Rapid IV OR3 Source Selection Statement -Signed by SSA.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR RAPID SPACECRAFT ACQUISITION IV (RAPID IV) ON-RAMP III

On April 30, 2024, I met with the Rapid IV On-Ramp III Source Evaluation Board (SEB) and other key senior NASA management officials via teleconference for the purpose of selecting new vendors for award of a Rapid IV contract and for the inclusion of additional spacecraft to the current Rapid IV contracts.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The Rapid Spacecraft Acquisition IV (Rapid IV) is a multiple-award, indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract, with the ability to issue Firm Fixed Price (FFP) delivery orders. This Multi-Agency Contract (MAC) may support other NASA centers and other federal agencies.

The Rapid IV contract serves as a rapid and flexible means for the Government to acquire spacecraft and related components, equipment, and services in support of NASA missions and/or other Federal Government agencies. Under the contract, Rapid IV contractors offer spacecraft and related services to be purchased via Government-placed Delivery Orders (DO). The spacecraft designs, related items and services may be tailored, as needed, to meet the unique needs of each mission.

The Rapid IV contract includes an “On Ramp” feature, which allows for the original solicitation to be periodically re-opened in order to give new vendors the opportunity to propose flight-proven spacecraft designs. On Ramps also give vendors already awarded a Rapid IV contract the opportunity to propose additional flight-proven spacecraft designs and/or update their existing catalog designs.

The purpose of this procurement is to conduct an On-Ramp for Core Spacecraft and associated services to facilitate future Delivery Orders.

The following aerospace companies proposed a core spacecraft for consideration under this procurement:

Aerospace Company # of Proposed Spacecraft

Argotec Inc (Argotec) 3 Blue Canyon Technologies LLC (BCT) 3 General Atomics (GA) 1 Kongsberg NanoAvionics US LLC (NanoAvionics) 1 Northrop Grumman (NG)* 1 Tyvak* 4

*These aerospace companies currently have a Rapid IV contract and the proposal submitted is for the inclusion of new spacecraft under their contract.

Following the initial evaluation of proposals, discussions were held with all offerors that had issues or concerns that needed further discussion and/or clarification. Discussions were conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.306. After discussions concluded, all offerors submitted timely Final Proposal Revisions.

The SEB completed its final evaluation of proposals on April 19, 2024 and documented its findings in a presentation. The results of the final evaluation were presented to me on April 30, 2024 and are discussed below.

OFFEROR AND HERITAGE SPACECRAFT ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD

The Request for Proposal (RFP) stated that “contract award is limited to spacecraft Offerors that can demonstrate a minimum of two successful spacecraft developments, as an aerospace company. In order for an offeror’s company to be eligible for inclusion in the Rapid IV catalog, the offeror’s company shall have developed and flown, at least TWO spacecraft successfully through on-orbit checkout and acceptance. In order for the offeror’s heritage design to be eligible to be proposed for inclusion in the Rapid IV catalog, the offeror’s heritage spacecraft design shall have successfully flown, at least ONCE, through on-orbit checkout and acceptance.

No Offeror or spacecraft will be considered for evaluation that does not meet the above eligibility requirements.”

Following review, the SEB determined that all Offerors and all proposed spacecraft met the above eligibility requirements for proposal evaluation and potential contract award.

EVALUATION PROCESS

The RFP stated that vendors would be awarded a contract provided that all Technical Acceptability Standards (TAS) are met and rated “acceptable; and the Offeror’s Past Performance received a “Pass” rating. In addition, a responsibility determination was made for each Offeror in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in FAR Subpart 9.1.

Per the RFP, the following Technical Acceptability Standards were used by the evaluation team to determine the Offeror’s technical acceptability:

(1) The offeror’s Technical Acceptability Standards Compliance Matrix is complete and traces the offeror’s compliance with each of the Technical Acceptability Standards.

(2) The offeror’s proposed top-level implementation schedule is complete and addresses all the elements specified in L.23, B(2).

(3) The offerors narrative is complete and adequately demonstrates its approach to compliance with all subsections of SOW Section 4.0 of the Rapid IV SOW.

(4) The offeror has provided a statement that identifies which quality management system is being used by the offeror.

(5) The offeror’s narrative is complete and adequately describes how its Core Spacecraft design matches the stated performance characteristics stated in CDRL 1.

a. Heritage Spacecraft Design Overview – The offeror’s brief overview of the design and performance of the heritage spacecraft is complete and used as a starting point for the Core Spacecraft being offered for the Rapid IV Catalog.

b. Core Spacecraft Variances - The description and rationale for any subsystems or

“box-level” variances between the proposed Core Spacecraft design and the heritage spacecraft design is complete and adequate.

c. Core Spacecraft Systems Overview - The overview of the design and performance of the proposed core spacecraft offering as detailed in the Core System Performance Specification, CDRL 1, is complete and adequate, including the offeror’s ability to support the performance claims indicated in the CDRL 1 data and the offeror’s proposed system block diagram, down to the component box level.

(6) The offeror’s response adequately demonstrates that it possesses or has the ability to obtain the necessary and adequate facilities.

(7) The proposed spacecraft designs have both a minimum payload mass capability of 7 kilograms and a minimum payload power capability of 20 Watts, or greater (i.e., Cubesats to Geosats).

(8) The offeror has provided a complete Master Subcontracting Plan (applicable only to large businesses) as described and required by the FAR Clause 52.219-9 – Alternate II.

(9) The Appendices referenced in L.23 (A, B, and C) are complete (including or referencing all CDRL documents) and adequate.

(10) The offeror’s proposed performance-based payment schedule for each core system is complete, adequate, and includes the major payment milestones listed in Clause H.9, Performance-Based Payment Events and Completion Criteria.

Per the RFP, the Offeror’s past/current relevant past performance history was evaluated on a pass/fail basis. Following proposal receipt, the Contracting Officer (CO) reviewed the Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) System (www.cpars.gov) to review any relevant past performance information for the Offeror within the last 10 years of the RFP release date. When necessary, the CO contacted Offeror’s customers for the proposed bus for verification/validation of the past performance information. Per the RFP, an Offeror would fail and therefore would not be eligible for contract award only in the event that its relevant past performance history reflected significant performance issues (e.g. spacecraft failures, extensive contractor caused delays) which were inadequately explained in their written response to the http://www.cpars.gov/

Contracting Officer.

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY STANDARDS EVALUATION

Argotec Argotec offered the Hawk 6U Core Spacecraft. Argotec’s proposal met all ten technical acceptability standards and was rated “Acceptable”.

Argotec offered the Hawk 12U Core Spacecraft. Argotec’s proposal met all ten technical acceptability standards and was rated “Acceptable”.

Argotec offered the Hawk EO Core Spacecraft. Argotec’s proposal met all ten technical

BCT

BCT offered the CubeSats Core Spacecraft. BCT’s proposal met all ten technical acceptability standards and was rated “Acceptable”.

BCT offered the Saturn Core Spacecraft. BCT’s proposal met all ten technical acceptability standards and was rated “Acceptable”.

BCT offered the Venus Core Spacecraft. BCT’s proposal met all ten technical acceptability standards and was rated “Acceptable”.

GA

GA offered the GA-150 Core Spacecraft. GA’s proposal met all ten technical acceptability

NanoAvionics NanoAvionics offered the M12P Core Spacecraft. NanoAvionics’ proposal met all ten technical acceptability standards and was rated “Acceptable”.

NG

NG offered the ESPAStar-D Core Spacecraft. NG’s proposal met all ten technical acceptability

Tyvak Tyvak offered the Ambassador Core Spacecraft. Tyvak’s proposal met all ten technical acceptability standards and was rated “Acceptable”.

Tyvak offered the Nebula Core Spacecraft. Tyvak’s proposal met all ten technical acceptability standards and was rated “Acceptable”.

Tyvak offered the Renegade Core Spacecraft. Tyvak’s proposal met all ten technical

Tyvak offered the Triumph Core Spacecraft. Tyvak’s proposal met all ten technical acceptability

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

A review of the Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) was conducted to evaluate each Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance information within the last 10 years of the RFP release date.

Argotec Based on the SEB’s review of Argotec’s relevant past performance information, the SEB concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the SEB deemed Argotec’s past performance rating as “PASS” and the offeror eligible for contract award.

BCT

Based on the SEB’s review of BCT’s relevant past performance information, the SEB concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the SEB deemed BCT’s past performance rating as “PASS” and the offeror eligible for contract award.

GA

Based on the SEB’s review of GA’s relevant past performance information, the SEB concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the SEB deemed GA’s past performance rating as “PASS” and the offeror eligible for contract award.

NanoAvionics Based on the SEB’s review of NanoAvionics’ relevant past performance information, the SEB concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the SEB deemed NanoAvionics’ past performance rating as “PASS” and the offeror eligible for contract award.

NG

Based on the SEB’s review of NG’s relevant past performance information, the SEB concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the SEB deemed NG’s past performance rating as “PASS” and the offeror spacecraft eligible for inclusion in the offeror’s Rapid IV catalog.

Tyvak Based on the SEB’s review of Tyvak’s relevant past performance information, the SEB concluded that there were no significant performance issues, which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed. Therefore, the SEB deemed Tyvak’s past performance rating as “PASS” and the offeror spacecraft eligible for inclusion in the offeror’s Rapid IV catalog.

DECISION

In making my determination, I reviewed the evaluation criteria and procedures that are summarized in this document and detailed in the RFP. During the presentation, I solicited the views of the evaluation team and key management personnel that were in attendance and have responsibilities related to the procurement. I also carefully reviewed the evaluation team’s presentation and documentation in support of their evaluation results and concur with their findings.

Following my careful review and analysis, it is my conclusion that based on the evaluation findings, the core spacecraft proposed by Argotec (Hawk 6U, Hawk 12U & Hawk EO), BCT (CubeSats, Saturn, & Venus), GA (GA-150), NanoAvionics (M12P), NG (ESPAStar- D), and Tyvak (Ambassador, Nebula, Renegade & Triumph) successfully meet all required RFP Technical Acceptability Standards and are determined acceptable.

Moreover, based on the overall favorable review and evaluation of each Offeror’s past/current relevant past performance history, I concur that there were no significant performance issues (e.g. spacecraft failures, extensive contractor caused delays) which were not otherwise adequately explained or addressed by Argotec, BCT, GA, NanoAvionics, NG, and Tyvak.

Accordingly, I concur with each of the Offerors receiving Past Performance ratings of “Pass.”

Based on the above, I select NG’s proposed ESPAStar-D core spacecraft to be added to their existing 80GSFC20D0019 Rapid IV contract and Tyvak’s proposed Ambassador, Nebula, Renegade & Triumph core spacecraft to be added to their existing 80GSFC20D0020 Rapid IV contract.

Additionally, I select the following four Offerors and their respective proposed core spacecraft for contract award under the Rapid IV Spacecraft acquisition.

Offeror Core Spacecraft Argotec Hawk 6U Hawk 12U Hawk EO

BCT CubeSats Saturn Venus

GA GA-150

NanoAvionics M12P

Cathleen M. Richardson Date Director of Flight Projects Source Selection Authority