CCRS-SEM Source Selection Statement for Signature (SSA Signed).pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR

MARS SAMPLE RETURN (MSR) CAPTURE, CONTAINMENT AND RETURN

SYSTEM (CCRS) EARTH ENTRY SYSTEM (EES) SPIN EJECT MECHANISM (SEM)

SOLICITATION NO. 80GSFC21R0039

On October 21st and 28th, I along with senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) held a hybrid in-person/teleconference meeting with the Spin Eject Mechanism (SEM) Integrated Evaluation Team (IET) to hear findings based on the evaluation of the proposals for the SEM procurement.

This memorandum summarizes this activity and documents my decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The SEM acquisition was issued as a full and open competitive procurement. The Spin Eject Mechanism (SEM) is being procured as a component of the MSR CCRS. The SEM contains the EES during launch, cruise, and Capture & Containment Module operations and is an integral part of the primary load path for all of these mission stages. Following the CCRS return to Earth proximity and confirmation of targeted approach conditions being realized, the SEM is responsible when commanded to release the EES, allowing successful entry, descent, and landing at the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR). The primary deliverable from the SEM procurement to be fulfilled is a single (One (1)) Spin Eject Mechanism (SEM) Flight Model (FM). Other hardware deliverables include: one (1) Engineering Test Unit and one (1) Engineering Development Unit, to be used for SEM development; and two (2) Assembly Integration and Test Models (AMs) to support System Developmental Testbed activities.

The resultant contract will be a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) type contract.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 336414

– Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing.

NASA issued the Request for Proposal (RFP) on September 10, 2021, followed by five (5) amendments.

Amendment One to the RFP was issued on September 28, 2021 to: (1) provide answers to questions received from potential offerors; (2) revise clauses and provisions in the RFP; and (3) extend the due date from October 12, 2021 to October 19, 2021.

Amendment Two to the RFP was issued on October 8, 2021 to provide two contract documents.

Amendment Three to the RFP was issued on March 28th, 2022 to: (1) resolicit proposals, allowing an additional period of 45 days for the receipt of proposals from prospective offerors;

(2) update existing clauses and provisions where applicable; and (3) revise various contract documents.

Amendment Four to the RFP was issued on April 14, 2022 to revise provision L.11 GSFC

52.215-201 PROPOSAL PREPARATION – GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS (ELECTRONIC

PROPOSAL DELIVERY) (MAR 2020).

Amendment Five to the RFP was issued on May 3, 2022 to extend the due date for proposal submission from May 12, 2022 to May 26, 2022.

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

The following companies submitted timely proposals by May 26, 2022:

• AIRBUS Defence and Space GmbH (Airbus)*

• Beyond Gravity (BG)*

• Heliospace Corporation*

• Honeybee Robotics LLC (HBR)

• SENER Aeroespacial*

• Sierra Space Corporation (SS)

The Government discontinued its evaluation of four (4) of the six (6) offerors as their proposals were deemed unacceptable in accordance with clearly defined RFP instructions. These proposals are denoted by an asterisk (*) above.

The RFP stated that the Government intended to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions with Offerors. The RFP also stated that the Government reserved the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer (CO) later determined them to be necessary. After evaluating proposals, the CO found that establishment of a competitive range was not necessary, a determination with which I concurred.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

As NASA’s Source Selection Authority (SSA) for this procurement, I appointed the IET, which included a team of technical and business members and consultants from appropriate disciplines, to assist in proposal evaluations.

The CCRS-SEM IET evaluated proposals in accordance with the source selection procedures identified in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 "Source Selection" and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) defined the evaluation factors as Mission Suitability, Cost, and Past Performance. The RFP specified the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors as follows:

The Cost factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability factor and the Past Performance factor. As individual factors, the

Past Performance factor is less important than the Mission Suitability factor but more important than the Cost factor.

The RFP established that the Mission Suitability Factor would be point scored in the evaluation process. The Mission Suitability Factor consisted of the following three (3) subfactors with assigned points as indicated.

MISSION SUITABILITY SUBFACTOR POINTS

Subfactor A Technical Approach 500 Subfactor B Management Approach 400 Subfactor C Small Business Utilization (SBU) 100

TOTAL 1000

The Mission Suitability Factors were evaluated using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The IET first reviewed each proposal and generated consensus findings (i.e., deficiencies, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, strengths, and significant strengths) within each subfactor. Next, the IET considered the findings under each subfactor and applied the adjectival rating definitions set forth in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A) to assign a rating based on the merit of the proposal within that subfactor. After assigning the adjectival rating for the subfactor, the IET determined the associated percentile score with the range set forth in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The maximum points available for each subfactor were then multiplied by the assigned percent for each subfactor to derive the score for the particular subfactor. For example, if a subfactor has a possible 200 points and receives a percentile rating of 80, then the score of that subfactor would be 160 points.

Regarding the Cost factor, the proposed costs were assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism. As stated in the RFP, the cost evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B). Offerors were referred to FAR 2.101(b) for a definition of “cost realism” and to FAR 15.404-1(d) for a discussion of “cost realism analysis” and “probable cost.” The proposed costs, including direct labor, other direct costs, and indirect rates, were assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism. Both the “proposed and probable” costs reflected the Offeror’s proposed fee amount. Proposed fee was not adjusted in the probable cost assessment. The proposed and probable costs were presented to me, along with any issues and risks associated with the proposed costs.

For the Past Performance Factor, the past performance evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 and provision M.5 of the solicitation. Each Offeror’s contract references were evaluated to determine the degree of relevance based on size, content, and/or complexity. In evaluating Past Performance, the IET relied on the Government-wide Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) database and customer feedback, in addition to the narrative on relevant past/current contracts provided by the Offerors. The Past Performance factor was not point scored but was assigned an adjectival rating of “Very High Level of Confidence,” “High Level of Confidence,” “Moderate Level of Confidence,” “Low Level of Confidence,” “Very Low Level of Confidence,” or “Neutral.

MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

Each Mission Suitability subfactor was evaluated in accordance with the weights delineated in the RFP. The table below provides the adjectival ratings assigned in each Mission Suitability subfactor:

Offeror Subfactor A Technical Approach

Subfactor B Management

Approach

Subfactor C Small Business

Utilization

Mission Suitability

Points Honeybee Robotics Very Good Good Fair 690 Sierra Space Good Poor Fair 475

Honeybee Robotics

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, Honeybee Robotics received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one (1) Significant Strength, two (2) Strengths, one (1) Weakness, and no Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies. Honeybee Robotics received one (1) Significant Strength in the following area: Honeybee Robotics proposed a strong overall strong design approach which provides the ability to test the flight article in its entirety. In addition, the offeror’s design will help minimize deployment uncertainties due to Earth Entry System (EES) Center of Gravity (CG) offsets, parasitic loads and distortions. The proposed overall design significantly increases the potential for contract success.

Honeybee Robotics received two (2) Strengths in the following areas: (1) for proposing a design with a mass margin that provides minimal risk of needing additional mass allocation as the design matures, which reduces project risk; and (2) for its proposed dynamic simulation flow that demonstrated a good understanding of how to verify the SEM requirements and integrate hardware test results with dynamic simulations.

Honeybee Robotics received one (1) Weakness in the following area: the proposal did not adequately address the twenty months of post-delivery support, which increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, Honeybee Robotics received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, no Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU), Honeybee Robotics received an adjectival rating of “Fair,” with no Significant Strengths, no Strengths, one (1) Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. Honeybee Robotics received one (1) Weakness in the following area: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan inadequately addressed the plan requirements and did not meet the small business utilization goals per the RFP, which increases the likelihood of unsuccessful performance.

Sierra Space

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, Sierra Space received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, four (4) Strengths, two (2) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. Sierra Space received four (4) Strengths in the following areas: (1) for proposing the use of its own internal Hold Down Release Mechanism (HDRM) product in the SEM which has heritage and reduces the risk of failure on orbit; (2) for identifying unique testing heritage and capabilities that would provide benefit to the project and reduce schedule risks; (3) for providing a technical approach with specific highlights to the driving requirements and key challenges of the SEM development, which demonstrated understanding of the unique challenges of the CCRS/SEM project; (4) and for identifying and proposing to increase the frequency of collaboration opportunities and existing data-sharing tools to confront the unique challenges associated with SEM.

Sierra Space received two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) for proposing to build an Engineering Development Unit (EDU) between PDR and CDR that would not undergo environmental testing, which would introduce schedule risk; and (2) for inadequately covering the required twenty months of post-delivery support in its proposal, which increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, Sierra Space received an adjectival rating of “Poor” with no Significant Strengths, no Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and one

(1) Deficiency. Sierra Space received one (1) Deficiency in the following area: (1) for its Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), which includes multiple instances of failing to meet the required delivery dates in the RFP. This Deficiency presents a material failure of the proposal to meet Government requirements and increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU), Sierra Space received an adjectival rating of “Fair,” with no Significant Strengths, no Strengths, one (1) Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. Sierra Space received (1) Weakness in the following area: (1) The Small Business Subcontracting Plan did not adequately address the requirements and did not meet the small business utilization goals per the RFP, which increases the likelihood of unsuccessful performance.

COST EVALUATION

The IET evaluated the total proposed cost and determined the Government’s probable cost for all the Offerors. Although costs risks were identified for both offerors, the IET determined that no probable cost adjustment was required for either offeror’s proposal.

Based on the IET’s evaluation results, Honeybee Robotics had the lowest total probable cost, which was significantly lower (greater than 10%) than Sierra Space’s total probable cost.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

In evaluating the Past Performance of the Offerors, the IET determined the Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating for Honeybee Robotics to be “High” based on the combination of “Very High” Overall Relevance and “High” Overall Performance. The IET determined Sierra Space to have an overall Past Performance Level of Confidence rating of "Very High" based on the combination of “Very High” Overall Relevance and “Very High” Overall Performance.

DECISION

As the SSA for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the IET's documentation entitled "Mars Sample Return (MSR) Capture, Containment and Return System (CCRS) Earth Entry System (EES) Spin Eject Mechanism (SEM) Source Selection Authority Presentation” and the associated Cost Report. On October 21st and 28th, I met with the CCRS SEM IET along with several ex-officio members, to discuss the evaluation with the IET.

I determined that the findings presented by the IET, as documented in its presentation and the accompanying cost report, were detailed and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the CCRS SEM RFP and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal. I discussed with the IET its rationale for the findings, adjectival ratings, and scores for the Mission Suitability Subfactors, as well as the IET’s rationale for the evaluation of Cost and Past Performance. I agree with the IET’s findings. Further, I solicited the views of ex-officio members in their areas of expertise.

In determining which proposal offered the best value to NASA, I referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP:

The Cost Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and Past Performance Factor. As individual Factors, the Past Performance Factor is less important than the Mission Suitability Factor but more important than the Cost Factor.

My selection is based on the comparative assessment of the proposals against each of the RFP evaluation factors to determine which proposal represented the best value.

First, I examined the Mission Suitability evaluation, beginning with Subfactor A, Technical Approach. I noted that Honeybee Robotics received a Very Good rating in Subfactor A, compared to the Good rating received by Sierra Space. In examining the content of all the findings, I was impressed with Honeybee Robotics’ Significant Strength finding for its strong overall design, which significantly minimizes the EES deployment uncertainties arising from CG offsets, parasitic loads, and distortions. I consider this design to be of significant benefit to the Government and was a discriminator in making my decision.

In addition to the Significant Strength, I found that Honeybee Robotics’ two strengths were noteworthy and provide additional value to the Government. Honeybee Robotics’ Strength for its proposed design with sizable mass margin will minimizes risk that additional mass will need to be allocated as the design matures, thereby reducing project risk. Honeybee Robotics’ Strength for its proposed dynamic simulation flow demonstrated a solid plan to requirements verification which will increase the likelihood that CCRS system-level requirements will be met. I noted that Honeybee Robotics received a weakness finding for inadequately covering the requirement for 20 months of post-delivery support in its proposal, though I found that Sierra Space received a similar Weakness finding for its proposed post-delivery support. I therefore determined that these negative findings did not serve to distinguish either proposal.

In contrast, Sierra Space’s proposal received a Good rating. I noted that Sierra Space did not receive any Significant Strengths. In closely examining Sierra Space’s four Strength findings, as described in greater detail above, I determined that the technical approach benefits described in these findings were not as advantageous as the technical approach benefits of Honeybee Robotics’ proposal within Subfactor A that I described above. I also found that a second Weakness finding for proposing to build an Engineering Development Unit (EDU) between PDR and CDR that would not undergo environmental testing introduced schedule risk due to technical issues that might be found later, detracted from the relative merit of Sierra Space’s proposal within Subfactor A. Overall, for Subfactor A, Technical Approach, I determined a substantial advantage in favor of Honeybee Robotics. Honeybee Robotics’ Significant Strength, as noted above, was a clear discriminator, and I agree that this design will significantly increase the potential for contract success.

Within Mission Suitability Subfactor B, Management Approach, I noted that Honeybee Robotics received an adjectival rating of Good and that Honeybee Robotics’ approach was not awarded any positive or negative findings. In contrast, I observed that Sierra Space received an adjectival rating of Poor with one Deficiency finding. This Deficiency was for its proposed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) which includes multiple instances of failing to meet the delivery dates in the RFP. Overall, I found a clear and distinct advantage within Subfactor B in favor of Honeybee Robotics’ proposal, given the significance of the delivery schedule failings in Sierra Space’s proposal. Schedule performance for the CCRS mission is critical in order to meet an unforgiving planetary launch window and for Subfactor B, Management Approach the differences in the proposals were stark and the Deficiency finding a direct and discriminating factor in my decision.

Within Mission Suitability Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization, I noted that Honeybee Robotics and Sierra Space each received a Fair adjectival rating for this Subfactor with each offeror receiving one weakness. After reviewing these similar findings, I found no meaningful discriminator between Honeybee Robotics and Sierra Space in Subfactor C.

Overall within Mission Suitability, I found that the proposal submitted by Honeybee Robotics was clearly superior to the proposal submitted by Sierra Space. Honeybee Robotics’ proposal offered a significant advantage in Subfactor A, Technical Approach, the most heavily weighted subfactor, and a clear and distinct advantage within Subfactor B, Management Approach, the second highest weighted subfactor. I did not find Subfactor C to be a discriminator.

Regarding the Cost factor, I noted that Honeybee Robotics had the lowest total probable cost, which was significantly lower than Sierra Space. I also considered the cost risks associated with each proposal, but these considerations did not alter my conclusion that Honeybee Robotics’ proposal was more advantageous in this Factor.

Regarding the Past Performance factor, I noted that Sierra Space received a Very High Level of Confidence rating. I also noted that Honeybee Robotics received a High Level of Confidence rating. I concluded that Honeybee Robotics was less competitive in this factor as compared to Sierra Space’s higher Past Performance rating, which gave Sierra Space a moderate advantage within this factor.

Finally, I carefully considered the findings in relation to the evaluation criteria in the RFP and again referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP. Under Mission Suitability, I determined that Honeybee Robotics offered the clearly superior proposal, based on its significant advantage in Subfactor A, Technical Approach, the most heavily weighted subfactor and its clear and distinct advantage within Subfactor B, Management Approach, the second highest weighted subfactor. I concluded that Honeybee Robotics’ proposal with its significant advantage within Mission Suitability, the most heavily weighted factor, and significantly lower cost within the Cost Factor, the least heavily weighted factor, were more advantageous than Sierra Space’s higher rating in Past Performance factor, the second most heavily weighted factor. In other words, I determined that Sierra Space’s moderate advantage in this Factor was outweighed by Honeybee Robotics’ substantial advantages over Sierra Space in both of the other two Factors, and that Honeybee Robotics’ proposal provides the best value to NASA.

As a result of the SEM acquisition process yielding two (2) acceptable proposals for subsequent evaluation, scoring, and discussion summarized above, I select Honeybee Robotics for award of the Mars Sample Return (MSR) Capture, Containment and Return System (CCRS) Earth Entry System (EES) Spin Eject Mechanism (SEM) contract.

David Littmann Date Source Selection Authority