Source Selection Statement - SS-CLS Signed.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

John H. Glenn Research Center Lewis Field 21000 Brookpark Road Cleveland, OH 44135-3191

Source Selection Statement for

Small Satellite Cross-Link Systems (SS-CLS)

(Solicitation Number 80GRC024R0017)

On September 17, 2024, the Scientific and Peer Review Committee (SPRC) appointed to evaluate proposals for the Small Satellite Cross-Link Systems (SS-CLS) procurement under Solicitation Number 80GRC024R0017 presented the results of its evaluation of offerors’ initial proposals to me as Source Selection Authority (SSA), as well as other senior officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA or Government).

PROCUREMENT HISTORY/DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this NASA Research Announcement (NRA) is to investigate the use of V-band relay networks to transmit large volumes of science and Earth remote sensing data. Specifically, this solicitation focused on identifying and demonstrating innovative small sat based V-Band cross link capabilities that may enable low latency transmission of large volumes of science data and providing opportunity for academic institution(s) to conduct experiments on this V- Band cross-link capability.

The NRA procurement strategy was carefully determined based on the results from various market research activities, using NAICS Code 541715- Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology) with a Size Standard of 1,000 employees. This acquisition was competed as a total small business set-aside.

In compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 35.004 and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1835.016-71, and other procedural guidance, a Pre-Solicitation Synopsis was posted on June 6, 2024. Prospective offerors were encouraged to provide their intent to submit an offer and notify NASA of any questions they had by June 21, 2024 at 12:00pm ET. In regard to the Pre-Solicitation Synopsis, nine responses were received from organizations stating their interest and capabilities to meet or exceed the stated requirements. A Draft NRA was posted on June 28, 2024, which included a Questions and Answers (Q&A) period for Industry to submit questions and comments until July 15, 2024. Answers for Q&As were posted on SAM.gov.

Incorporating the lessons learned and feedback received from the Q&A, the Contracting Officer posted the Final NRA on July 26,2024, as a total small business set-aside. Industry was also invited to participate in a Q&A for the Final NRA.

The Final NRA objectives were to demonstrate V-Band cross-link capability in space, characterize the performance of V-Band cross-links, and to provide opportunity for academic institution(s) to conduct experiments on this V-Band cross-link capability. As stated in Section 5 of the NRA, proposals were required to include the following elements:

• A small satellite-based flight demonstration of a V-Band cross-link capability.

• Experiments to characterize the performance of the V-Band cross-link capability.

• Opportunities for an academic institution(s) to perform experiments using the V-Band cross-link capability.

Offerors were instructed to follow their own best practices for designing, building, launching, and operating small satellites for the purposes of demonstrating and characterizing V-Band cross-link performance and conducting academic experiments. Proposals were not required to follow NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 7120.5 NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements, nor NPR 7120.8 NASA Research and Technology Program and Project Management Requirements.

Two (2) proposals were received on-time in response to the SS-CLS Final NRA.

Proposals were submitted by the following offerors:

Morehead Space Technologies, LLC (MST) T-Fox, LLC

PROPOSAL REVIEW INFORMATION

The NRA notified offerors that NASA intends to award one Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract to the Offeror whose proposal best meets the goals set forth in the Final NRA. In accordance with NFS 1835.016-71(d)(4), a competitive range will not be established, and final proposal revisions shall not be requested/accepted. If an Offeror’s proposal is selected at the conclusion of the Final NRA evaluation period, NASA will advise the Offeror that the Government intends on entering into negotiations and will follow up with a contract that includes, if necessary, modifications contemplated in the Offeror's Statement of Work, and request agreement or identification of any exceptions.

The NRA allowed offerors to take exception to any required clauses. However, the NRA also stated that taking exception to any required clauses may be evaluated as a weakness or a deficiency.

As an initial matter, all proposals were reviewed to determine if they meet the minimum administrative requirements. These requirements include but are not limited to these factors:

Proposal was submitted by due date and time;

Offeror is eligible to submit a proposal;

Proposal meets the page, font, and spacing limits; and Proposal was submitted with a SIGNED Model Contract.

As stated in the NRA, proposals that fail to meet the minimum administrative requirements may be rejected without further review.

Proposals that met the minimum administrative requirements were then evaluated through peer review by the SPRC in accordance with NFS 1835.016-71, NFS 1852.235-72, and the evaluation criteria in the announcement. Specifically, each proposal was evaluated by the SPRC to assess the proposal’s Past Experience; Technical Merit, including its Technical

Approach and Capabilities and its Overall Work Plan (Statement of Work); and Price, using the following criteria:

A. Past Experience (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Proposals were evaluated to determine the relevance of the Offeror’s (inclusive of experience of key personnel, sub-contractors and academic partners) past experience relative to the required effort. Failure to show experience performed in the past three (3) years on a maximum of 5 projects that is of a similar size, scope and complexity to the effort proposed will receive an "unacceptable" rating and the proposal will be disqualified from any further evaluation for contract award.

B. Technical Merit

Technical Approach and Capabilities: Proposals were evaluated to determine if there is relevance between the proposed work and the SS-CLS objectives in defined in Section 5 of the NRA; if there is a comprehensive and credible technical approach to perform the SS-CLS objectives; if the proposal credibly describes the capabilities and techniques required to perform the work, key risks, and the facilities and expertise needed to achieve the work; and, if the team qualifications align with these capabilities and techniques.

Overall Work Plan (Statement of Work): Proposals were evaluated to determine that there is a comprehensive Statement of Work, effective use of resources, a clear management approach, and a credible schedule with key tasks, milestones, and deliverables for meeting the Expected Outcomes and Data and the Reviews and Deliverables described in Sections 6 and 8 of the NRA, respectively. Proposals were also evaluated to determine that there are clear statements of intellectual property that align with the Data Rights and Patent Rights described in NRA Section 7.

C. Price

A price analysis was performed on the proposals in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and FAR 15.404-1. Although the Price Factor was not numerically scored nor received an adjectival rating, it is important in determining that the Offeror understands the solicitation and the resources required.

Each proposal was evaluated on its own individual merits and by consensus.

In deciding which offer(s) represents the best overall value to NASA, the NRA stated that the Government will consider Technical Merit to be significantly more important than evaluated Price. The NRA also stated the estimated budget for awards was anticipated to be $14,300,000.00, dependent upon future NASA funding profiles. NASA also reserved the right to select only a portion of a proposed activity and period of performance, usually at a level of support reduced from the original proposal, and/or to select a portfolio of proposals that best meets the objectives of the SS-CLS NRA.

SOURCE SELECTION MEETING

On September 17, 2024, the SPRC made its Source Selection Briefing (Briefing) to me in my capacity as the SSA. Prior to the Briefing, I was provided with a full copy of the SPRC’s consensus findings. In addition to myself, the Briefing was attended by certain SPRC Voting Members, SPRC Committee members, and SPRC Ex-Officio Members. During the meeting, SPRC members presented to me and discussed with me the overall evaluation process and findings on Past Experience, Technical Merit, and Price. Additionally, during the Briefing, I provided the SPRC with my independent judgment relative to the findings and asked questions regarding the information presented. As a result of the Briefing held, I informed the attendees of my selection decision. This source selection statement results from the Briefing.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

As stated, each of the two proposals were reviewed to determine if they meet the minimum administrative requirements. Based on this review, it was determined that MST’s proposal met the minimum administrative requirements while T-Fox LLC’s proposal did not.

The proposal submitted by T-Fox LLC was determined unacceptable for multiple reasons. The proposal is missing a number of significant administrative items required by the NRA, such as a signed model contract, eligibility certificate, and representations and certifications. Additionally, the proposal is limited to data modeling and simulation of sensor data, and does not include the substantive elements that the NRA required. See NRA section 5 (requiring proposals to include the following elements: satellite-based flight demonstration of V-Band cross-link capability;

characterization of performance thereof; opportunities for an academic institution(s) to perform experiments using the V-Band cross-link capability). Since the proposal submitted by T-Fox LLC was initially unacceptable, it was not further evaluated.

NRA REVIEW

Because only a single acceptable proposal was received, the Contracting Officer reviewed the NRA to determine whether it was flawed or unduly restrictive. Based on its market research, the Government had anticipated receiving proposals from at least two responsible small business entities. In reviewing the NRA, the Contracting Officer was unable to identify any aspect of the NRA that would have precluded any small business entities from submitting a proposal. In fact, several small business entities were fully engaged throughout the solicitation process, responding to the Pre-Solicitation Synopsis and submitting questions and comments on the draft NRA. Accordingly, the Contracting Officer determined that the NRA was not flawed or unduly restrictive.

EVALUATION SUMMARY

A detailed summary of the evaluation follows.

Section Morehead Space Technologies, LLC

Past Experience Acceptable

Technical Merit Fair

Proposed Price $14,299,402

Morehead Space Technologies, LLC

Past Experience – Acceptable

MST and its subcontractors’ relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition;

demonstrating effective performance that would be fully responsive to Contract requirements.

MST’s proposal demonstrated that, collectively, the MST team has performed on at least five other recent programs within the last three years of similar scale and complexity, including projects developing and demonstrating disruption tolerant networking, deep space beacon service, dynamic meshed network technologies, and various ground stations, which are all relevant to elements and concepts in MST’s proposal. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, NASA has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror is technically capable of performing the required effort.

Technical Merit – Fair

SUBFACTOR 1 - Technical Approach and Capabilities - Fair NASA will evaluate the proposals to determine if there is relevance between the proposed work and the SS-CLS objectives in Description of Solicited Topics defined in Section 5.

3 Strengths

NASA will evaluate the proposal to determine if there is a thorough and credible technical approach to perform the SS-CLS objectives.

2 Weakness 2 Significant Weaknesses

NASA will evaluate the proposal to determine if it credibly describes the capabilities and techniques required to perform the work, key risks, and the facilities and expertise needed to achieve the work;

and, if the team qualifications align with these capabilities and techniques.

3 Strengths 1 Weakness 1 Significant Weakness

The proposal received strengths for:

1. The proposed approach is directly relevant to the SS-CLS objective of performing a small satellite-based flight demonstration of a V-Band cross-link capability.

2. The proposal’s approach is directly relevant to the SS-CLS objective of conducting experiments to characterize the performance of the V-Band cross-link capability.

3. The proposal’s approach is directly relevant to the SS-CLS objective of providing opportunities for an academic institution to perform experiments using the V-Band cross-link capability.

4. The proposal's approach to emulate the proposed system development and make use of its over-the-air test capability mitigates technical risks.

5. The proposal thoroughly describes the facilities and expertise needed to achieve the work.

Proposers have access to key development, testing and operations facilities (i.e., MOC, large aperture ground stations) that enhances the capabilities of this team to be successful in this work.

6. The proposal’s corporate teams and the individual key personnel qualifications and demonstrated organizational capabilities are highly qualified and map well to the capabilities and techniques to successfully complete the work. MST and its proposed subcontractor have a team with a strong skill/experience mix in spacecraft development, communications systems design and project management.

The proposal received weaknesses for:

1. The link budget provided in the proposal had an error and was lacking key details which made it difficult to validate expected results.

2. The proposal has an overly complex technical approach to use the V-band system as a redundant system to an optical ISL.

3. The key subcontractor responsible for the V-band payload does not describe their personnel’s knowledge with flight systems.

The proposal received significant weaknesses for:

1. The proposal does not adequately address ISL pointing and tracking; does not adequately describe how the radio will generate data to send to the receiver on the other cubesat to complete a communication link and then how the receiving system downconverts the data stream and measures performance; and, there is little operations concept of the experiment phase provided, a critical element directly associated with the solicitation objectives.

2. The proposal lacks or provides outdated details of the key communications ISL payloads and its components and it is not clear whether the proposed COTS components can ensure a successful in-space demonstration.

3. Risk identification lacked consideration of technical ISL payload risks. Likewise, risk management approaches such as mitigation steps and tracking of ISL risks were lacking.

SUBFACTOR 2 - Overall Work Plan (Statement of Work)- Good NASA will evaluate the proposals to determine that there is a comprehensive Statement of Work, effective use of resources, a clear management approach, and a credible schedule with key tasks, milestones, and deliverables for meeting the Expected Outcomes and Data in Section 6 and the Reviews and Deliverables in Section 8.

NASA will evaluate the proposals to determine that there are clear statements of intellectual property that align with the Data Rights and Patent Rights in Section 7 Intellectual Property.

3 Strengths 3 Weaknesses

The proposal received strengths for:

1. The proposal provides a thorough schedule with key tasks, milestones, and deliverables to complete the Expected Outcomes and Data in Section 6 of the NRA and the Reviews and Deliverables in Section 8 of the NRA.

2. By keeping the number of team members to a minimum while covering the skillsets that would enable a high likelihood of successful performance of the work, with fully dedicated time of each key team member to this particular effort, the proposal very effectively uses resources.

3. The proposal is generally thorough and very clearly delineates roles and responsibilities amongst the Offeror, its subcontractors, and its academic partner.

The proposal received weaknesses for:

1. The schedule and order of events for key procurements is unclear.

2. The proposed work plan does not leave sufficient time for the proposal to adequately characterize the performance of the system and conduct experiments.

3. The proposed Statement of Work is incomplete in that it lacks a detailed description of the tasks in the design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E) flow for the satellites’ builds, as well as unclear order of some DDT&E activities.

Price

MST’s proposed price of $14,299,402 was lower than the Government estimated budget for awards. The SPRC's price analysis identified eight (8) risks:

1. The proposal lacks documentation as to whether the proposed fringe rate includes holiday or sick leave. The offeror also proposed a full year, without holiday or annual leave, per labor category.

2. MST did not apply escalation to labor categories proposed.

3. The Labor rate proposed for the Principle Investigator appears higher than market rate data.

4. An inconsistent ODC burden was applied to large materials.

5. There was no supporting documentation provided to evaluate the Indirect rates proposed.

6. There was no supporting documentation provided to evaluate the labor categories proposed.

7. There was no supporting documentation provided for certain travel expenses.

8. The phasing of milestone payments is highly front-loaded.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Based on the information presented at the Briefing, I fully understand the evaluation process and the findings and concur with the overall evaluation and findings. I am in agreement with the information presented by the SPRC and take no exception to the SPRC’s actions or findings. The SPRC’s findings, as documented in the Briefing, are supportable and have a rational basis, and are therefore valid for purposes of making my source selection decision.

Consistent with the criteria set forth in the NRA, I assess the Offeror’s proposal on its own merits. In making this assessment, I remain mindful that, per the NRA, Technical Merit is significantly more important than evaluated Price.

Past Experience

As an initial matter, I understand and agree with the SPRC’s determination that MST’s past performance is acceptable. I agree with the SPRC’s assessment that the other recent programs on which members of the MST team have performed are relevant to elements and concepts in MST’s proposal. I am impressed that members of the MST team’s include projects developing and demonstrating disruption tolerant networking, deep space beacon service, dynamic meshed network technologies, and various ground stations, I agree with the SPRC’s assessment that this record of past performance creates a reasonable expectation that MST is technically capable of performing the required effort.

Technical Merit

With respect to Technical Merit, I understand and agree with the overall rating of Fair that the SPRC assigned to MST’s proposal, as well as the ratings of Fair and Good that the SPRC assigned to MST’s proposal, respectively, in the Technical Approach and Capabilities and Overall Work Plan (Statement of Work) subfactors. Overall, I find that there is good technical value in MST’s proposal insofar as it squarely addresses the technical requirements in the NRA and includes capable and dedicated personnel, clear roles and responsibilities, and a generally good work plan, albeit with some schedule issues. At the same time, I have some concerns, particularly with the lack of important details regarding the inter-spacecraft satellite link (ISL) payload, a critical component of the project. Overall, I agree with the SPRC that MST’s proposal has no deficiencies, but weaknesses that outbalance its strengths.

In the Technical Approach and Capabilities subfactor, under which MST’s proposal was rated Fair, there are a number of Strengths, evidencing some good technical value, but also some Weaknesses and three Significant Weaknesses, which outbalance the Strengths. I am impressed by the respective Strengths that MST’s proposal received for being directly relevant to each of the three SS-CLS objectives defined in the NRA. In terms of technical focus on meeting the NRA’s objectives, MST’s proposal is indeed strong. I am also impressed that the proposal’s corporate teams and individual key personnel qualifications and demonstrated organizational capabilities are highly qualified and map well to the capabilities and techniques to successfully complete the work and, likewise, that the proposal thoroughly describes the facilities and expertise needed to achieve the work. As the SPRC recognized with these two Strengths, not only does MST’s proposal have a strongly relevant technical approach, but it also proposes strong capabilities to successfully execute that approach. And I appreciate the proposal’s approach to emulate the proposed system development and make use of its over-the-air test capability. I agree with the SPRC, which assigned a Strength to this aspect of the proposal, that this mitigates technical risks. As mentioned, however, I am concerned about the lack of important details regarding the ISL payload, which is a critical component of this project. As found by the SPRC, the proposal does not adequately address ISL pointing and tracking; does not adequately describe how the radio will generate data to send to the receiver on the other cubesat to complete a communication link and then how the receiving system downconverts the data stream and measures performance; and, there is little operations concept of the experiment phase provided, a critical element directly associated with the solicitation objectives. Additionally, the proposal lacks or provides outdated details of the key communications ISL payloads and its components and it is not clear whether the proposed COTS components can ensure a successful in-space demonstration. As well, the proposal’s risk identification lacked consideration of technical ISL payload risks and risk management approaches such as mitigation steps and tracking of ISL risks were lacking. I note that each of these three Significant Weaknesses arises from a lack of details in the proposal, rather than something inherently problematic about the proposed technical approach or capabilities. As such, it might be possible for MST to mitigate the identified risks by providing additional information through negotiations. As things currently stand, however, I agree with the SPRC that each of these three Significant Weaknesses appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. I am also concerned about the three Weaknesses that the proposal received, respectively, because the link budget has an error and is lacking key details which make it difficult to validate expected results; the proposal has an overly complex technical approach to use the V-band system as a redundant system to an optical ISL; and the key subcontractor responsible for the V-band payload does not describe their personnel’s knowledge with flight systems. Again, I note that the risks identified in these Weaknesses could possibly be mitigated by MST providing additional information through negotiations. In assessing the submitted proposal, however, I agree with the SPRC that, in the Technical Approach and Capabilities subfactor, the proposal’s Weaknesses outbalance its Strengths.

In the Overall Work Plan (Statement of Work) subfactor, under which MST’s proposal was rated Good, the proposal again has Strengths along with some Weaknesses, but without the Significant Weaknesses apparent under the Technical Approach and Capabilities subfactor.

There is technical value in the proposal providing a thorough schedule with key tasks, milestones, and deliverables to complete the expected outcomes, data, reviews, and deliverables identified in the NRA. I also appreciate that the proposal very effectively uses resources by keeping the number of team members to a minimum while covering the skillsets that would enable a high likelihood of successful performance of the work, with each key team member being fully dedicated to this effort. Likewise, I appreciate that the proposal is generally thorough and very clearly delineates roles and responsibilities amongst MST and its proposed subcontractors and its academic partner. I agree with the SPRC that these three aspects of the proposal each will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract, if awarded. At the same time, I note that the proposed schedule and order of events for key procurements is unclear; the proposed work plan does not leave sufficient time to adequately characterize the performance of the system and conduct experiments; and that the proposed Statement of Work is incomplete in that it lacks a detailed description of the tasks in the DDT&E flow for the satellites’ builds, as well as unclear order of some DDT&E activities.

Again, these Weaknesses primarily arise from a lack of clarity an insufficient detail in the proposal and not from something inherently problematic in the proposed work plan. While MST might be able to provide additional information to address these concerns, I agree with the SPRC that these three aspects of the proposal, as it stands, each increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. In the Overall Work Plan (Statement of Work) subfactor, I agree with the SPRC that MST’s proposal is of moderate merit and represents a credible response to the NRA.

Overall, I understand and agree with the overall rating of Fair that the SPRC assigned to MST’s proposal under the Technical Merit factor. There is good technical value in MST’s proposal insofar as it squarely addresses the technical requirements in the NRA and includes capable and dedicated personnel, clear roles and responsibilities, and a generally good work plan, albeit with some schedule issues. That said, there are clear concerns with the lack of important details regarding the ISL payload, a critical component of the project, and as identified in the other Weaknesses found in the evaluation. While it may be possible for MST to address these concerns by providing additional information in negotiations, the likelihood of an awarded contract being successful depends upon MST providing sufficient information to address these concerns adequately. Absent that additional information, I agree with the SPRC that the Weaknesses identified in MST’s proposal outbalance its strengths.

Price

In reviewing the Price factor, I note that MST’s proposed price is lower than the Government estimated budget for awards, but also presents some risks, particularly with respect to the phasing of milestone payments. Additionally, I note that, with there being only one acceptable proposal, certified cost and pricing data is required to determine whether MST’s proposed price is fair and reasonable for the work proposed.

Selection Decision

In determining whether to select MST’s proposal for negotiations, I consider both Technical Merit and Price, with Technical Merit being significantly more important.

With respect to Technical Merit, I find that MST’s proposal presents adequate value. As discussed, MST’s proposal squarely addresses the technical requirements in the NRA and includes capable and dedicated personnel, clear roles and responsibilities, and a generally good work plan, albeit with some schedule issues. As noted, the lack of important details regarding the critical ISL payload present significant risks, which outbalance the proposal’s Strengths. Because it is possible that MST may be able to address these risks by providing additional information in negotiations, I find that these risks do not provide an obstacle to entering negotiations. At the same time, however, I note that the likelihood of any SS-CLS contract awarded to MST being successful is dependent upon MST providing sufficient information to address these concerns adequately. For the purpose of providing MST an opportunity to attempt to provide such information, so as to justify an actual contract award, the proposal’s Technical Merit is adequate.

Similarly, with respect to Price, I also find that MST’s proposal presents adequate value. As noted, MST’s proposed price is lower than the Government estimated budget for awards, but also presents some risks, particularly with respect to the phasing of milestone payments. I find that these risks do not provide an obstacle to entering negotiations, in which MST will have an opportunity to attempt to address these risks, and also provide the Government with the certified cost and pricing data required to determine whether MST’s price is fair and reasonable. For purposes of entering such negotiations, MST’s Price is adequate.

Accordingly, I find that MST’s proposal, which meets the requirements of the NRA, presents the best value to the Government. Therefore, I hereby select MST for negotiations regarding a potential SS-CLS contract as outlined in the NRA. Any award of such a contract will be contingent upon the negotiations successfully addressing the identified technical and price risks, including the provision of certified cost and pricing data establishing that the price is fair and reasonable for the work proposed, all of which shall be within the sole discretion of the Government.

Michael J. Barrett, Date Source Selection Authority

Michael Barrett Digitally signed by Michael Barrett Date: 2024.10.03 23:37:00 -04'00'