evaluation process utilized by the SEB consisted of each SEB member independently reviewing each offeror’s proposal. The SEB voting members then met to establish consensus findings, adjectival ratings, scoring, and level of confidence ratings for each offeror’s proposal.

SOURCE SELECTION MEETINGS

On February 16, 2023, the SEB made its Source Selection Briefing (Briefing) to me in my capacity as the SSA. Prior to the Briefing, I was provided with a full copy of the SEB’s findings for all three offerors. In addition to myself, the Briefing was attended by certain SEB Voting Members, SEB Committee members, and SEB Ex-Officio Members. During the meeting, SEB members presented to me and discussed with me the overall evaluation process and findings on

Mission Suitability, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Additionally, during the Briefing, I provided the SEB with my independent judgment relative to the findings and asked questions regarding the information presented. A follow-up meeting was held after the Briefing to further discuss the SEB’s findings. In addition to myself, this follow-up meeting was attended by the Contracting Officer and key Non-Voting and Ex-Officio Members. As a result of the conversations held, I informed the attendees of my determination to further review the SEB’s findings materials and make a selection decision in the coming days. This source selection statement results from those two meetings and my further deliberation.

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

Below is a summary of the evaluation results of each offeror:

Volume BQMI AFTS Osi Vision Mission Suitability 468 338 528 Proposed Cost Second Highest Lowest Highest Probable Cost Second Highest Lowest Highest Relevant Experience and Past Performance

Moderate Level of Confidence

High Level of Confidence

Moderate Level of Confidence

BQMI

Mission Suitability – 468 Points

In Subfactor A, Management Approach, the BQMI proposal was rated “Fair” with one (1) strength and three (3) weaknesses.

The proposal received a strength for:

1. The proposal described an organizational structure that includes three integrated product teams (IPTs) and offers routine meetings with the offeror’s leadership.

The proposal received weaknesses for:

1. The proposed BQMI Enterprise Portal (BEP) would limit Government access to necessary course records and training data.

2. The proposal provided limited insight into labor categories and an insufficiently detailed staffing plan.

3. The proposed utilization of subcontractors did not adequately describe the approach to meet Government requirements for the specified contract line-item numbers (CLINs).

In Subfactor B, Technical Approach Scenario 1 - Curriculum, the BQMI proposal was rated "Good" with one (1) strength and one (1) weakness.

1. The proposal provided a description of the course development and evaluation lifecycle, which incorporates additional benefit to the Government by supporting continuous process improvement and ensuring adequate oversight of learning and development activities.

1. The proposal described a curriculum approach that preferences a web-based method that is inappropriate for learning designed to enhance the student's project management or engineering judgement.

In Subfactor C, Technical Approach Scenario 2 - Knowledge, the BQMI proposal was rated “Good” with no strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, or significant weaknesses.

Cost/Price

BQMI’s proposal offered the second highest proposed cost/price. A probable cost analysis was conducted, and no probable cost adjustments were made. As evaluated, BQMI’s probable cost/price was the second highest of the three (3) offerors.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance – “Moderate Level of Confidence”

The BQMI proposal received a “Moderate Level of Confidence” in Relevant Experience and Past Performance.

The BQMI Past Performance Narrative was found to have three (3) contracts/orders which were determined to have relevancy to the solicitation. Overall, Team BQMI's relevant experience was considered pertinent to this acquisition.

Four (4) relevant Past Performance Questionnaires were received and evaluated for BQMI. The SEB found that the BQMI past performance ratings were mostly exceptional and very good, which were supported by the ratings received from its Questionnaire reviewers.

In its review of the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) database, the SEB identified four (4) CPARS evaluations for Team BQMI, all associated with the NASA Safety Center Technical Services Support 2 (NSCTSS2) contract, which were reviewed and determined relevant. The relevant ratings were mostly exceptional and very good during the defined period of recency.

Based on its evaluation of the entirety of Team BQMI’s recent and relevant past performance record, the TWEEDS SEB determined the offeror’s relevant experience and past performance to be pertinent to this acquisition, and that it demonstrates effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, the SEB determined that there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

AFTS

Mission Suitability – 338 Points

In Subfactor A, Management Approach, the AFTS proposal was rated “Poor” with two (2) weaknesses and one (1) significant weakness.

1. The proposed organizational structure and staffing levels were too lean to meet Government requirements.

2. The proposed labor skill mix did not include sufficient detail on the labor categories or the rationale for labor categories.

The proposal received a significant weakness for:

1. The proposed key positions were inconsistent with the offeror’s overall management approach.

In Subfactor B, Technical Approach Scenario 1 - Curriculum, the AFTS proposal was rated “Fair” with one (1) weakness.

The proposal received a weakness for:

1. The proposed approach to the curriculum scenario skips important communications and integration steps and would therefore be inadequate and ineffective to meet requirements.

In Subfactor C, Technical Approach Scenario 2 - Knowledge, the AFTS proposal was rated “Good” with one (1) strength.

1. The proposed approach to the knowledge services scenario describes all requirements and adds value through a variety of communication methods, support, and follow-on activities.

Cost/Price

AFTS’s proposal offered the lowest proposed cost/price. A probable cost analysis was conducted, and no probable cost adjustments were made. As evaluated, AFTS’s probable cost/price was the lowest of all three (3) offerors.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance – “High Level of Confidence”

The AFTS team proposal received a “High Level of Confidence” in Relevant Experience and Past Performance.

The AFTS Past Performance Narrative was found to have two (2) contracts/orders which were determined to have relevancy to the solicitation. Overall, the AFTS relevant experience was considered highly pertinent to this acquisition.

One (1) relevant Past Performance Questionnaire was received and evaluated for AFTS. The SEB found that the AFTS past performance ratings were all exceptional, which were supported by the ratings received from its Questionnaire reviewer.

In its review of the CPARS database, the SEB identified four (4) CPARS evaluations for AFTS, all associated with the Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership Support Services (APPELSS), which were reviewed and determined relevant. The relevant ratings were all exceptional and very good during the defined period of recency.

Based on its evaluation of the entirety of AFTS’ recent and relevant past performance record, the TWEEDS SEB determined the offeror’s relevant experience and past performance to be highly pertinent to this acquisition, and that it demonstrates very effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Osi Vision

Mission Suitability – 528 points

In Subfactor A, Management Approach, the Osi Vision proposal was rated “Fair” with one (1) strength and three (3) weaknesses.

1. The proposed organizational structure emphasized flexibility, responsiveness to Government priorities, and a cross-functional staff.

1. The proposed organizational structure and overall management approach places emphasis on some areas that do not correspond to Key Positions.

2. The proposed labor skill mix approach does not include sufficient information on labor skill mix rationale, recruitment strategies, or training and additional education the offeror would support.

3. The proposal provided insufficient information on subcontractor use for the Government to assess the approach.

In Subfactor B, Technical Approach Scenario 1 - Curriculum, the Osi Vision proposal was rated “Excellent” with one (1) strength and one (1) significant strength.

1. The proposed approach to the curriculum scenario provides a systematic and thorough process for resource and staffing alignment and accompanying data assessment.

The proposal received a significant strength for:

1. The proposed approach to the curriculum scenario demonstrates superior comprehension of the task, introduces innovative approaches to mitigate risk, and recommends a post-course follow-up with opportunities for lessons learned and to share successes with partners.

In Subfactor C, Technical Approach Scenario 2 - Knowledge, the Osi Vision proposal was rated "Fair" with one (1) weakness.

The proposal received a weakness for:

1. The proposed approach to the knowledge services scenario does not address all requirements of the Request for Proposals (RFP).

Cost/Price

Osi Vision’s proposal offered a cost/price of $60,388,855, which was the highest of the three (3) offerors. A probable cost analysis was conducted, and no probable cost adjustments were made.

As evaluated, Osi Vision’s probable cost/price of $60,388,855 was the highest of all three (3) offerors.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance – “Moderate Level of Confidence”

The Osi Vision team proposal received a “Moderate Level of Confidence” in Relevant Experience and Past Performance.

The Osi Vision Past Performance Narrative was found to have one (1) contract/order which was determined to have relevancy to the solicitation. Overall, the Osi Vision relevant experience was considered minimally pertinent to this acquisition.

One (1) relevant Past Performance Questionnaire was evaluated for Osi Vision. The SEB found that the Osi Vision past performance ratings were all exceptional, which were supported by the ratings received from its Questionnaire reviewer.

In its review of the CPARS database, the SEB identified no CPARS evaluations for Team Osi Vision

Based on its evaluation of the entirety of Osi Vision’s recent and relevant past performance record, the TWEEDS SEB determined the offeror’s relevant experience and past performance to be pertinent to this acquisition, demonstrates effective performance; and is fully responsive to contract requirements. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

During the Source Selection Briefing described above, I discussed the scores and adjectival ratings for each offeror's proposal with the SEB. I had reviewed, in advance of the Briefing, the SEB’s detailed findings including all documentation in the back-up charts. At the Briefing, I questioned the SEB about the qualitative aspects of each offeror’s proposal that generated the

SEB’s findings, in order to determine how each offeror’s approach would impact contract performance. I also questioned the SEB regarding its evaluation methodology under each factor, its assessments, and its rationales for its assessments. Finally, I requested input and considered comments from the other senior officials who attended the Briefing.

I find that the SEB’s findings are detailed, consistent with the stated evaluation factors, and fairly describe the merits and risks of each proposal. The final charts the SEB presented summarize the SEB’s results for each of the three offerors under each stated evaluation criterion. The SEB members also answered follow-up questions posed by myself and others attending the Briefing regarding its evaluation.

As the SSA, it is my responsibility to compare the proposals, to examine the SEB’s evaluation of each proposal under each factor and subfactor, and to consider the merits of the proposals in their entirety. It is also my responsibility to form an independent judgment as to the SEB’s evaluation results and to determine with which aspects of the evaluation I concur and which aspects of the offerors’ proposals are discriminators for determining best value. I agree with the SEB’s findings, but exercise my own judgment as to the significance to place upon those findings and the impact the qualitative aspects of each proposal addressed in the findings would have on each offeror’s performance of the contract.

I determine that the SEB’s findings, as documented in the Briefing, are supportable and have a rational basis, and are therefore valid for purposes of making my source selection decision. I am in agreement with the information the SEB presented and take no exception to the SEB’s actions or findings.

In examining the SEB's evaluation of each offeror under each evaluation factor, I do not simply tabulate the number of strengths or weaknesses each offeror received for selection purposes.

Rather, I undertake a qualitative assessment of each offeror’s proposal in an effort to understand the merits and drawbacks of each and to identify discriminating aspects of each offeror’s proposed approach.

Mission Suitability

In the Mission Suitability Factor, Osi Vision’s proposal presents a distinct and substantial advantage over BQMI’s proposal, which itself presents a distinct advantage over AFTS’s proposal. All three proposals have some technical merit, with at least one Strength along with some Weaknesses. Osi Vision’s proposal, however, especially with respect to Subfactor B, Technical Approach Scenario 1 – Curriculum Quality, stands out over the other two offerors.

In Subfactor A, Management Approach, the proposals of Osi Vision and BQMI, which each were rated Fair and received one strength and three weaknesses, present certain advantages over AFTS’s proposal, which was rated Poor and received a significant weakness and two weaknesses. In particular, I note the strengths that Osi Vision’s and BQMI’s proposals each received in the MA1: Organizational Structure element. Specifically, Osi Vision’s proposal received a Strength for proposing an organizational structure that emphasizes flexibility and responsiveness to government priorities, which enables easier alignment with changes in program direction. Under the same element, BQMI’s proposal received a Strength for describing an organizational structure that includes three integrated product teams and offers routine meetings with BQMI’s leadership, which will improve coordination across diverse functions and overall accountability of the BQMI team. I agree with the SEB that these aspects of each offeror’s proposal present value. AFTS’s proposal received a Weakness in MA1, for proposing a lean organizational structure and staffing levels. Although I appreciate the potential cost savings that such an approach might present, I agree with the SEB that it creates a risk with respect to successful performance of the contract’s technical requirements. This risk appears be compounded, moreover, by AFTS’s proposed approach to the MA2 element, where AFTS’s proposal received a Significant Weakness, for proposing key positions that are inconsistent with AFTS’s overall management approach, with multiple groups whose importance the proposal highlights being supported by key personnel with potentially unreasonable responsibilities or, with insufficient rationale, no key personnel. I agree with the SEB that this aspect of AFTS’s proposal appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. To be sure, Osi Vision’s and BQMI’s proposals have their own weaknesses. All three proposals, in fact, received a Weakness in the MA3: Labor Skill Mix element, for providing insufficient information with respect to certain aspects of the element. Osi Vision’s proposal also received a Weakness in MA2, for focusing on the qualifications of identified personnel rather than the positions, as well as some inconsistency between key positions and leadership roles identified in their organizational structure. Osi Vision’s proposal received a third Weakness, in the MA7:

Subcontractor Use element, for providing insufficient information on proposed subcontractor use. BQMI’s proposal received a Weakness, in MA1, for describing use of a database that could limit Government access to necessary course records and training data, which is concerning. BQMI’s proposal received a third Weakness, in MA7, for not adequately describing how the proposed utilization of subcontractors would meet government requirements for specified contract line-item numbers. In the Management Approach Subfactor, all three proposals have weaknesses, but I find that the proposals of Osi Vision and BQMI offer the noted advantages over AFTS’s proposal in this subfactor.

In Subfactor B, Technical Approach Scenario 1 – Curriculum Quality, Osi Vision’s proposal, which was rated Excellent, stands out over BQMI’s and AFTS’s proposals, which were rated Good and Fair, respectively. I am impressed with the Significant Strength that Osi Vision’s proposal received, for an approach to the curriculum scenario that demonstrates superior comprehension of the task, introduces innovative approaches to mitigate risk, and recommends a post-course follow-up with opportunities for lessons learned and to share successes with partners. I agree with the SEB that the well-considered and innovative enhancements to the scenario that Osi Vision proposes ensure advantageous use of resources, mitigate risks, and enhance value for the government. I am also impressed by the Strength that Osi Vision’s proposal received, for an approach to the curriculum scenario that provides a systematic and thorough process for resource and staffing alignment and accompanying data assessment.

BQMI’s proposal received a Strength under this subfactor, for a description of the course development and evaluation lifecycle that incorporates additional benefit to the government by supporting continuous process improvement and ensuring adequate oversight of learning and development activities. BQMI’s proposal also received a Weakness, for describing a curriculum approach that preferences a web-based method that is inappropriate for learning designed to enhance the student's project management or engineering judgement. AFTS’s proposal received a Weakness, for proposing an approach to the curriculum scenario that skips important communications and integration steps and would therefore be inadequate and ineffective to meet requirements. Under this subfactor, the proposals of BQMI and AFTS, which merit their adjectival ratings, simply do not rise to the level of Osi Vision’s, which stands out.

In Subfactor C, Technical Approach Scenario 2 – Knowledge Matrix, AFTS’s proposal, which was rated Good and received one strength, was stronger than BQMI’s or Osi Vision’s proposals, which were rated Good and Fair, respectively. I am impressed by the Strength that AFTS’s proposal received for an approach to the scenario that describes all the requirements and adds value through a variety of communication methods, support, and follow-on activities. The SEB determined that BQMI’s proposal met the RFP’s requirements for the subfactor in a way that did not fit the definition of any of the Findings Classifications. Osi Vision’s proposal received a Weakness, for an approach to the knowledge services scenario that does not address all of the RFP’s requirements, which creates some risk. BQMI’s and Osi Vision’s proposals each merit their adjectival ratings. In this subfactor, however, AFTS’s proposal was the strongest.

Overall, in the most important Mission Suitability Factor, Osi Vision’s proposal presents a distinct and substantial advantage over the proposals of BQMI and AFTS. Each of the proposals has some technical merit along with some weaknesses. I am impressed, however, with the flexible and responsive organizational structure described in Osi Vision’s proposal and, in particular, with Osi Vision’s outstanding response to Subfactor B, in which Osi demonstrated superior comprehension, introduced innovative enhancements, and provided a systematic and thorough process for resource and staffing alignment. I do not discount the weaknesses that the SEB identified in Osi Vision’s proposal, which introduce some risks. I also do not discount the strengths in BQMI’s and AFTS’s proposals, which offer some value. Overall, however, in the most important Mission Suitability Factor, Osi Vision’s proposal presents a distinct and substantial advantage over the proposals of BQMI and AFTS.

Cost/Price

In the Cost/Price Factor, AFTS’s proposal presents a distinct advantage over BQMI’s proposal, which itself presents a moderately less distinct advantage over Osi Vision’s proposal. In reviewing the SEB’s assessment of each offeror’s Cost/Price proposal, I understand that AFTS proposed the lowest cost/price, followed by BQMI, followed by Osi Vision. I also understand that the SEB made no adjustments to any offeror’s proposed costs, such that each proposal’s probable cost/price is the same as the proposed cost/price. Thus, AFTS’s proposal presents a distinct advantage over BQMI’s proposal, which presents a somewhat distinct advantage over Osi Vision’s proposal.

While the SEB did not make any adjustments to any offeror’s proposed costs or prices, the SEB did evaluate each offeror’s proposal, in accordance with Section M of the RFP, to assess the realism of the proposed costs and the reasonableness of the proposed prices. This assessment identified a risk, in accordance with RFP Section M.6(c), with respect to AFTS’s proposed price. Specifically, the SEB determined that AFTS’s proposal underestimated the staff needed for its Project Management Office. I note that this is consistent with the SEB’s evaluation of AFTS’s technical proposal under the Mission Suitability Factor, where it received a Weakness for proposing an organizational structure and staffing levels that are too lean to meet Government requirements. After discussions with the SEB, I understand the basis for the analysis and agree with the rationale for identifying this risk. I also agree with the SEB’s analysis of BQMI’s and Osi Vision’s proposals and the rationale for not identifying risks in or making adjustments to them.

The probable costs/prices of the three proposals are very divergent, with the lowest cost/price of AFTS’s proposal being significantly less than the second-lowest cost/price of BQMI’s proposal, which itself is somewhat significantly less than the highest cost/price of Osi Vision’s proposal.

As noted, there is some technical risk apparent in AFTS’s cost/price. Even with that risk, however, AFTS’s proposal presents a distinct advantage over BQMI’s proposal, which itself presents a moderately less distinct advantage over Osi Vision’s proposal, under this evaluation factor.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance

In the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor, I understand the rationale for and agree with the SEB’s determinations that AFTS’s proposal merits a High Level of Confidence and BQMI’s and Osi Vision’s proposals each merit a Moderate Level of Confidence. All three offerors have a track record of at least some relevant experience and effective performance, providing some confidence that they would successfully perform the required effort. AFTS’s proposal has a slight edge under this evaluation factor, but I do not find it to be material.

With respect to relevancy, AFTS’s proposal is the strongest, followed by BQMI’s, followed by Osi Vision’s. None of the three proposals offers a distinctly robust sample size, with BQMI’s three relevant contracts being the most for any of the three offerors. I note that AFTS’s two relevant contracts include APPELSS, which is one of the two contracts incumbent to the contract to be awarded. Although APPELSS does not contain all of this acquisition’s requirements, it does include a significant portion of them. I agree with the SEB that it is highly relevant and that, overall, AFTS’s experience is highly pertinent to this acquisition. I also agree with the SEB that one of BQMI’s referenced contracts is highly relevant and that another one of BQMI’s referenced contracts, as well as a contract referenced for a proposed major subcontractor also are relevant. I understand and agree with the SEB’s assessment that another contract also referenced as part of BQMI’s proposed major subcontractor’s experience is not relevant to the present acquisition, based on the considerations identified in the RFP, due to its focus on the design, development, and support for an information system with insufficient relevancy in scope, content, complexity, and type. I further agree with the SEB, however, that, overall, BQMI’s relevant experience is solidly pertinent to the present acquisition. Osi Vision’s relevant experience consists of a single task order, which a proposed major subcontractor performed. I understand and agree with the SEB’s assessment that the other contracts Osi Vision referenced in its PPN are not relevant, based on the considerations identified in the RFP, due to insufficient similarity with, among other things, the current requirement’s scope, content, and value. I agree with the SEB, however, that the proposed subcontractor’s one relevant task order is appropriately similar in scope, content, size, type, complexity, customer, and value for Osi Vision’s overall experience to be evaluated as more than merely somewhat pertinent to the present acquisition. I agree with the SEB that, overall, Osi Vision’s relevant experience is pertinent, albeit minimally so. In the evaluation of the relevancy of each offeror’s experience, AFTS’s proposal is the strongest, followed by BQMI’s, followed by Osi Vision’s.

With respect to performance, all three proposals are relatively strong, with AFTS’s and Osi Vision’s proposals standing out only slightly, if at all, over BQMI’s proposal. In PPQ ratings, 100% of the ratings for both AFTS and Osi Vision were Exceptional, with comments and ratings consistent throughout the information, which is impressive. BQMI’s PPQ ratings were almost all Exceptional and Very Good, with a small percentage of Satisfactory and a tiny percentage of Marginal ratings. In PPD data, AFTS’s substantive ratings were almost all Exceptional, with a very small percentage of Very Good ratings. The vast majority of BQMI’s substantive ratings were also Exceptional, with a small percentage of Very Good, and a tiny percentage of Satisfactory, ratings. The SEB was unable to identify any relevant PPD data for Osi Vision, which I evaluate neutrally. With respect to performance, all three proposals are relatively strong, but AFTS’s and Osi Vision’s stand out, slightly, over BQMI’s.

Overall, I agree, with the SEB’s determinations that AFTS’s proposal merits a High Level of Confidence and BQMI’s and Osi Vision’s proposals each a Moderate Level of Confidence. I am impressed that all three offerors have a track record of at least some relevant experience and effective performance, providing some confidence that they would successfully perform the required effort. AFTS’s proposal has a slight edge under this evaluation factor, but I do not find it to be material.

Best Value

Per the Final RFP, award is to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation and provides the best value to the Government based on the weighting of the evaluation factors detailed in the Final RFP. Accordingly, in making my selection decision, I remain mindful that Mission Suitability is more important than Relevant Experience and Past Performance, which is more important than Cost/Price. Further, I consider Mission Suitability and Relevant Experience and Past Performance, when combined, significantly more important than Cost/Price.

Under the most important Mission Suitability Factor, Osi Vision’s proposal presents a clear and materially significant advantage over AFTS’s proposal and, to an only moderately lesser extent, BQMI’s proposal. Each of the proposals has some technical merit along with some weaknesses.

I am particularly impressed, however, with Osi Vision’s outstanding response to Subfactor B, in which Osi Vision demonstrated superior comprehension, introduced innovative enhancements, and provided a systematic and thorough process for resource and staffing alignment. The proposals of BQMI and AFTS simply do not rise to this level. I recognize the strengths that BQMI’s proposal received, as well as its solid response to Subfactor C, where it received no weaknesses. At the same time, I am concerned by the weakness that BQMI’s proposal received, in Subfactor A, for an approach that would limit Government access to essential data as well as the weakness that BQMI’s proposal received, in Subfactor B, for describing a curriculum approach that preferences a web-based method that is inappropriate for learning focused on enhancing student's project management or engineering judgement, because it presents a risk that the offeror’s approach would preference cost-savings over effectiveness of training and indicates that the offeror may not fully understand the requirements. I have less concerns with Osi Vision’s proposal, where the weaknesses largely involve inconsistent or insufficient information that do not necessarily indicate possible issues with the offeror’s technical approach or understanding. I am also impressed with AFTS’s proposal, particularly with its relatively strong response to Subfactor C, which demonstrated an astute and multifaceted approach to knowledge services. As noted, however, I am concerned with the lean organizational structure and staffing levels that AFTS proposed, the risk arising from which appears to be compounded by the apparent inconsistency between AFTS’s proposed key positions and its overall management approach, which itself creates a risk that multiple groups, important to AFTS’s approach, may be inadequately supported. I agree with the SEB that these aspects of AFTS’s proposal, which respectively received a Weakness and Significant Weakness, indicate risks of unsuccessful contract performance. I do not have the same concerns with either Osi Vision’s or BQMI’s proposals. While both BQMI’s and AFTS’s proposals each have good technical merit, Osi Vision’s technical proposal presents superior technical value and a materially significant advantage over both BQMI’s and AFTS’s proposals, while BQMI’s proposal presents a moderately less significant advantage over AFTS’s proposal.

Under the least important Cost/Price Factor, AFTS’s proposal presents a distinct advantage over BQMI’s proposal, which itself has a moderately less distinct advantage over Osi Vision’s proposal.

In contrast, I do not find a material discriminator under the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor. As discussed, I understand the rationale for and agree with the SEB’s determinations that AFTS’s proposal merits a High Level of Confidence and BQMI’s and Osi Vision’s proposals each merit a Moderate Level of Confidence. I recognize and appreciate that, by all accounts, AFTS has done an excellent job performing one of the two contracts incumbent to the one being competed, as well as another relevant contract. At the same time, I also recognize that BQMI’s performance over a larger number of relevant contracts, which also includes a highly relevant contract, has been very solid. Nor do I see value in penalizing Osi Vision for having less relevant experience, especially when the record of performance for the relatively slight experience it has is also excellent. All three offerors have a track record of at least some relevant experience and effective performance, providing some confidence that they would successfully perform the required effort. AFTS’s proposal has a slight edge over both BQMI’s and Osi Vision’s proposal under this factor, but I do not find it to be material.

When combining Mission Suitability and Relative Experience and Past Performance, Osi Vision’s proposal still presents a materially significant advantage over BQMI’s proposal, which itself presents a moderately less significant advantage over AFTS’s proposal. Again, while AFTS’s proposal has a slight edge over both BQMI’s and Osi Vision’s proposal under the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor, I do not find that edge to be material. When the two non-cost/price factors are combined, Osi Vision’s proposal presents a materially significant advantage over BQMI’s proposal, which presents a moderately less significant advantage over AFTS’s proposal.

Because Osi Vision’s highest-rated non-cost/price proposal is not also the lowest cost/price proposal, determining best value requires a trade-off between the qualitative advantages of the higher-rated technical proposals and the quantitative advantages of the proposals that offer a better cost/price. In conducting this analysis, I remain mindful that Mission Suitability and Relevant Experience and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

In comparing Osi Vision’s highest-rated technical proposal with AFTS’s lowest cost/price proposal, I find that Osi Vision’s proposal offers the better value. The probable cost/price of AFTS’s proposal is significantly and substantially less than the probable cost/price of Osi Vision’s proposal, but I cannot overlook the risks identified in AFTS’s lean organizational structure and staffing and the potential that multiple groups, important to AFTS’s approach, may be inadequately supported by key personnel. Not only does Osi Vision’s proposal not present these concerns, but it affirmatively offers a flexible and responsive organizational structure and, more impressively, an outstanding response to Subfactor B, in which it demonstrates superior comprehension, introduces innovative enhancements, and provides a systematic and thorough process for resource and staffing alignment, strengths that AFTS’s proposal does not match. In this acquisition, where non-cost/price factors are significantly more important than Cost/Price, these technical advantages justify the substantial cost premium of Osi Vision’s proposal, which thus offers the better value.

Osi Vision’s and BQMI’s proposals are closer to each other in both non-cost/price and cost/price considerations but comparing them results in the same conclusion. Although the difference in cost/price between BQMI’s and Osi Vision’s proposals is less substantial than the difference between AFTS’s and Osi Vision’s proposals, it is still somewhat significant. Again, however, I cannot overlook the concerns I noted with the weaknesses that BQMI’s proposal received, in Subfactors A and B, one of which could limit Government access to essential data while the other presents a risk that the offeror’s approach would preference cost-savings over effectiveness of training and indicates that the offeror may not fully understand the requirements. Not only do I have less concerns with Osi Vision’s proposal, but I also find its outstanding response to Subfactor B unmatched in BQMI’s proposal, which makes Osi Vision’s proposal more valuable. In this acquisition, where, again, non-cost/price factors are significantly more important than Cost/Price, these technical advantages justify the somewhat significant cost premium of Osi Vision’s proposal, which thus offers the better value.

Accordingly, I find that Osi Vision’s proposal, which meets the requirements of the solicitation, presents the best value to the Government. Therefore, I hereby select Osi Vision to perform the TWEEDS contract as outlined in the RFP.

Kurt A. Straub, Source Selection Authority Date