Source Selection Statement.pdf

Source Selection Statement For the Sounder for Microwave-Based Applications Phase A Study

Solicitation 80GSFC23R0008

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR

SOUNDER FOR MICROWAVE-BASED APPLICATIONS

SOLICITATION 80GSFC23R0008

On July 18, 2023, I along with senior officials from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), met with the Integrated Evaluation Team (IET) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the Sounder for Microwave-Based Applications (SMBA) Phase A Study procurement. This memorandum documents my selection decision.

PROCURMENT DESCRIPTION

The SMBA Phase A Study requirement provides services to help meet the objectives of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Near-Earth Orbit Network (NEON) program. The principal purpose of this requirement is to provide a definition-phase study of a NEON SMBA instrument. The Sounder will be a microwave sounding instrument that is planned to fly on the NOAA NEON program series of low-earth orbit satellites with the first launch planned for 2030.

The SMBA Phase A Study Request for Proposal (RFP) was released on February 23, 2023.

This competitive procurement will result in the award of up to four (4) Firm Fixed Price contracts at a not-to-exceed amount of up to $5M each. The contracts will have a period of performance of twelve (12) months from the contract effective date. This acquisition was conducted as a full and open competition. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541330 and the small business size standard is $25.5M.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

NASA’s Source Selection Authority (SSA) for this procurement appointed the IET, which included a team of technical and business members, and consultants from appropriate disciplines, to assist in proposal evaluations.

The SMBA Phase A Study IET evaluated proposals in accordance with the source selection procedures identified in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15.3 “Source Selection” and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3. The Source Evaluation Board procedures at NFS 1815.370, NASA Source Evaluation Boards, were applied. The objective of source selection is to select the proposal(s) that provide(s) the best value to the Government.

Evaluation Factors

The RFP listed three (3) evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Price, and Past Performance.

The RFP specified the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors as follows:

“The Price Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission

Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual Factors, the Mission Suitability is more important than the Past Performance Factor which is more important than the Price Factor.”

Mission Suitability Evaluation Factor

The Mission Suitability factor was evaluated using the adjectival ratings and definitions at NFS (NASA FAR Supplement)1815.305 (a)(3)(A):

ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DEFINITIONS

Excellent A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists.

Very Good A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates over-all competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.

Good A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both.

As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly detract from the offeror’s response.

Fair A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.

Poor A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to correct.

Classification of findings and definitions:

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness A proposal flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Strength (not in

FAR/NFS)

A proposal area that enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the government.

Significant Strength (not in FAR/NFS)

A proposal area that greatly enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes significantly toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the government.

Price Evaluation Factor

The Price factor was evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15.305 (a)(1). A price analysis was conducted, as described in FAR Part 15.404-1(b), on the Offeror’s Total Proposed Firm Fixed Price.

Past Performance Evaluation Factor

The Past Performance factor was evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15 and provision 52.215-331 of the solicitation. The Offeror’s contract references were evaluated to determine initial relevance and the degree of relevance based on size, content, and/or complexity. The Past Performance factor was assigned an adjectival rating of “High Level of Confidence,” “Moderate Level of Confidence,” “Low Level of Confidence,” or “Neutral.”

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

On March 27, 2023, NASA received five (5) timely proposals from the following companies:

Ball Aerospace Boulder Environmental Sciences and Technology Northrop Grumman Corporation Orbital Micro Systems Spire Global

On July 18, 2023, the SMBA Phase A Study IET met with the Source Selection Authority to review the IET’s initial evaluation findings.

The RFP stated that the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contract(s) without discussions with Offerors. The CO determined that a selection based on initial proposals would be in the best interest of the Government and I concurred with that determination.

FINAL EVALUATION SUMMARY

The total evaluation summary, including the proposed prices for awardees, is as follows:

Offeror Mission Suitability Adjectival Rating

Firm Fixed Price Past Performance Level of Confidence

Ball Aerospace Excellent $5,000,000 Very High

Boulder Environmental Sciences and Technology

Fair Neutral

Northrop Grumman

Corporation

Excellent $4,995,327 Moderate

Orbital Micro Systems

Very Good $4,996,530 Neutral

Spire Global Good $4,655,000 High

MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

Ball Aerospace

Ball Aerospace received a rating of “Excellent” based on three (3) significant strengths and one

(1) weakness. There were no strengths, significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

Ball Aerospace’s first significant strength was for its plans to leverage past and existing studies and designs, which greatly enhances the potential for successful performance.

Ball Aerospace’s second significant strength was for its design and risk reduction plans concerning schedule and efficiency of development time, which greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

Ball Aerospace’s third significant strength was for its design concept of the flight instrument which demonstrates a thorough understanding of the baseline requirements as called out in the Performance Specification Document (PSD and Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements (IMAR), significantly increasing the potential for a successful instrument design that will satisfy or exceed those requirements.

Ball Aerospace’s weakness was for its identification of an unreasonably low number of issues or concerns with the baseline design which raises the concern that related formulation and implementation risks are not clearly understood.

Boulder Environmental Sciences and Technology

Boulder Environmental Sciences and Technology received a rating of “Fair” based on two (2) strengths, one (1) weakness and two (2) significant weaknesses. There were no significant strengths or deficiencies.

Boulder Environmental Sciences and Technology’s first strength was for its novel optics design.

Boulder Environmental Sciences and Technology’s second strength was for demonstrating an effective understanding of, and solutions to, the technological challenges associated with the SMBA instrument, thereby increasing the chances of designing an instrument that can meet baseline requirements.

Boulder Environmental Sciences and Technology’s weakness was that many of its proposed components and sub-assemblies are in the lower TRL levels, which increases the risk that the system will not reach TRL 6 by the PDR per the SOW requirement.

Boulder Environmental Sciences and Technology’s first significant weakness was that its design is unreasonable and significantly increases risk of unsuccessful contract performance because it is non-compliant with multiple requirements in the PSD.

Boulder Environmental Sciences and Technology’s second significant weakness was that it did not demonstrate a complete understanding of the Government’s requirements related to the Technical Approach, Management Approach, Schedule, and Risk Assessment which significantly increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Northrop Grumman Corporation

Northrop Grumman Corporation received a rating of “Excellent” based on two (2) significant strengths, one (1) strength and one (1) weakness. There were no significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

Northrop Grumman Corporation’s first significant strength was for a design concept that leverages significant heritage designs and that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirements for SMBA, which greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

Northrop Grumman Corporation’s second significant strength was for its very effective and encompassing approach to use trade studies which provides significant additional value to the Government.

Northrop Grumman Corporation’s strength was for its design considerations related to manufacturing which enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

Northrop Grumman Corporation’s weakness was for an overly optimistic risk posture and lack of adequate detail related to big picture design and long-term planning, which increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Orbital Micro Systems

Orbital Micro Systems received a rating of “Very Good” based on one (1) significant strength, one (1) strength and two (2) weaknesses. There were no significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

Orbital Micro Systems’s significant strength was that it proposes an innovative design with potential significant technical benefits, which greatly enhances the potential for successful performance.

Orbital Micro Systems’s strength was its sound understanding of state-of-the-art technologies, and associated limitations and risks, which increases the chances of a design that successfully meets the baseline requirements.

Orbital Micro Systems’s first weakness was for a lack of design and implementation details, which failed to demonstrate an adequate understanding of the full scope of the future Phases B-D effort.

Orbital Micro Systems’s second weakness was that its technical approach lacks TRL details, which increases the risk of a lack of understanding of the complexity and scope of the technical approach and schedule to satisfy SMBA requirements.

Spire Global

Spire Global received a rating of “Good” based on two (2) strengths and three (3) weaknesses.

There were no significant strengths, significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

Spire Global’s first strength was for its design simplicity and planned development processes to mature the design, which enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

Spire Global’s second strength was for its well-detailed Phase-A implementation plan and schedule for SMBA that demonstrates an understanding of activities required to successfully meet minimum baseline and many aspirational requirements.

Spire Global’s first weakness was for schedule inaccuracies in its proposed schedule for Phases B-D.

Spire Global’s second weakness was that its instrument design concept, expected performance, and manufacturing approaches were not explained in sufficient detail.

Spire Global’s third weakness was that its proposal lacks adequate detail related to risks, which increases performance risk.

PRICE FACTOR EVALUATION

The IET evaluated the proposed prices for this effort. All Offerors proposed prices that were within the maximum price of $5M specified in the solicitation. All Offerors were within 10% of each other, with none being significantly lower than $5M. The awardee prices were identified above, and the price proposed by Boulder Environmental Sciences and Technology was among the highest prices proposed.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Ball received an overall rating of “Very High.” . The evaluation team determined the overall level of confidence rating to be “Very High,” based on a Very High level of performance and

Very High relevance.

Boulder Environmental Sciences and Technology received an overall rating of “Neutral” because there were no relevant reference contracts valued at greater than $5M within the past five years.

Northrop Grumman Corporation received an overall rating of “Moderate.” The evaluation team determined the overall level of confidence rating to be “Moderate,” based on a Moderate level of performance and Very High relevance.

Orbital Micro Systems received an overall rating of “Neutral” because there were no relevant reference contracts valued at greater than $5M within the past five years.

Spire Global received an overall rating of “High.” The evaluation team determined the overall level of confidence rating to be “High,” based on a Very High level of performance and High relevance.

DETERMINATION

As the SSA for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the IET's presentation and determined that the findings presented by the IET were detailed and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the RFP and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal. I discussed with the IET its rationale for the findings and adjectival ratings for the Mission Suitability and Past Performance Factors and its price analysis results. I determined that the findings were reasonable and valid for the purpose of making a selection decision.

In determining which proposals 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 Price Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual Factors, Mission Suitability is more important than the Past Performance Factor which is more important than the Price Factor.

For the Mission Suitability Factor, I noted that the highest rated proposals from Ball Aerospace and Northrop Grumman Corporation each had multiple significant strengths and only one minor weakness. For both of these offerors, the combination of their positive findings demonstrated key performance advantages, consistent with their Excellent ratings.

Orbital Micro Systems and Spire Global were the next highest rated offerors under Mission Suitability, receiving Very Good and Good Mission Suitability ratings, respectively. Orbital Micro Systems received a significant strength for its innovative design benefits and only one minor weakness, making it highly competitive. Spire Global did not receive any significant strengths but had two strengths related to its simple design and a detailed implementation plan and schedule. These strengths were partially offset by the three weaknesses Spire Global received for its overall schedule, lack of detailed explanations for its design concept, and lack of details related to risks. However, in examining these findings, I do not view these weaknesses as substantial concerns for this Phase A study requirement, and I find there is merit to Spire Global’s proposal given its positive aspects.

Boulder Environmental Sciences and Technology (BEST) received the lowest Mission

Suitability rating at Fair, and it was the only proposal to receive significant weaknesses. It received no significant strength findings. I noted that BEST received two strengths for its novel design elements and for demonstrating an effective understanding of the technological challenges with the SMBA instrument. However, its significant weaknesses were associated with non-compliances with multiple requirements in the PSD and for demonstrating an incomplete understanding of requirements in multiple areas, and both of these findings significantly detracted from the overall merit of the BEST proposal. Both of these significant weaknesses are broad, present significant issues, and create substantial risk in BEST’s ability to successfully perform a Phase A Study. Therefore, I concluded that Boulder Environmental Sciences and Technology’s Mission Suitability factor was far less competitive than all other Offerors.

For the Past Performance factor, I observed the varying ratings for each Offeror and the basis for each rating. Ball Aerospace excelled with a Very High rating, based on Very High relevance and performance. Spire Global received the next highest rating (High) while Northop Grumman received a Moderate rating. BEST and Orbital Micro Systems received neutral ratings.

In examining Price, I found that all Offerors proposed prices within a relatively close range of each other, with Spire Global’s Price being lowest by a moderate amount.

Weighing these factors consistent with the evaluation criteria in the RFP, I determined that Ball Aerospace, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Orbital Micro Systems, and Spire Global all offered the best value for the Government, based on the merits of their Mission Suitability proposals, Past Performance ratings, and competitive prices. These four offerors were all superior to Boulder Environmental Sciences and Technology in the most heavily weighted evaluation factor, Mission Suitability. The Past Performance rating and Price offered by Boulder Environmental Sciences and Technology did not distinguish its proposal to offset its clear disadvantage in Mission Suitability, the most important factor. Therefore, based on the evaluation results and the Government’s stated intent to make up to four awards, I select Ball Aerospace, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Orbital Micro Systems, and Spire Global for award of the SMBA Phase A Study contracts, since they offer the best value to NASA.

Roger Clason Date Source Selection Authority