Wichita Tribal Enterprises, LLC
Technical Capability

The SEP rated the Wichita Tribal Enterprises, LLC proposal “Excellent,” finding six significant strengths
as follows:

© Providing a process for rapidly backfilling position as well as maintaining the staff’s required
education, certifications, capabilities and training directly related to SOW requirements (MP),

* Ahighly competitive benefits package and incentives, and a commitment to offer wages no
less than currently paid to incumbent KISS employees, demonstrating the ability to retain
highly-qualified and exceptionally experienced personnel (MP),

« Provides details of how management through metrics allowed for the Offeror to calculate a
skill mix balance that could be maintained through employee attrition or vrork reassignment
rather than employee termination (TA),

« The Offeror's proposal to pay the existing salaries and benefits (or greater) which appreciably
increases confidence in the Offeror’s proposed incumbent capture rate (TA),

s Provides details into their methods for understanding the customer’s requirements and
translating them into comprehensive interviews and specific tests tailored to select the best
candidates (TA), and

° Ahighly qualified Program Manager with specifically relevant experience managing a
contract the size and scope of KISS ITI (TA).

Past Performance

The SEP’s confidence rating of Wichita Tribal Enterprises, LLC’s past performance is “High.” This
confidence rating is based upon the review of received past performance questionnaires and information
in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) which, when combined revealed an
overall performance rating of “Very Good” and a relevancy rating for previous contracts of “High”
coinpared to the scope of KISS III.

Final Proposal Revision 2 Pricing

The SEP notes Brillient’s proposed price was highest, followed by Crewestone. Crewestone’s price is
higher than Wichita. Unispec has the lowest proposed price.

SELECTION DECISION

1 first note that there are three evaluation factors specified in the RFP, namely, Technical Capability,
Price, and Past Performance. Within Technical Capability, there were three subfactors: management
proposal, technical approach, and a sample scenario. I also take note that the relative importance of these
evaluation factors are that technical capability is significantly more important than past performance and
that within the technical capability factor the management plan is more important that the technical
approach, which is more important that the sample scenario. I note also that when technical capability
and past performance are combined, they are equal to price. Utilizing these evaluation factors, the RFP
also provides that the Government intends to award a contract to the responsible offeror whose offer will
be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. I note that this allows me to
make a selection based on other than the lowest price, in accordance with the trade-off process described
in FAR 15.101-1.


SELECTION DECISION

| first note that of the three evaluation factors articulated in the RFP, I have directed the Panel to
only reevaluate the Past Performance factor. As a result, only this factor was presented to me for
consideration. I note that my original selection rationale as it relates to the Technical Capability
factor is unaffected and remains in full force; thus, I utilize my initial technical conclusions and
comparisons as well as the prior evaluated prices in making an appropriately holistic tradeoff
analysis accordingly.

When comparing past performance between Wichita and Unispec, | first note that while Unispec
has an excellent past performance record on their three related contracts, these contracts have
included scope similar to only two of the four tasks to be performed on KISS III. J also note that
the largest related contract with fifty five employees was for work that encompassed only one
task similar to the four tasks on KISS III. This resulted in the assignation of a “low” overall
relevancy rating across the combination of contracts, denoting that Unispec’s past/present
contractual efforts involved cnly some of the diversity of effort and complexities that the KISS
III contract will involve.

Wichita and/or their major subcontractor, meanwhile, have earned very good to excellent past
performance ratings, including all excellent ratings on KISS 1, which is inclusive of all the four
tasks that will be performed under KISS III. Additionally, Wichita’s subcontractor has
successfully managed contracts with 113 and 142 employees. This, in conjunction with other
contracts managed by the Wichita team resulted in assignation of a “high” relevancy rating by
the SEP, connoting that their past/present contractual efforts involved the same magnitude of
effort and complexities that KISS III requires across the statement of work areas.

These relevancy assessments, when combined with performance ratings, led the Panel to rate
Unispec as an overall Moderate level of confidence, while Wichita was rated at a high overall
level of confidence. After careful consideration of this nev’ information, 1 agree with the Panel’s
assigned levels of confidence with respect to these two offerors. KISS III will involve
management of a labor force an order of magnitude more complex than that reflected in
Unispec’s experience terms of labor force size and diversity of tasks. The Wichita team’s past
performance record demonstrates relevancy both as to labor force size, but more importantly, the
diversity of tasks across the myriad labor classifications pertinent to the KISSIII statement of
work. This difference in past performance again factors heavily as a discriminator in my
ultimate determination that Wichita’s proposal represents the most advantageous offer to the

Government.

After ascertaining the risks and benefits associated with each proposal, | believe Wichita Tribal
Enterprises, LLC represents the proposal that is most advantageous to the Government. | do so


The SEP evaluated the proposals, identified findings and categorized them utilizing the following
definitions:

¢ Significant Strength: An aspect or combination of strengths that appreciable increases the
confidence of successful contract performance. Significant strength ratings shall be annotated as
“high” (SSy), “low” (SS_), or without annotation.
Strength: An aspect in the proposal the increases the confidence of successful contract
performance. Strength ratings shall be annotated as “high” (Sx), “low” (S,), or without annotation.

© Weakness: A flaw in the proposal with a probability of lowering the level of performance, but
not to the extent that successful contract performance is at risk.

¢ Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful
contract performance. Significant weakness ratings shall be annotated as “high” (SW,), “low”
(SW,), or without annotation.

¢ Deficiency: A failure of a proposal to address a material aspect of the proposal instructions in
Section 5.3 or a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement, or a combination
of significant weaknesses in a proposal, that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance
to an unacceptable level.

Then, based upon the nature, number and the relative sub-factor importance of the findings, the SEP
assigned an overall technical capability adjective rating utilizing the following definitions:

e Excellent: A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more
significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists.

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

¢ 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 offeror's response.

e Fair: A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses
outbalance any strengths.

e 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.

PRICE

The SEP evaluated price based on the offerors proposed costs and fees for the phase in period, base year
period and the three option periods. The SEP assessed the validity, reasonableness, adequacy and realism
of the proposed costs. The offerors fully loaded labor rates (including fee) were entered into the
Independent Government Estimate (IGE) Staffing Plan and compared the results to the proposed costs.

PAST PERFORMANCE

The SEP evaluated past performance based on the performance from questionnaire evaluation Tesults,
review of information in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), combined with
relevancy of previous contracts compared to the scope of services and size of KISS II in order to
determine an overall confidence rating for each offeror.


SELECTION OF CONTRACTOR FOR THE
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES III (KISS Til)
CONTRACT

On November 28, 2012, I, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the subject acquisition,
met with the Source Evaluation Panel (SEP) to discuss their evaluation of proposals for the KISS II]

contract.
Those present were:

Donald Wood, Contracting Officer

Lori Weller, Source Evaluation Panel Technical Evaluator

Mary Beth Hanson, Source Evaluation Panel Technical Evaluator
Lindsey Snead, Source Evaluation Panel Technical Evaluator
Louis Patalano, Past Performance Evaluator

Marco Pochy, Consultant

Bradley Smith, Legal Consultant

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

The objective of this procurement is to acquire a broad range of institutional support services for Kennedy
Space Center. These services include but are not limited to clerical support, financial management
support, personnel program activity, employee development, employee benefits, personnel action
processing, procurement acquisition and contract administration, analyst support, business systems
support and records and property management. The contract requires the contractor to provide all of the
resources necessary to provide these services in support of current and future NASA programs and
activities at KSC and other designated sites. This procurement will result in award of the KISS III
contract. Previously, these services have been provided under the KISS I and KISS IJ contracts. KISS III
will combine the scope of these two predecessor contracts into one all-encompassing support services
contract.

‘The contract will be Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity with Fixed Price task orders. The
performance period of the contract will be three years and seven months, as follows:

* Base period: February 01, 2013 — September 30, 2013
© Option 1: October 01, 2013 — September 30, 2014
© Option 2: October 01, 2014 — September 30, 2015
* Option 3: October 01, 2015 — September 30, 2016

The contract includes a phase-in period to commence at award.

On December 12, 2011, a request for information (RFI) was posted. A synopsis of the procurement was
posted with a pre-solicitation notice issued on March 02, 2012. A Draft Request for Proposal was issued
April 20, 2012 and a Final Request for Proposal was issued May 18, 2012. The procurement was set aside
for smail businesses certified by the Small Business Administration for participation in the 8(a) program.

There were three amendments to the solicitation issued by the Contracting Officer. Amendment 1 was
issued to provide enswers to the written questions from industry and for other minor changes to the RFP.
Amendment 2 was issued to revise the base period of performance from twelve months to nine months
and incorporate revised Wage Determination, number 2005-117, Rev. 13. Amendment 3 was issued to

1


continuing to recognize Wichita’s qualitatively superior proposal in the Technical Capability
factor for the reasons discussed in my initial source selection statement. I also have high
confidence in Wichita’s ability to successfully perform across the entire statement of work given
their past performance history. I consider this to be of benefit in reducing the risk of
unsuccessful contract performance on KISS III, given the level and variety of effort that the
Wichita team has successfully managed on past contracts. I consider these advantages of the
Wichita proposal compared to Unispec to be more than sufficiently advantageous as to warrant
the 1.5% additional potential cost. I determine that the superior aspects of the Wichita proposal
will significantly enhance the Government’s confidence of highly successful contract
performance and labor force stability, and will justify the marginal additional cost for a contract
of the size, complexity and duration of KISS III.

Based on the foregoing analysis, I select Wichita Tribal Enterprises, LLC for award of the KISS
III contract.

Vuk Ake

Marlo F. Krisber;
Source Selection rity Date 2~/ -/3
NASA/ John F. Kennedy Space Center


base) and revise the pricing template model to reflect a nine month base to match the period of
performance. This was done in accordance with NASA FAR Supplement 1815.307(b)(ii) via authorization
by the Procurement Officer. To effectuate meaningful discussions, all offerors remaining in the
competitive range were allowed to correct any weaknesses identified within the Final Proposal Revision 1.
A second round of discussions was held with all four offerors on October 31, 2012, with Final Proposal
Revision 2 due on November 13, 2012.

Afier this second round of discussions concluded, the offerors remaining in the competitive range all
timely submitted their FPR2. Again using the below described evaluation process, the SEP conducted a
final evaluation of each offeror’s FPR2, the results of which were presented to the SSA as discussed below

EVALUATION PROCESS

The SEP reviewed all of the instructions to offerors in the solicitation, including the provisions related to
the Government’s intention to award without discussions. In so doing, the SEP verified that the RFP
stated that award would be made “to the responsible offeror whose offer ... will be most advantageous to
the Government.” In addition, it was noted that this provision was consistent with Section (g) of Clause
52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items, which states “The Government may accept other
than the lowest offer.” Section (g) of Clause 52.212-1 also provided that “The Government intends to
evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors.”

The evaluation criteria were stated in the solicitation, including three factors and the relative importance
of each. The three evaluation factors are:

(1) Technical Capability
(2) Price
(3) Past Performance

The RFP states, “Technical Capability is significantly more important than Past Performance,” and that
“Technical Capability and Past Performance, when combined, are equal to price.”

TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

The RFP specified the following three subfactors under Technical Capability listed in descending order of
importance:

1. Management Proposal (MP)
° Overall Management Approach
© Organizational Structure
« Total Compensation Plan
*  Phase-in Plan
« Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan
« Safety and Health Plan
2. Technical Approach (TA)
© Overall Technical Approach
« Staffing and Skill Mix
* Incumbent Capture Plan
« Key Personnel/Letters of Intent
3. Sample Scenario


SELECTION OF THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES II (KISSHD)
CONTRACT - ADDENDUM

On January 31, 2013, 1, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the subject
acquisition, met with members of the Source Evaluation Panel (Panel) to discuss the reevaluation
of proposals for the KISS III contract. Specifically, I requested the Panel to reevaluate the Past
Performance factor for the selected offeror, Wichita Tribal Enterprises, LLC (Wichita) and the
runner up, Unispec Enterprises, Inc. (Unispec), after I learned that my original selection was
predicated on an error relating to Past Performance data on Unispec. Accordingly, I asked for a
congress of the pertinent members of the Panel to discuss their appurtenant findings.

Those present were:

Donald Wood, Contracting Officer

Lori Weller, Source Evaluation Panel Technical Evaluator
Louis Patalano, Past Performance Evaluator

Marco Pochy, Consultant

Bradley Smith, Legal Consultant

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

The KISS III contract was awarded to Wichita Tribal Enterprises, LLC on J anuary 2, 2013.
Debriefings for the three offerors who made the competitive range, but were not selected for
award, were conducted on January 7, 2013. During the course of debriefing Unispec a
discrepancy was pointed out by the offeror with relation to the Past Performance factor, namely,
that the SSA relied on an ostensibly erroneous data point. After the debriefing of the offeror, the
Panel investigated the specifics of this discrepancy, including a review of the initial Past
Performance evaluation. The Panel ascertained that the information received from a
questionnaire of the prior contract in question (Department of Transportation Contract
DTPH5608C000003) stated the number of employees accountable to be “9,” which was the data
point presented to the SAA. However, information for this same contract in the offeror’s past
performance volume stated the number of employees to be “55.” This discrepancy had not been
detected during evaluations and indeed the erroneous data point had been presented to the SSA.

When the SSA was notified of these circumstances, he directed the Panel to perform a total
reevaluation of the Past Performance factor for both Unispec and Wichita in accordance with the
instructions contained in the RFP to ensure no additional discrepancies were present. It should
be noted that during the pendency of this review, Unispec filed a protest with the Government


* Low: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition,
and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable
problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the
Offeror’s performance record, there is a low leve] of confidence that the Offeror will successfully
perform the required effort. Changes to the Offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order
to achieve contract requirements.

* Very Low: The Offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable
standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in one or more areas; problems in one or
more areas which adversely affect overall performance, Based on the Offeror’s performance record,
there is a very low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
© Neutral: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom
information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or
unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].

Final Proposal Revision 2 Evaluation Findings:

Brillient Corporation
Technical Capability

The SEP rated the Brillient Corporation proposal “Excellent,” finding one strength and three significant
strengths. The Offeror’s strength is:

* A qualified Program Manager with relevant program management experience (TA).

The Offeror’s significant strengths are:

« Detailed insight into how the Progrer Manager orchestrates the various levels of
management into one sound, comprehensive and feasible management approach (MP),

* On-the-job training programs and company offered education programs to ensure employees
have skills required for their position and to build skills for future positions (TA), and

« Ahighly effective process that outlines the organization chain of command, the relationship
of the onsite program manager to the parent organization, and any decisions or approvals to
be made outside the local organization (MP).

Past Performance

The SEP’s confidence rating of Brillient Corporation’s past performance is “High.” This confidence
rating is based upon review of received past performance questionnaires and information in the Past
Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) which, when combined, resulted in an overall
performance rating of “Excellent” and a relevancy rating for previous contracts of “Medium” compared to
the scope of KISS III.

The Crewestone Team
Technical Capability

The SEP rated The Crewestone Team’s proposal “Excellent,” finding two strengths and two significant
strengths. The Offeror’s strengths are:


Questionnaire assessment was rated as follows:

e 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.

© 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.

* Good: Effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable deficiencies,
but with little identifiable effect on overall performance.

¢ Fair: Meets or only slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable
deficiencies with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance.

© Poor: 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.

e N/A: Not applicable

Relevancy considers such things as service similarity and contract dollar value for the prime and major or
critical subcontractors. The rating is based on data provided in offeror’s past performance volume,
reference questionnaires, reference interviews, and other data independently obtained by the SEP from
NASA and/or the Government agency past performance data bases. The SEP assessed the degree of
relevancy of offeror's cited prior contracts using the ratings/guidance listed below.

© High: Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and
complexities this solicitation requires.

* Moderate: Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and
complexities this solicitation requires.

¢ Low: Past/present performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities
this solicitation requires.

¢ No: Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and
complexities this solicitation required.

An overall past performance confidence assessment was assigned by the SEP based on consideration of
ail findings using the following guidance:

© Very High: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly
pertinent to this acquisition; indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical
manner; very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the
Offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the Offeror will
successfully perform the required effort.

¢ High: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition;
demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements
with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most
part with only minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the
Offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully
perform the required effort.

¢ Moderate: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it
demonstrates effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable problems,
but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance
record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required
effort.


revise Attachment 4.6, Final Proposal Pricing Template (R2) to align that template with the revised base
period of performance.

The RFP and amendments 1 and 2 were posted on the NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS) web
page and the offerors were able to download the RFP and any amendments from this service. Amendment
3 was issued via email to offerors within the competitive range on October 9, 2012.

Fifteen (15) offerors submitted timely proposals. One late proposal was received. The late proposal was
not evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.212-1 and was returned to the sender on June 21, 2012.

The following offerors were evaluated:

AYA Associates, Inc.

Bara Infoware, Inc.

Brillient Corporation

C&C International

The Crewestone Team

Florida Federal Contractors Group
GET-NSA, LLC

Hanks-Legacy IS Venture
Logical Innovations, Inc.

10. OSI Sienna, LLC

11. SDSE

12. Tuba Group

13. Unispec Enterprises, Inc.

14. Wichita Tribal Enterprises, LLC
15. Wire2netlle

PPNANAWNE

Upon initial review of the proposals, it was determined that one proposal from Wire2NetLLC exceeded
the page limitations explicitly listed in article 5.2.2 of the RFP. The excess pages were removed from all
copies and returned to the Offeror and not evaluated pursuant to instructions contained in the RFP.

Utilizing the evaluation process below, the SEP conducted an initial evaluation of the fifteen proposals
deemed acceptable for evaluation. The resulting technical capability rating, past performance rating, and
price evaluation of each offeror’s proposal was presented to the SSA and provided the basis for making a
competitive range determination. Based on these findings the SSA was unable to make a selection.

Pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(1), the Contracting Officer determined that the four highest rated offerors
were within the competitive range:

1. Brillient Corporation

2. The Crewestone Team

3. Unispec Enterprises, Inc.

4. Wichita Tribal Enterprises, LLC

Offerors not found to be within the competitive range were notified on August 23, 2012. Discussions
were held with each offeror in the competitive range on September 6 and 7, 2012 with Final Proposal
Revision 1 due on October 1, 2012. All Offerors in the competitive range submitted Final Proposal
Revision 1. After completion of evaluations, discussions were reopened in order to resolve ambiguities in
the RFP regarding the revised period of performance from the initial RFP (12 month base to a 9 month


¢ High: Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort
and complexities this solicitation requires.

* Moderate: Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and
complexities this solicitation requires.

* Low: Past/present performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and
complexities this solicitation requires.

* No: Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and
complexities this solicitation required.

Unispec

Of the three related contracts for past performance identified by Unispec, two received low
relevancy determination ratings due to each contract containing only two (both the same) of the
four tasks of the scope of KISS Il] as well as having lov’ contract values and low numbers of
employees. On the third contract Unispec received a medium relevancy determination rating due
to it having an intermediate contract value and a moderate number of employees despite the
contract containing only one of the four tasks of the scope cf KISS IJ. The Panel assigned an
overall relevance rating of Low.

For all three contracts, Unispec received Excellent performance assessments. Therefore, the

overall Low relevancy combined with the across the board Excellent performance assessments,
the Panel assigned Unispec an overall confidence rating of Moderate.

Wichita Tribal

Of the four related contracts for past performance identified by Wichita one received a low
relevancy determination rating due to the contract containing only two of the four tasks of the
scope of KISS III as well as having low contract value and low number of employees. Wichita
received one medivm relevancy determination rating due to the contract containing one (the
same as on the first contract) of the four tasks of the scope of KISS III, despite having high
contract value and a high number of employees. Wichita received a high relevancy determination
rating on the third contract due to it containing three tasks of the scope of KISS III as well as
having high contract value and an intermediate number of employees. Wichita received a second
high relevancy determination rating on the forth contract due to it containing all four tasks of the
scope of KISS III as well as having high contract value and a high number of employees. The
Panel assigned an overall relevance rating of High.

For the contracts provided, Wichita received performance assessments ranging from Good to
Excellent. Therefore, the overall High relevancy ratings (combined with the performance
assessments, the Panel assigned Wichita en overall confidence rating of High.


At the conclusion of the SEP’s presentation of the above discussed findings, I solicited additional
comments from the evaluators and advisers present. After careful deliberation, taking into account the
SEP’s evaluation, I comparatively assessed the four proposals based upon the evaluation criteria stated in
the RFP. After consideration of the SEP’s evaluation and appurtenant findings related thereto, I noted
that the Brillient Corporation (Brillient) and The Crewestone Team (Crewestone) offered similar technical
solutions with no meaningful technical discriminators to measurably distinguish them from those of
Unispec Enterprises, Inc. (Unispec) or Wichita Tribal Enterprises, Inc., (Wichita). Brillient and
Crewestone both proposed measurably higher prices. I also noted that Wichita had a higher past
performance relevancy rating than Brillient and Crewestone, which I considered of significant advantage
for successful performance. Given these circumstances, I eliminated Brillient and Crewestone from
further consideration and focused upon comparison of the two low priced proposals, Unispec and
Wichita.

Although both Unispec and Wichita received an “Excellent” adjectival rating from the SEP for technical
capability, I note that Wichita’s proposal garnered six significant strengths (two for the management plan
and four for the technical approach) while Unispec’s proposal garnered three significant strengths (two
for the management plan and one for the technical approach) and one strength for technical approach,
However, my comparative analysis of these two proposals emphasized qualitative advantages more than
merely a quantitative comparison. I requested that the SEP discuss additional comparison between the
individual Technical Capability findings associated with Wichita and Unispec. This effort elucidated
marked similarities between the two offerors approaches in the Management Proposal subfactor, namely,
in their overall management approach, local autonomy and the quality of their organizational structure. I
considered these aspects of each offeror’s proposal as beneficial, but ultimately nondiscriminatory given
my appraisal of their similarly evaluated approaches. However, under the Management Proposal
subfactor, although both proposals each received two significant strengths, I take particular note of
Wichita’s significant strength for committing to provide wages and a benefits package that is
commensurate with at least that which the incumbent workforce currently enjoys and is highly
competitive for the level of skills and experience as expressed in the labor position descriptions. I am
particularly confident in the validity of Wichita’s commitment because they relied upon specific
incumbent employee historical data supplied by their major subcontractor (the current incumbent KISS
contractor) and built these costs into their proposal. I note that Unispec did not make a similar
commitment and received no strengths in this area. I consider this facet of Wichita’s proposal within this
most important of the three subfactors as a great benefit to the Government, as it appreciably enhances
labor force stability by reducing the risk of employee turnover, and assures the ability to attract qualified
personnel when necessary. I considered Wichita’s commitment regarding employee wages and benefits
package to be a key discriminator in my ultimate determination that Wichita’s proposal is most
advantageous to the Government.

In the Technical Approach subfactor, I first took note that Wichita and Unispec both proposed the same
three highly qualified key personnel and received the same significant strength ratings, rendering this
facet nondiscriminatory. Within the Technical Approach subfactor Unispec also received a strength and
Wichita received three additional significant strengths. Unispec’s strength and two of Wichita’s
significant strengths dealt with the areas of recruiting, training, managing skill mix and accommodating
fluctuating requirements. Wichita detailed a highly effective, thorough, and comprehensive approach that
addresses recruiting, selecting, and training personnel, including the tailoring of these processes to the
KISS III specific requirements; describes proven policies, procedures, and metrics that allow for Wichita
to calculate a skill mix balance that could be maintained through employee attrition or work assignment
rather than termination; proposes a synergistic approach for continuous education that combines
mentoring, cross-training, reduction of single point failures through redundancy when needed, and
creation of a monthly forum for knowledge sharing across administrative secretarial staff. These aspects
of Wichita’s proposal are of great benefit to the Government, significantly increasing the likelihood of

9


enhance confidence of highly successful contract performance and labor force stability, and will justify
the marginal additional cost for a contract of the size, complexity and duration of KISS IJ.

Based on the foregoing analysis, I select Wichita Tribal Enterprises, LLC for award of the KISS III
contract.

~ hab He

Marlo F. Krisberg
Source Selection Authority Date / Za G-/2-
NASA/ John F, Kennedy Space Center

11


e Low: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this
acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate
results; reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall
performance. Based on thé Offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of
confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the
Offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

° Very Low: The Offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable
standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in one or more areas; problems
in one or more areas which adversely affect overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s
performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the Offeror will
successfully perform the required effort.

e Neutral: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for
whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated
favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and ( iv)].

Performance assessment was rated as follows:

¢ 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.

¢ 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.

© Good: Effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable
deficiencies, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance.

¢ Fair: Meets or only slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results;
reportable deficiencies with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall
performance.

¢ Poor: 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.

e N/A: Not applicable

Relevancy considers such things as service similarity and contract dollar value for the prime and
major or critical subcontractors. The rating is based on data provided in offeror’s past
performance volume, reference questionnaires, reference interviews, and other data
independently obtained by the Panel from NASA and/or the Government agency past
performance data bases. The Panel assessed the degree of relevancy of offeror's cited prior
contracts using the ratings/guidance listed below:


Accountability Office alleging, among other things, the improper evaluation of the Past
Performance factor by the Panel.

REEVALUATION PROCESS

The evaluators examined information from three sources of data in accordance with Section
5.3.3. of the Request for Proposal (RFP) and the applicable FAR and NFS provisions: 1) the past
performance volume provided as part of each offeror’s proposal, 2) questionnaires regarding
performance on contracts identified by the offeror received from evaluators selected by the
offeror, and 3) available data from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).
Where appropriate, individuals familiar with the contracts identified by the offerors were also
contacted to verify or clarify disparate information from these three sources. Information
obtained included contract value, number of employees, scope of work, and performance ratings
for prior contracts. This information was compiled into an Excel spreadsheet where the
information could be reviewed to determine an overall confidence rating of each offeror. This
overall confidence rating consisted of two inputs: a relevancy determination (considering total
contract value, number of employees, and comparable scope of work) and a performance
assessment (based on an offeror’s reported performance on prior contracts). The rating scales for
overall confidence rating and its two component parts (relevancy, performance assessment)

follow:

An overall past performance confidence assessment was assigned by the Panel based on
consideration of all findings using the following guidance:

* Very High: The Offeor’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very
highly pertinent to this acquisition; indicating exemplary performance in a timely,
efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on
overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very high
level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

« High: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition;
demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract
requirements with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and
economical manner for the most part with only minor problems with little identifiable
effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a
high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

* Moderate: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition,
and it demonstrates effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements;
reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on
the Offeror’s pertormence record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the Offeror

will successfully perform the required effort.


© Providing clear insight to discrete management tasks and responsibilities to be performed by
each of the teaming partners relative to the SOW (MP), and

e Describes the technical challenges of the diverse skills mix and the broad-based functional
areas (TA).

The Offeror’s significant strengths are:

* Describing highly effective management strategies, policies and procedures which display a
thorough knowledge of the breadth and scope of the contract by providing a documented risk
management process including root cause analysis and preventive action processes (MP), and

* A highly qualified Program Manager with specifically relevant experience managing a
contract of the size and scope of KISS III (TA).

Past Performance

The SEP’s confidence rating of The Crewestone Team’s past performance is “High.” This confidence
rating is based upon the review of received past performance questionnaires and information in the Past
Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) which, when combined revealed an overall
performance rating of “Excellent” and a relevancy rating for previous contracts of “Medium” compared to
the scope of KISS II.

Unispec Enterprises, Inc.
Technical Capability

The SEP rated the Unispec Enterprises, Inc. proposal “Excellent,” finding one strength, and three
significant strengths. The Offeror’s strength is:

¢ Describing a highly-effective process for recruiting, selecting and training replacement and
additional personnel necessary to maintain or accommodate fluctuating requirements (TA).

The Offeror’s significant strengths are:

e A management plan containing a system for identifying, assessing and mitigating risk that
includes KSC in the process, to include the CO and COTR (MP),

¢ A quality contro] plan that incorporates NASA strategic goals and execution of a corporate
quality review panel (MP), and

e A highly qualified Program Manager with specifically relevant experience managing &
contract of the size and scope of KISS II (TA).

Past Performance

The SEP’s confidence rating of Unispec Enterprises, Inc.’s past performance is “Moderate.” This
confidence rating is based upon the review of received past performance questionnaires and information
in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) which, when combined revealed an
overall performance rating of “Excellent” and a relevancy rating for previous contracts of “Low”
compared to the scope of KISS III.


successful accomplishment of KISS III requirements. Unispec also describes effective processes for the
recruitment and selection of staff for the contract requirements, including necessary approach
differentiation in staffing to accommodate fluctuating contract requirements. However, the SEP’s
evaluation notes that Unispec’s plan is generic in nature, whereas Wichita’s has been uniquely applied to
KISS III specific contract requirements. I believe that while both approaches are likely to succeed from a
technical perspective, Wichita’s represents a qualitatively superior approach by being specifically tailored
to the KISS III scope of work from the first day of contract performance. Wichita’s superior treatment of
this facet of the Technical Approach subfactor is another discriminator in my ultimate determination that
Wichita’s proposal is most advantageous to the Government.

In the Technical Approach Subfactor J take note that both Unispec and Wichita proposed 100% capture
rates, Wichita’s proposal clearly substantiated the basis for their proposed 100% capture rate by
specifically committing to offer each incumbent no less than their current salaries and wages and a
benefits package commensurate with their current benefits. Wichita states that their commitment is based
upon incumbent employee historical data, resulting in a high degree of confidence that Wichita can
achieve their proposed 100% capture rate. While Unispec proposed a 100% capture rate, their proposal
indicated they would offer prevailing total compensation based upon market research rather than the
specific incumbents, and did not commit to assuring incumbents would be offered no less than their
current total compensation. Unispec’s proposal does not provide adequate evidence to support confidence
that they have sufficiently specific information about the current salaries, wages and benefits of the
current KISS labor force to assure their proposed 100% capture rate. Wichita’s approach and attendant
higher probability of likely success in achieving their proposed capture rate ensures complete continuity
in skills across the labor force and is another key discriminator in my ultimate determination that
Wichita’s proposal is most advantageous to the Government.

When comparing past performance between Wichita and Unispec, | first noted that while Unispec has an
excellent past performance record on their past administrative contracts, the largest contract that they
have ever managed had a total of only nine employees, resulting in a “low” relevancy rating. Wichita
earned a very good past performance rating, but, most significantly, was rated as having the highest
relevant experience, including partnering with a major subcontractor who is the very successful
incumbent for the current KISS contract. The SEP assigned an overall past performance confidence
assessment for Unispec of “moderate.” However, I disagree with this assessment and consider Unispec’s
most related contract of only nine personnel, compared to the larger (129 personnel) and very diverse (53
labor categories) KISS II contract, to be only marginally pertinent and barely meeting acceptable
standards, and deserving of only a “low” overall past performance confidence assessment. KISS II will
involve the management of a significant number of highly diverse labor categories and a workforce size
an order of magnitude more complicated and demanding than Unispec has previously managed. This
difference in relevant experience factored heavily in my ultimate determination that Wichita’s proposal is
most advantageous to the Government.

After ascertaining the risks and benefits associated with each proposal, I believe Wichita Tribal
Enterprises, LLC represents the proposal that is most advantageous to the Government. I do so
considering Wichita’s Technical Capability to be qualitatively superior; namely, Wichita’s informed
commitment to offer Total Compensation no less than each incumbent's current total compensation,
thorough and specifically tailored treatment of the areas of recruiting, training, managing skill mix and
accommodating fluctuating requirements, and confidence in Wichita’s proposed 100% Incumbent
Capture Rate I also find Wichita’s highest possible rating on relevant past performance compared to a low
rating for Unispec of particularly significant benefit. I consider the value of the superior aspects of the
Wichita proposal compared to Unispec to be more than sufficiently advantageous as to warrant the 1.5%
additional potential cost. I determine that the superior aspects of the Wichita proposal will significantly

10