CAPSTONE Source Selection Document.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

for

Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology Operations and Navigation Experiment (CAPSTONE) Launch Service

On February 2, 2020, as the Source Selection Authority (SSA), I met with the team that was appointed to evaluate proposals for award of the CAPSTONE contract. Relevant portions of the team’s evaluation of proposals, and my decision on selection of the successful offeror is set forth in this Source Selection Statement.

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

The NASA Launch Services Program (LSP) is seeking a launch vehicle system for the CAPSTONE mission that is capable of delivering a maximum mass of 37 kg to an elliptical orbit around the moon. The launch services provider will be required to launch CAPSTONE, a 12U CubeSat class satellite, into a Trans Lunar Injection (TLI) orbit. The resultant awardee will be responsible for all launch vehicle planning, analysis, design, development, production, integration, and testing required to provide the launch service appropriate to transport the payload to the desired orbit.

The acquisition is being conducted using other than full and open competitive procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302-5, “Authorized or required by statute.” The Commercial Space Act of 1998, 51 U.S.C. § 50131, requires that all commercial space transportation services be procured from domestic providers.

A Sources Sought Synopsis was posted to the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website on August 7, 2019. This synopsis was used as a market research tool to aid in identifying capable launch service providers prior to determining the appropriate method of acquisition. All interested parties were encouraged to respond. Capability statements were received from eight vendors. After review of the capability statements, follow-up discussions were held with respondents to better understand their capabilities in relation to the CAPSTONE mission requirements.

A Pre-Solicitation Synopsis was posted to FedBizOpps on October 22, 2019. This synopsis included a draft statement of work, launch requirements, trajectory requirements, and terms and conditions unique to this procurement. This synopsis was intended to give industry an opportunity to prepare for the anticipated release of the request for proposal (RFP).

A draft request for proposal was posted to beta.SAM.gov on November 15, 2019 and prospective offerors were encourage to submit questions/comments. Four (4) prospective offerors responded with questions/comments on to the draft RFP.

The RFP was posted to beta.SAM.gov on December 11, 2019 following the team’s review and consideration of industry questions/comments on the draft solicitation. The RFP sought proposals for a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) launch services contract. During the course of the

Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.1010 and 3.104) procurement, a total of four RFP amendments were issued by the Contracting Officer to incorporate minor changes into the RFP.

Offerors were advised that exceptions to the terms and conditions that introduce technical, schedule, or cost risks may result in a determination of proposal unacceptability (NFS 1815.305- 70), may preclude award to an Offeror if award is made on initial proposals, as intended, or may otherwise affect an Offeror’s competitive standing.

In response to the RFP, the following six timely proposals were received on or before the due date of January 15, 2020 from the following companies:

Firefly Black, LLC. (Firefly) Momentus Inc. (Momentus) Northrop Grumman Space Systems, (NG Space) Rocket Lab USA, Inc. (Rocket Lab)

Spaceflight, Inc. (Spaceflight) Virgin Orbit, LLC. (Virgin Orbit)

Upon initial review of the proposals, it was determined in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals, that the Spaceflight and Virgin Orbit proposals were unacceptable and not eligible for award. Both offerors were notified on January 22, 2020 and both companies acknowledged the notification on the same day.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

As described in the RFP, the Government will award a firm fixed price contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Proposals were evaluated for technical and management capability, compliance with solicitation requirements, as well as price. Proposals were evaluated on the completeness and quality of the information provided to demonstrate the Offeror's qualifications in terms of experience, capability, and proposed approaches to meet all of the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) and their proposed launch solution.

All evaluation factors other than price when combined are approximately equal to price.

The relative order of importance of these factors is that Technical/Management Capability is approximately equal to Price.

The RFP advised offerors that, in accordance with the provision FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to award on initial proposals.

Summary of Evaluation Factors:

Technical/Management Capability Factor

The Offeror’s technical/management proposal was evaluated on the following subfactors using the criteria identified below: Selection and award will be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

1. The ability to meet the CAPSTONE requirements described in the SOW. The Offeror’s knowledge, skill and understanding of the technical, managerial and operational details of launch vehicle testing, integration, check out, launch telemetry, and mission assurance. The Offeror’s understanding of the approach to providing the required skills and demonstrated experience to conduct effective and safe launch operations.

i. Ability to meet the proposed launch date, with a launch occurring earlier within the launch period being viewed more favorably when considering risks and effectiveness of proposed mitigations.

ii. Completeness of the technical/management volume, including a credible maturation of the launch system, especially the status of the propulsion systems and major components development. The Offeror provided evidence that the core stage engines that have achieved at least 90% of the thrust or mission duration needed for the CAPSTONE mission. The Offeror provided evidence the proposed launch service performance will meet the CAPSTONE orbit requirements, dispersions, and has defined the performance margin above 37 kg.

2. The ability to implement the concept of operations, including approach to manifest management, managing multiple launches in the period between ATP and the launch date, and the ability to obtain approval/licensing (i.e., FAA) to support the CAPSTONE launch date. The approach to receiving approval/licensing including coordination with the proposed launch site and Range (i.e., Flight Termination System (FTS) approvals).

3. The rationale provided for the proposed delay prices in H.8 Adjustments to Launch Schedule and, if any, the benefit and/or risk to the Government.

4. The approach to secure financing for the development of their launch service vehicle that does not rely solely on the CAPSTONE requirement. Offerors will be evaluated on their ability to meet CAPSTONE requirements in regards to total nonrecurring development funding remaining to obtain and percentage of nonrecurring development funding remaining to obtain (with lower amounts being more favorable) plus the Offeror’s strategy that demonstrated financial stability, including the number of launches required to demonstrate profitability or positive cash flow.

Price Factor

The Offeror’s price proposal was evaluated using appropriate price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.305(a)(1) to determine if the Offeror’s proposed prices are reasonable and consistent with the types, quantities, qualities, and performance/delivery schedules of all products and services described in the technical/management proposal.

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

Utilizing the aforementioned evaluation process, the team conducted an initial evaluation of the proposals from Firefly, Momentus, NG Space and Rocket Lab. The resulting technical/management capability and price evaluation of each of the four offerors’ proposal provided the basis for making a decision.

In accordance with the evaluation criteria in the RFP, the Contracting Officer determined that discussions were not necessary and award will be made without discussions with Offerors as stated in the RFP.

Technical/Management Capability Factor:

Firefly Black, LLC. (Firefly)

In the evaluation of the services offered by Firefly to meet their proposed launch date, the team identified one significant strength, four significant weaknesses, and two weaknesses. The significant strength was attributed to the proposed propellant margin significantly exceeding mission requirements. The additional margin adds flexibility to address unforeseen spacecraft and TLI stage mass growth, performance issues (both during mission development and during flight), or requirements changes throughout the mission integration cycle.

The first significant weakness was due to the proposal lacking three-sigma dispersion estimates for TLI insertion accuracy. Firefly stated that they intend to perform this analysis as future work.

Without this analysis, Firefly has not demonstrated an ability to meet the CAPSTONE orbit requirements and there is an increased risk that the spacecraft will exceed its delta-V budget.

Next, Firefly's proposal was assigned a significant weakness for not sufficiently defining the schedule for major component development and qualification testing. Without this demonstrated understanding of design, test, and analysis of major components, there is significant schedule risk in component development and qualification.

A third significant weakness was assigned to Firefly's proposal for not addressing the maximum allowable launch vehicle induced pre-separation body rates. Without the rates, the Government cannot evaluate the commitment to meet the mission requirements on spacecraft separation that would prevent the spacecraft from losing attitude control after separation, and greatly increases the risk of mission failure.

Finally, a significant weakness was assigned for extreme risks identified in the proposal without any adequate level of mitigations. Given the condensed integration and launch schedule for CAPSTONE, there is a significant likelihood of mission failure due to the identified extreme risks without any adequate mitigations.

In addition to these significant findings, the following two weaknesses were identified:

- Inadequate Approach for Performing Dispenser to Launch Vehicle Fit Checks

- Inadequate Approach to Launch Site Spacecraft Processing Support

Momentus Inc. (Momentus)

In the evaluation of the services offered by Momentus to meet their proposed launch date, the team identified one deficiency and five significant weaknesses.

The deficiency was attributed to Momentus' proposed agreement with a launch vehicle provider.

This agreement places the availability of the launch vehicle outside the period of performance of this contract and in direct contrast with the proposed launch date.

The first significant weakness was due to the proposed launch vehicle core stage propulsion systems (engines and stages) being in the early development stage. The associated test schedule poses significant risk to completing development and qualification making it unlikely that they will meet the launch period requirement.

Next, Momentus’ proposal was assigned a significant weakness for not addressing the maximum allowable launch vehicle induced pre-separation body rates. Without the rates, the Government cannot evaluate the commitment to meet the mission requirements on spacecraft separation that would prevent the spacecraft from losing attitude control after separation, and greatly increases the risk of mission failure.

A third significant weakness was assigned to Momentus’ proposal for requiring the Government to provide a mass simulator. This requirement on the Government was provided without rationale and will have an impact to Government personnel and schedule. This places an undue burden on the Government’s personnel and schedule, which greatly increases the schedule risk and unsuccessful contract performance.

A significant weakness was also levied for not providing the expected vibration flight environments. Without this environment, Momentus has not demonstrated the ability to meet the CAPSTONE requirements described in the SOW.

Finally, a significant weakness was assigned for Momentus proposing terms without penalty to either party. This is in direct conflict with the terms in the contract.

Northrop Grumman Space Systems, (NG Space)

In the evaluation of the services offered by NG Space to meet their proposed launch date, the team identified three significant strengths, two strengths, and three weaknesses.

The first significant strength was attributed to the maturity of the proposed flight proven core stage propulsion system which far exceeds the CASTONE requirements. This greatly enhances the schedule credibility, nearly eliminates risk for these systems, and greatly increases the potential for successful contract performance.

A significant strength was also assigned for the proposed TLI stage which is already designed and qualified. This greatly enhances schedule credibility and nearly eliminates risk for this stage, which greatly increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

The third significant strength was assigned for the proposed launch vehicle which has 30 consecutive successful launches and is NASA Category 3 certified. The combination of having this number of flights and a NASA Category 3 certification greatly increases the likelihood of mission success and successful contract performance.

In addition to these significant strengths, the following two strengths and three weaknesses were identified:

Strengths

- Trajectory Analysis Exceeds Minimum Proposal Requirements

- Fully Qualified Major Components

Weaknesses

- Limited Launch Availability Due to Argument of Perigee Targeting

- No Rationale for Separation Tipoff Rates

- Risk of Modification to Spacecraft Dispenser

Rocket Lab USA, Inc. (Rocket Lab)

In the evaluation of the services offered by Rocket Lab to meet their proposed launch date, the team identified three significant strengths and four strengths.

The first significant strength was attributed to the maturity of the proposed flight proven core stage propulsion system which far exceeds the CASTONE requirements. This greatly enhances the schedule credibility, thereby nearly eliminating all schedule risk for these systems.

A significant strength was also assigned for Rocket Lab’s approach to achieving the required TLI insertion state. Their approach provides the greatest flexibility to schedule launch day opportunities and increases the likelihood of the meeting contract launch period requirements.

The third significant strength was assigned for Rocket Lab’s proposed launch vehicle, in which all of the major components are fully qualified and are flight proven. This launch vehicle significantly enhances the schedule credibility, nearly eliminates risk for these systems and greatly increases the potential for successful contract performance.

In addition to these significant strengths, the following four strengths were identified:

- Trajectory Analysis Exceeds Minimum Proposal Requirements

- Propellant Margin Exceeds Mission Requirements

- Mature TLI Stage Design

- Launch History

Price:

In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1), a comparison of proposed prices was used for price analysis to determine reasonableness of the proposed prices. Rocket Lab had the lowest proposed price at $9.95M. Firefly had the next lowest proposed price, which was significantly higher than Rocket Lab, and NG Space had the highest proposed price.

In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(c)(1), to be considered in this analysis using price competition, the proposal needed to satisfy the Government’s expressed requirement. Since Momentus’ proposal includes a deficiency, they have not met the expressed CAPTSONE requirements and therefore their price cannot be evaluated for reasonableness.

Based on this assessment, the proposed price from Rocket Lab, Firefly, and NG Space is determined fair and reasonable based on comparison of proposed competitive prices received in response to the solicitation. To support this analysis, it was determined that adequate price competition existed because three out of four priced offers were received from responsive and responsible offerors, competing independently, that satisfy the Government’s expressed requirements and there was no finding that any of the prices are unreasonable.

DECISION

During the presentation, I was fully briefed on the procurement process and was given detailed evaluation materials concerning the four proposals evaluated. I questioned the evaluation team on the material presented and carefully considered the detailed findings presented by the team.

In determining which proposal(s) offered the best value to NASA, I referred to following the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors specified in the RFP:

All evaluation factors other than price when combined are approximately equal to price.

The relative order of importance of these factors is that Technical/Management Capability is approximately equal to Price.

Utilizing these evaluation factors, the RFP also provides that the Government intends to award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. I note that this allows me to make a selection based on other than the lowest price, in accordance with the trade-off process described in FAR 15.101-1. The selection rationale that follows was based on a comparative assessment of proposals against each of the source selection factors.

I began by reviewing the findings presented by the evaluation team within the Technical/Management Capability Factor. While I note that this decision is a product of my independent judgment, my review of the findings under this factor led me to adopt them as my own. I believe that the evaluation of each of the offerors’ proposals was comprehensive, thorough and well documented. The resultant findings (i.e. significant strength, strengths, significant weaknesses, and weaknesses) captured by the evaluation team represent the relative merits of each proposal and are ultimately reflective of the overall quality of the technical solutions offered.

I first note within the Technical/Management Capability Factor that there is an appreciable difference between these proposals in terms of the findings assigned. Rocket Lab’s proposal stood out above the other offerors with the key discriminator being that they are the only offeror without any significant weaknesses or weaknesses. They received three significant strengths attributed to the proposed launch vehicle, core stages, and phasing orbit approach, which when combined with the four strengths assigned, demonstrates a highly credible solution to meeting the proposed launch date and the other CAPSTONE requirements described in the statement of work.

NG Space’s proposal was the most closely matched to Rocket Lab’s with three identified significant strengths attributed to the proposed launch vehicle, core stages, and qualified TLI stage. They received two strengths which contributed to a demonstrated ability to meet the CAPSTONE requirements described in the statement of work; however, these benefits were offset by three weaknesses assigned which impact launch availability and the spacecraft.

After review of the findings assigned to Firefly and Momentus, it is clear that these two offerors did not demonstrate sufficient ability to meet the CAPSTONE requirements described in the statement of work. Although Firefly had one significant strength, this was offset by four significant weaknesses and two weaknesses. Momentus had one deficiency and five significant weaknesses.

I finally note the offeror’s respective prices. Rocket Lab submitted the lowest price, with the next lowest price by Firefly, being significantly higher, and then NG Space with the highest price. Momentus’ price could not be assessed for reasonableness since their proposal did not meet the expressed CAPSTONE requirements.

Based upon the foregoing discussion and being cognizant of the relative order of evaluation factors, I find that Rocket Lab’s proposal represents the overall best value to the Agency. Rocket Lab’s proposal represents the best technical solution at a significantly lower price than all the other offerors. Since I view Rocket Lab’s proposal as representing the superior technical/management solution, I do not believe trading off to a significantly higher priced offeror is warranted in my business judgement.

Accordingly, after considering the above cited selection criteria and the findings of the evaluation team and exercising my independent judgment, I hereby select Rocket Lab for award of the CAPTSONE mission launch service.

Scott Syring Date Source Selection Authority Commercial Space Office, OP-LS Kennedy Space Center National Aeronautics and Space Administration

SCOTT SYRING Digitally signed by SCOTT SYRING Date: 2020.02.12 12:50:01 -05'00'