_WSTF -— TEST Source Selection Statement

had highly comparable and very highly relevant past performance which will contribute
to successful contract performance and gain efficiencies for WSTF. Additionally,
Jacobs proposed a slightly lower probable cost and fixed price.

NASA's intent, stated in the FAR clause 52.215-1(f) (4) in the RFP, was to award a
contract without discussions. During the presentation, the Contracting Officer
recommended that a competitive range should not be determined, and that award
without discussions be made in accordance with the RFP Section L.1(1) specifically
referencing FAR 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors ~ Competitive Acquisition. |
concurred with the Contracting Officer's recommendation.

In accordance with the RFP that states the SEB will award a contract resulting from this
Solicitation to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after utilizing a
combination of Mission Suitability, Past Performance and Cost/Price, | find that Jacobs
is the best value and select it for award of the TEST Contract. My selection decision is
based solely on and is wholly consistent with the selection criteria and evaluation
framework, including the relative importance of the evaluation factors and sub-factors as
explained in the Solicitation and supported by the SEB findings that | identified as
relevant and material to my decision.

EkXtew Ocho Yafis
Ellen Ochoa Date
Source Selection Authority

14



WSTF — TEST Source Selection Statement

bridge agreement, and the plans to put an instrument in place to bridge the contract
transition all greatly reduce the risk of work interruption.

| agreed with the SEB that Jacobs’ External Customer Plan was of Significant Strength.
Jacobs presented an all-encompassing, multi-year approach towards identifying,
attracting and retaining external customers. The marketing approach that Jacobs would
implement involves gaining a full understanding of how WSTF’s technical capabilities
compare to other Government facilities before determining what opportunities should be
pursued and where facility improvements should be focused. Jacobs would look
beyond WSTF’s core capabilities to identify support functions that are potentially
marketable.

Finally, under the Management Approach sub-factor, | found Jacobs’ Phase-in Plan to
be highly effective. In particular, Jacobs’ Phase-In Plan emphasizes frequent, open and
direct communication with the workforce and all stakeholders. This significantly
increases the likelihood of a successful contract transition without interruptions to WSTF

operations.

| did note that Jacobs received one Weakness for its Phase-in Plan because it proposed
to perform only a partial statistical inventory of store and program stock items instead of
the required 100% inventory. However, | did not find this Weakness to be of concern to
the Agency because the exiting Contractor would be required to perform a 100%
inventory during Contractor Close-out, and Jacobs would then do a statistical count
against that inventory. DCAA also does a statistical count against that inventory, which
would serve to confirm the Contractor's inventory.

Jacobs- Mission Suitability/Technical Approach

Next, under Mission Suitability, | noted that the SEB evaluated Jacobs’ Technical
Approach as “Excellent” (the highest adjectival rating possible). In particular | noted that
Jacobs received three Significant Strengths and one Weakness.

First, Jacobs received a Significant Strength for its proposed innovations and its
comprehensive understanding of the TEST requirements and dynamic work
environment. | noted that the SEB identified a number of value-added innovations.
Each innovation proposed by Jacobs is highly feasible and provides mitigation to
WSTF’s high risk areas. Jacobs’ commitment to implement these innovations is
demonstrated by providing corporate resources to do so. | too found value in the twelve
identified innovations pertaining to the following focus areas: Maintaining Critical Skills
and Encouraging High Performance, Modernizing Facilities and Technologies, and
Improving Safety and Environmental Aspects of WSTF.

| noted that Jacobs’ Maintenance, Operations and Repair Plan was highly effective and
sound. Jacobs proposed a comprehensive and structured approach to maintenance
and repair that clearly established short and long term objectives and outlined a plan for
effective execution that is fully coordinated so that there are no adverse impacts to
WSTF testing organizations and customers. in my judgment, the Jacobs’ proposed


WSTF ~ TEST Source Selection Statement

| agreed with the SEB that USA's M&O Plan also failed to recognize various key
elements in the approach to Quality Assurance. The Plan neglected to describe how
the TEST Quality Management System (QMS) and Configuration Management System
(CMS) would be applied specifically to all WSTF maintenance, operations, and repair
activities including inspecting work, coding work requests, and establishing meaningful
and appropriate metrics. Through inadequate incorporation of a comprehensive
approach to quality assurance principles and associated techniques throughout the
Plan, USA greatly increases the likelihood of unsuccessful or subpar performance and
negative impacts to operations and testing costs and schedules.

I concurred with the SEB’s finding that USA did not explain the organizational
interfaces that are necessary between the M&O organization and the remaining TEST
institutional and programmatic working groups, including design/system engineers,
Project Leaders, technicians, data base and work control administrators, logisticians,
managers, and the Chief Project Engineer. The lack of identified and structured
interfaces would greatly impede the efficient application and verification that M&O
resources are being properly allocated and balanced between institutional and
programmatic schedules and priorities.

Third, | noted the SEB’s assignment of a Significant Weakness in USA's Technical
Approach with regard to USA’s response to the Cost Reimbursable Sample Task Order
for the Joint Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS). The response
failed to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the technical requirements and
in particular, an understanding of oxygen component testing, offgassing and outgassing
testing, and composite overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) testing requirements.

The failure to demonstrate a technical understanding of these and other critical WSTF
capabilities greatly increases the risk that USA does not have the sufficient technical
understanding to effectively perform the requirements of the TEST Contract.

Fourth, I found that USA’s proposed efficiencies claimed in the Cost Reimbursable
Sample Task Orders are inadequately explained, and demonstrate a lack of
comprehensive understanding of the TEST requirements. | agree that allowing these
efficiencies as justification for lowering the proposed staffing of the sample task orders
greatly increases the risk of not meeting the requirements and therefore the resource
adjustment is justified.

USA- Mission Suitability/ Safety and Health Approach

| noted the one Significant Strength in the Safety and Health Approach. | agreed with
the SEB that USA’s Safety and Health Plan demonstrates a comprehensive
understanding of the WSTF requirement.

USA- Mission Suitability/ Smali Business Participation

For the Smal! Business Utilization, | noted that USA received no Significant Strengths or
Significant Weaknesses.

10


WSTF — TEST Source Selection Statement

USA- Mission Suitability/Management Approach

I noted the SEB rated USA considerably lower than Jacobs in the more highly valued
area of Mission Suitability. As a general matter, USA received only two Significant
Strengths and yet seven Significant Weaknesses across all of Mission Suitability,
compared to Jacobs’ ten total Mission Suitability Significant Strengths and zero
Significant Weaknesses.

USA earned one Significant Strength in Management Approach for proposing a highly
effective and innovative strategy for seeking new business through its proposed TEST
External Customer Plan. USA proposed strong corporate dedication to the External
Customer Plan through letters of commitment from Boeing and Lockheed Martin, USA's
parent companies. In these two letters, company executives indicate that they would
perform extensive reviews of their aerospace programs to seek business opportunities
that would support the External Customer Plan (ECP). To further demonstrate USA’s
commitment to the ECP, USA proposed a corporate funded position to manage the
overall effort. This External Customer Manager (ECM) will collaborate with NASA to
develop a final ECP and after formal approval they will integrate external customers into
the WSTF Operating environment. | agreed that execution of this plan would contribute
significantly towards exceeding the Agency's requirements of retaining technical
expertise and supporting WSTF’s facility operating costs.

On the other hand, USA received three Significant Weaknesses under the Management
Approach sub-factor. The first Significant Weakness was based on USA's proposed
organizational structure and responsibilities for managers. USA's proposed
Management Approach would overload key management positions, thus creating
restrictions and introducing risk into WSTF's processes.

One example of this overload is demonstrated by the Facilities Department Manager
being responsible for managing half of the total TEST Contract personnel and nearly
half of the contract work elements from the work breakdown structure. However, USA
also proposes to designate the Facility Department Manager as the Deputy Program
Manager whose responsibilities expand to include fostering successful implementation
of the External Customer Plan, leading the Strategic Workforce Planning innovation to
assess skills across the contract and, in the Program Manager's absence, management
of the entire TEST Contract. USA's plan for succession of the Program Manager
presents a significant risk to the Facility Department as well as the rest of the site that
relies on the enabling capabilities that reside in the Facilities Department.

As another example, the Chief Project Engineer (CPE) is responsible for many project
management duties, including review of all task order requests and distributing those
requests to the appropriate department, as well as many other managerial duties.
Because Task Orders are the principal method that NASA uses to authorize work on the
TEST Contract, | found there is a considerable concern that effective task order
management, and ultimately execution of tasks, would suffer due to the significant extra
managerial burdens.


WSTF - TEST Source Selection Statement

approach would improve and reduce the cost of WSTF maintenance and repairs. |
found that the Agency would benefit from Jacobs’ proposed Asset Owner program,
where a single point of contact is responsible for all matters associated with a particular
facility asset. This ensures uniform facility asset stewardship and enhances the overall
Maintenance, Operations and Repair Plan.

Jacobs also earned a Significant Strength for its approach to the Cost Reimbursable
Sample Task Orders. Jacobs’ overall response to addressing the technical
requirements of the Sample Task Orders left me with the conclusion that Jacobs can
effectively and efficiently meet WSTF’s technical requirements. Jacobs fully integrated
its proposed management philosophy into its technical approach within the Sample
Task Orders. Its technical proficiency was well demonstrated by the detailed narrative
discussions and accurate risk assessments. The response demonstrates that Jacobs is
highly capable of meeting the unique and challenging requirements that TEST would
present through Cost Reimbursable Task Orders.

Jacobs received a Weakness for its response to the Contract Management Fixed Price
Task Order because they did not address delivery of the Management Review Report. |
did not find this Weakness to be of concern because any successful Offeror would be
required to submit this report as a Type Il DRD, which requires post-award submission
and approval. in addition, the proposal assigned resources to developing the report.

Jacobs- Mission Suitability/ Safety and Health Approach

| noted the one Significant Strength in Jacobs’ Safety and Health Approach. | agreed
with the SEB that Jacobs has an effective and sound Safety and Health approach that is
supported by a strong corporate safety philosophy. | also noted and found of value to
the Agency Jacobs’ proposed Associate Contractor Agreements which have safety
cooperation embedded.

Jacobs-Mission Suitability/ Small Business Approach

| noted the one Significant Strength in Small Business Participation. | agree with the
SEB that Jacobs’ Smail Business approach is sound and demonstrates its commitment
to Small Businesses. | found value in Jacobs’ enforceable teaming agreements, which
provide a guaranteed minimum percentage of work-share to each Small Business
partner. in addition, Jacobs actively participates in the NASA Mentor-Protégé program
and has a formal Mentor-Protégé relationship with one of its proposed partners.

in its Small Business Plan and Contract Management Plan, Jacobs proposed that Small
Business personnel be uniformly distributed across the scope of the TEST Contract
elements. This results in direct participation by Small Businesses in the high-
technology portions of the contract.


WSTF — TEST Source Selection Statement

into USA’s plans and strategies. There is no discussion on interfaces between
fundamental business management tools. USA's inability to properly describe the
business management tools appreciably decreased the likelihood that it would
successfully interface these various IT programs, especially since there is no indication
that Team USA has successfully utilized all of these software packages on the same
contract in the past. | also found numerous proposed USA tools to be comparable to
existing WSTF tools without offering an explanation as to how these tools would be
effectively integrated.

| concurred with the SEB’s assessment of USA’s innovations and efficiencies. There
were significant inconsistencies in USA's proposal in this area. The efficiencies and
innovations that were discussed throughout the Management and Technical
Approaches were not effectively described or do not align with the list that was provided
in the model contract. A majority of the innovations and efficiencies that were described
in Volume | of the proposal are not integrated or mentioned in the plans contained in
Volume Il, leading to a concern that USA had not considered how a majority of the
items would actually be effectively integrated in the contract. Conversely, there were
numerous efficiencies and innovations that were described elsewhere in the proposal,
but were not captured in the USA list at Technical Approach 1.

Additionally, | agreed with the SEB in their finding that several USA proposed
innovations and efficiencies have already been implemented at WSTF, for example, a
digital radiograph capability to the WSTF Metallurgy Laboratory and Pro-E capability for
all design engineers.

A second Significant Weakness as determined by the SEB that | agreed with involved
USA's Maintenance, Operations, and Repair plan which illustrated USA's distinct lack of
comprehensive understanding of the requirements for accomplishing the successful
maintenance, operation, and repair activities of the TEST Contract and greatly
increases the risk to the WSTF mission. The Maintenance, Operations, and Repair
(M&O) Plan did not provide a detailed approach or an indication of the responsible
personnel that would identify all WSTF systems that are not in the Computerized
Maintenance Management System (CMMS). Without the identification of WSTF
systems and integration of information, the proper maintenance of all important WSTF
systems would not be done and would severely compromise USA's ability to support
WSTF testing and operations activities.

| agreed with the SEB that the USA M&O Plan failed to describe an effective approach
to operating the WSTF facility systems for supporting the WSTF mission, including
programmatic-specific systems. There was no reference to the responsible personnel
who would operate WSTF institutional and programmatic facility and utility systems, nor
the respective operational procedures that would be followed to ensure safety and
efficiency. USA failed to explain how the operational requirements profile for WSTF and
the overall operational readiness profile would be generated and applied by WSTF
management and customers. Additionally, the USA Plan did not describe its approach
for dealing with deferred and backlog repairs.


SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR THE
TEST EVALUATION & SUPPORT TEAM (TEST) CONTRACT
AT THE WHITE SANDS TEST FACILITY (WSTF)

On November 30, 2010 and December 1, 2010, |, along with other key officials of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA’s) JSC and WSTF met with the
members of the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals for the
White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) Test Evaluation & Support Team (TEST) Solicitation,
NNJ10336472R. The TEST Contract is to be awarded as an Award Fee Indefinite
Delivery/indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract with Cost Reimbursable and Fixed Price
Task Orders. The basic period of performance for this acquisition is 3 years, from May
1, 2011, through April 30, 2014. There are two 1-year options. The IDIQ minimum
base contract value is $1.5 million and the maximum base contract value is $300
million. This acquisition is a partial follow-on contract to the WSTF Test & Evaluation
Contract (TEC) and Facility Operations & Support Contract (FOSC).

This procurement provides for NASA requirements including: propulsion subsystem and
system testing, propellants and aerospace fluids materials and components testing,
remote hazardous testing, hypervelocity impact testing, flight hardware processing,
technical services, training, quality, test and institutional safety and health, facility
maintenance, communication systems and construction management. TEST also
supports external customers, thus reducing NASA's cost to operate the facility and
creating synergy with customer organizations engaging in operations similar or
complementary to NASA’s.

BACKGROUND

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 5.2, “Synopses of Proposed
Contract Actions”, this proposed contract action was synopsized on April 9, 2010, at the
FedBizOps website and thereafter placed on the NASA Acquisition internet Service
business opportunities website. NASA issued a Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) on
June 10, 2010, and an industry comment period ensued.

On August 3, 2010, the Contracting Officer issued Request for Proposal (RFP)
NNJ11HAO2C. NASA posted Amendment number 1 on August 20, 2010, to post
remaining answers to the DRFP; NASA posted amendment number 2 on September 2,
2010, to publish an outstanding answer for the DRFP and to publish questions and
answers pertaining to the RFP and replacement pages to the RFP and a change log.

NASA conducted this procurement as a full and open competition in accordance with
FAR Part 15, “Contracting by Negotiation’, under North American Industry Classification
System code 541712 with a size standard of 1000 employees. The RFP divided the
proposal into five volumes with separate due dates. NASA requested Volume III,
related to past performance, on September 8, 2010. Volume I, related to Mission


WSTF — TEST Source Selection Statement

response to the Cost Reimbursable Task Order “Joint ECLSS Development Initiative”
demonstrated a less than comprehensive understanding of the TEST Requirements.

Jacobs-USA Safety and Health Approach Comparison

Jacobs received a Significant Strength in its approach to Safety and Health. | found
particular merit in Jacobs’ very effective and efficient corporate safety philosophy, which
exceeded the Agency’s requirements. Likewise, USA received a Significant Strength for
its Safety and Health Plan. Given both Offerors were equal in the Safety and Health
sub-factor; | did not find Safety and Health to be a discriminator in my evaluation of the
two proposals.

Jacobs-USA Smail Business Participation Comparison

| agreed with the SEB and found that Jacobs’ Small Business Plan resulted in a
Significant Strength. The plan was sound, reasonable, and included enforceable
teaming agreements with its small business partners, offering great value to the
Government.

In contrast | noted no Significant Strengths or Significant Weaknesses in USA's small
business utilization approach.

Mission Suitability Comparison Summary

When | considered the four sub-factors that comprise Mission Suitability, | found that
Jacobs was substantially better than USA in Management Approach, Technical
Approach and Small Business Utilization, and equal in Safety and Health. | noted that
across the Mission Suitability Factor, Jacobs earned ten Significant Strengths and no
Significant Weaknesses. On the other hand, across Mission Suitability, USA earned
just two Significant Strengths and seven Significant Weaknesses.

Past Performance Assessment

| then considered the Offerors’ Past Performance. | weighed the relative importance of
the evaluation factors, which states that Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when
combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price; Mission Suitability is more
important than Past Performance; and Past Performance is more important than
Cost/Price. At the outset, | noted the SEB evaluated Jacobs’ Past Performance as
having a Very High Level of Confidence with three Significant Strengths and no
Significant Weaknesses. USA earned a High Level of Confidence in Past Performance
with one Significant Strength and no Significant Weaknesses.

| found Jacobs’ depth of experience across several very highly relevant contracts both

in test and evaluation and in facility operations and maintenance to be of value. Jacobs
received three Significant Strengths for its extensive and very relevant collective

12



WSTF — TEST Source Selection Statement

COMPARITIVE ASSESSMENT, TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS and DECISION
Jacobs-USA Mission Suitability Management Approach Comparison

| initially noted that Jacobs received an Adjectival rating of “Excellent” and USA received
a “Fair”. The SEB assigned Jacobs five Significant Strengths and no Significant
Weaknesses for its Management Approach. On the other hand, USA earned one
Significant Strength and three Significant Weaknesses in this area.

As described earlier in this Source Selection Statement, | found Jacobs’ overall
management approach to be extremely feasible, highly effective and demonstrated a
comprehensive understanding of the TEST requirements. Jacobs proposed key
personnel that would ensure the effective performance of the TEST Contract.
Additionally, | found that implementation of Jacobs’ External Customer Plan would
attract and retain external customers. Finally, Jacobs’ Phase-In Plan would greatly
improve contract transition with low risk of interruption to WSTF operations.

In contrast, USA’s Significant Strength in the mission suitability area dealt with its
External Customer Plan, which | did find to be of value to the Agency. This one
Significant Strength, in my opinion, could not offset USA’s three Management Approach
Significant Weaknesses. Based on these and the other Mission Suitability Significant
Weaknesses, | determined that USA's proposal presented significantly higher risk to the
Agency of successful contract performance.

Jacobs-USA Technical Approach Comparison

Under the Technical Approach sub-factor, the SEB rated Jacobs as “Excellent,”
awarding Jacobs three Significant Strengths. The SEB rated USA as “Fair” under this
sub-factor and assigned no Significant Strengths and four Significant Weaknesses.

| determined Jacobs’ Technical Approach to be of great value to the Agency. | noted
and agreed with the SEB’s assessment of three Significant Strengths in this area. In
particular, | noted that Jacobs’ proposed innovations demonstrated a feasible approach
and comprehensive understanding of the TEST requirements and the dynamic work
environment. The Maintenance, Operations, and Repair plan was highly effective,
demonstrated Jacobs’ comprehensive understanding of the TEST requirements and its
approach to the Sample Task Orders effectively incorporated time saving techniques,
corporate resource relationships, risk management, and comprehensive understanding
of the TEST technical scope.

On the other hand, USA's Technical Approach lacked effective tools and innovations, in

addition, the Maintenance, Operations and Repair Plan was ineffective and
demonstrated a lack of understanding of the TEST requirements. Finally, USA's

11


WSTF — TEST Source Selection Statement

A second concern in this finding is the numerous discrepancies, inconsistencies and
omissions within the proposal that caused me to believe that USA does not have a
comprehensive understanding of the TEST scope of work. | agreed with the SEB’s
concerns that USA’s description of roles and responsibilities with respect to
Maintenance and Operations were conflicting throughout the proposal, including
narrative descriptions that don’t match figures. In addition, the USA proposal did not
provide a clear integration and approach for managing and identifying major and minor
subcontractors and their respective functions. USA’s proposal described functions
within its Management Approach in a one-size-fits all manner, and in doing so, it failed
to acknowledge that the minimum requirements for projects of varying size and
complexity should and would differ. Although the USA Organizational Conflict of
Interest (OCI) Plan appears sound, the proposal failed to identify and discuss
implementation methods for avoiding, neutralizing, or mitigating an OCI issue as it
related to a subcontractor. The Contract Management Plan indicated that USA would
establish an IDIQ CPAF contract with each of its subcontractors; however, its cost
proposal showed that Fixed Rate Labor Hours were predominately used.

A second Significant Weakness was identified in USA’s Key Personnel Approach. |
determined that USA's key personnel approach demonstrates a significant lack of
effective understanding of the required skill level and qualifications necessary to
efficiently meet the requirements of the TEST Contract. While USA proposed well-
qualified key personnel for some positions, they proposed key personnel with only
partial qualifications for other positions when judged against the proposed areas of
responsibility. USA did not describe its minimum training, certifications, or type and
length of experience qualification standards to be used when replacing its key personnel
and also failed to address how it would ensure that key personnel would maintain its
minimum qualification standards.

The SEB identified a third Significant Weakness, and | agreed that USA's total
compensation plan fails to properly recognize and offer mitigation for differences in the
fringe benefits that exist between the three team mates. This has the potential to
increase the likelihood of low employee morale and the loss of high-caliber personnel, if
the differences are not effectively mitigated. This concern could result in increased cost
and safety risk to NASA.

USA- Mission Suitability/Technical Approach

Next, | looked at the Technical Approach sub-factor to Mission Suitability for USA. I
noted that USA received no Significant Strengths and four Significant Weaknesses.

The first Significant Weakness the SEB noted, and | agreed, that USA’s proposed tools,
innovations and efficiencies lacked integration and interfacing details and weren't
consistent with their management approach. USA did not present a cohesive plan for
introducing, integrating and interfacing its tools, particularly in the area of business
management. Many tools are inadequately described and are not clearly incorporated


WSTF — TEST Source Selection Statement

comprise Mission Suitability, | found that Jacobs was substantially better than USA in
Management Approach, Technical Approach and Small Business Utilization, and equal
in Safety and Health. | noted that across the Mission Suitability Factor, Jacobs earned
ten Significant Strengths and no Significant Weaknesses. On the other hand, across
Mission Suitability, USA earned just two Significant Strengths and seven Significant
Weaknesses.

Mission Suitability Assessment

Jacobs-Mission Suitability/;Management Approach

Within the Mission Suitability area, | first analyzed the ratings given to Jacobs for its
Management Approach. | observed that the SEB evaluated Jacobs’ Management
Approach as “Excellent,” receiving five Significant Strengths and one Weakness. |
found the overall Management Approach proposed by Jacobs was of exceptional merit
in that it fully encompasses a cohesive management structure and approach that is
consistently demonstrated throughout all elements of its proposal. | noted the
proposed structure of the TEST group is as an independent operating segment led by a
General Manager (GM) who is also an Officer in the company. This allows for an
autonomous organization where the GM is fully responsible for making all decisions
related to TEST functions, which signifies accountability and responsiveness at WSTF.
| also found value in Jacobs’ unified leadership with subcontractors spread throughout
the contract, strong mentorship for small businesses, and its Integrated Team
Management Approach that ensures employees are treated equally across the contract.
| favorably evaluated Jacobs for its plan to utilize corporate reach-back, thereby
reducing the risks to WSTF of fluctuating workloads due to uncertainties in future
agency test requirements.

Under the Management Approach sub-factor, the SEB also awarded Jacobs a
Significant Strength for its Key Personnel. Like the SEB, | found that Jacobs’ key
personnel have outstanding qualifications and backgrounds that are commensurate with
the responsibilities required of the identified positions. | determined that Jacobs’
provides an effective approach to succession planning, including a thorough
requirement for the minimum qualification standards in terms of training, certifications,
type and length of experience to be used when replacing Key Personnel. | concluded
that Jacobs’ proposed approach to Key Personnel would result in long-term success-
oriented leadership for the TEST Contract.

The SEB additionally assigned Jacobs a Significant Strength for its Staffing Approach. |
found value in Jacobs’ strong salary plan, flexible benefit plan, management training
classes, attrition rate goal, frequent direct communications with its employees, award
fee sharing, a bonus plan, performance awards, and use of corporate funds for spot
recognitions. Additionally, | found Jacobs’ long history of cooperation with the
international Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the extensive
experience of the lead negotiator who is designated to work a Collective Bargaining

4


WSTF — TEST Source Selection Statement

Since Past Performance is a significant predictor of likely performance under the
proposed contract, the SEB evaluated the Past Performance of each Offeror. The
overall rating for Past Performance was related to the relevancy and quality of
performance on referenced contracts provided by the prime and subcontractors as they
relate to the specific kind of work the prime/subcontractor would be performing for the
proposed effort. The SEB based its evaluation on information submitted by the Offeror,
on the Past Performance Questionnaires, and on communications with listed
references, as well as on any other information obtained independently by the SEB.
The SEB evaluated and rated Past Performance using the following scale: Very High
Level of Confidence, High Level of Confidence, Moderate Level of Confidence, Low
Level of Confidence, Very Low Level of Confidence, and Neutral.

To ensure that the final negotiated prices were fair and reasonable the SEB performed
price and cost analysis in accordance with Section M.6 Cost/Price of the TEST
Solicitation. The SEB assessed each proposal’s probable cost and assigned a
Cost/Price level of confidence. The Cost/Price Confidence Levels utilized were High,
Medium, and Low.

Following the presentation by the SEB Chairperson, Contracting Officer, and Cost/Price
Analyst, and my vigorous questioning of the SEB, | fully considered the findings the
SEB presented to me. | commended the SEB on their comprehensive and detailed
evaluation of the two proposals. Following the discussion, | held an executive session
with my advisors to discuss the evaluation results, and in that session | requested and
teceived the opinions of my key advisors. Following the discussion | made a
comparative assessment of the proposals based upon the evaluation factors in the
Solicitation.

SELECTION DECISION

In making my selection decision, | reviewed the relative importance of all evaluation
factors. The RFP delineated three evaluation factors — Mission Suitability, Past
Performance and Cosi/Price. Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when
combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Mission Suitability is more
important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price.
| first performed an analysis of the Significant Strengths and Significant Weaknesses of
Jacobs and USA separately, to see if | weighted those differently from the evaluation of
the SEB. | agreed with the SEB’s assessment of the two proposals, and | did not take
any exceptions with the findings of the SEB.

| considered the factors and found true discriminators between the proposals,
especially in the highest rated factor, Mission Suitability. In initially comparing the two
proposals, | observed that Jacobs received an “Excellent” from the SEB for all of the
sub-factors under Mission Suitability. The SEB evaluated USA as “Fair” under the
Management and Technical Approach sub-factors, “Excellent” in Safety and Health, and
“Good” in Small Business Utilization. When | considered the four sub-factors that


WSTF — TEST Source Selection Statement

Suitability, Volume II, related to Plans and Other Data, Volume IV, related to the
Cost/Price, and Volume V, related to the Model Contract, were all due on September
20, 2010.

NASA received complete proposals from the following companies:

Jacobs Technology, Inc.

600 William Northern Boulevard
P.O. Box 884

Tullahoma, Tennessee 37388 USA

United Space Alliance, LLC
600 Gemini Avenue
Houston, TX 77058-2708

The following company submitted a Past Performance Volume; however, this Offeror
decided not to submit the remaining proposal volumes for the TEST procurement:

ASRC Aerospace Corporation
6303 Ivy Lane, Suite 130
Greenbelt, MD 20770

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The SEB conducted the evaluation of the submitted complete proposals from Jacobs,
and Team USA (hereinafter referred to as “USA’) in accordance with the approved
evaluation plan and the procedures prescribed by FAR Part 15, “Contracting by
Negotiation”, and NFS Part 1815 with an objective of achieving the best value. The
RFP delineated three primary evaluation factors — Mission Suitability, Past
Performance, and Cost/Price. Mission Suitability and Past Performance when
combined were significantly more important than Cost/Price. Mission Suitability was
more important than Past Performance. Past Performance was more important than
Cost/Price.

Each proposal received a Mission Suitability score based on the following sub-factors
and associated numerical weights.

Sub-factor 1 - Management Approach 350
Sub-factor 2 ~ Technical Approach 300
Sub-factor 3 — Safety and Health 250
Sub-factor 4 ~ Small Business Participation 100
Total 1000

The SEB evaluated and rated Mission Suitability using the following adjectival ratings
for the sub-factors: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor.


WSTF - TEST Source Selection Statement

bargaining unit experience; its very relevant and highly successful technical and
managerial past performance across its fifteen referenced contracts; and its very
relevant and extensive working relationships with its small business partners.

| found that USA received a Significant Strength for its highly relevant experience with
unions. They also have past experience with very relevant contracts though there were
some elements of the SOW where they didn’t demonstrate expertise or direct
relevance. In addition, the SEB’s review of questionnaires noted mixed customer
satisfaction ratings. In addition, | found that USA failed to provide safety performance
information for its three minor subcontractors, resulting in the SEB’s inability to fully
assess its team’s safety past performance.

Cost/Price Assessment and Comparison

| considered the relative importance of the evaluation factors in my assessment of
Cost/Price. Cost/Price is significantly less important than Mission Suitability and Past
Performance when combined. The SEB performed a cost realism analysis, resulting in
a probable cost.

| noted the SEB had High Confidence in Jacobs’ probable cost. On the other hand, the
SEB assigned a Medium Confidence in USA’s probable cost due to multiple
Weaknesses and Significant Weaknesses identified, which created uncertainty in the
accuracy of its probable cost adjustment. USA failed to adequately resource its
requirements, and proposed efficiencies were not substantiated, resulting in the SEB
making resource adjustments.

Finally, | noted that Jacobs’ evaluated “Total Cost Reimbursable Probable and Fixed
Price” was slightly lower than that of USA’s.

The SEB informed me it had not received the full DCAA audits for either Offeror. The
SEB had verbally discussed the progress on the audits with DCAA and there were no
issues with Jacobs’ cost proposal. However, because the DCAA audit reports were not
available at the time of the SEB’s presentation | did not consider the DCAA audits in my
decision.

Decision

| applied the RFP's stated evaluation criteria in making my final determination, including
the previously stated relative weights of the evaluation factors. My ultimate decision
involved a determination of which proposal | thought represented the best value to the

Agency.

In particular | noted that the SEB rated Jacobs higher in all three factors, and
significantly higher in the most important factor, Mission Suitability. | noted that Jacobs

13