GeoXO Spacecraft Source Selection Statement .doc.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION

STATEMENT FOR

NASA GeoXO SPACECRAFT SOLICITATION

NO. 80GSFC23R0010

On May 13, 2024, 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 GeoXO Spacecraft Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to hear findings based on the evaluation of the proposals for the NASA GeoXO Spacecraft implementation procurement. This memorandum documents my decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this contract is to acquire up to seven (7) spacecraft in support of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather forecasting operations. NASA is selecting a contractor to perform the implementation and development of the spacecraft for the GeoXO series.

The GeoXO series operational configuration includes an East, West and center spacecraft. The GeoXO spacecraft requirement was issued as a full and open competition procurement. The GeoXO spacecraft are three axis stabilized geostationary spacecraft that will support three instruments each.

The East and West spacecraft are designated as “GeoI” due to their accommodation of the Imager instrument. The center spacecraft are designated as “GeoS” due to their accommodation of the Sounder instrument. The East and West spacecraft will also support an auxiliary communication payload for the NOAA Data Collection System (DCS) supporting relay, dissemination, and commanding. The procurement, with the base contract and all options, will consist of a total of seven (7) spacecraft, with launches planned for the first six (6) spacecraft and the seventh spacecraft having no current launch date. The contract scope includes the tasks and deliverables necessary to design, analyze, develop, fabricate, integrate, test, verify, evaluate, and support launch of the spacecraft. The contract scope also includes tasks to supply and maintain the Ground Support Equipment (GSE) and simulators, as well as support mission operations at the NOAA Satellite Operations Facility

(NSOF).

NASA issued the Request for Proposal (RFP) on September 29, 2023, followed by one (1) amendment.

Amendment One to the RFP was issued on November 8, 2023, which included a revision to Section L.12 correcting the address of NASA’s EFSS BOX. Additionally, the due date for proposals was extended from November 30, 2023, to December 12, 2023.

The North American Industry Classification (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 336414 and the small business size standard is 1300 employees. The resultant contract will be a Cost-Plus-Award- Fee (CPAF) base hardware contract for three (3) flight spacecraft (GeoI1, GeoI2 and GeoS1) plus a complete set of parts and materials for each spacecraft to be used as spares. The contract includes four (4) options for additional spacecraft and four (4) options to increase the value of the Special Studies pool by $2M each, if needed. Option 1 is for the build of GeoI3; Option 2 is for the build of GeoS2; Option 3 is for the build of GeoI4; Option 4 is for the build of GeoS3. Option 4 does not include Post Delivery Support since there is currently no launch date. Options 5-8 are included to increase the value of the special study pool mentioned above.

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 of on orbit life for each satellite. The 15 years of on orbit life may be proceeded by 5 years of ground storage.

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

The following companies submitted timely proposals by December 12, 2023:

• Lockheed Martin Space (Lockheed Martin)

• Maxar Space (Maxar)

The RFP stated,” The Government intends 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 determines 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.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

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

The GeoXO Spacecraft 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, Risk 700

Subfactor B Management Approach, Schedule 200

Subfactor C Small Business Utilization (SBU) 100

TOTAL 1000

The Mission Suitability Factor was 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(b) 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, NASA’s Award Fee Evaluation System (AFES), Award Fee letters from other agencies, and customer feedback, in addition to thenarrative 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," "Moderate 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 by the SEB in each Mission Suitability subfactor for the two

(2) GeoXO Spacecraft proposals.

Subfactor A Technical Approach

Subfactor B Management

Approach

Subfactor C Small Business

Utilization

Mission Suitability

Points

Lockheed Martin Excellent Good Excellent 859 Maxar Fair Good Good 451

Lockheed Martin

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, Lockheed Martin received an adjectival rating of "Excellent" with three (3) Significant Strengths, six (6) Strengths, two (2) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Lockheed Martin received three (3) Significant Strengths. The first Significant Strength was for proposing a spacecraft design that utilizes extensive re-use of flight hardware and software from GOES- R, which significantly reduces the amount of required non-recurring engineering (NRE) for GeoXO and greatly enhances the likelihood of successful contract performance. GOES-R is a successful geostationary imaging mission with very similar driving requirements and risk classification as GeoXO. The second Significant Strength was for having a strong and comprehensive accommodation approach for the instruments, which significantly reduces risk and greatly enhances the likelihood of successful contract performance. Instrument accommodation is critical to the GeoXO spacecraft procurement. The third Significant Strength was for the proposed spacecraft design which provides the opportunity to maximize mission lifetime well beyond the requirement. This was done through ample margin in propulsion tank capacity, and other long lived spacecraft elements, thus greatly enhancing the value to the Government. The ample margin in tank capacity allows for a total lifetime of at least 21 years for each spacecraft. These Significant Strengths greatly enhance the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Lockheed Martin received six (6) Strengths in the following areas: (1) the proposal demonstrated a strong understanding of the Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C) spacecraft subsystem, exhibited by a mature design, which provides confidence in meeting all pointing and geolocation requirements; (2) by proposing a spacecraft using low impulse thrusters and a robust GN&C design, Lockheed Martin is able to eliminate pointing control instrument interface outages during station keeping and momentum management, thereby providing the Government with increased availability of science products; (3) by proposing direct injection into geostationary orbit, Lockheed Martin simplifies the spacecraft design, simplifies early mission operations, reduces the time to achieve geostationary operations, and reduced Government operations costs; (4) by proposing a spacecraft design that incorporates accessibility and replaceability of components throughout Integration and Testing (I&T), Lockheed Martin increases the likelihood of successful hardware integration; (5) the proposal presents detailed modeling that is advanced for this stage of development which provides high confidence in the ability of the proposed design to meet system requirements; and (6) by proposing a detailed Fault Management architecture and a robust on-orbit failure recovery approach, Lockheed Martin demonstrates a mature fault management and recovery system that increases autonomy and will reduce development cost and staffing. These Strengths will have positive impacts on the successful performance of the contract.

Lockheed Martin received two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) inconsistent information regarding the Offeror’s proposed approach to Scalable Space Inertial Reference Unit (SSIRU) development and testing; and (2) the Offeror’s lack of manufacturing experience with the new 100V Scalable Power Regulation Unit (SPRU) and inadequate SPRU simulator plan could delay spacecraft I&T. These Weaknesses increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

Lockheed Martin received one (1) Strength in the following area: (1) the Offeror’s dedicated facility for GeoXO I&T increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Lockheed Martin received one (1) Weakness in the following area: (1) the Offeror’s proposed staffing level is insufficient to meet the totality of the GeoXO Spacecraft Statement of Work (RFP Attachment A - SOW) and thus increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU), Lockheed Martin received an adjectival rating of "Excellent," with one (1) Significant Strength, no Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant

Lockheed Martin received one (1) Significant Strength in the following area: (1) the Offeror’s proposed small business utilization plan exceeds the small business Government Recommended Goals (GRGs) in all socioeconomic areas which greatly enhances the likelihood of successful small business implementation.

Maxar

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, Maxar received an adjectival rating of “Fair” with no Significant Strengths, four (4) Strengths, five (5) Weaknesses, two (2) Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Maxar received four (4) Strengths in the following areas: (1) by proposing a spacecraft based upon their 1300 spacecraft bus, and Maxar’s heritage with earlier generations of that geostationary platform, Maxar increases the likelihood of successful spacecraft delivery; (2) the Offeror’s proposed satellite approach allows for flexibility with launch vehicle configurations; (3) by proposing a spacecraft design that incorporates accessibility and replaceability of components throughout I&T, Maxar increases the likelihood of successful hardware integration; and (4) by proposing a spacecraft using electric thrusters, Maxar is able to eliminate pointing control instrument interface outages, thereby providing the Government with increased availability of science products.

These Strengths will have positive impacts on the successful performance of the contract.

Maxar received five (5) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) inconsistencies in the Offeror’s proposed approach to Engineering Development Units (EDUs); (2) the proposal does not adequately describe Mission Operations activities which presents uncertainty;

(3) inconsistencies in the Offeror’s proposed approach to life testing of mechanisms; (4) the proposal provides an inadequate approach to the Instrument Software Simulator (ISS) integration which could result in delayed development; and (5) the Offeror’s proposed flight software and fault management approach lack sufficient details and poses a risk to development. These Weaknesses increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Maxar received two (2) Significant Weaknesses. The first Significant Weakness was for the approach presented to instrument and auxiliary payload accommodation which is inadequate and appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Instrument accommodation is critical to the GeoXO spacecraft procurement. Maxar’s proposed approach was severely lacking in several areas of instrument accommodation and discussion of electrical propulsion effects on the auxiliary communication payloads. The second Significant Weakness was for the lack of critical details for Command and Data Handling (C&DH), GN&C, Electrical / Power, and Communications subsystems, thereby appreciably increasing the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Maxar’s proposed approach fails to provide sufficient details and leads to significant risk of additional development being needed and cost growth.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, Maxar received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, two (2) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Maxar received one (l) Strength in the following area: (1) the Offeror’s proposed facilities minimize handling and prioritize accommodation for GeoXO which increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Maxar received two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) the Offeror’s proposed staffing level is insufficient to meet the totality of the GeoXO Spacecraft Statement of Work (RFP Attachment A - SOW); and (2) the Offeror’s proposal provides insufficient schedule information for the spacecraft options. These Weaknesses increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

Maxar received one (1) Strength in the following area: (1) the Offeror’s reasonable and effective proposed commitment to small business increases the likelihood of successful small business implementation.

COST EVALUATION

The SEB evaluated the total proposed cost, inclusive of fee, and determined the Government's probable cost for all the Offerors. Lockheed Martin’s total proposed cost ($2,271,447,441) was moderately lower than Maxar’s total proposed cost. The SEB determined that an upward probable cost adjustment was required for both offerors.

For Lockheed Martin, the SEB made an upward probable adjustment to direct labor hours associated with the base contract for the GeoI1, GeoI2 and GeoI3 vehicles. Labor hours were increased in the areas of C&DH, Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA), I&T and Launch Operations. Additional adjustments were made to indirect and service center costs.

Adjustments were also made for Lockheed Martin’s subcontractors. A slight downward probable adjustment was made to a significant subcontractor’s costs to reflect the most updated pricing submittal.

An updated submittal was developed by the significant subcontractor and submitted to Lockheed Martin after Lockheed Martin developed their pricing, but before the proposal was submitted to the Government.

Additionally, Lockheed Martin proposed a negotiation decrement for all subcontractors' costs which was removed, resulting in an upward probable cost adjustment due to lack of supporting documentation in the proposal.

For Maxar, the SEB made an upward probable adjustment to direct labor hours associated with the base contract for the GeoI1, GeoI2 and GeoI3 vehicles. Labor hours were increased in the areas of Systems Engineering, Mechanical, Thermal, C&DH, Communication, Electrical / Power, Flight Software, Ground Support Equipment (GSE) and I&T.

Adjustments were also made for Maxar’s subcontractors. A slight downward probable adjustment was made to a significant subcontractor’s costs to reflect the most updated pricing submittal. An updated submittal was developed by the significant subcontractor and submitted to Maxar after Maxar developed their pricing, but before the proposal was submitted to the Government.

Based on the SEB's evaluation results, Lockheed Martin’s total probable cost ($2,338,152,916), is moderately lower than Maxar's total 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 Lockheed Martin to be "High" based on the combination of "Very High" Overall Relevance and "High" Overall Performance. The SEB determined Maxar to have an Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence rating of "High" based on the combination of "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) Spacecraft Procurement Source Selection Authority Presentation" and the associated Cost Report. On May 13, 2024, I met with the Spacecraft SEB, along with senior NASA and NOAA officials, to receive the findings of the SEB.

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 Spacecraft 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.

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 the Offerors received different adjectival ratings for Subfactors A and C, and the same rating for Subfactor B. Under Subfactor A (Technical Approach), I noted that Lockheed Martin received an adjectival rating of Excellent and Maxar received a rating of Fair. Under Subfactor B (Management Approach), I noted that both Offerors received Good ratings, however based on the content of the findings, I found meaningful discriminators between the Offeror’s findings. Under Subfactor C (Small Business Utilization), I noted that both Offerors received different adjectival ratings - Lockheed Martin received an Excellent rating and Maxar received a Good rating. Based on the adjectival ratings and discriminators, I found the Mission Suitability approach proposed by Lockheed Martin was significantly more advantageous than the proposal submitted by Maxar, which resulted in Lockheed Martin receiving a significantly higher overall Mission Suitability total point score.

Regarding Subfactor A, the most heavily weighted subfactor, I found meaningful discriminators between Lockheed Martin's Excellent rating compared to Maxar's Fair rating. Lockheed Martin received three (3) Significant Strengths, six (6) Strengths, and two (2) Weaknesses, while Maxar received no Significant Strengths, four (4) Strengths, five (5) Weaknesses and two (2) Significant Weaknesses.

In comparing the findings for Lockheed Martin and Maxar, I found a key discriminator in instrument and payload accommodation. Lockheed Martin received a Significant Strength for a strong approach to instrument accommodation, whereby contrast, Maxar received a Significant Weakness for inadequate approach to payload accommodation. Payload accommodation, especially for the instruments, is a key driving element for the GeoXO mission. A strong approach for instrument accommodation reduces risk for the Government and greatly enhances the likelihood of successful contract performance. Lockheed Martin’s proposal provided an excellent description of the planned instrument accommodation for GeoXO – especially in the areas of C&DH, electromagnetic interface/electromagnetic compatibility, thermal accommodation, mechanical accommodation, and I&T of the instruments. Detailed information was provided regarding compliance with the demanding SpaceWire Interface requirements, the faraday cage for the electronics boxes, the stable thermal environment of the Earth Pointing Platform (EPP), and the superior mechanical access provided by cruciform structure during I&T. Maxar’s proposal conversely provided an inadequate approach to both instrument and auxiliary communication payload accommodation. Maxar’s approach was severely lacking in several areas including systems engineering assumptions for instrument accommodation, Image Navigation and Registration (INR) approach, instrument isolation, I&T of the instruments and discussion of electrical propulsion effects on the auxiliary communication payload. The inadequate information provided by Maxar in these areas significantly increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance and presents significant uncertainty to the Government.

I also found another discriminator for heritage and reuse proposed by both Offerors. Lockheed Martin received a Significant Strength for their extensive GOES-R heritage and re-use, where in comparison, Maxar received a Strength for geostationary satellite heritage. Lockheed Martin is proposing significant re-use from GOES-R, which is a very recent successful geostationary imaging mission with very similar requirements. By proposing a spacecraft design that utilizes extensive re-use of flight hardware and software from GOES-R, Lockheed Martin significantly reduces the amount of required non-recurring engineering for GeoXO. Lockheed Martin is specifically proposing re-use in the areas of instrument accommodation, multiple spacecraft subsystem designs, as well as ground system software and operations tools. Maxar is also proposing heritage re-use based on their 1300 series geostationary spacecraft bus. However, the majority of Maxar’s geostationary experience with the 1300 bus is for commercial communication satellites. While Maxar’s planned use of heritage lowers risk and increases Government confidence, it provides a lesser advantage when directly compared with Lockheed Martin’s use of GOES-R heritage.

I also found a discriminator associated with the description of the proposed spacecraft architecture and design. Lockheed Martin provided a very detailed approach to their overall spacecraft design and received two (2) Strengths relative to this area: 1) strong approach to GN&C; and 2) detailed modeling.

Lockheed Martin’s proposed approach to GN&C included the use of mature components, mature software algorithms, and healthy margins to INR performance requirements. Lockheed Martin also proposed a comprehensive instrument isolation solution that reduces complexity, minimizes testing, and reduces cost. In terms of detailed modeling, Lockheed Martin’s proposal presented detailed modeling that was advanced for this stage of development. Lockheed Martin developed a high-fidelity dynamics model and used it to model disturbances at the instrument mounting locations. Lockheed Martin also created a detailed thermal model with instruments and spacecraft components. These detailed models demonstrate maturity of the design and provide high confidence in the ability of the proposed design to meet system requirements. The amount of detail and description provided by Lockheed Martin for its spacecraft subsystem architecture, provides increased confidence in successful contract performance. In contrast, Maxar’s proposal lacked key information in several areas which presents significant uncertainty to the Government. Maxar received a Significant Weakness for lack of critical details for key spacecraft subsystems. Maxar’s proposal lacked key C&DH details specifically for the Mission Processor instrument accommodation and data flow. In the area of GN&C the proposal also lacked sufficient details with respect to component usage, jitter isolation and implementation of GeoXO defined contingency modes. In the area of Electrical / Power, inconsistent information was provided on power distribution to the instruments and incomplete power budget summaries were provided which did not include all modes of operations. Finally, for the Communication subsystem, there was inadequate description of the Telemetry, Tracking and Command (TT&C) subsystem. This lack of detail in the spacecraft architecture, leads to significant risk of additional development being needed and cost growth.

I also noted a discriminator in the area of Fault Management. Lockheed Martin received a Strength for its detailed Fault Management approach. Lockheed Martin provided details for a mature and layered Fault Management architecture that demonstrates a high level of robustness and autonomy. The proposed approach will support the GeoXO autonomy goals of going to 12x7 operator staffing. In contrast, Maxar received a Weakness for insufficient Flight Software and Fault Management approach.

Maxar’s approach provided only a brief description that lacked detail and did not address the specific GeoXO requirements.

In addition, I also noted that Lockheed Martin received a Significant Strength for the capability to maximize mission life. Lockheed Martin is proposing to use a monopropulsion system with a propellant tank that has ample margin. If the propulsion tank is completely filled, the minimum lifetime that could be provided is 21 years, compared to the 15-year lifetime requirement for GeoXO – which is 40% increase. This increase in lifetime represents a significant benefit to the Government on a series of satellites.

Overall, in Subfactor A, I found that Lockheed Martin’s proposal was significantly stronger in this subfactor.

Within Mission Suitability Subfactor B, Management Approach, Lockheed Martin received an adjectival rating of Good, with one (1) Strength, and one (1) Weakness. Maxar also received an adjectival rating of Good, with one (1) Strength, and two (2) Weaknesses. Both Offerors received similar Strengths related to its proposed facilities. Lockheed Martin proposes a dedicated I&T facility for GeoXO which limits potential interference from other programs and provides more schedule autonomy. Maxar proposes a contiguous facility which will minimize handling risk and has proposed prioritized accommodation for GeoXO if there are conflicts with other programs.

Both Offerors received similar Weaknesses for insufficient staffing and labor hours proposed to meet the totality of the SOW. Maxar also received an additional weakness for providing insufficient schedule information for the spacecraft options. After reviewing each Offeror’s findings in Subfactor B, I found Maxar’s additional Weakness for lack of schedule information to be a discriminator between the Offeror’s management approaches. Overall, in Subfactor B, I found that Lockheed Martin’s proposal was slightly stronger in this subfactor.

Within Mission Suitability Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization, I noted that Lockheed Martin received an adjectival rating of Excellent with one (1) Significant Strength. Maxar received an adjectival rating of Good with one (1) Strength. Lockheed Martin’s proposal exceeds the overall Government Recommended Goal (GRG) for small business utilization and all of the GRGs for the individual socioeconomic categories outlined in the RFP. Maxar’s proposal only meets or exceeds three of the GRGs for the socioeconomic categories. After reviewing the findings, I concluded that the proposed utilization of small businesses exceeding the GRGs was a discriminator between the proposals. Overall, in Subfactor C, I found that Lockheed Martin’s proposal was stronger in this subfactor.

Under the Cost Factor, I observed that the probable cost for Lockheed Martin was moderately lower than the probable cost of Maxar, resulting in a cost advantage for Lockheed Martin. Both Offerors’