GXS Instrument Source Selection Statement 9.5.23.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION

STATEMENT FOR

NASA GeoXO SOUNDER (GXS) INSTRUMENT

SOLICITATION NO. 80GSFC22R0055

On August 10, 2023, I along with senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) held a meeting/teleconference with the GXS Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to hear findings based on the evaluation of the proposals for the NASA GeoXO Sounder (GXS) instrument implementation procurement. This memorandum documents my decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this contract is to acquire up to three (3) instruments in support of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather forecasting operations. NASA is selecting a contractor to perform the implementation and hardware development activities for the GeoXO Sounder (GXS) for the Geostationary and Extended Observations (GeoXO) series project. The GXS requirement was issued as a full and open competition procurement. The GXS is a hyperspectral sounder and is a new instrument for the GeoXO Program. It will provide sounding observations of the western hemisphere for the first time from geostationary orbit, with critical information on the vertical profiles of atmospheric temperature and water vapor which will be fed into numerical weather prediction models run by National Weather Service and Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). The contract scope includes the tasks and deliverables necessary to design, analyze, develop, fabricate, integrate, test, verify, evaluate, support launch, supply and maintain the instrument ground support equipment, and support Mission Operations at the NOAA Satellite Operations Facility.

NASA issued the Request for Proposal (RFP) on February 10, 2023, followed by one (1) amendment.

Amendment One to the RFP was issued on February 28, 2023, which included a revision to Attachment D, Unique Instrument Interface Document (UIID); Attachment E, Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements; Section I Clause 52.244-2 Subcontracts; Section J.1 List of Attachments;

Section L.13 GSFC 52.215-210 Mission Suitability Instructions; Section L.14, GSFC 52.215-221 Cost Volume Instructions; and Cost Exhibits 3A Labor Dollars.

The North American Industry Classification (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541330 and the small business size standard is $25.5 million. The resultant contract will be a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) hardware contract for one (1) flight model (FM1) instrument and parts for FM2. The contract includes six (6) options. Option 1 is for the build for FM2; Option 2 is for the parts/build for FM3; and Options 3-6 are for additional value to perform Engineering Studies, valued at $2M per option.

The anticipated period of performance for this contract includes support for 10 years of on-orbit operations and 5 years of on-orbit storage, for a total of 15 years for each Flight Model (FM).

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

The following companies submitted timely proposals by March 17, 2023:

• L3Harris Technologies (L3Harris)

• Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation (Ball)

The RFP stated that the Government intended to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions with Offerors. The RFP also stated that the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer (CO) later determined them to be necessary. After evaluating proposals, the CO found that establishment of a competitive range was not necessary, a determination with which I concurred. On August 17, 2023, Ball Aerospace publicly announced that BAE Systems intends to purchase Ball Aerospace. After conducting an analysis and assessment of this potential transaction, the Contracting Officer concluded that, if this transaction is consummated, there would be no meaningful impact or effect on the Ball Aerospace proposal nor will it impact their ability to perform the prospective GXS Instrument contract. On August 29, 2023, I was briefed on the results of the Contracting Officer’s assessment of BAE Systems potential acquisition of Ball Aerospace.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The SEB included a team of technical and business members and consultants from appropriate disciplines to assist in proposal evaluations.

The GXS SEB evaluated proposals in accordance with the source selection procedures identified in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 "Source Selection" and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3. The SEB procedures at NFS 1815.370, NASA Source Evaluation Boards, were applied.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) defined the evaluation factors as Mission Suitability, Cost, and Past Performance. The RFP specified the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors as follows:

The Cost factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability factor and the Past Performance factor. As individual Factors, Mission Suitability Factor is more important than the Cost Factor, which is more important than the Past Performance Factor.

The RFP established that the Mission Suitability Factor would be point scored in the evaluation process. The Mission Suitability Factor consisted of the following three (3) subfactors with assigned points as indicated.

MISSION SUITABILITY SUBFACTOR POINTS

Subfactor A Technical Approach 750 Subfactor B Management Approach 150 Subfactor C Small Business Utilization (SBU) 100

TOTAL 1000

The Mission Suitability Factors were evaluated using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The SEB first reviewed each proposal and generated consensus findings (i.e., deficiencies, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, strengths, and significant strengths) within each subfactor. Next, the SEB considered the findings under each subfactor and applied the adjectival rating definitions set forth in NFS 1815. 305(a)(3)( A) to assign a rating based on the merit of the proposal within that subfactor. After assigning the adjectival rating for the subfactor, the SEB determined the associated percentile score with the range set forth in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The maximum points available for each subfactor were then multiplied by the assigned percent for each subfactor to derive the score for the particular subfactor. For example, if a subfactor has a possible 200 points and receives a percentile rating of 80, then the score of that subfactor would be 160 points.

Regarding the Cost factor, the proposed costs were assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism. As stated in the RFP, the cost evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(l) and NFS 1815.305(a)(l)(B). Offerors were referred to FAR 2.101(6) for a definition of "cost realism" and to FAR 15.404-l(d) for a discussion of "cost realism analysis" and "probable cost." The proposed costs, including direct labor, other direct costs, and indirect rates, were assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism. Both the "proposed and probable" costs reflected the Offeror's proposed fee amount. Proposed fee was not adjusted in the probable cost assessment. The proposed and probable costs and were presented to me, along with any issues and risks associated with the proposed costs.

For the Past Performance Factor, the past performance evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 and provision M.5 of the solicitation. Each Offeror' s contract references were evaluated to determine the degree of relevance based on size, content, and/or complexity. In evaluating Past Performance, the SEB relied on the Government-wide Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) database and customer feedback, in addition to the narrative on relevant past/current contracts provided by the Offerors. The Past Performance factor was not point scored but was assigned an adjectival rating of "Very High Level of Confidence," "High Level of Confidence," "M ode rate Level of Confidence," "Low Level of Confidence," "Very Low Level of Confidence," or "Neutral."

MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

The Mission Suitability factor has three subfactors as follows: Subfactor A - Technical Approach;

Subfactor B - Management Approach; and Subfactor C - Small Business Utilization.

Each subfactor was evaluated in accordance with the weights delineated in the RFP. The table below provides the adjectival ratings assigned in each Mission Suitability subfactor for the two (2) GXS proposals.

Offeror Subfactor A Technical Approach

Subfactor B Management

Approach

Subfactor C Small Business

Utilization

Mission Suitability

Points L3Harris Very Good Good Good 748 Ball Very Good Good Good 710

L3Harris

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, L3Harris received an adjectival rating of "Very Good" with one (1) Significant Strength, two (2) Strengths, two (2) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

L3Harris received one (1) Significant Strength in the following area: (1) re-use of flight-proven components and methodologies from their heritage Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) instrument and application of technology and lessons learned from their Joint Polar Satellite System/NPOESS Preparatory Project Crosstrack Infrared Sounder (CrIS). The L3Harris approach greatly increases the probability of satisfying GXS performance and interface requirements and reduces overall program risk, thereby greatly increasing the likelihood of successful contract performance.

L3Harris received two (2) Strengths in the following areas: (1) by proposing a concept with robust block redundancy, the Offeror reduces technical risk and increases the chance that GXS will meet its mission life requirements; and (2) by proposing a design that exceeds key spectral performance requirements with good margin and by providing proper rationale to support the stated margins, L3Harris has increased the likelihood that as-built performance will meet specifications. These Strengths will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

L3Harris received two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) the Offeror’s low mass margin increases risk to instrument development and program accommodation; and (2) by proposing a design with low margin against several key performance requirements, there is elevated risk that one or more performance requirements will not be met resulting in degraded data quality. These Weaknesses increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, L3Harris received an adjectival rating of "Good" with no Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, one (1) Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

L3Harris received one (1) Strength in the following area: (1) L3Harris’ advanced planning for procurement of long lead parts reduces schedule risk and therefore increases the probability of successful contract performance.

L3Harris received one (1) Weakness in the following area: (1) L3Harris’ use of spare parts for the build of FM-3 does not meet GXS requirements for maintaining spares inventory and increases the cost of Option 2. This Weakness increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU), L3Harris received an adjectival rating of "Good," with no Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

L3Harris received one (1) Strength in the following area: (1) Effective small business commitment process increases the likelihood of successful small business implementation and contract performance.

Ball

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, Ball received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one

(1) Significant Strength, one (1) Strength, two (2) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Ball received one (1) Significant Strength in the following area: (1) Ball proposed a significantly higher refresh rate for a full Sounding Disk versus the requirement of once every 60 minutes, exceeding the required rate. The significantly higher refresh rate is a major performance enhancement. The higher temporal refresh provides higher value data for forecasters and Numerical Weather Prediction and greatly increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Ball received one (1) Strength in the following area: (1) by proposing an instrument design with large margins in Noise Equivalent Differential Radiance (NEdN), Ball maintains flexibility in adjusting internal radiometric performance allocations and increases the probability that differences between as-built and as-designed subsystem performance can be accommodated while still meeting one of the primary science performance requirements. By increasing the probability that the proposed design will meet the NEdN requirement (GXSPORD162), Ball reduces the risk that design modifications will need to use unplanned resources (schedule and/or funding) to satisfy the requirement and increases the probability of successful contract performance.

Ball received two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) by providing insufficient information on compliance with the GXS Focal Plane Array (FPA) Pixel Operability requirements, the SEB could not adequately assess the risk of the novel focal plane arrays meeting the proposed performance levels; and (2) although Ball stated that spectral performance will be met, insufficient information was provided on the implementation of spectral performance requirements. These Weaknesses increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, Ball received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, one (1) Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Ball received one (l) Strength in the following area: (1) Ball’s strong procurement planning, including advanced planning for long lead parts and early subcontracting milestones, reduces schedule risk which will have a positive impact on the contract.

Ball received one (1) Weakness in the following area: (1) by proposing a schedule with non-credible aspects, there is a high likelihood that Ball will not be able to meet the proposed schedule milestones. This Weakness increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU), Ball received an adjectival rating of “Good,” with no Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Ball received one (1) Strength in the following area: (1) Effective processes and plans for commitment to small business increases successful small business utilization and contract performance.

COST EVALUATION

The SEB evaluated the total proposed cost, inclusive of fee, and determined the Government's probable cost for all the Offerors. Ball’s total proposed cost ($486,863,957) was significantly lower than L3Harris’ total proposed cost. The SEB determined that an upward probable cost adjustment was required for both offerors.

For L3Harris, the SEB made a slight upward probable adjustment to costs associated with critical spares.

For Ball, the SEB determined the total direct labor hours/skill mix for various labor categories were insufficient to reach the PDR milestone. Therefore, a moderate upward probable cost adjustment was made to multiple direct labor categories.

Based on the SEB's evaluation results, Ball had the lowest total probable cost ($553,897,346), which was significantly lower than L3Harris’ probable cost.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

In evaluating the Past Performance of the Offerors, the SEB determined the Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating for Ball to be "High" based on the combination of "Very High" Overall Relevance and "High" Overall Performance. The SEB determined L3Harris to have an overall Past Performance Level of Confidence rating of "High" based on the combination of "Very High" Overall Relevance and "High" Overall Performance.

DECISION

As the SSA for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the SEB's documentation entitled "Geostationary Extended Observations (GeoXO) Sounder (GXS) Procurement Source Selection Authority Presentation" and the associated Cost Report. On August 10, 2023, I met with the GXS SEB, along with several ex-officio members, to receive the findings of the SEB. On August 29, 2023, I was briefed on the assessment of the potential BAE Systems acquisition of Ball Aerospace. I carefully reviewed the Contracting Officer’s documentation and concurred that the potential transaction would have no meaningful impact or effect on the Ball Aerospace proposal nor will it impact their ability to perform the prospective GXS Instrument contract.

I determined that the findings presented by the SEB, as documented in its presentation and the accompanying cost report, were detailed and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the GXS RFP and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal. I discussed with the SEB its rationale for the findings, adjectival ratings, and scores for the Mission Suitability Subfactors, and discussed the rationale for the evaluation of Cost and Past Performance, and I agree with the SEB's findings.

Further, I solicited the views of ex-officio members in their areas of expertise.

In determining which proposal offered the best value to NASA, I referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP:

The Cost Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and Past Performance Factor. As individual Factors, Mission Suitability Factor is more important than the Cost Factor, which is more important than the Past Performance Factor.

My selection was based on the comparative assessment of the proposals against each of the RFP evaluation factors to determine which proposal represented the best value. Regarding the Mission Suitability Factor, the most important factor, I noted that both Offerors received the same adjectival ratings for each subfactor. Under Subfactors B (Management Approach) and C (Small Business Utilization), I noted than both Offerors received Good ratings and found no meaningful discriminators between the Offeror’s findings. However, based on the content of the findings, under Subfactor A (Technical Approach), I found that the technical approach proposed by L3Harris was slightly more advantageous than the proposal submitted by Ball which resulted in L3Harris receiving a slightly higher overall Mission Suitability total point score.

Regarding Subfactor A, the most heavily weighted subfactor, I found a slight discriminator between L3Harris' Very Good rating compared to Ball's Very Good rating. L3Harris received one Significant Strength, two Strengths, and two Weaknesses, while Ball received one Significant Strength, one Strength, and two Weaknesses.

I noted that L3Harris received its Significant Strength in this subfactor for their risk averse GXS design, based on flight-proven instrument designs of the same risk class and complexity, that are flown in the same orbital environmental conditions. I noted that L3Harris employs reuse of designs from ABI and other L3Harris programs, and its proposed reuse is based on on-orbit validated analytical models and proven methodologies. The proposed GXS design demonstrated in depth technical knowledge and a detailed understanding of all performance requirements. L3Harris’ proposed GXS design leverages a high percentage of the ground processing algorithms, tools, operational products, and a proven calibration approach. I found that this mature, comprehensive design approach significantly reduces the GXS development risk, increasing the likelihood of successful contract performance.

In addition to the Significant Strength, I found that L3Harris received two (2) Strengths, as follows:

(1) by proposing a concept with robust block redundancy, the Offeror reduces technical risk; and (2) by proposing a design that exceeds key spectral performance requirements with good margin, L3Harris has increased the likelihood that as-built performance will meet specifications.

I noted that L3Harris received two (2) Weaknesses, as follows: (1) the Offeror’s low mass margin increases risk to instrument development and program accommodation; and (2) by proposing a design with low margin against several key performance requirements, there is elevated risk that one or more performance requirements will not be met resulting in degraded data quality.

I noted that Ball received a Very Good rating, with one (1) Significant Strength, one (1) Strength, and two (2) Weaknesses. I also noted that Ball received a Significant Strength for proposing a significantly faster refresh rate for the full Sounding Disk compared to the requirement of 60 minutes, which I find to be a major performance enhancement. Higher temporal refresh rates provide higher value data for forecasters and Numerical Weather Prediction. Specifically, a significant benefit of faster refresh rate is cloud avoidance, which greatly increases the chances of capturing a cloud free scene over the course of the observing period.

In addition to the Significant Strength, I noted Ball received one (1) Strength in the following area:

(1) by proposing an instrument design with large margins in NEdN, Ball maintains flexibility in adjusting internal radiometric performance allocations and increases the probability that differences between as-built and as-designed subsystem performance can be accommodated while still meeting key radiometric performance requirements. As a result, I found that Ball’s approach reduces the risk that design modifications will need to use unplanned resources to satisfy the requirement and increases the probability of successful contract performance.

Ball received two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) by providing insufficient information on compliance with the GXS Focal Plane Array (FPA) Pixel Operability requirements, the SEB could not adequately assess the risk of the novel focal plane arrays meeting the proposed performance levels; and (2) although Ball stated that spectral performance will be met, insufficient information was provided on the implementation of spectral performance requirements.

In comparing the Significant Strength findings for L3Harris and Ball, I found no discriminator with the Significant Strength assigned to L3Harris versus the Significant Strength assigned to Ball. Ball’s GXS design is optimized for exceeding requirements with higher development risk, while L3Harris is optimizing the design to make an efficient, reliable instrument that meets the GXS requirements with lower known technical risk.

I found that the weaknesses for both Offerors did not significantly detract from each Offeror’s overall Very Good technical approach. However, in comparing all findings, I noted a slight discriminator with L3Harris’ strength for proposing a justifiable design that exceeds key spectral performance requirements. By increasing the probability that the proposed design will exceed key spectral performance requirements, L3Harris reduces the risk that design modifications will need to use unplanned resources (schedule and/or funding) to satisfy the requirements and as a result will have some positive impact on performance of the contract. By contrast, I noted that Ball received a weakness for lack of details for how they will achieve/exceed spectral performance requirements, which increases the probability that design modifications will need to use unplanned resources (schedule and/or funding) to satisfy spectral performance requirements, which increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Therefore, overall, in Subfactor A, I found that L3Harris’ proposal was slightly stronger in this subfactor.

Within Mission Suitability Subfactor B, Management Approach, L3Harris received an adjectival rating of Good with one (1) Strength, and one (1) Weaknesses. Ball received an adjectival rating of Good with one (1) Strength, and one (1) Weakness. Each Offeror received similar Strengths related to their proactive procurements of long lead items. L3Harris received one (1) Weakness related to not providing spare components though launch of the last flight instrument. Ball received one (1) Weakness for proposing a schedule with non-credible aspects which increases the likelihood that Ball will not be able to meet the proposed schedule milestones. After reviewing each offeror's findings in Subfactor B, I found no discriminators between the Offeror’s management approaches, which I found to be similarly beneficial.

Within Mission Suitability Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization, I noted that L3Harris and Ball each received a Good adjectival rating for this Subfactor with one (1) Strength for L3Harris and one

(1) Strength for Ball. After reviewing all findings, I concluded both offerors had good small business subcontracting approaches that demonstrated a commitment to small business resulting in no discriminator between the proposals.

Under the Cost Factor, I observed that the probable cost for Ball was significantly lower than the probable cost of L3Harris, resulting in a very significant cost advantage for Ball. I inquired about the significant cost difference and was advised that Ball’s simpler architecture approach resulted in a significant cost savings. Additionally, Ball offered a lower fee percentage. Both Offerors’ proposals did receive some cost adjustments but the significant cost difference remained and was attributable to the different design approaches and rate/fee percentages offered. Based upon this thorough explanation I accepted the cost differences as reasonable and realistic.

Regarding the Past Performance factor, I noted that Ball and L3Harris received High Level of Confidence ratings and found that the Past Performance of both offerors to be comparable overall with no meaningful discriminator. I concur with the SEB's High performance rating.

Finally, I carefully considered the findings in relation to the evaluation criteria in the RFP and again referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP.

Under Mission Suitability, the most important factor, I determined that L3Harris’ proposal was slightly more advantageous than Ball’s proposal, based primarily in Subfactor A, as described above.

However, regarding Cost, the second most important factor, Ball’s probable cost was significantly lower L3Harris’s probable cost which I found to be a very significant cost advantage for Ball. For Past Performance, the least important factor, I concluded that both Offerors can successfully perform the GXS contract, and therefore this was not a discriminator.

While I recognized that Mission Suitability is the most important factor, I concluded that Ball’s very significant cost advantage more than off-sets L3Harris’ slight Mission Suitability advantage. As such, I concluded that Ball’s proposal offers the best value to the Government.

Therefore, I select Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation for award of the GXS contract.

Thomas V. McCarthy Date Source Selection Authority