Source Selection Statement 11-22-24.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR

NOAA’s Space Weather Next L1 Series Suprathermal Ion Sensor (STIS)

SOLICITATION 80GSFC23R0036

On November 08, 2024, I along with senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), held a meeting/teleconference with the Independent Evaluation Board (IET), its Subject Matter Experts (SME), and ex-officios to hear findings based on the evaluation of the proposals for the NASA Space Weather Next L1 Series Suprathermal Ion Sensor (STIS) instrument implementation procurement. This memorandum documents my decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this contract is to acquire two (2) instruments in support of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather forecasting operations. NASA is selecting a contractor to perform hardware development activities for the Space Weather Next L1 Series project. The STIS is an ion spectrometer device that measures ions across a broad range of energies to characterize solar ejecta including Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs), co-rotating interaction regions (CIRs) and interplanetary shocks. In particular, the Suprathermal Ion Sensor is a low energy charged particle detector that is capable of measuring the ion flux population as a function of energy.

This ion population with energies higher than that of the bulk plasma are produced by local solar acceleration as well as acceleration from a CME shock front. Analysis of these spectra can aid in estimating the arrival time and strength of CMEs shocks.

The contract scope includes tasks and deliverables necessary to design, analyze, develop, fabricate, integrate, test, verify, evaluate, support launch, supply and maintain the instrument Ground Support Equipment (GSE), and support Mission Operations at the NOAA Satellite Operations Facility (NSOF). This requirement was issued as a full and open competition procurement.

NASA issued the Request for Proposal (RFP) on January 19, 2024, followed by seven

(7) Amendments described below:

Amendment 01 - Extension of the proposal due date to March 21, 2024, and Q&A.

Amendment 02 - Change to GSFC Clause 52.211-91 Scope of Work. Revised Mission Suitability criteria located in GFC Provision 52.252-210.

Amendment 03 - Update Q&A, Change the address of the EFSS Box for Proposal submittal.

Amendment 04 - Update Q&A, Change proposal page requirements per the chart provided in GSFC provision 52.215-201, Proposal preparation - General Instructions

Amendment 05 - Change to GSFC Provision 52.215-300, Source Selection and Evaluation Factors.

Amendment 06 - Clarifies the level of detail required in the SPEC Compliance Matrix and increases the page limit for this document. Revised Mission Suitability criteria located in GFC Provision 52.215.210 Mission Suitability Proposal Instructions. Change proposal page requirements per the chart provided in GSFC provision 52.215-201, Proposal preparation - General Instructions as related to the Spec Compliance Matrix.

Amendment 07 - Revises GSFC Provision 52.215-221 Cost Volume Instructions, removal of Cost Reserves

The North American Industry Classification (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 336414 and the small business size standard is 1,300 employees. The resultant contract will be a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) hardware contract for two (2) instruments. The contract has no options.

The period of performance of this contract is from Award through January 2034.

a) The first delivery date is scheduled for September 2027, with an anticipated launch date of December 2028.

b) The second delivery date is June 2029, with an anticipated launch date of October 2032.

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

The following companies submitted proposals:

• John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL)

• Assurance Technology Corporation (ATC)

• Southwest Research Institute (SWRI)

• The Regents of University of California, on behalf of its Berkeley campus

(UCB)

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 IET included a team of technical and business members and consultants from appropriate disciplines to assist in proposal evaluations.

The IET 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 IET procedures at NFS 1815.370 were applied. A trade-off process, as described at FAR 15.101-1, was used in making a best value source selection.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) defined the evaluation factors as Mission Suitability, Past Performance and Cost. The RFP specified the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors as follows:

The Cost Factor is approximately equal in importance to the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual Factors, the Cost Factor is the most important and the Mission Suitability Factor is more important than the Past Performance Factor.

Mission Suitability Factor

There were no subfactors under the Mission Suitability Factor. The Mission Suitability Factors were evaluated using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and ranges in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The IET voting members independently read the proposals and then met to discuss possible findings. Proposals were read in random order. The IET voting members evaluated each Offeror’s proposal and documented findings for each factor based on evaluation criteria as stated in Section M of the solicitation. The voting members then used the findings definitions to reach a consensus for each finding (significant strength, strength, weakness, significant weakness, deficiency). After determining the findings under Mission Suitability, the STIS IET voting members determined the overall adjectival rating set forth in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A) based on the merit of the proposal by applying the definition of the adjectives to the consensus findings (excellent, very good, good, fair, poor), recognizing that not all findings are of equal value or importance.

Past Performance Factor

For the Past Performance Factor, the past performance evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 and provision GSFC 52.215-331 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 IET 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 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."

Cost Factor

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)(l) and NFS 1815.305(a)(l)(B). Offerors were referred to FAR 2.101(6) for a definition of "cost realism" and to FAR 15.404-l(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. The proposed and probable costs and were presented to me, along with any issues and risks associated with the proposed costs.

MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

The table below provides the adjectival ratings assigned on Mission Suitability for the four (4) STIS proposals.

APL

Under the mission suitability factor, APL received an adjectival rating of "Excellent" with three (3) Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, three (3) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

APL received three (3) Significant Strengths in the following areas: (1) Proposing an instrument which provides an extended range of science measurements including higher accuracy, energy range, and time resolution than required, which will greatly benefit the Space Weather Forecast and greatly increases the probability of successful contract performance; (2) Outstanding instrument capabilities with an extended energy measurement range that greatly exceeds the requirements by delivering enhanced and complementary measurements such as solar energetic particles from 5 to 100 Mev/nuc;

and (3) By proposing a STIS instrument design that has mature heritage from flight-

Offeror Adjectival Rating

Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics (APL) Excellent Assurance Technology Corporation (ATC) Good Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) Good University of California, Berkeley (UCB) Very Good proven instruments, the Offeror greatly reduces the STIS development cost and schedule risks which greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

These Significant Strengths greatly enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

APL received one (1) Strength in the following area: (1) Providing a clear, detailed, and effective Mission Assurance Requirement and Implementation Plan, reducing the quality risks. This Strength will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

APL received three (3) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) Lack of detail on the Magnetic Cleanliness Plan; (2) Lack of detail on the risk mitigation approach for two of their risks; and (3) the role of Mission Assurance is not clearly defined. These Weakness increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

ATC

Under the mission suitability factor, ATC received an adjectival rating of "Good" with one

(1) Significant Strength, two (2) Strengths, two (2) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

ATC received one (1) Significant Strength in the following area (1) By proposing an effective and proven track record as a high technology small business with a well thought out small business plan that significantly increases the likelihood of successful small business growth, usage, and development. ATC is a small business with a well-defined business plan that greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

ATC received two (2) Strengths in the following areas: (1) By proposing a thorough and well-established risk management processes that have been successfully implemented and proven in similar operational flight instrument developments, ATC increases the level of confidence on how the STIS risk program will be implemented and managed; (2) The Offeror has a clear, detailed, effective, and complete Quality Assurance Plan, positioning their Safety Mission Assurance Lead to independently coordinate with top level organizational management and the government representative. These Strengths will have some positive impact on successful contract performance.

ATC received two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) did not provide sufficient detail on how their calibration would improve the accuracy sufficiently to meet the requirement of 20% accuracy; (2) Lack of detail on the transient magnetic field which increases the risk of not meeting the magnetic specification requirement posing a risk to the Magnetometer instrument science, increasing the project cost and schedule. These Weaknesses increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

SwRI

Under the mission suitability factor, SwRI received an adjectival rating of "Good" with no Significant Strengths, four (4) Strengths, one (1) Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

SwRI received four (4) Strengths in the following areas: (1) Proposing a STIS design with heritage that re-uses portions of similar flight-proven instruments; (2) Proposing an instrument with an extended energy range that exceeds the required 50 to 2,000 keV energy range; (3) Slightly exceeding all seven Small Business Government Recommended Goals; and (4) Providing a clear, detailed, effective, and complete Quality Assurance Plan (QAP). These Strengths will have some positive impact on the successful contract performance.

SwRI received one (1) Weakness in the following area: (1) Proposing a subcontractor management approach and risk mitigation that does not make clear that the necessary technical information exchange will occur within the timeframes necessary to meet the schedule of this contract. This Weakness increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

UCB

Under the Mission Suitability factor, UCB received an adjectival rating of "Very Good" with one (1) Significant Strength, one (1) Strength, two (2) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

UCB received one (1) Significant Strength in the following area: (1) Proposing a mature heritage design that greatly mitigates development and cost risks early in the project which greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

UCB received two (2) Strengths in the following area: (1) By proposing an instrument with an extended energy range that exceeds the required 50 to 2,000 keV energy range.

This Strength will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

UCB received two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) Providing inconsistent mass and power values which increases risk of errors in technical resources; and (2) Providing a Quality Manual instead of a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), the Quality Manual does not fully address the requirements for the QAP. These Weaknesses increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

COST EVALUATION

The IET evaluated the total proposed cost, inclusive of fee, and determined the Government's probable cost for all the Offerors.

The lowest proposed cost was provided by ATC, followed by UCB’s proposed cost, which was moderately higher, and APL’s proposed cost which was slightly higher than UCB’s. SwRI’s proposed cost were significantly higher than all other Offeror’s proposed cost.

The IET determined that an upward probable cost adjustment was required for ATC and UCB. No other Offeror’s proposals required a cost adjustment.

APL proposed $20,462,886. The IET determined that no probable cost adjustments were required. The IET identified a cost risk related to the lack of detail on the mix of Engineering disciplines provided in the summary level labor categories. This risk was considered to be small and of little significance as the IET determined the Offeror’s proposed staffing levels, hours, and basis of estimate to be reasonable.

ATC: The IET determined that an upward probable cost adjustment was required to ensure GSE materials were readily available and to include all costs associated with the utilization of the NASA GSFC Magnetic Testing Facility and Radiation Effects Laboratory Facility (REL). The IET identified minor inconsistencies between the Cost Volume Exhibits as a cost risk and inconsequential.

SwRI: The IET determined no probable cost adjustments were required. The IET identified three cost risks associated with SwRI’s cost proposal. (1) Lack of detail on the mix of Engineering disciplines provided in the summary level labor categories; (2) SwRI failed to provide adequate cost details for their proposed significant subcontractor; and

(3) Material cost was likely high for Flight Model EEE Parts based on a conservative Class 2-part selection practice versus normal Class C practices.

UCB: The IET determined that an upward probable cost adjustment was required to include cost associated with special studies, missing trips, and performance through January 2034. The IET identified a cost risk on the direct labor escalation percentage in FY25 and FY26 which varied across different labor categories with different escalation rates.

Based on the IET’s evaluation results, ATC had the lowest probable cost, which was moderately lower than APL’s probable cost, followed by UCB’s probable cost which was moderately lower than APL. SwRI’s probable cost was significantly higher than UCB’s probable cost.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The IET determined the Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating for each Offeror based on the combination of Overall Relevance and Overall Performance. The results are reflected in the Table below.

Offeror Overall Relevance Rating

Overall Performance Rating

Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating

Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

(APL)

Very High Very High Very High

Assurance Technology Corporation (ATC)

Very High Very High Very High

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)

Very High High High

University of California, Berkeley (UCB)

Very High Very High Very High

DECISION

As the SSA for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the IET's documentation entitled "Space Weather Next L1 Series Suprathermal Ion Sensor (STIS) Presentation to Source Selection Authority." On November 08, 2024, I met with the IET, along with several ex-officio members, to receive the findings of the IET.

I determined that the findings presented by the IET, as documented in its presentation were detailed and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the RFP and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal. I discussed with the IET its rationale for the findings and adjectival ratings for the Mission Suitability factors and discussed the rationale for the evaluation of Past Performance and Cost, and I agree with the IET'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 approximately equal in importance to the combined importance of the Mission Suitability factor and the Past Performance factor. As individual factors, the Cost Factor is the most important and the Mission Suitability Factor 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 to the Government.

Under the Cost Factor, I observed that the probable cost for ATC was the lowest, followed by the moderately higher APL as the second lowest, and UCB as the third lowest, which was moderately higher than APL. I noted that SwRI has the highest probable cost which was significantly higher than the other Offerors. Therefore, I found that ATC’s lowest probable cost offerors a moderate advantage for the Cost factor.

Considering the Mission Suitability factor, APL had the strongest and highest rated Mission Suitability proposal with a rating of Excellent. This was based on (3) three Significant Strengths, for a detailed and comprehensive technical approach which offers several technical advantages providing extended capabilities that will greatly benefit the Space Weather Forecasters. Furthermore, APL has one (1) Strength, for an effective mission assurance plan. I noted APL received three Weaknesses for insufficient Magnetic Cleanliness Plan details, lack of detail on the mitigation approach for two risks, and a Mission Assurance role that is not clearly defined. While acknowledging APL’s Weaknesses, I found that these Weaknesses were relatively minor for APL and did not significantly detract from their overall Excellent Mission Suitability approach.

I noted that UCB was the second highest rated Offeror receiving a Mission Suitability rating of Very Good. Similar to APL, UCB received one (1) Significant Strength on its high heritage approach providing low technical risk for instrument design. In addition, UCB received one (1) Strength for providing an extended energy measurement range and measurement of electrons.

I noted that SwRI and ATC received Good ratings in Mission Suitability. Regarding Small Business Goals, I noted ATC received a Significant Strength while SwRI received a Strength. Both Offerors had similar Quality Assurance Strengths. However, I found SwRI’s Strengths for a design with heritage and extended energy range outweighed ATC’s risk management Strength. In addition, I found that ATC’s weaknesses regarding the risk of not meeting the accuracy requirement for the intermediate and maximum flux and lack of detail on the transient magnetic field will impact cost and schedule, which increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Therefore, I concluded that ATC’s Mission Suitability proposal was the least competitive in this factor.

Overall, I found APL’s very strong Mission Suitability response, rated Excellent, provided an advantage over the UCB proposal, which was rated Very Good, and a significant advantage over SwRI and ATC, rated Good.

Regarding the Past Performance factor, I noted that APL, ATC and UCB received the same Level of Confidence ratings of Very High. I found the Past Performance of these offerors to be comparable overall with no meaningful discriminator. SwRI received a rating of High, making it less competitive in the Past Performance factor.

In order to make my selection, I referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors, as specified in the RFP. The Cost factor is approximately equal in importance to the combined importance of the Mission Suitability factor and the Past

Performance factor. As individual factors, the Cost Factor is the most important and the Mission Suitability Factor is more important than the Past Performance factor.

Regarding Cost, I noted that ATC had the lowest probable cost which was moderately lower than APL’s probable cost. Next, I considered the Mission Suitability Factor. I found that APL’s Excellent Mission Suitability adjectival rating offers a substantial advantage over ATC’s Good rating as described above. I found that APL’s Excellent rating was based on their (3) three Significant Strengths for a detailed and comprehensive technical approach. In contrast, ATC’s Mission Suitability proposal was rated Good based on their one (1) Significant Strength and two (2) Strengths. I also noted that ATC received a Significant Strength for being a high technology small business with a well-defined business plan, which was not as impactful as APL’s three Significant Strengths. Further, I noted that ATC received a weakness for the risk of not meeting the accuracy performance of the different channels, especially on the high energy channels. APL’s Mission Suitability evaluation was a significant discriminator compared to ATC’s proposal. For Past Performance, I found no discriminators between APL and ATC, both received a confidence rating of Very High. Therefore, I determined that the ATC’s moderate cost advantage was significantly outweighed by APL’s substantial advantage in Mission Suitability.

Comparing APL to SwRI, I noted that SwRI’s probable cost was significantly higher than APL’s probable cost. Further, APL had a higher Mission Suitability rating, and higher Past Performance rating.

While UCB and APL were both rated Very High in Past Performance, UCB had a higher probable cost than APL, making them less competitive in the most important factor.

Regarding Mission Suitability, APL’s Excellent proposal was more advantageous than UCB’s proposal as noted above. Therefore, APL proposal is more advantageous to the Government than UCB’s submitted proposal in both Mission Suitability and Cost.

Considering these factors, I determined the APL proposal offered the best value to the Government based on the combination of competitive cost, an Excellent Mission Suitability proposal with a detailed and comprehensive technical approach that will greatly benefit the Space Weather Forecasters, and its Very High Past Performance rating.

Therefore, I select the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) for award of the STIS contract.

Candace Carlisle Date Source Selection Authority