SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Langley Research Center (LaRC) Simulation and Aircraft Services (SAS)

Request For Proposal (RFP): NNL15544449R

On December 2, 2015, I, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the subject 

acquisition, met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals for the 

Simulation and Aircraft Services (SAS) contract.

Procurement History

The SAS contract is for the 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. 

Market research was conducted in order to determine the existing small business capabilities 

and assess how well they compare with LaRC requirements. A sources-sought synopsis was 

issued on February 13, 2015 seeking capability statements from potential sources under NAICS

code 541330, Engineering Services ($15 million size standard). Based on the responses 

received, the Contracting Officer determined, with the concurrence of the Small Business 

Specialist and the Small Business Administration Procurement Center Representative that an

inadequate number of small business concerns existed to allow this procurement to be 

conducted as a Total Small Business set aside.

A Procurement Strategy Meeting was held on May 20, 2015 at LaRC and the procurement 

strategy was subsequently approved. The procurement was conducted as a full and open 

competition. The SSA appointed the SEB on April 6, 2015 for the purpose of evaluating 

proposals received in response to the solicitation. A Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) was 

issued on July 16, 2015 for comments from industry and a Pre-Solicitation Conference was 

conducted on July 30, 2015. The Final RFP was issued on August 19, 2015. Two amendments 

to the RFP were issued to respond to questions received from potential offerors and to make 

minor corrections. 

The RFP contemplated the award of a cost plus fixed fee contract with a potential period of 

performance of five years (three year base period plus a two year option period). 

The following companies (listed in alphabetical order) responded to the RFP by the due date 

and time of September 18, 2015 2:00 PM: 

• American Systems Corporation (ASC)

o * Significant Subcontractor - Adaptive Aerospace Group, Inc. (AAG)

o * Significant Subcontractor - J F Taylor, Inc. (JFTI)

• International Computer Systems, Inc. (ICS)

• Unisys Corporation (Unisys)

* Significant Subcontractor is defined as subcontracts over $1,000,000 annually in value, in

accordance with RFP Provision L.5.
Page 2 of 11

Evaluation Factors

The appointed SEB conducted an evaluation of proposals received in response of the RFP. 

The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the evaluation factors and instructions set 

forth in the solicitation. The offerors were evaluated in alphabetical order. The RFP set forth 

the following three evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Mission Suitability

Factor 2: Cost/Price

Factor 3: Past Performance

The RFP stated that proposals received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated by a 

SEB in accordance with NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement (NFS) 1815.3. 

The RFP also stated the SSA, after consultation with the SEB and other advisors, would select 

the Offeror that can perform the contract in a manner most advantageous to the Government, all 

factors considered. The SSA would make an integrated assessment of each offer and 

comparatively evaluate competing offers, considering input from the SEB. The SSA would 

consider adjectival ratings and point scores assigned by the SEB; however, the SSA would 

base selection on substantive proposal differences that are reflected by the adjectival ratings 

and point scores as opposed to basing selection on mere differences in ratings or scores. 

The RFP stated that overall, in the selection of a Contractor for contract award, Mission 

Suitability, Cost, and Past Performance, would be of approximately equal importance. All 

evaluation factors other than Cost, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost.

Factor 1 - Mission Suitability 

The Mission Suitability Subfactors and their weights were as follows:

Subfactor 1 - Understanding the Requirement and Technical Approach (UTRA) 500 points

URTA 1 - Approach to the Statement of Work (SOW)

URTA 2 - Risks and Approach to Risk Mitigation

Subfactor 2 - Management (MGMT) 400 points

MGMT 1 - Organizational Structure

MGMT 2 - Recruiting, retaining, and motivating employees

Subfactor 3 - Small Business Utilization (SBU) 100 points

Small Business Subcontracting

Commitment to Small Business

The SEB used the adjectival and numerical ratings in accordance with RFP Provision M.2(d) 

and findings definitions in accordance with RFP Provision M.2(e) in its evaluation of the Mission 

Suitability Factor.

Factor 2 - Cost/Price

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), the Government conducted a price analysis by evaluating 

the prices proposed in response to this solicitation. Specifically, the evaluation included, but 

was not limited to, comparing the prices proposed in response to this solicitation and comparing 

the proposed prices to the independent Government cost estimate. The total overall evaluated 

price was for CLINs 1 through 5. 
Page 3 of 11

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), the Government conducted a cost realism analysis by 

independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost 

estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work 

to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the 

unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal. The 

Government would derive a probable cost, which was determined by adjusting each offeror’s 

proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements 

to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analyses performed. The probable 

cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of each 

offeror’s proposal. The probable cost shall be used for the purposes of evaluation to determine 

the best value. 

Factor 3 - Past Performance

Under the Past Performance factor, the SEB considered each offeror's current/recent record 

(including the record of any significant subcontractors, but not the past performance of 

individuals who are proposed to be involved in the required work), of performing services or 

delivering products as demonstrated on the individual contracts offered for relevance and 

independent performance information on all previous contracts. 

In assessing pertinence, the SEB considered the degree of similarity of work performed in size 

in dollars per year, content, and complexity of each relevant contract of the prime and each 

significant subcontractor considering the amount and type of work each firm is proposed to 

perform to the requirements in this solicitation, as well as the recency and duration of the past 

performance. For the purpose of determining size, the SEB compared the size of work 

performed for the referenced contracts to the total price proposed for CLIN 2 and CLIN 4 for the 

prime and the significant subcontractors were compared against their portion of CLIN 2 and 

CLIN 4 as evidenced by the cost proposal. 

In assessing performance, the SEB made an assessment of the offeror's overall performance 

record using Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and Past Performance Information 

Retrieval System (PPIRS) information for meeting technical, schedule, cost, management, 

safety, security, overall mission success, subcontracting goals, and other contract requirements.

The SEB used a level of confidence rating for past performance in accordance with RFP 

Provision M.3 and NFS 1815.305. The RFP stated that each of the confidence ratings has a 

"performance" component and a "pertinence" component with the offeror having to meet the 

requirements of both components to achieve a particular rating. 

Evaluation Procedures

 

The SEB conducted the evaluation of proposals in accordance with Section M of the RFP. 

Upon receipt of Technical Proposals (Volume I), Business Proposals (Volume II), and Past 

Performance Proposal (Volume III), the SEB conducted an initial review of each Volume, with

the Cost/Price Analyst providing a review of the Factor 2 - Cost/Price proposal information, to 

determine if any were unacceptable proposals as defined in NFS 1815.305-70. The Contract 

Specialist reviewed each model contract, applicable terms and conditions and Representations 

and Certifications for each offeror. All proposals in accordance with RFP Provision M.2(c), 

except ICS, were found to warrant a full evaluation. ICS was eliminated on October 28, 2015 as 
Page 4 of 11

unacceptable in accordance with 1815.305-70(a)(1). ICS was properly notified and no further 

evaluation of their proposal was performed.

The SEB members performed a detailed individual review of each offeror’s Technical Proposal 

and documented strengths and weaknesses for each Mission Suitability subfactor. 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, calculating a point score for each subfactor by multiplying the 

assigned percentage score and the available points, then summing the subfactor point scores to

derive the overall Mission Suitability point score in accordance with NFS 1815.305.

The SEB reviewed each offeror’s Business Proposal to determine whether the costs proposed 

were reasonable, realistic and consistent with the technical approach. The cost proposals were 

assessed in accordance with the Cost/Price evaluation factor. The SEB provided the results of 

its review to the Cost/Price Analyst who incorporated the results into the detailed analysis of the 

offeror’s cost proposals.

The SEB performed a comprehensive review of each offeror’s Past Performance Proposal, all of 

the PPQs, and information obtained from the PPIRS. To determine work content, the SEB 

reviewed each offeror’s submitted contracts, comparing the description of the contract to the 

work in the SAS PPQ technical performance elements. The SEB also reviewed the past 

performance information to determine size and complexity for each offeror. The SEB then 

reviewed the Technical Proposals for each offeror to determine which entity (Prime and/or 

Significant Subcontractor) was proposed to do each section of the SOW. The SEB then 

assigned an overall pertinence rating for each offeror based on an integrated assessment of the 

size, content, and complexity for each offeror in relation to the SAS contract. The SEB collected 

and reviewed performance information on all Prime and Significant Subcontractors and 

assigned an overall performance rating for each offeror. The SEB then assigned an overall past 

performance confidence rating for each offeror, based on the performance and pertinence 

ratings.

The Contracting Officer carefully reviewed the facts presented in the initial findings and 

discussed the findings with the SEB. The RFP stated the Government anticipated award would 

be made without discussions, [ref. RFP provision at FAR 52.215-1(f)(4) and RFP Provision 

L.9(c)] and based on the initial findings of the SEB, it was evident that the potential for an award 

without discussions existed. Therefore, no Competitive Range was determined and the SEB 

met with me, the SSA, on December 2, 2015 to present its findings.
Page 5 of 11

Evaluation Findings

Factor 1 - Mission Suitability

Set forth below is a summary of the Mission Suitability ratings and findings for the offerors:

ASC

ASC received a Mission Suitability score of 661. ASC’s proposal included Strengths and 

Weaknesses as summarized below.

Subfactor 1, URTA

ASC received an adjectival rating of Good for Subfactor 1.

Approach to the SOW URTA 1

ASC received a Strength for its approach to perform the broad range of services of SOW 

Section 2.2.2 which reflected a thorough understanding of this requirement. ASC proposed 

numerous contractor provided software models of many avionics and air vehicle systems that 

allow for effective design and development of software products.

ASC received a Strength for its approach to perform the broad range of services of SOW 

Section 2.2.10 which reflected a thorough understanding of this requirement. ASC proposed 

reach-back and surge capability to support multiple research activities and flight research 

experiments simultaneously.

Risks and Approach to Risk Mitigation URTA 2

ASC received a Strength for its approach to capture the vast experience and expertise of key 

positions to support high fidelity human-in-the-loop flight simulation development and 

operations. 

ASC received a Strength for its understanding of the risks associated with the successful 

performance of this contract. ASC identified five (5) significant risks and mitigation approaches 

that the SEB considered appropriate, clearly stated, and realistic. 

Subfactor 2, MGMT

ASC received an adjectival rating of Good for Subfactor 2.

Organizational Structure MGMT 1

ASC received a Strength for its proposed organizational structure demonstrating efficiency and 

effectiveness in managing and communicating within the team and with the Government. 

Offeror Adjectival Rating Numerical Rating 

ASC Good 661

Unisys Very Good 746
Page 6 of 11

ASC received a Strength for clearly describing the responsibilities and authority of the Contract 

Program Manager.

ASC received a Weakness for not clearly identifying the specific SOW sections the prime and 

each significant subcontractor is proposed to perform.

Recruiting, retaining, and motivating employees MGMT 2

ASC received a Strength for its approaches for staffing the contract including incumbent 

retention and recruiting, retaining, and motivating highly qualified personnel.

Subfactor 3, SBU

ASC received an adjectival rating of Good for Subfactor 3.

ASC received a Strength for subcontracting goals (overall subcontracting goals and individual 

subcontracting goals by small business category) which exceeded the goals established for this 

procurement.

ASC received a Weakness for its small business plan not meeting the requirements of FAR 

19.704 (c) because the plan did not contain separate statements and goals for the basic 

contract and for each option.

Unisys

Unisys received a Mission Suitability score of 746. Unisys’s proposal included Significant 

Strengths, Strengths, and a Weakness as summarized below.

Subfactor 1, URTA

Unisys received an adjectival rating of Very Good for Subfactor 1.

Approach to the SOW URTA 1

Unisys received a Significant Strength for its proposed innovations for SOW Sections 2.2.2 and 

2.2.9 which include a development methodology for managing software tasks that will enhance 

communication and collaboration among team members, improve effectiveness of software 

development, and the delivery of operational software more effectively with improved efficiency 

and quality. The approach included a technique to improve the efficiency and costeffectiveness of systems development and testing processes. 

Unisys received a separate Significant Strength for its approach in performing the services in

SOW 2.2.2. This is based on Unisys’s extensive domain knowledge of core software that they 

combine with Open Source software to create a common software environment for simulation 

and flight operations. The approach enables cost effective, highly reusable, scalable, portable, 

re-configurable, and maintainable software products to be developed reducing downtime and 

schedule delays. 

Unisys received a Strength for its innovation to perform the services in SOW 2.2.10 providing a 

cost-effective and flexible environment for designing, developing, testing, operating, and 
Page 7 of 11

maintaining real-time, high fidelity flight simulations for multiple aeronautics and space 

exploration simulation studies, infrastructure engineering services, and flight research 

experiments. 

Risks and Approach to Risk Mitigation URTA 2

Unisys received a Strength for its proposed risk mitigation approach to optimize staff skills and

utilization by reducing delays in project schedules, avoiding cost inefficiencies caused by idle or 

underutilized staff, and ensuring there are qualified employees and subcontractors to perform 

the work.

Subfactor 2, MGMT

Unisys received an adjectival rating of Good for Subfactor 2.

Organizational Structure MGMT 1

Unisys received a Strength for its proposed organizational structure that has clear lines of 

responsibility, authority, and communication within the team and with the Government. 

Recruiting, retaining, and motivating employees MGMT 2

Unisys received a Strength for its proposed approach for staffing the contract which includes a 

fully trained and ready-to-perform staff ensuring continuity of support and enabling the retention 

of highly qualified employees. 

Subfactor 3, SBU

Unisys received an adjectival rating of Good for Subfactor 3.

Unisys received a Strength for its subcontracting goals which exceed the goals established for 

this procurement and its participation in the NASA Mentor Protégé program. 

Unisys received a Weakness for its small business plan not meeting the requirements of FAR 

19.704 (c) because the offeror plan did not contain separate statements and goals for the basic 

contract and for each option. 

Factor 2 - Cost/Price

The SEB and Cost/Price Analyst performed an analysis of the proposed prices to assess price 

reasonableness and cost realism; and to determine whether the proposed cost elements are 

realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are 

consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s 

technical proposals. Based on the analysis conducted by the SEB and Cost/Price Analyst and 

in accordance with FAR 15.402, the Contracting Officer has determined that the offerors’

proposed prices are fair and reasonable based on the comparison of the proposed prices and 

comparison of the proposed prices to the independent Government cost estimate (IGCE). 
Page 8 of 11

The IGCE and a summary of each offeror’s proposed cost is shown in the table below:

Offeror Proposed Cost

ASC Highest

Unisys Lowest

IGCE $43.6M

ASC

ASC’s proposed price was lower than the IGCE. The SEB found the price proposal to be 

realistic for the work to be performed, reflected a clear understanding of the SAS contract

requirements, and was consistent with the various elements of the technical proposal. The 

price proposal was found to be fair and reasonable. ASC had the highest proposed cost among 

the offerors evaluated. 

Unisys

Unisys’s proposed price was lower than the IGCE. The SEB found the price proposal to be 

realistic for the work to be performed, reflected a clear understanding of the SAS contract

requirements, and was consistent with the various elements of the technical proposal. The 

price proposal was found to be fair and reasonable. Unisys had the lowest proposed cost

among the offerors evaluated. 

Factor 3 - Past Performance

The SEB evaluated the offerors’ past performance in accordance with RFP Provision M.3 and a 

confidence rating was assigned in accordance with NFS 1815.305. Set forth below is a 

summary of the Past Performance confidence ratings and findings for the evaluated offerors: 

ASC

The SEB assigned a confidence rating of High to ASC’s Factor 3 - Past Performance. For 

overall Pertinence, a rating of Highly Pertinent was assigned, where size, content, and 

complexity were reviewed. For size, ASC received a Very Highly Pertinent rating. For overall 

content, ASC team was rated as Highly Pertinent. ASC team received Very Highly Pertinent on 

most SOW Sections. ASC received a rating of Highly Pertinent in SOW Sections 2.2.1 & 2.2.2, 

in particular ASC did not demonstrate experience in flight simulation hardware services and 

infrastructure. ASC received a rating of Pertinent in SOW Sections 2.2.3 - 2.2.6, in particular

ASC did not fully demonstrate experience in performing the requirements of SOW Sections 

2.2.5 (Graphics Programming) and 2.2.6 (Real-Time Visual Displays/Visual Scene Models 

Programming for Image Generation Systems). Therefore, the overall content rating was 

Offeror Pertinence Rating Performance Rating Level of Confidence

ASC Highly Pertinent Exceptional High

Unisys Very Highly Pertinent Exceptional Very High
Page 9 of 11

determined to be Highly Pertinent. For complexity, it was determined that the ASC team

demonstrated experience in all areas relevant to the SAS contract challenges and complexities. 

Performance ratings across the referenced contracts for the ASC team were Exceptional and 

Very Good with the majority being rated as Exceptional. ASC performance rating is 

Exceptional. Therefore, ASC’s Overall Pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent and Performance 

rating of Exceptional resulted in a High Level of Confidence for the Past Performance Factor.

Unisys

The SEB assigned a confidence rating of Very High to Unisys’s Factor 3 - Past Performance. 

For overall Pertinence, a rating of Highly Pertinent was assigned, where size, content, and 

complexity were reviewed. For size, Unisys received a Very Highly Pertinent rating as Unisys’s

largest referenced contract equaled the Government estimated SAS dollars per year. For

overall Content, Unisys was rated as Very Highly Pertinent. Unisys received Very Highly 

Pertinent on all SOW Sections. Therefore, the overall content rating was determined to be Very 

Highly Pertinent. For complexity, it was determined that the Unisys demonstrated experience in 

all areas relevant to the SAS contract challenges and complexities. 

Performance rating for the reference contract for Unisys was Exceptional. Unisys performance 

rating is Exceptional. Therefore, Unisys’s Overall Pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent and 

Performance rating of Exceptional resulted in a Very High Level of Confidence for the Past 

Performance Factor.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

I 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. I asked questions 

about specific aspects of the mission suitability, cost, and the past performance evaluations in 

order to enhance my understanding. After all questions were answered, I fully understood the 

SEB’s findings. I comparatively assessed the proposals against the evaluation factors and 

subfactors in the RFP. I 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. 

In comparing the Offerors in Factor 1, Mission Suitability, Unisys had an adjectival rating of Very 

Good compared to ASC’s adjectival rating of Good.

Under Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirement and Technical Approach (URTA), I noted

that ASC received no Significant Strengths for URTA 1, Approach to the SOW. ASC received 

two (2) strengths under URTA 1, which included a strength to perform SOW 2.2.2 that will allow 

for effective design and development of software products and another strength for SOW 2.2.10 

for its proposed reach back and surge capability. Unisys received two (2) Significant Strengths 

Offeror Pertinence Rating Performance Rating Level of Confidence

ASC Highly Pertinent Exceptional High

Offeror Pertinence Rating Performance Rating Level of Confidence

Unisys Very Highly Pertinent Exceptional Very High
Page 10 of 11

for URTA 1, which included innovation in key areas of the SOW 2.2.2 and 2.2.9 and a 

comprehensive approach to SOW 2.2.2. In addition to the significant strengths, Unisys received 

a strength for its innovative and cost-effective approach to perform the broad service required 

by SOW 2.2.10. In my assessment of Subfactor 1, I noted that Unisys was the only offeror to 

receive significant strengths. I feel that these significant strengths will appreciably increase the 

probability of successful performance. For URTA 1, I felt Unisys had a superior proposal for its 

understanding the requirements and technical approach compared to ASC.

Under URTA 2, Risks and Approach to Risk Mitigation, ASC received two (2) strengths that 

included a strength for its vast experience and expertise of key positions and another strength 

for its identification and mitigation of the significant risks. Unisys received one (1) strength for 

its risk mitigation approach. For URTA 2, I found ASC’s proposal to be slightly superior to 

Unisys for its risks and approach to risk mitigation.

For Subfactor 2, Management, both offerors had an adjectival rating of Good. 

Under MGMT 1, Organizational Structure, ASC had two (2) strengths associated with its 

organizational structure and clear lines of responsibilities and one (1) weakness associated with 

not identifying which entity would perform specific SOW sections. Under MGMT 1, Unisys had 

two (2) strengths associated with its organizational structure and approach for staffing the 

contract, with no weaknesses. The proposals were comparable in regards to the strengths; 

however, Unisys received no weaknesses under this subfactor. Therefore, I found Unisys’s 

proposal to be slightly superior to ASC for MGMT 1. 

Under MGMT 2, Recruiting, Retaining, and Motivating Employees, both offerors received one 

(1) strength, with no discernable discriminators in my opinion between the offerors for MGMT 2. 

Therefore, I considered the offerors to be essentially equal for MGMT 2. 

Under Subfactor 3, Small Business Utilization, both offerors had an adjectival rating of Good, 

with both offerors receiving one (1) strength and one (1) weakness each. When I compared the 

offeror’s respective strengths and weaknesses, I found the weaknesses to be similar for both 

offerors with no risk to contract performance and thus is not a discriminator in my selection 

decision. Regarding the respective strengths of each offeror, I found both to be equal in regards 

to exceeding the subcontract goals; however, I found Unisys’s proposed NASA Mentor Protégé 

program to make Unisys slightly superior to ASC for Subfactor 3. 

Regarding Factor 2, Cost/Price, an analysis of the proposed prices determined both offeror’s 

proposed prices to be fair and reasonable and realistic for the work to be performed. Neither 

offeror required a probable cost adjustment. ASC’s proposed cost/price was slightly higher than 

Unisys, with both offeror’s being below the Government estimate. 

Regarding Factor 3, Past Performance, I find ASC’s confidence rating of High secondary to 

Unisys’s confidence rating of Very High. Unisys’s superior rating provides me with more 

confidence that they will successfully perform the SAS requirements and is of substantial benefit 

to NASA. 

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

In making the selection decision, I conducted an integrated assessment of each proposal and 

considered the relative weight of the evaluation factors and subfactors as indicated in the RFP 

recognizing that Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly