RPU Selection Decsion FINAL.pdf

DECISION DOCUMENT FOR SELECTION OF CONTRACTOR

for

Rollout Purge Units

80KSC024R0004

As the Source Selection Authority (SSA), I met with the team that was appointed to evaluate proposals for award of the Rollout Purge Units (RPU) design and fabrication contract. Relevant portions of the team’s evaluation of proposals, and my decision on selection of the successful

Offeror(s) are set forth in this Source Selection Statement.

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

The Government has a requirement for the replacement of the Mini Portable Purge Units

(MPPU) with new Rollout Purge Units (RPU) to meet Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1B system requirements on Mobile Launcher 2 (ML2) and will be compatible for use on ML1. Two

(2) RPUs will be used (one primary unit & 1 stand-by unit) on the ML during rollout from the

VAB to the launch pad and rollback to the VAB to provide conditioned air to the Service

Module (SM) and Launch Abort System (LAS) on the SLS. The RPUs will sit on the ML deck and interface with NASA-provided air ducting, electrical power supply and network communications. After ML arrival at the Launch Pad the RPUs will be removed from the ML

Deck for launch operations.

In addition to the design, fabrication, and testing of the RPU units per NASA performance specifications, the requirements include software and training requirements. The contractor is required to develop and install software required to operate the RPUs as defined in the RPU

Performance Specification. The requirements include training of Kennedy Space Center (KSC) personnel on the operations, maintenance, troubleshooting and repair and software architecture

& updating procedures per the requirements in the RPU Performance Specification.

The RPU solicitation was issued on a full and open competition basis on October 18, 2023. The solicitation contemplates a Firm Fixed Price contract with a 20-month period of performance.

There were four amendments issued during the solicitation period as follows:

01 – 11/09/2023 – Answer technical questions

02 – 11/16/2023 – Answer technical questions

03 – 11/17/2023 – Answer technical questions

04 – 11/21/2023 – Answer technical questions and extend due date for receipt of proposals from

December 4, 2023 to December 20, 2023.

Four responsive proposals were received by the due date from the following:

Precision Fabrication & Cleaning Co., LLC. (PFC)

Advance Cooling Technologies, Inc. (ACT)

IONEX Research Corp.

Ellis & Watts

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The Government intends to award one Firm Fixed-Price Purchase Contract under this acquisition. The proposals were evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in the

RFP, FAR Part 15, and NFS Part 1815 with the objective of determining the best value for the

Government. The relative order of importance of the evaluation factors was that The Mission

Suitability and Past Performance factors, when combined, are approximately equal to Price.

Mission Suitability is more important than Price which is more important than Past Performance.

The following evaluation factors and subfactors establish the requirements of acceptability and were used to evaluate proposals:

• Mission Suitability o Technical Approach 900 Points o Small Business 100 Points o Total 1000 Points

• Past Performance

• Price

EVALUATION SUMMARY

Utilizing the aforementioned evaluation procedures, the team conducted its initial evaluation of the four proposals and established a competitive range of two (PFC & ACT) on March 21, 2024.

The final Mission Suitability evaluation, Past Performance level of confidence review, and Price evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal provided the basis for making a decision, in accordance with FAR 15. The Government held discussions with PFC & ACT on April 2, 2024 and Final

Proposal Revisions (FPR) were due on April 5, 2024. Timely FPR submissions were received from both Offeror’s.

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Advance Cooling Technologies Inc. (ACT)

Mission Suitability:

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the ACT proposal received a total score of 928 points (out of a possible 1,000 points). The proposal received one significant strength, seven strengths and zero significant weaknesses or weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation results under the Mission Suitability subfactors.

Technical Approach

Under the technical approach subfactor, the proposal received a score of 828 resulting from one significant strength, seven strengths, and zero significant weaknesses or weaknesses as detailed below.

Significant Strength - ACT’s proposal details the testing requirements, including software lab testing, factory acceptance testing, and performance verification testing. ACT’s proposal includes testing in an environmental chamber where design day conditions can be generated and accurately measured.

Strength - ACT’s proposal states they “will utilize COTS components for all Electro-Mechanical

Components of the designed units” and will be integrated in a custom housing.

Strength - ACT has a very detailed and complete plan that covers all areas of software programming and testing. The major components will be COTS and will be compatible with the

Allen Bradly integrated controls.

Strength - ACT’s proposal includes their estimate of the final RPU size and weight, which is within the requirements. Its layout includes 6%, 16%, and 19% margin on each dimension respectively. The proposal also includes a weight breakdown with their estimate of 24,090 lbm.

Their estimate includes 11% margin on weight.

Strength - ACT’s proposal explains the approach to completing the end-to-end anchored fluid analysis. Robust and accurate analysis models during design reduce the likelihood of significant changes during fabrication or testing.

Strength - ACT is certified to the latest ISO9001 and AS9100 standards. ACT's proposal illustrates that Quality will be integrated on all processes that affect NASA hardware in the ACT

Process Interaction Matrix.

Strength - ACT provides a detailed schedule in the proposal which includes a logical Work

Breakdown Structure (WBS). The overall project duration is 18 months is 2 months shorter than the government estimate of 20 months and is achievable based on the estimation methodology described.

Strength - ACT’s describes its approach with respect to how its proposed Rollout Purge Unit

(RPU) will address the electrical service requirements. This was achieved by providing estimated current draws of all the components during normal modes of operation, showing that the RPU would stay below the requirement limit of 600A with approximately 10% margin.

ACT's proposal also includes utilizing the control system to perform staggered starts on the equipment, if necessary, which only improves their ability to stay below the maximum current.

In addition, ACT’s analysis went beyond a normal analysis and provided data related to the input power during sags and surges (i.e. the input voltage is less or more than the nominal 480VAC) and showed that even during these off-nominal conditions, the RPU would continue to meet the electrical service requirement.

Small Business

Under the Small Business subfactor, the proposal received a score of 100 as ACT represents as a small business and was not required to submit a small business plan.

Past Performance:

The team conducted a past performance evaluation for ACT utilizing data provided by ACT in its proposal, their customers in the Past Performance Questionnaires, as well as information gathered from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). There is evidence that ACT has held numerous government contracts and performed very well on those contracts. In review of the information provided in the proposal as well as information provided in the Past Performance Questionnaire’s submitted by their customers, and in accordance with

FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2), the team rated ACT with a “High Level of

Confidence.”

Price:

ACT proposed a Firm Fixed price of $7,911,759 with a base price of $6,172,820 and an option of $1,738,939 for the additional RPU that could be ordered at award. It should be noted that the

Government did not elect to award the option.

Pursuant to FAR 15.403-1(c)(1), a price is based on adequate price competition when two or more responsible offerors, competing independently, submit priced offers that satisfy the

Government’s expressed requirement. The Contracting Officer has reviewed ACT’s proposed price and there is no finding that the price is unreasonable or unsupported. In accordance with

FAR 15.404 the Contracting Officer determined that the price proposed by ACT is fair and reasonable.

Precision Fabricating & Cleaning Co., Inc. (PFC)

Mission Suitability:

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the PFC proposal received a total score of 946 points (out of a possible 1,000 points). The proposal received five significant strengths, five strengths and zero significant weakness or weaknesses. The following is a summary of the evaluation results under the Mission Suitability subfactors.

Technical Approach

Under the technical approach subfactor, the proposal received a score of 846 resulting from five significant strengths, five strengths, and zero significant weaknesses and weaknesses as detailed below.

Significant Strength - The PFC Proposal describes a design concept that will minimize the use of custom equipment and will maximize the use of COTS equipment.

Significant Strength - The PFC Proposal demonstrates an innovative and flexible design concept and provides good explanation and back-up data. The proposal provides a requirement adherence table that shows significant margins on all performance requirements with the PCA units.

Significant Strength - PFC and Guardian Manufacturing have partnered together to create the software project, including testing and documentation. The proposal has a thorough and complete plan that covers all areas of programming and testing requested in the RFP.

Significant Strength - The PFC Proposal demonstrated a thorough description of their engineering evaluation capabilities and provided past examples of the analysis performed to accurately address their proposal.

Significant Strength - PFC provided a detailed overview of the planned testing including key requirements the testing will be designed to verify. The testing will test the RPU in nominal operation, but also force faults and failures to verify proper software response.

Strength - PFC is AS9100 certified. PFC subjected to 3rd party audits to maintain certification.

The assurance of the AS9100 compliance through certification increases the likelihood of contract success and a quality product.

Strength - The PFC conceptual design for the RPU consists of an open frame with 4 COTS preconditioned air (PCA) units mounted within and connected by air ducts and with a centralized controller. The design of this RPU provides sufficient space to readily access, maintain, repair, remove and replace an entire PCA or any components thereof without disassembly.

Strength - The PFC Proposal provides a good explanation of an ABP system that will adequately lift the RPU with 55% margin and a drive attachment that has a rated load capacity of 3x the

RPU maximum weight.

Strength - The PFC Proposal demonstrates a good understanding of Human Factors requirements and provides excellent detail on how human factors considerations will be prioritized. The proposal showed an extendable awning to protect operators and to reduce screen glare on the

HMI.

Strength - PFC’s proposed schedule captures all the major tasks. Task sequencing and duration are realistic. The overall predicted schedule duration is 17 months which is 3 months shorter than the government estimate.

Price

PFC’s price was the highest price received from all Offerors and was significantly higher than

ACT’s price.

Pursuant to FAR 15.403-1(c)(1), a price is based on adequate price competition when two or more responsible offerors, competing independently, submit priced offers that satisfy the

Government’s expressed requirement. The Contracting Officer has reviewed PFC’s proposed price and there is no finding that the price is unreasonable or unsupported. In accordance with

FAR 15.404 the Contracting Officer determined that the price proposed by PFC is fair and reasonable.

Small Business

Under the Small Business subfactor, the proposal received a score of 100 as PFC represents as a small business and was not required to submit a small business plan.

Past Performance:

The team conducted a past performance evaluation for PFC utilizing data provided by PFC in its proposal, their customers in the Past Performance Questionnaires, as well as information gathered from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). There is evidence that PFC has held numerous government contracts and performed very well on those contracts. In review of the information provided in the proposal as well as information provided in the Past Performance Questionnaire’s submitted by their customers, and in accordance with

FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2), the team rated PFC with a “High Level of

Confidence.”

DECISION

The evaluation team presented its evaluation findings to me, and we thoroughly discussed all of them. The findings were detailed, consistent with the evaluation criteria in the RFP, and provided clear descriptions of the attributes in each proposal. I questioned the team about its rationale for the findings, scores, and ratings. Regarding the process and findings, I concluded that the evaluation of the proposals was comprehensive, thorough, and well-documented. Further, I solicited the views of my senior advisors in their areas of expertise. It was clear from the findings that both offerors understood the overall requirements of the RFP and would be able to perform the contract. I conducted a trade-off utilizing the weighting of evaluation factors as described in the solicitation: Mission Suitability and Past Performance factors, when combined, are approximately equal to Price. Mission Suitability is more important than Price which is more important than Past Performance. In my independent judgment, after analyzing the evaluation findings and discriminators between proposals, I conclude that the successful offeror is ACT. A more detailed statement of the rationale for my decision follows.

The teams evaluation of Mission Suitability found the proposal submitted by ACT and PFC to be

Excellent. However, the PFC proposal was rated higher than ACT (946 Points and 928 Points respectively). PFC had significant strengths in the areas of software, engineering analysis and testing. ACT had a significant strength in the area of testing. Neither proposal had any identified weaknesses and both had a considerable number of additional strengths. I agreed with the teams assessment that PFC provided a better overall technical solution.

The past performance evaluation identified that ACT and PFC had successful performance records on work similar in scope in support of both NASA and other Government entities.

Accordingly, both contractors were assessed with a “high level of confidence” to design and fabricate the RPU’s. As such, I saw no noticeable difference in past performance between the two Offerors.

The price evaluation considered the overall price of the base and additionally the price with the option as proposed. The price proposed by ACT, both with and without the option, was significantly less than the price proposed by PFC and more than offset the increase in Mission

Suitability that the PFC proposal provided.

In summary, based on my integrated assessment of all proposals received, and in accordance with the evaluation criteria and their relative importance established for this acquisition, it is my decision that the proposal submitted by ACT represents the best overall value to the

Government. Although there are additional benefits to the Government in the PFC Mission

Suitability volume of the proposal, these benefits cannot reasonably justify the enormous price difference between the two considering the relative order of importance. Even though Mission

Suitability is more important than Price, overall Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price. I therefore select ACT for award of the RPU contract.

Timothy M Freeland Date

Contracting Officer

Engineering Support, OP-ES

Kennedy Space Center

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

4/19/2024