Coronagraph_Source Selection Statement FINAL_Signed 11-8-24.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR

NASA SPACE WEATHER NEXT LAGRANGE 1 SERIES

(L1 SERIES) CORONAGRAPH (COR) INSTRUMENT

IMPLMENTATION SOLICITATION NO. 80GSFC24R0009

On October 31, 2024, I along with senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) held a meeting with the Coronagraph Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to hear findings based on the evaluation of the proposals for the NASA Space Weather Next Lagrange 1 Series (L1 Series) Coronagraph (COR) instrument implementation procurement. This memorandum documents my decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this contract is to acquire three (3) coronagraph instruments in support of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) space weather forecasting operations. NASA is selecting a contractor to perform the implementation and hardware development activities for the Coronagraph (COR) for the Space Weather Next Lagrange 1 Series (L1 Series) project. The Request for Proposal (RFP) for the COR requirement was issued as a full and open competitive procurement A commercial procurement of COR is a new instrument venture for NASA, NOAA and the L1 Series Project. The Coronagraph instrument will monitor the solar corona, detect and characterize coronal mass ejections (CMEs) that are directed towards Earth. CMEs can be remotely detected with white light imagery of the upper solar corona and the COR will capture this white light imagery.

Sequences of CME images can be used to determine size, velocity, and density of CMEs. The COR instrument consists of a Telescope Module, an Electronics Unit, and the associated harnesses. The contract scope includes the tasks and deliverables necessary to design, develop, analyze, fabricate, integrate, test, verify, evaluate, support launch, supply and maintain the instrument ground support equipment, and support Mission Operations at the NOAA Satellite Operations Facility.

NASA issued the Request for Proposal (RFP No. 80GSFC24R0009) on March 8, 2024, followed by four (4) amendments.

The North American Industry Classification (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 336414 and the small business size standard is 1,300 Employees. The resultant contract will be a Cost-Plus- Fixed-Fee (CPFF) hardware contract for three (3) flight instruments (FM1, FM2 and FM3) and 10,000 hours to perform Engineering Studies over the life of the contract.

The anticipated period of performance for the contract is from contract award through fifteen

(15) months following the successful launch of FM2 (anticipated to be October 2032).

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

The following companies submitted timely proposals by April 22, 2024:

• Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL)

• Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP)

• General Atomics Electromagnetics Systems (GA), Optical Sensor Systems

• Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)

The RFP stated that the Government intended to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions with Offeror’s. The RFP also stated that the Government reserves 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

The SEB included a team of technical and business members and consultants from appropriate disciplines to assist in proposal evaluations.

The COR SEB 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 SEB procedures at NFS 1815.370, NASA Source Evaluation Boards, were applied.

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

There were no subfactors under the Mission Suitability factor. The Mission Suitability Factor was evaluated using the adjectival ratings and definitions in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The SEB voting members independently read the proposals and then met to discuss possible findings. Proposals were read in random order. The SEB voting members evaluated each Offeror’s proposal and documented findings for each factor based on evaluation criteria as stated in Section M of the solicitation. The voting members then used the findings definitions to reach a consensus for each finding (significant strength, strength, weakness, significant weakness, deficiency). After determining the findings under Mission Suitability, the Coronagraph SEB voting members determined the overall adjectival rating set forth in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A) based on the merit of the proposal by applying the definition of the adjectives to the consensus findings (excellent, very good, good, fair, poor), recognizing that not all findings are of equal value or importance.

Regarding the Cost factor, the proposed costs were evaluated to determine reasonableness and a cost realism analysis was performed on the proposed costs. As stated in the RFP, the cost evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(l) and NFS 1815.305(a)(l)(B).

Offerors were referred to FAR 2.101(b) for a definition of "cost realism" and to FAR 15.404-l(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 GSFC 52.215-231 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 SEB relied on the information in the past performance questionnaires (PPQ), 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 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

SwRI was evaluated with the highest adjectival rating of Excellent, while LASP, GA and APL were evaluated as Very Good. The substance of the SEB’s evaluation of Mission Suitability for each Offeror is represented below:

Offeror Mission

Suitability APL Very Good LASP Very Good GA Very Good SwRI Excellent

Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL)

APL received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one (1) Significant Strength, no Strengths, one (1) Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

APL received one (1) Significant Strength in the following area: (1) by proposing an instrument approach that leverages successful on-orbit instrument design heritage, design knowledge, flight and ground software, algorithm and calibration coefficient development, instrument build experience from instruments of similar complexity and with similar measurement techniques and/or operational needs, APL significantly increases the likelihood of meeting the Coronagraph performance, developing a technically and programmatically sound instrument, which greatly reduces overall program risk.

APL received one (1) Weakness in the following area: (1) APL’s proposed instrument schedule information is limited, restricting the Government’s ability to perform a comprehensive schedule evaluation, increasing risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP)

LASP received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with two (2) Significant Strengths, no Strengths, two (2) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

LASP received two (2) Significant Strengths in the following areas: (1) by proposing an instrument approach that leverages successful on-orbit instrument design heritage, design knowledge, flight and ground software, algorithm and calibration coefficient development, instrument build experience from instruments of similar complexity and with similar measurement techniques and/or operational needs, LASP significantly increases the likelihood of meeting the Coronagraph performance, developing a technically and programmatically sound instrument, which greatly reduces overall program risk; and (2) LASP’s model strategy is extremely well thought out, particularly the pre-proposal development and testing of a Coronagraph optical breadboard, also the instrument emulator and the engineering development unit (EDU), greatly increasing the likelihood of meeting the Coronagraph performance and schedule requirements and significantly reducing overall program risk.

LASP received the two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) the proposal provides limited detail and descriptions of LASP’s developed straylight models and states the final verification will not be fully measured but extrapolated using the models which limits the ability of the government to evaluate the proposed approach; and (2) LASP’s management structure contains limited information into the line of communication between the Flight Assurance Manager/Quality Assurance Engineer and Project Leadership increasing the risk of miscommunication. These Weaknesses increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

General Atomics Electromagnetics Systems (GA), Optical Sensor Systems

GA received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one (1) Significant Strength, one (1) Strength, two (2) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

GA received one (1) Significant Strength in the following area: (1) by proposing an instrument approach that leverages successful design heritage, knowledge, flight and ground software, algorithm and calibration coefficient development, instrument build experience from instruments of similar complexity and measurement techniques and/or operational needs, GA significantly increases the likelihood of meeting the Coronagraph performance, developing a technically and programmatically sound instrument, which greatly reduces overall program risk.

GA received one (1) Strength in the following area: (1) GA’s proposed model strategy is well thought out, includes the planned development of a Coronagraph optical breadboard, and two engineering development units (EDUs), increasing the chances of meeting the Coronagraph performance requirements, and reducing program risk.

GA received two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) the proposal provided limited detail and information on instrument front end design and how the total instrument straylight/sensitivity requirements are validated; and (2) GA’s proposed instrument development, test and delivery schedule is challenging, and requires substantial parallel effort(s) increasing the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to meet their proposed schedule. These Weaknesses increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)

SwRI received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” with three (3) Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

SwRI received three (3) Significant Strengths in the following areas: (1) by proposing an instrument approach that leverages successful on-orbit instrument design heritage, design knowledge, flight and ground software, algorithm and calibration coefficient development, instrument build experience from instruments of similar complexity and with similar measurement techniques and/or operational needs, SwRI significantly increases the likelihood of meeting the Coronagraph performance, developing a technically and programmatically sound instrument, which greatly reduces overall program risk; (2) SwRI’s prototype and model strategy is extremely well thought out. It includes results from development and testing of their Coronagraph instrument prototype, and applying lessons learned from this completed effort to the engineering development unit (EDU) early in the program, greatly increasing the chances of meeting the Coronagraph performance and schedule and significantly reducing overall program risk; (3) SwRI conducted innovative laboratory testing using Coronagraph prototype flight-like hardware and procedures, which demonstrated and test verified stray light modeling and performance of their proposed Coronagraph concept, in air. This will significantly mitigate technical and schedule risk early in the program and greatly increase the likelihood of successful contract performance while providing additional value to the Government.

SwRI received two (2) Strengths in the following areas: (1) SwRI conducted a detector study that resulted in a simplification of their instrument design, mitigating the need and risk of a mechanical shutter, mitigating photometric jitter and the need for a re-closable door, reducing failure modes and limited-life items, increasing reliability on-orbit, and the likelihood of successful contract performance; (2) SwRI demonstrated an effective small business commitment that increases the likelihood of successful small business implementation.

COST EVALUATION

The lowest proposed/probable costs were provided by SwRI ($60,285,745), followed by APL, which was substantially higher. APL’s proposed/probable cost was slightly lower than LASP, which was significantly lower than GA’s proposed and probable cost. The SEB determined that no probable cost adjustments were required for any Offeror’s cost proposal.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

In evaluating the Past Performance of the Offeror’s, the SEB determined APL 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. The SEB determined the Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating for LASP to be “High” based on the combination of “Very High” Overall Relevance and “High” Overall Performance. The SEB determined GA to have an overall Past Performance Level of Confidence rating of "High" based on the combination of “Very High” Overall Relevance and “High” Overall Performance. The SEB determined SwRI 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 Source Selection Authority (SSA) for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the SEB's documentation entitled "Space Weather Next Lagrange 1 Series Coronagraph Procurement Source Selection Authority Presentation” and the associated Cost Report. On October 31, 2024, I met with the Coronagraph SEB, along with several ex-officio members, to receive the findings of the SEB. I determined that the findings presented by the SEB, as documented in its presentation and the accompanying cost report, were detailed and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the Coronagraph RFP and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal. I discussed with the SEB its rationale for the findings, and adjectival ratings for the Mission Suitability and discussed the rationale for the evaluation of Cost and Past Performance, and I agree with the SEB’s findings. Further, I solicited the views of ex-officio members in their areas of expertise. I determined that the findings were reasonable and valid for making a selection decision.

My selection was based on a comparative assessment of each proposal against each of the RFP evaluation criteria. 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, Mission Suitability Factor is more important than the Cost Factor, which is more important than the Past Performance Factor

Regarding the Mission Suitability Factor, the most important factor, I noted that: SwRI received the highest rating of the offerors. SWRI received an Excellent rating with three Significant Strengths and two Strengths. The other three Offerors received a Very Good rating.

Specifically, LASP received a Very Good rating with two Significant Strengths and two Weaknesses. GA received a Very Good rating with one Significant Strength, one Strength and two Weaknesses. APL received a Very Good rating with one Significant Strength and one Weakness.

First, I noted that all the Offeror’s had participated in the Government funded Formulation study awarded in May 2023, and all received a Significant Strength for their high heritage Coronagraph solutions, demonstrating an understanding of the Coronagraph requirements, conducting detailed analysis and acknowledge their ability and experience to develop complex space flight instruments, a real testament to the competence of the vendor pool and the value of the Formulation effort to the Government. I then noted that SwRI and LASP received a second Significant Strength, for its designed, built and tested optical breadboards/prototypes of their Coronagraph concepts; including developing and verifying manufacturing of complex Coronagraph hardware, developing and refining processes and procedures, and test verifying models by collecting data in a laboratory environment. In addition, SwRI received a third Significant Strength for its innovative laboratory testing, using their Coronagraph prototype flight-like hardware and procedures, that demonstrated, test verified and validated stray light performance of their conceptual design, in air, mitigating significant technical and schedule risk of this critical element very early in the program, greatly increasing the likelihood of successful contract performance and providing significant value to the Government. By comparison, APL had no findings related to stray light performance, while LASP and GA received Weaknesses for stray light verification and validation. Therefore, I noted a clear discriminator and advantage for SwRI regarding stray light performance.

Next in examining the Offerors’ Strength findings, I noted that GA received a Strength for a well thought out modeling approach, planning to develop a Coronagraph optical breadboard, and two engineering development units (EDUs) early in the program. Further, SwRI had two Strengths one Strength findingfor a study, completed prior to proposal submission, that resulted in a simplification of their Coronagraph instrument concept mitigating the need for an internal mechanical shutter, enhancing exposure stability and mitigating the need for a re-closable door, reducing risk, failure modes and limited-life items, and a second Strength for an effective small business commitment that increases confidence in the likelihood of successful small business utilization implementation. I found that SwRI’s two Strengths were unique as no other Offeror received findings in these areas.

I then examined the Offerors’ Weakness findings, I noted that LASP received two Weaknesses, one for limited detail and descriptions of their developed straylight models which are required because their final straylight verification will not be fully measured by test, but extrapolated using the models, and a second weakness for the management structure outlined in the proposal which contains limited information into the line of communication between the LASP Flight Assurance Manager/Quality Assurance Engineer and LASP Coronagraph Project Leadership.

GA received two Weaknesses, one for providing limited detail and information on instrument front end design features and how the total Coronagraph instrument straylight/sensitivity requirements are validated and a second weakness for an instrument delivery schedule that is challenging and requires substantial parallel effort(s) to meet the GA proposed schedule.

APL received one Weakness, for providing limited detail within their instrument development schedule, restricting the Government’s ability to perform a comprehensive schedule evaluation.

SWRI’s proposal received no weaknesses.

In summary, when considering all the Mission Suitability findings, I found that SwRI submitted the superior Mission Suitability proposal due to its unmatched significant strength in conducting and completing innovative laboratory testing, using Coronagraph prototype flight-like hardware and procedures, which demonstrated and test verified stray light modeling and performance of their proposed Coronograph conceptual design, in air. I found that this will significantly mitigate technical and schedule risk early in the program, greatly increasing the likelihood of successful contract performance. Further, I found that the Weaknesses received for all other Offerors, as noted above, somewhat detracted from their overall Very Good ratings in Mission Suitability. I noted that SwRI was the only Offeror to not receive a Weakness finding under Mission Suitability.

Within the Cost Factor, I noted that SwRI had the lowest total proposed/probable cost, which was substantially lower than APL, LASP, and GA’s proposed/probable cost, respectively. Therefore, I found the SwRI’s lowest proposed/probable cost offerors a significant advantage over the other Offerors.

Regarding the Past Performance factor, the least important factor, I noted SwRI and APL received a Very High Level of Confidence rating, while LASP and GA received a High Level of Confidence. I noted a slight advantage with SwRI and APL receiving a Very High overall performance rating compared to LASP and GA’s High overall performance rating.

In making my selection, I again referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP. I noted that the Cost Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and Past Performance Factor. As individual Factors, Mission Suitability Factor is more important than the Cost Factor, which is more important than the Past Performance Factor. First, I considered that SwRI offered a more advantageous mission suitability proposal in the most important factor, being the only Offeror to receive three significant strengths, two strengths, and no weaknesses, mitigating significant risks early in the program, which was a clear discriminator when compared to the other three Offeror’s.

Regarding Cost, the second most important factor, SwRI’s probable cost was substantially lower than all other Offeror’s probable cost which I found to be a significant cost advantage for SwRI.

For Past Performance, the least important factor, I concluded that all Offeror’s can competently and successfully perform the Coronagraph contract. However, I concluded that SwRI and APL had a slight advantage based on its Very High level of confidence ratings when compared to LASP and GA’s High level of confidence ratings.

Overall, based on SwRI’s significant Mission Suitability and cost advantages over LASP, GA and APL, and its Very High Past Performance rating, I concluded that SwRI’s proposal offers the best value to the Government.

Therefore, I select SwRI for award of the Space Weather Next Lagrange 1 Series Coronagraph contract.

Thomas V. McCarthy Date Source Selection Authority