Final Selection Statement VIS.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR THE ROMAN SPACE TELESCOPE

INTEGRATED PAYLOAD ASSEMBLY (IPA)

VIBRATION ISOLATION SYSTEM (VIS)

RFP 80GSFC22R0036

On July 15, 2022, 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 Roman Space Telescope (Roman) Integrated Payload Assembly (IPA) Vibration Isolation System (VIS) procurement. This memorandum documents my selection decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The Roman IPA VIS requirement provides the facilities, personnel, services, tools, equipment, and materials necessary to design, analyze, manufacture, test, and deliver the Roman IPA VIS in accordance with the requirements of the SOW and Specification.

The IPA VIS Request for Proposal (RFP) was released on March 29, 2022.

The resultant contract will be a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) completion contract. This acquisition was conducted as a full and open competition. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 336419 and the small business size standard is 1,000 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 IPA VIS 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 that provides the best value to the Government (10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(4)(C) and 41 U.S.C.

§ 3703(c)).

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:

"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 Price Factor is less important than the Mission Suitability Factor but more important than the Past Performance Factor."

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

INTEGRATED PAYLOAD ASSEMBLY (IPA)

SUBFACTOR POINTS

A Technical/Management Approach 900 B Small Business Utilization (SBU) 100 Total 1,000

The Mission Suitability Factor was evaluated using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges at NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The maximum points available for the subfactors were multiplied by the assessed percent for the subfactors to derive the score for each subfactor.

For example, if a subfactor has a possible 200 points and receives a percent rating of 80, then the score for that subfactor would be 160 points.

For the Past Performance Factor, the past performance evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 and provision M.6 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. In evaluating Past Performance, the IET relied on 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.”

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

On May 13, 2022, NASA received two (2) timely proposals from the following companies:

Honeywell International, Incorporated

Moog CSA Engineering

The RFP stated that the Government reserved the right 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 CO determined them to be necessary.

INTEGRATED PAYLOAD ASSEMBLY (IPA)

EVALUATION SUMMARY

The total evaluation summary is as follows:

Offeror Subfactor A:

Technical/Management

Approach

Subfactor B:

Small Business

Utilization

(SBU)

Mission Suitability

Points

Past Performance

Honeywell International Good Good 555 Very High Level of Confidence

Moog CSA Engineering Good Good 672 Very High Level of Confidence

MISSION SUITABILITY

Honeywell International, Incorporated

Subfactor A: Technical//Management Approach

Under Mission Suitability for Subfactor A, Technical/Management Approach, Honeywell received a rating of “Good” based on one (1) strength and three (3) weaknesses. There were no significant strengths, significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

Honeywell’s strength was for the Offeror’s proposed thermal control. The Offeror’s proposed design is stated to be temperature independent, and no thermal control system would be necessary. The Offeror’s design is robust from an environmental standpoint due to not requiring active heating and other thermal control measures. This will save the government cost and schedule and reduce complexity when integrating the hardware into the vacuum chamber.

Honeywell’s first weakness was the Offeror proposed an isolator requirement violation on damping level and internal mode frequencies. The Offeror’s proposal did not meet two key isolator performance requirements: (1) damping level requirement can only be met with additional damper units which were not included in the proposal, and (2) lateral mode requirement would only be treated as a goal and may comply with the requirement by using a machine spring which was also not included in the proposal.

Honeywell’s second weakness was the Offeror’s lack of heritage for the magnetic damper. The Offeror’s proposal did not describe in detail any heritage associated with using eddy current dampers.

INTEGRATED PAYLOAD ASSEMBLY (IPA)

Honeywell’s third weakness was the Offeror’s proposal lacked detail explaining Options 2 and 3 from the RFP. The Offeror’s proposal provided very top-level information describing the approach to accommodate procurement options 2 and 3 such that the evaluation team could not completely assess the design for suitability.

Subfactor B: Small Business Utilization (SBU)

Under Mission Suitability for Subfactor B, Small Business Utilization (SBU), Honeywell’s proposal received a rating of “Good” based on no strengths or weaknesses.

Moog CSA Engineering

Subfactor A: Technical//Management Approach

Under Mission Suitability for Subfactor A, Technical/Management Approach, Moog CSA’s proposal received a rating of “Good” based on three (3) strengths and two (2) weaknesses. There were no significant strengths, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies.

Moog CSA’s first strength was the Offeror’s high heritage of fundamental isolation component and vibration isolation and control in vacuum chambers. The Offeror’s proposed fundamental isolator component has high heritage including many relevant applications and the Offeror described significant heritage providing vibration isolation and control for spacecraft in vacuum chambers.

Moog CSA’s second strength was for the Offeror’s proposed isolator design with high internal modes. The Offeror proposed a simple isolator design that is purely mechanical without requiring any external power or electrical components. The proposed design has high internal structural modes which avoid potential amplification of optical test sensitive modes and degradation to isolation system performance.

Moog CSA’s third strength was for the Offeror’s proposed load control hard stop snubber design. The Offeror’s proposed design has a simple hard stop pin design which will be designed and analyzed to required factors of safety to protect the primary vibration isolation components from adverse loading.

Moog CSA’s first weakness was the Offeror’s proposed thermal analysis and thermal models.

The Offeror’s proposal stated they will not produce the required thermal models as described in the SOW and Spec documents.

Moog CSA’s second weakness was the Offeror’s proposal lacked detail explaining Options 2 and 3 from the RFP. The Offeror provided very top-level information describing the approach to accommodate procurement options 2 and 3 such that the evaluation team could not completely assess the design for suitability.

INTEGRATED PAYLOAD ASSEMBLY (IPA)

Subfactor B: Small Business Utilization (SBU)

Under Mission Suitability for Subfactor B, Small Business Utilization (SBU), Moog CSA’s proposal received a rating of “Good” based on no strengths or weaknesses.

PRICE FACTOR EVALUATION

The IET members evaluated the proposed prices for this effort. Moog proposed the lowest price ($1,198,001). Honeywell’s proposed price was slightly higher than Moog’s price.

PAST PERFORMANCE

Honeywell received an overall rating of “Very High.” The evaluation team reviewed six (6) contract efforts for similar items that were performed within the past five years. The evaluation team determined the overall level of confidence rating to be “Very High,” based on the previous contract efforts being rated at a Very High level of performance, and Very Highly relevant.

Moog CSA received an overall rating of “Very High.” The evaluation team reviewed five (5) contract efforts for similar items that were performed within the past five years. The evaluation team determined the overall level of confidence rating to be “Very High,” based on the previous contract efforts being rated at a Very High level of performance, and Very Highly relevant.

DETERMINATION

During the SSA meeting, I noted that Honeywell’s proposal received a rating of “Good” in Subfactor A, Technical//Management Approach based on one (1) strength and three (3) weaknesses. Honeywell received a “Good” in Subfactor B, Small Business Utilization based on no strengths or weaknesses. Honeywell proposed the highest price and it received a Very High Past Performance rating.

I noted that Moog CSA’s proposal received a rating of “Good” in Subfactor A, Technical/Management Approach based on three (3) strengths and two (2) weaknesses. I noted that Moog CSA received a rating of “Good” in Subfactor B, Small Business Utilization based on no strengths or weaknesses. Moog CSA proposed the lowest price and received a Very High Past Performance rating.

In considering which 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 Price Factor is less important than the Mission Suitability Factor but more important than the Past Performance Factor.

Honeywell and Moog CSA both received Very High level of confidence ratings for Past Performance.

INTEGRATED PAYLOAD ASSEMBLY (IPA)

I noted a significant discriminator in the Mission Suitability Factor. Specifically, under Subfactor A, Moog CSA received strengths for the high heritage of fundamental isolation component and vibration isolation and control in vacuum chambers; proposed isolator design with high internal modes; and, load control hard stop snubber design.

I acknowledge Moog’s weaknesses for its proposed thermal analysis and thermal models and lack of detail in explaining Options 2 and 3 from the RFP. However, I did not find these Weaknesses to significantly detract from its overall Good technical/management approach in Subfactor A.

I noted that Honeywell received a Good rating under Subfactor A with one (1) strength for their proposed thermal control; however, they also had weaknesses for its proposed isolator requirement violation on damping level and internal mode frequencies; lack of heritage for the magnetic damper; and lack of detail explaining Options 2 and 3 from the RFP. With one (1) strength and three (3) weaknesses, Honeywell’s proposal was not as strong as Moog’s response as noted above.

I noted that Honeywell and Moog received no strengths or weaknesses under Subfactor B, Small Business Utilization.

Based on the foregoing evaluations and upon consideration of the relative importance of the three evaluation factors under the RFP, I determined that one Offeror, Moog CSA, presented an overall superior proposal that offered the best value to the government. Specifically, in subfactor A, the most heavily weighted subfactor, Moog’s Mission Suitability rating of Good was a clear discriminator in my decision, as noted above. I noted that Moog CSA proposed a lower price than Honeywell.

In conclusion, I determined that Moog CSA’s proposal offered the best value to the Government for award of the Roman IPA VIS contract.

Jamie Dunn Roman Space Telescope Project Manager and Source Selection Authority

The IPA VIS 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 ...