USGCRP-Source Selection Statement.pdf

Source Selection Statement for the U.S. Global Change Research Program

National Coordination Office (USGCRP NCO) Support Services

Acquisition – Solicitation Number 80HQTR20R0016

On March 8, 2021, I met with the Integrated Evaluation Team (IET) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the U.S. Global Change Research Program National Coordination

Office (USGCRP NCO) Support Services acquisition. A briefing of the results of the evaluation conducted by the IET was provided to me, resulting in this source selection decision.

Procurement Description

The purpose of the USGCRP NCO Support Services contract is to provide technical, analytic, and programmatic support services to the USGCRP NCO. Major activities under this contract will include: core contract support for program coordination, facilitation, and operational support;

technical and operational expertise to support the end-to-end production of the National Climate

Assessment and other domestic and international climate change assessments; technical and operational support for non-assessment strategic documents and technical reports; coordination and support of USGCRP planning and budget activities; communication and stakeholder outreach activities in support of USGCRP objectives; and technical support and development of USGCRP’s web presence, public online information resources, and office network and applications. The

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) component of the contract contemplates specialized

Task Orders for support of high-profile, term-limited program activities and deliverables of the

USGCRP.

The USGCRP NCO Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on August 11, 2020, and five subsequent amendments were issued.

The resulting contract will be a single award hybrid Cost-Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Core plus

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with a total effective period of performance/effective ordering period of 5 years (a 1-year base period from the effective date of the contract plus four 1-year option periods). A 30-day Phase-in period will be accomplished under a separate FFP contractual vehicle.

This procurement was conducted as a Full and Open Competition under NAICS Code 541611, Administrative Management and General Management Consulting, with a Small Business Size

Standard of $16.5M.

Proposals Submitted

By the RFP closing date of October 13, 2020, four offerors submitted timely proposals in response to the RFP:

ICF, Inc. (ICF)

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR)

Guidehouse, LLP Mercer and Company

The IET’s review indicated that Mercer and Company’s proposal did not represent a reasonable initial effort to address the essential requirements of the RFP. Therefore, in accordance with NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305-70, the Contracting Officer informed Mercer and Company that its proposal was eliminated from the competition.

Proposals Evaluated

ICF, Inc.

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR)

Evaluation Procedures

The IET evaluated proposals in accordance with the source selection procedures identified in

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15.3 “Source Selection,” and NASA FAR

Supplement (NFS) 1815.3. The Source Evaluation Board procedures at NFS 1815.370, NASA

Source Evaluation Boards, were applied. The RFP listed three evaluation factors, Mission

Suitability, Cost, and Past Performance. The RFP specified the relative order of importance of these factors as follows:

The Cost Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the

Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor.

As individual Factors, the Cost Factor is less important than the Mission Suitability

Factor but more important than the Past Performance Factor.

The Mission Suitability factor was evaluated using the adjectival ratings and definitions at NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The IET reached consensus on its findings, identifying any

Significant Strengths, Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies. The IET then assigned an adjectival rating based on these consensus findings. Subfactor point scoring was not used in the evaluation of proposals for this solicitation.

Regarding the Cost factor, the RFP provided for the evaluation, but not numerical scoring or adjectival rating of cost. The RFP referred Offerors to FAR 2.101(b) for a definition of “cost realism” and to FAR 15.404-1(d) for a discussion of “cost realism analysis” and “probable cost.” The cost evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(A) and (B). The proposed costs for the core contract and the rates proposed in Attachment B, Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates and Award Fee Matrices, were assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism. Both the "proposed cost” and “probable cost” for the Core requirement reflected the Offeror’s proposed fee amount, which was not adjusted in the probable cost assessment.

Past Performance evaluations were based on FAR Part 15 and were conducted in accordance with provision M.5 of the solicitation. As stated in provision L.23, all Past Performance references had to meet the “recent” and minimum average annual cost/fee expenditures criteria provided therein for both prime contractor references and any significant subcontractor references in order to be evaluated. An Offeror’s Past Performance record indicates the relevant quantitative and qualitative aspects of performing services or delivering products similar in size and content to the requirements of this acquisition. The IET considered each Offeror’s record and assigned an overall confidence rating that reflected its subjective evaluation of the information contained in the written narrative, Past Performance evaluation input provided through customer questionnaires, and other sources. As set forth and described in provision M.5 of the RFP, the applicable level of confidence ratings were:

Very High, High, Moderate, Low, Very Low, and Neutral.

Mission Suitability Factor

The results of the IET’s evaluation under the Mission Suitability Factors are summarized below:

Offeror Adjectival Rating

ICF, Inc. Good UCAR Good

Guidehouse, LLP Fair

ICF, Inc

ICF received 0 significant strengths, 2 strengths, 1 weakness, 0 significant weaknesses, and 0 deficiencies, resulting in an adjectival rating of Good for the Mission Suitability factor.

Strength #1 – A.4 Technical Scenario

ICF received a strength because they provided a detailed end-to-end task plan to produce a special report that would contribute to the next International Assessment. ICF demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the climate assessment process and enhances the likelihood of successful on-time delivery of a high-quality report.

Strength #2 – C.1 Small Business Utilization

ICF received a second strength because their proposal exceeded the government recommended goals for small business utilization specified in the RFP. ICF covers the seven subcategories of small businesses with enforceable teaming agreements. ICF also proposes planned procedures and organizational structure for SDB outreach, assistance, counseling, market research and SDB identification, and relevant purchasing procedures. The ICF proposal reflects a strong commitment to Small Business Utilization and exceeds the recommend goals, which increase the potential for successful contract performance.

Weakness #1 – B.2 Subcontractor Strategy

ICF received a weakness arising from an inadequate response to the requirement for addressing performance issues on subcontracted portions of the contract, increasing the likelihood of unsuccessful performance.

UCAR

UCAR received 1 significant strength, 1 strength, 1 weakness, 1 significant weakness, and 0 deficiencies resulting in an adjectival rating of Good for the Mission Suitability

Factor.

Significant Strength #1 – A.4 Technical Scenario Approach

UCAR received a significant strength for proposing a thorough set of assumptions for the technical scenario and demonstrated exemplary awareness of the operational and logistic aspects of the management and implementation of a Technical Support

Unit. The Offeror’s comprehensive understanding and attention to detail in this area greatly enhances the potential for successful performance of contract requirements.

Strength #1 – B.1 Management Approach

UCAR received a strength for proposing a detailed approach to managing all aspects of the Statement of Work, which enhances confidence in their ability to fully and efficiently meet the needs of USGCRP leadership, member agencies, stakeholders, and the public.

Weakness #1 – B.5 Phase-In

UCAR received a weakness for the proposed Phase-In plan. The proposed plan was unclear in some areas and inconsistent with the 30-day Phase-In requirement in the RFP, increasing the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness #1 – C.1 Small Business Utilization

UCAR received a significant weakness because its proposed small business utilization was significantly lower than the government recommend goals for small business utilization specified in the RFP. Additionally, the proposed subcontracting plan did not contain several required components of information. Taken together, these aspects of the proposal significantly increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Guidehouse received 0 significant strengths, 4 strengths, 2 weaknesses, 1 significant weakness, and 0 deficiencies resulting in an adjectival rating of Fair for the Mission Suitability factor.

Strength #1 – A.1 Technical Approach

Guidehouse received a strength for proposing a state-of-the-art and integrated IT solution.

Guidehouse provides a well-developed and thorough approach for operational support for the

USGCRP’s IT requirements, enhancing the likelihood of successful performance.

Strength #2 – B.1 Management Approach

Guidehouse received a strength for proposing a thorough and highly-detailed approach to managing all aspects of the Statement of Work that enhances confidence in their ability to fully and efficiently meet the needs of USGCRP leadership, member agencies, stakeholders, and the public.

Strength #3 – B.2 Subcontractor Strategy

Guidehouse received a strength in the area of subcontractor strategy, providing a mechanism to mitigate performance issues on the subcontracted portions of the contract that enhances the likelihood of successful completion of contract requirements.

Strength #4 – C.1 Small Business Utilization

Guidehouse received a strength because their proposal exceeded the government recommended goals for small business utilization specified in the RFP and includes enforceable teaming agreements. The proposal reflects a strong commitment to small business utilization and exceeds the recommend goals, which increase the potential for successful contract performance.

Weakness #1 – C.1 Small Business Utilization

Guidehouse received a weakness because its proposal did not contain several items of information required for the subcontracting plan, thereby increasing the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Weakness #2 – A.3 Proposed Labor Categories and Hours

Guidehouse’s proposed labor categories and hours were not sufficient to accomplish their approach to performing requirements across the entire core SOW scope. The proposal in this area reflects a flawed understanding of the technical requirements, increasing the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness #1 - B.6 Staffing Plan

Guidehouse’s proposed staffing plan was extremely inadequate and lacking in clarity. The staffing plan did not include information specified in the RFP and lacks adequate explanation of how proposed staff will be recruited, resulting in an unclear strategy for achieving each aspect of the hiring plan. The absence of the required information in the staffing plan is a critical flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Cost Factor

The IET evaluated the proposed costs and Attachment B, Direct Labor Rates, Indirect Rates and Fee Matrices, for reasonableness and cost realism. The IET determined a probable cost adjustment was not necessary for ICF or UCAR and made cost adjustments to Guidehouse’s proposed cost based on inadequate labor estimates to successfully perform the requirements, resulting in a net upward adjustment. All offerors proposed reasonable IDIQ labor rates.

UCAR had the significantly highest total proposed/probable cost, compared to both ICF and

Guidehouse. ICF had the second lowest total proposed/probable cost ($25,870,624), with a slightly higher probable cost than Guidehouse. Guidehouse had the lowest total proposed/probable cost.

Past Performance Factor

The results of the IET’s evaluation of Past Performance are summarized below:

Offeror Overall Confidence Rating

ICF, Inc Very High

UCAR Very High

Guidehouse, LLP Very High

ICF, Inc.

ICF received a Very High level of confidence Past Performance rating based on its very highly rated performance on multiple very highly relevant contracts. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a Very High level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

UCAR

UCAR received a Very High level of confidence Past Performance rating based on its very highly rated performance on multiple very highly relevant cooperative agreements. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a Very High level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

ICF received a Very High level of confidence Past Performance rating based on its very highly rated performance on multiple very highly relevant contracts. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a Very High level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Source Selection Decision

I carefully reviewed the IET’s Mission Suitability, Past Performance and Cost presentation as well as the Cost Report. On March 8, 2021, I, the Source Selection Authority, along with ex-officio advisors, met with the IET to discuss the IET’s evaluation. The findings presented by the IET, as documented in its presentation entitled “U.S. Global Change Research Program

National Coordination Office Support Services Procurement Presentation to the Source

Selection Authority” and the accompanying USGCRP Cost Report were detailed, consistent with the evaluation criteria in the USGCRP NCO Support Services RFP, and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal. I determined that the findings were reasonable and valid for the purpose of making a selection decision. I agreed with the IET’s findings, ratings, and cost analysis results.

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

The Cost Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual

Factors, the Cost Factor is less important than the Mission Suitability Factor but more important than the Past Performance Factor.

Regarding the Mission Suitability Factor, the most important factor, I noted that the proposals submitted by ICF and UCAR were of similar overall technical merit with ‘Good’ ratings, and superior to the proposal submitted by Guidehouse, which the IET rated as ‘Fair.’

I then closely reviewed the evaluation findings underlying the ratings. ICF received two strengths for its Technical Scenario Approach and its commitment to small business utilization, and one weakness in the subcontractor strategy aspect of its Management

Approach. UCAR received one significant strength for its Technical Scenario Approach, one strength for its Management Approach for all aspects of the SOW, one weakness in its

Management Approach to Phase-In, and one significant weakness in small business utilization.

The UCAR significant strength for demonstrating an exemplary awareness of the operational and logistic aspects of the management and implementation of a Technical Support Unit stood out as the only significant strength finding among all Offerors. Though this finding provided me with high confidence in UCAR’s understanding of and approach to the scenario, it was offset by the significant weakness related to subcontracting goals and a failure to provide required information for the subcontracting plan, which did not reflect a commitment to small business utilization. Guidehouse received four strengths for its Technical Approach to

Information Technology, its Management Approach for all aspects of the SOW, its subcontractor strategy, and its commitment to small business utilization. Guidehouse also received two weaknesses in its Technical Approach for inadequate labor categories and hours to accomplish its proposed approach and missing required information in the proposed subcontracting plan, as well as a significant weakness in its Management Approach for an inadequate and unclear staffing plan. This significant weakness was of particular concern as it precluded an adequate understanding of how Guidehouse intended to staff the USGCRP effort.

I next considered the relative standing of the Offerors within the Mission Suitability factor.

While the Guidehouse proposal had multiple strengths, I found the significant weakness in the staffing plan, along with the weakness reflecting a flawed understanding of the technical requirements arising from the inadequate labor categories and hours under the Technical

Approach, introduced substantial performance risk. When comparing the Guidehouse proposal to that of UCAR, I determined the UCAR Mission Suitability proposal to be more advantageous overall. Though UCAR also received a significant weakness, which reflected significant risk in successful small business utilization, its proposal garnered an offsetting significant strength in its Technical Approach which showed a comprehensive understanding of the management and implementation of a Technical Support Unit, and increased confidence in its ability to successful perform the technical requirements. I concluded UCAR had a distinct competitive edge over Guidehouse in the Mission Suitability Factor.

When comparing the ICF proposal to Guidehouse’s, I observed the ICF proposal had no significant positive or negative findings. The ICF proposal had two strengths for its technical scenario response and small business utilization, to Guidehouse’s four strengths for its technical approach to IT, management approach for all aspects of the SOW, its subcontractor strategy, and its commitment to small business utilization. However, the Guidehouse proposal also carried a notable performance risk, arising from its significant weakness in the staffing plan, that was not present in ICF’s proposal. This led me to conclude that the ICF proposal had a distinct competitive edge over Guidehouse’s.

When comparing ICF and UCAR, I again observed that ICF had no significant positive or negative findings, and its two strengths slightly offset its weakness for the subcontractor strategy aspect of its Management Approach. UCAR, on the other hand, had both a significant strength and a significant weakness in its Mission Suitability approach, but the greatly enhanced confidence arising from its proposed approach to the technical scenario compensated for the significant risk to successful small business utilization presented by its proposal. UCAR also received one strength for its management approach for all aspects of the SOW and a weakness in its Management Approach to Phase-In. Considering all of these aspects of the proposal, I found that UCAR’s positive findings counterbalanced its negative findings.

Ultimately, though the nature and weight of findings for the two approaches varied, the positive findings either counterbalanced or offset the negative findings. This led me to conclude the two proposals were of similar merit under the Mission Suitability factor.

I next considered the Cost Factor. I reviewed the Proposed and Probable Costs for the

Core requirement and the proposed Phase-In prices. UCAR’s proposed and probable cost was significantly higher than both ICF and Guidehouse, making it much less competitive in the Cost factor. Guidehouse had the lowest Proposed and Probable Cost, however, the difference in total Probable Cost between ICF and Guidehouse was relatively small (under

10 percent). This resulted in Guidehouse having a small advantage in the Cost Factor compared to ICF, and both Guidehouse and ICF having a significant advantage over

UCAR.

Regarding the Past Performance evaluation, I noted that ICF, UCAR and Guidehouse had

Very High Past Performance ratings, with a combination of some Very Highly relevant contracts and overall Very High performance, and I therefore did not find this Factor to be a discriminator among the Offerors.

In making my best value determination, I looked to the relative importance of the three evaluation factors under the RFP. Because the least important factor—Past Performance— was not a discriminator, my decision rested upon the merits of each Offeror’s proposal under the Mission Suitability and Cost Factors. In the most heavily weighted factor, Mission

Suitability, both UCAR and ICF received higher overall ratings, with their findings reflecting less overall performance risk than that presented by Guidehouse’s While Guidehouse’s proposal had the lowest proposed and probable cost, the cost advantage over ICF was small, and I found it did not offset the performance risks reflected in Guidehouse’s Mission

Suitability proposal. I concluded the lower risk presented by ICF’s proposal was worth the associated cost premium. Between ICF and UCAR, ICF’s substantially lower proposed and probable cost provided a significant advantage over the UCAR proposal. I considered that

UCAR’s proposal yielded a significant strength in the form of greatly enhanced confidence arising from its technical scenario response, and a strength for its well-developed management approach across the SOW but did not find these attributes worth the significant premium, particularly given the proposal also carried a significant weakness in its proposed small business utilization.

Accordingly, based on my analysis of the IET evaluation results and the RFP evaluation criteria, I have determined that the ICF, Inc. proposal offers the best value to the Government and select ICF, Inc. for award of the U.S. Global Change Research Program National

Coordination Office (USGCRP NCO) Support Services contract.

Karen St. Germain, Director, Date

Earth Science Division, Science Mission Directorate

Source Selection Authority