National Aeronautics and Space Administration 


Ames Research Center 


Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 


Selection of Contractor 


For 


Technical Services for Aerospace Systems Modeling and Simulation II 


(SimLabs II) 


NNAI0345000R 


On June 4, 2012, I, along with certain NASA Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Ex-Officio members, 

met with the SEB members appointed to evaluate proposals for the Technical Services for Aerospace 

Systems Modeling and Simulation II (SimLabs II) procurement in support of the Aerospace Simulation 

Research & Development Branch and Aviation Systems Division under the Office of the Director of 

Aeronautics. During this meeting, the SEB presented the findings from its Evaluation Report. 

We discussed the relative merits of the proposals to assure that I had a full understanding of the 

SEB's evaluation. 

I assessed the SEB's findings and evaluation of proposals. This Source Selection Statement reflects 

my independent judgment of the Strengths and Weaknesses of the proposals, and sets forth my 

selection decision. 

Procurement Description 

NASA Ames Research Center (Ames) currently has a requirement for support services for the 

Simulation Laboratory facilities at Ames which include engineering (research and development, 

operations, testing, maintenance) and modification services for software, hardware, hydraulic, 

and electrical/electronic systems. 

This procurement was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 with Full and Open Competition. 

A Cost-Plus-Award Fee (CPAF), Definitive Core and Indefinite DeliverylIndefinite Quantity (IDIQ) 

requirement, hybrid contract will be awarded. Anticipated period of performance is as follows: 

Base: One Year (October 2,2012 ­ September 30, 2013) 

Option I: One Year (October 1,2013 September 30, 2014) 

Option II: One Year (October 1,2014 - September 30, 2015) 

Option III: One Year (October 1,2015 - September 30, 2016) 

Option IV: One Year (October 1,2016 ­ September 30, 2017) 

NNAI0345000R Source Selection Statement 1 
Evaluation Procedure 

Proposals were evaluated in accordance with the requirements of FAR Subpart 15.3, "Source 

Selection," as supplemented by NFS Subpart 1815.3, "Source Selection." Solicitation provision 

FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisitions, informed Offerors that the 

Government intended to award a contract based solely on initial offers. However, the provision 

also stated that the Government reserved the right to hold discussions if award on the basis of 

initial offers is determined not to be in the Government's best interest. 

The Request for Proposals (RFP) identified the following three evaluation Factors: Mission Suitability, 

Past Performance, and Cost. Ofthe evaluation Factors identified, Mission Suitability is somewhat 

more important than Past Performance, and Past Performance is somewhat more important than Cost. 

Mission Suitability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Cost. 

The Mission Suitability Factor consists of three Subfactors. The Subfactors are shown below with 

their respective point allocation, indicative of the relative importance ofthose evaluation areas. 

Mission Suitability Subfactors Assigned 

Weight 

Technical Approach 550 

Overall Understanding, Technical Capabilities and Approach(es) 

Sample Work Assignments 

Management Approach 350 

Organizational Structure/Partnering Approach/Outreach 

Technical and Business Management ofWork Assignments and Task Orders 

Staffing, Recruitment, Retention and Training, and Key Personnel 

Phase-In 

Key Personnel 

Total Compensation Plan 

Organizational Conflicts ofInterest A voidance Plan 

Safety and Health Plan 

Small Business Utilization 100 

Small Business Subcontracting Plan 

Commitment to Small Business Program 

TOTAL 1000 

Potential Mission Suitability adjectival ratings are: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor. 

NNAl0345000R Source Selection Statement 2 
With regard to the Past Perfonnance Factor, the RFP provided, for evaluation purposes, 

Level of Confidence ratings of: "Very High Level of Confidence"; "High Level ofConfidence"; 

"Moderate Level of Confidence"; "Low Level of Confidence"; "Very Low Level of Confidence"; 

and "NeutrallUnknown Level of Confidence", depending on the SEB's assessment of each 

proposal in this area. For each Offeror and its Major Subcontractors, the SEB evaluated overall 

Past Perfonnance with respect to comparability in contract size, content, and complexity to the 

requirements ofthe current acquisition. This Factor was designed to provide an opportunity to 

evaluate the quality of goods and services provided by the Offerors to the Agency and other 

organizations as either a prime or subcontractor. The Past Perfonnance evaluation was based 

on the infonnation provided by the Offeror in its Past Perfonnance Volume II, an assessment 

of customer questionnaires submitted on behalf of each Offeror and of its Major Subcontractors, 

and some independent investigation by the SEB through the NASA Past Perfonnance Infonnation 

Retrieval System (PPIRS), as allowed by the RFP. 

For the Cost Factor, the SEB perfonned a cost realism analysis on the proposed cost, which 

resulted in an assessment of probable cost and probable cost adjustments. 

Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals 

Prior to the issuance of the fonnal RFP, a Draft RFP was issued on July 1,2011, in an effort to 

provide industry with an opportunity to obtain a better understanding of, and to encourage industry 

comments and questions about, the SimLabs II requirement. On July 27,2011; a Pre-Proposal 

Conference was held and Tours provided ofthe Crew-Vehicle Systems Research Facility (CVSRF), 

FutureFlight Central (FFC), and Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS). Industry was encouraged 

to ask questions about the SimLabs II requirement and the procurement process. The Final RFP 

was released on November 10,2011. The questions received in response to the Draft RFP, 

Pre-Proposal Conference, and Final RFP were carefully evaluated and incorporated into the 

Final RFP, as appropriate. A Government response to each question was prepared and was made 

available electronically to the public .. 

One minor amendment was issued to amend the RFP as a result of a change in FY12 appropriations 

and to respond to questions received. Proposals were due on January 9, 2012. 

All documents pertinent to the acquisition were posted electronically on the NASA Acquisition 

Internet Service (NAIS) Business Opportunities portal (http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nais/ 

link svp.cgi) as well as the Federal Business Opportunities web portal (https:llwww.fbo.gov). 

Two proposals were received in response to the RFP by the specified closing time and date. 

The Offerors' names and addresses (listed alphabetically) are as follows: 

1. 	 QinetiQ North America, Inc. (QNA) 

2677 Prosperity Ave., Suite 400 

Fairfax, VA 22031 

NNA10345000R 	 Source Selection Statement 3 
2. 	 Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) 

1710 SAIC Drive 

McLean, VA 22102-3703 

Proposals, including a cover letter, were received from each Offeror. Each proposal consisted of 

three separate volumes, corresponding to the three respective evaluation Factors, in accordance 

with Section L ofthe Solicitation and FAR Parts 15.101 and 15.306. A copy of each proposal 

for the two Offerors was issued to each of the four voting members and the Recorder (non-voting 

member) ofthe SEB. 

Oral Presentation Media was also received from each Offeror in a sealed package marked: 

"OFFEROR'S PRESENTATION MATERIALS FOR MISSION SUITABILITY ORAL 

PRESENTATION". 

The Government assigned a date for the oral presentation of each Offeror based on the random 

selection of numbers from a "blind" receptacle, which corresponded to the number assigned to the 

Offeror's proposal. The Oral Presentation schedule was established from the first random number 

chosen through the last. 

Oral Presentations were held on January 25, 2012, and February 1,2012, respectively. The Government 

furnished the sealed presentation materials to each ofthe Offeror's presenters immediately before the 

start ofthe presentation. Both Oral Presentations were compliant with all the mandatory instructions 

contained in the RFP. 

Evaluation Process 

After receipt of proposals and completion ofthe Oral Presentations, the SEB members individually 

reviewed each proposal and met to discuss individual findings. The SEB identified Mission Suitability 

findings for each proposaL In Mission Suitability, the identified strengths and weaknesses were 

categorized either as a "Significant Strength" or "Significant Weakness" or, if not significant, as a 

"Strength" or "Weakness." These findings were used to establish adjectival ratings and numerical 

scores for each Mission Suitability Subfactor, and, ultimately, numerical scores for overall Mission 

Suitability. No "Deficiencies" were identified in either of the Mission Suitability proposals. 

The SEB also identified Past Performance findings. No adverse Past Performance information or 

weaknesses were identified for either ofthe Offerors in this Factor. Each identified Past Performance 

strength was categorized as either a "Significant Strength" or, if not significant, as a "Strength." 

During its evaluation, the SEB used these findings to establish a Level of Confidence rating for each 

ofthe Offerors in this Factor. 

The SEB and the Price Analyst reviewed both ofthe Cost Proposals. In accordance with FAR 

15.305(a)(I) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B), the SEB, with the assistance ofthe Price Analyst, evaluated 

cost realism for each proposal which resulted in an assessment of probable cost and probable cost 

adjustments. Neither a numerical score nor an adjectival rating was assigned for the Cost Factor. 

NNA10345000R 	 Source Selection Statement 4 
The SEB first briefed me on its initial findings on May 9, 2012, after which I directed the SEB 

to conduct further review ofits findings based on my questions after the first briefing. A second 

briefing took place on June 4,2012. I reviewed the findings, and thereafter determined that it 

would be in the best interest ofthe Government to select an Offeror for award. 

I reviewed the SEB's findings for Mission Suitability and the resultant adjectival ratings and 

numerical scores. I reviewed the findings and Level ofConfidence ratings for Past Performance. 

I reviewed the Cost evaluation results, including the proposed and probable costs. I fully 

. considered all ofthis information prior to making my final selection decision. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS OF THE SEB 

Mission Suitability Factor 

QinetiQ North America, Inc. (QNA) 

The Mission Suitability proposal submitted by QNA received 579 points (out of a possible 1000) 

and is the lower score. 

In the Technical Approach Subfactor, QNA received 281 points (out of a possible 550) and a rating 

of Good. No Significant Strengths or Significant Weaknesses were assigned. Two (2) Strengths 

and two (2) Weaknesses were assigned. The two (2) Strengths were assigned to QNA for: (1) its 

technical approach that demonstrated an overall understanding ofthe experiment planning process in 

addition to an understanding ofthe need to interact with the SimLabs II customers; and (2) an approach 

that demonstrated extensive experience and understanding ofthe simulation maintenance processes as 

well as an approach that would facilitate maintenance planning and adequate parts inventory. The two 

(2) Weaknesses were assigned to QNA for: (1) an approach that did not demonstrate a thorough 

understanding of experiment preparation and functional capabilities; and (2) an ineffective approach 

to the first Sample Work Assignment in terms ofinterfacing with the Mission Control Center. 

In the Management Approach Subfactor, QNA received 228 points (out of a possible 350) and a 

rating of Good. No Significant Strengths or Significant Weaknesses were assigned. Three (3) 

Strengths and four (4) Weaknesses were assigned. The three (3) Strengths were assigned to QNA 

for: (1) its strong outreach capability by way ofits vast resources pool and extensive involvement 

in the simulation industry; (2) its unique and effective staffing approach, consisting ofmultiple 

back-up solutions for changing skill sets and its approach and access to its corporate resources; 

and (3) its Total Compensation Plan proposed benefits and salary ranges for its employees that are 

comprehensive and compatible with the local employment market and promotes employee morale, 

recruitment, and retention. The four (4) Weaknesses were assigned to QNA for: (1) its unclear 

organizational structure with regard to the Engineering Office, and an unrealistic approach to 

management risk; (2) its approach to work assignments and task orders did not include a process 

for managing the correction oftask performance problems or conflicts from work order changes; 

(3) its Phase-In Plan did not provide a detailed approach, implementation process, or schedule, to 


mitigate risk and assure a successful Phase-In; and (4) its Total Compensation Plan did not provide 


sufficient detail of benefits or compensation packages for its major subcontractors. 


NNAI0345000R Source Selection Statement 5 
In the Small Business Utilization Subfactor, QNA received 70 points (out of a possible 100) and a 

rating of Good. QNA met the requirements ofthe Subfactor. No Significant Strengths, Strengths, 

Significant Weaknesses, or Weaknesses were assigned. 

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) 

The Mission Suitability proposal submitted by SAIC received 884 points (out of a possible 1000) 

and is the higher score. 

In the Technical Approach Subfactor, SAIC received 523 points (out of a possible 550) and a rating 

of Excellent. Three (3) Significant Strengths andone (1) Strength were identified. No Significant 

Weaknesses or Weaknesses were assigned. The three (3) Significant Strengths were assigned to 

SAIC for: (1) its technical approach that demonstrated an extensive overall understanding ofthe 

SimLabs II Statement of Work, which included the entire lifecycle of an experiment (planning, 

preparation, operations, post operations data distribution and debriefing), as well as discrete projects 

and maintenance functions; in addition, SAIC identified realistic risks including effective risk 

mitigation processes at each stage of an experiment; (2) its excellent approach to the first Sample 

Work Assignment demonstrated an extraordinary understanding ofthe critical technical and schedule 

work elements; and (3) its excellent approach to the second Sample Work Assignment demonstrated 

a thorough understanding ofthe major technical challenges in upgrading the VMS motion base and 

provided innovative solutions; its approach also demonstrated a thorough understanding ofthe risks 

in this Sample Work Assignment. The one (1) Strength was assigned to SAIC for: (1) its effective 

reach-back capabilities and access to corporate resources that could accommodate gaps in specialized 

skill sets on an as-needed basis. 

In the Management Approach Subfactor, SAIC received 291 points (out of a possible 350) and a rating 

of Very Good. One (1) Significant Strength, Three (3) Strengths and One (1) Weakness were identified. 

No Significant Weaknesses were identified. The one (1) Significant Strength was assigned to SAIC 

for its highly appropriate, innovative, and effective approach for Key Personnel, both in the assignment 

ofwhat positions should be key and in the selection of Key Personnel to fill those key positions. 

The three (3) Strengths were assigned to SAIC for: (1) its proposed innovative outreach approach 

that would facilitate planning and effective utilization ofits staff; (2) its thorough and complete Total 

Compensation Plan with policies for maintaining morale, while enhancing growth and development, 

retention, productivity, and comprehensive compensation benefits; and (3) its effective and 

well-managed Phase-In approach. The one (1) Weakness was assigned to SAIC for its unclear 

explanation for a reduction in staffing and seniority in certain labor categories in the option years. 

In the Small Business Utilization Subfactor, SAIC received 70 points (out of a possible 100) and a 

rating of Good. SAIC met the requirements of the Subfactor. No Significant Strengths, Strengths, 

Significant Weaknesses, or Weaknesses were assigned. 

NNA 1 0345000R Source Selection Statement 6 
Past Performance Factor 

The following addresses the Past Performance strengths for each ofthe Offerors. No weaknesses were 

assigned for either of the Offerors. 

QNA 

The evaluation of QNA' s Past Performance resulted in a Moderate Level of Confidence. No Significant 

Strengths were assigned. One (1) Strength was assigned. The one (1) Strength was assigned to QNA 

for its demonstrated successful past performance across six previous contracts, similar in size, scope, 

and complexity to the SimLabs II Acquisition. 

SAIC 

The evaluation of SAIC's Past Performance resulted in a Very High Level of Confidence. One (1) 

Significant Strength was assigned. No other Strengths were assigned. The one (1) Significant 

Strength was assigned to SAIC for its demonstrated highly successful and highly relevant past 

performance across seven previous contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to the 

SimLabs II Acquisition. 

Cost Factor 

The SEB, with the assistance ofthe Price Analyst, evaluated each Offeror's Cost proposal. 

This included verifying that each Offeror is in compliance with the RFP requirements; 

evaluating the reasonableness of the proposed rates for fringe benefits, overhead, and G&A; 

and ascertaining that proposed labor rates are reasonable for the labor market in which the 

contract will be performed. The cost elements were analyzed, including subcontractors' costs, 

proposed labor rates and skill mix, indirect rates and fee. A probable cost determination was 

completed and adjustments made for each of the Offerors for the work to be performed. 

QNA had the higher total proposed cost, and the higher total probable cost. No probable cost 

adjustment was necessary to its proposed cost for the Core. An upward probable cost adjustment 

was made to direct labor in the IDIQ portion of its proposal. As a result, an upward adjustment 

to fringe benefits/ overhead expense and G&A expense also occurred in the IDIQ portion of its 

proposal. 

SAIC had the lower total proposed cost, and the lower total probable cost. An upward probable 

cost adjustment was made to direct labor for the Core. As a result, an upward adjustment to 

fringe benefits, overhead expense and G&A expense also occurred for the Core. An upward 

probable cost adjustment was made to direct labor in the IDIQ portion of its proposal. As a 

result, an upward adjustment to fringe benefits, overhead expense and G&A expense also 

occurred in the IDIQ portion of its proposal. The cost adjustments in both Core and IDIQ 

precipitated a "Weakness" in cost realism under the Management Approach Subfactor. 

NNA 1 0345000R Source Selection Statement 7 
SELECTION DECISION OF THE SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY FOR SIMLABS II 

FAR Part 15.308 "Source Selection Decision" states: "The source selection authority's (SSA) decision 


shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the 


solicitation. While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection 


decision shall represent the SSA's independent judgment. The source selection decision shall be 


documented, and the documentation shall include the rationale for any business judgments and 


tradeoffs made orreHed on by the SSA, including benefits associated with additional costs. 


Although the rationale for the selection decision must be documented, that documentation need 


not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the decision." 


My selection decision represents my independent judgment. I carefully reviewed all ofthe SEB's 


findings to ensure a full understanding thereof. I did not simply rely on the scores or the numbers 


of strengths and weaknesses; rather, I primarily considered the potential impact of each finding, 


and its relevance to this proposed effort, against the selection criteria prescribed in the RFP. I have 


carefully reviewed all of the findings ofthe SEB and concur with all ofthem. I am satisfied that the 


findings ofthe SEB are appropriate and reasonable. Therefore, as the Source Selection Authority, 


I hereby adopt all ofthe findings ofthe SEB without exception. 


To reiterate, Mission Suitability is somewhat more important than Past Performance, and 


Past Performance is somewhat more important than Cost. Evaluation factors other than Cost, 


when combined, are significantly more important than Cost. 


Mission Suitability carries the most weight and, accordingly, is the most important Factor to me. 


In this Factor, SAIC properly received a numerical score that is 305 points higher than the score 


received by QNA, and SAIC earned four (4) Significant Strengths while QNA earned none. 


Most important to me, however, is the content of the two Mission Suitability proposals, as reflected 


in the content of the evaluation findings, which I describe above and adopt. In my judgment, the 


extensive overall understanding demonstrated by SAIC ofthe technical requirements, and its highly 


proficient, distinctive, and innovative approaches to successful contract performance including 


its approaches to and solutions for the challenges of the two Sample Work Assignments provides 


a clear and compelling distinction between the two Offerors. Conducting experiments in the flight 


simulation facilities is highly technical and complex, and very little of the work is repetitive. 


Therefore, it will be essential for the selected Offeror to possess a solid understanding and capability 


necessary to prepare and execute experiments. In my opinion, SAIC's Mission Suitability proposal­


particularly in the Technical Approach Subfactor demonstrates that SAIC best possesses this critical 


understanding and capability, and that SAIC will be best able to support entire experiment lifecycles 


and future upgrades to the SimLab facilities. The superiority of SAIC's Mission Suitability proposal 


is the first, and most important, of three discriminators in favor of SAle. 


The second discriminator in favor of SAIC is in the Past Performance Factor. SAIC received a 


Very High Level of Confidence rating, based upon a Significant Strength, which is higher than 


the Moderate Level of Confidence rating received by QNA. 


NNA10345000R Source Selection Statement 8 
The final discriminator in favor of SAIC is in the Cost Factor. SAIC has the lower total proposed 

cost and the lower total probable cost ofthe two Offerors. Although the SEB identified a Weakness 

in the Management Approach subfactor based on its cost evaluation, I discussed this Weakness 

in detail with the SEB, and I have concluded that this Weakness would not impact the overall 

effectiveness ofSAIC's proposed Technical and Management approaches to contract performance. 

The superiority ofSAIC's Mission Suitability proposal indicates that SAIC will provide superior 

contract performance and customer satisfaction. This conclusion is supported by a Very High 

Level of Confidence arising from SAle's Past Performance. Furthermore, the SAIC proposal, 

which offers the superior response to Mission Suitability at the lower total proposed and probable 

cost, will provide the best value to the Government. 

I select SAIC for contract award. 

Dr. Thomas A Edwards 

Source Selection Authority 

NNAI0345000R Source Selection Statement 9