Dragonfly PDS Selection Statement Final 7.14.2022.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC)

Request for Proposal (RFP): 80LARC22R0001 Dragonfly Parachute Deceleration Subsystem

On February 11, 2022, I, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the subject acquisition, met with the Source Evaluation Team (SET) appointed to evaluate proposals for the LaRC Dragonfly Parachute Deceleration Subsystem (PDS) effort.

Procurement History

The NASA LaRC Dragonfly PDS contract will provide the design, fabrication, qualification, and delivery of a parachute decelerator subsystem (including mortar, drogue parachute, main parachute, main parachute deployment mechanism).

Market research was conducted to determine the existing small business capabilities and assess how well they compare with the Dragonfly PDS requirements. A sources-sought synopsis was issued on August 31, 2020, seeking capability statements from potential sources under NAICS code 541715, Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology), with a size standard of 1,000 employees. Based on the responses received, the Contracting Officer determined, with the concurrence of the Small Business Specialist, that an adequate number of small business firms were not available for this specific requirement and that the requirement would be solicited for a full and open competition under NAICS code 541715, with a single award contemplated.

The SSA appointed the LaRC SET on September 20, 2021, for the purpose of evaluating proposals received in response to the solicitation. A Procurement Strategy Meeting was held on October 13, 2021. The RFP was posted October 27, 2021. The following two amendments were issued as part of the RFP:

Amendment 01 – Incorporated documents containing project background information.

Amendment 02 – Incorporated responses to industry questions, updated copies of Exhibits A & B as a result of industry questions, updated solicitation Sections F.3 and L.20(f) and incorporated a proposal due date extension from December 3, 2021, to December 8, 2021.

The RFP contemplated the award of a cost plus fixed-fee contract with a four- and one-half year period of performance.

Timely proposals were received on or before the due date of December 8, 2021, from the following two Offerors (listed in alphabetical order):

• Airborne Systems of North America (“Airborne”)

• Pioneer Aerospace, dba SAFRAN Electronics, & Defense, Parachutes USA Corp. (“Safran”)

Evaluation Factors and Process

This competitive best value source selection was conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 “Source Selection”, NASA FAR Supplement Part 1815.3, and this solicitation utilized a Performance-Price Tradeoff (PPTO) process. Overall, in the selection of a Contractor for contract award, the Past Performance Factor was more important than the Price Factor.

Evaluation of Proposals: In accordance with RFP Section M.4, proposals received in response to this solicitation were evaluated by the Government as follows:

Step 1: The Contracting Officer initially ranked all proposals based on cost/price, from lowest to highest price. An offeror’s proposed price was determined by the Total Evaluated Price

(TEP).

Step 2: The Contracting Officer reviewed each proposal in sufficient depth to identify any unacceptable proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. Both of the offerors were determined to be acceptable in accordance with the

NFS.

Step 3: The SET evaluated each Offeror’s Technical Proposal for technical acceptability. The SET determined each Offeror’s technical acceptability as set for in RFP section M.5 and assigned a rating to each as follows:

• Acceptable - The Technical Proposal was rated “Acceptable” where each technical consideration was determined to meet the material requirements of the solicitation, with minor issues that have no adverse impact on contract performance, and does not contain any deficiencies (See FAR 15.001). The Technical proposal was considered “Acceptable” if no technical consideration is rated “Unacceptable” as defined below.

• Unacceptable – The Technical Proposal was rated “Unacceptable” where one or more technical consideration(s) were determined to not meet the material requirements of the solicitation. The Technical Proposal was considered “Unacceptable” if it contained deficiencies (See FAR 15.001).

Step 4: Any Offeror with a Technical Proposal that was rated as “Unacceptable” was eliminated from further consideration and ineligible for award. Safran was determined Unacceptable and was notified accordingly.

Step 5: Only Offerors with a Technical Proposal rated as “Acceptable” continued in the evaluation process. The SET evaluated the Past Performance and Cost/Price proposals for Airborne as they were the remaining offeror with a Technical Proposal that was rated “Acceptable”.

Factor 1 – Past Performance: In accordance with the RFP Past Performance factor the SET would perform a detailed individual review of each Technically Acceptable Offeror’s past performance proposal, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), interviews and other references in addition to those provided by the Offeror and its significant subcontractors. The SET evaluated the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance of work in terms of content, size (dollar value), and complexity for the Technical Performance Area (TPA) defined in L.20(c)(12). The TPA included Section 1.4 EDL Concept of Operation. Development, qualification and use in flight of a 2-stage (or more) parachute decelerator subsystem in which the first parachute is deployed by a mortar, and subsequent parachutes are deployed by pilot parachutes.

Past performance was assessed to arrive at a Level of Confidence rating as set forth in 1815.305 (see below). Each confidence rating has a "performance" component and a "pertinence" component. The offeror must meet the requirements of both components to achieve a particular confidence rating and the lowest-rated component is the highest rating that can be achieved. The RFP required each offeror to submit past performance references for recent work, references were considered recent if on-going or completed within the past fifteen (15) years from the date the RFP was issued. The Government considered past performance information from significant subcontractors proposed to perform 25% or more of the technical performance area.

For the “pertinence” component, the RFP stated, “the Government will consider the degree of similarity of work performed in terms of content, size, and complexity of each relevant contract considering the amount and type of work each entity is proposed to perform to the requirements in this solicitation, as well as the recency and duration of the past performance”.

For the “performance” component”, the RFP stated “the Government will assess the Offeror’s performance record for each contract reference. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance record for demonstrated experience in the technical performance areas listed in L.20(c)(12) for the work each entity is proposed to perform. The performance assessment will be based primarily on, but not limited to, Past Performance Questionnaires and/or interviews, and other references, if any, that the Government may contact for additional past performance information, and Government databases (e.g., CPARS/PPIRS), as stated in L.20(c)(12). The RFP description of the past performance levels of confidence ratings is set out below:

The SET met and discussed all of the past performance findings of the individual voting members and used its collective judgment to develop consensus findings for the past performance factor and arrived at their consensus pertinence, performance, and level of confidence ratings for Airborne as set out in the table under the heading “Factor 1 – Past Performance,” below.

Factor 2 - Price: The evaluation of the price factor was conducted in accordance with the RFP Section M.6(b). The Government performed a price analysis, cost analysis and cost realism as determined appropriate in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 to evaluate Airborne’s proposed price in response to this solicitation. Specifically, the evaluation included, but was not limited to, comparing the proposed prices to historical prices for the same or similar items purchased by the Government, and comparing proposed rates to recent historical/actual rates by the Offeror.

Additionally, a cost realism analysis was performed evaluated specific elements of the proposed cost estimate.

In addition, the Government evaluated the:

- Professional compensation in accordance FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for

Professional Employees and NFS 1852.231-71, Determination of Compensation Reasonableness.

- Adequacy of the accounting system as determined by the cognizant administrative office for accumulating and reporting incurred costs.

Evaluation Findings

The SET briefed me on February 11, 2022, to present its evaluation findings. The following is a summary of the results of the SET’s evaluation:

Offeror Technical

Acceptability Past

Performance Price Airborne Systems Acceptable HLC Lowest Pioneer dba Safran Unacceptable DNR DNR

HLC – High Level of Confidence

DNR – Did Not Review

Technical Acceptability

The SET determined that the technical proposal submitted by Airborne was rated as “Acceptable” while the Technical Proposal submitted by Safran was rated as “Unacceptable”.

After determining that the Safran proposal could not be further considered, the Contracting Officer determined that the procedures at NFS 1805.305-71, Evaluation of a Single Proposal, applied to this procurement. In accordance with NFS 1815.305-71(a), “If only one proposal is received in response to the solicitation, the Contracting Officer shall determine if the solicitation was flawed or unduly restrictive and determine if the single proposal is an acceptable proposal.” Based on these findings, “the SSA shall direct the Contracting Officer to one of the following: (1) Award after negotiating an acceptable contract. (The requirement for submission of cost or pricing data shall be determined in accordance with FAR 15.403-3(a)(1)(ii); or (2) Reject the proposal and cancel the solicitation.”

The Contracting Officer reviewed the procurement, the solicitation and solicitation process, and determined that (1) the solicitation was not flawed or unduly restrictive; and (2) the single proposal was acceptable for evaluation per NFS 1815.305-70. Based on the Contracting Officer determinations, I determined that there was no reason to cancel the solicitation and agreed that the solicitation was not flawed or unduly restrictive. Therefore, I determined that it was in the best interest of the Government to continue the procurement, issue clarifications to Airborne on minor cost questions and award the contract to Airborne after holding negotiations (if necessary).

Factor 1 - Past Performance

The SET evaluated Airborne’s past performance in accordance with the RFP and a confidence rating was assigned in accordance with NFS 1815.305. Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance confidence ratings and findings:

Offeror Pertinence Rating

Performance Rating

Level of Confidence

Airborne Highly Pertinent Very Effective High

Airborne:

The SET determined there is a “High Level of Confidence” that Airborne would be able to successfully perform the requirements of the Dragonfly PDS effort based on its past performance. Set forth below is a summary of the Past Performance findings for Airborne:

Airborne demonstrated experience based on its contract performance with five (5) contract references. The SET assigned an overall pertinence rating of “Highly Pertinent,” in terms of content, size and complexity compared to the Dragonfly PDS effort.

The SET assigned an “Very Effective” overall performance rating for Airborne. Of five (5) referenced contracts for the Prime, all five (5) were rated as “Very Effective”. The SET determined the relevant experience to be recent and of a meaningful duration to judge performance. The SET’s assessment also considered feedback from Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports.

Airborne’s past performance was rated as High Level of Confidence based on the Highly Pertinent rating for “Overall Pertinence” and the Very Effective rating for “Performance” in accordance with the level of confidence definitions in the RFP.

Factor 2 - Price

Following the determination by the SSA of converting to the Evaluation of a Single Proposal, the Contracting Officer (CO) determined in accordance with FAR 15.403-3(a)(1)(ii) that certified cost or pricing data would be required. The minor cost questions discussed at the SSA briefing were sent to Airborne who provided clarification for each item along with supporting documentation, if applicable.

Negotiations were not necessary. The CO performed a full cost and cost realism analysis to assess reasonableness of the individual cost elements and due to the delay in award a revised proposal was requested to reflect updated rates and schedule. In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4, the Contracting Officer determined that the Offeror’s total proposed final price of $9,320,606 and its individual cost elements to be fair and reasonable based on the comparison of the cost elements to recent historical/actual labor rate and indirect rate data, as well as previous estimates for similar material items that would be required.

BASIS FOR SELECTION

The SET presented its findings to me on February 11, 2022, and I am convinced that the SET conducted a thorough, fair, and objective evaluation of the proposals received. As documented earlier, Si ze

C on te nt

C om pl ex ity

O ve ra ll

Pe rt in en ce

Pe rf or m an ce

C on fid en ce L ev el

R at in g

VHP P VHP HP VE HighAirborne

OFFEROR

the Contracting Officer determined, and I agreed, that the procedures at NFS 1815.305-71 apply for the evaluation of a single proposal. As required by NFS 1815.305-71(a), the Contracting Officer reviewed the procurement, the solicitation, and the solicitation process, and determined that (1) the solicitation was not flawed or unduly restrictive; (2) negotiations on individual cost elements were not necessary upon receipt of additional information in response to cost clarifications; however, due to the delay in award a revised proposal was requested with updated rates and schedule; and (3) the single proposal was determined fair and reasonable and is acceptable for award.

I concur with the findings of the SET and the Contracting Officer determinations noted above, and I find that Airborne’s proposal was determined technically acceptable, that Airborne is considered responsible, and that Airborne’s proposed price was determined to be fair, reasonable, and realistic.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

As stated above, I note that Airborne’s proposal was rated by the SET as responsible in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Technically Acceptable, and having a High Level of Confidence under Factor 1, Past Performance. For Factor 2, Cost/Price, I find that Airborne’s proposed price is fair and reasonable.

Liliana Richwine Source Selection Authority