CLPS On-Ramp Source Selection Statement_11.8.19_Final_Signed.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR THE

COMMERCIAL LUNAR PAYLOAD SERVICES (CLPS) ON-RAMP

Solicitation Number: 80JSC019R0013

On November 6, 2019, I, along with other key officials of the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) and Headquarters (HQ), met with members of the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) On-Ramp evaluation team to discuss the evaluations of proposals received in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP) dated July

30, 2019. During this meeting I solicited the views of the evaluation team and my advisors and expressed my own views. The evaluation team presentation charts have been reviewed and represent the final source selection evaluation report and are herein incorporated by reference.

I. Procurement History

CLPS was competed as a multiple-award Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite

Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The original competition resulted in nine contracts being awarded to the following contractors:

Contractor Contract Number

Astrobotic Technology, Inc. 80HQTR19D0005

Deep Space Systems, Inc. 80HQTR19D0007

The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. 80HQTR19D0019

Firefly Aerospace, Inc. 80HQTR19D0009

Intuitive Machines, LLC 80HQTR19D0010

Lockheed Martin Corporation (DBA: Lockheed Martin Space

Systems Company)

80HQTR19D0014

Masten Space Systems, Inc. 80HQTR19D0016

Moon Express, Inc. 80HQTR19D0015

Orbit Beyond, Inc. 80HQTR19D0018

CLPS requires contractors to provide end-to-end "commercial" payload services between the Earth and the lunar surface for NASA's Science, Human Exploration and Operations, and Space

Technology Mission Directorates (SMD, HEOMD, and STMD, respectively) to fulfill each

Mission Directorate's mission objectives. The contractor(s) shall provide all activities necessary to safely integrate, accommodate, transport, and operate NASA payloads using contractor-provided assets, including launch vehicles, lunar lander, lunar surface systems, Earth re-entry vehicles, and associated resources. The contractor(s) shall select launch opportunities, determine the overall

Mission Architecture, and provide the end-to-end service including operations associated with the

Launch Vehicle, Launch Site, Spacecraft, Lander, Mission Design and Analysis, Ground Systems, and Payload Support. The contractor(s) shall be responsible for all taxes, licenses, permits, and approvals necessary to perform the mission. Payload Support includes: physical and analytical integration of NASA-provided payloads, launch and transport of NASA-provided payloads to specified lunar destinations, provision of utility resources to the NASA-provided payloads, and other related mutually-agreed-upon services such as the sale of non-NASA payload data to NASA.

All CLPS IDIQ contract awardees are given a fair opportunity to compete for mission-specific and payload-dependent FFP Task Orders for a ten year effective ordering period (ending in Nov. 2028).

The CLPS procurement is limited to entities that qualify as United States commercial providers that provide commercial lunar payload services which utilize domestic end products in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the CLPS RFP.

As provided in Clause I.27 of the CLPS RFP, NASA may “on-ramp” additional contractors by allowing new providers to submit proposals for consideration. Contractors selected for award of an IDIQ contract will be eligible to compete with all present contractors for award of future IDIQ task orders.

II. Evaluation Procedures

The proposals were evaluated in accordance with the RFP. The Source Evaluation Board (SEB) included representatives from JSC, Langley Research Center, Kennedy Space Center, and

Marshall Space Flight Center.

Pursuant to the CLPS RFP’s evaluation scheme, FAR 52.212-2 (deviated), and FAR 16.504(c), NASA intends to award multiple CLPS contracts to the responsible offerors whose proposals, conforming to the RFP, will be the most advantageous to the Government. In accordance with Part

V of the RFP, each proposal was evaluated for responsibility and technical acceptability. In accordance with FAR Part 15.304(c)(3)(iii), the Contracting Officer determined that past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the CLPS contract procurement.

Additionally, in accordance with Section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2017 and NASA Procurement Class Deviation 18-02, the Contracting Officer determined that price would not be considered as an evaluation factor. Rather, CLPS IDIQ contract holders’ pricing and past performance (where appropriate) will be considered in a competitive environment on future Requests for Task Order Proposals under this CLPS contract.

Offerors were required to demonstrate present responsibility to be considered for award, in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in FAR Subpart 9.1. Offerors were also required to provide an acceptable Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Avoidance Plan.

Additionally, large businesses were required to submit Small Business Subcontracting Plans.

The CLPS RFP set forth five Technical Acceptability Standards (TAS) for evaluating the offerors’ proposals. The RFP identified three potential ratings for each of the five TAS’s identified above:

“Acceptable,” “Potentially Acceptable,” or “Unacceptable.” A proposal was rated “Potentially

Acceptable” in a particular TAS when, after the initial evaluation, the evaluation team concluded that additional information could be provided by an offeror during discussions that might result in a proposal rating of “Acceptable.”

According to the RFP’s Technical Acceptability Evaluation criteria, proposals must be rated

“Acceptable” in all five TAS to be eligible for contract award and award would only be made to offeror(s) with an “Acceptable” rating. Further, a failure to meet any one of the TAS would result in an overall “Unacceptable” rating and render an offeror’s proposal ineligible to be selected for contract award.

In accordance with the CLPS RFP, each TAS was evaluated for acceptability, with appropriate consideration given to the following: adequacy, reasonableness, credibility and risk related to each offeror’s ability to successfully address the TAS, including each offeror’s capability to successfully perform the “reference” mission.

Each TAS was comprised of one or more elements that offerors were required to address in their proposals. Each element was assessed in accordance with the RFP. In determining the appropriate acceptability rating for each offeror, the SEB assessed the offerors’ proposals with meaningful consideration of the adequacy, reasonableness, credibility and risk, where appropriate, for all considerations associated with a particular TAS in order to develop an overall acceptability rating for each TAS.

The five enumerated TAS as set forth in the CLPS RFP were as follows:

(1) The offeror’s ability to provide an intact lunar landed mission that delivers at least 10 kg or greater of NASA payload before December 31, 2023.

(2) The offeror’s understanding of licensing, permitting, and approvals required in support of a commercial space mission.

(3) The offeror’s proposed plans and arrangements for launch from Earth to the Moon.

(4) The offeror’s proposed spacecraft design parameters for an intact lunar landing.

(5) The offeror’s proposed facilities and processes for integrating NASA payloads.

The CLPS RFP indicated that NASA intended to evaluate proposals and award contract(s) without discussions with offerors. However, NASA did reserve the right to conduct discussions if the

Contracting Officer determined them to be necessary.

Per the RFP, no comparative assessment between or among each offeror’s proposed CLPS solution would be undertaken and no trade-offs would be made. NASA will issue competitive Requests for

Task Order Proposals for future missions with comparative assessments and trade-offs between contract holders’ technical solutions, price and past performance (where appropriate) in order to acquire the “best value” CLPS solution for a particular NASA payload and mission requirement.

III. Evaluation of Proposals

Complete and timely proposals were received on September 11, 2019 in response to the RFP from the following six companies:

Blue Origin, LLC (Blue Origin)

Ceres Robotics, Inc. (Ceres)

Sierra Nevada Corporation (Sierra Nevada)

Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX)

Trans Lunar Industries Corporation (Trans Lunar)

Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems, Inc. (Tyvak)

Two additional offerors, alphaSpaces and Agile Planetary Exploration, Inc. (APEX), also attempted to submit a proposal to meet NASA’s requirements.

Per NASA FAR Supplement 1815.305-70, the proposal submitted by alphaSpaces was unacceptable and removed from consideration for award due to material items missing from its proposal. The proposal did not represent a reasonable initial effort to address the essential requirements of the RFP. The NASA Contracting Officer informed alphaSpaces of its exclusion from further consideration on September 23, 2019.

Per FAR 52.212-1(f)(2)(i), the proposal for APEX was received late and was not considered. The

NASA Contracting Officer informed APEX of its exclusion from further consideration on October

1, 2019.

The results of the initial evaluation were presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) at the

Competitive Range Determination on October 4, 2019. On the same day, the SSA concurred with the Contracting Officer’s Competitive Range Determination. The Trans Lunar proposal was not one of the most highly rated in accordance with the evaluation criteria. As such, it was excluded from the competitive range and the NASA Contracting Officer informed Trans Lunar of its exclusion on October 8, 2019.

The remaining five offerors’ proposals were the most highly rated and were included in the competitive range: Blue Origin, Ceres, Sierra Nevada, SpaceX, and Tyvak.

The Government requested written responses from the five offerors in the competitive range, which were received timely. On October 17, 2019, the Government conducted telephonic discussions with the five offerors. Discussions remained open after the telephonic meetings so remaining issues could be resolved. Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) were due by October 22, 2019. All five offerors submitted FPRs timely. Discussions were closed on November 5, 2019.

The FPRs were reviewed and evaluated by the SEB in accordance with the RFP. The results of the

FPR evaluations were presented to the SSA on November 6, 2019 and are summarized below.

A. Blue Origin

R es p o n si b il it y

I n fo Technical Acceptability

Overall

Rating

Subfactor 1

Subfactor 2

Subfactor 3

Subfactor 4

Subfactor 5

Blue

Origin √ Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Contractor Responsibility

In accordance with FAR Part 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, Blue Origin provided adequate information to be determined responsible. Blue Origin addressed the required elements of FAR Part 9.104-1, provided a completed Domestic Source Certification, acceptable subcontracting plan, and acceptable Organization Conflict of Interest (OCI) assessment and avoidance plan.

Prior to discussions, NASA had noted Blue Origin had not provided a Domestic Source

Certification as required in Part III.1 of the RFP. Additionally, Blue Origin's Organizational

Conflict of Interest (OCI) submission lacked specificity for some of the required items outlined in

RFP Part IV.8(c)(4). Items A through D of the OCI Assessment and items D, F, and I of the OCI

Plan were not addressed adequately. Lastly, Blue Origin’s proposal did not include a representation and warranty clause (RFP Section III.2) and did not complete two other clauses (RFP Section III.3, Information Regarding Responsibility Matters and RFP Section III.4, Representation of Limited

Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software).

In its FPR, Blue Origin addressed all areas of responsibility to the Government’s satisfaction.

The Blue Origin FPR proposal response to Subfactors 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was determined to meet the adequacy, reasonableness, credibility and risk related to the offeror’s ability to successfully address the technical acceptability standards, including the offeror’s capability to successfully perform the reference mission. As such, all Subfactors were acceptable.

Prior to discussions, NASA had noted under Subfactor 4e (identifying top risks) that Blue Origin did not include a funding risk even though it identified the need for additional NASA awards to accelerate its lander development to meet the 2023 delivery date. Additionally, it was noted that there was no risk included surrounding its approach to use its own launch vehicle, which is currently in development.

In its FPR, Blue Origin addressed both risks adequately to be deemed acceptable. Blue Origin made clear that it would have the needed funding from corporate commitments and revenue from customer prepayments. Regarding the use of its own launch vehicle, Blue Origin identified the

United Launch Alliance (ULA) Vulcan as a backup option in the event its vehicle isn’t available by the 2023 date.

B. Ceres p o n si b il it y

I n

Ceres

In accordance with FAR Part 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, Ceres provided adequate information to be determined responsible. Ceres addressed the required elements of FAR Part

9.104-1, provided a completed Domestic Source Certification, and acceptable Organization

Conflict of Interest (OCI) assessment and avoidance plan. A subcontracting plan was not required as Ceres is a small business.

Prior to discussions, NASA had noted Ceres’ Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) submission lacked some of the required items outlined in RFP Part IV.8(c)(4). Items A through D of the OCI

Assessment and items A through J of the OCI Plan were not addressed adequately. In its FPR, Ceres addressed all areas of responsibility to the Government’s satisfaction.

The Ceres FPR proposal response to Subfactors 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was determined to meet the adequacy, reasonableness, credibility and risk related to the offeror’s ability to successfully

Prior to discussions, NASA had not noted any issues with the responses provided by Ceres. In its

FPR, Ceres did not alter its responses and NASA again found Ceres acceptable.

C. Sierra Nevada p o n si b il it y

I n

Sierra

Nevada √

In accordance with FAR Part 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, Sierra Nevada provided adequate information to be determined responsible. Sierra Nevada addressed the required elements of FAR Part 9.104-1, provided a completed Domestic Source Certification, acceptable subcontracting plan, and acceptable Organization Conflict of Interest (OCI) assessment and avoidance plan.

Prior to discussions, NASA had noted Sierra Nevada had not provided a Domestic Source

Certification as required in Part III.1 of the RFP. Additionally, Sierra Nevada's Organizational

Conflict of Interest (OCI) submission lacked specificity for some of the required items outlined in

RFP Part IV.8(c)(4). Items A through D of the OCI Assessment and items A, E, and H of the OCI

Plan were not addressed adequately. Sierra Nevada’s proposal did not include a representation and warranty clause (RFP Section III.2) and did not complete two other clauses (RFP Section III.3, Information Regarding Responsibility Matters and RFP Section III.4, Representation of Limited

Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software). Lastly, Sierra Nevada’s Small Business

Subcontracting Plan lacked rationale for its proposed goals, contained a calculation error and did not base its goals on the total contract value of $2.6B, and did not address all requirements in FAR

52.219-9.

In its FPR, Sierra Nevada addressed all areas of responsibility to the Government’s satisfaction.

The Sierra Nevada FPR proposal response to Subfactors 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was determined to meet the adequacy, reasonableness, credibility and risk related to the offeror’s ability to successfully

Prior to discussions, NASA had noted under Subfactor 4c (regarding mass, power, and thermal budgets) that Sierra Nevada did not break down its vehicle’s subsystem masses in the Master

Equipment List nor did it provide the propulsion module mass, making it impossible to determine if the margins were adequate. Additionally, Sierra Nevada’s proposal didn’t provide the descent phase in its proposed power profile, which prohibited NASA from being able to determine the adequacy of the power profile margin.

In its FPR, Sierra Nevada addressed both issues adequately to be deemed acceptable. Sierra

Nevada’s discussion specifically included the propulsion module. The descent phase power was also addressed and included narrative adequately explaining battery power.

D. SpaceX p o n si b il it y

I n

SpaceX

In accordance with FAR Part 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, SpaceX provided adequate information to be determined responsible. SpaceX addressed the required elements of FAR Part

9.104-1, provided a completed Domestic Source Certification, acceptable subcontracting plan, and acceptable Organization Conflict of Interest (OCI) assessment and avoidance plan.

Prior to discussions, NASA had noted SpaceX’s Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) submission lacked specificity for some of the required items outlined in RFP Part IV.8(c)(4). Items

A through D of the OCI Assessment and items F and I of the OCI Plan were not addressed adequately. Additionally, the SpaceX Small Business Subcontracting Plan failed to provide rationale for its proposed goals and did not fully comply with all requirements in FAR 52.219-9.

In its FPR, SpaceX addressed all areas of responsibility to the Government’s satisfaction.

The SpaceX FPR proposal response to Subfactors 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was determined to meet the adequacy, reasonableness, credibility and risk related to the offeror’s ability to successfully

Prior to discussions, NASA had not noted any issues with the responses provided by SpaceX. In its FPR, SpaceX did not alter its responses and NASA again found SpaceX acceptable.

E. Tyvak p o n si b il it y

I n

Tyvak

In accordance with FAR Part 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, Tyvak provided adequate information to be determined responsible. Tyvak addressed the required elements of FAR Part

9.104-1, provided a completed Domestic Source Certification, and acceptable Organization

Conflict of Interest (OCI) assessment and avoidance plan. A subcontracting plan was not required as Tyvak is a small business.

Prior to discussions, NASA had noted Tyvak had not provided a Domestic Source Certification as required in Part III.1 of the RFP. Additionally, Tyvak’s Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) submission lacked specificity for some of the required items outlined in RFP Part IV.8(c)(4). Items

B through D of the OCI Assessment and items C, D, G, J, and K of the OCI Plan were not addressed adequately. Tyvak’s proposal did not include a representation and warranty clause (RFP Section

III.2) and did not complete two other clauses (RFP Section III.3, Information Regarding

Responsibility Matters and RFP Section III.4, Representation of Limited Rights Data and

Restricted Computer Software).

In its FPR, Tyvak addressed all areas of responsibility to the Government’s satisfaction.

The Tyvak FPR proposal response to Subfactors 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was determined to meet the adequacy, reasonableness, credibility and risk related to the offeror’s ability to successfully

Prior to discussions, NASA had noted under Subfactor 4c (regarding mass, power, and thermal budgets) that Tyvak did not provide mass budget for its Surfrider transfer stage. Without the information, NASA was unable to determine the credibility of the mass budget for the entire reference mission. Additionally, Tyvak did not include propellant mass for the Surfrider transfer stage which is an essential component of the architecture needed to accomplish the reference mission successfully. Lastly, Tyvak did not include the power required by its Moonlight lander propulsion system or the Surfrider transfer stage. Without this information, NASA was unable to determine the credibility of the power budget of the entire reference mission.

NASA had noted under Subfactor 5b (regarding assembly, test, and launch operations) that Tyvak did not include details for the assembly, test, and integration of the Surfrider transfer stage. Details were also not provided for the assembly and integration of the Moonlight lander with the Surfrider transfer stage. Finally, Tyvak did not describe the transportation of the Moonlight lander and

Surfrider transfer stage to the launch site. Without this information, NASA was unable to evaluate the credibility of the assembly, text, and integration plan for the reference mission.

In its FPR, Tyvak addressed all issues adequately to be deemed acceptable. The proposed overall mass and propellant mass, as well as the power budget, were adequately addressed. The FPR also adequately details the assembly, test, and integration of the Surfrider transfer stage, as well as assembly and integration of the Moonlight lander with the Surfrider transfer stage, along with a description on how the Moonlight lander and Surfrider transfer stage will be delivered to the launch site.

E. Summary

OFFEROR

es p o n si b il it y

I n

Overall Rating Subfactor 1 Subfactor 2 Subfactor 3 Subfactor 4 Subfactor 5

Blue Origin √ Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Ceres √ Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Sierra Nevada √ Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

SpaceX √ Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Tyvak √ Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

IV. Selection Decision

During the presentation on November 6, 2019, the SEB discussed with me its evaluation ratings and the rationale for its conclusions of those offerors’ proposals which were included in the competitive range, including each offeror’s assessment under the five TAS. The ratings and rationale that the SEB developed and presented to me were consistent with the evaluation criteria in the CLPS On-Ramp RFP, and provided clear descriptions of the merits of each offeror’s proposal. It was immediately clear to me that the information gathered by the SEB during discussions, and included by the offerors in their FPRs, gave me the appropriate data needed to make the proper assessments and contract award decisions.

During the presentation, I questioned the SEB with regard to key aspects of its evaluation methodology under each of the TAS, as well as the SEB’s basis for any ratings and its rationale for its overall technical ratings for all five offerors in the competitive range. I did so in order to be certain I fully understood this rationale and the underlying qualitative aspects of the offerors’ proposals that generated the SEB’s ratings. I then used this information in order to determine how each offeror’s proposed solution would be advantageous to the Government as a potential CLPS provider on future task orders. Finally, I solicited, received input from, and considered the inputs and opinions of key management personnel and senior advisors who participated in the decision meeting and who have responsibility relative to the procurement.

I concurred with the SEB evaluation for each offerors’ proposed approach for each TAS, as well as the basis for the SEB’s assignment of the appropriate technical acceptability ratings for each offeror under each TAS. The FPRs received adequately addressed all technical requirements, were reasonably based, and provided NASA with a credible approach to complete the reference mission.

Additionally, I concurred with the SEB that all five offerors included in the competitive range are responsible offerors.

I determined that the SEB’s evaluation record, its rationale, and its overall ratings for all offerors in the competitive range had a rational basis and were valid for the purpose of making a selection decision. Based upon these evaluation results and my own independent judgment and assessment, I select all five of the offerors included in the competitive range for award of CLPS contracts.

Specifically, I consider it to be in the Agency’s best interests to make award to all five firms in the competitive range. The CLPS contract vehicle was contemplated to serve three distinct NASA

Mission Directorates in meeting their respective objectives. Particularly, CLPS will enable the

Science, Human Exploration and Operations, and Space Technology Mission Directorates in their respective missions to conduct a wide range of scientific, exploration, and technology development activities. This CLPS On-Ramp activity helps NASA to achieve the goal of landing the first woman and next man on the Moon by 2024. It contributes to the first major step to return astronaut explorers to the Moon under Space Policy Directive-1 (SPD-1).

In light of NASA’s numerous different payload delivery needs and consistent with the RFP’s preference for multiple awards, I find that the award of CLPS contracts to these five firms will increase the CLPS contractor pool, thereby enhancing competition to develop unique solutions to meet NASA’s needs and those of other commercial entities wishing to reach the lunar surface.

Award to all “Acceptable” rated offerors: encourages maximum industry participation in establishing and effectuating this portfolio approach; provides more options and flexibility to

NASA for CLPS providers that best fit a particular payload need throughout contract performance;

reduces overall risk; and best ensures successfully accomplishing reliable payload delivery services to the Moon.

Thus, I select for award the following firms for CLPS contracts through the “on-ramp” provisions of Clause I.27 of the CLPS RFP:

Blue Origin, LLC

Ceres Robotics, Inc.

Sierra Nevada Corporation

Space Exploration Technologies Corporation

Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems, Inc.

Steven W. Clarke Date

Source Selection Authority

11/08/2019