015-JOFOC AU.pdf

DCN: 20-19

Source Selection Information

FAR 2.101 & 3.104

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER (MSFC)

JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION (JOFOC)

For The Space Launch System (SLS) Secondary Payloads Avionics Unit (AU)

1. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.303-2(b)(1) – Identification of the agency and the contracting activity, and specific identification of the document as a “Justification for other than full and open competition:”

This document is a justification for other than full and open competition prepared by the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.

2. FAR 6.303-2(b)(2) – The nature and/or description of the action being approved:

The NASA Exploration Systems Development (ESD) Office establishes mission requirements for each Artemis mission. For Artemis II, ESD established secondary payload objectives as part of the required configuration of the SLS Artemis II mission.

The secondary payload AU deploys payloads at different intervals that align to their individual mission objectives; the AU contains a sequencer that stores and executes multiple deployment scenarios.

For the SLS Block 1 configuration the secondary payloads, AU and the payloads respective separation systems are contained in the Orion Stage Adapter (OSA). The OSA sits on top of the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS), or the second stage of the SLS Block 1 configuration, and connects to the Orion Spacecraft Adapter. Release of the secondary payloads occurs after the Orion spacecraft is a safe distance away following separation of the OSA from the Orion Spacecraft Adapter.

The Space Vector Corporation was selected on a full and open competition procurement to design, test, and manufacture the Artemis I secondary payload AU. At the time, the ESD manifest included only one SLS Block 1 configuration flight, Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1), now known as Artemis I. A single AU was procured for Artemis I since this was to be the only mission of this type. Since then, ESD has updated the manifest, and the Artemis II flight will now utilize a SLS in the Block 1 configuration, creating a need for an additional unit. The overall mission objectives and trajectory will be similar with the exception of the inclusion of crew. This justification provides rationale for contracting by other than full and open competition for additional AU(s) to support ESD mission requirements. Based on actual costs for the previous unit and cost estimates for additional unit(s), it is estimated that the cost of procuring additional unit(s) of the current design will be $300,000, including sustaining engineering support through launch and any required post flight analysis. The estimated period of performance will be from ATP through December 31, 2024.

FAR 2.101 & 3.104

3. FAR 6.303-2(b)(3) – A description of the supplies or services required, to meet the Agency’s needs (including the estimated value):

The existing design for the Artemis I AU meets the requirements for Artemis II with no additional development, test, or qualification activities needed.

4. FAR 6.303-2(b)(4) – An identification of the statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition:

This recommendation for approval is made pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302-1, which implements the authority for U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), for the acquisition of supplies and services from only one responsible source and no other type of supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

5. FAR 6.303-2(b)(5) – A demonstration that the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited:

The secondary payloads AU designed and built by Space Vector for Artemis I addresses the unique needs of that mission, and has exceeded the Governments expectations.

During the qualification and verification activities, the AU met all its requirements and some of the qualification unit test results surpassed the requirements. Space Vector also added features to aid in mission success of deploying secondary payloads. Space Vector used proprietary designs in the development of the AU that have been validated and proven on their other projects. In addition, selection of a different vendor would necessitate a new Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDT&E) effort, thereby substantially increasing costs.

6. FAR 6.303-2(b)(6) – A description of the efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by Subpart 5.2 and, if not, which exception under 5.202 applies:

The Secondary Payloads AU Development Sources Sought Request for Information (RFI) was posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website on May 6, 2019.

7. FAR 6.303-2(b)(7) – A determination by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable:

A price analysis will be performed as described in FAR 15.404-1. The Space Vector Corporation will submit a proposal that will be evaluated and negotiated by the Government. All sources such as the Contracting Officer, cost and price analysts, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, and Government technical representatives will be utilized in the determination of a fair and reasonable cost. In addition, data compiled from the current AU contract and historical data established under the Space Vector Corporation contract will be used for comparison, when applicable.

FAR 2.101 & 3.104

8. FAR 6.303-2(b)(8) – Description of the market research conducted, and the results, or a statement of the reasons market research was not conducted:

For this acquisition, the Government choose to utilize the approach outlined in FAR 10.002(b) (2) (iii), “Publishing formal requests for information in appropriate technical or scientific journals or business publications.” The request for information was posted in the GPE, FBO, on May 6, 2019. This approach was chosen because it is an effective and cost efficient way to present the requirement to industry. Under FAR 5.102(2)(a)(2) “The contracting officer is encouraged, when practicable and cost-effective, to make accessible through the GPE additional information related to a solicitation.”

The Government received two responses to the Sources Sought RFI. A review of the two responses indicated that to procure, develop, and test an AU from a vendor other than Space Vector to meet the same or similar requirements to Artemis I would significantly increase cost and introduce additional risks because a new system would have to be designed and qualified.

9. FAR 6.303-2(b)(9) – Any other facts supporting the use of other than full and open competition:

Space Vector Corporation designed, tested, and manufactured the current unit that will be launched on the first flight of the Space Launch System (Artemis I mission). The performance to date of the AU that the Space Vector Corporation manufactured has met and exceeded current contract requirements. In addition, there would be a cost savings for not having to design a new unit, qualify/test the new unit, and procure a backup AU if a different design/vendor were selected.

10. FAR 6.303-2(b)(10) – A listing of the sources, if any, that expressed an interest in writing in the acquisition:

As stated in items 6 & 8, a Sources Sought RFI was posted to the GPE on May 6, 2019.

This notice requested potential sources to express their interest in the secondary payloads AU requirements. Written responses were received from Space Vector and Dynetics.

11. FAR 6.303-2(b)(11) – A statement of actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services required:

If deployment of secondary payloads is an identified mission priority for missions post Artemis II and those missions require unique capabilities that necessitate additional development, the Government will assess the ability of the marketplace to provide a redesigned unit that addresses the unique requirements of those future missions.

FAR 2.101 & 3.104

I hereby certify the facts in this justification and any supporting data used for this justification are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge.

Stephen Creech Spacecraft Payload, Integration, and Evolution Office Program Manager

Casey Hardy Senior Contracting Officer

I hereby certify that the above justification is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. In addition, I hereby determine that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.

Michael Eagan PS44 Office Chief

Approved:

Kellie Craig PS 40 Office Manager