Consolidated Program Support Services Program Planning & Control II (CPSS PP&C II)

(PS60 Rev. 2019-04-25) Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 1 Selection Statement for the Program Planning & Control (PP&C) II Acquisition RFP 80MSFC25R0011 On July 10, 2026, I, along with other senior officials from the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), met with the source evaluation board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the Program Planning & Control (PP&C) II acquisition. The SEB presented their findings to me for the purpose of making a source selection decision. I. PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION The PP&C II Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on June 12, 2025. The RFP requires the successful offerors to provide the planning, coordination, technical management, execution, and surveillance of the activities necessary to assure disciplined performance of work and timely application of resources for the accomplishment of all requirements specified under the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The PP&C technical scope of the PWS includes PP&C Integration; Program Analysis; Earned Value Management (EVM); Cost Estimating and Cost Analysis; Resource Data Storage and Retrieval Analysis Center; Scheduling and Scheduling Analysis; and Risk Integration and Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA); and Programmatic Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). This PWS requires the Contractor to coordinate with Contractor employees, directorates, and offices across the NASA Centers and facilities to coordinate standardization and exercise responsibility for the required activities. This effort will be performed under a single award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract utilizing cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) task orders. The contract consists of a two-year base period with three one-year option periods, to be exercised at the Government’s discretion. Two amendments were issued to the RFP to respond to industry questions and to make minor revisions to the original solicitation. The Government designated this procurement as a 100% small business set-aside under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 19.5. The procurement was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, and NASA FAR Supplement 1815, Contracting by Negotiation. On July 28, 2025, acceptable proposals were received from the following companies: Abacus Technology Corporation (Abacus) 5404 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1100 Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Aerodyne Industries, LLC (Aerodyne) -- 1 of 28 -- (PS60 Rev. 2019-04-25) Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 2 8910 Astronaut Boulevard, Suite 208 Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 ARES Technical Services Corporation (ARES) 8444 Westpark Dr, Suite 800 McLean, VA 22102 BCF Solutions, Inc. (BCF) 14325 Willard Road, Suite 107 Chantilly, VA 20151 MDW Associates (MDW) 1750 Tysons Blvd., Suite 1500 McLean, VA 22102 Reach Space Partners LLC (Reach) 215 Wynn Drive, 4th Floor Huntsville, AL 35806 Tecolote Research, Inc. (Tecolote) 420 S. Fairview Ave., Suite 201 Goleta, CA 93117-3654 II. EVALUATION PROCEDURES The proposals were evaluated in accordance with the RFP, FAR Part 15, and NFS Part 1815. The Government evaluated the proposals in two general steps: The RFP listed three evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Cost, and Past Performance. Relative to the importance of these factors, the RFP stated that Mission Suitability and Past Performance are considered essentially equal to each other. Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost. In accordance with the RFP, a best value trade-off process, as described at FAR 15.101-1, was used in making the source selection. The three evaluation factors are described as follows: Mission Suitability: The subfactors used in evaluating Mission Suitability and their corresponding weights are listed below: Management Approach 600 points Technical Approach 400 points TOTAL 1,000 points -- 2 of 28 -- (PS60 Rev. 2019-04-25) Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) CUI//SP-SSEL 3 Cost: Consistency between the Mission Suitability factor and the Cost factor volumes was considered in determining if the offeror’s proposed costs are reasonable and realistic. Additionally, failure by an offeror to provide all required Excel Pricing Model data (e.g., IDIQ labor rates for all labor categories for all years of performance, for all Centers, if multiple) would have resulted in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable (see NFS 1815.305-70(a)(3)). The offeror’s proposed cost, to include the offeror’s fully burdened IDIQ labor rates, was assessed to determine reasonableness and realism in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(A) and (B). This factor, although not numerically scored, was relevant in determining the offeror’s understanding of the requirements of the solicitation and its resource requirements. The proposed Phase-in services price performance period, established as a separate firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract line-item number (CLIN), will be performed concurrent with the incumbent contract. No probable cost adjustments were made to the proposed FFP CLIN value. The offeror’s proposed and probable costs for the contract requirements was established as the sum of (1) the Phase-in services price; (2) IDIQ value using the offeror-provided fully burdened rates applied to a pre-populated estimate of labor hours for each labor category, for each Center, for the contract period of performance, including all options and fixed fee; (3) a calculated value using the offeror-provided Other Direct Cost Indirect Rates applied to a pre-populated cost estimate for each Center, for the contract period of performance, including all options (See Attachment J-18, Excel Pricing Model, Tab A, Summary of Total Cost); (4) a calculated fixed fee value determined by multiplying the proposed fixed fee percentage to the total cost before fee; and (5) a calculated value for the six-month option …