SSPEDI_SpS_Source_Selection_Statement_FINAL_signed.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION (SSI) – See FAR 3.104

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ames Research Center

Moffett Field, CA 94035-0001

Selection of Contractors for

Small Spacecraft Prototyping Engineering Development and Integration - Space Solutions

(SSPEDI SpS)

80ARC018R0007

September 7, 2018

On June 25, 2018, I, along with certain National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Ex-Officio members, met with the SEB members appointed to evaluate proposals for the multiple award Small Spacecraft Prototyping Engineering

Development and Integration - Space Solutions (“SSPEDI SpS” or “SpS”) procurement at

NASA Ames Research Center (ARC). During this meeting, the SEB presented its evaluation findings to me, the Source Selection Authority (SSA), and we discussed those findings to assure that I had a full understanding of its evaluation. At the end of the meeting, I directed the SEB to perform an additional search for potentially relevant past performance information meeting the criteria in the Request for Proposal (RFP), and to evaluate such information if the SEB determined it to be relevant. I gave the SEB this direction because I was aware of a NASA contract that I thought might be relevant. On July 16, 2018, I, along with certain NASA Source

Evaluation Board (SEB) Ex-Officio members, met again with the SEB. The SEB presented its revised evaluation findings pertaining specifically to past performance, and we discussed those findings to assure that I had a full understanding of its evaluation.

I assessed the SEB's findings and evaluation of proposals. This Source Selection Statement reflects my independent judgment, which I based upon a comparative assessment of the findings for each proposal and the evaluation criteria prescribed in the RFP. My selection for award of the basic Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) SpS contracts, Task Order 1 – Tactical

Persistence Study, and Task Order 2 – ORS-8 Space Segment is set forth below.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The SSPEDI SpS IDIQ contract will provide specific elements of work, defined in distinct task orders, in support of the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) Operationally Responsive Space

Office (ORS) (now re-named the Space Rapid Capabilities Office (SpRCO)). Requirements include management and execution of projects for the development of spacecraft, payloads, buses, spacecraft subsystems, software, components, and ground systems. SpS also includes support for the deployment of spacecraft and ancillary systems and project operations based on the technical requirements, schedule, and costs defined in each distinct task order. On November

3, 2017, NASA ARC issued a competitive solicitation for this requirement. The resulting contract will be a multiple award IDIQ contract with Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), Cost Plus

Incentive Fee (CPIF), and Firm Fixed Price (FFP) task orders, with a five-year ordering period.

The minimum amount that may be ordered during the effective period of each contract is

$100,000, and the maximum amount for each contract is $750,000,000. Each task order will include its own period of performance. Unless an exception applies, the SpS contractors will be given a fair opportunity to compete for SpS requirements, which will be awarded as distinct task orders.

EVALUATION PROCEDURE

Proposals were evaluated in accordance with the requirements of Federal Acquisition

Regulations (FAR) Subpart 15.3, "Source Selection," as supplemented by NASA FAR

Supplement (NFS) Subpart 1815.3, "Source Selection."

Section M of the solicitation, Evaluation Factors for Award, provision M.1(a)(2)&(3), Evaluation Approach, and FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors, advised Offerors that the

Government may award a contract based solely on initial offers received, without discussion of such offers. Accordingly, each Offeror was required to submit its initial proposal to the

Government using the most favorable terms from a cost and technical standpoint. However, the

Government reserved the right to hold discussions if award on the basis of initial offers was determined not to be in the best interest of the Government.

The RFP identified three evaluation Factors and their relative importance: Mission Suitability is moderately more important than Past Performance, and Past Performance is moderately more important than Cost/Price. Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

The Mission Suitability Factor consists of three sub-factors and various elements. The sub-factors and elements are shown below with their respective point allocation, which signifies their weight.

VOL. I, MISSION SUITABILITY SUB-FACTORS

Sub-Factor Title Elements Assigned

Weight

A. Management Approach

(1) Basic Statement of Work (SOW) Management Structure and

Authorities

Management of Task Orders

Management of Classified

Work

(2) Task Order 2 – ORS-8 Space Segment Management and Business

Approach

B. Technical Understanding /Approach

(1) Basic SOW Technical Technical Approach 100

(2) Task Order 1 – Tactical Persistence

Study

Technical Approach 50

(3) Task Order 2 – ORS-8 Space Segment Technical Approach 500

C. Small Business Utilization Small Business

Subcontracting

Commitment to the Small

Business Program

TOTAL 1000

The Mission Suitability proposals were evaluated based on the Offeror's ability to fulfill the contract management and technical requirements while meeting quality and schedule requirements. The RFP stipulated that the overall Mission Suitability Factor would only receive a numerical score, and the Mission Suitability sub-factors and elements would be assigned adjectival ratings and be numerically weighted and scored. In accordance with NFS

1815.305(a)(3), "Technical Evaluation," the following were the potential Mission Suitability adjectival ratings: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor. In Section M, paragraph M.1, Evaluation Approach, the RFP defined these adjectival ratings as well as provided applicable percentile ranges at each rating level.

With regard to the Past Performance Factor, the RFP stated that the evaluation would be an assessment of the Government's confidence in the Offeror's ability to perform the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation was conducted in accordance with

FAR 15.305(a)(2), NFS 1815.305(a)(2), and based on the following information: (1) an assessment of the information provided by the Offeror in its Volume II Past Performance, (2) an assessment of customer questionnaires submitted on behalf of each Offeror and of its major subcontractors, and (3) an assessment of information retrieved from the Government’s Past

Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) on the prime and major subcontractors. The

SEB evaluated the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in performance of the Offeror and Major Subcontractors, predecessor companies, subcontractors or an organization that will substantially contribute to the proposed contract, or have the potential to significantly impact performance of the proposed contract.

The SEB reviewed the Offeror's past and current relevant past performance and assessed the quality of the contract management and technical performance under those contracts. Past

Performance was evaluated for each offeror using the following levels of confidence ratings:

Very High Level of Confidence; High Level of Confidence; Moderate Level of Confidence; Low

Level of Confidence; Very Low Level of Confidence; and Neutral/ Unknown Level of

Confidence. In Section M, paragraph M.1, Evaluation Approach, the RFP defined these levels of confidence ratings. The SEB evaluated each Offeror's suitability to fulfill the requirements of this contract, as prescribed in Section M of the RFP.

For the Cost Factor, the SEB assessed what each Offeror's proposal would cost the Government should it be selected for award. In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.305(a)(1) and NFS

1815.305(a)(1)(B), the SEB and the Contract Price/Cost Analysts reviewed each Offeror's proposal for the Cost Factor. The overall evaluated cost for selection purposes was determined by the sum of the Firm-Fixed-Price proposed for Task Order 1– Tactical Persistence Study

(Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) 001) and the Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee proposed for Task Order

2– ORS-8 Space Segment (CLIN 001 - CLIN 004). The Contract Price/Cost Analysts also performed a cost realism analysis and probable cost assessment of the CPFF CLINs, as defined by FAR 2.101(b) and FAR 15.404-1(d), respectively. The SEB met with the Contract Price/Cost

Analysts to review the analysis and assessment performed, and concurred with the findings.

SOLICITATION AND RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS

In an effort to better inform industry of the Government's requirements and to improve communications between all parties, NASA and ORS (SpRCO) held a pre-solicitation conference, including one-on-one sessions, to allow interested parties to ask questions of the technical and procurement staff. ARC also issued a draft RFP that allowed for industry recommendations and comments on all aspects of the Government's proposed approach in satisfying the requirements.

Participants were encouraged to ask questions about the SSPEDI SpS requirements and the procurement process. The recommendations and comments received in response to these communications with industry were carefully evaluated and incorporated in the final RFP, as appropriate. A Government response to each recommendation or comment was prepared and was made available electronically to the public.

All documents pertinent to the acquisition were posted electronically on Federal Business

Opportunities portal (https://www.fbo.gov).

The draft RFP containing drafts of the ORS-8 Space Segment Statement of Work, ORS-8 Space

Segment Technical Requirements Doc., ORS-8 Space Segment Technical Requirements

Document, Space Solutions Technical Document Library (list only), and ORS-8 Program

Capability Requirements Document was released on September 29, 2017.

The final RFP was released on November 3, 2017.

On December 1, 2017, Amendment One (1) to the RFP was posted and amended the following:

(1) revised Model Task Order 1 - Tactical Persistence Study, (2) revised Task Order 2 - ORS-8

Space Segment, (3) revised ORS-8 Space Segment GFP List, and (4) revised the Technical

Documents Library with additional documents.

On December 4, 2017, Amendment Two (2) was posted and amended the following: (1) revised

Task Order 1 - Tactical Persistence Study Statement of Work, and (2) revised Task Order 2 -

ORS-8 Space Segment Statement of Work.

On December 20, 2017, Amendment Three (3) was posted and amended the following: (1) revised

Model Task Order 2 - ORS-8 Space Segment, (2) revised the ORS-8 Space Segment Statement of

Work, and (3) extended the due date for submission of proposals.

Proposals in response to the RFP were due on January 16, 2018. Seven proposals were received in response to the RFP by the specified closing time and date. The Offeror’s names and addresses (listed alphabetically) are as follows:

General Atomics

3550 General Atomics Ct.

San Diego, CA 92121

Lockheed Martin Corporation

1111 Lockheed Martin Way

Sunnyvale, CA 94089

Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation

One Space Park

Redondo Beach, CA 90278-1001

Orbital ATK

45101 Warp Drive

Dulles, VA 20166

Sierra Nevada Corporation

444 Salomon Circle

Sparks, NV 89434

Southwest Research Institute

6220 Culebra Road

San Antonio, TX 78238

Space Systems/Loral, LLC

3825 Fabian Way

Palo Alto, CA 94303

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 of the solicitation and FAR Parts 15.101 and 15.306. An electronic copy of each proposal for the seven Offerors was issued to each of the voting members of the SEB and the

Cost Analysts. Mission Suitability proposals were issued to certain Ex-Officio Members.

A proposal from one Offeror was received after the submission deadline of 3:00 PM Pacific

Time (PT) on January 16, 2018. The Contracting Officer (CO) informed the Offeror that its proposal was late and would not be evaluated. The proposal has been held, unopened, in the

SEB room pending award, whereupon it will be retained (still unopened) with other unsuccessful proposals in accordance with FAR 52.208(g).

In addition, on June 14, 2018, Northrop Grumman withdrew its proposal from consideration for award, following its acquisition of Orbital ATK. This was done to comply with the solicitation, which allowed consideration of only one proposal from each offeror. Orbital ATK’s proposal remained in consideration with the understanding that, if selected, award will be made to Orbital

ATK and novated to Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, Inc after contract award.

EVALUATION PROCESS

All voting SEB members read each volume of the proposals. The SEB members then individually identified findings (Significant Strengths, Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant

Weaknesses, and Deficiencies, if applicable) for each Mission Suitability factor, sub-factor, and element. The SEB members then met as a group to review all individual findings and reach consensus on overall Strengths and Weaknesses for each Offeror.

The SEB established the appropriate adjectival rating and numerical scores in accordance with the RFP. The SEB reached consensus on the assignment of adjectival ratings for each of the

Mission Suitability sub-factors using the definitions in the RFP. Once the adjectival rating was decided, the SEB reached consensus regarding the percentage score for each sub-factor and then multiplied that percentage score by the weighting of each sub-factor to determine its numerical score. Finally, the SEB added the numerical scores for each Mission Suitability sub-factor to assign an overall numerical score to Mission Suitability.

In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A), the SEB members individually evaluated the Past Performance factor, based on the past performance proposals, past performance questionnaires, information obtained from the Past Performance Information

Retrieval System (PPIRS), and information obtained from other sources. The SEB members then met as a group to reach consensus and assign a level of confidence rating on overall Past

Performance for each Offeror. The SEB’s evaluation documented each Offeror's relevant past performance.

The SEB and the Cost Analysts reviewed each Offeror’s proposal for the Cost/Price factor. The

Cost Analysts, in coordination with the SEB, also performed a cost realism analysis and probable cost assessment in accordance with FAR 15.4. The SEB met with the Cost Analysts to review the analysis and assessment and concurred with the findings.

The SEB briefed me on its initial findings on June 25, 2018 and, with regard to past performance, again on July 16, 2018. I reviewed the SEB's findings for Mission Suitability and the resultant adjectival ratings and numerical scores. I reviewed the findings and Level of

Confidence ratings for Past Performance. I reviewed the Cost evaluation results, including the proposed and probable costs and the reasons for probable cost adjustments. I fully considered all of this information prior to making my final selection decision.

After a review of the findings and proposals, I determined that award solely based on the initial offers was in the Government’s best interest. Because Lockheed Martin took exception to material terms and conditions of the solicitation, the Contracting Officer determined, and I concurred, that I could not select Lockheed Martin for award of a contract based on initial offers.

Therefore, while I reviewed the evaluation for Lockheed Martin, that evaluation did not ultimately play a role in my award determination. As a result, the Lockheed Martin evaluation is not discussed herein.

EVALUATION FINDINGS OF THE SEB

Mission Suitability Factor

The following describes the Mission Suitability findings for each of the Offerors.

General Atomics

General Atomics’ Mission Suitability score is 367 out of a possible 1000 points.

Management Approach sub-factor

General Atomics received adjectival ratings of Fair for its Management Approach to the Basic

SOW and Task Order 2. Two (2) Weaknesses for the Basic SOW and two (2) Weaknesses for

Task Order 2 were identified.

The Management Approach to the Basic SOW Weaknesses are as follows:

1) The Offeror’s proposed management approach and organizational connections do not present a clear and comprehensive description of how the Offeror intends to support the requirements of the Basic SOW. In addition, the Offeror’s proposal does not provide sufficient detail about the facilities, equipment, and staff resources it expects to use to support the Basic SOW requirements. The Offeror’s proposal lacks sufficient detail to allow the Government to determine if the approach will be effective in meeting the requirements of the Basic SOW and increases the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

2) The Offeror does not describe its processes to provide staff at the various levels of clearance up to TS/SCI. The Offeror’s proposal lacks sufficient detail to allow the

Government to determine if the approach will be effective in meeting the requirements of the Basic SOW and increases the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

The Management Approach to Task Order 2 Weaknesses are as follows:

1) The Offeror’s proposed approach to the technical management of Task Order 2 and the proposed facilities and equipment to support the requirements do not provide sufficient detail to determine that the approach is comprehensive and effective and lacks sufficient detail to allow the Government to determine if the approach would be effective in meeting the requirements of the ORS-8 Task Order, which increases the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

2) The Offeror’s proposed subcontracting and cooperative business arrangements in support of the ORS-8 Space Segment task do not include a description of any contracts or business arrangements with ground station providers to support data downlink of the weather data (WxD), as required in the RFP. This lack of information increases the risk that the Offeror’s agreements to support data downlink may not represent an acceptable approach to supporting the ORS-8 mission and increases the potential for unsuccessful performance on the ORS-8 Task Order.

Technical Approach sub-factor

General Atomics received adjectival ratings of Fair for its Technical Approach to the Basic

SOW, Task Order 1, and Task Order 2. Two (2) Weaknesses under the Basic SOW, one (1)

Weakness under Task Order 1, three (3) Weaknesses and one (1) Significant Weakness under

Task Order 2 are identified.

The Technical Approach to the Basic SOW Weaknesses are as follows:

1) The Offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the deployment and flight support requirements of the Basic SOW (Section 3.9) does not address most of the activities defined in the Basic SOW 3.9 requirements. The Offeror’s response does not provide a comprehensive approach to meeting the deployment and flight support requirements.

Thus, the Government cannot assess the effectiveness of the Offeror’s approach, which increases the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

2) The Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the risk management requirements under the Basic SOW does not fully address key aspects of those requirements. The Offeror’s response does not represent a comprehensive approach to managing risks; thus the

Government is not able to assess the effectiveness of the approach, which increases the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

The Technical Approach to Task Order 1 Weakness is as follows:

1) The Offeror’s response to the Tactical Persistence Study does not provide a clear description of the approach to meeting the requirements of the task. The proposed approach includes a high-level description of process steps, but does not provide sufficient details for the Government to assess the effectiveness of those steps. The proposed study process does not represent a comprehensive or effective approach to achieving the requirements of the study task, and increases the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

The Technical Approach to Task Order 2 Weaknesses are as follows:

1) The Offeror’s proposed Project Work Breakdown Structure (PWBS) and Integrated

Master Schedule (IMS) for the ORS-8 Space Segment do not include specific details, as required in the RFP. These details are intended to provide the Government with information that is valuable to its evaluation of the Offeror’s understanding of the task requirements. This lack of required details in the PWBS and IMS and missing IMS elements prevent the Government from fully evaluating the effectiveness of the Offeror’s ability to manage and execute the work necessary to accomplish the requirements of the

ORS-8 Task Order, and increases the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

2) The Offeror’s proposed technical approach does not adequately demonstrate the thorough understanding of the requirements of the ORS-8 Space Segment. In particular, the proposed approaches to supporting the Systems Engineering and Analysis (SE&A) and

Project Review requirements of the ORS-8 Statement of Work (SOW) lack sufficient details to enable the Government to fully assess the Offeror’s thorough understanding of, and the interrelationships between those requirements. Since the Offeror’s response does not provide sufficient information to adequately demonstrate a thorough understanding of the ORS-8 requirements, there is an increased potential that the Offeror would not successfully achieve the requirements of the contract.

3) The Offeror’s description of its proposed ORS-8 space segment solution lacks sufficient detail to demonstrate a thorough assessment of the Technical Readiness Level (TRL) of the integrated spacecraft bus. In particular, the Offeror does not describe the approach to achieving TRL 5 for the space vehicle (SV) bus upon reaching the Critical Design Review

(CDR). The lack of a thorough assessment of the TRL for the integrated ORS-8 bus increases the likelihood that the Offeror would not achieve the required TRL during the design phase and, thus, increases the risk of unsuccessful performance of the ORS-8 Task

Order.

The Technical Approach to Task Order 2 Significant Weakness is as follows:

1) The Offeror’s proposed technical approach, for the development and testing of the primary payload, requires the use of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) already in use under another Government contract on a non-interference basis, which introduces a potentially significant risk. The impacts to the cost and schedule of the risk that the GFE will not be available when required are not adequately addressed in the Offeror’s proposal. Because the Offeror does not provide a comprehensive mitigation strategy to address the risk that the GFE will be unavailable when required by the Offeror, which the Offeror’s proposal states will result in cost consequences and other challenges, there is an increased risk that the primary payload will not be delivered within the proposed cost and schedule, which increases the potential that the Offeror will not successfully accomplish the requirements of the ORS-8 Task Order.

Small Business sub-factor

General Atomics received an adjectival rating of Fair. Two Weaknesses are identified and are as follows:

1) The Offeror’s commitment to the Government’s small business subcontracting program as described in its subcontracting plan does not adequately address the extent to which the Offeror will utilize small business subcontracting in support the requirements of the contract. The Offeror’s proposal does not demonstrate a comprehensive approach to its commitment to small business subcontracting, which increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance in meeting the proposed subcontracting goals.

2) The Offeror’s proposed Small Business subcontracting plan does not meet the overall small business subcontracting goal nor any of the five subcategory goals defined in the solicitation. The Offeror’s proposal increases the likelihood that the Offeror would be unable to meet the Government’s overall small business subcontracting goal or any of the goals for the five subcategories of small businesses.

General Atomics received no Significant Strengths, Strengths or Deficiencies within the Mission

Suitability Factor.

Orbital ATK

Orbital ATK’s Mission Suitability score is 493 out of a possible 1000 points.

Management Approach sub-factor

Orbital ATK received adjectival ratings of Good for its Management Approach for the Basic

SOW and Task Order 2. Two (2) Strengths for the Basic SOW, and one (1) Strength and two (2)

Weaknesses under Task Order 2 are identified.

The Management Approach to the Basic SOW Strengths are as follows:

1) The Offeror proposes to use its own facilities to support all aspects of the satellite integration and testing requirements of the Basic SOW. Additionally, the Offeror’s comprehensive in-house integration and testing capabilities are available at more than one location. This approach represents a very effective and efficient solution that will allow the contractor to maintain direct control over satellite integration and testing using its redundant facilities to minimize schedule impacts and increases the potential for successful contract performance.

2) The Offeror proposes a very comprehensive and effective approach to manage classified work, provide staff with the appropriate clearances, and offer existing facilities to execute classified projects. These proposed systems, facilities, and staff represent a very effective and comprehensive approach to supporting classified work immediately after the start of the contract, which increases the potential for successful performance of classified task orders.

The Management Approach to Task Order 2 Strength is as follows:

1) The Offeror proposed a very detailed and comprehensive approach to providing the facilities and equipment to achieve the requirements of the ORS-8 Task Order. The approach represents a very effective, efficient, and comprehensive approach to supporting the requirements of ORS-8, which increases the potential for successful performance of the Task Order.

1) The Offeror’s proposed subcontracting and cooperative business arrangements in support of the ORS-8 Space Segment task do not include a description of any contracts or agreements with ground station providers to support data downlink of the weather data

(WxD), as required in the RFP. This lack of information increases the risk that the

Offeror’s agreements to support data downlink may not represent an acceptable approach to supporting the ORS-8 mission and increases the potential for unsuccessful performance on the ORS-8 Task Order.

2) The Offeror’s proposed management approach for the ORS-8 Task Order contains an underlying risk to meeting various aspects the requirement due to the uncertainty resulting from the Offeror’s acquisition by Northrop Grumman. The uncertainty of the availability of the proposed resources and the potential risk to cost and schedule due to the acquisition of the Offeror increases the potential for unsuccessful performance on the

ORS-8 Task Order.

Orbital ATK received adjectival ratings of Good for its Technical Approach to the Basic SOW and Task Order 1, and an adjectival rating of Fair for Task Order 2. One (1) Strength under the

Basic SOW, and one (1) Strength and two (2) Significant Weaknesses under Task Order 2 are identified.

The Technical Approach to the Basic SOW Strength is as follows:

1) The Offeror proposes a very comprehensive set of capabilities and activities to execute the space vehicle fabrication and deployment requirements of the SSPEDI SpS Basic

SOW. The proposed production capabilities and deployment activities represent a very effective approach to supporting the requirements of the contract and increase the potential for successful contract performance.

The Technical Approach to Task Order 2 Strength is as follows:

1) The Offeror proposes a very detailed assessment of the ORS-8 task order requirements, sequence of flow of work activities, and activities to provide launch support and mission operations. The Offeror’s proposed technical approach demonstrates a deep understanding of most of the technical requirements and support activities necessary to successfully execute the ORS-8 Task Order.

The Technical Approach to Task Order 2 Significant Weaknesses are as follows:

1) The Offeror’s proposed technical approach, for the development and testing of the primary payload, requires the use of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) already in use under another Government contract on a non-interference basis, which introduces a potentially significant risk. The impacts to the cost and schedule of the risk that the GFE will not be available when required are not adequately addressed in the Offeror’s proposal. Because the Offeror does not provide a comprehensive mitigation strategy to address the risk that the GFE will be unavailable when required by the Offeror, which the

Offeror’s proposal states will result in cost consequences and other challenges, there is an increased risk that the primary payload will not be delivered within the proposed cost and schedule, which increases the potential that the Offeror will not successfully accomplish the requirements of the ORS-8 Task Order.

2) The Offeror’s proposed Task Order 2, ORS-8 Space Segment solution description does not provide sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate that it meets the Mission Data

Resolution (MDR) requirement of less than or equal to 2.7 km at any point in the scan, as required in the ORS-8 Space Segment Statement of Work (SOW). Based on the

Offeror’s proposed technical approach and its discussion of the Horizontal Cell Size

(HCS) requirement, the Government is not satisfied that the space segment solution will meet the MDR Critical Performance Parameter requirement. In addition, the Offeror’s explanation of the payload’s HCS does not demonstrate that the Offeror fully understands the MDR requirement. The Offeror’s approach appreciably increases the potential that the ORS-8 Space Segment solution would not meet the critical MDR requirement and, therefore, increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance on Task Order 2.

Orbital ATK received an adjectival rating of Good. No Significant Strengths, Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies are identified.

Orbital ATK received no Significant Strengths or Deficiencies within the Mission Suitability

Factor.

Sierra Nevada’s Mission Suitability score is 632 out of a possible 1000 points.

Management Approach sub-factor

Sierra Nevada received adjectival ratings of Good for its Management Approach to the Basic

SOW and Task Order 2. One (1) Weakness under the Basic SOW and one (1) Weakness under

Task Order 2 are identified.

The Management Approach to the Basic SOW Weakness is as follows:

1) The Offeror’s proposed management approach does not provide a comprehensive response regarding the organizational connections and the establishment of subcontracts to support the requirements of the Basic SOW. The Offeror’s proposal lacks sufficient detail to allow the Government to determine if the approach will be effective in meeting the requirements of the Basic SOW and increases the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

The Management Approach to Task Order 2 Weakness is as follows:

of the ORS-8 Space Segment task do not include a description of any contracts or business arrangements with ground station providers to support data downlink of the weather data (WxD), as required in the RFP. This lack of information increases the risk that the Offeror’s agreements to support data downlink may not represent an acceptable approach to supporting the ORS-8 mission and increases the potential for unsuccessful performance on the ORS-8 Task Order.

Sierra Nevada received adjectival ratings of Good for its Technical Approach to the Basic SOW, Task Order 1, and Task Order 2. One (1) Strength under Task Order 1, and four (4) Strengths under Task Order 2 are identified.

The Technical Approach to Task Order 1 Strength is as follows:

1) The Offeror proposes a very detailed approach to conducting the Tactical Persistence

Study that includes set of sound study tasks, a notional operational concept, and the potential to conduct an internal research and development (IRAD) proof-of-concept demonstration. The proposed set of tasks and solution architecture elements represents a very effective approach to conducting the Tactical Persistence Study and increases the potential for successful contract performance.

The Technical Approach to Task Order 2 Strengths are as follows:

1) The Offeror proposes a very thorough Project Work Breakdown Structure (PWBS) and

Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that clearly shows the connections between the

Offeror’s approach and the requirements of the ORS-8 Statement of Work (SOW).

Together, the proposed PWBS and IMS demonstrate a very comprehensive understanding of the ORS-8 Task Order requirements, which increases the potential for successful execution of the Task Order.

2) The Offeror’s discussion of the technical design for ORS-8 demonstrates a very thorough understanding of the requirements of the task, particularly as they relate to space vehicle component integration of the bus and payload. Furthermore, the Offeror demonstrated superior understanding in the areas of spacecraft thermal design and mass considerations, as well as ground data downlink tradeoffs. The Offeror’s proposed technical approach demonstrates a very thorough understanding of all of the technical requirements and support activities, which increases the likelihood that it would successfully execute the

ORS-8 Task Order.

3) The Offeror’s proposed SV solution meets or exceeds the Government Critical

Performance Parameter (CPP) targets. In particular, the proposed solution exceeds the higher-level target values from the top priority CPPs and would provide higher-quality products and greater accuracy and predictive capability to the government end users. The

Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a very thorough and effective understanding of the CPPs that would have some positive impact on the successful performance of the Task Order.

4) The Offeror’s description of its risks and proposed mitigation strategies demonstrates a very thorough understanding of the risks associated with its proposed approach to Task

Order 2 as well as a very effective plan to mitigate the impacts of the risks on contract performance, which increases the likelihood that the Offeror would successfully accomplish the requirements of the ORS-8 Task Order.

Sierra Nevada received an adjectival rating of Good. One (1) Strength and one (1) Weakness are identified.

The Small Business Strength is as follows:

1) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a strong commitment to the small business program that is very comprehensive and thorough and effectively describes the extent to which the

Offeror will utilize small business subcontracting in support the requirements of the contract. The Offeror’s proposal increases the likelihood that the Offeror would be able to meet the Offeror’s proposed small business subcontracting goals.

The Small Business Weakness is as follows:

1) The Offeror proposes to exceed the Government’s overall small business subcontracting goal for Task Order 1 and Task Order 2, but does not propose to meet the overall small business subcontracting goal or any of the five subcategory goals as a function of the maximum IDIQ value required in the solicitation. The Offeror’s proposal reduces the likelihood that the Offeror would be able to meet the Government’s overall small business subcontracting goal or any of the goals for the five subcategories of small businesses.

Sierra Nevada received no Significant Strengths, Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies within the Mission Suitability Factor.

Southwest Research Institute

Southwest Research Institute’s Mission Suitability score is 357 out of a possible 1000 points.

Management Approach sub-factor

Southwest Research Institute received adjectival ratings of Fair for its Management Approach to the Basic SOW and Task Order 2. One (1) Weakness for the Basic SOW and two (2)

Weaknesses under Task Order 2 are identified.

The Management Approach to the Basic SOW Weakness is as follows:

1) The Offeror’s proposed management approach does not adequately describe the organizational structure, the approach to establishing subcontracts, or the services and other resources in enough detail to clearly demonstrate that it will be effective in executing the requirements of the Basic SOW. The Offeror’s proposal lacks sufficient detail to allow the Government to determine if the approach would be effective in meeting the requirements of the Basic SOW and increases the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

1) The Offeror proposes to procure the ORS-8 spacecraft bus through a subcontract to a particular entity which introduces a number of risks. The proposed subcontracting approach for the acquisition of the spacecraft bus increases the likelihood for negative schedule and cost impacts, which increases the potential for unsuccessful Task Order performance.

2) The Offeror’s proposed subcontracting and cooperative business arrangements in support of the ORS-8 task do not include a description of any contracts or business arrangements with ground station providers to support data downlink of the weather data (WxD) or the rationale for putting future such agreements in place, as required in the RFP. This lack of information increases the risk that the Offeror’s agreements to support data downlink may not represent the best approach to supporting the ORS-8 mission and increases the potential for unsuccessful performance on the ORS-8 Task Order.

Southwest Research Institute received adjectival ratings of Good for its Technical Approach to the Basic SOW and Task Order 1, and an adjectival rating of Poor for Task Order 2. One (1)

Strength under Task Order 1, and two (2) Weaknesses and two (2) Significant Weakness under

Task Order 2 are identified.

The Technical Approach to Task Order 1 Strength is as follows:

1) The Offeror proposes a very detailed, phased approach to conducting the Tactical

Persistence Study task that incorporates requirements derivation and flow down, comprehensive design trades analysis using scenario modeling, and architecture evaluation. The Offeror’s response to the study task demonstrates very comprehensive and effective approach to achieving the requirements of the task, and increases the potential that the Government will receive a high quality product.

The Technical Approach to Task Order 2 Weaknesses are as follows:

1) The Offeror’s proposed PWBS and IMS does not fully address all of the elements required in the solicitation. These details are intended to provide the Government with information that is valuable to its evaluation of the Offeror’s understanding of the task requirements. The Offeror’s proposed PWS and IMS lack the detail necessary to demonstrate that the Offeror’s plan to organize and execute the activities associated with the task is comprehensive, effective and reasonable, and increases the potential that the

Offeror will not successfully accomplish the requirements of the ORS-8 task order.

2) The Offeror’s proposed bus is still under development; the prototype units have not yet flown; and the Offeror states that the bus will require modifications in order to adapt it to the ORS-8 requirements. The Offeror identifies risks related to using the proposed bus in its approach for ORS-8 yet does not adequately address a mitigation plan for use of an alternate bus. The Offeror’s technical approach relies on a low maturity bus system and does not adequately address a mitigation plan for the associated risks; therefore, the

Offeror does not demonstrate a thorough understanding of the technical requirements of the task and the interrelationships between them which increases the potential that the

Offeror will not successfully accomplish the requirements of the ORS-8 Task Order.

primary payload, requires the use of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) already in use under another Government contract on a non-interference basis, which introduces a potentially significant risk. The impacts to the cost and schedule of the risk that the GFE will not be available when required are not adequately addressed in the Offeror’s proposal. Because the Offeror does not provide a comprehensive mitigation strategy to address the risk that the GFE will be unavailable when required by the Offeror, which the

Offeror’s proposal states will result in cost consequences and other challenges, there is an increased risk that the primary payload will not be delivered within the proposed cost and schedule, which increases the potential that the Offeror will not successfully accomplish the requirements of the ORS-8 Task Order.

2) The Offeror’s proposed Task Order 2, ORS-8 Space Segment solution description does not provide sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate that it meets the Mission Data

Resolution (MDR) requirement of less than or equal to 2.7 km at any point in the scan, as required in the ORS-8 Space Segment Statement of Work (SOW). The Offeror’s proposed technical approach and its discussion of the HCS requirement do not demonstrate that the baseline single SV architecture will meet the MDR Critical

Performance Parameter requirement. In addition, the Offeror’s explanation of the payload’s HCS does not demonstrate that the Offeror fully understands the MDR requirement. The Offeror’s approach appreciably increases the potential that the ORS-8

Space Segment solution would not meet the critical MDR requirement and, therefore, increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance on Task Order 2.

Southwest Research Institute received an adjectival rating of Fair. Two (2) Weaknesses are identified. The Weaknesses are as follows:

1) The Offeror’s commitment to Small Business subcontracting is not adequately addressed in its plan, as it did not identify any work as high technology, did not describe its commitments to small business concerns as enforceable or unenforceable, and did not describe its approach to a Mentor Protégé program. The Offeror’s proposal does not demonstrate a comprehensive approach to its commitment to small business subcontracting which increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance in meeting the proposed subcontracting goals.

2) The Offeror’s proposed Small Business Subcontracting plan does not meet the overall small business subcontracting goal or any of the five subcategory goals defined in the solicitation. The Offeror’s proposal reduces the likelihood that it would be able to meet the Government’s overall small business subcontracting goal or any of the goals for the five subcategories of small businesses.

Southwest Research Institute received no Significant Strengths or Deficiencies within the

Mission Suitability Factor.

Space Systems/Loral, LLC

Space Systems/Loral’s Mission Suitability score is 511 out of a possible 1000 points.

Management Approach sub-factor

Space Systems/Loral received adjectival ratings of Good for its Management Approach to the

Basic SOW and Task Order 2. Three (3) Strengths for the Basic SOW, and one (1) Strength and one (1) Weakness under Task Order 2 are identified.

The Management Approach to the Basic SOW Strengths are as follows:

1) The Offeror’s proposed management approach includes a reporting system that allows the Government customer 24/7/365 access to view every aspect of each task order. The proposed reporting system would provide the Government with an effective means for assessing contract performance and providing feedback in a timely manner and represents a tangible benefit to the Government that increases the potential for successful contract performance.

2) The Offeror’s proposes to use its own facilities and staff to support the satellite engineering, integration, and production requirements of the Basic SOW. This approach represents a very effective and efficient solution that would allow the contractor to maintain direct control over satellite development and increases the potential for successful contract performance.

3) The Offeror proposes a very comprehensive and effective approach to manage classified work, provide staff with the appropriate clearances, and offer existing facilities to execute classified projects. The Offeror’s proposed approach to protecting classified information provides a very thorough strategy that increases the potential for successful performance of classified task orders.

The Management Approach to Task Order 2 Strength is as follows:

1) The Offeror proposes a very sound plan to use its own in-house facilities and equipment, and staff resources to execute the assembly, test, and integration (AI&T) operations of the ORS-8 Space Segment task. These capabilities represent an effective and comprehensive approach to meeting the requirements of the ORS-8 task order and increase the potential for successful contract performance.

The Management Approach to Task Order 2 Weakness is as follows:

of the ORS-8 task do not include a description of any contracts business arrangements with ground station providers to support data downlink of the weather data (WxD), as required in the RFP. This lack of information increases the risk that the Offeror’s agreements to support data downlink may not represent an acceptable approach to supporting the ORS-8 mission and increases the potential for unsuccessful performance on the ORS-8 Task Order.

Space Systems/Loral received adjectival ratings of Good for its Technical Approach to the Basic

SOW and Task Order 1, and an adjectival rating of Fair for Task Order 2. Two (2) Strengths under the Basic SOW, one (1) Strength under Task Order 1, and one (1) Strength and two (2)

Significant Weaknesses under Task Order 2 are identified.

The Technical Approach to the Basic SOW Strengths are as follows:

1) The Offeror proposes an effective set of approaches to achieving the technical requirements of the Basic SOW, including the use of its own bus systems, in-house flight software development capabilities, and extensive spacecraft deployment capabilities. The

Offeror’s extensive expertise with in-house bus system design, flight software development, and launch support represents a very comprehensive and effective approach that will increase the potential for successful contract performance.

2) The Offeror proposes a very detailed approach to identifying, tracking, and mitigating risks throughout all phases of the task execution. The Offeror’s risk management process represents a very comprehensive and effective approach that will minimize risk impacts and increase the potential for successful contract performance.

The Technical Approach to Task Order 1 Strength is as follows:

1) The Offeror proposes a very detailed approach to achieving the requirements of Task

Order 1. The Offeror’s response represents a very comprehensive and effective approach that demonstrates a deep understanding of the Tactical Persistence Study requirements and increases the likelihood that the Government would receive a superior study product.

The Technical Approach to Task Order 2 Strength is as follows:

1) The Offeror proposes to use its existing production facilities, equipment, hardware and software tools, and other in-house capabilities to support the assembly, test, and integration (AI&T) activities for the ORS-8 Space Segment Task Order. The Offeror’s proposed facilities in support of the AI&T operations represents a very efficient and comprehensive approach that increases the potential for successful contract performance.

primary payload, requires the use of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) already in use under another Government contract on a non-interference basis, which introduces a potentially significant risk. The impacts to the cost and schedule of the risk that the GFE will not be available when required are not adequately addressed in the Offeror’s proposal. Because the Offeror does not provide a comprehensive mitigation strategy to address the risk that the GFE will be unavailable when required by the Offeror, which the

Offeror’s proposal states will result in cost consequences and other challenges, there is an increased risk that the primary payload will not be delivered within the proposed cost and schedule, which increases the potential that the Offeror will not successfully accomplish the requirements of the ORS-8 Task Order.

2) The Offeror’s proposed Task Order 2, ORS-8 Space Segment solution description does not provide sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate that it meets the Mission Data

Resolution (MDR) requirement of less than or equal to 2.7 km at any point in the scan, as required in the ORS-8 Space Segment Statement of Work (SOW). The Offeror’s approach appreciably increases the potential that the ORS-8 Space Segment solution would not meet the critical MDR requirement and, therefore, increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance on Task Order 2.

Space Systems/Loral received an adjectival rating of Good. One (1) Strength and one (1)

Weakness are identified.

The Small Business Strength is as follows:

1) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a strong commitment to a small business program that is very comprehensive and thorough. In addition, the Offeror demonstrates a strong commitment to NASA’s Mentor Protégé Program by proposing to mentor three qualified candidate Small Businesses, each with active NASA Small Business Innovation Research

(SBIR) Phase II contracts. The Offeror’s proposal increases the…