Page 20 of 21

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

In making the selection decision, | conducted an integrated assessment of each proposal and
considered the relative weight of the evaluation factors as indicated within the RFP and that all
factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price.

For the comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria, | first
considered Logical. Logical was the highest rated proposal under Mission Suitability, as well as
the highest priced proposal. Logical’s Mission Suitability rating reflects a superior approach
compared to the other Offerors, particularly with regard to the phase-in and cross-training,
cross-utilization and backfilling of administrative positions under RTO 1. Logical’s proposed PM
also provides a benefit to LaRC, but only somewhat more than Alutiig, GenTech, and SDSE, with
the main difference being the number of years managing a contract similar to LAMPS. On Past
Performance, Logical’s proposal, along with Crewestone’s, was the lowest rated of all Offerors
based largely on the fact that Logical’s relevant experience concerns contracts that are less than
10% of the LAMPS annual estimated value. As stated above, | am concerned that, due to the
broad range of work required by the LAMPS PWS, as well as the size of the LAMPS contract and
the fact that many diverse LaRC organizations will rely on the LAMPS contractor for their
administrative, professional and media needs, this lack of demonstrated performance on
contracts similar in size to LAMPS presents a significant risk to LaRC. As a result, when
compared to GenTech, Logical’s superior rating under the Mission Suitability factor, when offset
by its substantially lower Moderate Level of Confidence under the Past Performance Factor,
does not justify the higher price due to the presence of this significant risk. As a result, Logical’s
proposal does not represent the best value for LaRC.

| next considered Crewestone. Crewestone’s price is slightly higher than GenTech, and
Crewestone’s proposal was rated slightly higher than GenTech under the Mission Suitability
factor; however, Crewestone’s proposal was also rated substantially lower than GenTech under
Past Performance. Crewestone’s Moderate confidence rating on Past Performance is based
primarily on the fact that Crewestone’s relevant experience concerns contracts that are less
than 10% of the LAMPS annual estimated value. Like Logical, this lack of demonstrated
performance on contracts similar in size to LAMPS presents a significant risk to LaRC. Asa
result, Crewestone’s slightly higher Mission Suitability score, when offset by its substantially
lower Past Performance confidence rating, does not justify the slightly higher cost of the
Crewestone proposal. Therefore, Crewestone’s proposal does not represent the best value for
LaRC.

SDSE is the lowest price proposal, and received the second lowest Mission Suitability rating
(ahead of Alutiiq) and second highest score on Past Performance (after GenTech) with a “High
Level of Confidence.” SDSE scored below GenTech under the Mission Suitability factor, with
both Offerors receiving “Good” ratings under each subfactor. As discussed above, | consider
the GenTech proposal’s approach to day-to-day management of the total contract as a key
discriminator and of substantial benefit to LaRC. In addition, SDSE’s Weakness under the
Mission Suitability factor presents substantial risk, because it deals with contract management


Page 14 of 21

The following table summarizes Mission Suitability ratings:

Otero Total Subfactor 1 Subfactor 2
Score (MGMT) (URTA)
Alutiiq 478 Fair Fair
Crewestone 714 Good Very Good
GenTech 654 Good Good
Logical 920 Excellent Excellent
SDSE 610 Good Good

Factor 2: Cost/Price

The SEB and Cost/Price analyst performed an analysis of the proposed prices to assess price
reasonableness for CLIN 1 and cost realism for CLIN 2 and to determine whether the Offerors
demonstrated a clear understanding of the requirement and could perform the contract for the
below stated cost/price. A summary of the total overall evaluated cost/price by ranking is
shown in the table below:

Offeror Total Overall Evaluated
Cost/Price
Alutiig an
Crewestone qn
GenTech y
Logical 5" (Highest)
SDSE 1* (Lowest)

Based on the analysis and in accordance with FAR 15.402, the Contracting Officer determined
that the Offerors’ proposed prices are fair and reasonable based on the spread from the highest
proposed cost/price to the lowest proposed cost/price, comparison of the proposed
costs/prices to the Independent Government Cost Estimate, the Cost/Price Report from the
Cost/Price Analyst, the SEB evaluation, and the fact that adequate price competition was
obtained. No probable cost adjustments under CLIN 2 were needed for any of the five Offerors;
therefore, for each Offeror there is no difference between its proposed price and its evaluated
price.

Factor 3: Past Performance
The SEB evaluated the Offeror’s past performance records in accordance with M.3 of the RFP.

The SEB considered each Offeror’s (to include significant subcontractors) record of performing
contracts similar in size, content and complexity to the LAMPS requirement.


Page 5 of 21

Offeror must meet the requirements of both components to achieve a particular rating. In
assessing pertinence, the Government will consider the degree of similarity in size, content, and
complexity to the requirements in this solicitation, as well as how current/recent the past
performance is.”

Rating Definitions:
The SEB used the following confidence level ratings to evaluate the Past Performance Factor

(NFS 1815.305):

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

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

Moderate Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this
acquisition, and 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, there is a moderate level of confidence that the
Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat
pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards;
adequate results; reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall
performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence
that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the Offeror’s existing
processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

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

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


Page 21 of 21

during phase-in. Because GenTech has a Strength in an area that cuts across the entire contract
which | consider a strong indicator of successful performance, and because SDSE has a
weakness in a key area that introduces risk of unsuccessful performance, GenTech’s proposal is
clearly superior to SDSE’s under Mission Suitability. GenTech is also superior under the Past
Performance Factor; the difference in the Confidence Level ratings for GenTech (Very High) and
SDSE (High) demonstrates GenTech’s experience level across the wide range of work required
by the LAMPS PWS that is not matched by SDSE. As a result, when combined, the superior
proposed Mission Suitability approach and very high level of confidence in Past Performance of
GenTech more than offsets the 9% price difference between GenTech and SDSE.

Therefore, | find that the selection of GenTech’s proposal is in the Government's best interest
and provides the best value for the Government. Accordingly, | select GenTech for award of the
LAMPS contract.

A ARM, type) Date: _<J-23-/2.

Cathy H. Méngum /
Source Selection  herty 2



Page 18 of 21

In comparing the Offerors in the area of Mission Suitability, | first noted that the Alutiiq
proposal received the lowest overall score for this Factor by a substantial margin, with a few
Significant Weaknesses and several Weaknesses resulting in “Fair” ratings in both Subfactors.
Because another proposal received a significantly higher Mission Suitability score, with the
same Past Performance confidence rating and a lower price, the Alutiiq proposal could not
represent the best value for award, and | no longer considered Alutiiq’s proposal in my
deliberations.

Reviewing the Mission Suitability findings for the remaining proposals, | noted that Logical’s
proposal received the highest score for this Factor with an adjectival rating of “Excellent” for
each Subfactor based on several Strengths and a few Significant Strengths. Logical received
Significant Strengths for its proposed Program Manager (PM); its phase-in approach; and its
RTO 1 approach for cross-training, cross-utilization and backfilling by position. The
demonstrated experience of Logical’s proposed PM on work very similar to LAMPS would be of
benefit to LaRC. Logical’s phase-in approach would provide a benefit to LaRC through a
detailed plan for working initial task orders during the important phase-in period. Logical’s RTO
1 approach also has benefit to LaRC in contract performance by ensuring qualified and properly
trained administrative personnel will be available to perform LAMPS requirements. | did not
identify any significant discriminators for the Mission Suitability rating among the other
Strengths in Logical’s proposal.

Crewestone’s proposal received the second-highest score for Mission Suitability due to a
“Good” rating in Subfactor 1 and a “Very Good” rating in Subfactor 2. The “Very Good” rating
in Subfactor 2 was largely based on a Significant Strength for Crewestone’s comprehensive
approach to cross-training, cross-utilization and backfilling the LAMPS administrative positions
under RTO 1. This aspect of Crewestone’s proposal would provide a benefit with regard to
contract performance, as Crewestone’s approach will help to establish and maintain proper
training and preparation of the LAMPS administrative personnel. | did not identify any
significant discriminators for the Mission Suitability rating among the other Strengths in
Crewestone’s proposal.

GenTech’s proposal received the third-highest score for Mission Suitability and “Good” ratings
in both Subfactors. GenTech received several Strengths for Subfactor 1, including a Strength for
its approach to the day-to-day management of the total contract through an automated and
integrated system tool. This Strength is noteworthy because this was the only proposal to
receive a Strength for the approach to day-to-day management of the total contract as
evaluated under the Management Subfactor. Due to the broad range of work required by the
LAMPS PWS, as well as the size of the contract and the fact that many diverse LaRC
organizations will rely on the LAMPS contractor for their administrative, professional and media
needs, demonstrating the ability to successfully manage the total contract on a day-to-day basis
is critical to determining best value for LaRC. For this reason, | consider the automated system
tool proposed by GenTech, which will facilitate, among other things, scheduling, access to
resource information, metric collection and monitoring, as well as the task order process, to
provide a substantial benefit to LaRC.


Page 10 of 21

Subfactor 2 - Understanding the Requirement and Technical Approach (URTA’

Crewestone received an adjectival rating of Very Good for Subfactor 2.

Approach to Representative Task Orders — RTO 1 Administrative Support

Crewestone received a Significant Strength for its comprehensive approach for cross-
training, cross-utilization and backfilling positions, which included the identification of
backup personnel; the development of work process handbooks; development of a skills
inventory; and employee development.

GenTech

GenTech received a Mission Suitability score of 654. GenTech’s final proposal evaluation
contained strengths as summarized below. There were no significant strengths, significant
weaknesses, or weaknesses.

Subfactor 1—~ Management (MGMT,

GenTech received an adjectival rating of Good for Subfactor 1.

Management Approach and Organizational Structure
GenTech received a Strength for its effective structured approach for the day-to-day

management of the total contract through the use of an automated system tool that is ISO
compliant which will facilitate consistency in the management approach. GenTech’s
approach supports an effective process for staffing decisions to meet task order
requirements, to aid in metric collection and monitoring, and to support efficiency in the
task order process.

In addition, GenTech received a Strength for proposing an experienced and qualified person
responsible for the overall performance of the LAMPS contract. The proposed Program
Manager (PM) has eleven years of experience as a contract program manager with one year
of experience on a contract encompassing services commensurate with LAMPS.

Recruitment, Retention, and Continuity of Services
GenTech received a Strength for its sound management approach to attract, recruit, hire,

certify, train, and retain qualified personnel by exhibiting an investment in employee
education, certification, and advancement. GenTech proposed use of the ManTech
University for LAMPS team members for additional professional, administrative, and
information technology training which fosters retention and increases career-broadening
opportunities for employees. GenTech also proposed the additional investment of tuition
reimbursement funding, performance-based bonuses, and merit-based pay increases to
enhance the level of qualified personnel and help attract and retain the most qualified
personnel.


Page 7 of 21

The SEB, in concert with the Cost/Price Analyst, reviewed each Offeror’s Business Proposal to
determine whether the cost/price proposal was reasonable, realistic and consistent with the
technical approach. The Cost/Price Analyst assessed the cost/price proposals to ensure
compliance with the Cost/Price evaluation factor. The SEB provided the results of its review of
the Business Proposals to the Cost/Price Analyst who incorporated those results into the
detailed analysis of the Offeror’s cost/price proposals.

The Contracting Officer carefully reviewed the facts presented in the initial findings and
discussed the findings with the SEB. In accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Contracting
Officer determined that, based on the SEB’s initial findings, discussions would be required and
award without discussions could not be made. The Contracting Officer also determined that
the LOGMET and STOPSO proposals were not among the most highly rated proposals and
excluded them from the competitive range. A competitive range of the most highly rated
proposals (Alutiiq, Crewestone, GenTech, Logical, and SDSE) was established in accordance with
FAR 15.306(c).

On December 8, 2011, the Contracting Officer notified Alutiiq, Crewestone, GenTech, Logical,
and SDSE that their proposals were included in the competitive range. Discussion questions
were issued on December 8, 2011 to each of the five Offerors providing them with an
opportunity to address weaknesses identified as a result of the evaluation process described
above. Where needed, additional discussion questions were issued on January 12, 2012 to
address responses to prior discussion questions. All responses were reviewed and evaluated by
the SEB.

Final Proposal Revisions were requested on January 20, 2012 with a response date of
January 24, 2012.

EVALUATION FINDINGS
Factor 1: Mission Suitability

Set forth below is a summary of the final Mission Suitability Findings for the five Offerors in the
competitive range:

Alutiiq

Alutiiq received a Mission Suitability score of 478. Alutiiq’s final proposal evaluation contained
a strength, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses, as summarized below. There were no
significant strengths.

Subfactor 1—~ Management (MGMT

Alutiig received an adjectival rating of Fair for Subfactor 1.


Page 6 of 21

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Prior to issuance of the RFP, an SEB was appointed to conduct an evaluation of proposals
received in response to the RFP. The SEB conducted the evaluation of proposals in accordance
with Section M of the RFP. The SEB began its evaluation upon receipt of the Past Performance
Volumes (Volume III), which were received from the Offerors prior to the proposal due date.
The SEB members reviewed each Offeror’s Past Performance Proposal, all of the past
performance questionnaires, and information obtained from the Past Performance Information
Retrieval System (PPIRS). The SEB considered all the performance and pertinence findings in
assigning an adjectival rating for each Offeror as defined in the RFP. The pertinence findings
consist of an integrated assessment of the relevance to LAMPS of the size, content (as
compared to the LAMPS Performance Work Statement (PWS)) and complexity of the contracts
submitted by each Offeror. To determine work content relevance, the SEB compared the
description of the contracts within the Offeror’s past performance proposal to the work (by
PWS area) in the LAMPS PWS. For size and complexity relevance, the SEB compared the size
and complexity of each contract submitted to the LAMPS contract. The SEB then assigned an
overall pertinence rating for each Offeror. The SEB then considered the overall pertinence
rating along with the SEB’s assessment of the Offeror’s performance ratings to assign an overall
past performance confidence level based on the definitions in the NFS and the RFP.

Upon receipt of the Technical Proposal (Volume !) and the Business Proposal (Volume II), the
SEB conducted an initial review of each Technical Proposal and the Cost/Price Analyst reviewed
the Business Proposals to determine if any were unacceptable proposals as defined in NASA
FAR Supplement 1815.305-70. The Contract Specialist reviewed each model contract,
applicable terms and conditions, and Representations and Certifications for each Offeror.
Immediately following receipt of proposals, it appeared that all proposals were acceptable and
warranted a full evaluation. However, C&C was subsequently removed from further
consideration, thus a full evaluation was not conducted on C&C’s proposal. On November 28,
2011, the Contracting Officer informed C&C that its proposal was removed from further
consideration.

Each SEB member performed a detailed review of the remaining Offerors’ Technical Proposals
and documented strengths and weaknesses for each Mission Suitability Subfactor. The SEB
consultants independently reviewed specific areas of each proposal relevant to the factor for
which they possess subject matter expertise and provided input to the SEB voting members for
consideration. After completion of the individual evaluations for each subfactor, the SEB
convened to discuss individual Findings and to develop consensus on strengths and weaknesses
for each of the Offerors. The SEB then reviewed the Findings for each Offeror to ensure that all
proposals were evaluated consistently and objectively. Upon completion of the evaluation of
all subfactors for all Offerors, the SEB assigned adjectival ratings and percentage scores to each
subfactor based on the consensus findings, and then assigned a point score for each subfactor
to derive the overall Mission Suitability score in accordance with NFS 1815.305.


Page 19 of 21

SDSE’s proposal received the fourth-highest score for Mission Suitability and “Good” ratings for
both subfactors. SDSE received a few Strengths, as well as a Weakness for its approach to
responding to task order requests and risk mitigation during phase-in. | did not identify any
discriminators for the Mission Suitability rating among the Strengths in SDSE’s proposal. The
SEB informed me that the Weakness was identified in discussions, but that SDSE’s response did
not adequately address the risk to performance represented by this Weakness. Because SDSE’s
Weakness concerns its ability to address task orders during phase-in, which affects overall
contract management and performance during an important contract phase, this Weakness
presents a risk to LaRC under this Factor.

Next, | considered Factor 2, Cost/Price, for the remaining Offerors. All Offerors’ costs/prices
were determined to be fair and reasonable. Logical is the highest priced proposal with a price
approximately 3% higher than Crewestone, 4% higher than GenTech, and 13% higher than
SDSE. The next highest price proposal was from Crewestone, which was just slightly higher
than GenTech and less than 10% higher than SDSE. GenTech is the second-lowest priced
proposal, and is approximately 9% higher than SDSE, with SDSE as the lowest priced proposal.

For Factor 3, Past Performance, | noted that the overall Past Performance factor ratings were
derived from the SEB’s rating of a pertinence and performance component to arrive at an
overall confidence rating. All Offerors demonstrated overall Exceptional performance, so the
differences in the confidence ratings were driven by the differences in the pertinence
component of the Past Performance information evaluated.

GenTech received the highest possible rating of a “Very High Level of Confidence” based on the
fact that the contracts were evaluated as being Very Highly Pertinent to the LAMPS
requirement. | noted that SDSE received the next highest rating of “High Level of Confidence.”
This was primarily due to the fact that the content of the evaluated contracts for SDSE was
merely Pertinent in the administrative and professional services areas of the PWS, which
influenced SDSE’s overall pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent. Logical received a “Moderate
Level of Confidence” based largely on the fact that its largest contract evaluated was less than
10% of the LAMPS estimated annual value, which reduces my confidence that Logical has the
requisite experience to successfully perform the substantially larger LAMPS contract.
Crewestone, like Logical, has not performed contracts similar in size to LAMPS, as the size of the
largest contract evaluated was also less than 10% of the LAMPS estimated annual value.
Primarily for this reason, Crewestone also received an overall rating of “Moderate Level of
Confidence” which raises similar concerns about Crewestone’s ability to perform.


Page 9 of 21

adequate approach to implement a one-stop-shop, Alutiiq did not provide an adequate plan
for initiating, transitioning to, and operating a virtual one-stop-shop for media support
services.

Understanding of Technical Risks

Alutiiq received a Significant Weakness for not adequately identifying the significant
technical risks and not adequately addressing the management of the risks inherent in
performing the requirements in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Representative
Task Orders (RTOs). Although Alutiiq identified some technical performance risks, Alutiiq did
not identify inherent significant technical risks specific to LAMPS that would demonstrate
technical understanding of the PWS and RTOs.

Crewestone

Crewestone received a Mission Suitability score of 714. Crewestones’s final proposal
evaluation included a significant strength and strengths as summarized below. There were no
significant weaknesses or weaknesses.

Subfactor 1—- Management (MGMT,

Crewestone received an adjectival rating of Good for Subfactor 1.

Recruitment, Retention, and Continuity of Services
Crewestone received a Strength for its sound management approach to attract, recruit, hire,

and retain qualified personnel. Crewestone’s management approach contained an
incentive/recognition program that includes an annual bonus for sustained professional
performance exceeding normal performance requirements and spot bonuses for nominal
awards for immediate recognition. Crewestone also included a provision for grandfathering
incumbent employees’ years of service to LaRC.

Phase-In Plan

Crewestone received a Strength for its sound phase-in plan that included a management and
staffing approach, the transition of task performance, and a communication plan.
Crewestone’s management and staffing approach for phase-in identified a Task Order
Management Lead who will track the status of all Task Plans and ensure that all Task Order
responses are timely. Their phase-in plan for the transition of task performance and phase-
in activities included a Readiness Review with adequate schedule reserve, which provides
time to resolve lingering issues discovered in the review. The effective communication plan
included multiple modes of communications designed to promote timely information flow
between the Contractor and the Government as well as between the Contractor and its
potential new employees.


SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT
Langley Administrative, Media, and Professional Services (LAMPS)
Request for Proposal (RFP) NNL11383762R

PROCUREMENT BACKGROUND

The LAMPS contract will provide professional support services, media services, and
administrative support services to various organizations, programs, and projects throughout
NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) as specified in individual task orders. The support
services include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Professional Support Services
(Financial/resource program analysis, procurement, technical editing, public affairs, education,
library, interpreter (oral and sign language), Subject Matter Expert (SME), proposal
development, Independent Cost Estimate (ICE)); (2) Media (Photography, graphics, video,
printing and duplication); and (3) Administrative Support (Secretarial, administrative, and event
coordination).

The LAMPS procurement will result in award to the Offeror who presents the best value to the
Government based on the evaluation of Mission Suitability, Cost/Price, and Past Performance
evaluation factors. The contract type is an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Task
Order contract with a Cost Reimbursable (No-Fee) contract line item. The period of
performance will be five years from the effective date of award.

A Procurement Strategy Meeting was held on April 13, 2011 at LaRC and the Procurement
Strategy was subsequently approved. The procurement was conducted as a set-aside under the
Small Business Administration’s 8(a) program. Market research was accomplished by posting a
Sources Sought Notice on FedBizzOpps (Federal Business Opportunities) website on

February 14, 2011. A Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) was issued on June 3, 2011 for
comments from industry. A Pre-Solicitation Conference was conducted via WebEx on June 14,
2011.

The RFP was issued on July 8, 2011 with a proposal response date of August 9, 2011 anda
request for the Past Performance Proposals (Volume III) to be submitted early by July 25, 2011.

The following companies responded to the RFP by the due date of August 9, 2011:

Alutiiq Diversified Services, LLC (Alutiiq)

C&C International Computers and Consultants, Inc. (C&C)
Crewestone Technologies, Inc. (Crewestone)

GenTech Partners Joint Venture (GenTech)

Logical Innovations, Inc. (Logical)

LOGMET

Smart Data Solutions d/b/a SDSE, LLC (SDSE)

Strategic Operational Solutions Inc. (STOPSO)


Page 12 of 21

Phase-In Plan

Logical received a Significant Strength for its detailed and comprehensive phase-in approach
including management and staffing, a detailed process for responding to task order requests,
and a sound communication plan. This detailed, structured phase-in plan included activities
beginning before contract award and continuing through contract start. The management
and staffing approach included an experienced phase-in manager. Logical included a detailed
process for working task orders from request through approval, which facilitates timely
initiation of performance of the task orders at contract start. The extensive communication
plan included multiple complementary methods of two-way communication with, and
providing information to, potential employees. The phase-in schedule concludes with
multiple Readiness Reviews.

Subfactor 2 - Understanding the Requirement and Technical Approach (URTA

Logical received an adjectival rating of Excellent for Subfactor 2.

Approach to Representative Task Orders — RTO 1 Administrative Support
Logical received a Significant Strength for its comprehensive and detailed approach for cross-

training, cross-utilization, and backfilling by position. Logical’s approach included developing
and documenting procedures tailored to each organization with focused cross-training
elements spanning across the secretarial and administrative duties. The proposal also
identified each secretarial and administrative assistant position by organization and the
person responsible for backfilling those positions. The approach included elements to ensure
the employees have the training and skills necessary to support the approach for cross-
training, cross-utilization, and backfilling.

Approach to Representative Task Orders — RTO 2 Media Services

Logical received a Strength for its sound technical approach for a non-disruptive transition
from the current media services into a one-stop-shop for media services that is based on
historical utilization data, customer input, decision points, target dates, and alternative paths
to full capability. Logical also included a logical workflow process for the implementation of
the one-stop-shop, which balances customers’ needs and the efficiency of the process.

Understanding of Technical Risks
Logical received a Strength for its effective approach for managing risks inherent in

performing the requirements. Logical’s approach to manage the Performance Work
Statement (PWS) and Representative Task Order (RTO) risks identified the appropriate
significant technical risks and involved all employees in the continuous identification of
additional risks.


Page 11 of 21

Subfactor 2 - Understanding the Requirement and Technical Approach (URTA’

GenTech received an adjectival rating of Good for Subfactor 2. There were no significant
strengths, strengths, weaknesses, or significant weaknesses for GenTech under Subfactor 2.

Logical

Logical received a Mission Suitability score of 920. Logical’s final proposal evaluation contained
significant strengths and strengths as summarized below. There were no significant
weaknesses or weaknesses.

Subfactor 1—- Management (MGMT)

Logical received an adjectival rating of Excellent for Subfactor 1.

Management Approach and Organizational Structure

Logical received a Significant Strength for proposing a highly qualified and experienced
person responsible for the overall performance of the LAMPS contract. Logical’s proposed
Program Manager (PM) has six years of experience as a program manager on a contract
encompassing services commensurate with LAMPS. The proposed PM also has 12 years
experience as Executive Vice President/Project Manager with management experience of
both resources and contracts for media, public affairs services, and education and outreach
programs. The proposed PM’s education includes a BA and an MA in relevant fields. The
proposed PM also held leadership roles in professional associations and participated in
leadership teams.

Recruitment, Retention, and Continuity of Services

Logical received a Strength for its flexible and effective approach to ensure continuity of
services during personnel absences. Logical outlined an approach that each employee is
assigned a primary responsibility with at least one backup area of responsibility in similar
skill sets. Logical presented possible staffing scenarios for both short and long-term
requirements and outlined strategies to cover those lapses.

In addition, Logical received a Strength for its effective approach to attract, recruit, hire,
train, and retain certified and qualified personnel. The proposed approach to attract, recruit,
and hire qualified employees included a wide range of hiring strategies and incentives to
increase the probability of attracting and recruiting viable candidates for employment. The
proposed approach to train qualified and certified personnel includes training in standard
practices, which are included in an Employee Handbook for future reference; training plans
tailored to employees and their job levels and required certifications; and resource guides
for easy reference on the job.


Page 8 of 21

Management Approach and Organizational Structure

Alutiiq received a Strength for proposing an experienced and qualified person responsible for
the overall performance of the LAMPS contract. Alutiiq’s proposed Program Manager (PM)
has eleven years of experience as a contract program manager with one year of experience
on a contract encompassing services commensurate with LAMPS.

Recruitment, Retention, and Continuity of Services

Alutiiq received a Weakness for not adequately describing its approach for ensuring
continuity of services during personnel absences due to sickness, leave, and voluntary or
involuntary termination from employment such that disruption to mission accomplishment is
minimal. Though Alutiiq’s proposal provided a mapping of labor categories for cross-training,
cross-utilization and backfilling for planned and unplanned absences, Alutiiq did not provide
supporting information on how this cross-training would be accomplished throughout the
PWS labor categories and how it would be accomplished for continuity of services.

Phase-In Plan

Alutiiq received a Significant Weakness for not presenting a complete process for responding
to Task Order (TO) requests in the phase-in period. The proposal addressed the initiation of
task planning for TOs and identified a plan to hire the incumbent Business Manager who will
be directly responsible for receiving and responding to all TOs during Phase-in without
providing adequate detail of the process to accomplish these TO responses while still
managing the current contract.

Alutiiq also received a Weakness for not adequately identifying risks associated with all
significant phase-in activities. Alutiiq identified numerous specific phase-in risks. However,
its detailed phase-in schedule lists various other significant phase-in activities, but did not
identify the risks associated with these phase-in activities.

Subfactor 2 - Understanding the Requirement and Technical Approach (URTA)

Alutiiq received an adjectival rating of Fair for Subfactor 2.

Approach to Representative Task Orders — RTO 1 Administrative Support

Alutiiq received a Weakness for not adequately describing its approach for cross-training,
cross-utilization and backfilling positions as indicated in its proposed staffing table. Although
Alutiiq mentions a number of strategies, Alutiig did not provide adequate implementation
details of its approach.

Approach to Representative Task Orders — RTO 2 Media Services

Alutiiq received a Weakness for its incomplete technical approach to support a one-stop-
shop for the Media Services Center. Alutiiq’s approach focused on the customer interface of
a single point of entry for work control and did not adequately integrate the media services
to create a seamless customer support operation and to remove redundancy. Without an


Page 4 of 21

Strength and Significant Strength are not defined in the FAR; however, the following definitions

from M.2(e) of the RFP were used:

Strength: An aspect of the proposal that increases the probability of successful contract

performance.

Significant Strength: An aspect of the proposal that appreciably increases the probability

of successful contract performance.

Factor 2: Cost/Price

The RFP did not provide for adjectival ratings or numerical scores under the Cost/Price Factor;

however, the RFP provided evaluation language within Section M, as follows:

NASA will evaluate the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Line Item Number

(CLIN) 1. NASA will perform a price analysis (ref: FAR 15.404-1(b)). Specifically,

NASA's price analysis will include, but may not be limited to, comparing all
ceiling prices proposed for CLIN 1 and comparing each proposed price to the
Independent Government Cost Estimate.

NASA will evaluate the cost-reimbursement (no-fee) CLIN. NASA will perform a
cost realism analysis (ref: FAR 15.404-1(d)). Because NASA has already provided
the direct costs each Offeror shall propose for CLIN 2, the cost realism analyses
to be performed will be limited to evaluating the realism of each Offeror’s
proposed indirect costs for CLIN 2. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d)(2)(i) &
(ii), the probable cost for CLIN 2 may differ from the proposed cost if NASA
determines (based on its cost realism analysis) that the proposed cost is
unrealistic for the work to be performed; the probable cost shall be used for the
purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. In order for NASA to
perform its cost realism analyses, Offerors are required to submit Information
Other than Cost or Pricing Data pursuant to FAR 15.403-3. Finally, NASA will
perform a price analysis by comparing all prices proposed for CLIN 2.

NASA will verify each Offeror’s compliance with Wage Determination (WD) and
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) requirements, as well as Limitations on
Subcontracting. Consequently, Offerors are required to submit Information
Other than Cost or Pricing Data pursuant to FAR 15.403-3.

Factor 3: Past Performance

Under the Past Performance Factor, the SEB assessed each Offeror’s record (to include the
record of significant subcontractors) of performing services that are similar in size, content, and
complexity to the requirements of the solicitation. Specifically, the RFP stated that “each of the
adjective ratings below has a performance component and a pertinence component. The


Page 15 of 21

In evaluating the relevance of size, the SEB considered the degree of similarity in size of
contracts submitted to the size of the LAMPS contract; however, in determining an overall
rating for size, the SEB considered the prime contractor's past performance to be most
significant.

In considering content, the SEB combined the PWS areas into three specific areas:
administrative services (PWS 4.1 and 4.2), professional services (PWS 4.3 through 4.13), and
media services (PWS 4.14). The SEB assigned a content rating to each specific area and
assessed these ratings to assign an overall content rating.

In considering complexity, the SEB considered a number of factors that included, but were not
limited to, the range of the scope of the work to be performed (e.g. administration,
professional, media); diversity and size of customer base; and whether the team member
performed as a prime or subcontractor for the relevant contract.

Both the pertinence (size, content, and complexity) and the “performance” records of each
Offeror were evaluated. A confidence rating was then assigned in accordance with Section M
(M.3 C.) of the RFP and NFS 1815.305.

Offeror Pertinence Performance Level of
Rating Rating Confidence
(size/content/complexity)
Alutiig Highly Pertinent Exceptional High
(HP/HP/HP)
Crewestone Pertinent Exceptional Moderate
(SP/P/HP)
GenTech Very Highly Pertinent Exceptional Very High
(VHP/HP/VHP)
Logical Pertinent Exceptional Moderate
(SP/HP/P)
SDSE Highly Pertinent Exceptional High
(VHP/P/VHP)

VHP = Very Highly Pertinent — HP = Highly Pertinent
P = Pertinent SP = Somewhat Pertinent

Alutiig: The SEB assigned an overall confidence rating of “High”.

For Size Relevance, Alutiiq received a Highly Pertinent rating primarily because Alutiiq’s largest
referenced contract had an estimated annual value of a little more than one-third of the LAMPS
annual government estimate. For Content Relevance as compared to the LAMPS PWS, Alutiiq
received an overall rating of Highly Pertinent, based on ratings of Very Highly Pertinent for the
administrative services PWS areas, Pertinent for the professional services PWS areas, and


Page 17 of 21

Logical: The SEB assigned an overall confidence rating of “Moderate”.

For Size Relevance Logical received a Somewhat Pertinent rating primarily because Logical’s
largest referenced contract had an estimated annual value of less than 10% of LAMPS annual
government estimate. For Content Relevance as compared to the LAMPS PWS, Logical received
an overall rating of Highly Pertinent, based on ratings of Somewhat Pertinent rating for the
administrative services PWS areas, Highly Pertinent for the professional services PWS areas,
and Very Highly Pertinent for the media services PWS area. For Complexity Relevance, Logical
received a rating of Pertinent, primarily because the prime has experience in contracts with a
limited range of PWS areas. Considering size, content, and complexity, Logical received an
Overall Pertinence rating of Pertinent.

For Overall Performance, Logical was assigned a rating of Exceptional.

Logical’s Overall Pertinence rating of Pertinent and Overall Performance rating of Exceptional
resulted in a Moderate Level of Confidence for the Past Performance factor.

SDSE: The SEB assigned an overall confidence rating of “High”.

For Size Relevance SDSE received a Very Highly Pertinent rating primarily because SDSE’s largest
referenced contract had an estimated annual value that is greater than the LAMPS annual
government estimate. For Content Relevance as compared to the LAMPS PWS, SDSE received
an overall rating of Pertinent, based on ratings of Pertinent for the administrative services PWS
areas, Pertinent for the professional services PWS areas, and Very Highly Pertinent for the
media services PWS area. For Complexity Relevance, SDSE received a rating of Very Highly
Pertinent, primarily because they have experience in contracts with a wide range of PWS areas.
Considering size, content, and complexity, SDSE received an Overall Pertinence rating of Highly
Pertinent.

For Overall Performance, SDSE was assigned a rating of Exceptional.

SDSE’s Overall Pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent and Overall Performance rating of
Exceptional resulted in a High Level of Confidence for the Past Performance factor.

BASIS FOR SELECTION

The SEB presented its findings to me on February 9, 2012 and | am convinced that the SEB
conducted a thorough, fair, and objective evaluation of all proposals in accordance with the
established evaluation criteria in the RFP. | comparatively assessed the proposals against all
evaluation factors and subfactors in the RFP. | also considered all factors, and their relative
weights, in the selection of the Offeror that can perform the contract in a manner most
advantageous to the Government.


Page 3 of 21

weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or

would require a major proposal revision to correct.

ADJECTIVAL DEFINITIONS PERCENTILE
RATING RANGE
Excellent /A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with 91-100

one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant
lweakness exists.
Very ‘A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates over-all 71-90
Good competence. One or more significant strengths have been found,
and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.
Good A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a reasonably 51-70
sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both.
As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly,
detract from the Offeror’s response.
Fair A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more 31-50
weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.
Poor (A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant 0-30

Adjective ratings and percentile scores were assigned, and points calculated by multiplying the
percentile score by the number of available points, for each Mission Suitability Subfactor.
Adjective ratings were not assigned at the Factor level; the sum of the points assigned for the

two subfactors

Definitions:

was the only overall rating for Mission Suitability.

The SEB used the following definitions to develop its findings:

The definition for Deficiency, Weakness, and Significant Weakness are defined in FAR Part
15.001 as follows:

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a
combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful
contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract
performance.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of
unsuccessful contract performance.



Page 2 of 21

EVALUATION FACTORS
The RFP set forth the following three evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Mission Suitability
Factor 2: Cost/Price
Factor 3: Past Performance

The RFP stated the contract would be awarded to the Offeror that can perform the contract ina
manner most advantageous to the Government, all factors considered. In addition, the RFP
stated that the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make an integrated assessment of each
offer and comparatively evaluate competing offers, considering input from the Source
Evaluation Board (SEB), which rated Mission Suitability and Past Performance and evaluated
Cost/Price in accordance with Section M. Each evaluation factor was essentially equal in
importance, and all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, were significantly
more important than Cost/Price.

Factor 1: Mission Suitability

The RFP specified the adjectival ratings, definitions and percentile ranges in accordance with
NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305 and stated that these would be used in the evaluation of
the Mission Suitability Subfactors.

The Mission Suitability Subfactors and their weights are as follows:

Subfactor 1: Management (MGMT) 600 points
MGMT 1— Management Approach and Organizational Structure
MGMT 2 — Recruitment, Retention, and Continuity of Services
MGMT 3 - Phase-In Plan

Subfactor 2: Understanding the Requirement and Technical Approach (URTA) 400 points
URTA 1 — Approach to Representative Task Orders (RTOs)
URTA 2 — Understanding of Technical Risks

The SEB used the following adjectival and numerical ratings from NASA FAR Supplement (NFS)
1815.305(a)(3)(A) in its evaluation of the Mission Suitability Factor:


Page 13 of 21

SDSE

SDSE received a Mission Suitability score of 610. SDSE’s final proposal evaluation contained
strengths and a weakness as summarized below. There were no significant strengths or
significant weaknesses.

Subfactor 1 — Management (MGMT.

SDSE received an adjectival rating of Good for Subfactor 1.

Management Approach and Organizational Structure
SDSE received a Strength for proposing an experienced and qualified person responsible for

the overall performance of the LAMPS contract. The proposed Program Manager (PM) has
eleven years of experience as a contract program manager with one year of experience ona
contract encompassing services commensurate with LAMPS. The proposed PM has also
received various relevant performance awards.

Recruitment, Retention, and Continuity of Services
SDSE received a Strength for its sound management approach to attract, recruit, hire, and

retain qualified personnel to meet all contract requirements. The proposed approach
included meeting with the incumbent contractor and taking proactive steps to address hiring
challenges. The proposal described a hiring process for the secretarial positions that will
improve the quality of secretarial position hires. Also, the proposal described an incentive
program for the employees of a profit sharing bonus.

Phase-In Plan

SDSE received a Weakness for not adequately describing its process for responding to task
order requests and an inadequate risk mitigation approach for responding to task orders in
the phase-in period. Although the proposal included some milestones for the task order
process within the phase-in schedule, the proposal did not provide sufficient details on the
schedule for responding to task order requests. The proposal also identified executing 10 —
15 Task Orders within 60 days as a Phase-in Risk but provided an inadequate mitigation
approach.

Subfactor 2 - Understanding the Requirement and Technical Approach (URTA)

SDSE received an adjectival rating of Good for Subfactor 2.

Approach to Representative Task Orders — RTO 2 Media Services

SDSE received a Strength for its proposed technical approach for Representative Task

Order 2 (RTO 2) to support a one-stop-shop for the Media Services Center that included an
effective approach to technology infusion. Ideas for technology improvements will be
shared among employees. These activities will maintain technology currency, enhance media
services capabilities, and improve efficiencies.


Page 16 of 21

Highly Pertinent for the media services PWS area. For Complexity Relevance, Alutiiq received a
rating of Highly Pertinent based primarily on the prime’s references with contributions from a
significant subcontractor. Considering size, content, and complexity, Alutiiq received an Overall
Pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent.

For Overall Performance, Alutiiq was assigned a rating of Exceptional.

Alutiiq’s Overall Pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent and Overall Performance rating of
Exceptional resulted in a High Level of Confidence for the Past Performance factor.

Crewestone: The SEB assigned an overall confidence rating of “Moderate”.

For Size Relevance, Crewestone received a Somewhat Pertinent rating primarily because
Crewestone’s largest referenced contract had an estimated annual value of less than 10% of the
LAMPS annual government estimate. For Content Relevance as compared to the LAMPS PWS,
Crewestone received an overall rating of Pertinent, based on ratings of Highly Pertinent for the
administrative services PWS areas, Somewhat Pertinent for the professional services PWS
areas, and Highly Pertinent for the media services PWS area. For Complexity Relevance,
Crewestone received a rating of Highly Pertinent based primarily on the prime’s references with
contributions from a significant subcontractor. Considering size, content, and complexity,
Crewestone received an Overall Pertinence rating of Pertinent.

For Overall Performance, Crewestone was assigned a rating of Exceptional.

Crewestone’s Overall Pertinence rating of Pertinent and Overall Performance rating of
Exceptional resulted in a Moderate Level of Confidence for the Past Performance factor.

GenTech: The SEB assigned an overall confidence rating of “Very High”.

For Size Relevance, GenTech received a Very Highly Pertinent rating primarily because
GenTech’s largest referenced contract had an estimated annual value of approximately the
same size as the LAMPS annual government estimate. For Content Relevance as compared to
the LAMPS PWS, GenTech received an overall rating of Highly Pertinent, based on ratings of
Highly Pertinent for the administrative services PWS areas, Pertinent for the professional
services PWS areas, and Very Highly Pertinent for the media services PWS area. For Complexity
Relevance, GenTech received a rating of Very Highly Pertinent, primarily because they have
experience in contracts with a wide range of PWS areas. Considering size, content, and
complexity, GenTech received an Overall Pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent.

For Overall Performance, GenTech was assigned a rating of Exceptional.

GenTech’s Overall Pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent and Overall Performance rating of
Exceptional resulted in a Very High Level of Confidence for the Past Performance factor.