VADR Source Selection Decision signed 1.20.2022.pdf

CUI//SP-SSEL

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

for

Venture-Class Acquisition of Dedicated and Rideshare Launch Services

On January 12, 2022, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the Venture-Class Acquisition of Dedicated and Rideshare (VADR) Launch Services acquisition, I along with senior officials of the Launch Services Program (LSP) and Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Office of Procurement (OP), met with the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to independently review its evaluation of proposals received in response to the VADR launch services solicitation. Relevant portions of the SEB’s evaluation and the rationale for my decision on selection of the successful offerors are set forth in this Source Selection Statement.

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

The principal purpose of the VADR launch services acquisition is to acquire Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-licensed commercial launch services for NASA and NASA-sponsored payloads to a variety of orbits. VADR payloads will have a high-risk tolerance up to and including the tolerance specified for Class D missions in accordance with NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8705.4, Risk Classification for NASA Payloads. Resultant contractor(s) will perform all tasks necessary to safely and reliably provide launch services in accordance with Government-defined mission objectives. Launch services includes launch vehicle planning, analysis, design, development, production, integration, and testing to transport the payload to the desired orbit.

The VADR launch services acquisition will result in the award of one or more fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts with five-year ordering periods. The VADR contract also includes a special on-ramp and technology insertion provision to foster competition for future requirements for launch services and to enable contract holders to introduce new capabilities not available or identified at the time of award of the initial VADR launch services contract.

The acquisition was conducted using other than full and open competitive procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302-5, “Authorized or required by statute.” The Commercial Space Act of 1998, 51 U.S.C. § 50131, requires that all commercial space transportation services be procured from domestic providers.

On September 9, 2020, the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Procurement Officer appointed a Procurement Development Team (PDT) to develop a complete acquisition package for submission to the SEB. The PDT established the North American Industry Classification System code for VADR as 481212, Nonscheduled Chartered Freight Air Transportation, with a 1,500 employees size standard. On September 10, 2020, a Sources Sought Synopsis was issued that sought information to determine industry interest and capability, assist the Agency in developing the acquisition strategy, and facilitate consideration of a potential small business set-aside. As a result of input received from industry, the PDT proceeded to conduct market research, define requirements, prepare an acquisition plan, issue a draft solicitation for industry comment, and hold an industry day.

Following review and consideration of industry comments on the draft solicitation and industry day, the RFP was issued on June 29, 2021. During the course of the procurement, the Contracting Officer issued seven amendments to respond to questions and to incorporate changes.

On March 4, 2021, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) appointed the SEB for the purpose of evaluating proposals received in response to the solicitation.

On July 2, 2021, the Agency received sixteen timely proposals from the following companies (in alphabetical order) in response to the VADR RFP:

• ABL Space Systems (ABL)

• Astra Space, Inc. (Astra)

• Blue Origin Florida, LLC (Blue Origin)

• Firefly Black, LLC (Firefly)

• L2 Solutions, LLC (L2)

• Maverick Space System, Inc (Maverick)*

• Momentus Inc. (Momentus)

• Nanoracks, LLC (Nanoracks)*

• Northrop Grumman System Corp. (NGSC)

• Phantom Space Corp. (Phantom)

• Relativity Space, Inc. (Relativity)

• Rocket Lab USA, Inc. (Rocket Lab)

• Spaceflight, Inc. (Spaceflight)

• Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX)

• United Launch Services, LLC (ULA)

• Virgin Orbit, LLC. (Virgin Orbit)

*Maverick and Nanoracks were eliminated from competition in accordance with NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305-70.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This acquisition was conducted as a commercial, competitively negotiated, acquisition in accordance with FAR 12.203, Procedures for Solicitation, Evaluation, and Award, in conjunction with FAR Part 15.3, Source Selection, and NFS Part 1815.3, Source Selection. The RFP advised offerors that the Government would award one or more contracts to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, provided fair and reasonable not-to-exceed launch services prices and fixed labor rates, and met or exceeded the acceptability standards for non-price factors. The RFP defined three evaluation factors:

Technical/Management Capability, Price, and Past Performance.

For the Technical/Management Capability factor, the RFP advised offerors that the Government would evaluate proposals for acceptability and assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” for each area. Only proposals that were individually rated “Acceptable” in all areas would be eligible for contract award. The

Technical/Management Capability factor consisted of the following areas: Minimum Launch Service Criteria, Launch Vehicle Overview, Management Approach, Financial Information, Small Business Subcontracting, and Statement of Acceptance/Summary of Exception.

For the Price factor, the RFP advised offerors that the Government would evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). Cost analysis and data other than certified cost or pricing data was not required to support a determination of fair and reasonable price.

For the Past performance factor, the RFP advised offerors that the evaluation would be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), and that the Government would evaluate the recent and relevant performance of the Offeror (to include proposed Major Subcontractors) in the areas of technical, schedule, management, small business, cost/price, and mission success. Recent was defined as performance within the past 3 years prior to proposal submission. The RFP further advised that the Government would not consider efforts on newly awarded contracts without any assessable performance completed. Relevant performance included contracts, task orders, and/or agreements similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the solicitation. The RFP advised that the Government could supplement the information contained in the proposal, with information obtained from Government organizations and personnel, commercial sources, public information sources, and data gathered during the discussion phase of the evaluation if it was determined to be necessary to complete the evaluation. Finally, the RFP advised offerors that the evaluation would result in assignment of a rating of “Acceptable,” “Neutral,” or “Unacceptable,” as outlined in the table below.

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings:

Rating Definition Acceptable The Offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but the contractor took effective corrective action.

Neutral The Offeror has no relevant past performance history or for whom past performance information is not available.

Unacceptable The Offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas; performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, adversely affected overall performance; resulting in a very low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The SEB conducted all evaluations using the above summarized evaluation criteria as specified in the RFP. In conducting the evaluations, the SEB utilized dedicated evaluators from appropriate disciplines to provide specific expertise needed in the evaluation process. In addition to the evaluation of the factors identified above, the SEB ensured each proposal met all solicitation requirements established by the RFP. Furthermore, the SEB reviewed for completeness each offeror’s administrative data, which included a completed Standard Form 1449, model contract, contractor representations and certifications, and other solicitation provisions requiring fill-ins. On October 20, 2021, the SEB presented the results of its initial evaluation of proposal to me as the SSA. Based on the results of the initial evaluation and with my concurrence, the contracting officer determined that discussions were necessary and established a competitive range consisting of all proposals (excludes proposals eliminated from competition in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70.

The SEB held written and oral discussions with all offerors in the competitive range during the period of October 25, 2021, to November 17, 2021. During discussions, the Contracting Officer advised each offeror of “Unacceptable” ratings, unreasonable pricing, and aspects of the proposal requiring further clarification, and provided each offeror an opportunity to address these areas in writing, orally, and through proposal change pages. At the conclusion of discussions, the Contracting Officer provided to each offeror an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The SEB received FPRs from all offerors before the common cut-off date of November 24, 2021. The SEB conducted a final evaluation of each offeror’s FPR and reported its findings to me. During this final evaluation, the Contracting Officer determined that Firefly and Momentus were ineligible for award. The following table provides a summary of the ratings associated with the SEB’s final evaluation:

Offeror Technical/

Management Price Past

Performance

ABL Acceptable Reasonable Acceptable

Astra Acceptable Reasonable Acceptable

Blue Origin Acceptable Reasonable Neutral

NGSC Acceptable Reasonable Acceptable

Phantom Acceptable Reasonable Neutral

Relativity Acceptable Reasonable Acceptable

Rocket Lab Acceptable Reasonable Acceptable

SpaceX Acceptable Reasonable Acceptable

ULA Acceptable Reasonable Acceptable

Virgin Orbit Acceptable Reasonable Acceptable

L2 Acceptable Reasonable Acceptable

Spaceflight Acceptable Reasonable Acceptable

For the Technical/Management Capability factor, all offerors met the Minimum Launch Service

Criteria, demonstrated knowledge, skill and understanding of launch vehicle design, test, analysis, and manufacturing, their Management Approaches were feasible without undue risks identified, demonstrated financial capability to complete launch vehicle development (if applicable) and to provide the VADR launch services, provided adequate security available to cover future financing payments, provided a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (if required), and accepted the contract terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal. As a result, all offeror’s proposals were found to be acceptable.

For the Price factor, analysis of each offeror’s proposed prices used one or more of the following techniques: (a) comparison of proposed prices, (b) comparison to historical prices, (c) comparison to commercial prices, (d) and analysis of data other than certified pricing data. All offeror’s proposed prices were found reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b).

For the Past Performance factor, offerors who provided recent, relevant past performance that was pertinent to this acquisition, demonstrated effective performance and was responsive to contract requirements, which may have included reportable problems, but the contractor took effective corrective action. Offerors without past performance were given a Neutral rating. As a result, all offerors were found to be either Acceptable, or Neutral.

DECISION

During the presentation, I was fully briefed on the procurement process and was given detailed evaluation materials concerning the proposals evaluated. I questioned the evaluation team on the material presented and carefully considered the detailed findings presented by the team. I also recognize that the RFP states that “All Offerors whose price is determined reasonable and are not “unacceptable” in the Technical/Management Capability and Past Performance factors will be eligible for a contract award” and that the Government “may elect to award a single task order contract or to award multiple task order contracts . . . to two or more sources under this solicitation.” The selection rationale that follows is based on a comparative assessment of proposals against each of the source selection factors.

I believe, consistent with the evaluative ratings above, that all Offerors demonstrated, under the Technical/Management Capability factor, that they can successfully perform VADR requirements. While I note that this decision is a product of my independent judgment, my review of the evaluations under this factor led me to adopt them as my own. I believe that the evaluation of each of the offerors’ proposals was comprehensive, thorough, and well documented. The resultant ratings (i.e., Acceptable or Unacceptable) captured by the SEB represent the relative merits of each proposal and are ultimately reflective of the overall acceptability of the technical capabilities offered. All Offerors provided an acceptable response to the Technical/Management Capability factor.

The price evaluation considered whether the proposed prices are reasonable based on the common launch vehicles proposed. At the presentation, the SEB explained its analysis of the proposal in detail, including assessment of the proposed launch vehicle and its prices in relation to current market pricing, previously competed prices on relevant contracts, and other vehicles in the same class. Accordingly, under the Price factor, I find that the proposals offer prices that are fair and reasonable based on the common launch vehicles proposed.

Under the Past Performance factor, all Offerors were found to be either “Acceptable” or “Neutral”. I considered the SEB’s evaluation and explanation of how it considered each element of past performance as stated in the RFP and agree with the ratings.

In consideration of the foregoing, I conclude that, consistent with the RFP, 12 of the 14 Offerors are eligible for award. Accordingly, after considering the selection criteria, the findings of the evaluation team, and exercising my independent judgment, I hereby select the following offerors for award of a contract for the VADR launch service:

• ABL Space Systems

• Astra Space, Inc.

• Blue Origin Florida, LLC

• L2 Solutions, LLC

• Northrop Grumman System Corp.

• Phantom Space Corp.

• Relativity Space, Inc.

• Rocket Lab USA, Inc.

• Spaceflight, Inc.

• Space Exploration Technologies Corp.

• United Launch Services, LLC

• Virgin Orbit, LLC.

Charles P. Dovale Date Source Selection Authority Deputy Program Manager Launch Services Program

1/20/2022