Statement of Work as the LSATS requirement. The information obtained from the past
performance questionnaires, the past performance proposal submitted by the Offeror, PPIRS,
and PPDB indicate a preponderance of Excellent performance resulting in a combined overall
team performance rating that is determined to be Exemplary. Therefore, based on the Offeror’s
performance record and relevance rating, the Source Evaluation Team finds that there is a Very
High Level of Confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

BASIS FOR SELECTION

| carefully considered all the information received from the SET. | also considered the
requirement for the SSA to comparatively assess the proposal against ail evaluation criteria in
the RFP. After the SET’s presentation that covered all findings for Mission Suitability,
Cost/Price and Past Performance, | considered in the award decision the relative importance of
each factor being essentially equal in importance with all evaluation factors other than
Cost/Price, when combined, being significantly more important than Cost/Price. Additionally, |
considered the order of importance of the four subfactors of the Mission Suitability Factor listed
in the RFP.

Unisys Corporation’s proposal with its Mission Suitability factor rating of Very Good which
contained a number of significant strengths and strengths, with no weaknesses or significant
weaknesses, Cost/Price of $48,373,611, and Past Performance factor rating of Very High Level
of Confidence together with its compliance with the established terms and conditions of the RFP
demonstrates to me that its offer represents an effective approach to fulfill the Government's
requirements. In considering the SET’s findings, | determined that Unisys Corporation's
proposal is the best value to the Government. Accordingly, | direct the Contracting Officer to
award a contract to Unisys Corporation.

irigcin @ User = ‘ha lyero

Virginia C. Wycoff Date
Source Selection authority

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 5


more significant strengths with the strengths outbalancing any weaknesses that exist. The
significant strength for Unisys Corporation under Subfactor 2 is as follows:

The Offeror proposed the use of a secure, web-based electronic task order management
system to facilitate efficiently managing the work. The system will be used to initiate, review,
approve, issue, and modify simulation projects and Simulation Modification Requests and is
expandable for additional capabilities.

The strengths for Unisys Corporation under Subfactor 2 are as follows:

The Offeror proposed an efficient approach to managing the work through workload fluctuations
and specifically obtaining workforce on short notice due to workload fluctuations.

The Offeror proposed to use an effective recruitment strategy for highly qualified professional
employees.

Unisys Corporation received a “Good” rating for Subfactor 3, Small Business Utilization, based
on the proposal having no deficiencies and showing a reasonably sound response with no
strengths or weaknesses identified.

Unisys Corporation received a “Good” rating for Subfactor 4, Safety and Health (S&H), based
on the proposal having no deficiencies and showing a reasonably sound response with no
strengths or weaknesses identified.

Factor 2 - Cost/Price

In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(ii), it was determined that adequate price competition
exists based on the assumption that more than one firm would submit proposals.

Unisys Corporation proposed to accomplish the LSATS procurement with four subcontractors.
No adjustments were made to CLINs 3 and 5, to the labor categories, to the hours under CLINs
2 and 4, and to the subcontract costs under CLINs 2 and 4. However, cost adjustments were
made to CLINs 2 and 4 based on the application of DCAA verified direct labor rates and the
proposed labor escalation rate. No significant inconsistencies were apparent between the cost
and technical proposals. Based on the analysis of the proposal, the derived probable cost is
determined to be realistic for Unisys Corporation's proposed technical approach. The probable
costs were assigned an adjective rating of high confidence.

Factor 3 — Past Performance

In accordance with the RFP, the overall adjective rating for past performance is based on the
relevance of the past performance to this effort and the offeror’s overall performance record for
the relevant past performance. In performing the past performance evaluation, the Source
Evaluation Team reviewed information for the prime contractor and all significant subcontractors
including, the past performance questionnaires, the past performance proposal, and past
performance information located in the Government-wide Past Performance Information
Retrieval System (PPIRS) and the NASA Past Performance Database (PPDB).

The past performance information provided by the Offeror and its significant subcontractors is

determined to be Very Highly Pertinent with respect to relevance because the Offeror is the
incumkent contractor on the current SAFITS contract which contains an almost identical

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 4


SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT
LANGLEY SIMULATION AND AIRCRAFT TECHNICAL SERVICES (LSATS)
RFQ NNL10ZB1016R

On November 10, 2010, | met with the Source Evaluation Team (SET) appointed to evaluate
proposals for the Langley Simulation and Aircraft Technical Services (LSATS) procurement.
The SET presentation included the procurement background, evaluation procedures and the
evaluation findings of the team. The presentation reflected that the evaluation was conducted in
accordance with the solicitation and applicable procurement guidelines.

BACKGROUND

The LSATS procurement is for simulation related hardware and software technology support
services to provide analysis, design, development, verification, validation, operations,
maintenance, modification, and systems integration for the LaRC Flight Simulation Facilities and
Research Aircraft Systems.

The LSATS procurement will result in the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract in accordance
with FAR Part 15 and NFS 1815. The estimated not-to-exceed value is $49M. The period of
performance consists of a three-year base period (January 27, 2011 — January 26, 2014) anda
two-year option period (January 27, 2014 — January 26, 2016).

The Request for Proposal (RFP) was released on the NAIS/FedBizOpps web site on July 8,
2010 with a response due date of August 19, 2010. Amendment No. 1 to the RFP was posted
on July 16, 2010 to provide answers to questions submitted in response to the RFP as well as
to change the due date identified on Attachment IV, Evaluation of Past Performance, of the
RFP. Amendment No. 2 to the RFP was posted on July 22, 2010 to provide answers to
additional questions submitted in response to the RFP and to delete Exhibit H, Quality Plan,
from the RFP. Amendment No. 3 to the RFP was posted on July 27, 2010 to update
Attachment V, Safety and Health Plan Instructions, of the RFP to include the referenced Safety
and Health Plan Instructions documents that were not accessible via the internet at that time.

Two proposals were received on August 19, 2010. A Proposal was received from Unisys
Corporation and a proposal was received from International Computer Systems, Inc (ICS). The
proposals were due by 2:30 pm EDT. The ICS proposal was received at 3:02 pm EDT. In
accordance with FAR 15.208(b)(1), it was determined that the proposal submitted by ICS was late
and would not be considered. ICS was promptly notified of this determination.

The SET conducted an initial review of the Unisys proposal to determine acceptability in
accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, “Identification of Unacceptable Proposals.” The SET
determined the proposal to be acceptable in accordance with the solicitation and evaluated it in
accordance with the evaluation factors contained in the RFP.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The SET conducted the evaluation in accordance with FAR 15.3, NFS 1815.3, and the
evaluation factors contained in Section M of the RFP. The evaluation procedures contained in
Section M the RFP of the solicitation were followed throughout the evaluation process. The
RFP set forth the following three evaluation factors:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104


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

In accordance with the RFP, the SET rated the Mission Suitability and Past Performance factors
in accordance with the rating factors in Section M of the RFP and considered the Cost/Price
factor in accordance with Section M of the RFP. The RFP states “NASA will award a contract to
the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government based on the
evaluation of Mission Suitability, Cost/Price and Past Performance factors identified. Each
factor will be essentially equal in importance. All evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when
combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.” Additionally, the RFP states that
“the Mission Suitability Factor consists of four Subfactors, Understanding the Requirement and
Technical Approach (URTA), Management (MGMT), the Small Business Utilization Plan, and
the Safety and Health (S&H) Plan, which are listed in order of importance except that the Small
Business Utilization Plan and the Safety and Health Plan are of equal importance.”

In accordance with Section M of the RFP, the SET evaluated and assigned adjective ratings to
the proposal for Past Performance based on the past performance questionnaires, the past
performance proposal submitted by the Offeror, and past performance information located in the
Government-wide Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and the NASA Past
Performance Database (PPDB).

Based on receiving only one proposal, each member of the, SET was instructed by the SEB/SET
Advisor to perform a detailed, individual review of the Offeror’s proposal focusing on
weaknesses to determine if the single proposal is an acceptable proposal. The SET was
informed that significant strengths and strengths could also be documented as findings. Each
member of the SET performed a detailed, individual review of the Offeror’s technical proposal
focusing on weaknesses without having seen or evaluated the Offeror’s business proposal or its
proposed cost/price. The individual findings were all recorded. No evaluator reviewed the
findings of others until the SET met in caucus at the completion of the proposal evaluation.

During consensus with all SET members present, the SET evaluated each individual finding and
determined the SET's consensus findings. Once consensus Mission Suitability strengths and
weaknesses were assigned, the evaluation team reviewed its findings to ensure that the
established criteria for rating the offerors in accordance with Section M of the RFP had been
consistently applied. Consensus adjective ratings were then assigned for each Mission
Suitability subfactor of the proposal in accordance with Section M of the RFP.

Finally, the SET analyzed the proposed Cost/Price. This completed the initial evaluation by the
evaluation team. :

The SET presented the results of the initial findings on October 12, 2010. It was determined
that based on the SET’s consensus findings that award could not be made without discussions
and the competitive range was established to include the only Offeror, Unisys Corporation.

Discussion questions were provided to Unisys Corporation on October 14, 2010. Unisys
Corporation responded on October 27, 2010 and the SET reviewed all the responses to the
questions. A second set of questions was emailed to Unisys Corporation on November 3, 2010
with responses due on November 4, 2010. Unisys Corporation submitted responses on
November 4, 2010 which were found by the SET and CO to be acceptable, therefore closing

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 2


discussions. As a result of discussions, all weaknesses and significant weaknesses were
eliminated, leaving Unisys Corporation with no weaknesses or significant weaknesses.

A Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request was emailed to Unisys Corporation on November 5,
2010 with a response due on November 8, 2010, which was met. The SET reviewed the FPR
documentation and completed the evaluation. The SET proceeded with its final presentation to
me on November 10, 2010. Based on conversations during the final selection presentation, the
SET was requested to revisit the adjective rating assigned to Subfactor 2, Management. The
SET reconvened and it was determined that the rating should be “Very Good” based on the
proposal having no deficiencies and demonstrating over-all competence with one or more
significant strengths with the strengths outbalancing any weaknesses that exist. As a result of
this rating change, the overall rating for Factor 1, Mission Suitability, was also changed to “Very
Good.”

FINAL EVALUATION FINDINGS

| carefully reviewed the final findings as presented by the SET. Set forth below is a summary of
the SET findings:

Factor 1 — Mission Suitability
Unisys Corporation was rated as “Very Good” in the evaluation of the Mission Suitability Factor.

Unisys Corporation received a “Very Good” rating for Subfactor 1, Understanding the
Requirement and Technical Approach (URTA), based on the proposal having no deficiencies
and demonstrating over-all competence with one or more significant strengths with the strengths
outbalancing any weaknesses that exist. The significant strengths for Unisys Corporation under
Subfactor 1 are as follows:

The Offeror comprehensively addressed full life-cycle development process as an approach for
infrastructure software services, infrastructure hardware services, continued evolutionary
improvement of flight simulation and research aircraft facilities, and development and operation
efforts in support of aircraft or spacecraft research experiments.

The Offeror’s technical approach includes several important innovation activities which will
significantly improve productivity, quality of the flight simulation environment and overall
marketability of the Simulation Development and Analysis Branch (SDAB) simulation facilities.

The strengths for Unisys Corporation under Subfactor 1 are as follows:

The Offeror addressed requirement changes and resource availability as major potential
technical risks for development projects and addressed effective mitigation strategies.

The Offeror demonstrated innovations in the development, deployment, operation, and
maintenance of navigational databases and scene generation databases for the SDAB
simulators. The Offeror demonstrated capability to develop, modify, and deploy out-the-window
visual scenes for real-time simulations which are highly sought after by mission critical projects
of internal and external NASA customers.

Unisys Corporation received a “Very Good” rating for Subfactor 2, Management (MGMT), based
on the proposal having no deficiencies and demonstrating over-all competence with one or

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 3