ASR Source Selection Statement .pdf

Advanced Spacesuit Regulator (ASR)

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

December XX, 2025

Solicitation Number

80JSC025R7004

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC)

Suzan P. Thomas Team Lead/Contracting Officer

Jesse Buffington Source Selection Authority (SSA)

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE DOCUMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CUI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 BACKGROUND

3.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

4.0 EVALUATION OF INITIAL PROPOSALS

4.1 TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY FACTOR

4.2 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

4. 3 COST FACTOR

5.0 COMPETITIVE RANGE AND DISCUSSIONS

6.0 SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

6.1 TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY FACTOR

6.2 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

6.3 COST FACTOR

7.0 CONCLUSION

ADVANCED SPACESUIT REGULATOR (ASR)

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On December 04, 2025, I met with members of the Streamlined Procurement Team (SLPT) appointed to evaluate proposals received in response to the Advanced Spacesuit Regulator (ASR) Request for Proposals (RFP) 80JSC025R7004. I posed a variety of questions, solicited the views of the SLPT and subject matter experts, expressed my own views, and made my selection decision. The final presentation charts, along with the evaluation worksheets for the Technical Acceptability, Past Performance and Cost Evaluation have been reviewed and are hereby incorporated by reference as the final source evaluation report.

2.0 BACKGROUND

The ASR requirement focuses on developing a next-generation oxygen regulator for spacesuits, engineered to meet the highest standards of functionality and safety. This advanced system is crucial to providing crewmember life support during Extravehicular Activity (EVA) while meeting mission objectives. Additionally, the ASR acquisition aims to address the evolving needs of other NASA Centers and Programs by fostering a broader industry base for advanced life support oxygen regulation systems.

The goal of this procurement is to develop an alternate, drop-in replacement regulator to mitigate the risk (EHP-00162) associated with relying on a single supplier for oxygen regulators. The regulator must be compatible with NASA's Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) spacesuits, ensuring seamless integration. The primary objectives of the ASR procurement are to engineer a regulator that meets the highest standards of functionality and safety; address supply chain risk by developing an alternate supplier; support future NASA and commercial missions to the Moon and beyond; and foster a broader industry base for advanced life support oxygen regulation systems.

The ASR effort will be a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract, awarded through full and open competition. Offerors were permitted to propose a period of performance for the Base Period (through Critical Design Review), Option 1 (qualification unit fabrication and testing), and the start of Option 2 (flight unit production and delivery) and Option 3 (additional flight unit production and delivery). Option 2 was originally set to end on June 30, 2025, and Option 3, if exercised, would have extended the contract through July 30, 2027. Due to the 2025 Government Shutdown (10/01/25 - 11/12/25), the performance periods for Options 2 and 3 will be extended to September 30, 2027, after award. NASA reserves the right to award a single contract, multiple contracts, or none at all, based on the proposals received in response to this solicitation.

NASA Johnson Space Center issued the RFP for the ASR on June 26, 2025, with an initial proposal due date of August 11, 2025, at 1:00 PM Central Daylight Time (CDT). Offerors were instructed to submit questions by July 10, 2025, and were provided access to a Technical Library containing controlled documents.

Over the course of the solicitation, four amendments were issued:

Amendment 1, released on July 3, 2025, removed the draft version of DRD ASR-LA-01 (NF 533) and replaced it with the final signed version, while also posting the ASR Pre- Solicitation Bulletin; this amendment did not alter the proposal due date.

Amendment 2, issued on July 16, 2025, updated the Technical Library by adding a new folder titled “ASR Technical Library – SLN13102110 Files,” which included three additional attachments; again, the proposal due date remained unchanged.

Amendment 3, dated August 1, 2025, updated the solicitation cover letter and Pre- Proposal Bulletin to reflect a change in the Source Selection Authority (SSA), extended the proposal due date to August 25, 2025, at 1:00 PM CDT, and added an Interested Parties List to facilitate teaming arrangements.

Amendment 4, issued on August 25, 2025, further extended the proposal deadline to August 27, 2025, at 1:00 PM CDT.

Subsequently, in response to a request from one offeror seeking additional time to make final corrections, the Government extended the proposal submission deadline one final time to August 27, 2025, at 5:00 PM CDT. This final extension was communicated to all offerors to ensure fairness and transparency. Throughout the process, offerors were reminded that failure to comply with submission instructions could have resulted in their proposals being deemed non-responsive.

The evaluation of initial proposals submitted in response to the ASR solicitation did not support making an award without discussions. Additional information was required from the offerors for the Government to make a determination on technical acceptability. In order to maximize the Government’s potential for best value, discussions were considered necessary. As such, a competitive range determination was required prior to conducting discussions.

I received the ASR SLPT’s competitive range evaluation on October 9, 2025. The presentation included the SLPT’s assessment of technical acceptability, confidence level of past performance, and cost. I reviewed these materials in detail as part of my decision-making process.

NASA conducted meaningful discussions with both offerors in the competitive range and requested Final Proposal Revisions, to be submitted on November 21, 2025, at 12:00 p.m.

Central Time. This due time was later extended to 4:00 p.m. Central Time. The CO communicated to the offerors in writing to clarify that the schedule would be adjusted after contract award to account for the delays created by the 2025 Government Shutdown, however, to ensure that offerors clearly understood the Government's intentions, it was necessary to notify offerors that the period of performance for the RFP was planning to be shifted after contract award. The Contracting Officer provided Eaton MSOP and Sierra Space with the following notification at 1:20 p.m.: “Offerors are notified that the Government intends to shift the ASR contract period of performance end date to September 30, 2027, for the successful offeror(s) during contract administration. Offerors may choose to submit a proposal that conforms to the current RFP period of performance ending July 30, 2027, or to the intended updated end date of September 30, 2027. If you proposed to the current RFP period of performance end date of July 30, 2027, and your company is the successful offeror(s), it is possible to adjust the period of performance during contract administration. This shift is a result of the delays caused by the 2025 Government shutdown and actual ASR contract start date. No further extensions will be granted because of the 2025 Government shutdown and actual contract start date.”

3.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Proposals were evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15, NFS Part 1815, and the evaluation criteria set forth in section M of Solicitation No. 80JSC025R7004. The evaluation followed a streamlined performance-price tradeoff (PPT) approach, with a limited tradeoff between Past Performance and Cost for those Offerors determined to be technically acceptable.

An initial compliance review was conducted to determine whether proposals met the minimum content and format requirements. Proposals that failed to address the essential requirements of the RFP, such as incomplete volumes or missing documentation, were deemed unacceptable in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70 and were not further evaluated.

Remaining proposals were evaluated against the Technical Acceptability Factor as a pass/fail gate. Proposals were rated as Acceptable, Unacceptable, or Potentially Acceptable based on the Offeror’s demonstrated understanding, reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness of their proposed approach. Proposals rated “Acceptable” or “Potentially Acceptable” were further evaluated under the Past Performance and Cost factors.

The Past Performance Factor assessed the recency, relevance, and performance of the Offeror’s prior work. Confidence ratings were assigned based on the degree to which past performance indicated the likelihood of successful contract performance. The Cost Factor was evaluated for realism, reasonableness, and consistency with the technical approach. A probable cost was developed for each Offeror based on cost realism analysis, and this value was used for evaluation purposes.

If discussions were deemed necessary, only the most highly rated Offerors were included in the competitive range. Offerors in the competitive range will be provided the opportunity to submit Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs). Final evaluations of technical acceptability were limited to “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” ratings only.

The SLPT conducted the evaluations and presented its findings to the SSA, who is responsible for making the final source selection decision. For proposals determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs were made between Past Performance and Cost, with Past Performance being more important than Cost.

In accordance with RFP Section M.2.1, Technical Acceptability Factor – Volume I, the Government evaluated each Offeror’s proposal to determine whether it demonstrated an adequate understanding of the requirements, supported by rationale, and whether the proposed approach demonstrated understand and was reasonable, feasible, and complete.

The evaluation focused on the following two subfactors:

Subfactor A: Contract and Program Management Approach/Plan The Offeror’s proposed Contract and Program Management Plan, as required by DRD ASR-PM- 01, was evaluated for its demonstration of understanding, reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness. A technically acceptable Contract and Program Management Approach was defined as having a level of understanding, reasonableness, feasibility and completeness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Subfactor B: Technical Approach – Technical Ability Assessment Questions The Offeror’s responses to the Technical Ability Assessment Questions (Attachment L-1) were evaluated for their demonstration of understanding, reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness. A technically acceptable response was defined having a level of understanding, reasonableness, feasibility and completeness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

The Past Performance evaluation was conducted in accordance with 52.215-115 Past Performance Evaluation (Jul 2022) (JSC Procurement Instruction), and the criteria outlined in Section M.2.2, Past Performance Factor - Volume II, of the solicitation. The objective of this evaluation was to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in each Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the ASR contract based on demonstrated performance on recent and relevant efforts.

Explanation of Evaluation Focus: The evaluation of past performance focused on how effectively the Offeror and its team members performed on previous contracts. This assessment served as an indicator of the Offeror’s potential to successfully perform the current requirement. The evaluation team considered the past performance of both the Offeror and any proposed team members, as specified in Section L.15.5.

Sources of Past Performance Information: Past performance information was gathered from multiple sources. This included data submitted in the Offeror’s proposal, and information independently collected from government and commercial databases.

Sources included the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Enhanced Procurement Data Warehouse (EPDW) procurement report system, and other federal agency systems. In accordance with FAR 15.305, if no relevant past performance information was available for an Offeror, a neutral rating was assigned, meaning the absence of data neither helped nor hurt the Offeror’s evaluation.

Evaluation Criteria and Weighting Approach: The past performance confidence rating was determined based on three primary factors: recency, relevance, and quality of performance. Each past performance record was compared to the specific work proposed by the Offeror or its team members. Greater weight was given to records that closely aligned with the scope and complexity of the proposed effort. For joint ventures, the past performance of the joint venture entity itself was given more weight than that of the individual partners.

A description of each aspect is provided below:

Recency: Only contract periods of performance that fell within five years from the date of the original ASR solicitation were considered in the past performance evaluation.

Within this five-year window, more recent performance was given greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than older performance, assuming all other factors were equal. Performance on any contract that lacked a documented performance history was not considered.

Relevance: For contracts deemed recent, the Government then assessed the degree of relevance, i.e., the level of pertinence, based on size, content, and complexity. The term “content” referred to the contract’s scope of services, work, requirements, or supplies, in comparison to the requirements of the solicitation. Contracts that included all specific trades or types of work required under the solicitation’s statement of work were considered more relevant than those limited to only certain trades. The term “complexity” referred to the technical content and the combination of elements in the statement of work. The term “size” related to the estimated dollar value.

Relevance was assessed using the following definitions:

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved much of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance contractual effort involved some of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Performance: The Government assessed the quality of performance, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting, and safety performance of contracts that were determined to be both recent and relevant. The quality assessment included a thorough review of all available past performance information, regardless of source. This assessment could result in either positive or adverse findings. Consideration was given to the number and severity of performance issues, the effectiveness of corrective actions taken, and whether those actions led to sustained improvements. The overall record of past performance was also evaluated. For both existing and newly formed joint ventures, the past performance of each joint venture partner was evaluated separately. In the case of existing joint ventures, the past performance of the joint venture entity itself was also evaluated. This assessment led to a determination of performance quality as Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Poor/Unsatisfactory.

Past Performance Confidence Rating: More recent and more relevant past performance received greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than less recent or less relevant performance. A performance confidence rating was assigned at the overall factor level for Past Performance after evaluating the Offeror’s recent and relevant efforts.

Each adjectival rating below incorporated both a performance and a relevance component. The term “pertinent” was used interchangeably with “relevant.” Offeror Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings were assigned as follows:

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)].

The Cost Factor was evaluated to determine the likely cost to the Government should an Offeror be selected for award. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the criteria outlined in Section M.2.3, Cost Factor - Volume III of the solicitation and applicable FAR and NFS regulations. The Cost Factor was used to assess what each Offeror’s proposal would likely cost the Government if selected for award. It was anticipated that the reasonableness of proposed costs would be determined based on competition. For source selection purposes, and in accordance with FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options, the total proposed cost was evaluated.

This total included the base and option periods, as well as the proposed fee.

Proposal analysis techniques under FAR 15.404 and NFS 1815.404 were considered to determine whether proposed costs were fair and reasonable. The cost evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1), NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B), and NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(B).

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1, a cost analysis was conducted by evaluating the costs proposed in response to the solicitation. This included, but was not limited to, comparing the proposed cost and fee across all Offerors, comparing proposed costs to historical prices for similar efforts, and comparing proposed costs to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). Additionally, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), a cost realism analysis was performed by independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the proposed costs were realistic for the work to be performed, reflected a clear understanding of the requirements, and were consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

The RFP stated that the total cost of all Government Task Assignments (GTAs) would be added to each Offeror’s Total Evaluated Cost for evaluation purposes only. A probable cost was derived by adjusting each technically acceptable Offeror's proposed cost and fee, when appropriate, to reflect realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The probable cost also included any FAR-mandated adjustments, such as those required under the Buy American Act or to account for potentially unfair competitive advantages resulting from the possession of Government property. The probable cost, which may have differed from the proposed cost, reflected the Government’s best estimate of the cost to execute the Offeror’s proposed technical approach. This probable cost was used for evaluation purposes to determine best value. Offerors were evaluated in accordance with the definitions of “cost realism” in FAR 2.101(b) and “probable cost” in FAR 15.404-1(d). The results of the cost analysis will not serve as a basis for any upward price adjustment after award.

The Total Evaluated Cost, which may have included a probable cost adjustment took precedence over the Offeror’s proposed cost and was used by the SSA in making the source selection decision. The Total Evaluated Cost included the base period, all option periods, proposed fee, and any applicable probable cost adjustments.

In addition, the Government evaluated the following:

1. The Offeror’s proposed costs as presented in the cost templates, including a review of all Prime and Subcontractor rates for reasonableness and consistency.

2. The adequacy of the Offeror’s accounting system, as determined by the cognizant administrative office, for accumulating and reporting incurred costs.

3. The Offeror’s financial capability to perform the contract.

4. The applicability of NFS 1815.305-71(a), which applied when the number of proposals equaled the number of contemplated awards or when only one acceptable proposal was received.

5. Whether the proposal was unreasonable as to cost. A proposal could have been rejected at any point during the evaluation if the Contracting Officer determined in writing that the proposed cost was unreasonable.

4.0 EVALUATION OF INITIAL PROPOSALS

Timely proposals were received by the due date of August 27, 2025, at 5:00 PM Central Daylight Time from the following four (4) offerors:

Offeror 1 – Sparx Engineering Offeror 2 – Sierra Space Corporation Offeror 3 – Eaton Mission Systems Orchard Park Inc. (Eaton MSOP) Offeror 4 – ConX Innovations, LLC (ConX)

The SPLT conducted an initial compliance evaluation review of all proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70 to identify any proposals that failed to meet the minimum content and format requirements.

Three proposals, Sparx Engineering, Sierra Space Corporation, and Eaton MSOP were found to be responsive to the RFP proposal instructions and were evaluated further. The proposal submitted by ConX Innovations, LLC, however, failed to meet multiple essential RFP requirements.

ConX Innovations was formally notified of this determination and its removal from the competition on August 29, 2025.

The remaining proposals were then evaluated for Technical Acceptability. Proposals rated as either "Potentially Acceptable" or "Acceptable" were then further evaluated against the Past Performance and Cost factors.

In making the competitive range determination, the CO considered Technical Acceptability, Past Performance, and the evaluated Cost of each proposal. This determination was made based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria specified in the RFP.

4.1 TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY FACTOR

Sparx Engineering Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that Sparx Engineering’s Technical Acceptability volume was Unacceptable. Specifically, the SLPT found that Sparx Engineering’s proposal received a Potentially Acceptable rating for Subfactor A:

Contract and Program Management Approach/Plan and an Unacceptable rating for Subfactor B:

Technical Ability Assessment Questions.

In accordance with the RFP, a proposal is rated Unacceptable under the Technical Acceptability Factor if any subfactor is individually rated Unacceptable. As such, Sparx Engineering’s overall Technical Acceptability rating was Unacceptable, and the SLPT discontinued further evaluation of the proposal. Past Performance and Cost were not evaluated.

Sierra Space Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that Sierra Space’s Technical Acceptability volume was Acceptable. Specifically, the SLPT found that Sierra Space’s proposal provided an Acceptable response to both Subfactor A: Contract and Program Management Approach/Plan and Subfactor B: Technical Ability Assessment Questions.

The proposal demonstrated a clear understanding of the requirements and presented a reasonable, feasible, and complete approach. No risks were identified that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Based on the SLPT’s determination that all subfactors were individually rated Acceptable, the proposal was rated Acceptable under the Technical Acceptability Factor. The SLPT then proceeded to assess Sierra Space’s Past Performance and Cost.

Eaton MSOP Under the evaluation standards set forth in the RFP, the SLPT determined that Eaton MSOP’s Technical Acceptability volume was Potentially Acceptable. Specifically, the SLPT found that Eaton MSOP’s proposal received Potentially Acceptable ratings for both Subfactor A: Contract and Program Management Approach/Plan and Subfactor B: Technical Ability Assessment Questions.

The proposal demonstrated a general understanding of the requirements; however, feasibility concerns introduced risk to the Government. In Subfactor A, the proposed schedule extended beyond the contract’s period of performance and introduced potential integration risks due to the timing of key milestones. In Subfactor B, the proposed technical solution was not consistent with the requirements of the RFP, which raised concerns about scope alignment and feasibility.

Because the proposal did not fully meet the criteria for an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating, but demonstrated potential for improvement through discussions, the SLPT rated Eaton MSOP’s proposal as Potentially Acceptable under the Technical Acceptability Factor and then proceeded to assess their past performance and cost.

In summary, the Technical Acceptability evaluations resulted in one offeror rated Acceptable, one Potentially Acceptable, and one Unacceptable:

Sierra Space demonstrated a complete, feasible, and consistent understanding of the requirements and was rated Acceptable in all subfactors.

Eaton MSOP showed general understanding but included feasibility concerns—such as reliance on unavailable Government-furnished hardware and a misaligned schedule—that resulted in a Potentially Acceptable rating.

Sparx Engineering was rated Unacceptable due to shortcomings in technical understanding, feasibility, and completeness, particularly in its response to the Technical Ability Assessment Questions.

In accordance with Section M.2 of the solicitation and clause 52.215-122, Sparx Engineering was eliminated from further evaluation, including cost and past performance, due to receiving an Unacceptable rating in Subfactor B. These evaluations reflect the Government’s assessment of each offeror’s ability to meet the technical requirements of the ASR effort and inform the basis for determining the competitive range. Sparx Engineering was notified of their Technical Acceptability evaluation rating and provided with a written debriefing.

4.2 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

Sierra Space Recency - All contracts submitted by Sierra Space were within the RFP’s defined recency period. The SLPT evaluated multiple contracts with performance data spanning several years, including Contract 80HQTR19C0019 (The Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships -2 (NextSTEP-2), Trash Compaction and Processing System - TCPS) and 80LARC22CA003 (Carbothermal Oxygen Production Reactor - COPR).

Relevance - The SLPT determined that Sierra Space’s past performance was Relevant to the ASR effort. The COPR contract was rated Relevant, and the TCPS contract was rated Somewhat Relevant, with both efforts involving technically complex work aligned with the ASR scope.

Performance - Sierra Space received Exceptional ratings for Quality and Schedule, Very Good for Management and Regulatory Compliance, Satisfactory for Small Business Subcontracting, and Not Applicable for Cost Control. The Environmental, Safety, and Health performance rating was Very Good. The SLPT noted consistent and improving performance trends, particularly in the TCPS contract, where Management ratings improved from Very Good to Exceptional.

Past Performance Confidence Rating - Based on the recency, relevance, and quality of performance, the SLPT concluded that Sierra Space’s past performance is of high merit and highly pertinent to this acquisition. The performance record indicates effective and timely execution with only minor issues. The SLPT assigned Sierra Space a High Level of Confidence rating.

Based on this assessment, the SLPT assigned Sierra Space a High Level of Confidence rating.

The SLPT then assessed Sierra Space’s Cost.

Eaton MSOP Eaton MSOP’s Past Performance was originally evaluated for admission into the competitive range and their Past Performance was rated High in accordance with the definitions in Section M.2.2(d) of the RFP. The FPR was evaluated as Technically Unacceptable and therefore, Past Performance for Eaton MSOP’s FPR was not evaluated for the purposes of contract award.

4. 3 COST FACTOR

Sierra Space The SLPT conducted a comprehensive cost evaluation of Sierra Space’s proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 and Section M.2.3 of the RFP. Sierra Space proposed a Total Evaluated Price of $13,198,161. The Government’s Probable Cost adjustment resulted in a revised total of $13,047,501, reflecting a fee adjustment to comply with FAR limitations. In accordance with FAR 15.404-4(c), the fee shall not exceed ten percent of the contract’s estimated costs, excluding fee.

The proposed cost was evaluated as realistic, reasonable, and consistent with the technical approach. All cost elements were well-supported and benchmarked against historical data and the IGCE. Sierra Space’s accounting system was determined to be adequate, and its financial capability was substantiated through audited financial statements. No cost, schedule, or performance risks were identified.

The SLPT concluded that Sierra Space’s cost proposal was valid, realistic, and reasonable, and the probable cost of $13,047,501 was used for tradeoff analysis.

Eaton MSOP While Eaton MSOP's Cost Factor was originally evaluated for admission into the competitive range, the FPR was evaluated as Technically Unacceptable and therefore, the Cost Factor for Eaton MSOP's FPR was not evaluated for the purposes of contract award.

5.0 COMPETITIVE RANGE AND DISCUSSIONS

On October 19, 2025, the Competitive Range Determination was approved by the Source Selection Authority and the Contracting Officer. The competitive range consisted of the most highly rated proposals - Eaton MSOP and Sierra Space. A competitive range notification letter was sent to each Offeror, and responses were due by October 27, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. Central Time. The due time was later extended from 1:00 Central Time to 3:00 p.m.

Eaton MSOP Eaton MSOP was provided with a Competitive Range Determination Notification Letter BL-25-

070) on October 20, 2025. Eaton MSOP was provided with questions and comments on their proposal and asked to provide a written response. During written discussions, Eaton MSOP was notified that their technical approach did not adhere to the RFP requirements.

Eaton MSOP requested an RFP amendment during written discussions that would provide additional flexibilities in NASA’s requirements. NASA declined to amend the RFP as requested as such a revision would not meet NASA's need or align with its requirements. Eaton was notified by the Contracting Officer that Offerors must submit proposals that align with RFP requirements or NASA cannot award a contract to that Offeror under a competitive procurement.

Sierra Space Sierra Space was provided with a Competitive Range Determination Notification Letter BL-25- 069 on October 20, 2025. Sierra Space was provided with questions and comments on their proposal and asked to provide a written response.

Of note Sierra Space was requested to submit a proposal with a contract fee that complies with FAR 15.404-4(c).

Additionally, Sierra Space proposed a contract end date of September 30, 2027 (instead of July 30, 2027) due to the later anticipated due date of award. The original planned date was October 1, 2025, and this date was later extended to December 1, 2025.

6.0 SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

On December 4, 2025, the SLPT presented and discussed its evaluation observations with me.

Prior to the briefing, I received and reviewed the evaluation findings. Based on the information presented, I have a full understanding of the evaluation process and the SLPT’s observations. I also noted that, per the RFP, past performance is approximately equal in importance to cost.

The SLPT’s observations were consistent with the evaluation criteria outlined in the ASR RFP. I inquired further into the SLPT’s basis for its evaluation conclusions and associated ratings to ensure I fully understood its rationale and the qualitative aspects of the proposals. I also considered the input and perspectives of advisors who attended the presentation and have responsibilities related to the procurement.

Finally, I expressed my own views and made the selection decision. I based my decision on identifying the proposal that offers the best overall value to the Government, in accordance with the RFP’s stated award criteria.

6.1 TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY FACTOR

I reviewed the SLPT’s observations regarding the Technical Acceptability Factor and its two subfactors: Contract and Program Management Approach/Plan and Technical Ability Assessment Questions. I noted that, in accordance with the evaluation criteria, both subfactors must be individually rated as “Acceptable” for a proposal to receive an overall rating of “Acceptable” for the Technical Acceptability Factor. I also noted that, pursuant to the terms of the RFP, only proposals rated “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor would proceed to evaluation under the Past Performance and Cost factors. Proposals rated “Unacceptable” would be eliminated from further consideration. Per RFP Section M.2(e), there are no "Potentially Acceptable" ratings in the FPR.

First, I reviewed the SLPT’s analysis for Eaton MSOP. Following the FRP, Eaton MSOP’s proposal was re-evaluated and received a final rating of Unacceptable under the Technical Acceptability Factor. In accordance with Section M.2(d) of the RFP, after the close of discussions and receipt of FPRs, all proposals remaining in the competitive range were to be rated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable under the Technical Acceptability Factor.

Under Subfactor A, the SLPT found Eaton MSOP’s CPMP to be Unacceptable. The Offeror proposed a technical approach that was not consistent with RFP requirements. This omission represents a failure to meet a fundamental contract requirement.

Under Subfactor B, the SLPT also rated Eaton MSOP’s response to the Technical Ability Assessment Questions as Unacceptable. The proposed solution demonstrates a level of understanding and reasonableness, but it does not adequately demonstrate feasibility and completeness because the proposed technical approach was not consistent with the requirements of the RFP.

Based on my review of the SLPT’s evaluation and the proposal materials, I concur with the SLPT’s assessment that Eaton MSOP’s proposal is Unacceptable under the Technical Acceptability Factor and, in accordance with the RFP, is ineligible for further evaluation under the Past Performance and Cost factors.

Next, I reviewed the SLPT’s analysis for Sierra Space. Sierra Space made schedule adjustments in their FPR, and the ratings and assessment remained the same. Based upon the evaluation, Sierra Space’s Contract and Program Management Plan (CPMP), submitted in response to Subfactor A and DRD ASR-PM-01, was determined to be Acceptable. The CPMP was evaluated for the overall and detailed planning and operations for successfully accomplishing the contract requirements. Sierra Space provided a response that demonstrated a technically acceptable understanding of the requirements that was reasonable, feasible, and complete, with no associated risks that would jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

Additionally, Sierra Space’s response to the Technical Ability Assessment Questions, submitted in accordance with Attachment L-1, was also determined to be Acceptable. The response demonstrated a level of understanding, reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

6.2 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

Having determined that Sierra Space’s proposal was technically Acceptable under the Technical Acceptability Factor, I proceeded to review the SLPT’s evaluation of the offeror’s past performance under the Past Performance Factor. The SLPT considered three aspects in assigning a Past Performance Confidence Rating: recency, relevance, and quality of performance.

In accordance with the ASR RFP, I understand that only past performance occurring within five

(5) years from the date of the original solicitation was considered in the evaluation. I concurred with the SLPT’s assessment that all of Sierra Space’s referenced contracts met the recency requirement.

I reviewed the individual relevance ratings and supporting rationale for Sierra Space. All contracts submitted were rated as either Relevant or Somewhat Relevant, based on the SLPT’s evaluation of the size, content, and complexity of the prior efforts in comparison to the ASR RFP. These ratings remained consistent with those assigned during the competitive range determination. After reviewing the RFP and the SLPT’s detailed analysis, I concurred with their conclusions regarding each relevance rating.

I then evaluated the SLPT’s assessment of Sierra Space’s performance in the areas of quality, schedule adherence, cost control, and safety. The team’s performance on government contracts was rated Exceptional and Very Good. To further assess safety performance, I consulted the ASR Safety and Health Subject Matter Expert (SME), who confirmed that the safety and health data reviewed by the SLPT supported a Very Good rating for Sierra Space and its team.

Initially, the SME rated Sierra Space’s safety and health data as Very Good, noting the absence of OSHA logs and Experience Modifier Rates for verification; this information was later included in Sierra Space’s Final Proposal Revision (FPR), validating the SLPT’s original rating. Based on my comprehensive review of the SLPT’s findings and supporting documentation, I agree that Sierra Space’s performance in quality, schedule, cost control, and safety is Very Good.

Finally, I reviewed the SLPT’s overall Past Performance Confidence Rating. Taking into consideration all the information provided to me by the SLPT, and applying the RFP’s stated past performance evaluation criteria, I agreed with the SLPT’s overall Past Performance Confidence Rating of High Level of Confidence for Sierra Space.

6.3 COST FACTOR

In accordance with the RFP, Sierra Space’s proposed price was evaluated under the Cost Factor in accordance with FAR 15.305, FAR 15.404, NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305, and the RFP. SLPT conducted a price analysis to determine whether the proposed costs were fair and reasonable and compliant with FAR requirements regarding fee limitations.

In the FPR, Sierra Space made modest but meaningful adjustments across several cost elements.

Direct Labor Costs increased slightly, despite a small reduction of three labor hours, likely due to adjustments in labor categories or rates. Fringe and General & Administrative (G&A) costs also increased slightly, consistent with the higher direct labor base. These increases were further justified by the 2025 Government Shutdown, which required internal adjustments and an extension of the period of performance end date.

In contrast, indirect cost pools decreased slightly, partially offsetting the labor-related increases.

Other Direct Costs (ODCs), Travel, and Materials remained essentially unchanged.

The total evaluated cost increased slightly in the FPR. However, Sierra Space adjusted its proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(C). Sierra Space reduced their proposed fee in the RFP to be compliant to the FAR limitations on fee.

The SLPT determined that the final proposed price of $13,152,878 (inclusive of all options) is fair and reasonable based on the cost analysis, the application of appropriate fee limitations, and the offeror’s responsiveness to discussion guidance. The adjustments made in the FPR reflect a more accurate and realistic cost estimate, and the final price aligns with the Government’s expectations for best value under the solicitation.

7.0 CONCLUSION

Having fully reviewed and agreed with the evaluation observations of the SLPT, I find that Sierra Space can successfully perform the required ASR effort. I find value in Sierra Space’s High Level of Confidence rating for past performance in combination with its fair, reasonable, and realistic price. Recognizing that, among the evaluated factors, Past Performance is more important than Cost, I find that the overall attributes of Sierra Space’s proposal represent the best value to the Government for award of the Advanced Spacesuit Regulator (ASR) contract. My selection is based solely on, and is wholly consistent with, the selection criteria and evaluation framework set out in the RFP and supported by the SLPT’s evaluation.

I therefore select Sierra Space Corporation for award of the Advance Spacesuit Regulator (ASR) contract.

Jesse A. Buffington Source Selection Authority EVA Development Project Manager/DE