GXI Instrument Source Selection Statement.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR

NASA GeoXO IMAGER (GXI) INSTRUMENT IMPLMENTATION

SOLICITATION NO. 80GSFC22R0044

On January 27, 2023, I along with senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) held a teleconference with the GXI Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to hear findings based on the evaluation of the proposals for the NASA GeoXO Imager (GXI) instrument implementation procurement. This memorandum documents my decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this contract is to acquire up to five instruments in support of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather forecasting operations. NASA is selecting a contractor to perform the implementation and hardware development activities for the GeoXO Imager (GXI) for the Geostationary and Extended Observations (GeoXO) series project. The GXI requirement was issued as a full and open competition procurement. The GXI is a multi-channel, visible through infrared, passive imaging radiometer used to measure environmental data. The contract scope includes the tasks and deliverables necessary to design, analyze, develop, 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) on August 16, 2022, followed by two (2) amendments.

Amendment One to the RFP was issued on September 9, 2022, which included questions and answers and various changes to the clauses, provisions, and attachments.

Amendment Two was issued on January 11, 2023, which included a revision to Attachment I, Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Plan Data Requirements Document (DRD) and section M.4, Cost Evaluation Factor.

The North American Industry Classification (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541330 and the small business size standard is $15 million. The resultant contract will be a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) hardware contract for two flight instruments, which includes 3 options for three additional instruments, and 4 options for additional value to perform Engineering Studies, valued at $2M per option.

The anticipated period of performance for this contract includes support for 10 years of on-orbit operations and 5 years of on-orbit storage, for a total of 15 years for each Flight Model (FM).

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

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

• L3Harris Technologies (L3Harris)

• Raytheon Intelligence & Space (Raytheon)

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 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 GXI 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

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 750 Subfactor B Management Approach 150 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 SEB first reviewed each proposal and generated consensus findings (i.e., deficiencies, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, strengths, and significant strengths) within each subfactor. Next, the SEB 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 SEB 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. DCMA Rates were used in the probable cost adjustments. The proposed and probable costs and 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 SEB 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

The Mission Suitability factor has three subfactors as follows: Subfactor A – Technical Approach; Subfactor B – Management Approach; and Subfactor C – Small Business Utilization.

Each 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 for the two

(2) GXI proposals.

Offeror Subfactor A

Technical Approach

Subfactor B Management

Approach

Subfactor C Small Business

Utilization

Mission Suitability

Points L3Harris Very Good Good Good 805 Raytheon Very Good Good Good 701

L3Harris

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, L3Harris received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one (1) Significant Strength, two (2) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. L3Harris received one (1) Significant Strength in the following area: (1) mature heritage design component re-use and high Technology Readiness Level (TRL) usage.

By proposing a GXI design that re-uses a significant portion of their geostationary orbit, flight-proven TRL9 components and methodologies from their heritage Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) instrument, L3Harris greatly increases the chances of meeting the GXI performance and interface requirements and significantly reduces overall program risk, therefore greatly increasing the likelihood of successful contract performance.

L3Harris received two (2) Strengths in the following areas: (1) active risk mitigation through Internal Research and Development (IR&D) activities, breadboarding and demonstration hardware; and (2) robust Integration & Test and Mission Operations approaches. The IR&D efforts increase the confidence in the design and successful contract performance by retiring technical risk early in the development. The integration and test activities are based on high re-use of heritage work instructions, and the approach to GXI mission readiness activities, including End-to-End Testing and mission rehearsals, closely aligns with the government’s concept of operations. These Strengths will have a positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, L3Harris received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. L3Harris received one (1) Strength in the following area: (1) effective management processes. By proposing strong and effective management processes, tools and lines of communication, L3 Harris introduces a high level of confidence and reduced risk to the development effort; in terms of schedule and resource planning, L3Harris’ baseline schedule provides a very high confidence in a first Flight Model delivery more than a year ahead of the delivery date. This strength will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU), L3Harris received an adjectival rating of “Good,” with no Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. L3Harris received one (1) Strength in the following area: (1) reasonable and effective small business commitment process. L3Harris allocated high technology work to multiple Small Business (SB) teammates supporting the GXI requirement and by using their own SBU database along with the online supplier registration portal L3Harris was able to identify new small business suppliers. Using this proven approach L3Harris increases the likelihood of successful contract performance and the small business utilization area.

Raytheon

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, Raytheon received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one (1) Significant Strength, one (1) Strength, three (3) Weaknesses, no Significant

Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. Raytheon received one (1) Significant Strength in the following area: (1) GXI instrument system architecture user benefits. Raytheon’s proposed step and stare architecture is a benefit to the GXI contract due to the potential to greatly exceed the baseline GXI performance requirements and by providing additional noteworthy science benefits of value to NOAA users.

Raytheon received one (1) Strength in the following area: (1) GXI instrument integration and test efficiencies. By proposing an integration and test program supported by a robust infrastructure that makes use of lessons learned and automation, Raytheon increases the likelihood of successful instrument integration and contract performance. This Strength will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Raytheon received three (3) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) the proposed large format Infrared Focal Plane Arrays (FPA) implementation includes aspects that are deemed to pose an increased risk of technical performance; (2) use of a cryocooler with little known GEO history adds risk and unknowns in thermal management and overall instrument performance; and (3) the proposed electrical design lacks sufficient details on the KU060 FPGA operational impacts. In addition, there are known electrical design modifications for the Sensor Processor (SP) and Sensor Control (SC) boards that pose a re-design risk. These Weaknesses increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, Raytheon received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, one (1) Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. Raytheon received one (1) Strength in the following area: (1) effective management team and processes. By proposing strong, well-established management processes successfully applied in similar flight level developments, Raytheon increases the level of confidence on how the development effort will be managed, leading to increased likelihood of successful contract performance and mission success.

Raytheon received one (1) Weakness for a staffing level approach that is deemed insufficient due to remaining technical challenges, fidelity of design analyses, and an optimistic schedule. This Weakness increases the risk to meeting contract requirements.

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU), Raytheon received an adjectival rating of “Good,” with no Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies. Raytheon received one (1) Strength in the following area: (1) an effective small business plan that increases the likelihood of successful small business contract implementation. Raytheon’s proposed small business plan met the Government’s recommended small business subcontracting goal and exceeded the socioeconomic category goals which increases the likelihood that small business contract requirements will be met and or exceeded.

COST EVALUATION

The SEB evaluated the total proposed cost, inclusive of fee, and determined the Government’s probable cost for all the Offerors. L3Harris’ total proposed cost ($765,460,761) was moderately lower than Raytheon’s total proposed cost. The SEB determined that an upward probable cost adjustment was required for both offerors. For L3Harris, the SEB made a very slight upward probable adjustment to direct labor hours and costs associated with two proposed subcontractors.

For Raytheon the SEB determined the total direct labor hours for various labor categories were substantially insufficient. Therefore, an upward probable cost adjustment was made to multiple direct labor categories.

Based on the SEB’s evaluation results, L3Harris had the lowest total probable cost, which was significantly lower (approximately 17%) than Raytheon’s probable cost.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

In evaluating the Past Performance of the Offerors, the SEB determined the Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating for L3Harris to be “Very High” based on the combination of “Very High” Overall Relevance and “Very High” Overall Performance. The SEB determined Raytheon 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 SEB's documentation entitled "Geostationary Extended Observations (GeoXO) Imager (GXI) Procurement Source Selection Authority Presentation” and the associated Cost Report. On January 27, 2023, I met with the GXI 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 GXI RFP and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal. I discussed with the SEB its rationale for the findings, adjectival ratings, and scores for the Mission Suitability Subfactors, 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.

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

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

Regarding the Mission Suitability Factor, the most important factor, I noted that both Offerors received the same adjectival ratings for each subfactor. However, overall, I found that the technical and management approaches proposed by L3Harris were superior to the proposal submitted by Raytheon based on the content of the findings which resulted in L3Harris receiving the highest overall total point score.

Regarding Subfactor A, the most heavily weighted subfactor, I found a significant discriminator between L3Harris’s Very Good rating compared to Raytheon’s Very Good rating. L3Harris received one Significant Strength, two Strengths, and no Weaknesses, while Raytheon received one Significant Strength, one Strength, and three Weaknesses.

I noted that L3Harris received its Significant Strength in this subfactor for their mature GXI design, based on flight-proven instrument design of the same risk class and complexity, that are flown on the same orbital environmental conditions. I noted that L3Harris employs significant reuse of designs from ABI and other L3Harris programs, and its proposed reuse is based on on-orbit validated analytical models and proven methodologies. Given the high reuse, there are also four mechanisms life tests directly applicable to GXI, providing schedule savings. The proposed GXI design demonstrated in depth technical knowledge and a detailed understanding of all performance requirements. L3Harris’ proposed GXI design leverages a high percentage of the ground processing algorithms, tools, operational products, and a proven calibration approach. I found that this mature, comprehensive design approach significantly reduces the GXI development risk, greatly increasing the likelihood of successful contract performance.

In addition to the Significant Strength, I found that L3Harris received two Strengths, as follows:

1) its active risk mitigation through Internal Research and Development (IR&D) activities, breadboarding and demonstration hardware; and 2) its robust I&T and mission operations approach. L3Harris IR&D program is favorably driving down the technical risk of new components in the electronics, data processing, optical and thermal design, which are new development areas for the proposed GXI design. L3Harris’ integration, test and mission operations approach are based on their modular design with a high reuse of work instructions, and operational procedures providing confidence in their schedule and allocation of resources.

I noted that Raytheon received a Very Good rating, with one Significant Strength, one Strength, and three Weaknesses. I also noted that Raytheon received a Significant Strength for its proposed GXI instrument system architecture user benefits. The proposed GXI step and stare architecture is a notable benefit to the GXI contract due to the potential to greatly exceed the GXI performance requirements and by providing additional science enhancements of value to NOAA users. Raytheon received only one (1) Strength in the following area: (1) GXI instrument integration and test efficiencies. Raytheon’s integration and test program approach incorporates lessons learned from previous programs and the proposed automation efficiencies have the potential to minimize the assembly risk.

While I found that Raytheon’s Significant Strength and Strength will enhance the potential for successful performance, I noted that Raytheon received three Weaknesses as follows: (1) the proposed large format Infrared Focal Plane Arrays (FPA) implementation includes aspects that are deemed to pose an increased risk of technical performance; (2) use of cryocooler with little known GEO history adds risk and unknowns in thermal management and overall instrument performance; and (3) proposed electrical design lacks sufficient details on the KU060 FPGA operational impacts. In addition, there are known electrical design modifications for the Sensor Processor (SP) and Sensor Control (SC) boards that pose a re-design risk. I found that these weaknesses collectively result in substantial risk to meeting the GXI requirements and therefore detracted from Raytheon’s overall response to Subfactor A.

Overall, for Subfactor A, Technical Approach, I found a clear and distinct advantage in favor of L3Harris compared to Raytheon. In comparing the findings for L3Harris and Raytheon, I found a meaningful discriminator with the Significant Strength assigned to L3Harris versus the Significant Strength assigned to Raytheon. Raytheon’s GXI design is optimized for exceeding requirements with higher development risk, while L3Harris is optimizing the design to make an efficient, reliable instrument that meets the GXI requirements with lower known technical risk, which is the goal of this procurement.

Specifically, L3Harris Mission Suitability response identifying and describing all the heritage components design and functions, combined with the required non-recurring engineering activities that were substantiated in comprehensives details, greatly increase the likelihood of successful contract performance. Further, I found a discriminator with L3Harris risk mitigation IR&D program Strength, for proposing effective engineering demonstration activities, that will retire technical risk early in the development, potentially saving cost and schedule. Additionally, L3Harris received no Weaknesses. By comparison, Raytheon received three Weaknesses mentioned above, that need technical effort to be addressed, and represent a risk to the development schedule and science performance of the GXI instrument, thereby increasing the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Therefore, overall, for Subfactor A, I found that the advantages of the L3Harris proposal, particularly the Significant Strength and Strengths noted above, provided considerably more value than Raytheon’s proposal given its additional three weaknesses.

Within Mission Suitability Subfactor B, Management Approach, L3Harris received an adjectival rating of Good with one (1) Strength, and no Weaknesses. Raytheon received an adjectival rating of Good with one (1) Strength, and one (1) Weakness. Each Offerors received one (1) Strength related to their effective management approach. Raytheon received one (1) Weakness related to insufficient staffing level attributable to remaining technical challenges, fidelity of design analyses, and an optimistic schedule. After reviewing each offeror’s Strengths, I found that both offerors proposed strong and effective management approaches which I found to be equally beneficial. However, Raytheon’s Weakness related to adequacy of staffing levels detracts from its overall response to subfactor B. Therefore, I found L3Harris’ Management Approach to be more favorable than Raytheon’s Management Approach.

Within Mission Suitability Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization, I noted that L3Harris and Raytheon each received a Good adjectival rating for this Subfactor with one Strength for L3Harris and one Strength for Raytheon. After reviewing all findings, I concluded both offerors had good small business subcontracting approaches that demonstrated a commitment to small business. However, I found that Raytheon’s approach is slightly stronger than L3Harris based on the small business plan that matches and exceeds the Governments’ small business goals.

Under the Cost Factor, I observed that the probable cost for L3Harris was significantly lower than the probable cost of Raytheon, resulting in a significant cost advantage for L3Harris.

Regarding the Past Performance factor, I noted that L3Harris and Raytheon received Very High Level of Confidence ratings and found that the Past Performance of both offerors to be comparable overall with no meaningful discriminator. Regarding L3Harris’ performance on the ABI contract, I considered the ABI Flight Model 2 (FM2) on-orbit anomaly that was discovered during its checkout and noted that L3Harris took immediate and effective action to mitigate the instrument performance impact. Therefore, upon considering the Very High overall performance ratings received on the ABI contract, along with L3Harris’ effective mitigation efforts to optimize instrument performance, I concur with the SEB’s Very High performance rating.

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, the most important factor, I determined that L3Harris offered the superior proposal, based primarily on its distinct and meaningful advantages in Subfactor A, Technical Approach, the most heavily weighted subfactor, and a slight advantage in Subfactor B, Management approach. While I found a slight advantage in favor of Raytheon in Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization, I noted that this was the least important subfactor.

Regarding the Cost factor, I noted that L3Harris had the lowest total probable cost, which was significantly lower than Raytheon’s probable cost. For Past Performance, the least important factor, I concluded that both Offerors can successfully perform the GXI contract, and therefore this was not a discriminator.

Overall, based on L3Harris’ significant Mission Suitability and Cost advantages over Raytheon, I concluded that the L3Harris’ proposal offers the best value to the Government.

Therefore, I select L3Harris for award of the GXI contract.

Digitally signed by DAVID

PIERCE

Date: 2023.02.06 10:28:08 -05'00'

David Pierce Date Source Selection Authority

DAVID PIERCE