COR Phase A Study Selection Statement signed.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR THE SPACE WEATHER NEXT LAGRANGE 1 SERIES (L1 SERIES)

CORONAGRAPH (COR) INSTRUMENT PHASE A STUDY PROCUREMENT

RFP 80GSFC22R0054

On March 28, 2023, I along with senior officials from the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), met with the Integrated

Evaluation Team (IET) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the Space Weather

Next Lagrange 1 Series (L1 Series) Coronagraph (COR) Instrument Phase A Study procurement. This memorandum documents my selection decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The COR Phase A Study requirement provides services to help meet the objectives of the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Space Weather Next Lagrange 1

Series (L1 Series) program. The principal purpose of this requirement is to provide a definition-phase study of the COR instrument. The COR instrument will be part of the L1 NEXT Series satellite series. The instrument will provide Coronal imagery of the Sun for detection and characterization of the Earth-directed CMEs. The COR Phase A Study Request for Proposal

(RFP) was released on January 27, 2023.

This competitive acquisition will result in up to 5 firm fixed price contracts; of 8- month duration and a not to exceed amount of $800K each for this definition-phase study. There will also be a

4- month option with a not to exceed amount of $400K each to include bringing this formulation study closer to a Preliminary Design Review readiness level. The Final Report is due 12 months after contract award. NASA will conduct this acquisition as a full and open competition. The

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 336414 and the small business size standard is 1,250 employees.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

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

The COR IET evaluated proposals in accordance with the source selection procedures identified in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15.3 “Source Selection” and NASA FAR

Supplement (NFS) 1815.3. The Source Evaluation Board procedures at NFS 1815.370, NASA

Source Evaluation Boards, were applied. The objective of source selection is to select the proposal(s) that provide(s) the best value to the Government.

Evaluation Factors

The RFP listed three (3) evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Price, and Past Performance.

The RFP specified the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors as follows:

CORONAGRAPH (COR) INSTRUMENT PHASE A STUDY PROCUREMENT

“The Price Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission

Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual Factors, the Mission Suitability is more important than the Past Performance Factor which is more important than the Price

Factor.”

Mission Suitability Evaluation Factor

The Mission Suitability factor was evaluated using the adjectival ratings and definitions at NFS

(NASA FAR Supplement)1815.305 (a)(3)(A):

ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DEFINITIONS

Excellent A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists.

Very Good A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates over-all competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.

Good A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both.

As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly detract from the offeror’s response.

Fair A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.

Poor A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to correct.

Classification of findings and definitions:

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness A proposal flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses

CORONAGRAPH (COR) INSTRUMENT PHASE A STUDY PROCUREMENT

in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Strength (not in

FAR/NFS)

A proposal area that enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the government.

Significant Strength

(not in FAR/NFS)

A proposal area that greatly enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes significantly toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the government.

Price Evaluation Factor

The Price factor was evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15.305 (a)(1). A price analysis was conducted, as described in FAR Part 15.404-1(b), on the Offeror’s Total Proposed Firm Fixed Price.

Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance factor was evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15 and provision M.4 of the solicitation. The Offeror’s contract references were evaluated to determine initial relevance and the degree of relevance based on size, content, and/or complexity. The Past

Performance factor was assigned an adjectival rating of “High Level of Confidence,” “Moderate

Level of Confidence,” “Low Level of Confidence,” or “Neutral.”

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

On February 27, 2023, NASA received five (5) timely proposals from the following companies:

• Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab (APL)

• EO Vista

• University of Colorado, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP)

• Raytheon Intelligence & Space

• Southwest Research Institute SWRI

The RFP stated that the Government reserved the right to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. The RFP also stated that the Government reserved the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer (CO) determined them to be necessary.

On March 28, 2023, the voting members and advisors of the COR Phase A Study IET met with the Source Selection Authority for this procurement to review the IET’s initial evaluation findings.

CORONAGRAPH (COR) INSTRUMENT PHASE A STUDY PROCUREMENT

After the SSA meeting, the CO determined that a selection based on initial proposals would be in the best interest of the Government and therefore, discussions were not necessary

FINAL EVALUATION SUMMARY

The total evaluation summary is as follows:

Offeror

Mission

Suitability

Adjectival

Rating

Firm Fixed

Price

Past

Performance

Level of

Confidence

Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab (APL) Good $1,199,239 High

EO Vista Good $1,200,000 High

University of Colorado, Laboratory for

Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) Good $1,200,000 High

Raytheon Intelligence & Space Good $1,200,000 High

Southwest Research Institute SWRI Good $1,200,000 High

MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab (APL)

APL received a rating of “Good” based on one (1) strength. There were no significant weaknesses, weaknesses, or deficiencies.

APL’s strength was proposing an instrument approach that leverages design heritage, design knowledge, and a demonstrated ability to survive long, deep-space operations with similar measurement techniques and/or operational needs, which increases the likelihood of meeting the study goals and of developing a technically and programmatically sound instrument concept.

EO Vista

EO VISTA received a rating of “Good” based on one (1) strength. There were no significant

EO VISTA’s strength was proposing a study and design incorporating legacy information from

NRL Coronagraph instrument designs (including CCOR), which reduces the likelihood of instrument design and performance challenges.

University of Colorado, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP)

LASP received a rating of “Good” based on two (2) strengths. There were no significant

CORONAGRAPH (COR) INSTRUMENT PHASE A STUDY PROCUREMENT

LASP’s first strength was proposing an instrument approach that leverages design heritage, design knowledge, and a demonstrated ability to survive long, deep-space operations with similar measurement techniques and/or operational needs, which increases the likelihood of meeting the study goals and of developing a technically and programmatically sound instrument concept.

LASP’s second strength was its proposed technology and risk mitigation plan to design, build and test an optical breadboard coronagraph during the Phase A study, giving LASP an opportunity to mitigate unforeseen risks and increasing the likelihood of successful performance and meeting the pre-ship review date of Q4 FY2026.

Raytheon Intelligence & Space

Raytheon received a rating of “Good” based on one (1) strength. There were no significant

Raytheon proposes to build upon the NRL Compact Coronagraph (CCOR) instrument proven concept and calibration methodology to meet key requirements with margin reducing the likelihood of instrument design and performance challenges

Southwest Research Institute SWRI

SWRI received a rating of “Good” based on one (1) strength. There were no significant

SWRI’s strength was proposing an instrument approach that leverages design heritage, knowledge, and a demonstrated ability to survive space operations, including longer duration mission, with similar measurement techniques and/or operational needs, thereby increasing the likelihood of meeting the study goals and of developing a technically and programmatically sound instrument concept.

PRICE FACTOR EVALUATINON

The IET evaluated the proposed prices for this effort. All Offerors proposed a firm fixed price at and below the not-to-exceed amount of $1.2M in accordance with the solicitation. Johns Hopkins

Applied Physics Lab (APL) proposed the lowest total price ($1,199,239).

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

All Offerors received an overall rating of “High” The IET reviewed all relevant past performance contracts with efforts for similar items that were performed within the past five years. The evaluation team determined the overall level of confidence rating to be “High,” based on the previous contract efforts being rated with excellent, very good, and good levels of performance, and consider highly relevant.

DETERMINATION

CORONAGRAPH (COR) INSTRUMENT PHASE A STUDY PROCUREMENT

During the SSA meeting, I noted and considered all Offerors proposals provided the best value to the Government, I noted that the Price Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual

Factors, the Mission Suitability is more important than the Past Performance Factor which is more important than the Price Factor.

Under Mission Suitability, the most important factor, I concluded that all five Offerors had a reasonably strong Mission Suitability proposal. All Offerors received a High Past Performance rating and proposed a total price which met the RFP’s not-to-exceed $1.2 million price.

Weighing these factors in light of the evaluation criteria in the RFP, I determined that Johns

Hopkins Applied Physics Lab (APL), EO Vista, University of Colorado, Laboratory for

Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP), Raytheon Intelligence & Space, and Southwest

Research Institute SWRI’s proposals all offered the best value to the Government. Therefore, based on the evaluation results and the Government’s stated intent to make up to five awards, I select Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab (APL), EO Vista, University of Colorado, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP), Raytheon Intelligence & Space, and Southwest

Research Institute SWRI for award of the COR Phase A Study as all offering the best value to

NASA.

Tammy Seidel Date

Associate Director Procurement