WMAC II Source Selection Statement 1.14.2011.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR WALLOPS MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION (WMAC) II

On January 13, 2022, I met with members of the WMAC II Integrated Evaluation Team and other key senior NASA management officials via teleconference for the purpose of selecting new vendors for award of the WMAC II contract.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The WMAC II requirement was issued as a multiple award indefinite delivery indefinite quantity procurement to acquire construction services for NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) and Langley Research Center (LaRC).

The Facilities Management Branch is responsible for new construction, modification, demolition, or rehabilitation of facilities, varying from routine general construction to installation of complex special test or laboratory systems. It may include work on building interiors and exteriors, including, but not limited to structural, electrical, mechanical, environmental, and fire protection/detection. It may also include civil site work, and both underground and surface site utility system work.

Pursuant to task orders issued by the Contracting Officer, the WMAC II contractor shall furnish all materials, labor, equipment, management, coordination and quality control necessary for the performance of construction, modification, repair and rehabilitation of facilities at WFF and LaRC as specified in the WMAC II Statement of Work (SOW).

The Request for Proposal (RFP) was released on June 17, 2021. Four amendments were issued to the RFP:

• Amendment 1 was issued on July 9, 2021, to incorporate revisions to the RFP Cover Letter, SF1442 entitled, "Solicitation, Offer, and Award", RFP section B-M, entitled,"80GSFC21R WMAC RFP, Enclosure 2, entitled "Adobe Acrobat DC Conversion Instructions", Attachment D, entitled "Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Card Issuance Procedures", Incorporate Attachment F, entitled Construction Wage Determination and provide responses to questions.

• Amendment 2 was issued on July 22, 2021, to incorporate revision to the RFP Cover

Letter, SF1442 entitled, "Solicitation, Offer, and Award", RFP Section B-M, entitled,"80GSFC21R0028R WMAC II RFP, delete Attachment B, entitled, "IDIQ FIXED PRICE RATES MATRIX" and provide responses to questions.

• Amendment 3 was issued August 05, 2021, to revise the geographical boundary requirement from: “The SBA Richmond District Office jurisdiction” to “8(A) Business Development program participants headquartered, or having a bona fide place of business;

within 150 miles of Wallops and Langley”. The following sections of the RFP have been revised: L.20, entitled, “Technical Acceptability Volume and Section, M.1 GSFC 52.215-

300 Source Selection and Evaluation Factors --General (SEP 2019) and the Cover Letter.

As a result of this change, the proposal due date was extended through August 12, 2021.

• Amendment 4 was issued on August 10, 2021, to revise the geographical boundary requirement reference to miles from “within 150 miles of Wallops and Langley” to “within 150-mile radius of Wallops and Langley”.

The resultant contract will be a Firm Fixed Price, Multiple Award, Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite- Quantity (IDIQ) task order contract with an effective ordering period of five (5) years, with no option periods.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 236220 and the size standard is $39.5M. The maximum ordering value is $39.4M.

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

Thirteen (13) companies submitted proposals in response to the WMAC II solicitation. One (1) of the 13 proposals submitted by Borealis Enterprises, LLC was deemed late and not evaluated. The following twelve (12) companies submitted timely proposals by August 12, 2021:

Baron-Rand, JV, LLC Gana-A ‘Yoo Construction Services, JV, LLC Mark Turner Construction, LLC

MIG GOV, LLC

New Dominion Construction, LLC QCM, Inc Quality Contracting, Inc R.H. Contracting, Inc SES Energy Services, LLC Succor Ocean, JV Tazewell Contracting Teya Enterprises, LLC

The RFP stated that the Government intended to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions with Offerors, except clarifications. The RFP also stated that the Government reserved the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer (CO) later determined them to be necessary. Following the initial evaluation of proposals, discussions were held with all Offerors.

Discussions were conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.306.

After discussions concluded, Baron-Rand, Gana-A ‘Yoo Construction Services, Mark Turner Construction, MIG GOV, New Dominion Construction, QCM, Quality Contracting, R.H.

Contracting, SES Energy Services, Succor Ocean, Tazewell and Teya submitted timely Final Proposal Revisions.

The IET completed its final evaluation of proposals on January 5, 2022 and documented its findings in the Source Selection presentation. The results of the final evaluation were presented to me on January 13, 2022 and are discussed below.

EVALUATION PROCESS

As NASA’s Source Selection Authority (SSA) for this procurement, I appointed the IET, which included a team of technical and business members and consultants from appropriate disciplines, to assist in proposal evaluations.

The RFP stated that vendors would be awarded a contract provided that all Technical Acceptability Standards (TAS) are met and rated “acceptable”; and the Offeror’s Past Performance received a “Pass” rating. In addition, a responsibility determination was made for each Offeror in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in FAR Subpart 9.1.

Per the RFP, the following Technical Acceptability Standards were used by the evaluation team to determine the Offeror’s technical acceptability:

A. Bonding Capability - The Offeror’s proposal provided sufficient and verifiable documentation that validates the Offeror’s ability to meet, as a minimum, both a current bonding capacity for this acquisition of at least $5M for any one project.

B. Safety and Health Plan - The Offeror’s proposed top-level Safety and Health Plan addresses all the elements specified under provision L.20 of the solicitation.

C. SBA Documentation - The Offeror’s provided adequately documentation that demonstrates that it has a headquartered (principal place of business) or an approved bona fide place of business; within 150 miles of Wallops and Langley.

The Offeror’s proposals were evaluated to ensure that the proposals completely and adequately addressed the three (3) Technical Acceptability Standards.

Per the RFP, the Offeror’s past/current relevant past performance history was evaluated on a pass/fail basis. Following proposal receipt, the Contracting Officer reviewed the Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) System (www.cpars.gov) to review any relevant past performance information for the Offeror within the last 3 years of the RFP release date. Relevant past performance information included any performance history. Per the RFP, an Offeror would fail and therefore would not be eligible for contract award only in the event that its relevant past performance history reflected significant performance issues (e.g. extensive contractor caused delays, significant rework, defects, etc.) which were inadequately explained in their written response to the Contracting Officer.

http://www.cpars.gov/ http://www.cpars.gov/

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY STANDARDS EVALUATION RESULTS

Baron-Rand, LLC.

Baron-Rand’s proposal met all three (3) technical acceptability standards and was rated “Acceptable”.

Gana-A ‘Yoo Construction Services, LLC.

Gana-A ‘Yoo Construction Services’ proposal met all three (3) technical acceptability standards and was rated “Acceptable”.

Mark Turner Construction

Mark Turner Construction’s proposal met all three (3) technical acceptability standards and was rated “Acceptable”.

MIG GOV, LLC.

MIG GOV’s proposal met all three (3) technical acceptability standards and was rated “Acceptable”.

New Dominion Construction, LLC, New Dominion Construction’s proposal met all three (3) technical acceptability standards and was rated “Acceptable”.

QCM, Inc.

QCM’s proposal met all three (3) technical acceptability standards and was rated “Acceptable”.

Quality Contracting, Inc.

Quality Contracting’s proposal met all three (3) technical acceptability standards and was rated

R.H. Contracting, Inc.

R.H. Contracting’s proposal met all three (3) technical acceptability standards and was rated

SES Energy Services, LLC.

SES Energy Service’s proposal met all three (3) technical acceptability standards and was rated

Succor-Ocean, LLC.

Succor-Ocean’s proposal met all three (3) technical acceptability standards and was rated

Tazewell Contracting

Tazewell Contracting’s proposal met all three (3) technical acceptability standards and was rated

Teya Enterprises, LLC.

Teya Enterprise’s proposal met all three (3) technical acceptability standards and was rated

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS

A review of the Offerors Past Performance Volume (PPV) and Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) System was conducted to evaluate each Offerors recent and relevant past performance information for the Offeror within the last three (3) years of the RFP release date.

Baron-Rand, LLC.

Based on the IET’s review of Baron-Rand’s relevant past performance information, the IET concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the IET deemed Baron-Rand, LLC’s past performance rating as “PASS” and the offeror eligible for contract award.

Gana-A ‘Yoo Construction Services, LLC.

Based on the IET’s review of Gana-A ‘Yoo Construction Services’ relevant past performance information, the IET concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the IET deemed Gana-A ‘Yoo Construction Services, LLC’s past performance rating as “PASS” and the offeror eligible for contract award.

Mark Turner Construction

Based on the IET’s review of Mark Turner Construction’s relevant past performance information, the IET concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the IET deemed Mark Turner Construction’s past performance rating as “PASS” and the offeror eligible for contract award.

MIG GOV, LLC.

Based on the IET’s review of MIG GOV’s relevant past performance information, the IET concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the IET deemed MIG GOV, LLC’s past performance rating as “PASS” and the offeror eligible for contract award.

New Dominion Construction, LLC.

Based on the IET’s review of New Dominion Construction’s relevant past performance information, the IET concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the IET deemed New Dominion Construction, LLC’s past performance rating as “PASS” and the offeror eligible for contract award.

QCM, Inc.

Based on the IET’s review of QCM’s relevant past performance information, the IET concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the IET deemed QCM, Inc’s past performance rating as “PASS” and the offeror eligible for contract award.

Quality Contracting, Inc.

Based on the IET’s review of Quality Contracting’s relevant past performance information, the IET concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the IET deemed Quality Contracting, Inc’s past performance rating as “PASS” and the offeror eligible for contract award.

R.H. Contracting, Inc.

Based on the IET’s review of R.H. Contracting’s relevant past performance information, the IET concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the IET deemed R.H. Contracting, Inc’s past performance rating as “PASS” and the offeror eligible for contract award.

SES Energy Services, LLC.

Based on the IET’s review of SES Energy Services’ relevant past performance information, the IET concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the IET deemed SES Energy Services, LLC’s past performance rating as “PASS” and the offeror eligible for contract award.

Succor-Ocean, LLC.

Based on the IET’s review of Succor-Ocean’s relevant past performance information, the IET concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the IET deemed Succor-Ocean, LLC’s past performance rating as “PASS” and the offeror eligible for contract award.

Succor-Ocean, LLC.

Based on the IET’s review of Succor-Ocean, LLC’s relevant past performance information, the IET concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the IET deemed Succor-Ocean, LLC’s past performance rating as “PASS” and the offeror eligible for contract award.

Tazewell Contracting

Based on the IET’s review of Tazewell Contracting’s relevant past performance information, the IET concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the IET deemed Tazewell Contracting’s past

Based on the IET’s review of Teya Enterprises’ relevant past performance information, the IET concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the IET deemed Teya Enterprises, LLC’s past

SELECTION DECISION

In making my determination, I reviewed the evaluation criteria and procedures that are summarized in this document and detailed in the RFP. During the presentation, I solicited the views of the evaluation team and key management personnel that were in attendance and have responsibilities related to the procurement. I also carefully reviewed the evaluation team’s presentation and documentation in support of their evaluation results and concur with their findings.

Following my careful review and analysis, it is my conclusion that based on the evaluation findings, the 12 Offerors successfully meet all required RFP Technical Acceptability Standards and are determined acceptable.

Moreover, based on the overall favorable review and evaluation of each Offeror’s past/current relevant past performance history, I concur that there were no significant performance issues or relevant past performance history that reflects significant performance issues (e.g. extensive contractor caused delays, significant rework, defects, etc.) which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed by Baron-Rand, JV, Gana-A ‘Yoo Construction Services, JV, Mark Turner Construction, MIG GOV, New Dominion Construction, QCM, Quality Contracting, R.H.

Contracting, SES Energy Services, Succor Ocean, JV, Tazewell Contracting or Teya Enterprises.

Accordingly, I concur with each of the Offerors receiving Past Performance ratings of “Pass.”

Therefore, I select the following 12 Offerors and their respective proposal for contract award under the WMAC II acquisition.

Offerors

Baron-Rand, JV, LLC.

Gana-A ‘Yoo Construction Services, JV, LLC.

Mark Turner Construction, LLC.

MIG GOV, LLC.

New Dominion Construction, LLC.

QCM, Inc.

Quality Contracting, Inc.

R.H. Contracting, Inc.

SES Energy Services, LLC.

Succor Ocean, JV

Tazewell Contracting

David Reth Date Source Selection Authority

Jan 14, 2022