IAD_Source Selection Decision_FINAL_v2_19OCT22.pdf

Version 2

Source Selection Decision (Corrected) Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerators (IAD)

RFP: 80LARC22R0016

On August 5, 2022, the Source Evaluation Board (SEB or “team”) for the Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerators (IAD) presented its findings to me in a formal source selection briefing.

Background

Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerators (IADs) represent a cross‐cutting technology being developed to achieve improved atmospheric entry capabilities, enabling delivery of large mass payloads in a variety of NASA applications. Successful development of the IAD technology can lead to an improved mission flexibility and EDL timeline, yielding increased landed mass, improved delivery accuracy, and/or ability to land at higher altitude. Future high‐mass robotic and human exploration missions that could benefit from the use of IAD technology include Mars robotic, Mars human, Venus, Low Earth Orbit/International Space Station, Near Earth Object return‐robotic, and terrestrial robotic missions.

In 2012, the third Inflatable Reentry Vehicle Experiment (IRVE‐3) was launched on a sounding rocket out of Wallops Flight Facility with a goal of demonstrating the concept of inflatable reentry vehicles. During the IRVE‐3 flight, the aeroshell inflated as designed to a diameter of 3m and maintained stability through hypersonic reentry and the supersonic, transonic, and subsonic flight regimes. Following IRVE-3, ground development has continued with fabrication and testing of a 6m diameter IAD with improvements to thermal and structural performance. The current Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) project is developing a reentry vehicle with a 6m diameter IAD that is scheduled for a flight test in 2022.

Potential NASA and commercial mission applications will require IADs of 10-20m in diameter.

IAD designs should address mission requirements for aerocapture and/or EDL, which may include hypersonic, supersonic, transonic, and subsonic regimes, depending upon the specific application. Development activities may also include integration with various flight vehicle configurations, stowage arrangements, deployment methods, inflation systems, and instrumentation for system and flight data measurements. A complete IAD aeroshell system includes the Inflatable Structure (IS), Flexible Thermal Protection System (FTPS), stowage restraint system, inflation system, and integration to space vehicle structure. Task orders are planned to begin with ground development and testing efforts to demonstrate increased structural load and thermal performance capabilities and then progress to IAD articles for flight demonstrations. As IAD scale increases, inflation systems driven by gas generators are expected to provide mass advantages over current systems which use compressed gas.

The primary objectives of this procurement are to increase IAD scale to 10–20-meter diameter and develop gas generator systems that have never been produced to meet the space environment and conditions required for IADs. This procurement will continue the development of the IAD technology and build on the advancements achieved under the previous Hypersonic IAD IDIQ contract that was awarded in 2012.

Market research was conducted in order to determine the level of existing small business capabilities in each track. A sources-sought synopsis was issued on July 10, 2020, seeking capability statements from potential sources under North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 541715, Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences with a size standard of 1,000 Employees. 15 companies provided written responses of which two were large businesses, 12 were small businesses, and one was a foreign entity. An Industry Day was held on July 28, 2020, with 45 industry representatives in attendance, scheduled one-on-ones with vendors were held on July 28-29, 2020. A synopsis was issued on November 8, 2021, that included a draft of sections L&M and the IAD SOW for industry review and comments. Based on the responses received, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Small Business Specialist, determined that an adequate number of small business concerns existed to allow the LaRC procurement to be conducted as a Total Small Business set aside for Tracks B and C. Track A did not have two or more qualified small businesses respond and was competed as a full and open.

The LaRC SEB was appointed by me via letter dated April 7, 2021, for the purpose of evaluating proposals received in response to the solicitation. A Procurement Strategy Meeting was held on December 14, 2021. The Draft RFP was waived during the PSM because the draft Section L&M and other applicable documents were released previously. The Request for Proposal (RFP) was released on January 14, 2022. Four amendments to the RFP were issued to respond to questions received from the potential Offerors and to make minor corrections. One additional amendment (Amendment #5) was issue after receipt of proposals to all Offerors that were not eliminated from the competition. Amendment #5 was issued to address several proposals of interest departure from the stated RFP requirement to affirm its small business utilization (SBU) compliance.

The IAD procurement was solicited as a multiple-award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) effort with an overall 10-year period of performance (Base: five years; Option 1: three years; and Option 2: two years). The Government intended to award up to three (3) contracts in Track A, and two (2) contracts for Track B and anticipated awarding three (3) to four

(4) contracts in Track C as a result of the solicitation; however, the Government reserved the right to award more or less contracts for each track for Offeror(s) determined by the SSA to represent the best value to the Government. Task Orders issued against awarded IDIQ contracts will be awarded on a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) or Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee (CPFF) basis. The Government will order through the issuance of task orders a minimum quantity of work of $25,000 per IDIQ contract under this contract. The total maximum cumulative value of the IDIQ contracts is $269,000,000. By Track:

Track A: Maximum ordering value is $140M.

Track B: Maximum ordering value is $92M.

Track C: Maximum ordering value is $37M.

Timely proposals were received on or before the due date of February 28, 2022, from the following Offerors (listed in alphabetical order):

Track A Acerts Inc (Acerts) Airborne Systems North America (Airborne) CFD Research Corporation (CFDRC) Jackson Bond Enterprises (JBE)

Ryzing Technologies (Ryzing)

Track B Miller Scientific Inc., d.b.a. Heetshield Inc (Heetshield) Jackson Bond Enterprises LLC (JBE)

Track C Anasphere, Inc. (Anasphere)

Evaluation Factors

This acquisition was a competitive best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 “Source Selection”, NASA FAR Supplement Part 1815.3, and the solicitation utilizing a Price Performance Tradeoff (PPTO) approach with technical proposals. An initial review of each proposal was conducted to identify any unacceptable proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. Seven (7) proposals were determined to be acceptable; one (1) proposal was determined to be unacceptable. Acerts’ s proposal was removed from further consideration because it did not represent a reasonable effort to address the essential requirements of the RFP.

Evaluation of Technical Proposal (Technical Considerations): The SEB performed a detailed evaluation of each Offeror’s Technical Proposal for acceptability based on the “Technical Considerations” set forth in RFP Sections L.17(b) and M.6. Offerors must receive either an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” rating in order for the SEB to move on to the next step of the evaluation. Offerors receiving an “Unacceptable” rating for one (1) or more of the below areas will not be considered for further evaluation. An award can only be made to an Offeror who has a technically “Acceptable” proposal. The technical criteria under RFP Sections L.17(b) and M.6 that were evaluated are summarized below:

Technical Track A: Offeror shall demonstrate its capabilities, or ability to obtain the capability, to meet the task requirements related to Inflatable Structures (IS) Design, Manufacturing, and Testing, including Aeroshell Integration and Test.

a. Provide a summary plan for how it will design, determine type and features, determine material selection, and construct an IS with a diameter of 6 meter (m) or larger with an operating inflation pressure of at least 20 psid.

b. Provide a list of its facility, equipment capabilities and summary plan for manufacturing, assembling, integration, and testing capability for producing an IS in the scale ranging from 3 to 10 meters in diameter.

c. Provide a summary plan of activities required to increase its current facility, equipment, and support capabilities, or obtain them, in order to provide manufacturing, integration, and testing of large scale IS ranging from 10 to 20 meters in diameter. At a minimum, provide a summary plan of how to scale up as the Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (IAD) size increases from 10 to 20 meters in diameter.

d. Provide a summary plan for the assembly, integration and testing of a complete 6 m or larger IAD aeroshell system.

Technical Track B: Offeror shall demonstrate its capabilities, or ability to obtain the capability, to meet the task requirements related to Flexible Thermal Protection Systems (FTPS) Design, Manufacturing, and Testing, including support for Aeroshell Integration and Test.

a. Provide a summary plan for how it will design, determine type and features, determine material selection for thermal and construct a FTPS with a diameter of 6 meters or larger.

Material selections shall consider thermal capabilities for outer surface temperature of at least 1000 deg C for a minimum of 5 minutes and provide thermal insulation to limit the temperature at the interface to the Inflatable Structure to 250 C.

b. Provide a list of its facility, equipment capabilities and summary plan for manufacturing, assembling, integration, and testing capability for producing an FTPS in the scale ranging from 3 to 10 meters in diameter.

c. Provide a summary plan of activities required to increase its current facility, equipment, and support capabilities, in order to provide manufacturing, integration, and testing of large scale FTPS ranging from 10 to 20 meters in diameter. At a minimum, provide a summary plan of how to scale up as the IAD size increases from 10 to 20 meters in diameter.

Technical Track C: Offeror shall demonstrate its capabilities, or ability to obtain the capability, to meet the task requirements related to Gas Generator Inflation Systems Design, Manufacturing, and Testing and Integration with Inflatable Structure.

a. Provide a summary plan of how to reduce gas generator discharge temperature and deliver gas to the inflatable structure with a goal of less than 200 C.

b. Provide a summary plan for a full, maintainable inflation for inflatable structure volumes from 1200 to 4000 cubic feet with final inflatable pressures between 15 to 30 psid.

c. Provide a summary plan to minimize or eliminate and solid, liquid, or gas delivered which may be harmful to inflatable structures materials, in particular silicone and fluoropolymer components.

Past Performance and Cost/Price Evaluation: All technically “Acceptable” proposals were further evaluated using a tradeoff process between past performance and cost/price factors in accordance with RFP Sections L.18 and L.19 (M.7(a) and (b)). The SEB performed a detailed evaluation of all seven (7) Offerors’ past performance and price proposals to assess information submitted for the two evaluation factors.

Factor 1 – Past Performance: Under the Past Performance factor, the SEB performed a detailed individual review of each Offeror’s Past Performance proposal, Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), and Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) reports to evaluate the Offeror’s recent and relevant/pertinent performance for work similar in terms of size, content, and complexity to the requirements in the solicitation.

Section M.7(a) of the RFP stated that all past performance references (contracts) must meet the “recency” and “relevancy/pertinence” requirements of the solicitation to be evaluated. Past performance will be assessed to arrive at a Level of Confidence rating as set forth in NFS

1815.305 and NASA Source Selection Guide. Each of confidence rating has a "performance" component and a "pertinence" component. An Offeror must meet the requirements of both components to achieve a particular confidence rating and the lowest-rated component is the highest confidence rating that can be achieved.

In assessing recency, the SEB evaluated past performance references that had ongoing performance or had completed performance within the past ten (10) years (from the date the RFP was issued). In assessing pertinence, the SEB considered the degree of similarity of work performed in terms of size, content, and complexity of each relevant contract of the prime and each significant subcontractor (if applicable) considering the amount and type of work each firm is proposed to perform to the requirements in this solicitation. To evaluate size, the SEB compared the Offeror’s referenced contracts/task orders/delivery orders for similarity in size to the average/typical delivery order for IAD work utilizing historical data from the predecessor IDIQ HIAD contracts and anticipated task order sizes. To be considered at least somewhat pertinent, delivery orders must have a minimum value of $25,000. For determining content pertinence, the SEB evaluated references based on the relevant experience to the Technical Performance Elements (PWS areas) listed in RFP Section L.18(d), which are as follows:

Technical Track A: Inflatable Structures Design, Manufacturing, and Testing Including Aeroshell Integration and Test A.1 Inflatable Structures A.2 Aeroshell Integration and Testing Technical Track B: Flexible Thermal Protection Systems Design, Manufacturing, and Testing Including Aeroshell Integration and Test Support B.1 Flexible Thermal Protection Systems B.2 Aeroshell Integration and Testing Technical Track C: Gas Generator Inflation Systems Design, Manufacturing, and Testing and Integration with Inflatable Structure

C.1 Gas Generator Inflation Systems PWS Sections 3.1.1 Mechanical and Electric/Electronic Conceptual

To assess complexity, the SEB compared references to the performance requirements outlined in those technical performance areas. An Offeror had to receive a particular rating on only one reference to receive that rating overall for size, content, or complexity. The SEB considered the assigned ratings for size, content, and complexity to arrive at an overall pertinence rating for each Offeror.

In assessing performance, the SEB evaluated each Offeror's overall performance record for demonstrated experience in the technical performance elements listed in Section L.18(d) for the work each firm is proposed to perform. The SEB’s evaluation considered the information provided in each Offeror’s Past Performance proposal, Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs)/Interviews, and Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) reports.

Once each SEB member individually evaluated each Offeror’s references for pertinence and performance, the team met and discussed all the past performance findings of the individual voting members. The SEB used its collective judgment to develop consensus findings for the past performance factor and arrived at its consensus ratings for the pertinence, performance, and level of confidence rating for each Offeror. The RFP description of the past performance levels of confidence ratings is set out below:

Very High Level of Confidence

The Offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and 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 the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Level of Confidence

The Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition;

demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Offeror’s past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of Confidence

The Offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of Confidence

The Offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards. Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the Offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Very Low Level of Confidence

The Offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas. Performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, adversely affected overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].

Factor 2 – Cost/Price: The evaluation of the price factor was conducted in accordance with RFP Section M.7(b). The Government performed a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404- 1(b) by evaluating the prices proposed in response to the solicitation to determine if the prices were fair and reasonable. The evaluation included, but was not limited to, comparing all proposed prices to each other and comparing each proposed price to the independent Government cost estimate. The Government analyzed the total proposed price and other pricing data requested in Section L.19 and Cost Forms for fairness and reasonableness. Additionally, the Government evaluated each Offeror’s Pre-Priced Schedule of Rates and compared its proposed labor rates to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) market data.

Evaluation Findings

Upon receipt of proposals, the SEB evaluated all seven (7) remaining proposals in accordance with the RFP Section M. All seven (7) proposals were found to be acceptable for technical considerations. The integrated evaluation is documented below.

Evaluation of Technical Proposal (Technical Considerations): The SEB conducted its evaluation of all Offerors’ technical proposals, and assigned ratings as stated below:

Offeror Technical Acceptability Airborne Acceptable CFDRC Acceptable JBE Acceptable Ryzing Acceptable

Track B

Heetshield Acceptable JBE Acceptable

Anasphere Acceptable

Factor 1 Past Performance: The SEB evaluated the Offerors’ past performance in accordance with Sections L.18 and M.7(a) of the RFP and a confidence rating was assigned in accordance with NFS 1815.305 and NASA Source Selection Guide. Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance confidence ratings and findings for the seven (7) evaluated Offerors and detailed data for each Offeror by Track.

Offeror Overall

Pertinence Overall Performance Level Of Confidence

Rating

Airborne Very Highly Pertinent Very Effective High Level of Confidence

CFDRC Highly Pertinent Very Effective High Level of Confidence

JBE Highly Pertinent Very Effective High Level of Confidence

Ryzing Highly Pertinent Very Effective High Level of Confidence

Airborne:

The SEB determined there is a “High Level of Confidence” that Airborne would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the IAD effort based on its record of past performance. Airborne is the prime contractor with no proposed significant subcontractors. Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance Findings for Airborne:

Size: The SEB assigned a rating of Very Highly Pertinent for overall size, as the Offeror demonstrated past performance with contracts/task orders at the VHP level for size, as compared to the average/typical order for IAD work.

Content: The SEB assigned a rating of Very Highly Pertinent for overall content based on the Offeror’s demonstrated experience in each of the two (2) Technical Performance Elements under Technical Track A. Airborne demonstrated content experience as an incumbent for the Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerators (HIAD) contract. The HIAD contract covered design, fabrication, and testing of a relevant scale inflatable structure (IS) that was delivered to NASA for flight test, as well as integrating, testing, and packing of a flight aeroshell.

Complexity: The SEB assigned a Very Highly Pertinent rating for Complexity. The team determined that the offeror’s past performance demonstrated the same or higher complexity that the IADs solicitation requires. Airborne is an incumbent to the HIAD contract, which is very similar to the IAD contract requirements for Track A.

Overall Pertinence: The SEB assigned a rating of Very Highly Pertinent for overall pertinence, based on the evaluation of size, content, and complexity.

Overall Performance: Airborne provided four (4) references for evaluation. One reference was found to not meet the recency requirement, so the team did not consider or assign a rating to this reference. Based on the interviews conducted (or PPQs/interviews) by the team with POCs/customers and available CPAR information, the team rated Airborne’s performance references from Effective to Exemplary in all categories. Airborne did not identify any significant subcontractors. The SEB took into account the overall performance of the Offeror on the three references evaluated. In the judgement of the SEB, it assigned a Very Effective performance rating for Airborne based on the preponderance of the ratings.

In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SEB assigned an overall Confidence Rating of High Level of Confidence for Airborne based on an overall pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent experience and Very Effective performance.

CFDRC:

The SEB determined there is a “High Level of Confidence” that CFDRC would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the IAD effort based on its record of past

OFFEROR CUSTOMER CONTRACT # CONTRACT TITLE

and VALUE PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

S iz e

P P

A re a

P

A re a

O v e ra ll C o n te n t

C o m p le x it y

O v e ra ll P e rt in e n c e

P e rf o rm a n c e

C o n fi d e n c e L e v e l R a ti n g

Airborne Overall Offeror Ratings: VHP VHP VHP VHP VHP VHP VE High performance. CFDRC is proposed as the prime contractor. CFDRC included two significant subcontractors, Lockheed Martin Space (LMS), and Thin Redline Aerospace (TRLA) as part of its team. Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance Findings for CFDRC:

Size: The SEB assigned a rating of Highly Pertinent for overall size as the Offeror demonstrated past performance with contracts/task orders at the VHP level for size, as compared to the average/typical order for IAD work.

Content: The SEB assigned a rating of Highly Pertinent for overall content based on the Offeror’s demonstrated experience in each of the two (2) Technical Performance Elements under Technical Track A. HP rating for overall content is supported by a combination of the references that include many elements in the SOW. This includes fabrication integrated with a FTPS, testing of an inflatable structure, and conceptual design for a large (10m) aeroshell. Inflatable structure fabrication was performed by TRLA for two past performance references and will have the same or similar role as a significant subcontractor to CFDRC. Lockheed Martin is proposed to provide integration, testing capabilities, and testing facilities. The Offeror’s past performance records along with its significant subcontractors’ LMS and TRLA has demonstrated the CFRDC team has the capabilities to meet the content requirements of Track A.

Complexity: The SEB assigned a Highly Pertinent rating for Complexity. The team determined that the offeror’s past performance demonstrated the same or higher complexity than the IADs solicitation requires. The rating for overall complexity is based on capabilities demonstrated by a combination of the references that are highly similar to the IAD SOW requirements.

Overall Pertinence: The SEB assigned a rating of Highly Pertinent for overall pertinence, based on the evaluation of size, content, and complexity.

Overall Performance: CFDRC provided three past performance references for the prime and one each for the significant subcontractors. Based on the interviews conducted (or PPQs/interviews) by the team with POCs/customers and available CPAR information, the team rated CFDRC’s performance references from Effective to Exemplary in all categories. In addition, CFDRC’s significant contractor, LMS, had one (1) reference rated as Very Effective, and significant contractor, TRLA, had one (1) reference rated as Exemplary. The team considered the performance of both the prime and its significant subcontractors and determined that CFDRC’s, LMS’s, and TRLA’s performance was a Very Effective overall performance rating for the CFDRC based on the preponderance of the ratings.

OFFEROR CUSTOMER CONTRACT # CONTRACT TITLE

and VALUE PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

S iz e

P P

A re

A re a

O v e ra ll C o n te n t

C o m p le x it y

O v e ra ll P e rt in e n c e

P e rf o rm a n c e

C o n fi d e n c e L e v e l R a ti

CFD Research Overall Offeror Ratings: HP HP P HP HP HP VE High

In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SEB assigned an overall Confidence Rating of High Level of Confidence for CFDRC based on an overall pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent experience and Very Effective performance.

JBE:

The SEB determined there is a “High Level of Confidence” that JBE would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the IAD effort based on its record of past performance. JBE is the prime contractor with no proposed significant subcontractors. Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance Findings for JBE:

Size: The SEB assigned a rating of Very Highly Pertinent for overall size, as the Offeror demonstrated experience past performance with contracts/task orders at the VHP level for size, as compared to the average/typical order for IAD work.

Content: The SEB assigned an overall rating of Pertinent for content based on the Offeror’s demonstrated experience in each of the two (2) Technical Performance Elements under Technical Track A. A Pertinent rating for overall content is supported by two references that include inflatable torus fabrication, testing, and assembly of paired tori with webbing. The Offeror has also designed and fabrication inflation lines, developed improved material testing capabilities, and performed a significant level of material testing. However, the capability to assemble a complete IS and perform aeroshell integration were not demonstrated.

Complexity: The SEB assigned a Highly Pertinent rating for Complexity. The team determined that the Offeror’s past performance demonstrated the same complexity with minor differences than the IAD solicitation requires. The rating for overall complexity is based on capabilities demonstrated in two (2) of its Southern Research Institute subcontracts that are highly similar to the IAD SOW requirements.

Overall Pertinence: The SEB assigned a rating of Highly Pertinent for overall pertinence, based on the evaluation of size, content, and complexity.

Overall Performance: JBE provided four (4) references for evaluation. Based on the Interviews conducted (or PPQs/Interviews) by the team with POCs/customers and available CPARS information, the team rated JBE’s performance references from Effective to Exceptional. JBE did not identify any significant subcontractors. The SEB took into account the overall performance of the Offeror on the four (4) references evaluated. In the judgement of the SEB, it

OFFEROR CUSTOMER CONTRACT # CONTRACT TITLE

and VALUE PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

S iz e

P P

A re

A re a

O v e ra ll C o n te n t

C o m p le x it y

O v e ra ll P e rt in e n c e

P e rf o rm a n c e

C o n fi d e n c e L e v e l R a ti

JBE Overall Offeror Ratings: VHP HP SP P HP HP VE High assigned a Very Effective overall performance rating for JBE based on the preponderance of the ratings.

In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SEB assigned an overall Confidence Rating of High Level of Confidence for JBE based on an overall pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent experience and Very Effective performance.

Ryzing:

The SEB determined there is a “High Level of Confidence” that Ryzing would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the IAD effort based on its record of past performance. Ryzing is the prime contractor with no proposed significant subcontractors. Ryzing provided four (4) references for evaluation. Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance Findings for Ryzing:

Size: The SEB assigned a rating of Highly Pertinent for overall size, as the Prime demonstrated past performance with contracts/task orders at the HP level for size, as compared to the average/typical order for IAD work.

Content: The SEB assigned a rating of Pertinent for overall content based on the Offeror’s demonstrated experience in each of the two (2) Technical Performance Elements under Technical Track A. The Pertinent rating for overall content is supported by two (2) references that include inflatable structures fabrication and testing that used relevant materials and construction methods. However, the capability to assemble a complete IS and perform aeroshell integration were not demonstrated.

Complexity: The SEB assigned a Highly Pertinent rating for Complexity. The team determined that the Offeror’s past performance demonstrated the same complexity with minor differences than the IAD solicitation requires. The rating for overall complexity is based on capabilities demonstrated in the NASA and US Army contract references that are highly similar to the IAD SOW requirements.

Overall Pertinence: The SEB assigned a rating of Highly Pertinent for overall pertinence, based on the evaluation of size, content, and complexity.

Overall Performance: Ryzing provided four (4) references for evaluation. Based on the Interviews conducted (or PPQs/interviews) by the team with POCs/customers and available

OFFEROR CUSTOMER CONTRACT # CONTRACT TITLE

and VALUE PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

S iz e

P P

A re

A re a

O v e ra ll C o n te n t

C o m p le x it y

O v e ra ll P e rt in e n c e

P e rf o rm a n c e

C o n fi d e n c e L e v e l R a ti

Ryzing Overall Offeror Ratings: HP HP P P HP HP VE High

CPAR/SBIR evaluation information, the team rated Ryzing’ s performance from Very Effective to Exemplary in all categories. Ryzing did not identify any significant subcontractors. The SEB took into account the overall performance of the Offeror on the four (4) references evaluated. In the judgement of the SEB, it assigned a Very Effective overall performance rating for Ryzing based on a preponderance of the ratings.

In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SEB assigned an overall Confidence Rating of High Level of Confidence for Ryzing based on an overall pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent experience and Very Effective performance.

Track B

Pertinence Overall

Performance Level Of Confidence

Rating

Heetshield Highly Pertinent Exemplary High Level of Confidence

JBE Very Highly Pertinent Exemplary

Very High Level of Confidence

Heetshield:

The SEB determined there is a “High Level of Confidence” that Heetshield would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the IAD effort based on its record of past performance. Heetshield is the prime contractor with no proposed significant subcontractors.

Heetshield provided three (3) references for evaluation. Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance Findings for Heetshield:

Size: The SEB assigned a rating of Pertinent for overall size, as the Offeror demonstrated past performance with contracts/task order at the P level for size, as compared to the average/typical order for IAD work.

Content: The SEB assigned a rating of Highly Pertinent for overall content based on the Offeror’s demonstrated experience in each of the two (2) Technical Performance Elements under Technical Track B. A Highly Pertinent rating for overall content is supported by three (3) references that include development of an improved gas barrier for FTPS and demonstrated material knowledge, soft good manufacturing, thermal testing capabilities, gas barrier integration with FTPS layup, and support for full

OFFEROR CUSTOMER CONTRACT # TRACT TITLE AND VA PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

S iz e

P P

A re

A re a

O v e ra ll C o n te n t

C o m p le x it y

O v e ra ll P e rt in e n c e

P e rf o rm a n c e

C o n fi d e n c e L e v e l

R a ti

Heetshield P HP HP HP VHP HP EX High scale test article testing in relevant environments. However, the capability to fabrication of a complete FTPS was not demonstrated.

Complexity: The SEB assigned a Very Highly Pertinent rating for Complexity. The team determined that the Offeror’s past performance demonstrated the same or higher complexity that the IAD solicitation requires. The rating for overall complexity is based on capabilities demonstrated in the NASA Langley contract reference that is very highly similar to the IAD SOW requirements.

Overall Pertinence: The SEB assigned a rating of Highly Pertinent for overall pertinence, based on the evaluation of size, content, and complexity.

Overall Performance: Heetshield provided three (3) references for evaluation. Based on the Interviews conducted (or PPQs/Interviews) by the team with POCs/customers and available CPAR information, the team rated Heetshield’ s performance references from Very Effective to Exemplary in all categories. Heetshield did not identify any significant subcontractors. In the judgement of the SEB, it assigned an Exemplary overall performance rating for Heetshield based on the preponderance of the ratings.

In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SEB assigned an overall Confidence Rating of High Level of Confidence for Heetshield based on an overall pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent experience and Exemplary performance.

JBE:

The SEB determined there is a “Very High Level of Confidence” that JBE would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the IAD effort based on its record of past performance. JBE is the prime contractor with no proposed significant subcontractors. JBE provided five (5) references for evaluation. Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance Findings for JBE:

Size: The SEB The team assigned a rating of Very Highly Pertinent for overall size, as the Offeror demonstrated past performance with contracts/task orders at the VHP level for size, as compared to the average/typical order for IAD work.

Content: The SEB assigned a rating of Very Highly Pertinent for overall content based on the Offeror’s demonstrated experience in each of the two (2) Technical Performance Elements under Technical Track B. JBE’s past performance record demonstrated it capabilities in Flexible

OFFEROR CUSTOMER CONTRACT # TRACT TITLE AND VA PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

S iz e

P P

A re

A re a

O v e ra ll C o n te n t

C o m p le x it y

O v e ra ll P e rt in e n c e

P e rf o rm a n c e

C o n fi d e n c e L e v e l R a ti

JBE Overall Offeror Ratings: VHP VHP VHP VHP VHP VHP EX Very High

Thermal Protection Systems (FTPS) Design, Manufacturing, and Testing including Aeroshell Integration and Test Support very highly similar to the IAD SOW requirements.

Complexity: The SEB assigned a Very Highly Pertinent rating for overall complexity. The team determined that the Offeror’s past performance involved the same or higher complexity that the IAD solicitation requires. The rating for overall complexity is based on capabilities demonstrated in three (3) of its Southern Research Institute subcontracts that are very highly similar to the IAD SOW requirements.

Overall Pertinence: The SEB assigned a rating of Very Highly Pertinent for overall pertinence, based on the evaluation of size, content, and complexity.

Overall Performance: JBE provided five (5) references for evaluation. Based on the Interviews conducted (or PPQs/Interviews) by the team with POCs/customers and available CPAR information, the team rated JBE’s performance reference from Very Effective to Exemplary in all categories. JBE did not identify any significant subcontractors. In the judgement of the SEB, it assigned an Exemplary overall performance rating for JBE based on the preponderance of the ratings.

In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SEB assigned an overall Confidence Rating of Very High Level of Confidence for JBE based on an overall pertinence rating of Very Highly Pertinent experience and Exemplary performance.

Pertinence Overall Performance Level Of Confidence

Rating

Anasphere Highly Pertinent Exemplary High Level of Confidence

Anasphere:

The SEB determined there is a “High Level of Confidence” that Anasphere would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the IAD effort based on its record of past performance. Anasphere is the prime contractor with no proposed significant subcontractors.

Anasphere provided three (3) references for evaluation. Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance Findings for Anasphere:

OFFEROR CUSTOMER CONTRACT # CONTRACT TITLE

AND VALUE PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

S iz e

A re

O v e ra ll C o n te n t

C o m p l e x it y

O v e ra ll P e rt in e n c e

P e rf o r m a n c e

C o n fi d e n c e

L e v e l R a ti

Anasphere Overall Offeror Ratings: HP VHP VHP HP HP EX High

Size: The SEB assigned a rating of Highly Pertinent for overall size, as the Offeror demonstrated past performance with contracts/task orders at the HP level for size, as compared to the anticipated average/typical for IAD work.

Content: The SEB assigned a rating of Very Highly Pertinent rating for overall content based on the Offeror’s demonstrated experience in Technical Track C, Gas Generator Inflation Systems Design, Manufacturing, and Testing and Integration with Inflatable Structure.

Complexity: The SEB assigned a Highly Pertinent rating for overall complexity. The team determined that the Offeror’s past performance involved the same or higher complexity that the IAD solicitation requires. Anasphere demonstrated HP in complexity in each of its three past performance references.

Overall Pertinence: The SEB assigned a rating of Highly Pertinent for overall pertinence, based on the evaluation of size, content, and complexity.

Overall Performance: Anasphere provided three (3) references for evaluation. Based on the Interviews conducted (or PPQs/Interviews) by the team with POCs/customers and available CPAR information, the team rated Anasphere’ s performance references from Very Effective to Exemplary in all categories. Anasphere did not identify any significant subcontractors. In the judgement of the SEB, it assigned an Exemplary overall performance rating for Anasphere based on the preponderance of the ratings.

In accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP, the SEB assigned an overall Confidence Rating of High Level of Confidence for Heetshield based on an overall pertinence rating of Highly Pertinent experience and Exemplary performance.

Factor 2 – Cost/Price:

The SEB analyzed the total proposed price and other pricing data requested in Section L.19 for fair and reasonableness.

A summary ranking of the total proposed price, lowest to highest per track, is shown in the tables below.

Track A

Offeror Total Proposal Price Ryzing #1

JBE #2

CFDRC #3

Airborne #4

In accordance with FAR 15.402, the Contracting Officer determined that all of the Track A Offeror’s proposed prices were fair and reasonable based on the comparison of the proposed prices to each other, comparison of the proposed prices to the IGCE, and the fact that adequate price competition was obtained. Due to the nature of the multiple award task order contract, cost or price will be a factor in selection of each task order in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(1)(ii)(E). Therefore, cost or price analysis will be conducted prior to the award of each task order. For Track A, the total maximum cumulative value of the Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts is $140M.

Ryzing: The SEB determined the price proposal to be fair and reasonable, reflected a clear understanding of the IAD effort, and was consistent with the elements of the technical proposal. Ryzing had no pricing concerns that would preclude an award of a contract.

JBE: The SEB determined the price proposal to be fair and reasonable, reflected a clear understanding of the IAD effort, and was consistent with the elements of the technical proposal. JBE had no pricing concerns that would preclude an award of a contract.

CFDRC: The SEB determined the price proposal to be fair and reasonable, reflected a clear understanding of the IAD effort, and was consistent with the elements of the technical proposal. CFDRC had no pricing concerns that would preclude an award of a contract.

Airborne: The SEB determined the price proposal to be fair and reasonable, reflected a clear understanding of the IAD effort, and was consistent with the elements of the technical proposal. Airborne had no pricing concerns that would preclude an award of a contract.

Track B

Offeror Total Proposal Price Heetshield #1

JBE #2

In accordance with FAR 15.402, the Contracting Officer determined that all of the Track B Offeror’s proposed prices were fair and reasonable based on the comparison of the proposed prices to each other, comparison of the proposed prices to the IGCE, and the fact that adequate price competition was obtained. Due to the nature of the multiple award task order contract, cost or price will be a factor in selection of each task order in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(1)(ii)(E). Therefore, cost or price analysis will be conducted prior to the award of each task order. For Track B, the total maximum cumulative value of the Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts is $92M.

Heetshield: The SEB determined the price proposal to be fair and reasonable, reflected a clear understanding of the IAD effort, and was consistent with the elements of the technical proposal. Heetshield had no pricing concerns that would preclude an award of a contract.

JBE: The SEB determined the price proposal to be fair and reasonable, reflected a clear understanding of the IAD effort, and was consistent with the elements of the technical proposal. JBE had no pricing concerns that would preclude an award of a contract.

Offeror Total Proposal Price Anasphere #1

In accordance with FAR 15.402, the Contracting Officer determined that this Offeror’s proposed prices were fair and reasonable based on the comparison of the proposed prices to the IGCE and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) market rates. Adequate price competition did not exist. To support proposal negotiations, certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data will be required by the contracting officer to determine that the price is fair and reasonable (FAR 15.403-3 and FAR 15.403-4), and analysis will be conducted prior to the award of each task order. For Track C, the total maximum cumulative value of the Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts is $37M.

Anasphere: The SEB determined the price proposal to be fair and reasonable, reflected a clear understanding of the IAD effort, and was consistent with the elements of the technical proposal. Other than no adequate price competition, Anasphere had no pricing concerns that would preclude an award of a contract.

Basis for Selection

The SEB presented its findings to me on August 5, 2022, and I have determined that the SEB conducted a thorough and impartial evaluation of all proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria that were established in the RFP. I asked questions about aspects of the past performance and cost/price evaluations to enhance my understanding. After all questions were answered, I fully understood the SEB’s findings.

I comparatively assessed the proposals against the evaluation factors in the RFP. I noted that all Seven (7) offerors meet the technical considerations required of the RFP. I also considered all factors, and their relative importance, in the selection of the Offeror(s) that can perform the contract in a manner most advantageous to the Government. The RFP states that the past performance factor is significantly more important than the cost/price factor. Therefore, I weighted the qualitative advantage of the past performance higher than the quantitative benefits in cost/price as my indicators of which Offeror(s) provide the best value to the Government.

Track A Airborne’s High Level of Confidence rating for past performance consisted of a Very High Level of pertinence and Very Effective performance. CFDRC’s High Level of Confidence rating for past performance consisted of High Level of pertinence and Very Effective performance. JBE’s High Level of Confidence rating for past performance consisted of High Level of pertinence and Very Effective performance. Ryzing’ s High Level of Confidence rating for past performance consisted of High Level of pertinence and Exemplary performance. All Track A Offerors received High Level of Confidence ratings, which provides me assurance they will provide more than satisfactory performance in fulfilling the requirements for the IAD contract. The cost/price analysis indicated that all four (4) Offerors’ prices were fair and reasonable, and the anticipation of competition at the task order level provided me additional confidence that task order pricing will be fair and reasonable. I have no concern that the proposed pricing of each Offeror in Track A is not the most advantageous and reasonable for the Government to fulfill the requirements for the IAD contract.

Track B Heetshield’ s High Level of Confidence rating for past performance consisted of a High Level of pertinence and Very Effective performance. JBE’s Very High Level of Confidence rating for past performance consisted of Very High Level of pertinence and Exemplary performance. Both Track B Offerors received Very High or High Level of Confidence ratings, which provides me assurance they will provide more than satisfactory performance in fulfilling the requirements for the IAD contract. The cost/price analysis indicated that both Offerors’ prices were fair and reasonable, and the anticipation of competition at the task order level provided me additional confidence that task order pricing will be fair and reasonable. I have no concern that the proposed pricing of each Offeror in Track B is not the most advantageous and reasonable for the Government to fulfill the requirements for the IAD contract.

Track C Only one proposal was submitted for Track C, therefore I directed the Contracting Officer to implement the procedures at NFS 1815.305-71, Evaluation of a Single Proposal in accordance with RFP Section M.1 for this track. The Contracting Officer reviewed the procurement, the solicitation, and solicitation process for Track C, and determined that (1) the solicitation was not flawed or unduly restrictive; and (2) the single proposal was acceptable for evaluation per NFS 1815.305-70. Based on the Contracting Officer determinations, I determined that there was no reason to cancel the solicitation and agreed that the solicitation was not flawed or unduly restrictive for this track. Anasphere’ s High Level of Confidence rating for past performance consisted of a High Level of pertinence and Exemplary performance which provides me assurance Anasphere will provide more than satisfactory performance in fulfilling the requirements for the IAD contract. The cost/price analysis indicated that Anasphere’ s prices were fair and reasonable, however there is no anticipation of competition at the task order level which renders it critical that the Government establish a strong negotiation posture for each task order requirement. I have no additional concerns that the proposed pricing for this Offeror is not the most advantageous and reasonable for the Government to fulfill the requirements for the IAD contract.

Source Selection Decision

In conclusion, based on the determinations above for Factor 1, Past Performance and Factor 2, Cost/Price, I find that each Offeror’s proposal was reasonable, realistic, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the requirements of the RFP.