Source Selection Statement 

for the 

Research Operations, Maintenance & 

Engineering (ROME) Contract 

Source Selection Information (until contract award) 

See FAR 3.104 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 2

I. Identification of the Acquisition ..................................................................................... 3 

II. Background.................................................................................................................... 3 

III. Evaluation Factors, Subfactors and Elements.............................................................. 4 

A. Factor 1 – Mission Suitability ................................................................................... 4 

B. Factor 2 – Cost/Price ................................................................................................. 5 

C. Factor 3 – Past Performance...................................................................................... 6 

IV. Sources......................................................................................................................... 7 

V. Evaluation Procedures................................................................................................... 7 

VI. Summary of Findings................................................................................................... 9 

A. FACTOR 1: MISSION SUITABILITY................................................................... 10 

1. Jacobs Sverdrup (JS) ............................................................................................. 10 

2. Raytheon................................................................................................................ 11 

3. Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) ................................................................ 14 

4. Virginia Aerospace Services (VAS) ..................................................................... 15 

5. AECOM ................................................................................................................ 17 

6. Wyle Laboratories (Wyle)..................................................................................... 19 

7. Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR)........................................................................... 21 

8. The Cube Corporation (Cube)............................................................................... 22 

B. FACTOR 2: COST ................................................................................................... 24 

1. Wyle ...................................................................................................................... 27

2. Cube ...................................................................................................................... 28

3. KBR....................................................................................................................... 29

4. AECOM ................................................................................................................ 30 

5. Raytheon................................................................................................................ 31 

6. JS........................................................................................................................... 31 

7. CSC ....................................................................................................................... 32

8. VAS....................................................................................................................... 33

C. FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE..................................................................... 34 

1. “Excellent” Overall Ratings: JS and VAS ............................................................ 34 

2. “Very Good” Overall Ratings: CSC, KBR, Raytheon, and Wyle......................... 35 

3. “Good” Overall Ratings: AECOM and Cube ....................................................... 38 

VII. Basis for Selection .................................................................................................... 39

A. Comparative Analyses.............................................................................................. 39 

1. JS compared to AECOM:...................................................................................... 39 

2. JS compared to CSC:............................................................................................. 43 

3. JS compared to Cube:............................................................................................ 47 

4. JS compared to KBR:............................................................................................ 51 

5. JS compared to Raytheon:..................................................................................... 54 

6. JS compared to VAS: ............................................................................................ 59 

7. JS compared to Wyle: ........................................................................................... 63 

B. Source Selection Decision........................................................................................ 68 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 3

Source Selection Statement 

for the 

Research Operations, Maintenance & Engineering Contract 

(NASA Solicitation Number 1-123-RBJ.1437) 

I. Identification of the Acquisition 

The Research Operations, Maintenance & Engineering (ROME) contract will provide 

operations, maintenance and engineering services in support of research and institutional 

facilities at the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC). Specific functions to be 

performed include: Research facility electrical, mechanical, structural, process and 

automation systems engineering, design and development; architectural-engineering 

designs, analyses, drawings, specifications and cost estimates for institutional facilities; 

general drafting; engineering library support; configuration management and 

maintenance of engineering drawing files; central utilities systems operations, 

maintenance and engineering; maintenance, repair and alterations of research and 

institutional facilities; work control, energy management and duty officer activities; test 

engineering and operations support for research facilities, including turnkey operations 

responsibility for five of Langley’s largest wind tunnels; research instrumentation 

systems development and support; calibration, maintenance and repair of 

instrumentation, including LaRC’s metrology program; research facility data acquisition 

systems development and support; high pressure systems recertification; systems 

development and administration for facilities-related management information systems. 

The resulting award will be a hybrid contract, which will include cost plus incentive fee, 

cost plus fixed fee and firm-fixed price work. ROME will also be an award term 

contract, which allows the contractor to earn additional contract term for excellent 

performance (up to a potential total term of 10 years) and to lose term for poor 

performance. This procurement was conducted as a full and open competition. 

II. Background

The ROME contract consolidates the services provided under eight current support 

service contracts plus small portions of three other current contracts. The incumbent 

contractors (and contract numbers) for the eight contracts that will be consolidated in 

their entirety are as follows: 

Aero Systems Engineering Inc. (NAS1-98090): Systems Engineering for Research 

Facility Integrated Systems (SERFIS) Contract 

Diversified Technology and Services of Virginia (NAS1-99140): Research Equipment 

Operations Support (REOS) Contract 

DynCorp Systems and Solutions (NAS1-98091): Systems Engineering for Research 

Facility Integrated Systems (SERFIS) Contract 

Hernandez Engineering Inc. (NAS1-99151): Recertification and Configuration 

Management Contract 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 4

Johnson Controls World Services Inc. (NAS1-99000): Facilities and Equipment Support 

Services (FESS) Contract 

Sverdrup Technology Inc. (NAS1-98128 & NAS1-98092): Multi-Discipline ArchitectEngineering Services (MAES) Contract and Systems Engineering for Research 

Facility Integrated Systems (SERFIS) Contract 

Wyle Laboratories (NAS1-98100): Research Instrumentation and Measurement Support 

(RIMS) Contract 

The three contracts that will have small portions consolidated into ROME are as follows: 

Raytheon Technical Services Company (L-70750D): Consolidated Information 

Technology Services (ConITS) Contract 

Swales Aerospace (NAS1-00135): Systems Analysis and Mission Support (SAMS) 

Contract 

Tessada & Associates Inc. (NAS1-02081): Consolidated Logistics, Administrative & 

Scientific Information Contract (CLASIC) 

All required approvals for this consolidation, which meets the definition of “contract 

bundling” in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), were obtained prior to the 

issuance of the RFP and are included in the contract file. 

III. Evaluation Factors, Subfactors and Elements

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 in the overall selection, Mission Suitability, Cost, and Past 

Performance would be of essentially equal importance; and that Mission Suitability and 

Past Performance, when combined, would be significantly more important than Cost. 

A. Factor 1 – Mission Suitability 

The following Mission Suitability Subfactors were established, with weights assigned as 

indicated, using a 1,000-point scale: 

Subfactor 1 Understanding the Requirements and Approach 400 

Subfactor 2 Management 400 

Subfactor 3 Safety 100 

Subfactor 4 Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Participation 100 

The Source Evaluation Board (SEB) used the following numerical and adjectival scoring 

system for the Mission Suitability factor as required by the NASA FAR Supplement to 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 5

assign adjective ratings and scores for each Subfactor within Mission Suitability and for 

the overall Mission Suitability factor: 

ADJ. % 

RATING RANGE DEFINITIONS

Excellent 91-100 A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit 

with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or 

significant weakness exists. 

Very Good 71-90 A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates 

overall competence. One or more significant strengths have 

been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that 

exist. 

Good 51-70 A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a 

reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or 

weaknesses, or both. As a whole, weaknesses not offset by 

strengths do not significantly detract from the offeror's 

response. 

Fair 31-50 A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more 

weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths. 

Poor 0-30 A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant 

weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or 

would require a major proposal revision to correct. 

B. Factor 2 – Cost/Price 

The RFP does not provide for adjectival ratings or numerical scores under the Cost/Price 

factor. Offerors were required to propose fee at various “set fee” levels specified by the 

Government in the RFP. These set fee amounts are included in the probable cost for each 

offeror. The Cost/Price evaluation language from Section M of the RFP follows: 

An analysis of the proposed price will be conducted to determine its 

reasonableness. In addition, a cost realism analysis will be performed to 

assess the realism of the proposed costs for the work to be performed; 

reflection of a clear understanding of the requirements; and consistency 

with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the 

offeror’s technical proposal. A probable cost will be developed for 

purposes of determining best value. Once the probable cost excluding fee 

(PCEF), has been determined, the probable fixed and incentive fees will 

be determined. The fixed fee rate will be applied to the applicable portion 

of the PCEF to calculate the fixed fee dollars. The incentive fee structure 

will be applied to the variance between the target (proposed) costs and the 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 6

PCEF to calculate the incentive fee dollars. The resulting fee dollars will 

be combined with the PCEF to establish the Government’s probable cost. 

Fee shall be proposed at the levels set forth in this RFP. The basis for 

price comparison between offerors for selection under this factor will be 

each offeror’s probable cost as defined above plus any adjustments that 

may be required under FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation 

Preference for HUB Zone Small Business Concerns (JAN 1999) and FAR 

52.219-23, Notice of Price Evaluation Adjustment for Small 

Disadvantaged Business Concerns (May 2001). The cost/price proposal 

will also be used as an aid to determine the offeror's understanding of 

Mission Suitability Requirements. For evaluation purposes, the 

Government will establish a probable cost for the IDIQ portion of the 

contract based on the information provided in RFP Section L.16(f)6 

(m)(5). Specifically, the Government will determine the IDIQ probable 

cost by using the data provided in Cost Form VIII and applying each 

offeror’s probable indirect cost rates and 7 percent fee/profit.

C. Factor 3 – Past Performance 

The SEB rated the Past Performance factor in accordance with the adjectival rating scale 

shown below, which is set forth in the RFP. Each of the Past Performance adjective 

ratings has a "performance" component and a "relevance" component. The offeror must 

meet the requirements of both components to achieve a particular rating. 

Excellent - Of exceptional merit; exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and 

economical manner; very minor (if any) deficiencies with no adverse effect on overall 

performance; and experience that is highly relevant to this procurement. 

Very Good - Very effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; 

contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the 

most part, only minor deficiencies with minimal effect on overall performance; and 

experience is very relevant to this procurement. 

Good - Effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable 

deficiencies, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance; and experience is 

relevant to this procurement. 

Satisfactory - Meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results; 

reportable deficiencies with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall 

performance; and experience is at least somewhat relevant to this procurement. 

Poor/Unsatisfactory - Does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; 

remedial action required in one or more areas; deficiencies in one or more areas which 

adversely affect overall performance. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 7

Neutral - No record of relevant past performance or past performance information is not 

available. 

IV. Sources

The Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) was released on April 25, 2003 for industry 

comments. Following the release of the Draft RFP, the SEB conducted a Presolicitation 

Conference at Langley Research Center on May 15 - 16, 2003. 157 individuals 

representing 84 different firms attended one or both days of the conference. The final 

RFP was released on June 5, 2003. Written Past Performance information (Volume III) 

was received on June 26, 2003 for early evaluation, and Volumes I and II (Mission 

Suitability and Cost/Price) were submitted on August 8, 2003. Past Performance oral 

presentation charts (also Volume III) were submitted on August 5, 2003 and the actual 

presentations were made by the offerors during the week of August 11 – 15, 2003. 

Proposals were received from the following eight companies: 

AECOM 

Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) 

The Cube Corporation (Cube) 

Jacobs Sverdrup (JS) 

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) 

Raytheon Technical Services Company (Raytheon) 

Virginia Aerospace Services (VAS) 

Wyle Laboratories (Wyle) 

V. Evaluation Procedures

Prior to issuance of the RFP, the SEB was appointed to develop the RFP and to conduct 

the evaluation of proposals received in response to the RFP. As required in paragraph (a) 

of RFP provision M.1, METHOD OF EVALUATION, the SEB conducted its evaluation 

in accordance with subpart 1815.3 of the NASA FAR Supplement, using the evaluation 

criteria defined in the RFP and described above. These procedures and criteria were 

followed throughout the evaluation process. 

The evaluation was performed by the SEB using the evaluation criteria set forth in 

Section M of the RFP, the evaluation numerical and adjectival rating and scoring system 

in the NASA FAR Supplement for Mission Suitability and Past Performance, and the 

Mission Suitability Cost Realism Adjustment Table from the RFP. The SEB members 

and all consultants are NASA Langley civil service employees. The evaluation was 

performed by the SEB without the use of formal committees or subcommittees; however, 

a Past Performance Team was assembled to conduct a thorough review of the 150+ past 

performance forms received from customers of the offerors and their subcontractors, and 

to follow up on any negative past performance issues identified by customers. In many 

instances, the review of a past performance form was followed up with a telephone call to 

a customer point of contact to clarify information already provided. The Past 

Performance Team prepared clarification questions for each offeror in every instance 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 8

where negative past performance was reported. The Past Performance team reported its 

findings to the SEB on October 28, 2003. Other consultants were used to assist the SEB 

in performing the evaluation of specific technical aspects of the proposals, and the 

Professional Compensation, SDB, Small Business, ISO/Quality Plans, and Safety and 

Health Plans included with each offeror. 

The evaluation began with each voting member of the SEB reviewing the past 

performance proposal volumes and the customer past performance forms. Individual 

findings were identified at this time. When the Past Performance oral presentation charts 

were received, the SEB members reviewed the charts prior to the actual presentations. 

All seven of the SEB voting members, two consultants, at least one attorney from the 

LaRC Office of Chief Counsel, and the Contracting Officer (C.O.) attended all eight of 

the oral past performance presentations. Following the oral past performance 

presentations, the individual voting members identified additional Past Performance 

findings. After completion of individual Past Performance evaluations, the SEB met as a 

group and developed consensus findings for each individual offeror. Because adverse 

past performance issues had not yet been addressed at this point, the SEB began work on 

the Mission Suitability factor while the Past Performance Team (discussed above) was 

being assembled. 

When the Mission Suitability evaluation began, each voting member first independently 

reviewed the Technical/Management Proposal (Volume I) for each offeror, and the 

Contract Specialist and NASA Price Analysts also reviewed the Business Proposal 

(Volume II), to determine whether any proposals should be rejected as unacceptable. 

None of the eight proposals were found to be unacceptable. 

Each voting member then independently reviewed each Technical/Management Proposal 

(in alphabetical order), and documented strengths and weaknesses under the various 

Mission Suitability Subfactors. Several consultants also independently reviewed specific 

areas of the Technical/Management Proposal for which they possessed technical 

expertise. After completion of each individual evaluation, the SEB met as a group, 

discussed all of the individual findings of the voting members and consultants, and 

developed consensus strengths and weaknesses for each individual offeror. Once this 

phase of the evaluation was concluded, the SEB returned to its evaluation of the Past 

Performance factor, including evaluation of the Past Performance Team’s report. 

After the Past Performance Team reported its findings to the SEB, the SEB revisited its 

consensus past performance findings and made revisions as deemed necessary by a 

consensus of the SEB voting members. The SEB also developed consensus findings on 

the relevance of each offeror’s experience. When this was complete, the SEB then 

developed a consensus rating for each offeror under Factor 3 – Past Performance, using 

the adjectival rating scale set forth in the RFP. Offerors (including subcontractors) 

without a record of relevant past performance were rated neither favorably nor 

unfavorably under Factor 3. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 9

Next, the SEB reviewed the Business Proposals to provide technical input to support the 

determination of cost realism and price reasonableness. The SEB evaluated specific 

elements of the business proposal and addressed any inconsistencies between the 

business and technical proposals. The SEB provided the results of its review to the 

NASA Price Analysts who incorporated it, along with information from Defense Contract 

Audit Agency (DCAA) offices, into the detailed analysis of the individual cost proposals. 

The Pricing Report shows the determination of price reasonableness and a summary of 

the cost realism analysis, and relies upon the individual proposals, the analysis of these 

proposals, and the SEB and DCAA input. Pursuant to NASA FAR Supplement 

1815.305(a)(1)(B)(c), as part of performing the cost realism analyses, a level of 

confidence was determined for the probable cost assessment for each proposal. Probable 

cost confidence is the degree to which the probable costs can be relied upon to ascertain 

the likely cost of performance for each firm. Upon finalizing the probable cost 

assessment, the SEB determined whether cost realism adjustments were necessary in 

accordance with the terms of the RFP. No Mission Suitability point deductions for any of 

the offerors resulted from the Cost Realism evaluation. 

Following the SEB’s review of the Business Proposals, the SEB met with the C.O. to 

review the SEB’s Mission Suitability consensus findings. Some revisions were made by 

the SEB to clarify the linkage of strengths and weaknesses to the RFP Mission Suitability 

evaluation language, and to ensure consistent application of the evaluation criteria. The 

SEB then developed its consensus adjective ratings and point scores for each Mission 

Suitability Subfactor, and for the Mission Suitability Factor as a whole. The C.O. and the 

SEB then conducted a similar review for the Past Performance and Cost/Price factors, 

and the SEB developed its consensus adjective ratings for the Past Performance Factor to 

conclude the proposal evaluation process. 

VI. Summary of Findings

The results of the initial evaluations were reviewed by the C.O. and were discussed 

between the C.O. and the SEB from November 17 - 26, 2003. All the comments and 

questions of the C.O. were resolved. The RFP stated the Government’s intent to award a 

contract without discussions. In the C.O.’s judgment, discussions were not deemed 

necessary, and the SEB concurred with the C.O. The SEB, therefore, proceeded directly 

with a formal presentation of its findings to me. The SEB’s presentation included 

procurement background information, evaluation procedures, and the results of the 

proposal evaluation. 

I have carefully reviewed the SEB’s findings and have discussed those findings with the 

SEB members. I also concur with the C.O.’s determination that discussions are not 

necessary. For each of the eight offerors, the SEB assigned an adjective rating and score 

for Factor 1, a probable cost, a confidence level for probable cost, and an evaluated price 

for Factor 2, and an adjective rating for Factor 3. I concur with the SEB findings below: 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 10

A. FACTOR 1: MISSION SUITABILITY 

Set forth in order of ranking (from high to low) is a summary of the Mission Suitability 

findings for the eight offerors. All significant strengths listed below are considered to be 

of substantial value to the Government, and all significant weaknesses listed below are 

considered to appreciably increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. 

Additional detail on significant strengths and significant weaknesses that most 

significantly affected my decision can be found in the comparative analyses between the 

successful offeror’s proposal and the other seven offerors’ proposals in the “Basis for 

Selection” section of this Source Selection Statement.

1. Jacobs Sverdrup (JS) 

JS received an “Excellent” rating at the Mission Suitability factor level for a 

comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with numerous significant 

strengths and no deficiencies or significant weaknesses. The findings for JS are 

summarized below by Mission Suitability Subfactor. 

Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirements and Approach - JS received an “Excellent” 

rating for a comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with numerous 

significant strengths and no deficiencies or significant weaknesses. The Significant 

Strengths for JS under Subfactor 1 are as follows:

• A highly innovative and effective approach to establishing and maintaining 

effective communication between Operations, Maintenance, Engineering and 

Information Technology (OME & IT) work units and between the ROME 

contractor and LaRC clients; 

• 26 innovations, technologies, and process improvements to implement within the 

first three years of the contract (and continuing many throughout the contract 

period); 

• A comprehensive list of risk elements, a risk probability and impact rating, and a 

detailed risk mitigation strategy; 

• Several approaches for maximizing the availability and productivity of research 

facilities; 

• A comprehensive summary and demonstrated an exceptional understanding of 

typical problems associated with Research Facility Operations; 

• A highly effective approach to assure research test data quality; 

• Several maintenance innovations for facility repair cost avoidance; 

• Effective innovations utilizing existing asset management systems to achieve 

accuracy and quality of facility maintenance data, which will facilitate informed 

maintenance decisions by analysis of the maintenance data; 

• An effective and innovative use of technology through the use of a collaborative 

communication system that enables the sharing of drawings and other project data 

between offices, allowing geographically remote operations to function as a single 

"virtual office"; and 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 11

• An effective strategy for IT Consolidation/Enterprise Architecture 

Implementation, which will increase the availability and quality of information 

provided to the Government. 

Subfactor 2, Management - JS received an “Excellent” rating for a comprehensive and 

thorough proposal of exceptional merit with several significant strengths and no 

deficiencies or significant weaknesses. The Significant Strengths for JS under 

Subfactor 2 are as follows:

• A comprehensive management approach supported by an organizational structure 

established and aligned on the basis of 15 well-defined core processes with 

assigned JS owners; 

• A Management Team that has highly relevant experience managing a large 

number of people in a wind tunnel testing environment on contracts similar in 

size, content, and complexity to ROME; 

• An aggressive, credible and detailed approach to cost reductions through labor 

efficiencies that includes new technologies, innovations, and process 

improvements, with most gains to be realized in the first half of the contract 

period; 

• Invest a significant amount of its own money in several initiatives related to 

process improvements, human capital development and marketing of LaRC 

research facilities; and 

• A comprehensive table of transition-related risks and mitigation approaches 

which will significantly minimize changeover difficulties and maximize 

continuity of services. 

Subfactor 3, Safety - JS received a “Very Good” rating for a proposal which 

demonstrates overall competence with one significant strength and no deficiencies or 

significant weaknesses. The Significant Strength for JS under Subfactor 3 is as 

follows:

• A thorough Safety and Health Plan that incorporates all elements of the OSHA 

VPP program and includes a structured plan and a corporate commitment to meet 

the requirements for VPP Star designation. 

Subfactor 4, SDB Participation - JS received a “Good” rating for a proposal which shows 

a reasonably sound response and has no significant strength, deficiency or significant 

weakness, and contains one strength and no weaknesses. 

2. Raytheon 

Raytheon received a “Very Good” rating at the Mission Suitability factor level for a 

proposal which demonstrates overall competence with numerous significant strengths, no 

deficiencies and several significant weaknesses. The findings for Raytheon are 

summarized below by Mission Suitability Subfactor. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 12

Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirements and Approach - Raytheon received a “Very 

Good” rating for a proposal which demonstrates overall competence with several 

significant strengths, no deficiencies and two significant weaknesses. The significant 

strengths and significant weaknesses for Raytheon under Subfactor 1 are as follows: 

Significant Strengths 

• An approach to risk management that is comprehensive and addresses 

programmatic risks and mitigation for each Subfactor 

• Several technology innovations that effectively utilize existing asset management 

systems to improve facility reliability and condition, and facilitate Government 

acceptance of new technologies through the demonstration of quick benefits 

resulting in improved data quality and information availability; An Enterprise 

Information Portal (EIP) prototype which is comprehensive and consolidated into 

a "single point of access for ROME work activities”. Additionally, Raytheon 

proposed the delivery of a "[working prototype] during the first week of phase-in 

for customer review" and to expedite the development and delivery of the EIP to 

exceed the Government's EIP delivery schedule by approximately 6 months; 

• A comprehensive and effective IT Security approach; and an excellent Enterprise 

Architecture (EA) development methodology and a comprehensive and effective 

strategy for addressing the Government's EA goals and objectives as stated in 

Section 5.2 of the Statement of Work (SOW). 

Significant Weaknesses 

• An approach for managing the metrology program that is vague and does not 

adequately address how SOW requirements for compliance with ISO 17025 

(SOW 3.2.1) will be met during the period prior to the certification of its 

metrology subcontractor or how it will perform Data Acquisition Systems/Facility 

Automation Systems (DAS/FAS) instrumentation metrology; and 

• An approach for the design, development, implementation, and lifecycle support 

of FAS and DAS that does not adequately address DAS/FAS software 

maintenance nor does it adequately address configuration management of 

DAS/FAS hardware and software. 

Subfactor 2, Management - Raytheon received a “Very Good” rating for a proposal 

which demonstrates overall competence with several significant strengths, no deficiencies 

and two significant weaknesses. The significant strengths and significant weaknesses for 

Raytheon under Subfactor 2 are as follows: 

Significant Strengths 

• Demonstrates understanding and approach to manage the ROME contract that is 

based upon proposed process improvements and includes its Integrated Product 

Development System (IPDS) and Raytheon Six Sigma (RSix Sigma); Raytheon 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 13

demonstrated integration of its IPDS and R6 Sigma through the use of case 

studies relevant to ROME; 

• Proposes to invest a significant amount of its own money over the first three years 

of the contract in the following categories: OSHA Voluntary Protection Program 

(VPP) Star Certification, development of an ISO 9001 quality management 

system, DAS/FAS upgrades, Raytheon 6-Sigma experts, and development of the 

EIP, which will contribute to good stewardship of LaRC facilities, facility 

systems, and OME & IT business systems; 

• An approach to develop and implement a process to capture and document the 

critical knowledge residing with the existing research facility operations 

workforce that is comprehensive and well conceived; and 

• A phase-in plan that represents an excellent approach to minimizing changeover 

difficulties. 

Significant Weaknesses 

• Due to the proposed location of the metrology facility, its ability to meet the onsite service and emergency repair timeliness requirement (ref. SOW Sections 

3.2.2 and 3.1.6.2.1) for the instrumentation calibration and repair functions has 

not been adequately demonstrated. In addition, it is not clear if the facility 

proposed for use will be totally dedicated to the ROME contract due to the 

calibration services currently provided by the proposed subcontractor to nonROME customers, leaving the Government unable to discern whether the facility 

is adequately sized for the ROME effort; and 

• The Management Team does not have adequate experience managing projects of 

the size, content, and complexity of ROME, and has limited operational 

experience in wind tunnels and research facilities. In addition, the proposed 

Management Team does not have adequate wind tunnel or research facility 

engineering management experience. 

Subfactor 3, Safety - Raytheon received an “Excellent” rating for a comprehensive and 

thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one significant strength and no deficiencies 

or significant weaknesses. The Significant Strength for Raytheon under Subfactor 3 

is as follows: 

• A comprehensive Safety and Health (S&H) Plan that includes a draft of its VPP 

Star Application and an investment of a significant amount of Raytheon’s money, 

thus showing further commitment to becoming VPP Star certified. 

Subfactor 4, SDB Participation - Raytheon received a “Very Good” rating for a proposal 

which demonstrates overall competence with one significant strength and no deficiencies 

or significant weaknesses. The Significant Strength for Raytheon under Subfactor 4 

is as follows: 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 14

• An SDB goal that significantly exceeds the RFP SDB Subfactor goal of 10%, and 

proposed formal enforceable commitments with SDBs. Raytheon has exceeded its 

corporate-wide SDB goals for the last 7 years. 

3. Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) 

CSC received a “Very Good” rating at the Mission Suitability factor level for a proposal 

which demonstrates overall competence with numerous significant strengths, no 

deficiencies and two significant weaknesses. The findings for CSC are summarized 

below by Mission Suitability Subfactor. 

Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirements and Approach – CSC received a “Very 

Good” rating for a proposal which demonstrates overall competence with several 

significant strengths, no deficiencies and two significant weaknesses. The significant 

strengths and significant weaknesses for CSC under Subfactor 1 are as follows: 

Significant Strengths 

• An approach to develop and implement its ROME Integrated Business Systems 

(RIBS) by utilizing its proven Management Information and Control System 

(MICS) as the single business management system and primary customer 

interface to an underlying OME Enterprise Architecture is exceptional; 

• A significant number of maintenance innovations for the existing asset 

management systems; and 

• An Enterprise Architecture (EA) approach (e.g. developing an EA 

Communications Plan, providing a cost-benefit analysis, deriving and 

documenting an IT governance strategy, and following the guidelines set forth in 

the "Practical Guide to Enterprise Architecture”) that will result in significant IT 

cost savings for the Government, eliminate functional and data redundancy, and 

improve information accuracy and quality. 

Significant Weaknesses 

• An acceptable level of understanding or technical approach for Data Acquisition 

Systems (DAS) work in the operations area is not demonstrated; and 

• An adequate level of detail or an acceptable level of understanding for DAS and 

FAS hardware and software maintenance and configuration control is not 

demonstrated. 

Subfactor 2, Management - CSC received an “Excellent” rating for a comprehensive and 

thorough proposal of exceptional merit with several significant strengths and no 

deficiencies or significant weaknesses. The Significant Strengths for CSC under 

Subfactor 2 are as follows: 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 15

• An innovative and cost effective approach to cooperate with the Government to 

capture and document the critical knowledge residing with the existing research 

facility operations workforce; 

• A Management Team that has extensive experience in engineering and 

management. CSC's proposed Management Team also has excellent qualifications 

and extensive experience in phase-in of previous contracts of similar size, content, 

and complexity. In addition, the Management Team has Central Utilities 

Operations experience that is highly relevant to the ROME effort; 

• A plan for cost control and cost savings initiatives that will be enhanced by 

Contractor investments of a significant amount of its own money in the following 

areas: no cost phase-in, deployment of the IT Solutions Development Lab, 

calibration lab move and upgrade, accelerated Enterprise Architecture 

implementation, wind tunnel marketing plan, and the Technology Partnership 

Council; and 

• Subcontracting goals for overall small businesses (SB), veteran-owned small 

businesses (VOSB), service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB), 

and historically black colleges and universities (HBCU) that significantly exceed 

the RFP goals for those four categories. 

Subfactor 3, Safety - CSC received a “Very Good” rating for a proposal which 

demonstrates overall competence with one significant strength and no deficiencies or 

significant weaknesses. The Significant Strength for CSC under Subfactor 3 is as 

follows: 

• A comprehensive Safety and Health Plan for complying with applicable NASA 

policies and procedures that includes a commitment to achieve VPP star status 

within one year. 

Subfactor 4, SDB Participation - CSC received an “Excellent” rating for a comprehensive 

and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one significant strength and no 

deficiencies or significant weaknesses. The Significant Strength for CSC under 

Subfactor 4 is as follows: 

• An SDB Plan that subcontracts a portion of the ROME contract to small 

disadvantaged businesses that very significantly exceeds the RFP target of 10% 

for this Subfactor. CSC also proposed formal teaming arrangements with its SDB 

subcontractors and has consistently exceeded SDB goals on prior contracts. 

4. Virginia Aerospace Services (VAS) 

VAS received a “Very Good” rating at the Mission Suitability factor level for a proposal 

which demonstrates overall competence with numerous significant strengths, no 

deficiencies and several significant weaknesses. The findings for VAS are summarized 

below by Mission Suitability Subfactor. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 16

Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirements and Approach – VAS received a “Very 

Good” rating for a proposal which demonstrates overall competence with several 

significant strengths, no deficiencies and several significant weaknesses. The significant 

strengths and significant weaknesses for VAS under Subfactor 1 are as follows: 

Significant Strengths 

• Several significant innovations and process improvements in the areas of facilities 

marketing, knowledge capture, staffing, performance improvement, and 

management of human capital to be implemented during the first three years of 

the contract; 

• A number of innovations for research test data quality assurance that demonstrate 

an exceptional understanding of the ROME requirements in this area; 

• A comprehensive RCM strategy that will significantly improve the maintenance 

program by reducing the impact of maintenance on facility operations; and 

• Several excellent maintenance innovations that will result in repair cost avoidance 

and overall improvements in facility condition, reliability, and availability. 

Significant Weaknesses 

• Did not address configuration management for FAS and DAS, nor did it address 

DAS and FAS software maintenance (for example, VAS did not address the 

implementation of software project management principles or an approach to 

maintenance and repair of DAS and FAS software and hardware, nor did it 

address how it will manage the releases of DAS and FAS software or maintain 

source code control); 

• Did not adequately discuss how the metrology program will be implemented; how 

DAS or FAS equipment will be calibrated both in the lab and in the research 

facilities; how various categories of instruments will be scheduled, calibrated, or 

repaired; how IAGP and GFE will be assessed and managed, or how VAS’s 

procedures will interface with current Langley Management System (LMS) 

processes; and 

• An approach to deliver "within the first 18 months ...an Enterprise Information 

Portal" that does not meet the overall 12-month delivery requirement for the EIP 

contained in the SOW (ref. section 5.1.3). 

Subfactor 2, Management – VAS received an “Excellent” rating for a comprehensive and 

thorough proposal of exceptional merit with several significant strengths and no 

deficiencies or significant weaknesses. The Significant Strengths for VAS under 

Subfactor 2 are as follows: 

• Creation of a Joint Venture (JV) exclusively for the ROME contract will: 

a) "[Eliminate the] requirement for application of Corporate General and 

Administrative (G&A) expenses, which will result in a reduction of [a significant 

amount] in contract costs" and b) will impose “no cost load on subcontracts due to 

no application of G&A or fee by [the Offeror]”; 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 17

• A Management Team that has NASA-related technical and business experience 

and experience managing contracts similar in size and complexity to ROME. In 

addition, the proposed Management Team has extensive management 

qualifications and maintenance experience, including RCM and Condition 

Assessment Programs and successful performance of facility operations and 

maintenance at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). The proposed 

Management Team also has extensive management and business system 

technology experience and is, therefore, highly qualified to manage the 

Information Technology requirements. The proposed Management Team has 

significant phase-in experience on contracts similar in size and complexity to 

ROME; 

• Very effective approaches for capturing and documenting the critical knowledge 

residing with the existing research facility operations workforce; and 

• A very detailed, comprehensive and effective approach to minimize changeover 

difficulties and maximize continuity of services during phase-in. 

Subfactor 3, Safety – VAS received a “Good” rating for a proposal which shows a 

reasonably sound response and has no significant strength, deficiency or significant 

weakness, and contains one strength and one weakness. 

Subfactor 4, SDB Participation - VAS received a “Very Good” rating for a proposal 

which demonstrates overall competence with one significant strength and no deficiencies 

or significant weaknesses. The Significant Strength for VAS under Subfactor 4 is as 

follows: 

• An SDB plan which includes identified SOW areas, SDB outreach and source 

identification. In addition, VAS proposes an SDB goal that exceeds the RFP goal 

of 10%, and its SDB past performance indicates strong corporate commitment to 

achieve subcontracting goals. 

5. AECOM 

AECOM received a “Very Good” rating at the Mission Suitability factor level for a 

proposal which demonstrates overall competence with several significant strengths, no 

deficiencies and several significant weaknesses. The findings for AECOM are 

summarized below by Mission Suitability Subfactor. 

Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirements and Approach – AECOM received a 

“Good” rating for a proposal which shows a reasonably sound response and contains two 

significant strengths, no deficiencies and several significant weaknesses. The significant 

strengths and significant weaknesses for AECOM under Subfactor 1 are as follows: 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 18

Significant Strengths 

• An excellent approach to improving the quality of engineering designs; and 

• An innovative systems engineering approach for tactical engineering, 

configuration management, and pressure system recertification.

Significant Weaknesses 

• The graphical representation of its ROME Enterprise IT architecture requires the 

movement of multiple application protocols through the LaRC firewall (T2 to 

T3), creating a significant IT Security risk for the Center. In addition, the 

Offeror’s narrative does not agree with its graphical representation, making the 

Offeror’s IT architecture approach vague (i.e., the EIP is stated to be in Tier 1, but 

depicted in Tier 2 of the figure in its proposal). Also, the Offeror’s approach to 

include IT-CMS, OME-VL, and the EIP within MAXIMO did not demonstrate 

how MAXIMO could satisfy the ROME document and configuration 

management requirements; 

• Their approach to maximizing IT Security addresses security at only the user 

access level, and AECOM’s strategy to maintain "IT backup servers in an off-site 

facility" will create an IT Security risk due to transmission of proprietary data and 

documents in the clear over public lines; and 

• AECOM’s proposed facility maintenance staffing (SOW 3.1) is significantly 

lower (by 27 Full-Time Equivalents (FTE)) than the Government estimate, and 

this discrepancy is not supported by the Offeror’s technical proposal (i.e., 

operational efficiencies that would generate such labor savings were not 

proposed), indicating a significant lack of understanding of the requirements (the 

Government estimate was developed using historical data, which was provided to 

the offerors in the RFP); 

Subfactor 2, Management – AECOM received a “Very Good” rating for a proposal which 

demonstrates overall competence with two significant strengths, no deficiencies and one 

significant weakness. The significant strengths and significant weakness for AECOM 

under Subfactor 2 are as follows: 

Significant Strengths 

• Proposed partnership with RFMO to invest, at the Program Manager's discretion, 

a highly substantial amount of its own money in human capital development, new 

equipment, technology insertion, and marketing of LaRC Research facilities will 

contribute to good stewardship of LaRC facilities, facility systems, and OME & 

IT business systems; and 

• A signed three-party agreement with the unions representing ROME craftsmen to 

support cross-training and cross-utilization efforts to reduce costs and has 

proposed several other approaches that should result in effective labor relations. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 19

Significant Weakness 

• The Management Team does not have adequate experience managing projects of 

the size, content and complexity of ROME and lacks full service operational 

experience in wind tunnels and research facilities. 

Subfactor 3, Safety - AECOM received an “Excellent” rating for a comprehensive and 

thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one significant strength and no deficiencies 

or significant weaknesses. The Significant Strength for AECOM under Subfactor 3 

is as follows: 

• The creation of an independent ROME Safety and Health Office that meets all 

NASA standards and is controlled and enforced by a proposed subcontractor. The 

independence of the safety organization will promote a strong safety program by 

removing the "control" of safety from line organizations. 

Subfactor 4, SDB Participation – AECOM received a “Good” rating for a proposal which 

shows a reasonably sound response and has no significant strength, deficiency or 

significant weakness, and contains one strength and no weaknesses. 

6. Wyle Laboratories (Wyle) 

Wyle received a “Good” rating at the Mission Suitability factor level for a proposal 

which shows a reasonably sound response and contains numerous significant strengths, 

no deficiencies and several significant weaknesses. The findings for Wyle are 

summarized below by Mission Suitability Subfactor. 

Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirements and Approach – Wyle received a “Very 

Good” rating for a proposal which demonstrates overall competence with numerous 

significant strengths, no deficiencies and one significant weakness. The significant 

strengths and significant weakness for Wyle under Subfactor 1 are as follows: 

Significant Strengths 

• A plan for implementing new technologies, innovations, and process 

improvements demonstrates an exceptional understanding of business IT goals for 

the ROME contract; 

• An approach to utilize the EIP is integrated throughout the proposal, which is a 

very effective strategy for using technology to organize, perform, and control 

each technical area of the contract and maintain effective lines of communication 

between the OME&IT work units; 

• An innovative approach to provide quality research test data and maximize the 

availability and reliability of facilities; 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 20

• An excellent understanding of typical research facility operations problems in 

several major areas, including data quality, instrumentation, DAS & FAS, tunnel 

safety, operations, model, and flow quality; 

• Several innovations for operations which are of substantial value to the 

Government; 

• Several outstanding technology innovations for the existing asset management 

systems; 

• An excellent approach to streamline workflow processes and approvals by 

expanding the use of MAXIMO to manage all of the ROME contract assets 

(including instrumentation, DAS, and Installation-Accountable Government 

Property (IAGP)) and to meet the requirements of the Work Request Tracking 

System (WoRTS); 

• An EA/Consolidation approach that indicates an excellent comprehension of the 

RFP requirements; 

• An IT-Security approach that exceeds the SOW requirements (NPG 2810.1) and 

contains several elements that are of substantial value to the Government, 

including: an approach that will be compliant with “ISO and SEI-CMM Level 3 

standards”; and 

• The EIP contains several key features that are of substantial value to the 

Government, and Wyle’s EIP development and support strategy exceeds the 

requirements contained in the SOW. 

Significant Weakness 

• Did not provide an adequate level of detail for the support of FAS and DAS 

including software/hardware configuration management and software 

maintenance activities, instead referring extensively to its past performance in 

these areas. Wyle did not address the implementation of software project 

management principles or an approach for maintenance and repair of DAS and 

FAS hardware and software, nor did it address how it will manage the releases of 

DAS and FAS software or its approach to maintain source code control. 

Subfactor 2, Management – Wyle received a “Fair” rating for a proposal in which 

weaknesses outbalanced any strengths. Under this Subfactor, Wyle has no significant 

strengths, no deficiencies and several significant weaknesses. The Significant 

Weaknesses for Wyle under Subfactor 2 are as follows: 

• Did not adequately address its engineering management approach or its interfaces 

with existing LaRC processes and procedures during its performance of 

engineering work; the ambiguities in Wyle’s proposal demonstrate a lack of 

understanding of the requirements and an inadequate approach for engineering 

management; 

• The Management Team does not have adequate management experience for 

programs of the size, content, or complexity of the ROME contract. In particular, 

the Management Team has not demonstrated adequate full service wind tunnel 

operations experience, facility engineering management or research facilities 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 21

operations management experience. The proposed Management Team also does 

not have adequate management experience or experience in the development, 

implementation and management of business information technology systems or 

Enterprise Architecture design; and 

• A transition plan that lacks adequate details to determine the suitability of the 

offeror’s proposed approach with regard to operations and engineering. The 

Offeror’s approach did not identify either the start date or the sequence of the 

major research facility transitions. In addition, the proposed Work Integration 

Manager (WIM), who is designated to lead several major activities (as Deputy 

Program Manager, WIM, and Transition Manager), does not have either full 

service wind tunnel or research facility operational experience and appears to 

have too many major program-level responsibilities, resulting in a decreased 

focus on transition activities. 

Subfactor 3, Safety – Wyle received a “Good” rating for a proposal which shows a 

reasonably sound response and has no significant strength, deficiency or significant 

weakness, and contains one strength and no weaknesses. 

Subfactor 4, SDB Participation – Wyle received a “Good” rating for a proposal which 

shows a reasonably sound response and has no significant strength, deficiency or 

significant weakness, and contains no strengths and one weakness. 

7. Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) 

KBR received a “Good” rating at the Mission Suitability factor level for a proposal which 

shows a reasonably sound response and contains several significant strengths, no 

deficiencies and one significant weakness. The findings for KBR are summarized below 

by Mission Suitability Subfactor. 

Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirements and Approach – KBR received a “Good” 

rating for a proposal which shows a reasonably sound response with two significant 

strengths, no deficiencies and one significant weakness. The significant strengths and 

significant weakness for KBR under Subfactor 1 are as follows: 

Significant Strengths 

• An approach to risk management that includes a 5-step program and is based on 

NPG 7120.5B, which is an effective methodology in performing risk assessments; 

• An IT-Security approach, coupled with the secure technologies incorporated as 

key features into its proposed EIP, is an effective strategy that exceeds the 

requirements of NPG 2810.1. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 22

Significant Weakness 

• Did not propose any innovations related to research data quality assurance, and 

did not indicate a clear understanding of the requirements for research test data 

quality assurance. 

Subfactor 2, Management – KBR received a “Good” rating for a proposal which shows a 

reasonably sound response and has no significant strength, deficiency or significant 

weakness, and contains four strengths and seven weaknesses. 

Subfactor 3, Safety – KBR received a “Very Good” rating for a proposal which 

demonstrates overall competence with one significant strength and no deficiencies or 

significant weaknesses. The Significant Strength for KBR under Subfactor 3 is as 

follows: 

• A thorough Safety and Health Plan (corporate and LaRC-specific), which 

includes a commitment to achieve VPP Star Certification within 2 years of the 

contract start date. 

Subfactor 4, SDB Participation – KBR received a “Very Good” rating for a proposal 

which demonstrates overall competence with one significant strength and no deficiencies 

or significant weaknesses. The Significant Strength for KBR under Subfactor 4 is as 

follows: 

• An SDB plan that reflects an overall level of SDB participation that is 

significantly higher than the 10% goal set forth in the RFP, reflects executed 

teaming agreements with 4 SDBs, and incorporates pre-qualification of 

subcontractors based on the examination of safety, health, and environmental 

plans, as well as past performance in these areas. KBR’s successful past 

performance in complying with SDB goals indicates a strong corporate 

commitment. 

8. The Cube Corporation (Cube) 

Cube received a “Fair” rating at the Mission Suitability factor level for a proposal in 

which weaknesses outbalance any strengths, with one significant strength, no deficiencies 

and numerous significant weaknesses. The findings for Cube are summarized below by 

Mission Suitability Subfactor. 

Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirements and Approach – Cube received a “Poor” 

rating for a proposal that contains numerous significant weaknesses that demonstrate a 

lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to correct. Under 

Subfactor 1, Cube also has one significant strength and no deficiencies. The significant 

strength and significant weaknesses for Cube under Subfactor 1 are as follows: 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 23

Significant Strength 

• A comprehensive plan for management of the metrology program that includes 

the use of contractor-provided mobile calibration facilities to reduce LaRC 

turnaround time and minimize the number of instruments sent off-site for 

calibration, and an ISO 17025 accredited subcontractor, which exceeds the RFP 

requirements. 

Significant Weaknesses 

• The Work Management Systems (WMS) architecture as depicted in the proposal 

is vague and does not provide adequate details or technical approach to determine 

its ability to serve as the Cube’s proposed "key management tool" for organizing, 

assigning, tracking, performing and controlling each technical area in the SOW. 

Furthermore, Cube’s strategy to "create a portal to [its] WMS" and lack of 

integration of the WMS portal with the Government’s OME Enterprise 

Information Portal (EIP) does not support the ROME requirements for EA/IT 

consolidation (SOW 5.2); 

• FTE estimates were significantly lower than the Government’s estimates for the 

entire contract, and these discrepancies were not supported by the Offeror’s 

technical proposal (i.e., operational efficiencies that would generate such labor 

savings were not proposed), indicating a significant lack of understanding of the 

requirements (the Government estimate was developed using historical data, 

which was provided to the offerors in the RFP); 

• Discussion of typical problems and relevant risk areas in the performance of the 

ROME contract is generic and does not indicate an adequate level of 

understanding of the breadth, complexity and inherent risks of research facility 

operations, maintenance, engineering, and IT requirements for this project; 

• Did not provide an approach for providing timely and effective tactical 

engineering services (ref. SOW section 4.1.1). For example, Cube did not address 

field consultation, analysis, design modifications, or field verification of 

drawings; 

• Did not clearly articulate its role in the design, construction and activation of 

facility projects, which indicates a lack of understanding of contract requirements. 

Cube did not provide an adequate approach for managing the construction (ref. 

SOW, Section 4.2.4.4) and activation (ref. SOW, Section 4.2.4.4.6) of LaRC 

facility projects. In addition, the Offeror’s proposal does not adequately address 

design/build projects (ref. SOW, Section 4.2.4.1); and 

• An approach to IT Security that is technically flawed. The approach addressed 

only the element of new product development and did not include a strategy for 

securing existing systems nor the requirements contained in either SOW 5.3 or 

NPG 2810.1. In addition, Cube’s proposal includes support for the Center's 

network and firewall that is outside the scope of the ROME SOW and could 

compromise Cube’s overall IT Security approach. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 24

Subfactor 2, Management – Cube received a “Good” rating for a proposal which shows a 

reasonably sound response with no significant strengths, no deficiencies and one 

significant weakness. The Significant Weakness for Cube under Subfactor 2 is as 

follows: 

• Cube’s phase-in plan for each of the functional areas is vague and lacks adequate 

detail. For example, the phase-in schedule provided is very high level and lacks 

sufficient details to demonstrate that Cube will minimize changeover difficulties 

and maximize continuity of services. 

Subfactor 3, Safety – Cube received a “Poor” rating for a proposal that contains one 

significant weakness that demonstrates a lack of overall competence in the area of Safety 

and Health or would require a major proposal revision to correct. Under Subfactor 3, 

Cube has no significant strengths and no deficiencies. The Significant Weakness for 

Cube under Subfactor 3 is as follows: 

• The Draft Safety Plan submitted could not be implemented without major rework 

because of the omission of items required in RFP Attachment 1, Safety and 

Health Plan Instructions. Major omissions include: (a) no mention of the use of 

the LaRC Lockout/Tagout; (b) no specific mention of required Quarterly Safety 

Report; (c) no mention or discussion of ionizing or non-ionizing radiation safety 

requirements; (d) no mention of the use of the LaRC Chemical Materials Tracking 

System (CMTS), LaRC Form 44, nor mention of awareness training for all 

employees; and (e) no mention of Crane Certifications, use of Scaffolding, 

requirements for LaRC Digging Permits, Fall Protection, blood borne pathogens, 

or requirements for a LaRC Hotwork Permit. 

Subfactor 4, SDB Participation – By electing not to waive the 10% SDB price evaluation 

adjustment, Cube received 0 points out of the 100 available for Subfactor 4. This is in 

accordance with the RFP and NFS 1815.304(c)(4)(B). 

B. FACTOR 2: COST 

The cost evaluations were based upon the proposed cost and fee to perform the required 

effort. There is approximately a 10 % difference between the highest and lowest 

proposed cost and fee. The ranking from lowest to highest for the proposed cost and fee 

is as follows: 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 25

Offeror Proposed Cost (incl. Fee)

Wyle $ 915.9M 

KBR $ 919.1M 

CSC $ 928.0M 

AECOM $ 935.0M 

Raytheon $ 963.9M 

JS $ 966.0M * 

VAS $ 998.3M 

Cube $ 1,007.0M 

* Jacobs Sverdrup incorrectly added its CLIN values in the “TOTAL” 

column in contract paragraph B.5, “TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE”. This 

resulted in a total figure at the bottom of “TOTAL” column that was 

$9.7M higher than the sum of the CLIN values. Upon the Contracting 

Officer’s review of JS’s Cost Form I, it appeared that JS failed to adjust its 

“TOTAL” column when the Government-mandated contract IDIQ 

maximum value was reduced by $9.7M in RFP Amendment 2, even 

though JS acknowledged Amendment 2. Because the incorrect summing 

of the CLIN values on each row in B.5 was merely a clerical error, the 

C.O. asked JS to clarify whether this was a mathematical error, and if so, 

to correct it as permitted by FAR 15.306(a)(2). As a result of JS’s 

clarification, JS’s total proposed price for the ten-year term of the contract 

was confirmed to be $966.0M instead of $975.7M. 

The SEB evaluated the validity of the proposed costs in terms of the offerors’ 

understanding of the requirements and cost realism. Cost realism adjustments did not 

exceed the 5% threshold specified in the RFP, thus no adjustments were made to the 

Mission Suitability scores for any of the offerors. 

A probable cost was developed for each offeror in accordance with the RFP. I carefully 

analyzed the cost evaluations, and questioned the SEB on the adjustments made to derive 

probable costs for the eight offerors. The difference in probable cost (including fee) is 

approximately 10 % from highest to lowest. The ranking based on probable cost 

(including fee) from lowest to highest, plus the Government estimate, are as follows: 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 26

 Probable Cost Probable Cost 

Offeror (Incl. Fee) Confidence

Wyle $ 925.4M MODERATE 

KBR $ 934.0M MODERATE 

AECOM $ 945.5M MODERATE 

Raytheon $ 963.5M LOW 

JS $ 968.5M MODERATE 

CSC $ 971.9M LOW 

VAS $ 998.2M MODERATE 

Cube $ 1,019.1M LOW 

Gov’t. Est. $ 945.7M n/a 

Probable Cost Confidence is the degree to which the probable costs can be relied upon to 

ascertain the likely cost of performance for each firm. The Probable Cost Confidence 

was derived from the offeror’s proposal, information received from the Defense Contract 

Audit Agency, and the cost analysis performed by the NASA Price Analysts and the 

Source Evaluation Board. Confidence levels were established based on the information 

available, the number and significance of concerns, and the number and significance of 

adjustments for each offeror. 

The RFP provided ODC plug numbers for specified SOW Sections. The RFP in 

L.16(f)6(e) instructed the offerors to use those plug numbers for those specified SOW 

Sections. They were further instructed to propose ODCs for all other SOW Sections as 

necessary to perform the work in these sections. Four of the eight offerors failed to 

follow these instructions. In these instances, the SEB made adjustments to the proposed 

ODCs for those offerors to establish their probable costs. However, these adjustments 

alone did not cause any of the four offerors to receive a lower probable cost confidence 

rating. 

As permitted by the RFP, the Cube Corporation invoked the small disadvantaged 

business (SDB) price evaluation adjustment in its proposal. Accordingly, the probable 

costs of each of the other seven offerors (none of which are SDBs) were increased by 

10% to arrive at their “Evaluated Price”. Cube’s probable cost, without further 

adjustment, was used as its Evaluated Price. Each offeror’s Evaluated Price was used for 

purposes of selection of the successful offeror. There is approximately an 8 % difference 

between the highest and lowest evaluated price after making this adjustment. The 

ranking from lowest to highest for the evaluated price is as follows: 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 27

Offeror Evaluated Price (Incl. Fee)

Wyle $ 1,017.9M 

Cube $ 1,019.1M 

KBR $ 1,027.4M 

AECOM $ 1,040.1M 

Raytheon $ 1,059.9M 

JS $ 1,065.4M 

CSC $ 1,069.1M 

VAS $ 1,098.0M 

Where used below, the definition of the term “significant subcontractor” is “any 

subcontract exceeding $1 million annually”, which is the same as in the definition in the 

RFP. The following summaries of the Cost/Price analysis for each of the eight offerors 

(presented in order of Evaluated Price from lowest to highest) include the probable cost 

adjustments made for each firm and the most significant concerns the Government has 

with each Cost/Price proposal: 

1. Wyle 

Significant Adjustments: 

Prime contractor probable cost adjustments in this paragraph are shown net of changes, 

where necessary, to applicable indirect costs and/or incentive fee. A upward net probable 

cost adjustment of $5.6M was made to account for omitted escalation for Wage 

Determination (WD) labor; the escalation rates applied to non-WD labor in Wyle’s 

proposal were used to make this adjustment. 

Probable costs for subcontractors were increased by $3.9M, which includes changes 

where necessary to prime load and/or incentive fee. The following subcontractor 

probable cost adjustment details do not include changes to prime load or incentive fee: 

Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) has a probable cost increase of $7.4M to account for omitted 

labor escalation for approximately 45 WD and Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) 

FTEs. Probable cost for one subcontractor was decreased to account for overstated 

insurance costs, and the probable costs of several other subcontractors were decreased to 

account for overstated escalation costs. 

Concerns: 

The confidence level of Mainthia, a significant subcontractor that is to perform 20% of 

the subcontracted effort, has been determined to be low. Mainthia did not provide 

narrative support for the spreadsheets in its cost proposal, as required in the RFP. JCI’s 

proposed labor rates for 24 FTE are not comparable to the WD or CBAs or have no 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 28

comparable category or rate, and JCI also has several other inconsistencies. XANSA, 

another proposed subcontractor, provided indirect rates in the narrative of its proposal 

that do not correlate with those used in its spreadsheet.

2. Cube 

Significant Adjustments: 

Prime contractor probable cost adjustments in this paragraph are shown net of changes, 

where necessary, to applicable indirect costs and/or incentive fee. A downward net 

probable cost adjustment of $2.2M was made to Cube’s proposal to account for 

overstated Hampton Business Taxes (HBT). An upward net probable cost adjustment of 

$20M was made to Cube’s Material/Equipment/Supplies and Other ODC primarily for 

missing materials costs in SOW Section 3.1, Facility Maintenance Services. 

Probable costs for subcontractors were decreased by $4.9M, which includes changes 

where necessary to prime load and/or incentive fee. The following subcontractor 

probable cost adjustment details do not include changes to prime load or incentive fee: 

TranSystems Corporation, a significant subcontractor, had a probable cost decrease of 

$8.1M to to account for a formula error in its “Other Overhead Costs” element. 

With regard to the ODC adjustment noted above, Cube proposed amounts only slightly 

above the RFP plug numbers for SOW Section 3.1. As was stated in the RFP, the plug 

numbers for SOW Section 3.1 only covered certain items in Subsections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5. 

Except for the RFP plug numbers, Cube’s proposal provided no costs for materials in 

SOW Section 3.1. For example, the Government has estimated that subsections 3.1.6 

(Trouble Calls) and 3.1.9 (Major Repairs) alone will require a combined $29M in 

materials over the 10-year life of the ROME contract. These numbers could have been 

derived from the historical information that was provided in the RFP Attachments 3.1 and 

3.5. 

Concerns: 

Most notably, the hard copy and the electronic proposal were not consistent (the proposed 

price on the hard copy was higher), and contrary to the RFP instructions, much of the cost 

information is provided as absolute values rather than the stipulated self-calculating 

spreadsheets, and no support or explanation of the absolute values is offered. For these 

reasons, proposed costs could not be adequately verified. The reliability of the 

information provided is questionable based on the accumulation of inconsistencies and 

errors in the spreadsheets, and this negatively impacted probable cost confidence. The 

prime’s cost forms reflect subcontract costs $1.9M lower than those proposed by the 

subcontractors themselves; no explanation for this difference is provided. The 

confidence levels of Boeing, Sypris and TranSystems, significant subcontractors that are 

to perform a combined 88% of the subcontracted effort, have been determined to be low. 

In addition, Boeing’s Cost Proposal (including its spreadsheets) was submitted in Adobe 

Reader, which is not in accordance with RFP instructions that required the use of self-
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 29

calculating spreadsheets in Excel; therefore, the Government’s ability to verify the 

accuracy of Boeing Cost Proposal was limited. In addition, Sypris and TranSystems did 

not provided narrative explanations as required in the RFP. DCAA does not have 

information on the business systems of either Sypris or TranSystems; therefore, their 

accounting systems are not approved. 

3. KBR 

Significant Adjustments: 

Prime contractor probable cost adjustments in this paragraph are shown net of changes, 

where necessary, to applicable indirect costs and/or incentive fee. KBR had a downward 

net probable cost adjustment of $4.0M to account for overstated escalation for Exempt 

and WD labor. KBR had an upward net probable cost adjustment of $23.1M to account 

for understated Material/Equipment/Supplies and Other ODCs, primarily for missing 

materials costs in SOW Section 3.1, Facility Maintenance Services. 

Probable costs for subcontractors were decreased by $2.1M, which includes changes 

where necessary to prime load and/or incentive fee. The following subcontractor 

probable cost adjustment details do not include changes to prime load or incentive fee: 

The probable costs of several significant subcontractors were decreased to account for 

overstated labor escalation, and the probable cost of one significant subcontractor was 

decreased to account for a formula error that overstated fixed fee. 

With regard to the ODC adjustment noted above, KBR proposed amounts only slightly 

above the RFP plug numbers for SOW Section 3.1. As was stated in the RFP, the plug 

numbers for SOW Section 3.1 only covered certain items in Subsections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5. 

KBR’s proposal thus provided no costs for materials in any other subsections in 3.1. For 

example, the Government has estimated that subsections 3.1.6 (Trouble Calls) and 3.1.9 

(Major Repairs) alone will require a combined $29M in materials over the 10-year life of 

the ROME contract. These numbers could have been derived from the historical 

information that was provided in the RFP Attachments 3.1 and 3.5. 

Concerns: 

The parent company of KBR has informed the Government that it has proceeded with a 

Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, but states that the filing will have no impact on this 

procurement. The impact of this action is currently under review by DCAA, and there is 

some level of concern that the costs associated with the bankruptcy filing could 

ultimately impact the ROME contract. The prime’s cost forms reflect subcontract costs 

$2.0M lower than those proposed by the subcontractors themselves; no explanation for 

this difference is provided. The confidence levels of ORC and TDI, significant 

subcontractors that are to perform a combined 22% of the subcontracted effort, have been 

determined to be low. TDI had numerous inconsistencies among its Cost Forms and 

supporting spreadsheets, such as hours, cost elements, and unsupported use of absolute 

values. Support for TDI rates is inadequate or not provided, and its accounting system is 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 30

not fully adequate. ORC’s formulas for several cost areas are not adequately explained, 

and thus cannot be relied upon with confidence. 

4. AECOM 

Significant Adjustments: 

Prime contractor probable cost adjustments in this paragraph are shown net of changes, 

where necessary, to applicable indirect costs and/or incentive fee. AECOM had a 

downward net probable cost adjustment of $1.4M to account for an error in calculating 

Personal Leave hours that resulted in an overstated Fringe Rate. AECOM had an 

upward net probable cost adjustment of $8.8M to account for understated 

Material/Equipment/Supplies and Other ODC, primarily for missing materials costs in 

SOW area 3.1, Facility Maintenance Services. 

Probable costs for subcontractors were increased by $3.1M, which includes changes 

where necessary to prime load and/or incentive fee. The following subcontractor 

probable cost adjustment details do not include changes to prime load or incentive fee: 

Swales Aerospace had an upward probable cost adjustment of $2.9M to account for 

understated hours for paid absences and overhead costs associated with those hours. 

There were no other adjustments for significant subcontractors. 

With regard to the ODC adjustment noted above, AECOM proposed amounts 

representing approximately one-half of the Government estimate for SOW Section 3.1. 

As was stated in the RFP, the plug numbers for SOW Section 3.1 only covered certain 

items in Subsections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5. AECOM’s proposal did not address cost for 

subsection 3.1.9, Major Repairs. For example, the Government has estimated that 

subsection 3.1.9 (Major Repairs) alone will require $17.1M in materials over the 10-year 

life of the ROME contract. This number could have been derived from the historical 

information that was provided in the RFP Attachment 3.5. 

Concerns: 

AECOM incorrectly stated that a work order will be issued for planning/estimating of 

IDIQ work, which may result in contract management understaffing. There was an 

accumulation of errors and inadequate explanations in the cost proposal (e.g., AECOM’s 

approach to leasing vehicles and numerous errors in calculation of ODC) that negatively 

impacted probable cost confidence. The confidence levels of Navarro and Unisys, 

significant subcontractors that are to perform a combined 40% of the subcontracted 

effort, have been determined to be low. Navarro has errors and missing information in 

significant areas of its cost proposal. Unisys has numerous formula errors (>60) in its 

spreadsheets and inconsistency among Cost Forms in costs, rates, and hours. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 31

5. Raytheon 

Significant Adjustments: 

Probable costs for subcontractors were decreased by a net $0.4M, which includes changes 

where necessary to prime load and/or incentive fee. The following subcontractor 

probable cost adjustment details do not include changes to prime load or incentive fee: 

Allied Aerospace had an upward probable cost adjustment of $3.0M to account for 

omitted escalation for WD labor. Allied Aerospace also had a downward probable cost 

adjustment of $2.3M to account for an overstated escalation rate for all labor. DTSV had 

a downward probable cost adjustment of $0.4M to account for overstated holiday hours 

in contract periods that are shorter than one year. 

Concerns: 

Raytheon’s narrative explanations for proposed costs were not always adequate nor were 

they applied consistently in its electronic spreadsheets. Information to establish total cost 

flowed from numerous contractor-established files and spreadsheets that were not 

consistently linked to the cost forms provided in the RFP. The prime reduced the 

subcontractors’ costs by $8.5M on the basis of efficiencies to be gained through R6 

Sigma process improvements, VPP, ISO, and IT projects. However, it was not explained 

why these Raytheon “efficiencies” were proposed as reductions to subcontractor costs. 

Raytheon’s SAP accounting system is currently under review and control risk is assessed 

by DCAA as high. All other systems, except estimating, determined inadequate or 

inadequate in part. The confidence levels of ACI, DTSV, HEI, and NTECH-Lab, 

significant subcontractors that are to perform a combined 64% of the subcontracted 

effort, have been determined to be low. ACI’s indirect rates are not consistent in 

derivation or application basis, and there are no current DCAA systems reviews or rate 

information for ACI. HEI, NTech and DTSV proposed indirect rates that are not 

adequately supported and, in some cases, not consistently applied. Allied Aerospace’s 

proposal is unclear as to how the proposed indirect rates were derived, and its accounting 

system is inadequate in part. Allied is proposed to perform 27% of the subcontracted 

effort. 

6. JS 

Significant Adjustments: 

Probable costs for subcontractors were increased by $2.5M, which includes changes 

where necessary to prime load and/or incentive fee. The following subcontractor 

probable cost adjustment details do not include changes to prime load or incentive fee: 

The only adjustment to significant subcontractor costs was a downward probable cost 

adjustment of $3.0M to AS&M to account for overhead costs that were omitted due to a 

spreadsheet formula error. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 32

Concerns: 

There were minor issues related to a lack of clarity in some areas (e.g., possible overlap 

of direct and indirect management costs). The prime’s cost forms reflect subcontract 

costs $2.4M lower than those proposed by the subcontractors themselves; no explanation 

for this difference is provided. The confidence level of AS&M, a significant 

subcontractor that is to perform 33% of the subcontracted effort, has been determined to 

be low. AS&M had numerous inconsistencies in its cost information (e.g., its summary 

spreadsheet is not consistent with its supporting cost forms). Tessada, another proposed 

subcontractor, provided no narrative explanation with its cost proposal. 

7. CSC 

Significant Adjustments: 

Prime contractor probable cost adjustments in this paragraph are shown net of changes, 

where necessary, to applicable indirect costs and/or incentive fee. An upward net 

probable cost adjustment of $5.9M was made to account for omitted escalation for Wage 

Determination (WD) labor; the escalation rates applied to non-WD labor in CSC’s 

proposal were used to make this adjustment. A downward net probable cost adjustment 

of $3.2M was made to account for overstated costs resulting from errors in the 

calculation of Hampton Business Taxes. An upward net probable cost adjustment of 

$27.6M was made to account for understated Material/Equipment/Supplies and Other 

ODCs, which were adjusted primarily for missing materials costs in SOW area 3.1, 

Facility Maintenance Services. 

Probable costs for subcontractors were increased by $12.9M, which includes changes 

where necessary to prime load and/or incentive fee. The following subcontractor 

probable cost adjustment details do not include changes to prime load or incentive fee: 

For Lockheed Martin, an upward probable cost adjustment of $10.0M was made to 

account for omitted escalation for Wage Determination (WD) labor covering 50.6 FTE. 

For Tri-Star Engineering, an upward probable cost adjustment of $1.5M was made to 

account for omitted escalation for Wage Determination (WD) labor in Periods 1 – 6, an 

upward probable cost adjustment of $1.9M was made to account for understated Period 

12 costs resulting from Tri-Star’s understatement of the 12-month length of Period 12, 

and a downward probable cost adjustment of $0.9M was made to account for overstated 

“cash in lieu of benefits” costs. For Hampton University, an upward probable cost 

adjustment of $0.4M was made to account for omitted escalation for Wage Determination 

(WD) labor. 

With regard to the ODC adjustment noted above, CSC proposed amounts only slightly 

above the RFP plug numbers for SOW Section 3.1. As was stated in the RFP, the plug 

numbers for SOW Section 3.1 only covered certain items in Subsections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5. 

CSC’s proposal thus provided no costs for materials in any other subsections in 3.1. 

For example, the Government has estimated that subsections 3.1.6 (Trouble Calls) and 

3.1.9 (Major Repairs) alone will require a combined $29M in materials over the 10-year 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 33

life of the ROME contract. These numbers could have been derived from the historical 

information that was provided in the RFP Attachments 3.1 and 3.5. 

Concerns: 

The reliability of some of the information provided is questionable based on the 

accumulation of inconsistencies and lack of clarity. CSC’s summary total contract cost 

form is not in agreement with the supporting Government cost forms required by the 

RFP. CSC’s cost forms reflect subcontract costs $1.1M lower than those proposed by the 

subcontractors themselves; no explanation for this difference is provided. Five of CSC’s 

business systems (billing, budget, compensation, estimating and indirect ODCs) were 

determined inadequate by DCAA, and CSC is awaiting DCAA final audit approval of its 

upgraded accounting systems. The confidence levels of Tri-Star and YEI, significant 

subcontractors that are to perform a combined 41% of the subcontracted effort, have been 

determined to be low. Tri-Star had numerous spreadsheet anomalies that negatively 

impacted its probable cost confidence. YEI did not apply escalation to WD labor 

categories, and overstated escalation to CBA labor categories (these two areas are 

offsetting, so no probable cost adjustment was made). YEI’s cost narrative included 

discussion of a “Management and Administrative” category, but no costs for this 

category could be identified. 

8. VAS 

Significant Adjustments: 

Probable costs for subcontractors were decreased by a net $0.1M, which includes changes 

where necessary to prime load and/or incentive fee. The following subcontractor 

probable cost adjustment details do not include changes to prime load or incentive fee: 

For GTSI, three downward probable cost adjustments totaling $0.3M were made to 

account for overstated paid absences, escalation and insurance costs; these 

overstatements of cost resulted from calculation errors in all contract periods that are 

shorter than one year. 

Concerns: 

VAS, which is a Joint Venture, does not have an approved accounting system, and its 

indirect rates have never been reviewed by the DCAA. VAS’s cost forms reflect 

subcontract costs $1.4M lower than those proposed by the subcontractors themselves; no 

explanation for this difference is provided. ASE, a significant subcontractor, provided 

only 2 pages of information to support its cost proposal. ERC, another significant 

subcontractor, has an accounting system that is inadequate in part, and DCAA has 

conducted no other systems reviews of ERC. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 34

C. FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE 

Set forth in order of adjective ratings from highest to lowest is a summary of the Past 

Performance findings for the eight offerors. Offerors with identical adjective ratings 

(e.g., both JS and VAS are identically rated as “Excellent”) are listed alphabetically. 

While the findings below generally refer only to the prime contractor offeror by name, 

the past performance of the prime plus the past performance of all significant 

subcontractors were considered in developing these findings. More specific details of the 

past performance findings for each offeror can be found in the comparative analyses 

between the successful offeror’s proposal and the other seven offerors’ proposals in the 

“Basis for Selection” section of this Source Selection Statement. 

1. “Excellent” Overall Ratings: JS and VAS 

JS 

JS received an “Excellent” overall rating for Past Performance, with an “Excellent” rating 

on the performance component of this Factor and a “Highly Relevant” rating on the 

relevance component of this Factor. 

JS’s past performance has been exemplary, with contract requirements achieved in a 

timely, efficient and economical manner. The preponderance of customer past 

performance ratings for JS were in the “Excellent” range. Only one performance 

deficiency was identified; that deficiency involved a subcontractor that was deemed 

“slow to bring skilled employees on board when required”. Because this subcontractor 

will be performing such a small part of the ROME contract, this deficiency is considered 

to be very minor with no adverse effect on overall performance. JS has highly relevant 

experience in a large majority of the SOW areas, very relevant experience in a number of 

others, and no relevant experience in only two areas: experience with SAP and 

maintenance of institutional facilities and systems. The latter is mitigated by JS’s 

experience in maintaining complex research facilities. Comparing JS’s experience to the 

SOW requirements, its past performance is judged to be highly relevant to the ROME 

requirements, and its performance is judged to be excellent. 

VAS 

VAS received an “Excellent” overall rating for Past Performance, with an “Excellent” 

rating on the performance component of this Factor and a “Highly Relevant” rating on 

the relevance component of this Factor. 

VAS’s past performance has been exemplary, with contract requirements achieved in a 

timely, efficient and economical manner. The preponderance of customer past 

performance ratings for VAS were in the “Very Good” to “Excellent” range. However, 

URS (the parent company of one of the VAS joint venture partners) and ASE (a proposed 

subcontractor) had a small number of deficiencies in their performance reported by 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 35

customers. Specifically, URS had some problems managing construction subcontractors 

on its Hill AFB contract, and ASE had problems providing adequate engineering support 

on contracts at the Glenn and Langley Research Centers. However, when taken in the 

context of VAS’s overall performance, these deficiencies were considered to be very 

minor in nature with no adverse effect on overall performance. VAS has highly relevant 

experience in numerous areas, including OM&E for institutional and research facilities, 

business IT consolidation and support, research facility and wind tunnel engineering and 

design/build/activation, tactical engineering for maintenance, operation, and 

recertification of pressure systems, and consolidation of efforts similar in size, content 

and complexity to ROME. VAS has very relevant experience in several areas, most 

notably operations and management of test facilities on contracts similar in size and 

complexity to ROME, DAS and FAS, and providing a comprehensive RCM based 

(institutional) maintenance program. VAS demonstrates relevant experience in the 

following areas: IM&TE and metrology management. VAS did not demonstrate relevant 

experience in Enterprise Architecture design. Comparing VAS’s experience to the SOW 

requirements, its past performance is judged to be highly relevant to the ROME 

requirements, and its performance is judged to be excellent. 

2. “Very Good” Overall Ratings: CSC, KBR, Raytheon, and Wyle 

CSC 

CSC received a “Very Good” overall rating for Past Performance, with a “Very Good” 

rating on the performance component of this Factor and a “Very Relevant” rating on the 

relevance component of this Factor. 

CSC has demonstrated very effective performance that is fully responsive to contract 

requirements; CSC has accomplished contract requirements in a timely, efficient, and 

economical manner for the most part. The preponderance of customer past performance 

ratings for CSC were in the “Very Good” range. CSC and its subcontractor Lockheed 

Martin had a few deficiencies in their performance reported by customers (primarily in 

the area of cost control), but taken in the context of CSC’s overall performance, these 

deficiencies were considered to be only minor in nature with minimal effect on overall 

performance. CSC has highly relevant experience in several SOW areas, most notably 

institutional facilities maintenance, central utilities operations, and IT. CSC has very 

relevant experience in several areas, including the critical area of wind tunnel testing and 

operations. CSC has relevant experience in management areas such as apprenticeship 

and cross training programs, collection and utilization of performance metrics, and the 

implementation of innovative cost savings, and has no relevant experience in several 

areas, most notably in maintenance and tactical engineering support for wind tunnels; 

instrument metrology and test equipment calibration services; and maintenance and 

engineering support for Data Acquisition Systems (DAS) and Facility Automation 

Systems (FAS). Comparing CSC’s experience to the SOW requirements, its past 

performance is judged to be very relevant to the ROME requirements, and its 

performance is judged to be very good. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 36

KBR 

KBR received a “Very Good” overall rating for Past Performance, with a “Very Good” 

rating on the performance component of this Factor and a “Very Relevant” rating on the 

relevance component of this Factor. 

KBR demonstrated very effective performance that is fully responsive to contract 

requirements, with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and 

economical manner for the most part. The preponderance of customer past performance 

ratings for KBR were in the “Very Good” to “Excellent” range. Only one deficiency was 

identified: Akima, KBR’s proposed research operations subcontractor, has experienced 

difficulty managing the transition from augmentation work at research facilities to 

providing full service research facility operations under a Glenn Research Center (GRC) 

contract. Taken in the context of KBR’s overall performance, this deficiency is 

considered to be only minor in nature with minimal effect on overall performance. KBR 

has highly relevant experience managing large contract efforts, and very relevant 

experience in base operations, including training and development of technical, safety, 

and quality personnel, research facility maintenance, and RCM program development and 

management. The KBR team, specifically Akima, has relevant experience in the 

transition of wind tunnel operations from Government to Contractor personnel. KBR did 

not demonstrate relevant experience in the following areas: full service wind tunnel 

operations; wind tunnel facility engineering; DAS and FAS maintenance and 

development; EA design; and consolidation of disparate customer service desks. 

Comparing KBR’s experience to the SOW requirements, its past performance is judged 

to be very relevant to the ROME requirements, and its performance is judged to be very 

good. 

Raytheon 

Raytheon received a “Very Good” overall rating for Past Performance, with an 

“Excellent” rating on the performance component of this Factor and a “Very Relevant” 

rating on the relevance component of this Factor. 

Raytheon’s past performance has been exemplary, with contract requirements achieved in 

a timely, efficient and economical manner. The preponderance of customer past 

performance ratings for Raytheon were in the “Excellent” range. Only one deficiency 

was identified: NCI, which is proposed as an IT subcontractor, experienced several 

management related problems on its LaRC CLASSIC contract (e.g., communications, 

work process innovations, reactive versus proactive). Taken in the context of Raytheon’s 

overall performance, this deficiency is considered to be very minor in nature with no 

adverse effect on overall performance. Raytheon has highly relevant experience in 

numerous areas, most notably transition of workforce (civil servant to contractor) and 

facilities; contract consolidations; performing central utilities operations; RCM-based 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 37

maintenance programs; and business IT consolidations and support. Raytheon has very 

relevant experience in several areas, including wind tunnel operations support, and has 

relevant experience in providing FAS, DAS, and research systems support. Raytheon did 

not demonstrate relevant experience in research engineering projects including design, 

construction, and activation; metrology and calibration support; and the development and 

implementation of comprehensive training programs. Comparing Raytheon’s experience 

to the SOW requirements, its past performance is judged to be very relevant to the 

ROME requirements, and its performance is judged to be excellent.

Wyle 

Wyle received a “Very Good” overall rating for Past Performance, with a “Very Good” 

rating on the performance component of this Factor and a “Very Relevant” rating on the 

relevance component of this Factor. 

Wyle demonstrated very effective performance that is fully responsive to contract 

requirements, with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and 

economical manner for the most part. The preponderance of customer past performance 

ratings for Wyle were in the “Very Good” range. However, Wyle’s customers reported 

several issues and concerns in performance, the most significant of which are as follows: 

Over the last five award fee periods under the LaRC RIMS contract, specific weaknesses 

were noted for recurring Wyle management practices that resulted in several technical 

and cost control problems. On the LaRC FESS contract, JCI (a proposed subcontractor) 

experienced two lost time accidents in 2003 and had difficulty completing maintenance 

projects in a timely manner. LBB, another proposed subcontractor, was cited by Ft. 

Carson for an inability to develop and meet realistic project cost estimates. When taken 

in the context of Wyle’s overall performance, these deficiencies were considered to be 

only minor in nature with a minimal effect on overall performance. Wyle has highly 

relevant experience in numerous areas, the most notable of which are institutional and 

research facility maintenance; DAS and instrumentation operations, engineering, 

calibration, and repair services; central utilities operation experience; RCM-based 

maintenance for facilities and facility systems and projects; base/center operations for 

Government and commercial customers, and business IT consolidation and support, 

including experience with many of LaRC’s current systems (e.g., INFO PC, Maximo). 

Wyle has relevant experience in transition of Government-to-contractor operations and 

contract consolidations. Wyle has no relevant experience in the following areas: full 

service operation of wind tunnels; wind tunnel facilities engineering, including tactical 

engineering; designing, constructing, and activating wind tunnel construction projects; 

FAS maintenance and engineering, and developing and implementing a comprehensive 

personnel training program. Comparing Wyle’s experience to the SOW requirements, its 

past performance is judged to be very relevant to the ROME requirements, and its 

performance is judged to be very good. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 38

3. “Good” Overall Ratings: AECOM and Cube 

AECOM 

AECOM received a “Good” overall rating for Past Performance, with an “Excellent” 

rating on the performance component of this Factor and a “Relevant” rating on the 

relevance component of this Factor. 

AECOM’s past performance has been exemplary, with contract requirements achieved in 

a timely, efficient and economical manner. The preponderance of customer past 

performance ratings for AECOM were in the “Very Good” to “Excellent” range. No 

deficiencies in performance were identified. AECOM demonstrated highly relevant 

experience in some SOW work areas, most notably institutional facility engineering and 

construction of complex projects, metrology and instrumentation, transitioning from CS 

to contractor and integrating subcontractors, and business IT consolidation and support. 

AECOM demonstrated relevant experience in some vital areas, including wind tunnel 

operations, and no relevant experience with SAP products or in the following key 

technical areas: Enterprise Architecture (EA) planning and development; wind tunnel and 

related system engineering and design; and Reliability Centered Maintenance. 

Comparing AECOM’s experience to the SOW requirements, its past performance is 

judged to be relevant to the ROME requirements, and its performance is judged to be 

excellent. 

Cube 

Cube received a “Good” overall rating for Past Performance, with a “Very Good” rating 

on the performance component of this Factor and a “Relevant” rating on the relevance 

component of this Factor. 

Cube demonstrated very effective performance that is fully responsive to contract 

requirements, with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and 

economical manner for the most part. The preponderance of customer past performance 

ratings for Cube were in the “Very Good” range. Only one minor deficiency (concerning 

the delivery of effective engineering services by TranSystems, a proposed subcontractor) 

was identified, but taken in the context of Cube’s overall performance, this deficiency is 

considered to have only a minimal effect on overall performance. Cube (specifically 

Boeing, a proposed subcontractor) has highly relevant experience in wind tunnel 

operation and test technique development. Cube has very relevant experience in the 

following areas: maintaining large institutional complexes; IT systems support; and 

managing workload fluctuations, and the proposed Program Manager has very relevant 

experience for work similar in size and complexity to ROME. Cube did not demonstrate 

relevant experience in several SOW areas, including business IT consolidation and 

support, developing and implementing a comprehensive technical personnel training 

program, reliability-centered maintenance (RCM), and research facility engineering 

experience that is similar in size, content, and complexity to ROME. Comparing Cube’s 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 39

experience to the SOW requirements, its past performance is judged to be relevant to the 

ROME requirements, and its performance is judged to be very good. 

 

 Past Performance Ratings Summary 

 Offeror Adjective Rating

 

JS Excellent 

VAS Excellent 

CSC Very Good 

KBR Very Good 

Raytheon Very Good 

Wyle Very Good 

AECOM Good 

Cube Good 

VII. Basis for Selection 

The following includes my analyses of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the 

winning proposal versus the other seven proposals, the source selection decision and the 

basis for that decision. It is my opinion that the SEB conducted a fair and unbiased 

evaluation of proposals and that their evaluation is fully in accordance with the 

evaluation factors set forth in the RFP. In conducting my comparative analyses and 

making my decision, I adhered to the “RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION 

FACTORS” set forth in Section M.3 of the RFP, which states that the three evaluation 

factors, Mission Suitability, Price/Cost, and Past Performance, are to be considered 

essentially equal in the selection of a contractor and that Mission Suitability and Past 

Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price/Cost. 

A. Comparative Analyses 

My comparative analysis of the successful offeror’s (Jacobs Sverdrup) proposal versus 

each of the other seven proposals (in alphabetical order) follows. No overall ranking of 

the other seven proposals was established. 

1. JS compared to AECOM: 

Under Factor 1 (Mission Suitability) the JS proposal is rated as “Excellent” while the 

AECOM proposal is rated as “Very Good”. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 40

Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirements and Approach: The JS proposal offers 

substantially greater value to the Government than the AECOM proposal offers under 

Mission Suitability Subfactor 1. 

Subfactor 1 – Areas of Superior Value in AECOM’s Proposal 

None. 

Subfactor 1 – Areas of Superior Value in JS’s Proposal 

JS’s proposed innovations, technologies and process improvements cut across all areas of 

the statement of work, are deemed to be a significant strength and are superior to those 

proposed by AECOM. In comparison, while AECOM has a significant strength for its 

innovative systems engineering approach for tactical engineering, configuration 

management and pressure systems recertification, JS’s numerous proposed innovations 

are considered to be of greater value to the Government because they demonstrate a much 

better overall understanding of the ROME requirements. JS also provides superior value 

to the Government through its significant strengths in the following areas, for which there 

are no corresponding strengths in the AECOM proposal: (1) a highly innovative and 

effective approach to establishing and maintaining effective communication between JS’s 

own work units and between JS and LaRC clients; (2) several proposed approaches for 

maximizing the availability and productivity of research facilities that demonstrate a 

sound understanding of the requirements; (3) an exceptional demonstrated understanding 

of typical problems associated with research facility operations; (4) a highly effective 

approach to ensure test data quality; (5) several maintenance innovations for facility 

repair cost avoidance; (6) proposed innovations for utilizing existing asset management 

systems to achieve accuracy and quality of facility maintenance data; (7) the innovative 

use of technology and corporate reach back to improve the quality of engineering 

designs; (8) an effective strategy for IT consolidation/EA implementation; and (9) a 

comprehensive list of risk elements, a risk probability and impact rating, and a detailed 

risk mitigation strategy that demonstrates an understanding of the risks associated with 

the ROME contract. 

The AECOM proposal has the following significant weaknesses in Subfactor 1: 

(1) AECOM’s proposed movement of multiple applications protocols through the LaRC 

firewall (T2 to T3) creates a significant IT security risk for LaRC; (2) AECOM only 

addresses IT security at the user access level, and does not address IT infrastructure 

security or NASA IT Security Policy as set forth in NPG 2810.1 (JS has a weakness for a 

vague IT security approach); additionally, AECOM’s proposed approach will create an 

IT security risk due to the transmission of proprietary data and documents in the clear 

over public lines; and (3) AECOM’s proposed facility maintenance staffing is 

significantly lower than the Government estimate, and this discrepancy is not supported 

by the Offeror’s technical proposal (i.e., operational efficiencies that would generate such 

labor savings are not proposed), indicating a significant lack of understanding of the 

requirements (the Government estimate was developed using historical data, which was 

provided to the offerors in the RFP). 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 41

Subfactor 1 - Areas with Similar Value 

None. 

Subfactor 2, Management: The JS proposal offers substantially greater value to the 

Government than the AECOM proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 2. 

Subfactor 2 - Areas of Superior Value in AECOM’s Proposal 

AECOM’s significant strength for its proposal to invest a highly substantial amount of its 

own money in human capital development, equipment and research facility marketing is 

considered superior to JS’s significant strength for its approach to invest a significant but 

lesser amount of its own money in essentially the same areas. AECOM also proposes a 

labor relations approach that is considered a significant strength and superior to JS’s 

because AECOM has a signed, formal agreement with the unions while JS has not 

demonstrated a plan that is developed to this level, even though JS has a strength for its 

approach. 

Subfactor 2 - Areas of Superior Value in JS’s Proposal 

JS’s proposed Management Team merits a significant strength for its strong relevant 

experience managing projects of the size, content and complexity of ROME, particularly 

in the area of wind tunnel testing in multiple facilities covering a speed range comparable 

to that in LaRC’s suite of facilities, while AECOM’s Management Team represents a 

significant weakness due to its lack of experience managing projects of the size, content 

and complexity of ROME and a lack of full service wind tunnel experience. JS also 

provides superior value to the Government through its significant strengths in the 

following areas, for which there are no corresponding strengths in the AECOM proposal: 

(1) a comprehensive management approach supported by an organizational structure 

established and aligned on the basis of 15 well-defined core processes with assigned JS 

owners; (2) an aggressive, credible and detailed approach to cost reductions and cost 

control that includes new technologies, innovations, and process improvements, with the 

majority of the productivity gains to be achieved in the first five years of the contract; and 

(3) a comprehensive discussion of transition-related risks and mitigation approaches that 

will significantly minimize changeover difficulties and maximize continuity of services. 

Subfactor 2 - Areas with Similar Value 

None. 

Subfactor 3, Safety: The AECOM proposal offers greater value to the Government than 

the JS proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 3. AECOM has a superior 

technical approach that includes a strong Safety and Health Plan and the proposed 

creation of an independent ROME Safety and Health Office that will meet all NASA 

standards, which is considered a significant strength. In comparison, JS also has a 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 42

significant strength for its thorough Safety and Health Plan, but AECOM’s overall 

approach to safety and health is considered to be of greater value than JS’s approach 

because the independent safety office will better ensure a safe working environment. 

Subfactor 4, SDB Participation: The JS proposal offers slightly greater value to the 

Government than the AECOM proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 4. 

Both JS and AECOM propose credible approaches for SDB participation with 

enforceable commitments to subcontractors. Both firms also demonstrate successful past 

performance in meeting SDB goals under Government contracts. JS is considered 

slightly stronger than AECOM under Subfactor 4 because of its proposal to slightly 

exceed the 10% RFP goal, while AECOM proposes to meet the 10% goal. Neither firm 

has a significant strength under this Subfactor. 

Under Factor 2 (Cost/Price), AECOM’s evaluated price of $1,040.1M for the total 10-

year term of the contract is $25.3M, or 2.4%, lower than JS’s evaluated price of 

$1,065.4M. (Evaluated price for both firms includes a 10% upward adjustment to 

probable cost because an SDB offeror (Cube) did not waive the 10% SDB price 

evaluation adjustment factor.) The probable cost confidence for both firms is moderate, 

which provides me with reasonable assurance that the probable costs can be relied upon 

to compare the likely cost of performance for each firm. AECOM has an upward 

probable cost adjustment of $10.5M, primarily for unrealistically low “Other Direct 

Costs” for missing materials costs in SOW area 3.1, Facility Maintenance Services 

($8.8M); and for understated subcontractor costs. JS has an upward probable cost 

adjustment of $2.5M for understated subcontractor costs. 

Under Factor 3 (Past Performance), JS has an overall rating of “Excellent”, compared 

to AECOM’s overall rating of “Good”. Both firms demonstrate exemplary performance 

on previous work (as reported by their customers). However, JS’s demonstrated 

experience is judged to be highly relevant to the ROME SOW, while AECOM ’s 

demonstrated experience is judged to be relevant to the ROME SOW. 

JS has highly relevant experience operating, designing and maintaining multiple wind 

tunnel facilities covering a speed range comparable to that in LaRC’s suite of facilities, 

institutional and research facility engineering, and management (including 

consolidations) of contracts for facility O&M of similar size, content and complexity to 

ROME. JS has very relevant experience in marketing excess wind tunnel capacity, labor 

management, development and implementation of OME & IT training programs, data 

acquisition systems, transitioning to turnkey operations for wind tunnels, performance of 

numerous research facility improvement projects, and EA design and IT consolidation, 

and lacks relevant experience only in SAP products and institutional facilities 

maintenance (the latter of which is mitigated by its research facility maintenance 

experience). 

AECOM has highly relevant experience in institutional engineering and construction and 

business IT project management, and demonstrates relevant experience in some vital 

areas, including wind tunnel operations, and no relevant experience with SAP products or 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 43

in the following key technical areas: Enterprise Architecture (EA) planning and 

development; wind tunnel and related system engineering and design; and Reliability 

Centered Maintenance. 

Comparison Summary: While AECOM’s evaluated price is 2.4% lower than JS’s, it is 

my judgment that the additional value provided by JS’s superior proposed approaches in 

Mission Suitability, combined with JS’s superior level of relevant past performance, is 

worth the additional 2.4% expenditure. Specifically, JS’s superior significant strengths 

for its proposed innovations across the entire SOW, its demonstrated knowledge of 

potential risks under the ROME contract, its strengths related to research facility 

operations, and its superior management approach and Management Team, combined 

with its superior level of relevant experience, especially in the areas of wind tunnel 

operations, maintenance and engineering in multiple facilities covering a speed range 

comparable to that in LaRC’s suite of facilities, provides a better overall value when 

compared to the few superior significant strengths in AECOM’s proposal for its Safety 

and Health approach and its highly substantial amount of proposed investments in ROME 

and AECOM’s lower price. 

2. JS compared to CSC: 

Under Factor 1 (Mission Suitability) the JS proposal is rated as “Excellent” while the 

CSC proposal is rated as “Very Good”. 

Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirements and Approach: The JS proposal offers 

substantially greater value to the Government than the CSC proposal offers under 

Mission Suitability Subfactor 1. 

Subfactor 1 - Areas of Superior Value in CSC’s Proposal 

None. 

Subfactor 1 - Areas of Superior Value in JS’s Proposal 

JS’s proposed innovations, technologies and process improvements cut across all areas of 

the statement of work, are deemed to be a significant strength, and are superior to those 

proposed by CSC. In comparison, CSC has significant strengths for its innovative 

maintenance approaches and for its ROME Integrated Business System (RIBS), but JS’s 

numerous proposed innovations are considered to be of greater value to the Government, 

because they demonstrate a much better overall understanding of the ROME 

requirements. JS also has a significant strength for providing a comprehensive list of risk 

elements, a risk probability and impact rating, and a detailed risk mitigation strategy that 

demonstrates an understanding of the risks associated with the ROME contract that is 

superior to CSC’s. In comparison, CSC’s demonstrates an understanding of risks that 

meets the Government’s expectations in all areas except for IT Security, where a 

weakness exists because CSC did not adequately discuss proposed approaches, but 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 44

instead stated that "we identified no IT security risks for ROME that we have not 

successfully addressed at many NASA Centers and therefore do not further discuss their 

mitigation here". JS also provides superior value to the Government through its 

significant strengths in the following areas, for which there are no corresponding 

strengths in the CSC proposal: (1) a highly innovative and effective approach to 

establishing and maintaining effective communication between JS’s own work units and 

between JS and LaRC clients; (2) several proposed approaches for maximizing the 

availability and productivity of research facilities that demonstrate a sound understanding 

of the requirements; (3) an exceptional demonstrated understanding of typical problems 

associated with research facility operations; (4) a highly effective approach to ensure test 

data quality; (5) several maintenance innovations for facility repair cost avoidance; (6) 

proposed innovations for utilizing existing asset management systems to achieve 

accuracy and quality of facility maintenance data; and (7) the innovative use of 

technology and corporate reach back to improve the quality of engineering designs. 

CSC also has the following two significant weaknesses in areas where JS met 

expectations: (1) CSC did not demonstrate an acceptable level of understanding or 

technical approach for Data Acquisition Systems (DAS) work in the operations area; and 

(2) CSC did not provide an adequate level of detail or demonstrate an acceptable level of 

understanding for DAS and FAS hardware and software maintenance and configuration 

control. These significant weaknesses are in critical technical areas, and their presence in 

the CSC proposal supports the conclusion that JS’s Subfactor 1 proposal represents a 

substantially greater value than CSC’s Subfactor 1 proposal. 

Subfactor 1 - Areas with Similar Value 

Both JS and CSC have significant strengths for their proposed Enterprise Architecture 

approaches, and the two approaches are considered to be essentially equal in value. 

Subfactor 2, Management: The JS proposal offers slightly greater value to the 

Government than the CSC proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 2. Both 

firms several have significant strengths and no significant weaknesses in Subfactor 2, but 

JS is rated slightly higher than CSC, primarily because of JS’s superior proposed 

management innovations and its management team, which has experience that is more 

closely related to the ROME SOW than that of CSC’s management team. 

Subfactor 2 - Areas of Superior Value in CSC’s Proposal 

The CSC proposal provides a superior innovative and cost effective approach to 

cooperate with the Government to capture and document the critical knowledge residing 

with the existing research facility operations workforce. In comparison, JS has a strength 

in this area for its proposed “Transition Resource Team”, but CSC’s proposal provides 

greater value because its approach includes similar elements as those proposed by JS plus 

effective human resources strategies for bringing individuals with working knowledge of 

LaRC’s wind tunnels onto the ROME contract. CSC proposes subcontracting goals for 

overall small businesses (SB), veteran-owned small businesses (VOSB), service-disabled 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 45

veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB), and historically black colleges and 

universities (HBCU) that significantly exceed the RFP goals for those four categories. 

CSC’s significant strength in this area provides superior value to JS’s approach, which 

merely met expectations in this area. 

Subfactor 2 - Areas of Superior Value in JS’s Proposal 

Both firms’ proposed Management Teams merit a significant strength for their strong 

relevant experience managing projects of similar size, content and complexity as ROME. 

However, the JS Management Team’s greater level of experience with wind tunnel 

operations, maintenance and engineering in multiple facilities covering a speed range 

comparable to that in LaRC’s suite of facilities makes the JS Management Team a 

slightly better value than CSC’s. JS also provides superior value to the Government 

through the following significant strengths: (1) an aggressive, credible and detailed 

approach to cost reductions and cost control that includes new technologies, innovations, 

and process improvements, with the majority of the productivity gains to be achieved in 

the first five years of the contract (CSC has a strength in the area of cost control); (2) a 

comprehensive management approach supported by an organizational structure 

established and aligned on the basis of 15 well-defined core processes with assigned JS 

owners (CSC has a weakness for its organization approach); and (3) a comprehensive 

discussion of transition-related risks and mitigation approaches that will significantly 

minimize changeover difficulties and maximize continuity of services (CSC has a 

strength for its transition approach). 

Subfactor 2 - Areas with Similar Value 

The CSC proposal has a significant strength for its proposal to invest a significant amount 

of its own money in contract phase-in, IT development, calibration lab move and 

upgrade, wind tunnel marketing and a “Technology Partnership Council”. The JS 

proposal has a significant strength for its approach to invest a significant amount of its 

own money in human capital development, equipment and research facility marketing. 

These two significant strengths are considered to be essentially equal in value. 

Subfactor 3, Safety: Under Mission Suitability Subfactor 3, the CSC and JS proposals 

are equally rated and both have a significant strength for their Safety and Health Plans. 

Subfactor 4, SDB Participation: The CSC proposal offers substantially greater value to 

the Government than the JS proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 4. Both 

CSC and JS proposed credible approaches for SDB participation with enforceable 

commitments to subcontractors, and both firms demonstrate successful past performance 

in meeting SDB goals under Government contracts. However, CSC is considered 

superior to JS under Subfactor 4 because of its proposal to very significantly exceed the 

SDB subcontracting goal of 10%, while JS proposes to slightly exceed the goal. CSC has 

a significant strength under this Subfactor for its high level of SDB participation, while 

JS has a strength. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 46

Under Factor 2 (Cost/Price), CSC’s evaluated price of $1,069.1M for the total 10-year 

term of the contract is $3.7M, or 0.3%, higher than JS’s evaluated price of $1,065.4M. 

(Evaluated price for both firms includes a 10% upward adjustment to probable cost 

because an SDB offeror (Cube) did not waive the 10% SDB price evaluation adjustment 

factor.) The probable cost confidence is moderate for JS and low for CSC. This provides 

me with a reasonable assurance that JS’s probable cost can be relied upon to predict its 

likely cost of performance, and a lower confidence that CSC’s probable cost can be relied 

upon to predict its likely cost of performance. CSC has an upward probable cost 

adjustment of $43.9M primarily for the following two areas: unrealistically low “Other 

Direct Costs” (Material/Equipment/Supplies and Other ODC) in the amount of $27.6M, 

primarily because of missing materials costs in SOW area 3.1, Facility Maintenance 

Services; and adjustments to subcontractor costs from individual subcontractor analysis 

($12.9M). JS also has an upward probable cost adjustment of $2.5M for understated 

subcontractor costs. 

Under Factor 3 (Past Performance), JS has an overall rating of “Excellent” compared to 

CSC’s overall rating of “Very Good”. JS demonstrates exemplary performance on 

previous work (as reported by its customers), while CSC demonstrates very effective 

performance on previous work (as reported by its customers). Additionally, JS’s 

demonstrated experience is judged to be highly relevant to the ROME SOW, while 

CSC’s demonstrated experience is judged to be very relevant to the ROME SOW. 

JS has highly relevant experience operating, designing and maintaining multiple wind 

tunnel facilities covering a speed range comparable to that in LaRC’s suite of facilities, 

institutional and research facility engineering, and management (including 

consolidations) of contracts for facility O&M of similar size, content & complexity to 

ROME. JS has very relevant experience in marketing excess wind tunnel capacity, labor 

management, development and implementation of OME & IT training programs, data 

acquisition systems, transitioning to turnkey operations for wind tunnels, performance of 

numerous research facility improvement projects, and EA design and IT consolidation, 

and lacked relevant experience only in SAP products and institutional facilities 

maintenance (the latter of which is mitigated by its research facility maintenance 

experience). 

CSC has highly relevant experience in several SOW areas, most notably institutional 

facilities maintenance, central utilities operations, and IT, has very relevant experience in 

several areas, including the critical area of wind tunnel testing and operations, 

demonstrates relevant experience in management areas such as apprenticeship & cross 

training programs, collection and utilization of performance metrics, and implementation 

of innovative cost savings, and has no relevant experience in several other areas, most 

notably in maintenance and tactical engineering support for wind tunnels; instrument 

metrology and test equipment calibration services; and maintenance and engineering 

support for Data Acquisition Systems (DAS) and Facility Automation Systems (FAS). 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 47

Comparison Summary: Compared to CSC, JS has an overall superior technical 

proposal, stronger past performance both in terms of quality of performance and 

relevance to ROME, and has an evaluated price that is 0.3% lower than CSC’s. In my 

judgment, the JS proposal is a better overall value than the CSC proposal. Specifically, 

JS’s superior significant strengths for its proposed innovations across the entire SOW, its 

demonstrated knowledge of potential risks under the ROME contract, its strengths related 

to research facility operations, and its superior organizational approach, its superior levels 

of past performance and relevant experience, especially in the areas of wind tunnel 

operations, maintenance and engineering, DAS, FAS and metrology, combined with its 

lower evaluated price and higher cost confidence, provides a better overall value when 

compared to CSC’s superior significant strengths in knowledge capture, small business 

subcontracting, and SDB participation. 

3. JS compared to Cube: 

Under Factor 1 (Mission Suitability) the JS proposal is rated as “Excellent” while the 

Cube proposal is rated as “Fair”. 

Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirements and Approach: The JS proposal offers 

substantially greater value to the Government than the Cube proposal offers under 

Mission Suitability Subfactor 1. JS’s proposal, which includes numerous significant 

strengths and no significant weaknesses, is far superior to Cube’s, which has only one 

significant strength and numerous significant weaknesses. 

Subfactor 1 - Areas of Superior Value in Cube’s Proposal 

Cube’s only significant strength is for its proposed approach for metrology management, 

which is considered to be of superior value compared to JS’s approach. JS met the 

Government’s expectations in this area. 

Subfactor 1 - Areas of Superior Value in JS’s Proposal 

JS provides superior value to the Government through its significant strengths in the 

following areas, for which there are no corresponding strengths in the Cube proposal: (1) 

a highly innovative and effective approach to establishing and maintaining effective 

communication between JS’s own work units and between JS and LaRC clients; (2) 

several proposed approaches for maximizing the availability and productivity of research 

facilities that demonstrate a sound understanding of the requirements; (3) an exceptional 

demonstrated understanding of typical problems associated with research facility 

operations; (4) a highly effective approach to ensure test data quality; (5) several 

maintenance innovations for facility repair cost avoidance; (6) proposed innovations for 

utilizing existing asset management systems to achieve accuracy and quality of facility 

maintenance data; (7) the innovative use of technology and corporate reach back to 

improve the quality of engineering designs; (8) an effective strategy for IT 

consolidation/EA implementation; (9) proposed innovations, technologies and process 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 48

improvements that cut across all areas of the statement of work; and (10) JS provides a 

comprehensive list of risk elements, a risk probability and impact rating, and a detailed 

risk mitigation strategy that demonstrates an understanding of the risks associated with 

the ROME contract that is superior to Cube’s. 

The Cube proposal also has the following significant weaknesses in areas where JS either 

met or exceeded expectations: (1) The Work Management Systems (WMS) architecture 

as depicted is vague and does not provide adequate details or technical approach to 

determine its ability to serve as the Offeror’s proposed "key management tool" for 

organizing, assigning, tracking, performing and controlling each technical area in the 

SOW; (2) Cube's proposed staffing is significantly lower than the Government’s estimate 

for the entire contract and this discrepancy is not supported by the Offeror’s technical 

proposal (i.e., operational efficiencies that would generate such labor savings are not 

proposed), indicating a significant lack of understanding of the requirements (the 

Government estimate was developed using historical data, which was provided to the 

offerors in the RFP); (3) Cube’s discussion of typical problems and relevant risk areas in 

the performance of the ROME contract is generic and does not demonstrate an adequate 

level of understanding of the breadth, complexity and inherent risks of research facility 

operations, maintenance, engineering, and IT requirements for this project; (4) The 

proposal does not provide an approach for providing timely and effective tactical 

engineering services; (5) Cube did not clearly articulate its role in the design, 

construction and activation of facility projects; and (6) Cube’s proposed approach to IT 

Security is technically flawed and thereby appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful 

contract performance. 

Subfactor 1 - Areas with Similar Value 

None. 

Subfactor 2, Management: The JS proposal offers substantially greater value to the 

Government than the Cube proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 2. JS’s 

proposal, which includes several significant strengths and no significant weaknesses, is 

far superior to Cube’s, which has no significant strengths and one significant weakness. 

Subfactor 2 - Areas of Superior Value in Cube’s Proposal 

None. 

Subfactor 2 - Areas of Superior Value in JS’s Proposal 

JS has a significant strength for its superior proposed Management Team, which has 

strong relevant experience managing projects of the size, content and complexity of 

ROME, particularly in the area of wind tunnel testing in multiple facilities covering a 

speed range comparable to that in LaRC’s suite of facilities. In comparison, Cube has a 

strength and a weakness for its different aspects of its Management Team, and its team 

does not match the overall experience level of the JS team. JS also provides superior 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 49

value to the Government through its significant strengths in the following areas, for 

which there are no corresponding strengths in the Cube proposal: (1) its approach to 

invest a significant amount of its own money in human capital development, equipment 

and research facility marketing; (2) a comprehensive management approach supported by 

an organizational structure established and aligned on the basis of 15 well-defined core 

processes with assigned JS owners; (3) an aggressive, credible and detailed approach to 

cost reductions and cost control that includes new technologies, innovations, and process 

improvements, with the majority of the productivity gains to be achieved in the first five 

years of the contract; and (4) a comprehensive discussion of transition-related risks and 

mitigation approaches that will significantly minimize changeover difficulties and 

maximize continuity of services. Cube has a significant weakness for its phase-in plan, 

which is vague and lacks adequate detail. JS has a strength for its phase-in plan. 

Subfactor 2 - Areas with Similar Value 

None. 

Subfactor 3, Safety: The JS proposal offers substantially greater value to the 

Government than the Cube proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 3. JS has 

a superior technical approach that includes a thorough Safety and Health Plan (for which 

JS has a significant strength), and has no weaknesses. Cube has no significant strengths 

under this Subfactor, and a significant weakness for its Draft Safety Plan, which because 

of numerous major omissions, could not be implemented without major rework. 

Subfactor 4, SDB Participation: The JS proposal offers substantially greater value to 

the Government than the Cube proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 4. JS 

proposed a credible approach for SDB participation with enforceable commitments to 

subcontractors, and demonstrates successful past performance in meeting SDB goals 

under Government contracts. JS has a strength under Subfactor 4 because of its proposal 

to slightly exceed the 10% SDB goal. JS did not receive a significant strength or 

weakness under this Subfactor. Cube self-certified as a small disadvantaged business, 

and their SDB status was confirmed by the SBA. While I recognize that there is value to 

contracting with small disadvantaged businesses, the evaluation factors mandated that by 

electing not to waive the 10% SDB price evaluation adjustment, Cube received 0 points 

out of the 100 available for Subfactor 4. This is in accordance with the RFP and NFS 

1815.304(c)(4)(B). 

Under Factor 2 (Cost/Price), Cube’s evaluated price of $1,019.1M for the total 10-year 

term of the contract is $46.3M, or 4.3%, lower than JS’s evaluated price of $1,065.4M. 

(Evaluated price for JS includes a 10% upward adjustment to probable cost because 

Cube, an SDB offeror, did not waive the 10% SDB price evaluation adjustment factor. 

Evaluated price for Cube includes probable cost adjustments but not the 10% upward 

SDB price evaluation adjustment). The probable cost confidence is moderate for JS and 

low for Cube. This provides me with a reasonable assurance that JS’s probable cost can 

be relied upon to predict its likely cost of performance, and a lower confidence that 

Cube’s probable cost can be relied upon to predict its likely cost of performance. Cube 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 50

has a net upward probable cost adjustment of $12.3M, primarily for unrealistically low 

ODCs for missing materials costs in SOW area 3.1, Facility Maintenance Services 

($20M), which are partially offset by downward adjustments for overstated Hampton 

Business Tax and subcontractor costs. JS has an upward probable cost adjustment of 

$2.5M for understated subcontractor costs. 

Under Factor 3 (Past Performance), JS has an overall rating of “Excellent”, compared 

to Cube’s overall rating of “Good”. JS demonstrates exemplary performance on previous 

work (as reported by its customers), while Cube demonstrates very effective performance 

on previous work (as reported by its customers). Additionally, JS’s demonstrated 

experience is judged to be highly relevant to the ROME SOW, while Cube’s 

demonstrated experience is judged to be very relevant to the ROME SOW. 

JS has highly relevant experience operating, designing and maintaining multiple wind 

tunnel facilities covering a speed range comparable to that in LaRC’s suite of facilities, 

institutional and research facility engineering, and management (including 

consolidations) of contracts for facility O&M of similar size, content, and complexity to 

ROME. JS has very relevant experience in marketing excess wind tunnel capacity, labor 

management, development and implementation of OME & IT training programs, data 

acquisition systems, transitioning to turnkey operations for wind tunnels, performance of 

numerous research facility improvement projects, and EA design and IT consolidation, 

and lacked relevant experience only in SAP products and institutional facilities 

maintenance (the latter of which is mitigated by its research facility maintenance 

experience). 

Cube has highly relevant experience in wind tunnel operation and test technique 

development, and very relevant experience in the following areas: maintaining large 

institutional complexes; IT systems support; and managing workload fluctuations, and 

the proposed Program Manager has very relevant experience for work similar in size and 

complexity to ROME. Cube did not demonstrate relevant experience in several SOW 

areas, including business IT consolidation and support, developing and implementing a 

comprehensive technical personnel training program, reliability-centered maintenance 

(RCM), and research facility engineering experience that is similar in size, content, and 

complexity to ROME. 

Comparison Summary: While Cube’s evaluated price is 4.3% lower than JS’s, it is my 

judgment that the additional value provided by JS’s superior proposed approaches in 

Mission Suitability, combined with JS’s superior level of relevant past performance, is 

worth the additional 4.3% expenditure. Specifically, JS’s many superior significant 

strengths for its proposed innovations across the entire SOW, its demonstrated knowledge 

of potential risks under the ROME contract, its strengths related to research facility 

operations, its proposed investments in ROME, and its superior management approach 

and Management Team, plus its superior level of relevant experience, especially in the 

areas of research facility engineering, reliability-centered maintenance and business IT 

consolidation and support, combined with Cube’s significant weaknesses in its technical 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 51

proposal, results in the JS proposal providing a better overall value when compared to 

Cube’s proposal. 

4. JS compared to KBR: 

Under Factor 1 (Mission Suitability) the JS proposal is rated as “Excellent” while the 

KBR proposal is rated as “Good”. 

Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirements and Approach: The JS proposal offers 

substantially greater value to the Government than the KBR proposal offers under 

Mission Suitability Subfactor 1. 

Subfactor 1 - Areas of Superior Value in KBR’s Proposal 

The KBR proposal has a significant strength for its effective IT security approach, while 

the JS proposal has a weakness for a vague IT security approach. 

Subfactor 1 - Areas of Superior Value in JS’s Proposal 

JS’s proposed innovations, technologies and process improvements cut across all areas of 

the statement of work, are deemed to be a significant strength and are superior to those 

proposed by KBR. In comparison, KBR has strengths for specific innovations in 

maintenance and engineering, but JS’s proposed innovations are considered to be of 

greater value to the Government, because they demonstrate a much better overall 

understanding of the ROME requirements. JS has a significant strength for a 

comprehensive list of risk elements, a risk probability and impact rating, and a detailed 

risk mitigation strategy that demonstrates an understanding of the risks associated with 

the ROME contract that is superior to KBR’s. In comparison, KBR has a significant 

strength for its 5-step approach to risk management, but JS’s identification of risks 

specific to ROME is considered to be of greater value to the Government, because it is a 

better indicator that JS understands the requirements and thus will be better able to 

successfully perform the work under the ROME contract. JS has a significant strength 

for several proposed approaches for maximizing the availability and productivity of 

research facilities that demonstrate a sound understanding of the requirements. In 

comparison, KBR has a strength in this area, but JS’s proposed introduction of several 

technological innovations to reduce test cycle time is a more comprehensive approach for 

increasing facility productivity than KBR’s facility scheduling approach, and is thus 

considered to be of greater value. JS has a significant strength for several maintenance 

innovations for facility repair cost avoidance. In comparison, KBR has two strengths in 

this area, but JS’s innovations are engineering-based and cover the maintenance area 

more thoroughly, and are thus are considered to be of greater value. JS has a significant 

strength for its innovative use of technology and corporate reach back to improve the 

quality of engineering designs. In comparison, KBR has a strength for innovative 

technology use that is similar to some of the innovations proposed by JS, but JS’s 

approach is considered to be of greater value because it also proposed the use of several 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 52

commercial and company proprietary computer based analytical programs. 

Corresponding programs were not offered by KBR. JS has a significant strength for an 

effective strategy for IT consolidation/EA implementation. In comparison, KBR has a 

strength in this area, but JS provides greater value because the Government will realize 

immediate benefits and cost reductions for IT services by the elimination of functional 

and data redundancy through the JS approach. 

JS also provides superior value to the Government through its significant strengths in the 

following areas, for which there are no corresponding strengths in the KBR proposal: (1) 

a highly innovative and effective approach to establishing and maintaining effective 

communication between JS’s own work units and between JS and LaRC clients; (2) an 

exceptional demonstrated understanding of typical problems associated with research 

facility operations; (3) a highly effective approach to ensure test data quality (KBR has a 

significant weakness in the area of test data quality); and (4) proposed innovations for 

utilizing existing asset management systems to achieve accuracy and quality of facility 

maintenance data. 

Subfactor 2, Management: The JS proposal offers substantially greater value to the 

Government than the KBR proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 2. JS’s 

proposal, which includes several significant strengths and no significant weaknesses, is 

far superior to KBR’s, which has no significant strengths or significant weakness. 

Subfactor 2 - Areas of Superior Value in KBR’s Proposal 

None. 

Subfactor 2 - Areas of Superior Value in JS’s Proposal 

JS has a superior proposed Management Team, which merits a significant strength for its 

strong relevant experience managing projects of the size, content and complexity of 

ROME, particularly in the area of wind tunnel testing in multiple facilities covering a 

speed range comparable to that in LaRC’s suite of facilities. In comparison, KBR has a 

strength and a weakness for its Management Team, and its team does not match the 

overall experience level of the JS team. JS also provides superior value to the 

Government through its significant strengths in the following areas, for which there are 

no corresponding strengths in the KBR proposal: (1) its approach to invest a significant 

amount of its own money in human capital development, equipment and research facility 

marketing; (2) a comprehensive management approach supported by an organizational 

structure established and aligned on the basis of 15 well-defined core processes with 

assigned JS owners (KBR has weaknesses for its inconsistent and ambiguous 

organization chart and for its organizational approach in the calibration area); (3) an 

aggressive, credible and detailed approach to cost reductions and cost control that 

includes new technologies, innovations, and process improvements, with the majority of 

the productivity gains to be achieved in the first five years of the contract; and (4) a 

comprehensive discussion of transition-related risks and mitigation approaches that will 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 53

significantly minimize changeover difficulties and maximize continuity of services (KBR 

has a weakness for its proposed transition approach). 

Subfactor 2 - Areas with Similar Value 

None. 

Subfactor 3, Safety: The JS proposal offers slightly greater value to the Government 

than the KBR proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 3. JS has a somewhat 

stronger technical approach that includes a thorough Safety and Health Plan, for which JS 

has a significant strength and no weaknesses. In comparison, KBR also has a significant 

strength for its Safety and Health Plan (which is on par with JS’s plan), but KBR also has 

a weakness for failing to recognize the existence of a LaRC lockout/tagout (LOTO) 

procedure that supercedes any KBR LOTO policy. Because of this KBR weakness, JS’s 

approach to safety and health is considered to be of slightly greater value than KBR’s 

approach. 

Subfactor 4, SDB Participation: The KBR proposal offers greater value to the 

Government than the JS proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 4. Both 

KBR and JS proposed credible approaches for SDB participation with enforceable 

commitments to subcontractors, and both firms demonstrate successful past performance 

in meeting SDB goals under Government contracts. However, KBR is considered 

superior to JS under Subfactor 4 because of its proposal to significantly exceed the SDB 

subcontracting goal of 10%, while JS proposes to slightly exceed goal. KBR has a 

significant strength under this Subfactor for its higher level of SDB participation, while 

JS has a strength. 

Under Factor 2 (Cost/Price), KBR’s evaluated price of $1,027.4M for the total 10-year 

term of the contract is $38.0M, or 3.6%, lower than JS’s evaluated price of $1,065.4M. 

(Evaluated price for both firms includes a 10% upward adjustment to probable cost 

because an SDB offeror (Cube) did not waive the 10% SDB price evaluation adjustment 

factor.) The probable cost confidence for both firms is moderate, which provides me 

with reasonable assurance that the probable costs can be relied upon to compare the likely 

cost of performance for each firm. KBR has a net upward probable cost adjustment of 

$14.9M, primarily for unrealistically low “Other Direct Costs” for missing materials 

costs in SOW area 3.1, Facility Maintenance Services ($23.1M), which are partially 

offset by downward adjustments for overstated labor escalation and subcontractor costs. 

JS has an upward probable cost adjustment of $2.5M for understated subcontractor costs. 

Under Factor 3 (Past Performance), JS has an overall rating of “Excellent”, compared 

to KBR’s overall rating of “Very Good”. JS demonstrates exemplary performance on 

previous work (as reported by its customers), while KBR demonstrates very effective 

performance on previous work (as reported by its customers). Additionally, JS’s 

demonstrated experience is judged to be highly relevant to the ROME SOW, while 

KBR’s demonstrated experience is judged to be very relevant to the ROME SOW. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 54

JS has highly relevant experience operating, designing and maintaining multiple wind 

tunnel facilities covering a speed range comparable to that in LaRC’s suite of facilities, 

institutional and research facility engineering, and management (including 

consolidations) of contracts for facility O&M of similar size, content and complexity to 

ROME. JS has very relevant experience in marketing excess wind tunnel capacity, labor 

management, development and implementation of OME & IT training programs, data 

acquisition systems, transitioning to turnkey operations for wind tunnels, performance of 

numerous research facility improvement projects, and EA design and IT consolidation, 

and lacked relevant experience only in SAP products and institutional facilities 

maintenance (the latter of which is mitigated by its research facility maintenance 

experience). 

In comparison, KBR has highly relevant experience managing large contract efforts, and 

very relevant experience in base operations, including training and development of 

technical, safety, and quality personnel, research facility maintenance, and RCM program 

development and management. KBR has relevant experience in the transition of wind 

tunnel operations from Government to Contractor personnel. KBR did not demonstrate 

relevant experience in the following areas: full service wind tunnel operations; wind 

tunnel facility engineering; DAS and FAS maintenance and development; EA design; and 

consolidation of disparate customer service desks. 

Comparison Summary: While KBR’s evaluated price is 3.6% lower than JS’s, it is my 

judgment that the additional value provided by JS’s superior proposed approaches in 

Mission Suitability, combined with JS’s superior past performance, including its higher 

level of relevant experience, is worth the additional 3.6% expenditure. Specifically, JS’s 

superior significant strengths for its proposed innovations across the entire SOW, its 

demonstrated knowledge of potential risks under the ROME contract, its strengths related 

to research facility operations, its IT consolidation approach, its superior transition 

approach for major wind tunnels, its cost reduction approaches, its proposed investments 

in ROME, and its superior management approach and Management Team, combined 

with its superior level of relevant experience, especially in the areas of full service wind 

tunnel operations in multiple facilities covering a speed range comparable to that in 

LaRC’s suite of facilities, wind tunnel facility engineering, and DAS and FAS 

maintenance and development, provides a better overall value when compared to KBR’s 

superior strengths in IT security and SDB participation and KBR’s lower price. 

5. JS compared to Raytheon: 

Under Factor 1 (Mission Suitability) the JS proposal is rated as “Excellent” while the 

Raytheon proposal is rated as “Very Good”. 

Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirements and Approach: The JS proposal offers 

greater value to the Government than the Raytheon proposal offers under Mission 

Suitability Subfactor 1. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 55

Subfactor 1 - Areas of Superior Value in Raytheon’s Proposal 

Raytheon has a significant strength for its comprehensive and effective IT security 

approach, while JS has a weakness for a vague IT security approach. Raytheon also has a 

stronger proposed approach for its Enterprise Information Portal (EIP), because Raytheon 

proposes to invest a significant amount of its own money in the EIP and proposes to 

finish and implement the EIP well ahead of the required schedule in the contract. 

Raytheon has a significant strength for its EIP approach, while JS has a strength for its 

EIP approach. 

Subfactor 1 - Areas of Superior Value in JS’s Proposal 

JS’s proposed innovations, technologies and process improvements cut across all areas of 

the statement of work, are deemed to be a significant strength and are superior to those 

proposed by Raytheon. In comparison, Raytheon did receive a strength for several 

specific innovations, but JS’s numerous proposed innovations are considered to be of 

greater value to the Government because they demonstrate a much better understanding 

of the ROME requirements. JS demonstrated an exceptional understanding of typical 

problems associated with research facility operations. In comparison, Raytheon has a 

strength for its demonstrated expertise with the testing process, but the JS strength is of 

greater value because it demonstrates a better understanding of all areas of research 

facility operations. JS has a significant strength for several proposed approaches for 

maximizing the availability and productivity of research facilities that demonstrate a 

sound understanding of the requirements. In comparison, Raytheon has a strength in this 

area, but JS’s proposed introduction of several technological innovations to reduce test 

cycle time is a more comprehensive approach for increasing facility productivity than 

Raytheon’s facility operational readiness approach, and is thus considered to be of greater 

value. JS has a significant strength for a highly effective approach to ensure test data 

quality. In comparison, Raytheon has a strength in this area, but the JS proposal is of 

greater value because it demonstrates a better overall understanding of the ROME data 

quality assurance requirements. 

JS also provides superior value to the Government through its significant strengths in the 

following areas, for which there are no corresponding strengths in the Raytheon proposal: 

(1) a highly innovative and effective approach to establishing and maintaining effective 

communication between JS’s own work units and between JS and LaRC clients; (2) 

several maintenance innovations for facility repair cost avoidance; and (3) the innovative 

use of technology and corporate reach back to improve the quality of engineering 

designs. 

Raytheon also has two significant weaknesses in areas where JS met the Government’s 

expectations: (1) Raytheon’s proposed approach for managing the metrology program, 

particularly with respect to ISO 17025 compliance, is vague; and (2) Raytheon’s 

approach for the design, development, implementation, and lifecycle support of FAS and 

DAS does not adequately address DAS/FAS software maintenance nor does it adequately 

address configuration management of DAS/FAS hardware and software; additionally, 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 56

Raytheon’s statement that “Many wind tunnel FAS and DAS are left unaltered over their 

life cycle” is inaccurate, and thus indicates a lack of understanding with regard to the 

amount of lifecycle support required for DAS/FAS in many of LaRC’s research facilities. 

These significant weaknesses are in critical technical areas, and their presence in the 

Raytheon proposal supports the conclusion that JS’s Subfactor 1 proposal represents a 

greater value than Raytheon’s Subfactor 1 proposal. 

Subfactor 1 - Areas with Similar Value 

Both firms have significant strengths for their proposed innovations for utilizing existing 

asset management systems to achieve accuracy and quality of facility maintenance data, 

and the two approaches are considered to be essentially equal in value. Both firms have 

significant strengths for their risk identification and mitigation, and the two approaches 

are considered to be essentially equal in value. Both firms also have significant strengths 

for their Enterprise Architecture approaches, and again the two approaches are considered 

to be essentially equal in value. 

Subfactor 2, Management: The JS proposal offers greater value to the Government 

than the Raytheon proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 2. 

Subfactor 2 - Areas of Superior Value in Raytheon’s Proposal 

Raytheon has a significant strength for its approach to knowledge capture, which is 

considered superior to JS’s approach. In comparison, JS has a strength in this area for its 

proposed “Transition Resource Team”, but Raytheon’s proposal provides greater value 

because of its blend of personnel and technology-based approaches, which demonstrates 

a better overall understanding of the knowledge capture process. Raytheon also has a 

significant strength for its phase-in plan, which is also considered to be superior to JS’s. 

In comparison, JS has a strength in this area for its personnel recruitment approach, 

which is only one of the many areas that Raytheon covered effectively in its phase-in 

plan. 

Subfactor 2 - Areas of Superior Value in JS’s Proposal 

JS has a significant strength for a comprehensive management approach supported by an 

organizational structure established and aligned on the basis of 15 well-defined core 

processes with assigned JS owners, while Raytheon has a significant strength for its 

understanding and approach to manage the ROME contract based upon process 

improvements and including its Integrated Product Development System (IPDS) and 

Raytheon Six Sigma (RSix Sigma). While both of these management approaches merited 

significant strengths, JS’s approach is considered to be of somewhat greater value 

because of JS’s strong proposed organizational structure, which will contribute to more 

effective management of the ROME contract. JS’s proposed Management Team merits a 

significant strength for its strong relevant experience managing projects of the size, 

content and complexity of ROME, particularly in the area of full service wind tunnel 

testing in multiple facilities covering a speed range comparable to that in LaRC’s suite of 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 57

facilities, while Raytheon’s Management Team represents a significant weakness for a 

lack of experience managing projects of the size, content and complexity of ROME and a 

lack of wind tunnel operations experience and research facility engineering experience. 

JS has a significant strength for an aggressive, credible and detailed approach to cost 

reductions and cost control that includes new technologies, innovations, and process 

improvements, with the majority of the productivity gains to be achieved in the first five 

years of the contract. In comparison, Raytheon has a strength in this area for its proposed 

cost tracking systems, but JS’s proposal is considered to be of superior value in this area 

because of its specific and credible proposed approaches for controlling and reducing 

costs. JS also provides superior value to the Government through its significant strength 

for a comprehensive discussion of transition-related risks and mitigation approaches that 

will significantly minimize changeover difficulties and maximize continuity of services. 

In comparison, Raytheon has a strength in this area, but JS’s proposal provides superior 

value because it covers both the human and the technological elements of transition in far 

greater depth and detail, and in doing so demonstrates a much better understanding of the 

transition process and the risks associated with transitioning wind tunnel operations from 

the Government to the contractor. 

Raytheon has an additional significant weakness related to its failure to demonstrate that 

it can meet the on-site service and emergency repair timeliness requirements for the 

instrumentation calibration and repair functions due to the proposed location of 

Raytheon’s metrology facility; in addition, it is not clear if the facility proposed for use 

by Raytheon will be totally dedicated to the ROME contract due to the calibration 

services currently provided by the instrumentation subcontractor to non-ROME 

customers. This significant weakness, as well as the significant weakness noted above 

for Raytheon’s Management Team, is in a critical area and the presence of these 

significant weaknesses in Raytheon’s proposal supports the conclusion that JS’s 

Subfactor 2 proposal represents a greater value than Raytheon’s Subfactor 2 proposal. 

Subfactor 2 - Areas with Similar Value 

Raytheon has a significant strength for its proposal to invest a significant amount of its 

own money over the first three years of the contract in VPP Star certification, ISO-9001, 

DAS & FAS system upgrades, Raytheon 6-Sigma experts, and the development of an 

Enterprise Information Portal (EIP) for ROME. In comparison, JS has a significant 

strength for its approach to invest a significant amount of its own money in human capital 

development, equipment and research facility marketing. These two significant strengths 

are considered to be essentially equal in value. 

Subfactor 3, Safety: The Raytheon proposal offers greater value to the Government 

than the JS proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 3. Raytheon has a 

superior technical approach that includes a strong Safety and Health Plan with a 

significant investment by Raytheon of its own money for VPP Star certification, for 

which Raytheon has a significant strength. In comparison, JS also has a significant 

strength for its thorough Safety and Health Plan, but Raytheon’s overall approach in 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 58

safety and health is considered to be of greater value than JS’s approach because of 

Raytheon’s proposed investments. 

Subfactor 4, SDB Participation: The Raytheon proposal offers substantially greater 

value to the Government than the JS proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 

4. Both Raytheon and JS proposed credible approaches for SDB participation with 

enforceable commitments to subcontractors, and both firms demonstrate successful past 

performance in meeting SDB goals under Government contracts. However, Raytheon is 

considered superior to JS under Subfactor 4 because of its proposal to significantly 

exceed the SDB subcontracting goal of 10%, while JS proposes to slightly exceed goal. 

Raytheon has a significant strength under this Subfactor for its high level of SDB 

participation, while JS has a strength. 

Under Factor 2 (Cost/Price), Raytheon’s evaluated price of $1,059.9M for the total 10-

year term of the contract is $5.5M, or 0.5%, lower than JS’s evaluated price of 

$1,065.4M. (Evaluated price for both firms includes a 10% upward adjustment to 

probable cost because an SDB offeror (Cube) did not waive the 10% SDB price 

evaluation adjustment factor.) The probable cost confidence is moderate for JS and low 

for Raytheon. This provides me with a reasonable assurance that JS’s probable cost can 

be relied upon to predict its likely cost of performance, and a lower confidence that 

Raytheon’s probable cost can be relied upon to predict its likely cost of performance. 

Raytheon has a downward probable cost adjustment of $0.4M, for slightly overstated 

subcontractor costs. JS has an upward probable cost adjustment of $2.5M for understated 

subcontractor costs. 

Under Factor 3 (Past Performance), JS has an overall rating of “Excellent”, compared 

to Raytheon’s overall rating of “Very Good”. Both firms demonstrate exemplary 

performance on previous work (as reported by their customers). However, JS’s 

demonstrated experience is judged to be highly relevant to the ROME SOW, while 

Raytheon’s demonstrated experience is judged to be very relevant to the ROME SOW. 

JS has highly relevant experience operating, designing and maintaining multiple wind 

tunnel facilities covering a speed range comparable to that in LaRC’s suite of facilities, 

institutional and research facility engineering, and management (including 

consolidations) of contracts for facility O&M of similar size, content & complexity to 

ROME. JS has very relevant experience in marketing excess wind tunnel capacity, labor 

management, development and implementation of OME & IT training programs, data 

acquisition systems, transitioning to turnkey operations for wind tunnels, performance of 

numerous research facility improvement projects, and EA design and IT consolidation, 

and lacked relevant experience only in SAP products and institutional facilities 

maintenance (the latter of which is mitigated by its research facility maintenance 

experience). 

Raytheon has highly relevant experience in numerous areas, most notably transition of 

workforce (civil servant to contractor) and facilities; contract consolidations; performing 

central utilities operations; RCM-based maintenance programs; and business IT 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 59

consolidations and support. Raytheon also has very relevant experience in several areas, 

including wind tunnel operations support, and has relevant experience in providing FAS, 

DAS, and research systems support. Raytheon did not demonstrate relevant experience 

in research engineering projects including design, construction, and activation; metrology 

and calibration support; and the development and implementation of comprehensive 

training programs. 

Comparison Summary: While Raytheon’s evaluated price is 0.5% lower than JS’s, it is 

my judgment that the additional value provided by JS’s superior proposed approaches in 

Mission Suitability, combined with JS’s superior level of relevant past performance, is 

worth the additional 0.5% expenditure. Specifically, JS’s superior proposed innovations 

across the entire SOW, its superior significant strengths related to research facility 

operations and test data quality, cost reduction and control, and identification of transition 

risks, its superior management approach and Management Team, combined with its 

superior level of relevant experience, especially in the areas of wind tunnel operations in 

multiple facilities covering a speed range comparable to that in LaRC’s suite of facilities, 

research facility engineering, and data acquisition systems, and its higher probable cost 

confidence level, provide a better overall value when compared to Raytheon’s superior 

significant strengths in IT development, IT security knowledge capture, safety and SDB 

participation, Raytheon’s stronger relevance of past performance in information 

technology and civil service to contractor transitions, and Raytheon’s slightly lower 

(0.5%) evaluated price. 

6. JS compared to VAS: 

Under Factor 1 (Mission Suitability) the JS proposal is rated as “Excellent” while the 

VAS proposal is rated as “Very Good”. 

Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirements and Approach: The JS proposal offers 

substantially greater value to the Government than the VAS proposal offers under 

Mission Suitability Subfactor 1. 

Subfactor 1 - Areas of Superior Value in VAS’s Proposal 

Both firms have significant strengths for their approaches to assure test data quality, but 

VAS’s proposed approach is considered to be of slightly more value based on the quality 

of its proposed data quality assurance innovations, as well as the level of specificity to 

which they were explained. VAS also provides superior value to the Government 

through its significant strength for a proposed comprehensive RCM strategy that will 

significantly improve the maintenance program by reducing the impact of maintenance 

on facility operations. In comparison, JS has a significant strength in this area, but 

VAS’s approach is considered of superior value because of its plan to provide an “RCM 

Chief Engineer”. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 60

Subfactor 1 - Areas of Superior Value in JS’s Proposal 

JS’s proposed innovations, technologies and process improvements cut across all areas of 

the statement of work, are deemed to be a significant strength and are superior to those 

proposed by VAS. In comparison, VAS did receive a significant strength for its 

innovations, but JS’s numerous proposed innovations are considered to be of greater 

value to the Government because they demonstrate a much better understanding of the 

ROME requirements. JS has a significant strength for a comprehensive list of risk 

elements, a risk probability and impact rating, and a detailed risk mitigation strategy that 

demonstrates an understanding of the risks associated with the ROME contract. In 

comparison, VAS has a strength for its risk identification and mitigation of specific risks, 

but JS provides greater value because its proposal in this area includes effective 

approaches for managing risks that are not present in the VAS proposal. JS has a 

significant strength for several proposed approaches for maximizing the availability and 

productivity of research facilities that demonstrate a sound understanding of the 

requirements. In comparison, VAS has a strength in this area for its demonstrated 

understanding of test techniques and test technology, but JS’s approach is considered to 

be a more comprehensive approach for increasing facility productivity than VAS’s, and 

thus of greater value, because of its proposed introduction of several new technological 

innovations to reduce test cycle time. 

JS also provides superior value to the Government through its significant strengths in the 

following areas, for which there are no corresponding strengths in the VAS proposal: (1) 

a highly innovative and effective approach to establishing and maintaining effective 

communication between JS’s own work units and between JS and LaRC clients; (2) an 

exceptional demonstrated understanding of typical problems associated with research 

facility operations; (3) proposed innovations for utilizing existing asset management 

systems to achieve accuracy and quality of facility maintenance data; (4) the innovative 

use of technology and corporate reach back to improve the quality of engineering 

designs; and (5) an effective strategy for IT consolidation/EA implementation. 

VAS also has these significant weaknesses in areas where JS either met or exceeded 

(though not significantly) the Government’s expectations: (1) VAS did not address 

configuration management for FAS and DAS, nor did it address DAS and FAS software 

maintenance (JS met expectations in this area); (2) VAS’s plan for management of the 

Metrology program including calibration and repair of research instrumentation, DAS, 

FAS, and related IAGP and GFE, and its interfaces to pertinent LMS processes are not 

adequately addressed (JS has a strength for its approach to metrology); and (3) VAS’s 

proposed approach to deliver "within the first 18 months ...an Enterprise Information 

Portal" does not meet the overall 12-month delivery requirement for the EIP contained in 

the SOW (ref. section 5.1.3) (JS met the 12-month EIP delivery requirement set forth in 

the RFP, and both VAS and JS have strengths for their EIP designs). These significant 

weaknesses are in critical technical areas, and their presence in the VAS proposal 

supports the conclusion that JS’s Subfactor 1 proposal represents a substantially greater 

value than VAS’s Subfactor 1 proposal. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 61

Subfactor 1 - Areas with Similar Value 

Both JS and VAS also have significant strengths for maintenance innovations for repair 

cost avoidance, and the two approaches are considered to be essentially equal in value. 

Subfactor 2, Management: The JS proposal offers slightly greater value to the 

Government than the VAS proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 2. Both 

firms several have significant strengths and no significant weaknesses in Subfactor 2, but 

JS is rated slightly higher than VAS, primarily because of JS’s superior proposed 

management innovations and its management team, which has experience that is more 

closely related to the ROME SOW than that of VAS’s management team. 

Subfactor 2 - Areas of Superior Value in VAS’s Proposal 

VAS has a significant strength for its approach to knowledge capture, which is 

considered superior to JS’s approach. In comparison, JS has a strength in this area for its 

proposed “Transition Resource Team”, but VAS’s proposal provides greater value 

because of its blend of personnel and technology-based approaches, which demonstrates 

a better overall understanding of the knowledge capture process. VAS also has a 

significant strength for its phase-in plan, which is also considered to be superior to JS’s. 

In comparison, JS has a strength in this area for an effective and detailed phase-in 

approach, but VAS’s approach is considered to be of superior value because it includes a 

detailed schedule of phase-in activities that identifies more than 125 elements of work in 

17 major focus areas, a separate phase-in manager and a well-defined phase-in team, 

which will substantially mitigate phase-in risks. 

Subfactor 2 - Areas of Superior Value in JS’s Proposal 

JS’s proposed Management Team merited a significant strength for its strong relevant 

experience managing projects of the size, content and complexity of ROME, particularly 

in the area of wind tunnel testing, while VAS’s Management Team has a significant 

strength for NASA related technical and business experience and experience managing 

contracts similar in size and complexity to ROME, extensive maintenance experience, 

including successful performance of facility operations and maintenance at MSFC, IT 

business systems experience, and phase-in experience, but also a weakness for a lack of 

relevant experience in the research operations and transition areas. JS’s Management 

Team is judged to have slightly superior experience relative to ROME, particularly 

because of its wind tunnel and research testing background in multiple facilities covering 

a speed range comparable to that in LaRC’s suite of facilities, and its research facility 

engineering experience. JS has a significant strength for a comprehensive management 

approach supported by an organizational structure established and aligned on the basis of 

15 well-defined core processes with assigned JS owners, which is considered superior to 

VAS’s approach. In comparison, VAS has strengths for its proposed research facility 

management organization and its Performance Improvement Center organization, but 

these strengths did not provide nearly the value as the JS significant strength, because the 

JS approach covered virtually every management area of the contract while VAS’s 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 62

strengths are limited in scope. JS has a significant strength for a comprehensive 

discussion of transition-related risks and mitigation approaches that will significantly 

minimize changeover difficulties and maximize continuity of services. In comparison, 

VAS has a strength in this area, but JS’s proposal provides superior value because it 

covers both the human and the technological elements of transition in far greater depth 

and detail, and in doing so demonstrates a much better understanding of the transition 

process and the risks associated with transitioning wind tunnel operations from the 

Government to the contractor. 

JS also provides superior value to the Government through its significant strength for an 

aggressive, credible and detailed approach to cost reductions and cost control that 

includes new technologies, innovations, and process improvements, with the majority of 

the productivity gains to be achieved in the first five years of the contract. There is no 

corresponding strength in the VAS proposal. 

Subfactor 2 - Areas with Similar Value 

JS has a significant strength for its approach to invest a significant amount of its own 

money in human capital development, equipment and research facility marketing, while 

VAS has a significant strength for its proposal to eliminate G & A expenses as a part of 

its joint venture approach, which will result in significant savings over the life of the 

contract. These two significant strengths are considered to be essentially equal in value. 

Subfactor 3, Safety: The JS proposal offers substantially greater value to the 

Government than the VAS proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 3. JS has 

a superior technical approach that includes a thorough Safety and Health Plan (for which 

JS has a significant strength), and has no weaknesses. VAS has no significant strengths 

or significant weaknesses under this Subfactor. VAS has a strength for its Safety and 

Health Plan, which exceeded expectations, and a weakness for its lack of demonstrated 

understanding of the LaRC digging permit process. 

Subfactor 4, SDB Participation: The VAS proposal offers greater value to the 

Government than the JS proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 4. Both 

VAS and JS proposed credible approaches for SDB participation with enforceable 

commitments to subcontractors, and both firms demonstrate successful past performance 

in meeting SDB goals under Government contracts. However, VAS is considered 

superior to JS under Subfactor 4 because of its proposal to significantly exceed the SDB 

subcontracting goal of 10%, while JS proposes to slightly exceed the goal. VAS has a 

significant strength under this Subfactor for its high level of SDB participation, while JS 

has a strength. 

Under Factor 2 (Cost/Price), VAS’s evaluated price of $1,098.0M for the total 10-year 

term of the contract is $32.6M, or 3.1%, higher than JS’s evaluated price of $1,065.4M. 

(Evaluated price for both firms includes a 10% upward adjustment to probable cost 

because an SDB offeror (Cube) did not waive the 10% SDB price evaluation adjustment 

factor.) The probable cost confidence for both firms is moderate, which provides me 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 63

with reasonable assurance that the probable costs can be relied upon to compare the likely 

cost of performance for each firm. VAS has a downward probable cost adjustment of 

$0.1M for slightly overstated subcontractor costs. JS has an upward probable cost 

adjustment of $2.5M for understated subcontractor costs. 

Under Factor 3 (Past Performance), both JS and VAS have overall ratings of 

“Excellent”. Both firms demonstrate exemplary performance on previous work (as 

reported by their customers), and both demonstrate highly relevant experience in 

comparison to the ROME statement of work. I consider the past performance of these to 

offerors to be essentially equal in value. 

Comparison Summary: Compared to VAS, JS has an overall superior technical 

proposal, equal past performance both in terms of quality of performance and relevance 

to ROME, and an evaluated price that is 3.1% lower than VAS’s. In my judgment, the JS 

proposal is a better overall value than the VAS proposal. Specifically, JS’s superior 

significant strengths for its proposed innovations across the entire SOW, its demonstrated 

knowledge of potential risks under the ROME contract, its strengths related to research 

facility operations, its IT consolidation/EA approach, and its superior organizational, 

transition and safety and health approaches, combined with its excellent past performance 

and lower evaluated price, provide a better overall value when compared to VAS’s 

excellent past performance and its superior significant strengths for its RCM approach, its 

phase-in and knowledge capture plans, and its higher proposed SDB participation level. 

7. JS compared to Wyle: 

Under Factor 1 (Mission Suitability) the JS proposal is rated as “Excellent” while the 

Wyle proposal is rated as “Good”. 

Subfactor 1, Understanding the Requirements and Approach: The JS proposal offers 

greater value to the Government than the Wyle proposal offers under Mission Suitability 

Subfactor 1. While both firms have numerous significant strengths under this Subfactor 

in areas of great importance to the Government, Wyle’s significant weakness and the risk 

associated with it contributed to my ultimate conclusion that the JS proposal offers a 

better value under Subfactor 1. JS did not have any significant weaknesses under this 

Subfactor. 

Subfactor 1 - Areas of Superior Value in Wyle’s Proposal 

Both firms have significant strengths for their proposed innovations for utilizing existing 

asset management systems to achieve accuracy and quality of facility maintenance data, 

but Wyle’s proposed approach is considered to be of somewhat greater value than JS’s 

because of several additional features offered by Wyle that are of significant value to the 

Government. Both firms have significant strengths for their Enterprise Architecture 

approaches, but Wyle’s approach is considered to be of somewhat greater value based 

upon Wyle’s proposed use of proven ISO 9001 and SEI-CMM Level 3 compliant 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 64

development methodologies and its recognition of potential NASA IFMP impacts. Both 

firms have significant strengths for their proposed approaches to establish and maintain 

effective communications, but Wyle’s approach is considered to be of greater value than 

JS’s proposal in this particular area because Wyle proposes to integrate its Enterprise 

Information Portal throughout its ROME operations. Wyle has a significant strength for 

its Enterprise Information Portal (EIP) development strategy and several key features of 

its EIP. In comparison, JS has a strength for EIP features designed to facilitate 

acceptance of its EIP, but Wyle’s EIP approach provides superior value because it 

incorporates similar features as those noted in the JS strength plus additional features of 

value related to EIP/SAP integration, IT security and user feedback. 

Wyle also provides superior value to the Government through its significant strengths in 

the following areas, for which there are no corresponding strengths in the JS proposal: 

(1) several proposed innovations for research facility operations that are of substantial 

value to the Government; (2) the proposed use of Maximo to manage all ROME contract 

assets and thereby streamline workflow processes; and (3) an IT security approach that 

significantly exceeds NASA guidelines (JS has a weakness for a vague IT security 

approach). 

Subfactor 1 - Areas of Superior Value in JS’s Proposal 

Both firms have significant strengths for their proposed innovations, technologies and 

process improvements, but JS’s proposed innovations are numerous and cut across all 

areas of the statement of work, thereby demonstrating a better understanding of the 

requirements, are thus deemed to be of greater value to the Government. Both firms have 

significant strengths for an exceptional demonstrated understanding of typical problems 

associated with research facility operations, but JS’s proposal, because it includes 

proactive mitigation approaches for operational problems, is of slightly more value than 

Wyle’s. JS has a significant strength for a comprehensive list of risk elements, a risk 

probability and impact rating, and a detailed risk mitigation strategy that demonstrates an 

understanding of the risks associated with the ROME contract, while Wyle has a strength 

for its risk assessment and mitigation for IT work, and a weaknesses for operations, 

maintenance and engineering risks. JS’s superior demonstrated understanding of the 

requirement in this area is of much greater value to the Government than Wyle’s 

proposed approaches. JS has a significant strength for several maintenance innovations 

for facility repair cost avoidance, while Wyle has a strength in this area. JS’s proposal is 

considered to be of greater value in this area because of its superior demonstrated 

knowledge and proposed implementation of RCM concepts. JS has a significant strength 

for the innovative use of virtual office technology, software and corporate reach back to 

improve the quality of engineering designs. In comparison, Wyle has a strength in this 

area for its innovative proposed use of software for engineering designs, but because the 

Wyle approach includes only a subset of the features offered by JS in this area, the JS 

proposal is considered to be of superior value. 

Wyle has one significant weakness in the following area where JS met the Government’s 

expectations: Wyle did not provide an adequate level of detail for the support of FAS and 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 65

DAS including software/hardware configuration management and software maintenance 

activities, instead referring extensively to its past performance in these areas. This 

significant weakness is in a critical technical area, and its presence in the Wyle proposal 

supports the conclusion that JS’s Subfactor 1 proposal represents a greater value than 

Wyle’s Subfactor 1 proposal. 

Subfactor 1 - Areas with Similar Value 

Both JS and Wyle have significant strengths for their approaches to assure test data 

quality, and those approaches are considered to be of essentially equal value to the 

Government. Both JS and Wyle have significant strengths for several proposed 

approaches for maximizing the availability and productivity of research facilities that 

demonstrate a sound understanding of the requirements, and those approaches are also 

considered to be of essentially equal value to the Government. 

Subfactor 2, Management: The JS proposal offers substantially greater value to the 

Government than the Wyle proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 2. JS’s 

proposal, which includes several significant strengths and no significant weaknesses, is 

far superior to Wyle’s, which includes no significant strengths and several significant 

weaknesses. 

Subfactor 2 - Areas of Superior Value in Wyle’s Proposal 

None. 

Subfactor 2 - Areas of Superior Value in JS’s Proposal 

JS has a significant strength for its approach to invest a significant amount of its own 

money in human capital development, equipment and research facility marketing. In 

comparison, Wyle has a strength in this area, but JS proposes to invest more of its money 

than Wyle, an approach that is considered to be of greater value to the Government. JS 

has a significant strength for a comprehensive management approach supported by an 

organizational structure established and aligned on the basis of 15 well-defined core 

processes with assigned JS owners. In comparison, Wyle has a strength for some of its 

organizational approaches, weaknesses for its organizational structure and for its 

approach to accommodate fluctuating workloads, and a significant weakness for its vague 

engineering management approach. When all of these strengths and weaknesses are 

considered, it is clear that JS has a far superior overall management approach. JS has a 

significant strength for its proposed Management Team, which has strong relevant 

experience managing projects of the size, content and complexity of ROME, particularly 

in the area of wind tunnel testing in multiple facilities covering a speed range comparable 

to that in LaRC’s suite of facilities. In comparison, Wyle has a significant weakness for 

its overall management team due to a lack of experience in full-service wind tunnel 

operations, facility engineering, and in managing contracts of the size, content and 

complexity as ROME, and a strength for its Quality Manager. JS clearly has the stronger 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 66

overall Management Team, and thus provides greater value to the Government in this 

area. 

JS also provides superior value to the Government through its significant strengths in the 

following areas, for which there are no corresponding strengths in the Wyle proposal: (1) 

an aggressive, credible and detailed approach to cost reductions and cost control that 

includes new technologies, innovations, and process improvements, with the majority of 

the productivity gains to be achieved in the first five years of the contract; and (2) a 

comprehensive discussion of transition-related risks and mitigation approaches that will 

significantly minimize changeover difficulties and maximize continuity of services (Wyle 

has a significant weakness for its proposed transition approach). 

Subfactor 2 - Areas with Similar Value 

None. 

Subfactor 3, Safety: The JS proposal offers substantially greater value to the 

Government than the Wyle proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 3. JS has 

a superior technical approach that includes a thorough Safety and Health Plan (for which 

JS has a significant strength), and has no weaknesses. Wyle has no significant strengths 

and no significant weakness or weaknesses under this Subfactor. Wyle has a strength for 

its Safety and Health Plan, because it incorporated processes from an ISO-registered 

program and exceeded the Government’s expectations. JS’s proposal provides superior 

value through its better-demonstrated understanding and approach in safety and health. 

Subfactor 4, SDB Participation: The JS proposal offers greater value to the 

Government than the Wyle proposal offers under Mission Suitability Subfactor 4. 

Neither JS nor Wyle has any significant strengths or significant weaknesses. JS has a 

strength for proposing a credible approach for SDB participation with enforceable 

commitments to subcontractors, for demonstrating successful past performance in 

meeting SDB goals under Government contracts, and for slightly exceeding the 10% 

SDB subcontracting goal. JS has no weakness under Subfactor 4. In comparison, Wyle 

has no strengths under this Subfactor, and one weakness for its proposed approach to 

achieve its SDB goals through the placement of IDIQ work with unspecified 

subcontractors, coupled with Wyle’s past performance record of having difficulty 

meeting SDB goals. 

Under Factor 2 (Cost/Price), Wyle’s evaluated price of $1,017.9M for the total 10-year 

term of the contract is $47.5M, or 4.5%, lower than JS’s evaluated price of $1,065.4M. 

(Evaluated price for both firms includes a 10% upward adjustment to probable cost 

because an SDB offeror (Cube) did not waive the 10% SDB price evaluation adjustment 

factor.) The probable cost confidence for both firms is moderate, which provides me 

with reasonable assurance that the probable costs can be relied upon to compare the likely 

cost of performance for each firm. Wyle has a net upward probable cost adjustment of 

$9.5M, primarily for understated labor escalation and subcontractor costs. JS has an 

upward probable cost adjustment of $2.5M for understated subcontractor costs. 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 67

Under Factor 3 (Past Performance), JS has an overall rating of “Excellent”, compared 

to Wyle’s overall rating of “Very Good”. JS demonstrates exemplary performance on 

previous work (as reported by its customers), while Wyle demonstrates very effective 

performance on previous work (as reported by its customers). Additionally, JS’s 

demonstrated experience is judged to be highly relevant to the ROME SOW, while 

Wyle’s demonstrated experience is judged to be very relevant to the ROME SOW. 

JS has highly relevant experience operating, designing and maintaining multiple wind 

tunnel facilities covering a speed range comparable to that in LaRC’s suite of facilities, 

institutional and research facility engineering, and management (including 

consolidations) of contracts for facility O&M of similar size, content & complexity to 

ROME. JS has very relevant experience in marketing excess wind tunnel capacity, labor 

management, development and implementation of OME & IT training programs, data 

acquisition systems, transitioning to turnkey operations for wind tunnels, performance of 

numerous research facility improvement projects, and EA design and IT consolidation, 

and lacked relevant experience only in SAP products and institutional facilities 

maintenance (the latter of which is mitigated by its research facility maintenance 

experience). 

Wyle has highly relevant experience with asset management systems at LaRC like 

MAXIMO & INFOPC; SAP products; EA design and IT consolidation and integration; 

General IT Support Services; IT configuration management; business IT project 

management and enterprise application development and deployment; DAS and 

instrumentation operations, engineering, calibration, and repair services; central utilities 

operation; centralized work control, customer service and computerized work order 

tracking and providing comprehensive RCM based maintenance for facilities and facility 

systems and project; Energy Management Control Systems; ISO certified processes at 

LaRC; institutional and research facility maintenance; and base/center operations for 

Government and commercial customers. Wyle has relevant experience in the transition 

of Government-to-contractor operations and contract consolidations. Wyle did not 

demonstrate relevant experience in the following areas: developing and implementing a 

comprehensive personnel training program; full service operation of wind tunnels; wind 

tunnel facilities engineering, including tactical engineering or in designing, constructing, 

and activating wind tunnel construction projects; and FAS maintenance and engineering. 

Comparison Summary: While Wyle’s evaluated price is 4.5% lower than JS’s, it is my 

judgment that the additional value provided by JS’s superior proposed approaches in 

Mission Suitability, especially in the Management Subfactor, combined with JS’s 

superior past performance, including its higher level of relevant experience, is worth the 

additional 4.5% expenditure. Specifically, JS’s superior significant strengths for its 

proposed innovations across the entire SOW, its demonstrated knowledge of potential 

risks under the ROME contract, its strengths related to research facility operations and 

facility repair cost avoidance, its innovative engineering design approaches, its superior 

transition approach for major wind tunnels, its cost reduction approaches and proposed 

investments, its Safety and Health Plan, and its superior management approach and 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 68

Management Team, combined with its superior level of relevant experience, especially in 

the areas of full service wind tunnel operations in multiple facilities covering a speed 

range comparable to that in LaRC’s suite of facilities, wind tunnel facilities engineering, 

and FAS maintenance and engineering, provides a better overall value when compared to 

Wyle’s superior significant strengths in research facility operations innovations, the use 

of MAXIMO to manage all ROME assets, IT security, and its Enterprise Information 

Portal, Wyle’s several significant weaknesses (in FAS and DAS support, engineering 

management, Management Team, and wind tunnel transition), Wyle’s better relevant past 

performance in DAS and instrumentation operations, engineering, calibration, and repair 

services, and maintenance of institutional facilities and systems, and Wyle’s lower price. 

B. Source Selection Decision 

The RFP states that the three evaluation factors, Mission Suitability, Price/Cost, and Past 

Performance, are to be considered essentially equal in weight in selecting a contractor. 

The RFP also states that Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are 

significantly more important than Price/Cost. I conducted an integrated assessment of 

each proposal in accordance with the RFP’s evaluation factors, as detailed in the 

Comparative Analyses section above. A summary of my conclusions based on this 

integrated assessment, as well as my selection decision, are as follows: 

Jacobs Sverdrup submitted the best overall technical proposal, which offers a superior 

approach in Factor 1 – Mission Suitability compared to all other offerors. The proposal 

contains numerous significant strengths and numerous strengths, many of which are in 

areas of significant importance to Langley Research Center. For example, Jacobs 

Sverdrup’s proposal contained approaches of substantial value to the Government in 

safety, wind tunnel operations, test data quality assurance, maximizing facility utilization 

and efficiency, consolidation and transition management of the ROME effort, workforce 

development, and cost reduction and control). The proposal contained no deficiencies or 

significant weaknesses. There were only five weaknesses in Jacobs Sverdrup’s Mission 

Suitability proposal, all of which can be managed and successfully mitigated by its strong 

proposed management team. 

In Factor 2 – Cost/Price, Jacobs Sverdrup’s evaluated price is reasonable and in line with 

those of the other offerors and the Government estimate. The moderate confidence in 

Jacobs Sverdrup’s probable cost and evaluated price is equal or better in confidence than 

that of all other offerors. Moreover, the large number of offerors and the narrow range of 

evaluated prices give me added confidence that adequate price competition was achieved 

and that the evaluated prices are reasonable and realistic. 

Finally, in Factor 3 – Past Performance, Jacobs Sverdrup has also demonstrated excellent 

past performance on work that is highly relevant to the ROME effort, particularly in the 

areas of wind tunnel and research facility operations, maintenance and engineering. This 

offeror’s highly relevant experience in operating, designing and maintaining wind tunnel 

facilities covering a speed range comparable to that of Langley Research Center’s suite of 
Source Selection Information (until contract award) – See FAR 3.104 

 69

facilities also reinforces my determination that Jacobs Sverdrup offers the best value to 

the government. 

In conclusion, having compared the strengths and weaknesses of all the proposals, it is 

clear that Jacobs Sverdrup offers a superior approach to Mission Suitability relative to all 

other offerors. This superior approach, when combined with Jacobs Sverdrup’s excellent 

and highly relevant past performance, provides the best value to the Government when 

considering the difference in evaluated price in each instance. Therefore, I direct the 

award of the Research Operations, Maintenance & Engineering Contract to Jacobs 

Sverdrup. 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 1/22/04 

___________________________ _________________ 

Roy D. Bridges, Jr. Date 

Source Selection Authority