Source_Selection_Statement_Cryocoolers_Final_2-13_-_Redacted_and_Meta_Removed.pdf

February 13, 2019

Selection Statement for High Capacity 90 Kelvin Cryocooler for

Thermal Control of Space-Based Cryogenic Systems, Conceptual/Preliminary Design Study

Request for Proposal 80GRC018R0027

This design study supports the furtherance of NASA’s development of cryogenic fluid management technologies as applicable to strategic goals and objectives related to expanding the frontiers of knowledge, capability, and opportunities in space, principally by leveraging existing cryocooler technology previously developed by NASA and other government agencies.

I. Background

NASA is currently investing in passive and active thermal control technologies that shall enable long-term in-space storage of cryogenic propellants in a zero-loss, or zero-boil-off (ZBO) state as well as enabling liquefaction of in-situ produced cryogenic fluids. This is in line with NASA's goal of increasing payload mass beyond low Earth orbit by improving the mass efficiency of high-performing cryogenic fluids in upper stages, landers, depots, or other surface assets that are required for long loiter and or transit periods. This is also in line with NASA’s thrust for enabling the delivery of medium to large payloads to the lunar and Martian surfaces. With this goal in mind, NASA has planned to advance the technology readiness of cryocooler technology for operation at temperatures associated with liquid oxygen and liquid methane (90 K – 120 K) by increasing lift capacity, specifically, on the order of 120 W - 150 W. This integrated cryocooler system would be integrated with NASA’s preferred tube-on-tank broad area cooled shield to remove heat from tanks to provide zero-boil-off, pressure control, or even liquefaction of cryogenic fluids in a space environment or on the Moon or Mars.

The main objective of this procurement is for the conceptual/preliminary design of a flight-representative integrated cryocooler system, which NASA may later complete the design of along with the fabrication of an engineering development unit to integrate with a heat load at 90 K and a heat rejection subsystem in a to-be-determined test. To meet this objective, the cryocooler would be tested according to one or more of the options listed in Section 1.2 of the Government’s Cryocooler Study Capabilities Summary, Enclosure 2 of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The cryocooler may also be non-operationally vibration tested in accordance with General Environmental Verification Specification requirements. The end goal is to develop a prototype cryocooler with a flight-representative thermal control system test that achieves 120 W

- 150 W of cooling capacity at 90 K - 120 K.

NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) personnel will manage the study effort and will assign one or more Contracting Officer’s Representatives (COR) for this effort. The nominal period of performance is seven (7) months, but NASA may elect to simultaneously continue one or more awardees for additional period(s) of performance if it is deemed in the best interest of the Government.

A presolicitation notice, 80GRC018R0027, along with a draft Statement of Work, was posted on July 30, 2018. Answers to Industry Questions were posted on August 6, 2018. A final RFP was posted on August 15, 2018 as a full and open competition. Via a Special Notice posted on September 11, 2018, the solicitation was temporarily suspended until an amended RFP (Amendment 1) was posted on November 19, 2018. The RFP was then amended twice more, on November 19, 2018 (Amendment 2) and November 20, 2018 (Amendment 3).

As stated in the RFP, NASA’s intent in soliciting proposals was the award of one or more fixed-price, milestone-based contracts. The RFP notified potential offerors that NASA had $750,000.00 to award one or more contracts and the overall number of awards would be dependent upon funding availability and evaluation results.

Four (4) proposals were received on November 27, 2018. In accordance with the review process outlined in the RFP, the Contracting Officer (CO) first conducted an in-depth screening to identify whether there were any potential compliance issues with the eligibility criteria and proposal instructions of this RFP. All proposals met the eligibility criteria. The proposals were submitted by:

1) Advanced Design Consulting

2) Lockheed Martin Space Systems

3) Mainstream Engineering Corporation

4) Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems

II. Evaluation Process

The proposals were evaluated by a designated Source Evaluation Panel (SEP), composed of NASA civil servant subject matter experts across various offices from several NASA Field Centers, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, “Source Selection,” NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3, “Source Selection,” and the evaluation criteria included in the RFP. Proposals responding to the RFP were all subjected to the same evaluation process.

The RFP notified Offerors that NASA intended to make award without conducting discussions to one or more responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) meet(s) the requirements of the solicitation and provides the best value to the Government. The RFP stated that “[d]iscussions shall be held only if award on the basis of initial offers is determined not to be in the Government’s best interest.” Offerors were required to submit initial proposals using the most favorable terms from both a price and technical standpoint.

The evaluation was comprised of reviews of each proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria and factors defined in Sections M.1.B and M.1.C of the RFP: Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price.

Technical Approach was evaluated in accordance with Sections M.1.B and M.1.C.1 of the RFP.

Offerors’ Technical Approaches were adjectivally scored using the ratings set forth in Table M-1 of the RFP. Pursuant to the RFP, the evaluation committee used the definitions set forth in Table M-2 of the RFP to classify the findings of the evaluation of the Offerors for each of the following criteria:

1) The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a firm understanding of the requirements and goals set forth in the scope of work

2) The extent to which the proposed cryocooler technology is applicable to space flight systems and is aligned with the goals and objectives stated in the RFP (e.g. specific power, specific mass, system integration).

3) The extent to which the proposed effort provides clear evidence that the proposed design can be manufactured and qualified for use in space and the degree to which the proposed technology will be infused into NASA missions, other government agencies, and/or commercial sector applications.

4) The extent to which the offeror demonstrates the capability of the proposed technology to meet the requirements laid out in the of the Government’s Cryocooler Study Capabilities Summary, Enclosure 2 of the RFP.

5) The extent to which the offeror proposes a convincing execution plan that demonstrates:

a) The feasibility and soundness of the technical approach to accomplish the objectives of the effort within the proposed time period;

b) The extent to which the offeror identified and quantified key figures of merit and key performance parameters that meet or exceed the requirements in the Statement of Work;

c) The extent to which major technical challenges and risks are identified and feasible mitigation strategies are proposed.

6) The realism of schedule relative to the major milestones, deliverables and reports, including measurable metrics, and adequate schedule margin that aligns with the RFP objectives.

7) The extent to which the proposal demonstrates that the project lead and team members have the skill, expertise, and experience required to successfully execute the proposed technical approach.

Pursuant to section M.1.C.2, the evaluation of Past Performance was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.304-70. Utilizing primarily the Offerors’ Past Performance Narratives and Past Performance Databases (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System/Past Performance Information Retrieval System), the SEP evaluated the relevant experience and past performance for each Offeror. This factor was not numerically scored but was evaluated using the Level of Confidence ratings included in Table M-3 of the

RFP.

Past Performance: ADC’s Past Performance evaluation resulted in a Low Level of Confidence.

ADC was found to have a Strength based upon Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s (LBNL) past performance reference stating that ADC was excellent in most areas of contract performance. ADC was found to have another Strength based upon ADC’s previous development of cryocoolers and superconducting devices for laboratory applications. ADC was found to have one Weakness based upon a review of ADC's past performance in PPIRS showing issues in management and schedule, and a few issues in quality and price. ADC was found to have a Significant Weakness based upon a prior termination for cause by NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC). ADC’s lack of history of flight system design and flight system fabrication experience was found to be Neutral and ADC was not evaluated favorably or unfavorably therefore.

Price: ADC’s proposed Price was the lowest of the four Offerors. The SEP noted that the direct labor resources listed by ADC were of insufficient quantity to accomplish the work and that there were no prices listed for which ADC had identified as a subcontractor.

Lockheed Martin Space Systems

Technical Approach: The proposal was rated Very Good. Lockheed Martin’s proposal was found to have a Significant Strength based upon the proposed team members having experience with cryogenic flight systems including cryocoolers. Lockheed Martin’s proposal was found to have Strengths based on the following: Lockheed Martin proposed a solution that demonstrates an understanding of the goals and requirements of the solicitation; Lockheed Martin proposed a solution that meets the goals and requirements in the solicitation; Lockheed Martin proposed a cryocooler based on technology that has space flight system heritage that is targeting the goals and objectives of the solicitation; Lockheed Martin proposed a cryocooler based on technology that has space flight system heritage that can easily be qualified for space applications; Lockheed Martin proposed an execution plan that is feasible and sound, demonstrating an understanding of the technical challenges and risks; and Lockheed Martin proposed a realistic schedule with adequate schedule margin and milestones identified.

Past Performance: Lockheed Martin’s Past Performance evaluation resulted in a High Level of Confidence. Lockheed Martin was found to have four Significant Strengths based upon the following: Lockheed Martin has 40 years of experience designing and building flight cryocoolers; Lockheed Martin developed the ACTDP four stage cryocooler, which was of similar magnitude and higher complexity than this solicitation; Lockheed Martin has developed an 800W linear compressor that is appropriate for this application; and Lockheed Martin- Advanced Technology Center personnel have collaborated with NASA in the recent past on cryogenic fluid management work and are familiar with specific requirements stated in the solicitation. Lockheed Martin was found to have a Strength based on Lockheed Martin’s successful development of a wide range of flight and flight-like pulse tube coolers. Lockheed Martin was found to have another Strength based upon review of Lockheed's past performance in PPIRS has shown no issues at all in quality, schedule, and management. Lockheed Martin was found to have a Weakness because the ACTDP development was over 10 years ago and Lockheed Martin’s recent efforts have been less complicated than the current effort.

Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems

Technical Approach: The proposal was rated Excellent. Northrop Grumman’s proposal was found to have Significant Strengths for the following: Northrop Grumman proposed cryocooler technology that is applicable to space flight systems as outlined by the goals and objectives of the solicitation; Northrop Grumman proposed cryocooler technology that shows a clear path for qualification for use in space on NASA’s missions; Northrop Grumman proposed a realistic schedule with adequate schedule margin and identified risks including all deliverables and reports; and Northrop Grumman proposed team members that are experienced, having developed multiple flight cryocoolers that are flying on NASA’s highest profile missions. Northrop Grumman’s proposal was found to have Strengths for the following: Northrop Grumman proposed a solution that demonstrates a full understanding of the goals and requirements in the solicitation; Northrop Grumman proposed a solution that meets the goals and requirements in the solicitation; and Northrop Grumman proposed a feasible execution plan with known risks and challenges for the development of the cryocooler.

Past Performance: Northrop Grumman’s Past Performance evaluation resulted in a High Level of Confidence. Northrop Grumman was found to have Significant Strengths based upon a long and successful history of developing flight cryocoolers, of which several are currently flying; and a plan to leverage flight heritage cryocooler assemblies (past Northrop Grumman technology development), with some customized components. Northrup Grumman was found to have Strengths for the following: review of Northrop's past performance in PPIRS has shown mostly Satisfactory, Very Good, and Exceptional ratings in quality, schedule, and management; Missile Defense Agency (Navy) stated that Northrop Grumman was a subcontractor to Iris Technologies on a recently completed MDA Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Phase 1 and the Government Point of Contact was satisfied with Northrop Grumman's performance as Iris's subcontractor; and a positive review from NASA GRC for the ThermoAcoustic Power Converter study. Northrop Grumman received one Weakness based upon a notation in CPARS regarding an issue on a past Dynamic Power Convertor contract for Radioisotope Power Systems where cost was not reported until requested several times by the COR.

Price: Northrop Grumman’s proposed study price was the second lowest. The SEP noted that the Price includes and the proposed man-power levels are appropriate for completing the defined work.

IV. Source Selection Presentation

On February 6, 2019, a Source Selection Presentation (Presentation) was made to me in my capacity as the SSO, which detailed the SEP’s findings. Prior to the Presentation, I was provided with a full set of the findings for all four Offerors, which I thoroughly reviewed before the Presentation. In addition to myself, the Presentation was attended by SEP voting members, SEP non-voting members, and SEP ex officio members, which included some senior officials from NASA GRC. During the Presentation, the overall evaluation process and the findings on the Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price factors were presented and discussed.

Additionally, during the Presentation, I provided the SEP with my independent judgment relative to the findings and asked questions regarding the information presented, which the SEP answered. At the conclusion of the Presentation, I informed the attendees of my decision and my reasons for selection. This Source Selection Statement results from the Presentation.

V. Source Selection Decision

Based on the RFP, the Presentation, and my comprehensive review of the findings for all of the Offerors, I fully understand the evaluation process, the SEP’s findings, and concur with the SEP’s overall evaluation and findings. I understand that, of the evaluation factors identified in the RFP, Technical Approach is more important than both Past Performance and Price. I also understand that Past Performance plus Price when added together is more important than Technical Approach. Further, I understand that award(s) shall be made to one or more responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) meet(s) the requirements of the solicitation and provide(s) the best value to the Government.

In examining the SEP’s evaluation of each Offeror under each evaluation factor, I did not simply tabulate the number of strengths and/or weaknesses each Offeror received for selection purposes.

Rather, I undertook a qualitative assessment of each Offeror’s proposal in an effort to understand the merits and drawbacks of each and to identify discriminating aspects of each Offeror’s proposal.

With respect to the Technical Approach factor, I found that Northrop Grumman’s proposal, which was rated Excellent, is superior to all other proposals, followed by Lockheed Martin, which was rated Very Good, and Mainstream, which was rated Fair. Lockheed Martin, Mainstream, and Northrop Grumman all demonstrated strong understanding of the requirements and capability to meet those requirements. Northrop Grumman, however, stood out with Significant Strengths under the flight applicability, flight qualification, and schedule criteria. I was particularly impressed with Northrop Grumman’s proposal to utilize its very strong flight history, which includes more than a dozen flight cryocoolers, which supports the Significant Strengths it was found to have with respect to flight applicability and flight qualification. I was also impressed by Northrop Grumman’s detailed work breakdown structure and identification of very thorough deliverables, underscoring the Significant Strength of its schedule. Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin both proposed teams consisting of persons with valuable experience with cryogenic flight systems, including cryocoolers, fully justifying the Significant Strengths each received therefore. Lockheed Martin’s proposal received at least a Strong in every other category and, like Northrop Grumman’s proposal, had no weaknesses. In addition to its proposed team members, I was also impressed with Lockheed Martin’s very thorough demonstration of its understanding and capability to meet the requirements. I note that Mainstream received a Significant Strength for proposing a thorough execution plan of sound technical approach. I also note, however, that Mainstream’s execution plan also had challenges that would have to be addressed, for which it received a Weakness. In addition, I note the Weaknesses that Mainstream received for flight applicability, flight qualification, and schedule, which indicate a risk that Mainstream’s proposal might not result in successful performance of this planned seven-month study. ADC’s proposal was not as strong as Northrop Grumman’s or Lockheed Martin’s proposals under any criteria, and was on par with Mainstream’s proposal only with respect to schedule and team members, under which criteria both Mainstream and ADC received Weaknesses. For these reasons, with respect to the Technical Approach factor, I find that Northrop Grumman’s proposal is superior to the other three proposals and provides meaningful and significant advantages to the Government. I further find that Lockheed Martin’s proposal is superior to Mainstream’s and provides meaningful and significant advantages over it to the Government, and that Mainstream’s proposal is superior to ADC’s.

With respect to Past Performance, I note that Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin each received a High Level of Confidence rating, a full step above Mainstream’s Moderate Level of Confidence rating, which itself was a step above ADC’s Low Level of Confidence rating. All four Offerors appear to have some experience that is at least somewhat pertinent to the current effort. I was particularly impressed that Lockheed Martin has 40 years of highly pertinent experience designing and building flight cryocoolers and the available past performance data shows no issues at all in quality, schedule, and management, which grossly outweighs the single Weakness that Lockheed Martin received because its recent efforts have not been as complicated as the current effort. I was similarly impressed by Northrop Grumman’s highly pertinent experience developing flight pulse tube cryocoolers, some of which are currently flying, which I find grossly outweighs the issues that have been documented in Government performance databases. While Mainstream does appear to have experience that is pertinent to the current effort, including development and fabrication of multiple refrigeration cycles containing some components and complexities similar to a cryocooler, it does not appear to rise to the level of either Lockheed Martin’s or Northrop Grumman’s highly pertinent relevant experience with flight cryocoolers. I was impressed, however, that Mainstream’s past performance data shows no issues in quality, schedule, or management, with mostly satisfactory ratings. I note that ADC has previously developed cryocoolers for laboratory applications, but the pertinence of this experience does not appear to rise to the level of Mainstream’s. I also note that ADC’s past performance includes at least one excellent rating, but also some unsatisfactory and marginal ratings, as well as one instance in which the NASA LaRC terminated a contract for cause. For these reasons, with respect to the Past Performance factor, I find that Northrop Grumman’s and Lockheed Martin’s proposals are essentially on par with each other and that both are superior to Mainstream’s proposal, which is, in turn, superior to ADC’s proposal.

With respect to Price, I note that ADC’s proposed Price is the lowest, followed by Northrop Grumman’s as the second lowest, Lockheed Martin’s as the third lowest, and, finally, by a significant margin, Mainstream’s as the highest. Based on this comparison, I do find that ADC’s proposal has an advantage over the other three proposals with respect to this factor. I note, however, that this advantage is somewhat mitigated by ADC’s failure to propose direct labor resources of sufficient quantity to accomplish the work, as well as its failure to propose prices for which ADC proposed as a subcontractor. I also note that Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin each have a significant advantage over Mainstream under this Factor.

I have carefully assessed, weighed, and compared the merits and negative aspects of each of the four competing proposals, endeavoring to determine which proposal(s) best meet(s) the criteria set forth in the RFP in a manner that will result in the best value to the Government.

Consistent with the SEP’s findings, I determine that Northrop Grumman’s, Lockheed Martin’s, and Mainstream’s proposals offer distinct, evident, and significant advantages to the Government over ADC’s proposal with respect to both Technical Approach and Past Performance. I consider these advantages to greatly outweigh any advantage presented by the lower Price that ADC proposed, which I have taken into consideration.

I further determine that Northrop Grumman’s and Lockheed Martin’s proposals offer distinct, evident, and significant advantages to the Government over Mainstream’s proposal in Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price. Although Mainstream’s proposal impressed me with its Strengths in both Technical Approach and Past Performance, I find no basis for finding that Mainstream’s proposal, which has a significantly higher Price than either Northrop Grumman’s or Lockheed Martin’s, presents any advantage over the Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin proposals.

The amount available to the Government to award contract(s) under this solicitation is sufficient to award both Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin a contract. In the context of research and development efforts like the present studies, there is value in awarding more than one contract, funds permitting, which the RFP expressly contemplates. Therefore, in accordance with the RFP requirements, with the understanding that, again, Technical Approach is more important than both Past Performance and Price and that Past Performance plus Price when added together is more important than Technical Approach, I hereby select Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin each to perform High Capacity 90 Kelvin Cryocooler for Thermal Control of Space-Based Cryogenic Systems, Conceptual Preliminary Design contracts as outlined in RFP

80GRC018P0027.

Leahmarie Koury Source Selection Official

LEAHMARIE

KOURY

Digitally signed by

LEAHMARIE KOURY

Date: 2019.02.13 10:36 42 -05'00'