Source Selection Statement_Final.pdf

LUNAR FREEZER SYSTEM (LFS)

STREAMLINED PROCUREMENT TEAM (SLPT)

SOURCE SELECTION MEMORANDUM

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On June 25, 2024, the Streamlined Procurement Team (SLPT) was appointed to evaluate proposals for the Lunar Freezer System (LFS) acquisition, under Solicitation Number 80JSC025DA006. On September 15, 2025, the SLPT presented its evaluation to me as the Source Selection Authority (SSA), and other senior officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). I considered the information presented, requested and received the opinions of the advisors present, and concluded the meeting with my selection decision.

Procurement Requirements The purpose of the Lunar Freezer System (LFS) acquisition is to procure safe, reliable, and cost-effective hardware and software systems to meet NASA’s need to return temperature-critical science payloads to Earth from the surface of the Moon and the Gateway Space Station.

Conditioned samples planned for return include Lunar geological samples, human research samples, and biological experimentation samples. The LFS hardware will be delivered to NASA for integration into, and launch on, various launch vehicles planned to transport the LFS to the surface of the Moon and the Gateway Space Station. The LFS will also be integrated with the Orion Crew Module vehicle for return to Earth.

The contemplated contract type is a Single-Award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (SA- IDIQ) contract with Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). The contract will have a 5½-year ordering period wherein Delivery Orders will be issued as the needs arise and the project progresses. Additionally, there are two 12-month option CLINs available to procure Maintenance and Sustainment Support Services to ensure the contractor is able to provide direct support to the LFS system post-delivery, if desired by the Government.

Ordering Period: October 6, 2025 – April 5, 2031 Base: 10/06/2025 - 04/05/2031 Option 1: 04/06/2031 - 04/05/2032 Option 2: 04/06/2032 - 04/05/2033

Chronology Request for Information (RFI) On September 29, 2023, NASA issued an RFI 80JSC023LFS seeking capability statements from all interested entities for the purposes of determining the appropriate level of competition and capabilities of the industry to provide the Lunar Freezer System’s (LFS) units.

Industry Day On July 14, 2024, NASA held a virtual industry day and conducted virtual One-on-One meetings with Industry on July 17, 2024. On July 30, 2024, NASA issued Modification 3 to the RFI 80JSC023LFS, which provided official responses to questions received during the LFS Industry Day.

Draft RFP Issued & DRFP Q&A Session On December 13, 2024, NASA posted Modification 7 to the RFI 80JSC023LFS which provided the Draft RFP and information for submission of Draft RFP Questions and Answers. Responses to the Draft RFP Questions and Answers were posted on Modification 9 on January 17, 2025.

RFP Issued On February 04, 2025, NASA released the LFS RFP 80JSC025DA006 and the LFS RFP responses were due on March 06, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. Central Time.

Preproposal Conference On February 11, 2025, NASA held a Microsoft Teams Virtual Pre-Proposal Conference to highlight the requirements in the RFP, SOW, and PTRS requirements, and cost/pricing template.

RFP Questions & Answers On February 26, 2025, NASA posted Modification 2 to solicitation 80JSC025DA006 which provided LFS RFP Questions and Answers, Standard Form (SF) 33, and Volume IV, Prime/Subcontractor Identification and SOW Division of Work Listing excel.

Proposals Received As of the deadline of March 06, 2025, the following Offerors submitted proposals in response to the LFS RFP 80JSC025DA006 and the SLPT determined the order of evaluation in accordance with the evaluation plan. The order in which the offerors were evaluated is shown below:

1. Offeror A: Redwire Space Technologies (RST)

2. Offeror B: University of Alabama at Birmingham, Engineering and Innovative

Technology Development (UAB EITD)

3. Offeror C: Nanoracks, d/b/a Voyager

4. Offeror D: Sierra Space Corporation (SSC)

Upon receipt of the proposals, the SLPT conducted an initial review of the proposals to determine acceptability in accordance with the RFP and the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305-70, “Identification of Unacceptable Proposals.” The SLPT did not identify any unacceptable proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70. The SLPT determined all proposals were acceptable in accordance with the solicitation. No late proposals were received.

All proposals were then evaluated in accordance with the evaluation factors contained in the

RFP.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS AND CRITERIA

The proposals were evaluated in strict accordance with the FAR Part 15, NFS Part 1815, and the LFS RFP. The RFP detailed the SLPT Evaluation factors and criteria contained in Section M of the RFP. The SLPT carried out the evaluation activities and reported its findings to me as the SSA, who is responsible for making the source selection decision.

In accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(1), “Agencies shall evaluate all proposals in accordance with 15.305(a), and, if discussions are to be conducted, establish the competitive range. Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the Contracting Officer shall establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section.” NFS 1815.306(c)(2) also states that “A total of no more than three proposals shall be a working goal in establishing the competitive range.”

In addition, Section M.2 52.215-122, Streamlined Procurement Evaluation Factors for Award (Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) or Limited Tradeoff (LTO)). (NOV 2018) JSC Procurement Instruction), of the RFP states that proposals will be evaluated based on:

a) Technical Acceptability (Acceptable / Potentially Acceptable / Unacceptable)

a. Subfactor A – Temperature

b. Subfactor B – Power

c. Subfactor C – Mass

d. Subfactor D – Schedule

e. Subfactor E – Management and Technical Approach

b) Past Performance

c) Cost

Section M.2 of the RFP continues: A proposal will be evaluated against the requirements outlined in [the] RFP for demonstration of “reasonableness, feasibility, completeness, and consistency where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.” The RFP states that an initial review of proposals will be conducted to determine acceptability of the proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. The remaining proposals will be evaluated against the Section M.2.1, Technical Acceptability Factor (Volume I). For those proposals determined to be ‘Acceptable’ or ‘Potentially Acceptable’ under the Technical Acceptability Factor, tradeoffs will be made between Past Performance and Cost. Past Performance is more important than Cost. The Government will award to the offeror whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government that meets all solicitation requirements and is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, standards.

3.0 INITIAL EVALUATIONS

An initial review of all submitted proposals was conducted to determine acceptability of the proposal in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. All proposals submitted were considered acceptable to move to an evaluation for Technical Acceptability as described in section (b) of clause M.2.

The basis of technical acceptability is the Offeror’s demonstration of reasonableness, feasibility, completeness, and consistency with the supplies to meet the requirements as outlined in Section M.2.1, Technical Acceptability Factor (Volume I) of the RFP.

For those proposals determined to be ‘Acceptable’ or ‘Potentially Acceptable’ under the Technical Acceptability Factor, the Government evaluated past performance information as required by Section M.2.2, Past Performance Factor – Volume II of the LFS RFP.

For those proposals determined to be ‘Acceptable’ or ‘Potentially Acceptable’ under the Technical Acceptability Factor, the Government evaluated the proposed costs in accordance with Section M.2.3, Cost Factor (Volume III) of the RFP .

3.1 Initial Evaluation of Proposals

Timely proposals were received by the due date of March 6, 2025 by 5:00 P.M. CST from the following four (4) offerors. The results of the evaluation were presented to me on May 13, 2025 and the highlights are summarized below:

Company Overall

Technical Acceptability

Past Performance Confidence

Rating

Total Contract Cost Proposed/ Probable

($M)

Redwire Space Technologies (RST) Unacceptable Not Rated Less than $35.9M /

*PC not calculated

University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB)

Engineering and Innovative Technology Development (EITD)

Potentially Acceptable Very High $35.9 / $39.4

Nanoracks LLC/ Voyager Unacceptable Not Rated Less than $35.9M / *PC not calculated

Sierra Space Corporation

(SSC)

Potentially Acceptable Moderate Less than $35.9M /

Less than $35.9M *PC – Probable Cost

3.2 Competitive Range Determination

In making the Contracting Officer’s (CO) competitive range determination, the CO considered Technical Acceptability, Past Performance, and the evaluated cost of each proposal. This determination is made on the basis of the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria specified in the RFP.

In accordance with RFP Section M.2, “A proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, where ANY subfactor acceptability requirements are individually rated unacceptable based on the level of reasonableness, feasibility, completeness, and consistency of the Technical Acceptability Subfactors listed below such that associated risks do jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.” Upon assessment of the RST proposal, the SLPT rated three of the five Technical Acceptability subfactors as “Unacceptable,” and RST was rated as “Unacceptable” for the overall Technical Acceptability evaluation. Upon assessment of the Nanoracks, d/b/a Voyager proposal, the SLPT rated two of the five Technical Acceptability subfactors as “Unacceptable,” and Nanoracks, d/b/a Voyager was rated as “Unacceptable” for the overall Technical Acceptability evaluation.

Based on the Competitive Range Determination that occurred on May 13, 2025, the CO determined that it was in the Government’s best interest to establish a competitive range made up of the following offerors:

• University of Alabama at Birmingham, Engineering and Innovative Technology Development

• Sierra Space Corporation

Discussions with these offerors were held upon issuance of competitive range letters. Those proposals not included in the competitive range did not receive further consideration and were notified in accordance with FAR Part 15.503.

4.0 DISCUSSIONS

The SLPT went into two (2) rounds of discussions, written first and then oral, to address a lack of understanding within the narratives provided by both offerors concerning the Technical Acceptability subfactors of Temperature and Power. The LFS SLPT also requested responses to questions concerning the completeness of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, various cost estimating concerns, and concerns related to FAR 9.104.

Discussions in writing were due on June 17, 2025 (UAB & SSC). Oral Discussions were held on June 25, 2025 (UAB) & June 30, 2025 (SSC). Both offerors were provided equal opportunity to address the findings of the SLPT for the same amount of time. Discussions were officially concluded when the Request for FPR was sent out on July 3, 2025.

4.1 University of Alabama at Birmingham, Engineering and Innovative Technology

Development (UAB EITD) Technical Acceptability The LFS SLPT’s technical acceptability questions for UAB EITD concerned two (2) subfactors, Temperature and Power. Through the process of written and oral discussions, UAB addressed all the SLPT questions. Upon review of the Final Proposal Revision, the UAB EITD proposal was evaluated as “Acceptable” for overall Technical Acceptability.

Past Performance N/A – Not applicable. The SLPT had no further topics or questions to address during Discussions.

Cost Due to the Cost Realism Analysis performed on the initial proposal, the Government required further information of the proposed costs to determine realism. Overall, UAB EITD’s proposed cost contained multiple areas that were not adequately addressed, and the SLPT’s questions were addressed during discussions. A detailed list of questions was developed, and the offeror was requested to provide additional data in its Final Proposal Revision to support its proposed costs for the purpose of realism, which it did satisfactorily.

4.2 Sierra Space Corporation

Technical Acceptability The LFS SLPT’s technical acceptability questions for Sierra Space Corporation concerned two

(2) subfactors, Temperature and Power. Through the written and oral discussions, Sierra Space addressed all the SLPT questions. Upon review of the Final Proposal Revision, the Sierra Space proposal was evaluated as “Acceptable” for overall Technical Acceptability.

Past Performance N/A – Not applicable. The SLPT had no further topics or questions to address during Discussions.

Cost Due to the Cost Realism Analysis performed on the initial proposal, the Government required further information of the proposed costs to determine realism. Overall, SSC’s proposed cost contained multiple areas that were not adequately substantiated for the purpose of establishing realism, and the SLPT’s questions were addressed during discussions. A detailed list of questions was developed. The offeror was requested to provide additional data in its Final Proposal Revision to support its proposed costs for the purpose of realism, which it did satisfactorily.

4.3 Discussions - Summary

Both offerors presented original proposals that created a lack of understanding within the Technical Acceptability Factor and the Cost Factor which resulted in the SLPT developing questions that were presented to the offerors during written discussions. Both offerors responded timely to the questions presented during written discussions, but the SLPT still had additional questions based on what was presented in each offeror’s answers. Therefore, it was determined that the Government needed to conduct oral discussions to give both offerors a final opportunity to address the remaining questions. At the conclusion of oral discussions, the CO felt confident in closing discussions and both offerors were invited to present a FPR to the Government, which both did timely. The Government then evaluated the FPR of both offerors.

5.0 FINAL PROPOSAL REVISION EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The SLPT evaluated each Offeror’s final proposal revision that was determined to be Acceptable in response to the LFS solicitation. Timely proposals were received by the due date of July 21, 2025, by 5:00 P.M. CST. The results of the evaluation were presented to me on September 15, 2025, and the highlights are summarized below:

Company Overall Technical Acceptability

Past Performance Confidence Rating

Total Contract Cost Proposed/ Probable

($M)

UAB EITD Acceptable Very High $37.01 / $37.01

SSC Acceptable Moderate Less than $37.01 / Less than $37.01

5.1 University of Alabama at Birmingham, Engineering and Innovative Technology

Development (UAB EITD)

5.1.1 Technical Acceptability

UAB’s proposal was found to be acceptable based on the information presented in the final proposal revision. The FPR resolved the SLPT’s lack of understanding regarding the Temperature and Power subfactors. The information was considered reasonable, feasible, complete, and consistent; the final overall Technical Acceptability rating was Acceptable.

5.1.2 Past Performance

Offeror Past Performance Recency Relevance Performance Overall Rating

UAB EITD Recent Very Relevant Excellent Very High Level of Confidence

Past Performance References Overview:

Contract Number & Title Role Recency Relevancy Performance

Quality Contract Value

Contract Type

Performance Data Source

NNJ15HA80B /

Cold Stowage Procurement

(CSP)

Prime 07/2015 - 12/2020

Very Relevant Exceptional ~$36.6M CNF

IDIQ

CPARS, PPV

II, PPQ

80JSC021D0001

/ Cold Stowage 2

(CS2)

Prime 01/2021 - 12/2025 Relevant Exceptional ~$23.3M CNF

IDIQ

CPARS, PPV

II, PPQ

CC-2017-228 /

Master Subcontract Agreement

(MSA)

Prime 09/2017 - 09/2021

Not Relevant Exceptional ~$138K IDIQ PPV II, PPQ

MPIC-2022-8615

/ Master Implementation Partner (MIP)

Prime 07/2022 - 09/2027

Not Relevant Exceptional ~$261K IDIQ PPV II, PPQ

*Acronym Legend: Cost No Fee (CNF), Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Past Performance Volume II (PPV II)*

Overall Relevancy Summary:

Some of UAB EITD’s present/past performance effort involved essentially the same content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires. The CSP and CS2 contracts are essentially the same complexity, content, and size of effort as the LFS requirements. The CSP contract reference was determined to be Very Relevant because the content of the CSP contract is essentially the same as all of the LFS Statement of Work (SOW) sections. The CSP SOW involved DDT&E efforts, including complex hardware and software designs of Glovebox Freezer, Cryo Chiller, and Iceberg, with very relevant capabilities, requirements, and complexity to the LFS development efforts. The hardware involves use of Stirling engine cooling technology, complex thermal modeling, efficient insulation, and specialized manufacturing and operational techniques to achieve temperature within the range of the LFS requirements and colder; the effort involved essentially the same content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires. The CSP contract provided support to the International Space Station (ISS) Research and Utilization science objectives. The ISS Program utilized a suite of refrigerator/freezers developed by UAB EITD to accomplish Principal Investigators objectives involving temperature-controlled science. The suite of freezers includes Polar, Glacier, Iceberg, Glovebox Freezer, and Cryo Chiller, all of which have very similar temperature ranges and capabilities to LFS and therefore the effort involved essentially the same content and complexity as the LFS requirement. Additionally, the CSP contract was valued at approximately $36.6M, which is highly similar to the IGCE of this requirement, which is $36.8M.

The CS2 contract reference was determined to be Relevant because the CS2 contract is for space flight and ground hardware development for the ISS and has essentially the same content and much of the complexity in relation to the LFS, including essentially the same scope of services, work, requirements, and supplies. The CS2 contract involves much of the complexity the LFS solicitation requires. CS2 is to provide support to the ISS Research and Utilization science objectives. The CS2 work involving much of the LFS SOW areas includes assembly and acceptance testing of six new Polar units, as well as delivery of spare cold volumes for Polar, refurbishment of MERLIN, and design, development, manufacture, and delivery of new Iceberg Inner Cold Volumes. Additionally, CS2 scope, including Flight Integration and Operations tasks for all UAB EITD developed operational freezers on ISS, involved essentially the same content and much of the complexity as LFS requirements. Through the CS2 contract, the ISS Program continues utilization of a suite of refrigerator/freezers developed by UAB EITD to accomplish Principal Investigators objectives involving temperature-controlled science. The suite of refrigerators/freezers includes MERLIN (contractor owned), Polar, Glacier, Iceberg, Glovebox Freezer, and Cryo Chiller. All assets except MERLIN involved much of the complexity, temperature ranges, and operational capabilities as LFS, and the past/present effort involved essentially the same content and much of the complexity this solicitation requires. Additionally, the CS2 contract is valued at approximately $23.2M, which is somewhat similar to the estimated value of the LFS requirement.

The MSA and MIP references were determined to be not relevant to the LFS requirements. The fact that these two references were determined to be Not Relevant had no impact on the overall rating of Very Relevant because they were determined to be of little significance and not an indicator of negative past performance; rather, the scope of the references provided offered no nexus to the stated LFS requirement along with the complexity and size of the references being substantially smaller than the LFS requirement. The relevancy of the first two references is superior enough to qualify the offeror for a Very Relevant rating and the other two Not Relevant references do not detract from that impact. The overall relevancy for UAB EITD’s past performance is Very Relevant.

Overall Performance Summary:

The two relevant references the offeror provided contained Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings. Exceptional ratings were received in Quality, Schedule, and Management, with a Very Good rating for Cost Control. UAB EITD ratings remained constant from 2017-2023.

Four (4) past performance questionnaires were received for UAB EITD on the following contracts: CSP, CS2, MSA, MIP.

Contract # Contract Name PPQ Rating NNJ15HA80B Cold Stowage Procurement Contract (CSP) Exceptional

80JSC021D0001 Cold Stowage 2 (CS2) Exceptional CC-2017-228 CASIS Master Subcontract Agreement (MSA) Exceptional

MPIC-2022-8615 CASIS Master Implementation Partner (MIP) Contract Exceptional

Based on the offeror’s exceptional and very good ratings found within CPARS, along with the exceptional PPQ ratings, the SLPT determined UAB EITD’s overall quality of past performance to be Excellent.

Past Performance Rating - Overall

In developing a Confidence Rating in accordance with the NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A), the SLPT evaluated the UAB EITD Volume II (Past Performance Narrative), the four submitted PPQs, and conducted a review of recent and relevant contract references in the CPARS.

UAB EITD’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical matter and exhibited very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a Very High Level of Confidence that UAB EITD will successfully perform the required effort.

5.1.3 Cost

UAB EITD proposed a total cost of $37,012,185.48 (including option years but not including the “plug” value for CLIN 004 of $10M), and that cost was evaluated for award purposes. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), the Government conducted a Cost Realism Analysis that determined UAB EITD’s proposed costs were realistic, as seen below in Table A: UAB EITD – Cost Realism Analysis – Round 2. Overall, UAB EITD’s final proposed cost was adequately substantiated and realistic.

Table A: UAB EITD – Cost Realism Analysis – Round 2

Base Option 1 Option 2 Total Offeror B 31,920,997.56$ 2,494,250.93$ 2,596,936.99$ 37,012,185.48$ Offeror B - Probable Cost 31,920,997.56$ 2,494,250.93$ 2,596,936.99$ 37,012,185.48$

With its final proposal, the offeror provided adequate information to answer all discussion topics, including those related to Direct Labor, Indirect Rates, Travel, Material, & Other Direct Costs.

The CO accepts the costs as proposed and finds them fair and reasonable.

5.2 Sierra Space Corporation

5.2.1 Technical Acceptability

SSC’s proposal was found to be acceptable based on the information presented in the final proposal revision. The FPR resolved the SLPT’s lack of understanding regarding the Temperature and Power subfactors. The information was considered reasonable, feasible, complete, and consistent; the final overall Technical Acceptability rating was Acceptable.

5.2.2 Past Performance

Past Performance References Overview:

Contract Number & Title Role Recency Relevancy Performance Quality

Contract Value

Contract Type

Performance Data Source

80HQTR19C0019 / Trash Compaction and

Processing System (TCPS) Prime 4/2019 -

9/2028 Relevant Exceptional ~$11.6M FFP CPARS, PPV II, PPQ

80JSC021F0074 (TO) /

80JSC017D0018/

Advanced Plant Habitat (APH) Engineering

Prime 3/2021 - 3/2025

Somewhat Relevant Very Good ~$7.9M CPFF CPARS, PPV II, PPQ

NNH15CN77C / Hybrid Life Support System

(HLSS) eXposed Root On- Orbit Test System

(XROOTS)

Prime 9/2015 - 4/2025

Somewhat Relevant Very Good ~$6.6M BAA

FFP

CPARS,

PPV II, PPQ

80LARC22CA003 /

Carbothermal Oxygen

Production Reactor

(COPR)

Prime 11/2021 - 8/2024

Somewhat Relevant Exceptional ~$2.3M FFP CPARS, PPV II, PPQ

*Acronym Legend: Cost Pluss Fixed Fee (CPFF), Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Past Performance Volume II (PPV II)*

Offeror Past Performance

Recency Relevance Performance Overall Rating

SSC Recent Somewhat Relevant Very Good Moderate Level of Confidence

Overall Relevancy Summary:

Overall, SSC’s four (4) proposed present/past performance references involved some of the same content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires. SSC received an overall relevancy rating of Somewhat Relevant.

The TCPS contract is determined to be Relevant because this flight hardware payload development contract for the ISS involves much of the content and complexity the LFS solicitation requires. The TCPS project has completed a System Requirements Review (SRR), Preliminary Design Review (PDR), Critical Design Review (CDR), and built a ground unit, with the flight unit currently in production. While the contract efforts were not specific to freezer technologies, the development of the TCPS hardware required thermal modeling as well as insulation capability, which involves much of the LFS content in terms of hardware requirements. In addition to the differences between freezer technology and thermal modeling, the TCPS contract type was Firm Fixed Price as opposed to the anticipated Single-Award IDIQ contract type with Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs for the LFS requirement. It is acknowledged that the TCPS involved much of the complexity the LFS solicitation requires in that it involved DDT&E of complex hardware; however, the flight hardware has not yet been built or tested.

Furthermore, the value of the TCPS contract is approximately $11.6M, which is approximately a quarter of the estimated value of the anticipated LFS requirement at $36.8M.

The APH contract reference was determined to be Somewhat Relevant because this sustaining engineering support contract for the ISS involved some of the content and complexity in relation to the LFS. The APH contract enabled Sierra Space to perform flight support and sustaining engineering for APH (pre-flight, post-flight, and on-orbit operations), which involved some of the content this solicitation requires. The APH hardware is technically complicated (implements controllable parameters including atmospheric conditions, lighting intensity, and water supply), but is not related to freezer technologies, work, or requirements; therefore, the effort involved some of the content and complexity this solicitation requires. While APH requires cooling capability (refrigeration) through use of thermoelectric cooling (TECs), refrigeration is less technically challenging than design features required for the LFS temperature constraints, and therefore involved some of the content this solicitation requires. The APH contract type was Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which is relevant to the anticipated LFS requirement. The APH contract involved some of the complexity this solicitation requires, in that the efforts performed on the APH contract were not specifically DDT&E but involved other engineering development efforts in order to provide maintenance and sustaining for the hardware utilized on ISS. The APH contract was significantly smaller in value at $7.9M, which is less than a quarter of the value of the anticipated LFS requirement.

The XROOTS contract reference was determined to be Somewhat Relevant because this payload design and development contract for the ISS program involved much of the content and complexity the LFS solicitation requires. The XROOTS project completed a SRR, PDR, CDR, all phases of NASA safety review processes, and built a flight unit that flew and operated on ISS for approximately six months. This aspect of the reference’s content is applicable to all of the LFS SOW sections. The XROOTS hardware is technically complicated, though the contract did not involve substantial work, requirements, or supplies related to the requirements of this solicitation; the effort involved much of the content and complexity this solicitation requires. The DDT&E efforts were not related to freezer technologies, nor did development involve complicated thermal modeling, insulation, or other relevant design applications. Based on the Sierra Space Past Performance Volume narrative, the hardware experienced a valve failure during initial checkouts on orbit. However, the team was able to develop workaround solutions for operations on ISS. Upon return to earth, the team evaluated the hardware, performed root cause analysis, and implemented refurbishments and design modifications; the refurbished hardware has not yet been tested on ISS. Sierra Space noted that the challenging conditions for XROOTS in microgravity would not exist in the LFS, and that lessons learned from XROOTS would be applied to the LFS project. The XROOTS contract type was Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Firm Fixed Price (FFP) as opposed to the anticipated Single-Award IDIQ CPFF-type contract for the LFS requirement. The XROOTS involved much of the complexity this solicitation requires. The XROOTS utilized a locker insert rather than requiring the design of structural support components; LFS requires an integrated hard-mounted system required to sustain launch and landing loads. However, overall, the XROOTS involved much of the complexity for DDT&E efforts in comparison to the LFS requirements. The XROOTS contract was valued at $6.5M, which is substantially less than the anticipated value of the LFS requirement.

The COPR reference was found to be Somewhat Relevant because this development contract for the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program involved some of the content and complexity this solicitation requires. The COPR project completed a SRR, PDR, CDR, and built a test unit, similar to an Engineering Development Unit (EDU). The COPR hardware is technically complicated; design efforts were not specific to freezer technologies or cooling mechanisms, but the development required complex thermal modeling as well as insulation capability; therefore, the effort involved much of the LFS content in terms of hardware requirements. The proposal states that the insulation methods are extremely similar between COPR and LFS. The project did not design, build, or test flight hardware, and therefore only involved some of the contract scope of work and DDT&E efforts this solicitation requires. The COPR contract type was Firm Fixed Price as opposed to the SA-IDIQ CPFF-type contract anticipated for the LFS requirement. The COPR DDT&E efforts involved some of the complexity this solicitation requires, since the project did involve complex hardware, but did not include the design, test, and evaluation at the level of complexity of flight hardware. The value of the COPR reference was $2.3M which is substantially less than the anticipated value of the LFS requirement.

Based on the references provided, the SLPT determined the overall relevancy for SSC’s past performance to be Somewhat Relevant.

Overall Performance Summary:

Based on CPARS data for TCPS, APH, XROOTS, COPR, Sierra Space received overall an Exceptional rating for Quality, and Very Good ratings for Schedule and Management. The lower ratings include Cost Control (Satisfactory), Regulatory Compliance (Satisfactory), and small business subcontracting goals (Marginal). Quality, technical, and schedule concerns were noted in the Sierra Space CPARS and Past Performance Questionnaires. Most notably, the PPQ for APH noted that the contractor had issues with cost overruns and stated the following, “[f]or the awarded task order value, Sierra had multiple overruns towards the end of the contract. Overall, they had a roughly 14% overrun by the end of the contract (EAC versus original value). Much of the overruns were due to rate adjustments that were needed and also poor cost estimating and schedule slips”. This stated performance concern with SSC is of mild concern to the SLPT since the contemplated contract will be a cost-reimbursable type contract which will require SSC to work towards projected costs.

Four (4) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) were received for SSC’s references:

Contract # Contract Name PPQ Rating 80HQTR19C0019 Trash Compaction and Processing System (TCPS) Exceptional

80JSC021F0074 /

80JSC017D0018 Advanced Plant Habitat (APH) Engineering Very Good

NNH15CN77C Hybrid Life Support System (HLSS) eXposed Root On-Orbit Test System (XROOTS) Very Good

80LARC22CA003 Carbothermal Oxygen Production Reactor (COPR) Exceptional

Based on the offeror’s exceptional and very good ratings found within CPARS, along with the exceptional and very good PPQ ratings, the SLPT determined that SSC’s overall quality of Past Performance is Very Good. This rating is taking into account the challenges that SSC faced with Cost Control on the APH contract, along with all other information presented to the SLPT.

Past Performance Rating - Overall

In developing a Confidence Rating in accordance with the NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A), the SLPT evaluated the SSC Volume II (Past Performance Narrative), the four submitted Past Performance Questionnaires, and conducted a review of recent and relevant contract references in CPARS.

Sierra Space’s past performance references are pertinent to this acquisition and demonstrate effective performance. Of the four references provided, one was found to be Relevant and three were found to be Somewhat Relevant. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on SSC’s performance record, there is a Moderate Level of Confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

5.2.3 Cost

SSC proposed a total cost lower than UAB EITD (including option years, but not including the “plug” value for CLIN 004 of $10M), and that cost was evaluated for award purposes. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), the Government conducted a Cost Realism Analysis determined SSC’s proposed costs were realistic. Overall, SSC’s proposed cost was adequately substantiated and determined to be realistic.

With its final proposal, the offeror provided adequate information to answer all discussion topics, including those related to Direct Labor, Escalation, Indirect Rates, Travel, Material, & Fee. The CO accepts all costs as proposed and finds them fair and reasonable.

5.3 FPR Summary

Based on responses from the Final Proposal Revisions, the LFS SLPT determined that both offerors, UAB EITD and SSC, provided sufficient information and data to address the Competitive Range determination of “Potentially Acceptable” for the Technical Acceptability subfactors of Temperature and Power. As a result of this determination, the LFS SLPT concluded both offerors were Technically “Acceptable” in all five (5) subfactor categories.

There was no discussion topics related to Past Performance. Regarding Cost, with its final proposal the offerors provided adequate information to answer all discussion topics related to cost.

6.0 RESPONSIBILITY

Per FAR 9.105-2(a)(1) Determinations and documentation, “[t]he contracting officer’s signing of a contract constitutes a determination that the prospective contractor is responsible with respect to that contract”. Therefore, upon contract award, the contracting officer will ensure an affirmative determination of responsibility is made and well documented.

The CO has reviewed the preliminary responsibility of the offerors on April 14, 2025, via documented checklist for both offerors titled “Determination of Responsibility/ Nonresponsibility”, which goes over various elements of information per FAR 9.105 and NASA FAR 1809.105, and Standards per FAR 9.104. This was an initial review prior to the establishment of the competitive range. Another review is anticipated prior to award.

An affirmative determination of responsibility with CO signature will be made for the successful offeror, prior to award.

7.0 MODEL CONTRACT

The CO, with the assistance of SMEs, reviewed the proposed Model Contract of both UAB EITD and SSC, containing all required information per RFP Section L.9.9, Model Contract – Volume V. The following are the results of the initial evaluation, discussions, and final proposal revisions.

7.1 UAB EITD

UAB EITD completed all required fill-ins and adequately addressed all required DRDs, except DRD – MGMT-02. Upon Small Business (SB) review of the Clause H.3, JSC 52.219-90, Small Business Subcontracting Goals (JUN 2022), and the DRD – MGMT-02, Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Reports, the SB determined UAB EITD did not address all requirements of the RFP.

During written discussions, the CO brought the concerns to the attention of UAB, requesting they address all the elements of the DRD – MGMT-02, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

UAB provided a written response, addressing all of the elements identified above. The SB specialist identified with their response that there was still an open item, which was then addressed with the offeror during oral discussions where UAB agreed to update its proposal during the FPR stage.

As a result, UAB proposed during the FPR an acceptable proposal adhering to all the requirements of the subcontracting plan, and the SB specialist concurred on July 31, 2025. The CO accepted the subcontracting plan as fair and reasonable.

7.2 SSC

SSC completed all required fill-ins and adequately addressed all required DRDs, except DRD – MGMT-02. Upon SME review of the Clause H.3, JSC 52.219-90, Small Business Subcontracting Goals (JUN 2022), and the DRD – MGMT-02, Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Reports, the SME determined SSC did not adequately address all of the requirements of the RFP.

During written discussions, the CO brought the identified issues to the attention of SSC, requesting they address all these elements of the clause H.3 Small Business Subcontracting Goals and DRD-MGMT-02 Small Business Subcontracting Plan. SSC provided a written response stating they are prepared to update the small business plans. SSC stated it would work on updating the goals to be more in line with the RFP. During oral discussions, the Government addressed an outstanding issue related to how SSC proposed at least one of its goals and SSC agreed to correct the issue within SSC’s FPR.

As a result, SSC’s final proposal revision provided updates, but was yet still non-compliant for sections of the FAR 52.219-9(d)(2) & FAR 52.219-9(d)(3). The SB Specialist reviewed the proposal once more on July 31, 2025, and identified that SSC did not address all of the areas of concern. These outstanding issues would later be addressed through the use of clarifications should SSC be the apparent successful offeror.

SOURCE SELECTION MEMORANDUM

8.0 SELECTION DECISION

8.1 Award Presentation

As outlined in Section M of the RFP, a briefing was made to me in my capacity as the Source Selection Authority on September 15, 2025. The briefing detailed the final evaluation findings.

Prior to the briefing, I was provided the final evaluation findings to review, which I did before attending the briefing. In addition to myself, the briefing was attended by members of the Evaluation Team, Procurement Team, and a JSC Office of the General Counsel member. During the briefing, the Evaluation Team reported its final evaluation results, and I provided the Evaluation Team with my independent judgment relative to the final evaluation results and asked several questions regarding the information presented. This award decision results from the information presented in the evaluation results briefing.

8.2 Award Decision

Having fully reviewed and agreed with the observations of the SLPT, I find that UAB EITD can successfully perform the required LFS effort. I find value in UAB EITD’s “Very High” Level of Confidence rating for past performance in combination with its realistic proposed cost.

Specifically, I find value in UAB EITD’s CSP effort because it is most analogous to LFS in relevance based on it being space flight and ground hardware development for the ISS and has essentially the same content and much of the complexity in relation to the LFS, including essentially the same scope of services, work, requirements, and supplies. SSC’s most relevant experience is with the TCPS contract that has flight hardware payload development for the ISS that involved thermal modeling as well as insulation capability, however, the contract efforts were not specific to freezer technologies unlike UAB EITD’s experience. While UAB EITD’s proposed cost was higher than SSC’s, the primary driver for the difference in cost is UAB EITD’s conservative approach to proposed labor hours. Because of the high level of complexity of LFS requirements that push the limits of current freezer technologies used for space flight, UAB EITD proposed more labor hours to ensure that it will have adequate staffing to successfully execute the complex LFS requirements. I note that this approach can mitigate potential technical risk. Keeping in mind that Past Performance is more important than Cost, I find that the overall attributes of UAB EITD’s proposal, and particularly their very relevant experience that had excellent quality of performance, provides the best value to the Government for award of the Lunar Freezer System (LFS) contract. My selection is based solely on and is wholly consistent with the selection criteria and evaluation framework set out in the RFP and supported by the SLPT’s evaluation.

Approved:

Stephen Janney Source Selection Authority

1.0 Introduction