Source Selection Statement.pdf

CUI//SP-SSEL

Source Selection Statement Lunar Terrain Vehicle Services Contract

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Solicitation Number 80JSC023R0004

On March 6, 2024, the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals for the Lunar Terrain Vehicle Services (LTVS) contract, under Solicitation Number 80JSC023R0004, presented its final evaluation to me and other senior officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). I considered the information presented and contemplated my decision. I met with advisors, including the Contracting Officer (CO) and SEB Chairman, and made my selection decision on March 6, 2024.

Procurement Requirements

The LTVS contract will provide NASA lunar surface unpressurized mobility for suited Extravehicular Activity (EVA) crew members, and telerobotically perform science, exploration, and logistics transfer on the lunar surface. The LTVS contract will provide for safe, reliable, and cost-effective Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) -class rover that will extend the exploration range of EVA-suited crewmembers on the surface of the Moon. Mobility will enable the crew members to traverse greater distances to better explore the lunar surface.

The LTVS contract is an Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract that allows for the issuance of firm-fixed-price task orders. The ordering period is 13 years with a total period of performance of 15 years with no options or phase-in period. The ceiling Not-To-Exceed (NTE) cumulative value for all contracts issued is $4,600,000,000.

Chronology

Request for Information (RFI)/Sources Sought Synopsis (SSS) On February 5, 2020, NASA issued an RFI/SSS to solicit comments from Industry regarding acquisition strategies through SAM.gov under Notice ID NNH20ZCQ001L to provide Industry with the anticipated elements of the LTVS procurement concept. These documents were provided try responses to the RFI were received by May 6, 2020, and were considered in the procurement strategy.

Industry Day On February 12, 2020, NASA held an Industry Day.

Posting of Industry Day Questions and Answers On February 19, 2020, NASA provided official responses to questions received during the Industry Day.

RFI/SSS

On August 30, 2021, NASA issued a subsequent RFI/SSS to solicit comments from Industry regarding acquisition strategies through SAM.gov. Industry responses to the RFI were received by October 1, 2021, and were considered in the overall procurement strategy.

Posting of RFI Questions and Answers On September 24, 2021, NASA posted official responses to questions received in response to the RFI posted on August 30, 2021, on SAM.gov.

RFI/SSS and Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) RFI On August 25, 2022, NASA issued a subsequent RFI/SSS to solicit comments from Industry regarding acquisition strategies through SAM.gov. On August 25, 2022, NASA also issued an OCI RFI. Industry responses to both RFIs were received by September 6, 2022, and were considered in the overall procurement strategy.

Industry Day Starting on August 31, 2022, NASA held an Industry Day and included one-on-one meetings with interested parties for the LTVS acquisition. Due to the overwhelming response from Industry, NASA held additional meetings to accommodate companies/teams that responded by the RSVP date and time indicated in the LTVS Special Notice.

August 31, 2022 Industry Day and JSC on-site tours with interested parties September 1-2, 2022 One-on-one meetings with interested parties

Posting of Industry Day Questions and Answers (Batch #1) On October 27, 2022, NASA posted the first batch of official responses to questions received during the LTVS Industry Day on SAM.gov.

Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) On November 1, 2022, NASA posted the LTVS DRFP on SAM.gov. NASA requested Industry to provide feedback on the DRFP no later than December 1, 2022.

Posting of Industry Day Questions and Answers (Batch #2) On November 8, 2022, NASA posted the second batch of official responses to questions received during the LTVS Industry Day on SAM.gov.

Amendment to Draft RFP On April 14, 2023, NASA posted a DRFP Amendment on SAM.gov, which included various DRFP updates and changes because of Industry feedback and questions.

Pre-solicitation Synopsis On May 4, 2023, NASA posted a pre-solicitation synopsis on SAM.gov.

Request for Proposal On May 26, 2023, NASA released the LTVS RFP and associated documents on SAM.gov.

Proposals were initially due on July 10, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. (Central Time). The following LTVS RFP amendments were issued:

Amendment 1 June 8, 2023; extended the due date for questions to June 14, 2023, and the proposal due date to July 13, 2023.

Amendment 2 June 30, 2023; included various RFP updates and changes, provided RFP questions and answers, and extended the proposal due date and time to July 26, 2023, at 1:30 Central Time.

Amendment 3 July 14, 2023; provided clarification regarding Government Task Agreement (GTA) requirements and an update to the LTVS Technical Library.

Amendment 4 July 21, 2023; provided an update to the LTVS Technical Library.

Pre-Proposal Conference NASA held a virtual pre-proposal conference via Microsoft Teams on June 7, 2023, to discuss and highlight RFP requirements. All interested parties were encouraged to attend.

Receipt of Proposal Proposals were received by the due date of July 26, 2023. All proposals were received within the proposal deadline. The following Offerors submitted proposals in response to the LTVS RFP (Listed in alphabetical order):

Astrobotic Technology, Inc. (Astrobotic) Blue Origin Florida, LLC (Blue Origin) Dynetics, Inc. a Leidos Company (Leidos)

GITAI USA (GITAI)

Intuitive Machines, LLC (Intuitive Machines) Lunar Outpost, Inc. (Lunar Outpost)

ORBIT

Venturi Astrolab, Inc. (Astrolab) 3Sixty Degrees, LLC (3Sixty Degrees)

Upon receipt of the initial proposals, the CO conducted an initial review of the proposals to determine acceptability in accordance with NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement (NFS) 1815.305- Per NFS 1815.305- 70(a)(1): the contracting officer shall not complete the initial evaluation of any proposal when it is determined that the proposal is unacceptable because it does not represent a reasonable initial effort to address the essential requirements of the RFP or clearly demonstrates that the offeror does not understand the requirements. The following proposals were determined unacceptable in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70(a)(1), and no further evaluation was conducted on these proposals:

3Sixty Degrees

GITAI

ORBIT

The SEB evaluated the remaining proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria established in the LTVS solicitation, the LTVS Evaluation Plan, and applicable regulations which include the FAR and the NFS. The evaluation criteria are further described under the Evaluation Process and Criteria section below. The order of evaluation of the remaining Offerors was determined in accordance with the Evaluation Plan. The Offerors were evaluated in the following order:

1. Intuitive Machines

2. Lunar Outpost

3. Astrobotic

4. Leidos

5. Blue Origin

6. Astrolab

Competitive Range Determination On November 29, 2023, the results of the initial evaluation were presented to me, the Source Selection Authority (SSA), and to the senior NASA officials in attendance. This presentation included detailed evaluation results for each proposal, including Price, Mission Suitability, and Past Performance. I thoroughly discussed with the Board the associated value and risks related to each of the proposals. B determination that it wa up of the highest rated Offerors; Intuitive Machines, Lunar Outpost, and Astrolab (Offerors are listed in the order of evaluation).

On December 4, 2023, NASA notified Astrobotic, Leidos, and Blue Origin (Offerors are listed in the order of evaluation) that their proposals were not among the most highly rated when evaluated in accordance with the stated solicitation evaluation criteria. All three of these Offerors requested timely pre-award debriefs which were all held on December 15, 2023.

Discussions On December 4, 2023, NASA opened discussions with Intuitive Machines, Lunar Outpost, and Astrolab. The Offerors were notified of their inclusion in the competitive range and were questions related to their proposals. The Offerors were instructed to provide a written response to those findings by December 11, 2023.

All three Offerors provided timely written responses that were reviewed by the SEB voting members. After reviewing the information provided, the SEB concluded that the written responses dem and questions, therefore, the CO determined that oral discussions were not necessary.

On January 2, 2024, the Offerors were notified that discussions were closed, and each Offeror was provided an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The FPRs were initially due on January 17, 2024. NASA provided the Offerors clarifications to the FPR instructions and subsequently extended the FPR due date to January 24, 2024, 1:00 p.m.

Central Time.

Receipt of FPRs FPRs from all three Offerors were received by the due date of January 24, 2024. All proposals were received within the proposal deadline.

Evaluation Process and Criteria

Upon receipt of the FPRs, the CO conducted an initial review of the proposals to determine acceptability in accordance with NFS 1815.305- The CO determined all FPRs were acceptable in accordance with the solicitation.

The FPRs were evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15, NFS Part 1815, and the evaluation criteria established in the LTVS RFP. The RFP details the SEB evaluation factors and criteria contained in Section M of the RFP. The SEB completed its evaluation activities and prepared charts to report its findings to the SSA, who is responsible for making the final source selection decision.

In accordance with the RFP, the Government will award a contract or multiple contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror or Offerors whose proposal(s) represents the best value to the Government. This procurement shall be conducted utilizing a combination of Price, Mission Suitability, and Past Performance evaluation factors. The lowest price proposals may not necessarily receive an award; likewise, the highest technically rated proposals may not necessarily receive an award. In accordance with the RFP Section M.1 Source Evaluation Board Evaluation Factors for Award:

Suitability factor and Past Performance factor. As individual factors, Mission Suitability factor is more

The Government evaluated each O Although proposals are organized by factors and subfactors, the Government evaluated the proposals for consistency among contract, in accordance with M.6(a) of the RFP.

In addition, an Offeror must be considered responsible for award in accordance with FAR 9.104.

Price Factor The Government performed a price analysis of the proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all three Offeror proposals to determine the reasonableness of the proposed prices. In accordance with Section M.2 - Price Factor (Volume I) of the RFP, the Government performed these analyses in accordance with FAR 15.305 - Proposal Evaluation, FAR 15.404 - Proposal Analysis, and NFS

1815.305 - Proposal Evaluation. The TEP is comprised of the summation of:

LTVS Demonstration Mission (Subparagraph Contract Line Item Number (SubCLIN) 1A)

Average of LTVS Lunar Surface Demonstration prices for order years 2024-2031, multiplied by one (1);

LTVS Standard Missions (SubCLIN 1B) Average LTVS Price for Standard Mission A for order years 2025-2036, multiplied by three (3);

LTVS Standard Missions (SubCLIN 1B) Average LTVS Price for Standard Mission B for order years 2025-2036, multiplied by seven (7);

Mission Unique Capabilities (SubCLIN 1C) Summation of the average unit price for ordering years 2024-2036 for all priced Mission Unique Capabilities;

Special Studies and Tasks Schedule (SubCLIN 2A, 2B, and 2C) Proposed price for LTVS Feasibility Assessment;

Fully-Burdened Composite Labor Rates (SubCLIN 2B) Summation of the non-discounted Fully-Burdened Composite Labor Rates (FBCLR), multiplied by the provided annual hours across the potential contract period of performance that includes Calendar Years 2024-2036, including the specified non-labor resources ($50,000 per year) multiplied by the Offerors proposed non-labor indirect burdens;

Pre-Priced Evaluation of NASA Mission Requirements (SubCLIN 2C) The Average FBCLR for all FBCLR Categories for Calendar Years 2024-2036 multiplied by the Offerors proposed discounts and the provided hours;

Aggregate value of Government Task Agreements (GTAs). Cost for work to be performed on-site at one or more NASA facilities using NASA resources to do so, pursuant to one or more

GTA.

The price analysis was performed in accordance with FAR Part 15.404, Proposal Analysis.

While the Government acknowledges that the TEP does not reliably determine the exact cost to NASA for the work that will be performed under the LTVS contract, I find that the RFP structured a TEP analysis that reasonably anticipates the potential contract costs in a way that allows for meaningful comparison of the submitted proposals. The SEB has appropriately applied the TEP analysis to the O

Mission Suitability Factor The Government evaluated the Mission Suitability Factor in accordance with Section M.3 - Mission Suitability Factor (Volume II) of the RFP, the FAR, and NFS. The Mission Suitability subfactors were evaluated and scored adjectivally and numerically based upon the corresponding weights below. These weights are used as a guideline in the source selection decision-making process.

The SEB collectively developed a consensus adjectival rating for each of the three subfactors based upon the Significant Strengths, Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, and Deficiencies. The adjectival ratings utilized for each of these three Mission Suitability subfactors were Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor. These definitions are in accordance with NFS

1815.305 (a)(3)(A).

Mission Suitability Subfactors Weight Subfactor 1. Technical Approach (TA) 600 Points Subfactor 2. Management Approach (MA) 300 Points Subfactor 3. Small Business (SB) Utilization (SBU) 100 Points

TOTAL 1000 Points

System Architecture (TA.1), Services Approach (TA.2), NASA Insight and Approval Approach (TA.3), and Engineering Approach (TA.4) for demonstrated understanding, completeness, reasonableness, and feasibility.

Program Management Approach (MA.1), Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) Plan (MA.2), Commercialization Approach (MA.3), and Work Plan (MA.4) for demonstrated understanding, completeness, reasonableness, and feasibility.

proposed Small Business Subcontracting (SBU.1) and Commitment to the Small Business Program (SBU.2) for reasonableness, and soundness.

Past Performance Factor The Government evaluated past performance in accordance with the provisions L.19.5 - Past Performance (Volume III) and M.4 -Past Performance (Volume III) of the LTVS RFP. Recency, relevance, and performance, as described in RFP provision M.4(c), were the confidence rating. In accordance with the RFP, contracts with a period of performance within 3 years from the date of the LTVS original solicitation were considered to be Recent, and contracts similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the LTVS scope of work were considered to be Relevant. Relevance was assessed using the following definitions:

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved much of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance contractual effort involved some of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

The Government assessed the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting, and safety performance of the contracts which were found to be Recent and Relevant.

A performance confidence rating was assessed at the overall factor level for Past Performance after evaluating aspects of each O Recent and Relevant past performance. The Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings were assigned, in accordance with the RFP, as either Very High, High, Moderate, Low, Very Low, or Neutral level of confidence.

Evaluation of Proposals

After initial review under NFS 1815.305-70, all three proposals were found to be acceptable and evaluated in accordance with the evaluation factors set out in the RFP. The results of the evaluation were presented to me and my senior officials on March 6, 2024. I made my award decision on March 6, 2024, after meaningful consideration of the information presented. I relied on the detailed information contained in Price, Mission Suitability, and Past Performance evaluation presentation, the backup documentation provided to me by the SEB, and my knowledge of NASA

Offeror - Intuitive Machines

Price Factor: The Government evaluated the proposed TEP of $1,691,995,357.

the provisions in L.19.3 and M.2 of the RFP, and I determined the proposed TEP is fair and reasonable on the basis of adequate competition.

Mission Suitability Factor accordance with the criteria defined in provisions L.19.4 and M.3 of the RFP. The evaluation of Intuitive Machines final proposal rated an overall score of 724 out of 1,000 points for the Mission Suitability Factor. The SEB identified a total of two Significant Strengths, five Strengths, and one Weakness. No Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies were identified. Below Intuitive Machines proposal under the three Mission Suitability subfactors:

Mission Suitability Subfactor 1 Technical Approach (TA):

The SEB of the RFP. The SEB identified two Significant Strengths, three Strengths, and one Weakness, resulting in a score of 450 points and a rating of Very Good. There were no Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies identified.

The first Significant Strength is for a reasonable and feasible technical approach in its communication architecture by proposing design concepts for greatly increased coverage for surface-to-surface communications, and cislunar relays that demonstrate an understanding of the current Artemis Integrated Architecture as well as future needs for the LTV System Architecture by addressing significant challenges in the baseline Artemis lunar communication architecture. The second Significant Strength is for a reasonable and feasible technical approach for its LTV logistics transportation capability via a unique type of detachable trailer architecture that is delivered to the lunar surface along with the LTV. This exceptionally flexible concept demonstrates an understanding of the value of crew time as well as needs of the Artemis Integrated Architecture.

The first Strength is for a reasonable and feasible approach in its LTVS Delivery System Architecture that utilizes heritage technologies and systems and includes a launch vehicle that

, will have a positive impact on successful contract performance, and reduces the risk to the Government of unsuccessful delivery of the LTV by increasing demonstrated system reliability. The second Strength is for a reasonable and feasible services approach that provides a second LTV during the 10-year service life period. This approach will have a positive impact on successful contract performance by decreasing the risk of interrupted LTV services. The third Strength is for a reasonable and feasible engineering approach that will accept all NASA Standards and Specifications with no tailoring/alternatives which reduces the risk of schedule delays resulting from adjudication of alternate standards.

The Weakness is because the proposal unreasonably limits the available science operations that can be conducted when the trailer is attached to the LTV. Because of the robotic arm placement, it will be difficult or impossible to gather pristine samples with the trailer connected. This constraint either limits the science that can be collected or requires crew time to reconfigure the trailer prior to science operations.

Because the Weakness in Intuit es not

Very Good.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 2 Management Approach (MA):

The SEB MA subfactor in accordance with the requirements of the RFP. The SEB identified one Strength, resulting in a score of 204 points and a rating of Good. There were no Significant Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies identified. The Strength is for a reasonable and feasible commercialization approach that demonstrates a strong financial commitment by proposing a proportionately lower total LTVS Feasibility Assessment and Demonstration Mission price as compared to the LTVS Standard Missions price.

response, the SEB rated the proposed subfactor Good.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 3 - Small Business Utilization (SBU) Approach:

The SEB SBU subfactor in accordance with the requirements of the RFP. The SEB identified one Strength, resulting in a score of 70 points and a rating of Good. There were no Significant Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies identified. The Strength is for a sound and reasonable Small Business Subcontracting approach that demonstrates a commitment to increasing small business opportunities by exceeding the recommended goals detailed in the LTVS solicitation.

Approach provides opportunities to develop numerous small businesses, increases their ability to compete with other small and large businesses, and also increases the likelihood of helping the Agency meet challenging Small Business Goals.

Because Intuit the proposed subfactor Good.

Past Performance Factor:

criteria defined in Provisions L.19.5 and M.4 of the RFP. Based on the Intuitive Machine successfully perform the required effort. Intuitive Machines provided five contracts in its Past Performance (Volume III) proposal. The SEB evaluated the five contracts listed in the Past Performance (Volume III) proposal and five additional contracts found in CPARS, for a total of ten evaluated contracts. All ten of the evaluated contracts are within the RFP recency period. Nine of the ten contracts evaluated were determined to be Relevant and one contract was determined to be Somewhat Relevant. The SEB reviewed the past performance of the prime and team members and weighted the past performance of each team member according to the work proposed to be performed by that team member. In assigning a confidence rating, Relevant past performance was determined to be pertinent to this acquisition, demonstrating effective performance. The Intuitive Machines Team demonstrated past performance that was fully responsive to contract requirements, and reportable problems had little identifiable effect on overall performance. The overall performance ratings were Very Good for Quality, Schedule, Management, Regulatory Compliance, Cost Control, and Small Business Subcontracting. The Environmental, Safety and Health rating was Very Good.

confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Offeror Lunar Outpost Price Factor: The Government evaluated the proposed TEP of $1,727,073,564. NASA evaluated the RFP and I determined the proposed TEP is fair and reasonable on the basis of adequate competition.

Mission Suitability Factor with the criteria defined in provisions L.19.4 and M.3 of the RFP. The evaluation of Lunar 863 out of 1,000 points for the Mission

Suitability Factor. The SEB identified a total of three Significant Strengths and nine Strengths. No Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies were identified. Below

Suitability subfactors:

Mission Suitability Subfactor 1 Technical Approach (TA):

requirements of the RFP. The SEB identified two Significant Strengths and seven Strengths, resulting in a score of 570 points and a rating of Excellent. There were no Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies identified.

The first Significant Strength is for proposing an advanced technology for energy storage that is a reasonable and feasible approach to greatly exceed the vehicle performance requirements while meeting battery safety requirements that demonstrates an understanding of the LTV operating environment and potential mission goals. The second Significant Strength is for a reasonable, and feasible science mission services approach that Significantly and greatly increases the science exploration capability of the

LTV.

The first Strength is for a reasonable and feasible technical approach in its communication architecture by proposing design concepts for surface-to-surface communications and cislunar relay communications that demonstrate an understanding of the current Artemis Integrated Architecture as well as future needs for the LTV System Architecture by addressing a major challenge in the baseline Artemis lunar communication architecture. The second Strength is for a reasonable and feasible approach in its Delivery System Architecture that utilizes heritage technologies and systems and includes a launch vehicle which will have a positive impact on successful contract performance and reduces the risk to the Government of unsuccessful delivery of the LTV by increasing demonstrated system reliability. The third Strength is for a reasonable and feasible approach for deve -capability, which has the potential to exceed the NASA requirements for telerobotic operation. The fourth Strength is for proposed key services capabilities that include multiple exceedances of minimum requirements. This approach demonstrates understanding and NASA by potentially enabling accomplishment of more Artemis mission goals. The fifth Strength is for a reasonable and feasible crew situational awareness approach that provides decreases the risk of NASA not meeting Artemis mission objectives by enhancing crew situational awareness and efficiency while operating the LTV. The sixth Strength is for a reasonable and feasible services approach that includes providing a second LTV during the 10-year service life period. This approach will have a positive impact on successful contract performance by decreasing the risk of interrupted LTV services. The seventh Strength is for a reasonable and feasible engineering approach that will accept most NASA Standards and Specifications with no tailoring/alternatives. This approach will have a positive impact on successful contract performance by minimizing alternatives to NASA Standards and Specifications which reduces the risk of schedule delays resulting from adjudication of alternate standards.

al has two Significant Strengths and provides a comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit, and no Deficiency or Significant Weaknesses exist, the SEB rated the proposed subfactor Excellent.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 2 Management Approach (MA):

MA subfactor in accordance with the requirements of the RFP. The SEB identified two Strengths, resulting in a score of 204 points and a rating of Good. There were no Significant Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies identified.

The first Strength is for a reasonable and feasible program management approach that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance of Artemis science objectives by proposing an experienced Science Council that provides input and guidance from the lunar science community on LTV related activities. The second Strength is for a feasible commercialization approach that demonstrates a strong financial commitment by proposing a proportionately lower price for Standard Mission B than Standard Mission A and including key features which increase the opportunities for commercialization.

esponse, the SEB rated the proposed subfactor as Good.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 3 - Small Business Utilization (SBU):

SBU subfactor in accordance with the requirements of the RFP. The SEB identified one Significant Strength, resulting in a score of 89 points and a rating of Very Good. There were no Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies identified.

The Significant Strength is because Lunar Outpost proposed as a Small Business prime contractor performing some of the work on the LTVS contract. Lunar Outpost provides opportunities to develop small businesses, increases their ability to compete with other small and large businesses, and also increases the likelihood of helping the Agency meet challenging Small Business Goals.

BU proposal has no Deficiency and demonstrates over-all competence with one Significant Strength and no Weaknesses, the SEB rated the proposed subfactor Very Good.

Past Performance Factor:

criteria defined in Provisions L.19.5 and M.4 of the RFP. Based on the Lunar Outpost performance record, there is a Moderate level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Lunar Outpost provided five contracts in its Past Performance (Volume III) proposal. The SEB evaluated the five contracts listed in the Past Performance (Volume III) proposal and five additional contracts found in CPARS, for a total of ten evaluated contracts. All ten of the evaluated contracts are within the RFP recency period. Five of the ten contracts evaluated were determined to be Relevant and five were determined to be Somewhat Relevant. The SEB reviewed the past performance of the prime and team members and weighted the past performance of each team member according to the work proposed to be performed by that team member. In assigning a confidence rating, Relevant past performance was determined to be pertinent to this acquisition and demonstrates effective performance. The Lunar Outpost Team demonstrated past performance that was fully responsive to contract requirements, and reportable problems had little identifiable effect on overall performance. The overall performance ratings were Exceptional for Management, Quality, and Regulatory Compliance; Very Good for Schedule, Small Business, and Cost Control. The Environmental, Safety and Health rating was Very Good Moderate level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Offeror Astrolab Price Factor: The Government evaluated the proposed TEP of $1,927,685,068. NASA evaluated

RFP and I determined the proposed TEP is fair and reasonable on the basis of adequate competition.

Mission Suitability Factor proposal rated an overall score of 905 out of 1,000 points for the Mission Suitability Factor.

The SEB identified a total of five Significant Strengths and six Strengths. No Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies were identified.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 1 Technical Approach (TA):

The SEB evaluated Astrolab nts of the RFP. The SEB identified three Significant Strengths and four Strengths, resulting in a score of 558 points and a rating of Excellent. There were no Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies identified.

The first Significant Strength is for a reasonable and feasible approach to co-manifest the LTV on the Artemis IV mission, with the alternative of a dedicated non-Human Landing System lunar delivery at no additional cost to NASA if needed to meet the LTV required delivery date. This approach increases the likelihood of successful contract performance and reduces the overall NASA Artemis Mission risk. The second Significant Strength is for a reasonable and feasible technical approach in its payload architecture regarding movement of payload pallets. This approach demonstrates an understanding of the value of lunar surface very advantageous to the government, greatly reducing the risk of the crew being unavailable for Artemis science objectives. The third Significant Strength is for a reasonable and feasible approach for its core LTV rover design that leverages a mature design and previous prototype building and field ground testing, which demonstrates an understanding of LTV systems and reduces technology development risks to NASA.

The first Strength is for a reasonable and feasible services approach that includes providing a second LTV during the 10-year service life period. This approach will have a positive impact on successful contract performance by decreasing the risk of interrupted LTV services. The second Strength is for a reasonable and feasible approach in its LTVS delivery system architecture that applies heritage technologies and systems. The use of heritage solutions will have a positive impact on successful contract performance by reducing the risk of unsuccessful system delivery and reducing schedule and technical risks associated with new technology. The third Strength is for a feasible approach to LTV operations by proposing LTV slope capability that exceed NASA requirements, which increases operational flexibility, allowing for additional routes that can be traversed increasing the path planning opportunities for LTV and decreasing the mission risk during off nominal scenarios. The fourth Strength is for proposed key services capabilities that include multiple exceedances of required minimum requirements. This demonstrates an und provides an approach which NASA by potentially enabling accomplishment of more Artemis mission goals.

provides a comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit, and no Deficiency or Significant Weaknesses exist, the SEB rated the proposed subfactor Excellent.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 2 Management Approach (MA):

The SEB evaluated Astrolab MA subfactor in accordance with the requirements of the RFP. The SEB identified one Significant Strength and two Strengths, resulting in a score of 249 points and a rating of Very Good. There were no Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies identified.

The Significant Strength is for a feasible commercialization approach that demonstrates a strong financial commitment by proposing a proportionately lower total LTVS Feasibility Assessment and Demonstration Mission price as compared to the LTVS Standard Missions prices, and a proportionally lower price for Standard Mission B than Standard Mission A.

The first Strength is for a reasonable and feasible program management approach to accomplishing LTVS objectives which simplifies the LTVS effort by not requiring development of a lander, thus reducing the risk to NASA. The second Strength is for a reasonable and feasible Work Plan approach that includes new proposed milestones, tied to significant testing events, that will provide valuable information to NASA, demonstrating an understanding of the challenges of the LTVS requirements.

Significant Strength and the two Strengths, and no Weaknesses or Deficiencies, and demonstrates over-all competence the SEB rated the proposed subfactor Very Good.

Mission Suitability Subfactor 3 - Small Business Utilization (SBU):

The SEB evaluated Astrolab SBU subfactor in accordance with the requirements of the RFP. The SEB identified one Significant Strength, resulting in a score of 98 points and a rating of Excellent. There were no Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies identified.

The Significant Strength is for its SBU approach that demonstrates a commitment to Small Business subcontracting that will strengthen and broaden the Industry base. Astrolab proposes as a Small Business prime contractor performing much of the work on the LTVS contract.

Be Significant Strength and no Weaknesses or Deficiencies, the SEB rated the proposed subfactor Excellent.

Past Performance Factor:

dance with the criteria defined in Provisions L.19.5 and M.4 of the RFP. Based on the Astrolab there is a Low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Astrolab provided five contracts in its Past Performance (Volume III) proposal. The SEB evaluated the five contracts listed in the Past Performance (Volume III) proposal. All five of the evaluated contracts are within the RFP recency period. Two of the five contracts evaluated were determined to be Relevant, two were Somewhat Relevant, and one contract was determined to be Not Relevant. The SEB reviewed the past performance of the prime and team members and weighted the past performance of each team member according to the work proposed to be performed by that team member. As the prime, Astrolab proposed to perform a large part of t past performance to be Not Relevant because it included little of the size, content, and complexity of LTVS. Space X is providing the launch and lunar lander services in PWS Section 2.5 and has Relevant past performance in that area. Axiom is performing portions of the work in all areas of the PWS except Section 2.1 and 2.5 and has Relevant past performance. Odyssey is performing portions of the work in all areas of the PWS except Section 2.1, 2.5, and 2.8 and has Somewhat Relevant past performance. The SEB concluded that the overall past performance of the team was Somewhat Pertinent. The overall performance ratings were: Exceptional for Quality, Management, and Cost Control; Very Good for Schedule; and Satisfactory for Regulatory Compliance and Small Business Subcontracting. The Environmental, Safety and Health rating was Very Good. The SEB noted that Astrolab as the prime had no record of performance available to assess in Government databases and their only contract provided in the proposal is a commercial consulting agreement.

level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The SEB concluded standards.

Selection Decision

During the final evaluation presentation on March 6, 2024, I questioned the SEB on their evaluation, and I carefully considered the material presented. I also requested and considered the comments of the senior officials who attended the briefing. The charts presented at the meeting s.

Mission Suitability findings, together with the analysis of past performance evaluations and price analysis. As the Source Selection Authority (SSA), I examin factor and subfactor and I considered the evaluations of all the proposals. I found that the evaluation and findings are in accordance with the RFP and its evaluation criteria. I recognized the fact that it was my responsibi results and to determine if I agreed with that evaluation. I determined that the SEB had performed a careful and thorough job of evaluating the proposals. They had done an excellent job documenting their evaluation. The SEB identified and explained the reasons for their Price analysis, Mission Suitability findings, and Past Performance evaluations. The SEB provided detailed answers to the follow-up questions I had during the meeting. As the SSA, I understand the merits, technical and otherwise, and the qualitative aspects of each proposal.

Consideration of Individual Proposals

Offeror Intuitive Machines I understand and concur with the findings presented by the SEB Price, Mission Suitability, and Past Performance evaluation. In addition to details reflected above, I emphasize the value in the proposed communication architecture for robust surface-to-surface communications and cislunar relays for the current and future needs of the Artemis program. I see particular value in the Intuitive Machines innovative trailer architecture for the LTV to enhance logistics transportation capabilities. Delivered to the lunar surface at the same time as the LTV, this trailer can be coupled with the LTV or detached from it. While the listed Weakness creates operational constraints on the available science operations that can be conducted when the trailer is attached to the LTV, the trailer architecture still provides many transportation benefits that I see as a value to NASA. This Weakness does not prevent award to Intuitive Machines; the value and benefits of the trailer architecture surpass the limitations outlined in the Weakness. I also see strong value in the various aspects of the proposal that reduce the risk to the Government and have a positive impact on successful contract performance by decreasing the risk of interrupted LTV services, building on heritage technology and systems, and accepting all of the established NASA Standards and Specifications.

Offeror Lunar Outpost I understand and concur with the findings presented by the SEB

Price, Mission Suitability, and Past Performance evaluation. In addition to details reflected above, I greatly advanced technology for energy storage as NASA will benefit from vehicle performance that is enhanced beyond RFP requirements. There is also notable value in the science mission services approach and the resulting increase in science exploration capability. I note the value of having Lunar Outpost as a Small Business prime contractor and its development of an experienced Science Council to channel and utilize input from the lunar science community on LTV activities. I emphasize the value in the communication architecture for surface-to-surface communications and cislunar relay communications for the current and future needs of the Artemis program. I also see strong value in various aspects of the proposal that reduce risk by utilizing heritage technology and systems, exceeding minimum requirements, fostering safety through crew situational awareness, -decreasing the risk of interrupted LTV services, and accepting most of the established NASA Standards and Specifications.

Offeror Astrolab I understand and concur with the findings presented by the SEB regarding Astrol Price, Mission Suitability, and Past Performance evaluation. In addition to details reflected above, I value the approach to co-manifest LTV on the Artemis IV mission, with the back-up of a dedicated non-Human Landing System for timely lunar delivery. I emphasize the value to NASA of t architecture for the movement of payload pallets, which frees crew time for other Artemis science objectives. I value position as a Small Business prime contractor with a strong commitment to Small Business subcontracting. I see beneficial value in Astrol simplification of management efforts by not requiring development of a lander and I value the benefit of including new proposed milestones that provide valuable information to NASA. I recognize the value of leveraging a mature design and prior ground testing to reduce technology development risks to NASA. I also see strong value in various aspects of the proposal that reduce risk by using an architecture that applies heritage technologies and systems, by decreasing the risk of interrupted LTV services, by creating a LTV slope capability that exceed NASA requirements, and by exceeding minimum requirements for proposed key services capabilities.

Comparison of Proposals I appreciate that each of the three offers in the Competitive Range consideration and am grateful to the robust contractor community that offers its services and expertise to support our important mission directives. NASA benefits from the services offered and I am confident that the competitive procurement process has challenged Offerors to refine their approaches and pricing to present NASA with proposals that will benefit our continuing work in exploration and Human Space Flight.

the written documentation and data provided to me. In my independe evaluation results, I have determined that the proposals were evaluated, and I have weighed my decision, in accordance with the criterion in the RFP:

The Price factor is approximately equal to the combined importance of the Mission Suitability factor and Past Performance factor. As individual factors, Mission Suitability factor is more important than Past Performance factor.

I have considered the three evaluation factors of Price, Mission Suitability, and Past Performance with respect to the evaluations of these three proposals. I have reviewed all the evaluations and find that:

d the lowest TEP, the lowest Mission Suitability score, and one of the highest Past Performance ratings.

d the second lowest TEP, the second highest Mission Suitability score, and one of the highest Past Performance ratings.

d the highest TEP, the highest Mission Suitability score, and the lowest Past Performance rating.

analysis of all the Offerors. Adequate price competition was obtained from this procurement, and, therefore, the prices proposed were determined to be fair and reasonable. A Price analysis was also determine that Intuitive Machines, Lunar Outpost, and Astrolab proposed prices are fair and reasonable.

While all Offerors provided Significant Strengths in Mission Suitability, Intuitive Machines presented two Significant Strengths, five Strengths, and one Weakness. Intuitive Machines proposes a communication architecture design for surface-to-surface communications and cislunar relays, addressing current communication structure and anticipating future needs. Intuitive Machines also proposes innovative use of an LTV trailer to enhance logistics transportation capabilities. The Weakness is because the proposal imposes operational constraints on the available science operations that can be conducted when the trailer is attached to the LTV. While the robotic arm placement will make it difficult or impossible to gather pristine samples with the trailer connected, the trailer architecture still provides many transportation benefits that I see as a value to NASA.

In comparison, Lunar Outpost had three Significant Strengths and nine Streng proposal includes an advanced technology for energy storage that greatly exceeds the vehicle proposed science mission services approach signi value to NASA as it will offer broad commercialization opportunities, and greatly increase science exploration capability. In addition, Lunar Outpost is a Small Business prime contractor performing some of the work on the LTVS contract, helping NASA to meet is challenging Small Business Goals.

Astrolab presented five Significant Strengths and six Strengths. proposal to co-manifest LTV on the Artemis IV mission, and the fact that its core LTV rover design leverages previous prototype building and field ground testing, provides value to NASA by increasing the likelihood of success during contract performance. payload architecture approach provides a benefit in that the movement of payload pallets may contribute to the success of Artemis science objectives by freeing up availability of crew members. commercialization approach demonstrates a strong financial commitment, and its proposal reflects an approach to small business subcontracting that will help build up the Industry base for these new lunar vehicle services. In addition, Astrolab is a Small Business prime contractor performing much of the work on the LTVS contract, providing additional opportunities for Small Business subcontractors.

While the Mission Suitability factor is more important than the Past Performance factor under the gives me confidence that the teams are capable and possess the necessary experience to perform the work under the LTVS contract. This is a new service area. Lunar surface transportation services are not commercially available. This contract will help lay the foundation for a new sector of aerospace services. As such, the SEB was required to review past performance history for Offerors that was analogous to, but not identical or completely aligned with, the work that will be performed under the LTVS contract. As were Relevant and the Lunar Outpost Team demonstrated past performance that was fully responsive to contract requirements. The Intuitive Machines Team demonstrated past performance that was fully responsive to contract requirements, with nine evaluated contracts determined to be Relevant. While Astrolab had no record of performance available to assess in Government databases and their only contract provided in the proposal was for a commercial consulting agreement, the overall team had two contracts evaluated as Relevant. I conclude that the Astrolab that all three Offerors are capable to perform the LTVS requirements.

As Section L.2 of the RFP contemplates award of one or more contracts, I find that awarding to Intuitive Machines, Lunar Outpost, and Astrolab offers the best value to NASA. I have examined finds value to the Government when comparing the various technical approaches offered, the diverse set of potential innovations presented, and the use of diverse lander architectures. In the hopes of witnessing a new commercial aerospace sector that offers the Government, Industry, and academia the opportunity to secure the services of lunar terrain vehicles, NASA sees the value in moving forward with all three offers. This approach will not only benefit the emerging market for these lunar services but will directly provide NASA with robust price competition during the demonstration phase of this multiple award IDIQ contract. As the development of this technology have access to multiple opportunities for reliable and cost-effective lunar terrain vehicle services.

The value of Astrolab strong Mission Suitability evaluations offset the additional anticipated costs associated with the proposals. I am aware of the relative merits and costs of each Offeror s proposal and find that Astrolab l to co-manifest LTV on the Artemis IV mission, its provision of an alternative launch vehicle to ensure timely lunar delivery, its use of previous prototype building and field ground testing, its approach to payload architecture that allows pallet movement without imposition on crew time, its commercialization approach, and its strong approach to small business subcontracting create value for the Government that offsets the price differential between the Astrolab proposal and the Lunar Outpost and Intuitive Machine proposals.