@ © 14

Safety and Health - Good. Qualis had 1 Strength.

Past Performance - Qualis’ Past Performance rating was “Very Good.”
Qualis had 1 Significant Strength and 3 Strengths.

Cost/Price Factor

Qualis’ proposed price was 9% below the government estimate. Adjustments were
made to the PMO costs. The Government determined the Program Management Office
costs did not include costs for Department Managers, other proposed “key” positions,
and an administrative support person. Therefore, an upward adjustment was made to
add costs for approximately 7.35 WYEs. The overall effect of the adjustments was an
increase in the proposed price of approximately $5 million and a probable cost that was
the highest of all offers.

DECISION

At a pre-meeting on June 16, 2006, | was provided a complete summary of the SEB
findings including detailed findings for each offer. This provided additional time to review
the information before the formal presentation. | reviewed all of the SEB findings.

A formal presentation and discussion meeting was convened on June 20, 2006. In
attendance were members of the SEB plus appropriate GRC management. During the
presentation, the SEB reviewed the procurement activities to date plus the RFP
selection criteria. Included in the SEB presentation were detailed findings of all seven
(7) offers. However, based on my earlier review of the detailed findings, | noted a
natural break between the top three rated offers and the remaining offers and requested
that the formal presentation concentrate on the three highest rated offers. | concluded
that all of the lower rated offers technically were significantly weaker than the highest-
rated three. | further noted and accepted the Board's evaluation of the Past
Performance of the remaining offers, finding that none offered advantage in this area
over the three highest rated offers. These relative weaknesses outweighed any possible
cost advantage any of the less highly rated offers had. In making my decision to focus
on the three highest rated offers, | gave careful consideration to Sigma Space Partners’
probable cost. | concluded that its lower price was more than offset by its lower past
performance rating and the multiple significant weaknesses in its proposal, and in
particular its poor transition plan, poor organization and management structure, and
inefficient Program Management Office, which are reflected in its lower Mission
Suitability rating.

An active discussion ensued during the presentation to achieve a better understanding
of the findings. It was clear from the information presented that in ail likelihood, the three
highest rated Offerors could successfully perform the work effort. However, during the
discussion key areas of difference were identified that supported the final selection.

Under Mission Suitability, | agree with the findings of the SEB. | note that ASRC had an
overall rating of Excellent, and both Sierra Lobo and Bastion had overall ratings of Very
Good.


@ @ .

A ‘Weakness’ was identified in that ASRC demonstrated a lack of understanding to
equip, operate, and maintain general purpose labs for GESS-2.

Business Management Approach - Very Good

A “Significant Strength” was identified in that ASRC proposed an excellent organization
and management structure.

A “Strength” was identified in that ASRC proposed an effective Program Management
Office (PMO).

A “Strength” was identified in that ASRC has substantial corporate resources available
for use on GESS-2. .

A “Strength” was identified in that ASRC has a government-approved automated
property control system.

A “Weakness” was identified in that ASRC failed to discuss maintaining a balance
between cost minimization and contract performance quality.

A “Weakness” was identified in that ASRC failed to show the appropriate interfaces
between Contracting Officer (CO) & Program Manager (PM) and Contracting Officer’s
Technical Representative (COTR) & Business Manager (BM).

A “Weakness” was identified in that ASRC failed to address the avoidance of functional
and management conflicts when task work crosses organizational lines.

Personnel Management Approach - Excellent

A “Significant Strength” was identified in that ASRC proposed a strong and innovative
approach for managing workload fluctuations including both increases and decreases in
work.

A “Significant Strength” was identified in that ASRC proposed an excellent total
compensation package that demonstrated a sound management approach and
increases the likelihood of retaining highly skilled incumbent personnel and attracting
prospective new hires.

A “Strength” was identified in that ASRC Proposed a clearly defined and thorough
process for identifying skill needs and providing resources to tasks in a timely manner.

A “Strength” was identified in that ASRC proposed a thorough plan to maintain core
technical skills through formal education and professional development opportunities.

A “Strength” was identified in that ASRC proposed a total compensation package for the
prime and subcontractor that are nearly identical Promoting equity and minimizing
discord within the contract team

A “Strength” was identified in that ASRC proposed key personnel with very good
qualifications.


© @ 10

A “Weakness” was identified in that Bastion failed to provide a plan/approach for
equipping, operating and maintaining general purpose labs for GESS-2.

Business Management Approach - Good

A “Strength” was identified in that Bastion proposed a very good approach for
establishing and controlling contract-level costs.

A “Strength” was identified in that Bastion proposed a good organization and
management structure.

A “Strength” was identified in that Bastion has a Government-approved automated
property control system.

A “Strength” was identified in that Bastion proposed to transfer all CAP to IAP within 5
days of receipt.

A “Weakness” was identified in that Bastion failed to provide sufficient information
regarding the supervisory span of control at the first line supervisor level.

A “Weakness” was identified in that Bastion failed to demonstrate an understanding of
the roles and responsibilities of government officials (CO, COTR and Technical
Representatives (TR)).

Personnel Management Approach — Very Good

A “Significant Strength” was identified in that Bastion proposed key personnel with
exceptional qualifications that will be dedicated 100% to GESS-2 providing excellent
management of work activities.

A “Strength” was identified in that Bastion proposed a clearly defined and thorough
process for identifying skill needs and providing resources to tasks in a timely manner.

A “Strength” was identified in that Bastion provided a very good total compensation
package demonstrating a sound management approach is sufficient to retain skilled
personnel.

A “Strength” was identified in that Bastion provided a very good incentive-based
compensation plan to reward top performers. Plan offers award fee sharing and a
variety of bonuses.

A “Strength” was identified in that Bastion provided a detailed description of the
qualification requirements for key personnel. The requirements are more than adequate
to ensure that the key personnel will have the required skills to perform their positions.

A “Weakness” was identified in that Bastion proposed an ineffective approach to
maintaining technical skills.

A “Weakness” was identified in that prime and subcontractor compensation packages
are disparate in areas of health insurance and life/disability insurance plans creating a
potential preferred employer environment.


@ ) ;

Management Office (PMO) costs. The overall effect of the adjustment was a net
increase in the proposed contract price of approximately $.5 million and resulted in a
probable cost that was slightly higher than the two other highly rated offers, and was
approximately 5% higher than lowest probable cost of all offers.

SIERRA LOBO, INC.

Mission Suitability rating was “Very Good.”
Contract Transition - Good

A “Strength” was identified in that Sierra Lobo proposed a very good plan for initial
staffing of technical labor.

A“ Weakness” was identified in that Sierra Lobo failed to provide sufficient information
tegarding critical transition activities.

A“ Weakness” was identified in that Sierra Lobo demonstrated a lack of understanding
to equip, operate, and maintain general purpose labs for GESS-2.

Business Management Approach - Fair

A “Strength” was identified in that Sierra Lobo has alternate facilities available for
overfiow or specialized work relevant to GESS-2.

A “Strength” was identified in that Sierra Lobo has a government-approved automated
property control system.

A “Strength” was identified in that Sierra Lobo proposed transferring all contractor-
acquired property (CAP) to installation-accountable property (IAP) within 5 days of
receipt.

A “Weakness” was identified in that Sierra Lobo failed to provide sufficient information on
the roles and responsibilities of organizational segments to assess the potential for
functional or management conflict.

A “Weakness” was identified in that Sierra Lobo failed to show an appropriate interface
between CO/COTR & BM.

A “Weakness” was identified in that Sierra Lobo failed to discuss its approach to
maintaining a balance between cost minimization and contract performance quality in
controlling contract level costs.

A “Weakness” was identified in that Sierra Lobo proposed an ineffective Program
Management Office (PMO).

Personnel Management Approach - Excellent


© © 6

A “Strength” was identified in that ASRC proposed a clearly defined plan for identifying
and providing key personnel.

A “Weakness” was identified in that ASRC failed to provide adequate information
regarding the time commitment to GESS-2 for some key personnel.

Task Management Approach - Excellent

A “Significant Strength” was identified in that ASRC proposed an excellent approach to
Cost and Schedule control. There was emphasis on continual open communication
between government and contractor at all levels for timely reporting and analysis, and
the application of innovative mechanisms to identify and report performance issues.

A “Significant Strength” was identified in that ASRC proposed an excellent plan for
technical quality contro! with realistic time frames for gaining ISO certification for its
Proposed GESS-2 Quality Management System (QMS).

A “Strength” was identified in that ASRC proposed a very good approach to technical
supervision.

Safety and Health ~ Good

A “Strength” was identified in that ASRC proposed a very good approach to Safety and
Health.

Past Performance rating was “Excellent.”

A “Significant Strength” was identified in that the ASRC team has a record of
successfully performing work of an identical or very similar nature to GESS-2,

Significant work has been performed in engineering design and research and technology
areas and covers broad technical scope. Also, the ASRC team performed work in the
development of space flight hardware including applications associated with manned
systems.

A “Significant Strength” was identified in that ASRC has successful experience in
managing major subcontractors performing work very similar or identical to the proposed
effort.

A “Strength” was identified in that the ASRC team has a record of successfully managing
contracts very similar or relevant to GESS-2 involving a high level of managerial
complexity.

A “Strength” was identified in that ASRC team has a consistent record of excellent award
fee scores.

Cost/Price Factor
ASRC’s proposed contract price was 12% below the Government estimate. An upward

adjustment was made to the proposed price to account for .4 Work Year Equivalents
(WYEs) of the Department Managers’ time not included in ASRC’s Program


@ @ ,

Past Performance rating was “Excellent.”

A “Significant Strength” was identified in that the Sierra Lobo team has a record of
successfully performing work of an identical or very similar nature to GESS-2.

Significant work has been performed in engineering design and research and technology
areas and covers broad technical scope. Also, the Sierra Lobo team performed work in
the development of space flight hardware including applications associated with manned
systems.

A “Significant Strength” was identified in that Sierra Lobo team has a record of
successfully managing contracts identical to GESS-2 involving a high level of managerial
complexity.

A “Strength” was identified in that Sierra Lobo team has a record of excellent customer
satisfaction based on the feedback from the questionnaires.

A “Strength” was identified in that Sierra Lobo team has a consistent record of excellent
award fee scores.

Cost/Price Factor

Sierra Lobo’s proposed contract price was 14% below the government estimate. An
upward adjustment was made to the prime contractor's fringe rate per the
recommendation of DCAA. Finally, the Government determined that the proposed
staffing structure of the proposed Program Management Office was inadequate.
Therefore, upward adjustments were made to add costs for approximately 2 WYEs of
support staff over the five-year contract period. The overall effect of the adjustments
was a net increase of approximately $1 million to the proposed contract price and
resulted in a probable cost that was approximately equal to the lowest probable cost of
the highest rated offers, and was approximately 3% higher than the lowest probable cost
of all offers.

BASTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Mission Suitability rating was “Very Good.”
Contract Transition - Fair
A “Strength” was identified in that Bastion proposed a very good plan for initial staffing of
technical labor which increases the likelihood of successfully capturing highly-skilled
incumbents.
A “Significant Weakness” was identified in that Bastion proposed a poor, unrealistic
transition plan/schedule to fulfill the necessary GESS-2 business system requirements

within the 60-day transition period

A ‘Weakness’ was identified in that Bastion proposed an ineffective approach to
transition management.


National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

John H. Glenn Research Center
Lewis Field
Cleveland, OH 44135-3191

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

Glenn Engineering & Scientific Services - 2

Request for Proposal (RFP) NNCOSGESS2

Procurement History

This procurement is a 100% 8(a) set-aside to establish a follow-on contract for Glenn
Engineering & Scientific Services to support the Glenn Research Center. To accomplish
this requirement, the Government will award a single Cost Plus-Award-Fee Contract.
The contract will have a “basic” period of performance of two (2) years plus three (3)
one-year options. The maximum contract period of performance shall not exceed five
(5) years.

A draft Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued on September 23, 2005, through the
NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS). The final RFP was issued on February 3,
2006. Three (3) amendments to the RFP were issued. Seven (7) proposals were
received by the solicitation due date of March 20, 2006. After initial review, all proposals
were considered acceptable. The Offerors are indicated below:

* ASRC Aerospace Corporation of Greenbelt, MD teamed with Analex, Inc.

* Bastion Technologies, Inc. of Houston, TX teamed with ZIN Technologies,
Inc. (and AP Solutions, a minor subcontractor)

* Future Research Corporation (FRC) of Huntsville, AL teamed with RS
Information Systems, Inc. and Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.

¢ Mainthia Technologies, inc. of Cleveland, OH
* Qualis Corporation of Huntsville, AL teamed with Jacobs/Sverdrup
* Sierra Lobo, Inc. of Fremont, OH teamed with QSS Group, Inc.

* Sigma Space Partners, LLC, of Lanham, MD, a SBA 8(a) Mentor-Protégé,
Joint Venture consisting of SGT, Inc. and Sigma Space Corporation

The proposals were evaluated by the SEB in accordance with Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) 15.3 Source Selection, NASA FAR Supplement 1815.3 Source
Selection, and the evaluation criteria included in the RFP. Offerors were notified in the


© © .

Personnel Management Approach - Good. FRC had 6 Strengths and 1 Weakness.
Task Management Approach - Good. FRC had 1 Weakness.

Safety and Health - Excellent. FRC had 1 Significant Strength.

Past Performance - FRC’s Past Performance rating was “Good.”

FRC had 1 Strength.

Cost/Price Factor

FRC’s proposed price estimate was 12% lower than the government estimate. Some
adjustments were made to this proposed price. Downward adjustments were made at
the contract fevel to fringe benefit costs per the recommendation of DCAA. The
Government determined the Program Management Office costs did not include
Department Heads. Therefore, an upward adjustment was made to add costs for
approximately 2 WYEs. The overall effect the adjustments was a reduction in the

proposed price of about $1 million and resulted in a probable that was slightly higher
than the lowest offer.

SIGMA SPACE PARTNERS, LLC
Mission Suitability rating was “Fair’.

Contract Transition Approach - Fair. SSP had 2 Strengths, 1 Significant Weakness, and
1 Weakness.

Business Management Approach - Poor. SSP has 2 Significant Weaknesses and 1
Weakness.

Personnel Management Approach - Good. SSP had 5 Strengths.
Task Management Approach - Fair. SSP had 1 Weakness.

Safety and Health - Excellent. SSP had 1 Significant Strength.

Past Performance - SSP’s Past Performance rating was “Good.”
SSP had no Strengths and no Weaknesses.
Cost/Price Factor

SSP’s proposed price estimate was 16% below the government estimate. Several
adjustments were made to the proposed price. The Government determined the
Program Management Office costs did not include Department Leads. Therefore, an
upward adjustment was made to add costs for 2.75 WYEs. In addition, a downward
adjustment of 2 WYEs was made to the PMO cost for information technology (IT) -
related functions/activities the Government determined unnecessary. The overall effect


© © r

Task Management Approach - Very Good

A “Significant Strength” was identified in that Bastion proposed an excellent approach to
cost and schedule control. There was emphasis on continual open communication
between government and contractor at all levels for timely reporting and analysis, and
the application of innovative mechanisms to identify and report performance issues.

A “Strength” was identified in that Bastion proposed a very good approach for technical
quality control.

A “Weakness” was identified in that Bastion did not demonstrate an understanding of the
need to institute specific processes to avoid the development of personal services
relationships.

Safety and Health - Good

A “Strength” was identified in that Bastion proposed a very good approach to Safety and
Health.

Past Performance rating was “Very Good.”

A “Significant Strength” was identified in that Bastion team has a record of successfully
performing work of an identical or very similar nature to GESS-2. Significant work has
been performed in engineering design and research and technology areas and covers
broad technical scope. Also, performed work in the development of space flight
hardware including applications associated with manned systems.

A “Strength” was identified in that the Bastion team has a record of excellent customer
satisfaction based on the feedback from the questionnaires.

A “Strength” was identified in that the Bastion team has a consistent record of excellent
award fee scores.

Cost/Price Factor

Bastion’s proposed contract price was 15% below the government estimate. One
adjustment was made to this proposed price. Labor cost for Department Managers were
not accounted for in the PMO. Therefore, an upward adjustment was made to add costs
for 3 WYEs to the PMO. The effect of this adjustment was an increase of approximately
$2 million to the proposed contract price which resulted in a probable cost that was lower
than the other two highly rated offers, and was approximately 2% higher than the lowest
probable cost of all offers.

FUTURE RESEARCH CORPORATION

Mission Suitability rating was “Good.”
Contract Transition Approach - Fair. FRC had 3 Weaknesses.

Business Management Approach - Good. FRC had 3 Strengths and 5 Weaknesses.


@ @ .

A “Significant Strength” was identified in that Sierra Lobo proposed a strong and
innovative approach for managing workforce fluctuations.

A “Significant Strength” was identified in that Sierra Lobo proposed an excellent total
compensation package that demonstrates a sound management approach and
increases the likelihood of retaining highly skilled incumbent personnel and attracting
prospective new hires.

A “Significant Strength” was identified in that Sierra Lobo proposed key personnel with
exceptional qualifications that will be dedicated 100% to GESS-2 providing excellent
management of work activities.

A “Strength” was identified in that Sierra Lobo proposed a very good incentive-based
compensation plan to reward top performers. It includes award fee sharing with
employees and bonuses.

A “Strength” was identified in that Sierra Lobo proposed a detailed description of the
qualification requirements for Key Personnel. The requirements are more than adequate
to ensure that the key personnel will have the required skills to perform their positions.

A “Strength” was identified in that Sierra Lobo proposed a clearly defined plan for
identifying and providing key personnel. Recruiting processes and sources are
innovative and likely to provide qualified individuals.

A “Strength” was identified in that SLI proposed a very good plan to maintain core
technical skills through formal education and professional development opportunities.

Task Management Approach - Excellent

A “Significant Strength” was identified in that Sierra Lobo proposed an excellent
approach to Cost and Schedule control. There was emphasis on continual open
communication between government and contractor at all levels for timely reporting and
analysis, and the application of innovative mechanisms to identify and report
performance issues.

A “Significant Strength” was identified in that Sierra Lobo proposed an excellent plan
with realistic time frames for gaining ISO certification for its proposed GESS-2 Quality
Management System (QMS).

A “Strength” was identified in that Sierra Lobo proposed a very good approach to
technical supervision.

Safety and Health - Good

A “Strength” was identified in that Sierra Lobo proposed a very good approach to Safety
and Health.


© © F

- Neutral. Neutral score. Assigned to Offerors with no relevant past performance.

The Price factor was evaluated by the SEB Price Analyst to determine the most probable
cost. The analyses included field pricing support from the Defense Contract Audit
Agency (DCAA), assessment of the reasonableness and realism of proposed wages,
review of support staffing levels, annual escalations, other direct costs and compliance
with RFP instructions.

The Government developed an independent Government estimate in advance of the
issuance of the solicitation based on the RFP specified staffing levels as the baseline for
its review.

Findings

The following are summaries of the findings organized by the Mission Suitability rating.
Detailed evaluation results are provided for the three highest rated proposals based on
the two most important evaluation factors. Summary evaluation results are provided for
the remaining proposals.

Company Mission Suitability Past Performance

ASRC Aerospace Corporation Excellent Excellent

Sierra Lobo, inc. Very Good Excellent

Bastion Technologies, Inc. Very Good Very Good
Future Research Corp. Good Good
Sigma Space Partners, LLC Fair Good
Mainthia Technologies, Inc. Fair Neutral

Qualis Corporation Fair Very Good

ASRC AEROSPACE CORPORATION

Mission Suitability rating was “Excellent.”

Contract Transition - Excellent

A “Significant Strength” was identified in that ASRC provided a low risk, comprehensive
and detailed transition plan covering all activities necessary to ensure a successful

transition within 60 days.

A“ Strength” was identified in that ASRC proposed an excellent plan for initial staffing of
technical labor.

A “Strength” was identified in that ASRC provided an excellent approach to transition
management

A “Strength” was identified in that ASRC has a line of credit far exceeding the working
capital needs for anticipated GESS-2 financial obligations.



© © 15

In the Contract Transition sub-factor, ASRC had an excellent rating with a significant
strength related to its thorough, comprehensive, and low risk transition plan covering all
areas to ensure a successful transition. Sierra Lobo had a rating of Good in Contract
Transition Approach with no significant strengths or significant weaknesses while
Bastion had a rating of Fair with no significant strengths and 1 significant weakness.

in my judgment, the depth of ASRC’s contract transition plan provided meaningful
advantages over the other two offers.

In the Business Management Approach sub-factor, | note that ARSC had 1 significant
strength for its organization and management structure that is efficient, aligned with
GRC organizations, has a logical distribution of work activities, appropriate supervisory
span of control, and clear lines of communication and control of its subcontractor.
Bastion had a rating of Good with no significant strengths or significant weaknesses and
Sierra Lobo had a rating of Fair with no significant strengths or significant weaknesses.
in my judgment, the significant strength provided meaningful advantages over the other
two offers.

In the Personnel Management sub-factor, | note that ASRC and Sierra Lobo received
Excellent ratings. Each received significant strengths in the same areas; total
compensation packages and approaches to managing workload fluctuations. Sierra
Lobo also had a third significant strength for providing exceptionally qualified key
personnel. Bastion had a rating of Very Good with 1 significant strength for providing
exceptionally qualified key personnel. ASRC and Sierra Lobo both demonstrated very
effective approaches to 1) attracting, retaining and motivating highly skilled professional
workers via competitive and attractive compensation plans, and managing workload
fluctuations. | note that all three companies proposed the same individuals for the key
positions of Program Manager and Business Manager. In my judgment, there is no clear
advantage between ASRC and Sierra Lobo, but both offer meaningful advantage over
Bastion.

In the Task Management Approach sub-factor, ASRC and Sierra Lobo received
Excellent ratings with Bastion receiving a Very Good rating. All three offers had a
significant strength for exceptional approaches to cost and schedule control. | also note
that ASRC and Sierra Lobo received significant strengths for their quality control :
systems. This indicates that all have very effective systems that should ensure timely
dissemination of cost, schedule and performance data to appropriate
government/contractor team personnel to implement corrective actions. In my judgment,
there is no clear advantage between ASRC and Sierra Lobo, but both offer meaningful
advantage over Bastion.

In the Safety and Health sub-factor, | note that the highest rated offers were Sigma
Space and FRC which received Excellent ratings. | note the overall three highest rated
offers (ASRC, Sierra Lobo, and Bastion) were rated Good with very similar strengths. |
find that all three are even in this area.

Overall in the Mission Suitability Factor, | find the ASRC offer to provided meaningful
advantages over the two other highly rated offers in the area of Contract Transition and
Business Management. These advantages will help insure a successful contract start
up and effective business management.


@ @ ;

percent

- Fair. A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses.
Weaknesses outbalance any strengths. 31-50 percent

- Poor. 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. 0-30 percent

The Past Performance factor was evaluated by SEB. The SEB assembled and
evaluated past performance data obtained through the Past Performance volume of the
proposals, client questionnaires, the NASA Past Performance 1680 database, the Past
Performance information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and other relevant sources.

The rating system used to determine the Past Performance rating for each Offeror is as
follows:

Definition of Past Performance Adjectival Ratings:

- Excellent. Consistent record of exceptional past performance by the Offeror and any
proposed major subcontractors on work identical or very similar to the work
requirements of the proposed contract. One or more significant strengths exist. No
significant weaknesses exist. The mere absence of a significant weakness does not
make a proposal meet the excellent rating. Based on the Offeror’s performance record,
there is a very high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the
required effort.

- Very Good. Consistent record of successful past performance by the Offeror and any
Proposed major subcontracts on work identical or very similar to the work requirements
of the proposed contract. One or more significant strengths exist. Strengths far
outbalance any weakness. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a high
level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

- Good. Record of effective past performance by the Offeror and any proposed major
subcontracts on work identical, very similar, or relevant to the work requirements of the
proposed contract. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. Strengths
outweigh any weaknesses. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is
confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

- Fair. Past performance record of meeting or slightly exceeding minimally acceptable
standards, by the Offeror and any proposed major subcontracts, on work identical, very
similar, or relevant to the work requirements of the proposed contract. One or more
weaknesses exist. Weaknesses outweigh strengths. Based on the Offeror’s performance
record, there is low confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required
effort.

- Poor. Past performance record by Offeror and any proposed major subcontracts does
not meet minimum acceptable standards on work identical, very similar, or relevant to
the work requirements of the proposed contract. One or more deficiencies or significant
weaknesses exist. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is very low
confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.


© © 2

Solicitation that the Government intended to make an award without discussions.

The proposais were evaluated considering three Factors: Mission Suitability, Past
Performance, and Cost/Price. Of the evaluation Factors identified, Mission Suitability
and Past Performance are equal in importance, and when combined are significantly
more important than Price. Mission Suitability and Past Performance individually are
more important than Price.

Within the Mission Suitability factor were five sub-factors. The relative weights in terms
of maximum numerical scores established for each sub-factor were as follows:

Mission Suitability Sub-factor Maximum Score

Contract Transition Approach 100

Business Management Approach 300

Personnel Management 250
Approach

Task Management Approach 300

Safety and Health 50

1000

The Board developed evaluation guidelines that documented the standards against
which all sub-factors of the proposals would be rated and scored. Each Board member
read each written proposal and evaluated it against the standards of the evaluation
guidelines. The SEB, as a group, considered each member's individual findings and
reached a consensus of strengths and weaknesses for each sub-factor. The Board then
reached a consensus whether the strengths and weaknesses were significant, assigned
an adjective rating for each sub-factor (defined below), individually assigned a score for
each sub-factor, then discussed substantial variances in individual scores, if any, and
then reached consensus on a final score. All sub-factors for all proposals were scored
and then the Board conducted a “horizontal review" of each sub-factor of all Offerors to
ensure consistency among the findings for all Offerors.

Definition of Mission Suitability Adjectival Ratings:

- Excellent. A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or
more significant strengths. No deficiency or Significant weakness exists. 91-100 percent

- Very Good. A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates over-all
competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths
outbalance any weaknesses that exist. 71-90 percent

- Good. 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 off-set by strengths do not significantly detract from the Offerors’ response. 51-70


© @ 13

of the adjustments was an increase in the proposed price of about $1 million and
resulted in the lowest probable cost of any offer.

MAINTHIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Mission Suitability was rated “Fair.”

Contract Transition Approach - Poor. Mainthia had 1 Strength, 1 Significant Weakness
and 1 Weakness.

Business Management Approach - Poor. Mainthia had 1 Significant Weakness and 4
Weaknesses.

Personnel Management Approach - Fair. Mainthia had 1 Strength and 5 Weaknesses.
Task Management Approach - Good. Mainthia had 1 Weakness.

Safety and Health - Good. Mainthia had no Strengths and no Weaknesses.

Past Performance - Mainthia’s Past Performance rating was “Neutral.”

Manthia had no strengths or weaknesses.

Cost/Price Factor

Mainthia's proposed price was 14% below the government estimate. A few adjustments
were made to this proposed price. A downward adjustment was made at the contract
level cost to the indirect rate based on DCAA recommendations. The Government
determined the Program Management Office costs did not include Department
Managers. Therefore, an upward adjustment was made to add costs for approximately
3 WYEs. In addition, the Government deemed 2 WYEs for clerks were excessive and
removed these costs from the PMO. The overall effect of the adjustments was an

increase in the proposed price of approximately $2 million and resulted in a probable
cost that was slightly higher than the lowest offer.

QUALIS CORPORATION
Mission Suitability was rated “Fair.”

Contract Transition Approach - Poor. Qualis had 1 Significant Weakness and 3
Weaknesses,

Business Management Approach - Poor. Qualis had 1 Strength, 2 Significant
Weaknesses, and 2 Weaknesses.

Personnel Management Approach - Fair. Qualis had 3 Strengths and 2 Weaknesses.

Task Management Approach - Fair. Qualis had 2 Weaknesses.


© @ 16

In the area of Past Performance, | note that ASRC and Sierra Lobo received an
Excellent rating and had similar significant strengths based on the past record of
successful performance and managing contracts very similar to GESS. Bastion was
rated Very Good with a significant strength based on the past record of successful
performance similar to GESS. In this area, there was little difference in the top two
tated companies and | find no meaningful advantages with either firm, but conclude both
have a meaningful advantage over Bastion.

In the area of cost, | note and accept the Government probable cost adjustments which
placed Bastion with the lowest costs followed by Sierra Lobo and ASRC. | note the
approximate cost delta between these three offers was 2% and that Cost was the least
important Factor.

In summary, my selection is based on a comparative assessment of the proposals
against all source selection criteria in the RFP and represents my independent
judgment. | noted in accordance with the RFP that Mission Suitability is equal to Past
Performance and that Mission Suitability and Past Performance when combined are
significantly more important than Price. And Mission Suitability and Past Performance
are individually more important than Price.

Based primarily on its superior response to the requirements of the RFP specifically in
the areas of the Contract Transition and Business management Approach, | believe
ASRC Aerospace, Inc. provided the best combined approach to effectively manage and
perform the anticipated effort. | conclude that the reduction in performance risk during
transition for ASRC due to the detailed and comprehensive transition plan, and the
increased potential for ASRC’s highly successful contract performance from their
excellent business management approach, organization, and management structure,
more than compensate for their slightly higher probable cost. Accordingly, | hereby
select ASRC Aerospace, Inc. to perform the anticipated contract.

Concurrence:
(la

Olga Gonzalez-Sanabria, Bradley J. Baker
Source Selection Authority Procurement Officer