80GRC022R0012 Source Selection Statement_Final.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration John H. Glenn Research Center Lewis Field Cleveland, OH 44135-3191

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

“High-Speed Endoatmospheric Commercial Vehicle Conceptual Design Study and Technology Roadmaps Development”

Request for Proposal #80GRC022R0012

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION & HISTORY

Description

In recent years there has been a significant increase in the number of aerospace organizations that have begun to build and test aircraft concepts aimed at endoatmospheric, commercial point-to-point travel in the supersonic to hypersonic speed regime. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Hypersonic Technology Project (HTP) and NASA’s Commercial Supersonic Technology (CST) project, under the Advanced Air Vehicles Program (AAVP), are jointly tasked with developing a strategy to enable an environmentally responsible/sustainable civilian high-speed market. Through this contract award, NASA is seeking to foster the pursuit of conceptual designs for high-speed (‘high-speed’ defined as Mach 2 through Mach 5) commercial transports that could enter service in the next decade (i.e., 2030-2040) or beyond, market permitting. These commercial transports must be able to overcome significant performance and environmental challenges for the benefit of the public. These conceptual vehicle design studies will identify key technology development needs and opportunities that will enable such vehicles.

This procurement is for the conceptual design and technology road mapping of economically viable and feasible point solutions addressing the potential high-speed commercial passenger market.

The first objective is to develop a conceptual vehicle design that will serve as a potential government reference vehicle. The government reference vehicle is intended to function as a baseline design for research on performance and operability of high-speed aircraft and aircraft components as well as potentially be used to provide data to other U.S. Government agencies for standards and rulemaking.

The second objective is to develop technology roadmaps to address environmental, economic, and societal barriers to the sustainability goals of NASA. These sustainability goals include adherence to current or anticipated regulations for landing and takeoff noise, emissions, and sonic boom, as well as economic considerations for technology integration and fuels, and integration into the current or future anticipated airport infrastructure and national airspace system. The technology roadmaps may be used to help prioritize future research activities, and to inform rulemaking discussions in areas (e.g., cosmic radiation exposure or cabin depressurization risk) for which appropriate regulations or metrics are not yet established. These roadmaps would include not only technologies centric to the feasibility and viability of the vehicle itself, but also potential aeroderivative technologies that would have a high impact to the public.

Evaluation Criteria & Procedures

All proposals were evaluated by an acquisition team 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 Request for Proposal (RFP).

In compliance with section M.2 (c) of the RFP, the Technical Capability volume of the proposal evaluation occurred prior to the evaluation of any other information as a “technical gate.” A Technical Capability volume had to receive an overall adjectival rating of “Excellent” or “Very Good” to be considered for further evaluation. If an adjectival rating of “Excellent” or “Very Good” was not attained on the Technical Capability volume, evaluations were not conducted on the Past Performance and Business (price) volumes. All proposals that received an overall adjectival rating of less than “Excellent” or “Very Good” within the Technical Capability volume received a notice from the Contracting Officer that the proposal was excluded from further evaluation.

The Technical Capability Volume was evaluated based on the following six (6) elements:

1. Relevance to RFP Objectives: 25%

2. Overall Technical Approach: 25%

3. Overall Work Plan: 25%

4. Team Qualifications: 10%

5. Intellectual Property: 10%

6. Documentation: 5%

The Business (Price) volume was not numerically or adjectivally scored but was evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) Price Analysis, NFS 1815.404-2 and NFS 1815.404-4. Each total price was presented to the Source Selection Authority.

The Past Performance volume was evaluated based on both the Past Performance Narrative (PPN), submitted by each Offeror, as well as Past Performance Databases (PPD). Both were considered when determining the level of confidence rating in accordance with the definitions stated in NFS 1815.305(a)(2).

Overall, in the selection of a Contractor(s) for contract award, Technical Capability was the most heavily weighted criteria in the evaluation process. Technical Capability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Price.

Procurement History

A Sources Sought Synopsis was posted on sam.gov April 13, 2022, to gain insight on industry interest in the acquisition. The evaluation team took the information submitted by industry into consideration when writing the final statement of work (SOW). The Presolicitation Synopsis was posted on sam.gov June 8, 2022, notifying industry of the acquisition schedule and NASA’s intent to proceed with a Request for Proposal (RFP).

The Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) was posted on sam.gov July 8, 2022, again looking for suggestions and input from industry regarding the SOW and contract set up. The evaluation team held a Virtual Industry Day July 19, 2022, explaining the SOW in detail and answering questions from attendees. Throughout the afternoon of July 19 and the following day on July 20, 2022, the evaluation team had one-on-one sessions with any virtual industry attendees who requested one.

The Final RFP was posted on sam.gov August 12, 2022, with a proposal due date of September 12, 2022. The proposal due date was later extended to September 20, 2022, at the request of industry. All proposals were received prior to the deadline.

Proposals were submitted by (in alphabetical order):

• Armant LLC

• The Boeing Company (Boeing Research & Technology (BR&T))

• Northrop Grumman Aeronautics Systems

• SpaceWorks Enterprises, Inc. (SEI)

• Virginia Tech National Security Institute (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University)

A total of five (5) proposals were received in response to the RFP. In accordance with the RFP, the evaluation team individually read through the Technical Capability Volumes and developed consensus technical findings for each proposal.

Both Armant LLC and Virginia Tech National Security Institute were eliminated from competition because their Technical Capability Volumes received a rating of less than “Very Good” or “Excellent.”

All proposals that made it through the technical gate were then evaluated on price and past performance.

The price evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) Price Analysis, NFS 1815.404-2 and NFS 1815.404-4. The evaluation team also did a further evaluation on labor hours in relation to cost as well as material costs.

The past performance evaluation was conducted in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2), including review of the Past Performance Narrative (PPN), Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations, and information provided by points of contact identified by the offerors.

EVALUATION RESULTS

A summary of the evaluation results and a narrative of each Offerors’ proposal’s principal strengths and weakness is listed below:

Organization Technical Capability Past Performance Price

The Boeing Company Excellent High Level of Confidence Highest

Northrop Grumman Aeronautics Systems Very Good High Level of

Confidence Second Lowest

SpaceWorks Enterprises, Inc. (SEI) Very Good High Level of

Confidence Lowest

The Boeing Company (Boeing Research & Technology (BR&T))

Overall Rating: Excellent

The evaluation board assigned Boeing’s proposal an “Excellent” overall adjectival rating. The proposal did not have any deficiencies or significant weaknesses across any of the technical evaluation categories considered, and the proposed approach was of exceptional merit regarding the RFP objectives.

Boeing’s technical evaluation included:

• Multiple meaningful teaming arrangements were proposed among large industry, small industry, consulting, and academic participants, with strong partnerships that play to the relative strengths of each team member and that are not separable from the critical work path. The inclusion of four (4) different engine providers was a particularly valuable enhancement to the proposal’s scope of technical ability.

• Activities not mentioned in the RFP but consistent with RFP intentions, including a proposed workshop and a sensitivity study to help inform design decisions for the baseline vehicle concept, should further enhance the proposed efforts.

• Other important attributes of the proposal included an emphasis on certification requirements and pre-existing points of departure across the cruise Mach number range of interest.

• Weaknesses identified by the evaluation team included a lack of clarification on minor aspects of the vehicle design processes and some analysis approaches. In addition, concerns were raised regarding the funding levels allocated to subcontractors, and to engine partners in particular.

The Boeing Company detailed twelve (12) contracts in their PPN that were highly pertinent in scope, size, and technical requirements to the proposed effort. The evaluation team found these contracts to be relevant to the current SOW and are a strong indicator of successful performance under the anticipated contract. The evaluation team also reviewed past performance reviews in CPARS for those Boeing contracts that the evaluation team found pertinent, which showed overall positive ratings and narratives.

Boeing’s proposal had the highest price of all three proposals.

Northrop Grumman Aeronautics Systems

Overall Rating: Very Good

The evaluation board assigned the proposal of Northrop Grumman Aeronautics Systems a “Very Good” overall adjectival rating. The proposal lacked any deficiencies or significant weaknesses and demonstrated an over-all competence. The proposal’s strengths and significant strengths outbalanced all identified weaknesses.

Northrop’s technical evaluation included:

• Significant strengths included the planned use of multi-disciplinary design optimization and uncertainty quantification through the vehicle design process, which should help to enhance design space exploration and provide robust design solutions.

• In addition, meaningful partnerships were proposed with technical objectives rather than advisory roles, and the extensive industry experience of the lead and engine partner organization in supersonic flight increases the likelihood of the overall success of the proposed work.

• There was extensive detail and provided a comprehensive approach to incorporation propagation and probabilistic design aspect to the final work deliverables.

• The evaluation board expressed some concerns regarding the extent to which the proposed work leverages intellectual property of partner organizations.

• Northrop Grumman’s proposal lacked some detail on the planned analysis and details regarding mitigation of the schedule and management risks identified.

Northrop Grumman detailed ten (10) contracts in their PPN that were highly pertinent in scope, size, and technical requirements to the proposed effort. The evaluation team found these contracts to be relevant to the current SOW and are a strong indicator of successful performance under the anticipated contract. The evaluation team also reviewed past performance reviews in CPARS for those Northrop Grumman contracts that the evaluation team found pertinent, which showed overall positive ratings and narratives. Additionally, the evaluation team considered positive feedback from a previous customer regarding a contract in the PPN showing positive comments.

Northrop Grumman’s proposal had the second lowest price but its proposed price was only slightly higher than the lowest price.

SpaceWorks Enterprises, Inc. (SEI)

Overall Rating: Very Good

The evaluation board assigned the SpaceWorks Enterprises Inc. proposal a “Very Good” overall adjectival rating. The proposal lacked any deficiencies or significant weaknesses and demonstrated an over-all competence. The proposal’s strengths and significant strengths outbalanced all identified weaknesses.

SpaceWorks’ technical evaluation included:

• The proposal demonstrated a good understanding of the intent and scope of the RFP and included some notable enhancements to the tasks described in the RFP. These enhancements included extensive use of multi-disciplinary optimization, multiple options for additional work, and teaming arrangements with multiple partners.

• Some weaknesses identified by the evaluation board led to concerns regarding the proposer’s ability to follow through on all aspects of the proposal. Specific concerns included a lack of substantiation for analysis methodologies within certain disciplines, the use of less than meaningful partnerships that appear to be advisory and/or a severable part of the work process, and a lack of content in the proposal on risks and risk mitigation approaches.

SpaceWorks detailed five (5) contracts in their PPN that were highly pertinent in scope, size, and technical requirements to the proposed effort. The evaluation team found these contracts to be relevant to the current SOW and are an indicator of successful performance under the anticipated contract. While there were no CPARS data available on any pertinent contracts for SpaceWorks, the evaluation team considered positive feedback from a previous customer regarding a contract in the PPN showing positive comments.

SpaceWorks had the lowest priced proposal overall.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

On December 2, 2022, a briefing was made to me in my capacity as the Source Selection Authority (SSA). In attendance, in addition to myself were the CO, Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), Alternative Contracting Officer’s Representative (ACOR), voting members of the evaluation team, and subject matter experts. During the briefing, the overall evaluation process and findings regarding each proposal’s Technical Approach, Price, and Past Performance were presented and discussed, as well as the evaluation team’s adjectival and confidence ratings (Source Selection Presentation). I reviewed the Source Selection Presentation in advance of the December 2 briefing, during which I questioned the evaluation team about the information presented. I also asked the briefing attendees for their opinions and comments, objections, or concerns with respect to the materials presented.

Having been thus presented and having independently reviewed the Source Selection Presentation, it is my assessment that the evaluation team conducted its evaluation in accordance with the procedures and evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. I have independently reviewed the evaluation results and conclude that each finding, rating, and confidence level has a rational basis, is well documented, and provides sufficient information regarding the proposals to support a selection decision. Accordingly, I have made a comparative assessment of the relative discriminators including the benefits/risks associated with each proposal considering all evaluation factors. As stated in NFS1815.308, the Source Selection Decision is made with my independent judgement and reflects the thought process behind the selection.

Following the briefing, I have compared the evaluation results in the Source Selection Presentation against the evaluation criteria stated in the RFP to select two (2) proposals that best meet the objectives described in the SOW. As set forth in the RFP and described hereafter, considerations included technical approach, price analysis, and past performance confidence. I note that evaluation of the Technical Capability volume occurred before any other evaluation of information as a “technical gate” and a proposal’s Technical Capability volume had to receive an overall adjectival rating of “Excellent” or “Very Good” to be considered for further evaluation. If an adjectival rating of “Excellent” or “Very Good” was not attained on the Technical Capability volume, evaluations were not conducted on the Past Performance and Business (price) volumes.

I also understand that I am to select the offeror that can perform the contract in a manner that provides the best value to the Government. I further understand that in making my selection, Technical Capability is the most heavily weighted criteria and that Technical Capability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. In determining the number of awards that best meet the goals of the NASA HTP and CST projects and AAVP together, I also considered the total anticipated funding.

The Technical Volume in this acquisition is the most heavily weighted portion of each Offerors’ proposal. Based on all three (3) Offerors’ technical rating who made it through the technical gate; Boeing – Excellent, Northrop Grumman – Very Good, and SpaceWorks – Very Good, it is clear that all three (3) are knowledgeable in this field of work and submitted over-all competent proposals. The details found within Technical Volumes is where I found, the distinguishing factors in both Boeing and Northrop Grumman’s proposals.

Boeing’s proposal received an overall technical adjectival rating of Excellent, the highest technical rating, and was the only proposal to receive an Excellent rating. This rating is supported by eleven (11) significant strengths and nine (9) strengths that the proposal received over all of the technical capability elements. The proposal’s significant strengths and strengths were primarily found in the three (3) most important elements each being 25% of the overall technical capability rating, Relevance to RFP Objectives, Overall Technical Approach, and Overall Work Plan. The proposal’s technical approach is an excellent and comprehensive response to the RFP objectives both stated and with intent, reflecting an overall, deep understanding of the Government’s needs. A significant strength that I was especially impressed by was the proposal’s inclusion of insightful discussion of technical challenges and tradeoffs that showed sensitivity to the number and types of challenges that may need to be overcome in contract performance. I was further impressed that the proposal also included multiple teaming arrangements with large/small business, consulting, and academic partners that will be meaningfully leveraged to enhance the technical effort.

Northrop Grumman and SpaceWorks both received an overall technical adjectival rating of Very Good. However, there are some strengths and weaknesses of both proposals that demonstrated to me that Northrop Grumman submitted s superior technical proposal.

Northrop Grumman’s proposal was assigned seven (7) significant strengths and seven (7) strengths with the majority being in the three (3) most important elements each being 25% of the overall technical capability rating, Relevance to RFP Objectives, Overall Technical Approach, and Overall Work Plan. The proposal went into extensive detail and provided a comprehensive approach to incorporation propagation and probabilistic design aspects to the final work deliverables. I was impressed that the proposal also included a multidisciplinary analysis and optimization approach, which allows for significantly more design space exploration as well as a very detailed explanatory description of the technical roadmap and use of compliance metrics with separate thresholds and goals. Overall, the proposal clearly defines the tools and processes to be used in vehicle design and analysis. The industry partners within the teaming arrangements combine experience in this aera of aerospace research creating value-added additions to the technical team.

Northrop Grumman’s proposal was assigned seven (7) weaknesses. The proposal was vague about the timing of unlimited rights deliverables’ reviews and release processes; however, unlimited rights of the deliverables created under the contract are ultimately included in the proposal, as the RFP requested. Northrop Grumman’s proposal also lacked some detail on the planned analysis and details regarding mitigation of the schedule and management risks identified. The significant strengths and strengths of Northrop Grumman’s proposal outbalance the weaknesses identified.

SpaceWorks’ proposal was assigned seven (7) significant strengths and five (5) strengths with the majority being in the three (3) most important elements each being 25% of the overall technical capability rating, Relevance to RFP Objectives, Overall Technical Approach, and Overall Work Plan. The proposal demonstrated a good understanding of the scope of the RFP and included some enhancements to the tasks described in the RFP. These enhancements included extensive use of multi-disciplinary optimization, multiple options for additional work, and teaming arrangements with multiple partners. SpaceWorks proposed non-proprietary versions of all contract deliverables with unlimited rights. The proposal also was broken down into a base with multiple options to allow the Government additional flexibilities.

SpaceWorks’ proposal was assigned six (6) weaknesses. Some weaknesses identified by the evaluation board led to concerns regarding the proposer’s ability to follow through on all aspects of the proposal. Specific concerns included a lack of substantiation for analysis methodologies.

Based on the technical volume and labor hours proposed, partnerships appear to be primarily advisory and less meaningful to the actual completion of the statement of work. The overall workplan did not include details regarding risk or the mitigation approaches. The significant strengths and strengths of SpaceWorks’ proposal outbalance the weaknesses identified.

In comparing SpaceWorks’ and Northrop Grumman’s technical proposals, I find that Northrop Grumman’s technical proposal is superior to SpaceWorks’ technical proposal. Northrop Grumman’s proposal included extensive detail on its approaches to the work detailed in the

SOW and identified how to mitigate the risks involved in the research and development contract.

I do not discount the many strengths of the SpaceWorks proposal though I determine that the strengths of Northrop Grumman’s proposal outweigh those of SpaceWorks’ proposal. In comparing Boeing’s proposal to both SpaceWorks’ and Northrop Grumman’s technical proposals, I find that Boeing’s technical proposal is superior to both proposals. Boeing’s proposal demonstrated the best overall understanding of the government’s needs and wants, leveraged strong partnerships, and included meaningful discussion of the technical challenges and tradeoffs. Thus, I find that Boeing’s proposal has a significant advantage over both SpaceWorks’ and Northrop Grumman’s proposals under the Technical Capability Factor. I further find that Northrop Grumman’s proposal has an advantage over SpaceWorks’ proposal under the Technical Capability Factor. With all these considerations in mind, I find that the technical proposals submitted by Boeing and Northrop Grumman best meet the objectives in the SOW and needs of the Government.

With respect to past performance, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and SpaceWorks all received the same overall confidence rating from the evaluation team: High Level of Confidence. Boeing’s PPN included twelve (12) contracts, Northrop Grumman’s PPN included ten (10) contracts, and SpaceWorks’ PPN included five (5) contracts. While I acknowledge that each received a High Level of Confidence, I find the number of pertinent contracts detailed by Boeing and Northrop Grumman in their PPN and that each offeror received positive reviews in CPARS provide me with a greater confidence in their potential future performance and gave both offerors an advantage over SpaceWorks under the Past Performance Factor.

The prices proposed by Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and SpaceWorks ranged by a very comparable amount. Boeing had the highest price, while Northrop Grumman and SpaceWorks were slightly different, though all three (3) were found to be fair and reasonable per FAR 15.404- 1(b). I acknowledge the price differences between the proposals and that SpaceWorks had the lowest price. I find the price difference between SpaceWorks and Northrop Grumman to be very minimal and I do not find this price difference to be a material discriminator between the two proposals under this factor. I find that SpaceWorks and Northrop Grumman have a slight advantage over Boeing under the Price Factor.

As stated in the RFP, in the selection of a Contractor(s) for contract award, Technical Capability is the most heavily weighted criteria in the evaluation process. Technical Capability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Price. Applying the RFP’s relative importance of the evaluation criteria, I find that Boeing’s significant advantage over SpaceWorks and Northrop Grumman under the Technical Capability Factor outweighs their slight advantage over Boeing under the Price Factor. I further find that Northrop Grumman’s advantage over SpaceWorks under the Technical Capability Factor outweighs the fact that SpaceWorks’ proposed price is slightly lower. I conclude that no further tradeoff based off of the offerors’ past performance is necessary given that I find that the technical advantages offered by both Boeing’s and Northrop Grumman’s proposals offer over SpaceWorks’ proposal overweigh any price difference. However, I further note that my selection of Boeing’s and Northrop Grumman’s proposals is further supported by their advantages over SpaceWorks under the Past Performance Factor.

I commend each of the Offerors for the proposal that they submitted, which were each strong in various ways. For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with the RFP requirements and acknowledging the relative importance of the evaluation criteria as stated earlier, I select the following companies for award of a firm-fixed price contract under the “High-Speed Endoatmospheric Commercial Vehicle Conceptual Design Study and Technology Roadmaps Development” Request for Proposal in the following amounts:

The Boeing Company $2,599,566.00 Northrop Grumman Aeronautics Systems $2,499,753.00

Based on the proposals submitted, I find that both of these offerors can perform the contract in a manner most advantageous to the Government and provide the best value to the Government.

Brian S. Huth Selection Authority