Source Selection Statement Final - Signed.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

John H. Glenn Research Center Lewis Field Cleveland, OH 44135-3191

Source Selection Statement

B330 MSL Equipment Procurement

(Solicitation Number 80GRC020MSLSTE)

The NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) is completing construction of a new building, Aerospace Communications Facility (ACF) to support research and development for advanced communications systems. This building will house approximately thirty modern, state-of-the-art Radio Frequency (RF) and optical communications, electronics, networks, and signal processing laboratories. The building also includes a large annex containing two anechoic chambers intended for antenna metrology activities, referred to as the Microwave Systems Laboratory (MSL). The first chamber, referred to as the Near Field Range, has an interior clear space of 44'-6"W x 44'-6"L x 49'-0"H. The second chamber, referred to as the Compact Range, has an interior clear space of 44'-6"L x 13'- 2"W x 13'-0"H. The range spaces are constructed with 10" thick pre-cast concrete panels comprised of a unique conductive concrete mix to enhance the RF shielding effectiveness of the structure.

To continue key research and development work in the coming decades, NASA GRC is in need of state-of-the-art equipment commensurate with the intent of the building.

Central to this provisioning are two critical needs:

Near Field Range Horizontal (HNF) Scanner Compact Antenna Test Range (CATR)

The Near Field Horizontal Scanner and Compact Antenna Test Range will be used for the development and characterization of antenna technology in support of NASA missions, Other Government Agencies (OGAs), Industry, and academia. NASA Projects include: Technology Assessment for Next Generation Architecture (TANGA) (under the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate) (HEOMD); Wideband Ka- Band Antennas (HEOMD); SmallSat Ka-Band Operations User Terminal (SKOUT) (HEOMD); Cognitive Antennas (HEOMD); iROC (under the Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD); Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) (ARMD); CAS-CLAS-ACT (under the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD); Long-Lived In-Situ Solar System Explorer (LLISSE) (SMD). In addition, Large Deployable Antennas are identified as a “Technology of Interest” by the

Planetary Exploration Science Technology Office (PESTO) Program (SMD) and there are references for the need of large deployable antennas in the Decadal Surveys.

Ranges will also be used in conjunction with Cognitive, RF, Optical, and Networking Labs to emulate systems level capabilities.

I. Procurement History/Description

A. Contract

The contract will include:

1. Final Design

The services for the design shall result in the design drawings, technical specifications for construction and products to produce fully functional, test-verified systems meeting the project requirements. The design drawings and specifications shall be complete in all aspects and shall comply with the standards of practice including the Technical Requirements Summary.

2. Horizontal Near Field Absorbers

Provide low-rise, durable anechoic absorbers for the Horizontal Near Field range in accordance with the technical requirements of the Statement of Work. The Offeror is to demonstrate that absorber performance meets the stated performance objectives of the HNF, thus the final configuration of absorbers shall be addressed in the final design of the system. This final configuration shall be at the recommendation of the Offeror and with approval of NASA.

3. Horizontal Near Field Scanner

Antenna metrology system capable of characterizing antennas up to 7 – 10 meter in diameter throughout frequency ranges up to 110 GHz.

• Small and large ground-based and space-based (e.g., deployable and/or inflatable) antennas

• Horizontal configuration to minimize gravitational distortions

• Situated in the large 44’ x 44’ x 60’ Near Field range space of the ACF (within 60’ x 60’ x 60’ concrete structure on West end of building).

• Footprint of support structure roughly 40’ x 40’

• Overall weight: roughly 95,000 lbs. (dead load), and 10,000 lbs. (live load)

4. Compact Antenna Test Range

Antenna metrology system capable of characterizing transmit and receive antennas in the far field

• Directional testing of subsystem components

• Capable of performing radar cross section (RCS) measurements in addition to antenna measurements

• Allows for testing of antennas in an indoor facility equivalent to the metrology performed in more traditional outdoor ranges (exposed to elements), hence “Compact” nomenclature.

• Situated in the 32’ x 12’ x 12’ Compact range space of the ACF (within the 60’ x 60’ x 60’ structure on West end of building).

• Size and weight TBD, but will be designed to work within confines of Compact Range space

5. Contract Type

To accomplish this requirement, the Government anticipates a firm-fixed-price contract. The contract effort will be separated into two phases: Phase 1 – Final Design and Phase 2 – Implementation, structured as a base and three options. The Government anticipates that the total period of performance (PoP) will be between 9 and 30 months. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and small business size standard are 334515 – Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring and Testing Electricity and Electrical Signals 750 employees.

B. Request for Proposals and Offers Received

A sources sought notice, 80GRC020MSLSTE, was issued on February 21, 2020. Responses to the Sources Sought synopsis were received from four (4) companies. A virtual industry day was held on September 24, 2020. Seven (7) companies were in attendance and six (6) of the companies also took part in the 1 on 1 questions and answers sessions that were held after the industry day presentation. A Final Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on December 07, 2020, as a small business set-aside. An amendment to the RFP was issued on February 25, 2021. Two (2) proposals were received by March 20th, 2021.

Proposals were submitted by the following offerors:

- NSI-MI Technologies (NSI-MI)

- MVG-Orbit Advanced Technologies, Inc ( MVG-Orbit)

NSI-MI subsequently informed the Government that it had been sold to another entity and was no longer considered a small business for purposes of this procurement. Because this procurement was totally set aside for small businesses (see RFP pg. 1 & Section I.25) and because NSI-MI could no longer recertify as a small business entity, NSI-MI was determined to be ineligible for the award of this procurement and was notified of the same.

For these reasons, NSI-MI’s proposal was not evaluated.

II. Evaluation Process

A. Evaluation Procedures

A Source Evaluation Committee (SEC) was appointed to evaluate all proposals received in response to the RFP. The RFP advised prospective Offerors that this competitive negotiated acquisition would be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, “Source Selection,” and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3, same subject. The Source Evaluation Board procedures at NFS 1815.370, “NASA source evaluation boards,” would apply (See RFP Section M.2).

The RFP advised that award would be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal met the requirements of the solicitation and provided the best value to the Government. (See RFP Section M.2).

B. Evaluation Criteria

As indicated in the RFP, the Evaluations Factors were: Technical Capability, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, and Price.

According to the RFP, as individual factors, Technical Capability is more important than Relevant Experience and Past Performance, which is approximately equal to Price. Technical Capability and Relevant Experience and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. (See RFP Section M.6.)

1. Volume I: Technical Capability

Pursuant to the RFP, the Technical Capability Factor indicates, for each Offeror, the quality of the work to be performed and the ability of the Offeror to accomplish what is proposed. The Technical Capability Factors and Subfactors were to be adjectivally rated. (See RFP Section M.3).

1. SUBFACTOR A: Understanding the Requirements (UR) UR1 - Technical Approach UR2 - Turn-key Delivery

2. SUBFACTOR B: Design Concepts (DC)

DC1 - Horizontal Near Field (HNF) Scanner DC2 - Compact Antenna Test Range (CATR)

3. SUBFACTOR C: Implementation and Management Plans (MP)

MP1 - Phase 1 – Final Design Implementation Plan MP2 - Phase 2 – Implementation Plan MP3 - Detailed Schedule

MP4 - Project Management Approach

4. SUBFACTOR D: Maintenance and Support (MS) MS1 - Maintenance/Calibration Schedule and Costs

2. Volume II: Relevant Experience and Past Performance

In accordance with the RFP, the Relevant Experience and Past Performance factor was not numerically scored but was evaluated using the Level of Confidence ratings outlined in the RFP and NFS 1815.305 (a)(2)(A). (See RFP Section M.4).

The Relevant Experience and Past Performance factor was evaluated with consideration given to the following information:

1) Past Performance Narrative (PPN)

2) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ)

3) Past Performance Database (PPD)

Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), Offerors without a record of relevant experience and past performance, or for who information on past performance is not available, were assigned a neutral rating. (See RFP Section M.4). The results of the PPN, PPQ, and PPD evaluations received equal weighting in determining the Level of Confidence rating. (See RFP Section M.4).

The results of the PPN, PPQ, and PPD evaluations will receive equal weighting in determining the Level of Confidence rating.

3. Volume III: Price

In accordance with the RFP, the Price factor was not numerically scored. (See RFP Section M.5).

The price evaluation was be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1), FAR 15.404-1(b), and NFS 1815.404.

Elements of FAR 15.404-1(b) to be considered included: comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation, comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimate: and analysis of pricing information provided by the Offeror. (See RFP Section M.5).

C. Evaluation of Single Offeror (NFS 1815.305-71)

Because NSI-MI became ineligible for this award and only one proposal (MVG-Orbits’) could be evaluated, the SEC proceeded with evaluation under NFS 1815.305-71, which provides:

(a) If only one proposal is received in response to the solicitation, the contracting officer shall determine if the solicitation was flawed or unduly restrictive and determine if the single proposal is an acceptable proposal. Based on these findings, the SSA shall direct the contracting officer to one of the following:

(1) Award after negotiating an acceptable contract. (The requirement for submission of cost or pricing data shall be determined in accordance with FAR 15.403- 3(a)(1)(ii); or

(2) Reject the proposal and cancel the solicitation.

(b) The procedure in 1815.305-71(a) also applies when the number of proposals equals the number of awards contemplated or when only one acceptable proposal is received.

1. Contracting Officer’s Determination under NFS 1815.305-71(a)

The Contracting Officer (CO) determined that the solicitation was not flawed or unduly restrictive because it was understood from the time of the PSM that the equipment being procured was highly technical, state of the art, and only a few companies in the industry could meet NASA GRC’s requirements. From the responses to the sources sought notice that was issued on February 21, 2020, three (3) small businesses were determine technically capable. These same three (3) small businesses responded to all the previous Request for Information (RFIs) and participated in the engineering study prior to the release of this RFP.

The Industry Day Event was held on September 24, 2020 and seven (7) small businesses participated. Six (6) of them signed up for the one on one Q&A session that followed the Industry Day presentation. In other words, the amount of industry interest and participation leading up to the release of the RFP was commensurate with expectation that only a few companies could meet the requirements at issue. Then, the number of offers received – two

– was commensurate with the amount of industry interest and participation prior to release of the RFP. The fact that that multiple offers were received and that the number of offerors was consistent with known industry capabilities demonstrated to the CO that the RFP was not flawed or unduly restrictive.

The CO also determined that the single proposal was acceptable within the meaning of NFS 1815.305-71For one thing, MVG-Orbit’s proposal was deemed initially acceptable as a reasonable first effort to address the requirements of the RFP. For another, the SEC’s initial evaluation of MVG-Orbit’s proposal indicated that the proposal substantially met the requirements of the RFP and was, overall, acceptable to the Government’s requirements.

The Initial Evaluation results are summarized below, but of note, the evaluation of MVG- Orbit’s technical proposal reflected two (2) significant strengths, three (3) strengths, five (5) weaknesses, and one (1) significant weaknesses. Although a number of weaknesses were found in MVG-Orbit’s proposal, the SEC believed that most, if not all, could be remedied during negotiations. Additionally, the SEC assigned MVG-Orbit a “High” Level of Confidence under the Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor. Accordingly, the CO determined that the single proposal, MVG-Orbit’s, was acceptable within the meaning of NFS 1815.305-71(a)(1) and was suitable to be negotiated into a final contract.

2. Source Selection Authority’s Direction Under NFS 1815.305-71(a)

Per NFS 1815.305-71(a)(1), the Source Selection Authority (SSA) may direct the CO to award to the single acceptable proposal contingent on successful negotiations.

Additionally, here, the RFP indicated that discussions could be conducted between the Government and Offerors with the intent of allowing the Offeror to revise its proposal.

On July 8, 2021, the CO presented to the SSA his determinations that the solicitation was not flawed or unduly restrictive and that the single proposal was an acceptable proposal for final negotiation. That presentation included the results of the SEC’s initial evaluation of MVG-Orbit’s proposal and documented the SEC’s belief that it was in the Government’s best interest to enter into negotiations with MVG-Orbit. Based on the information presented, the SSA directed the CO to enter into negotiations with MVG-Orbit in accordance with NFS 1815.305-71(a)(1).

III. Initial Evaluation Results

The initial evaluation of MVG-Orbit’s proposal prior to NFS 1815.305-71 negotiations, is summarized as follows:

Technical Capability GOOD

Understanding the Requirements (UR) FAIR (1 Strength, 1 Weakness, 1 Significant

Weakness) Design Concepts (DC) VERY GOOD

(1 Significant Strength, 2 Strengths, 2 Weaknesses)

Implementation and Management Plan

(MP)

FAIR

(1 Weakness)

Maintenance and Support (MS) VERY GOOD (1 Significant Strength, 1 Weakness)

Past Performance (Level of Confidence)

HIGH

IV. Negotiations and Final Proposal Revisions

On July 20, 2021, the Government entered into negotiations with MVG-Orbit.

Following negotiations, MVG-Orbit was offered the opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR), which MVG-Orbit did on August 9, 2021. The Government subsequently conducted additional negotiations with MVG-Orbit via teleconferencing on August 31, 2021.

V. Final Proposal Evaluation

The final evaluation of MVG-Orbit’s proposal, after NFS 1815.305-71 negotiations and submission of the FPR, is summarized as follows:

Technical Capability VERY GOOD

Understanding the Requirements (UR) GOOD (1 Strength, 2 Weaknesses)

Design Concepts (DC) VERY GOOD (1 Significant Strength, 2 Strengths, 1

Weakness) Implementation and Management Plan

(MP)

GOOD

Maintenance and Support (MS) VERY GOOD (1 Significant Strength)

Past Performance (Level of Confidence)

HIGH

Proposed Price $11,891,316

The above findings and final evaluation results are described in more detail as follows.

A. Volume I – Technical Capability: Very Good

In the Understanding the Requirement (UR) Subfactor, MVG-Orbit’s proposal was rated “Good”. The proposal contained one (1) Strength and two (2) Weaknesses.

MVG-Orbit’s proposal received two (2) weaknesses under UR1(a) Technical Approach. First, the SOW required a minimum of two (2) cameras with ≥ 8-megapixel (8M pixel) resolution;

however, MVG-Orbit’s proposed cameras provide 4M pixel resolution. Second, the SOW also required the power feeds of the CATR to be calibrated; however, the System Requirement Verification Matrix (SRVM) indicates that calibrated feeds are not provided under the baseline cost of the CATR. MVG-Orbit’s proposal received a strength under UR1(b) Innovations because this area of the proposal demonstrates effective and realistic approaches for implementing new, innovative methods, techniques, technologies, and efficiencies to accomplish the requirements of the SOW.

In the Design Concepts (DC) Subfactor, MVG-Orbit’s proposal was rated “Very Good”.

The proposal contained one (1) Significant Strength, two (2) Strengths and one (1) Weakness.

MVG-Orbit’s proposal received a significant strength under DC1- HNF Conceptual Design for a Device Under Test (DUT) support and positioning subsystem that is innovative, unique, and beneficial. MVG-Orbit’s proposal received a strength under DC1- HNF Conceptual Design for the HNF scanner system that exceeds the basic requirements, has unique and beneficial features, and has elements of design that the SEC deems to be value added. MVG-Orbit’s proposal received a strength under DC2- CATR Conceptual Design for the CATR scanner system that exceeds the basic requirements, has unique and beneficial features, and has elements of design that the SEC deems to be value added. MVG-Orbit’s proposal also received a weakness under

DC2-CATR Conceptual Design for proposing feeds that are not suitable to meet the required cross polarization levels within the quiet zone and not meeting SOW requirements of fully simultaneous and independent use of the HNF and CATR.

In the Maintenance and Support (MS) Subfactor, MVG-Orbit’s proposal was rated “Very Good”. The proposal contained one (1) Significant Strength.

MVG-Orbit’s proposal received a Significant Strength under MS1 – Maintenance/Calibration Schedule and Costs for a basic materials and workmanship warranty that in general exceeds the requirements of the SOW.

B. Volume II – Relevant Experience and Past Performance: High Level of Confidence

MVG-Orbit’s proposal received a significant strength, a strength, and a neutral. There were no weaknesses or significant weaknesses identified. MVG-Orbit received a significant strength in PPN for having contracts with similar contract scope, client, contract type, contract value/size, recency of the contract and length of contract to the B330 MSL Equipment requirements. MVG- Orbit provided a narrative for five (5) contracts that it previously worked on. Two (2) contracts determined to be highly relevant, two (2) contracts were determined to be relevant, and one (1) contract was determined not relevant to the B330 MSL Equipment requirements. The MVG- Orbit’s proposal received a strength in PPQ for receiving (69%) Exceptional, (16%) “Very Good”, (5%) Satisfactory, and (10%) Not Applicable ratings from former clients in response to the PPQs on contracts considered at least somewhat relevant to the B330 MSL Equipment requirements. MVG-Orbit received a neutral rating in PPD as a result of the search of the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) found no contracts considered pertinent to the B330 MSL Equipment requirement.

C. Volume III – Price

The SEC found the overall pricing of the proposal to be fair and reasonable given the innovative and highly technical nature of the requirement. The FPR Total Price is $11,891,316.

VI. Selection Briefing

A Source Selection Briefing which detailed the SEC findings was held on September 10, 2021. Prior to the briefing, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) was provided a full set of findings for MVG-Orbit. Attendance at the briefing included the SSA, SEC voting members, SEC nonvoting members, and SEC Ex-Officio members. During the meeting, the overall evaluation process and findings on Technical Capability, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, and Price were presented and discussed. The following selection decision resulted from the Source Selection Briefing.

VII. Selection Decision

I have reviewed and considered the information presented by the SEC. Based on the information presented in the Source Selection Briefing, I fully understand the evaluation process used by the SEC and the evaluation results. I concur with the overall SEC evaluation and take no exception to the actions or findings of the SEC.

As discussed above, on July 8, 2021, I was presented with the SEC’s initial evaluation of MVG-Orbit’s proposal and the CO’s determinations under NFS 1815.305-71(a) that the solicitation was not flawed or unduly restrictive and that the single proposal received— MVG-Orbit’s—was an acceptable proposal. Based on the information presented, I concurred with the CO’s determinations and directed the CO to proceed to negotiation of an acceptable contract with MVG-Orbit. With these negotiations completed and MVG-Orbit’s FPR fully evaluated and presented to me, I have determined that the final contract negotiated is acceptable to the Government and should be awarded consistent with NFS 1815.305-71(a)(1).

With respect to Technical Capability, MVG-Orbit’s proposal is responsive to the intent and technical requirements outlined in the SOW and is, I believe, acceptable for award and advantageous to the Government. Indeed, the SEC identified five significant strengths and strengths that present discernable value to the Government and indicate a likelihood of successful contract performance. First, the Offeror’s strength in Innovations (UR1(b)) reflects the proposal’s effective and innovative use of both proven technologies and state-of-the-art components and subsystems, a combination that is anticipated to provide NASA with performance, adaptability, and future growth for the systems. Second, the Significant strength in HNF Conceptual Design (DC1) concerning the Device Under Test (DUT) reflects a unique design feature that is expected to contribute even greater flexibility and performance than initially anticipated for the HNF. Third, the strength in the HNF Conceptual Design (DC1) concerning the HNF scanner system likewise reflects a unique design that not only meets, but exceeds, basic requirements of the SOW. Fourth, the strength in the CATR Conceptual Design (DC2) concerning the CATR scanner system also reflects a unique design that exceeds basic requirements of the SOW. Fifth, the significant strength in Maintenance/Calibration Schedule and Costs (MS1) is based on a materials and workmanship warranty that generally exceeds the requirements of the SOW and instills confidence in the product to be provided. All these strengths and significant strengths demonstrate that MVG-Orbit’s final proposal is not only technically acceptable but also advantageous to the Government.

I find that the above-described technical strengths and significant strengths outweigh the three identified weaknesses and that these weaknesses do not significantly detract from MVG-Orbit’s final proposal. First, MVG-Orbit’s proposal received a weakness in Technical Approach (UR1(a)) insofar as the picture quality provided in MVG-Orbit’s proposal may not be of the resolution and clarity sought. The SEC found, however, that this weakness only very minimally increased risk and noted during the Source Selection Briefing that the resolution likely would be adequate. As such, I find this weakness to be minor. Second, the proposal received a weakness in Technical Approach (UR1(a)) because the video feeds for the CATR are not calibrated. The SEC explained during the Source Selection Briefing, however, that uncalibrated feeds likely would be sufficient in this case because other aspects of MVG-Orbit’s technical proposal are anticipated to provide performance fidelity and traceability that will address the underlying purposes of having specified calibrated feeds.

Consequently, I do not find this weakness to be material. Third, the proposal received a weakness in CATR Conceptual Design (DC2) because certain proposed feeds do not meet specified cross-polarization levels and because the design does not allow fully simultaneous and independent use of the HNF and CATR. The SEC has advised, however, that neither issue is expected to significantly detract from the Government’s use of the CATR. The lack of meeting specified cross-polarization levels is anticipated to potentially affect CATR accuracy for large antennae only (if those) and is a reflection of how difficult the requirements in general are to meet given the current state of technology. The lack of fully simultaneous and independent use of the HNF and CATR is not considered a significant drawback to operability. For these reasons, I do not consider the three identified technical weaknesses to be significant risks to successful contract performance, nor do I believe that they rise to the level of making MVG-Orbit’s final proposal unacceptable for contract award.

Additionally, the SEC identified no technical deficiencies in MVG’s final proposal, which alone indicates its acceptability. Rather, based on the above-described findings, the SEC rated MVG-Orbit’s overall Technical Capability as “Very Good”—the second highest possible adjectival rating—and each of the four technical subfactors as “Good” (Understanding the Requirements; Implementation and Management Plan) or “Very Good” (Design Concepts; Maintenance and Support). These subfactor ratings and the overall Technical Capability rating further support the proposal’s acceptability and fitness for award. In assigning the rating of “Very Good,” the SEC determined that the proposal’s strengths outbalanced any weaknesses, and insofar as the SEC assigned a rating of “Good,” it determined that any weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly detract from the proposal. Having reviewed the findings and evaluation information presented to me, I concur with the SEC that the strengths and significant strengths outweigh the weaknesses and that the weaknesses do not significantly detract from MVG-Orbit’s proposal. Rather, I am impressed by the value that the technical proposal presents to the Government; in particular by the features proposed for HNF Conceptual Design as well as the extended warranty that MVG-Orbit proposed. I further note that Section M.6 of the RFP identifies Technical Capability as the most important factor among Technical Capability, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, and Price.

Turning to Relevant Experience and Past Performance, MVG-Orbit’s relevant past performance also supports that its final proposal is acceptable for contract award. The SEC assigned MVG-Orbit an overall High Level of Confidence rating, having assessed the Offeror’s PPN as a significant strength, its PPQ evaluation as a strength, and its PPD evaluation as neutral. As found by the SEC, MVG-Orbit’s PPN identifies two contracts that are relevant and two contracts that are highly relevant to the B330 MSL Equipment requirements, including contracts that involved the design, construction, and implementation of systems similar to the HNF and CATR here. This body of experience is highly pertinent to this procurement and supports MVG-Orbit’s acceptability for award. In addition, the four PPQ responses received for MVG-Orbit on contracts considered relevant had customer ratings of 69% Exceptional, 16% Very Good, 5% Satisfactory, and 10% Not Applicable.

These ratings reflect overall successful performance on past relevant contracts and further support acceptability for award here. Finally, the SEC’s PPD evaluation uncovered no relevant contracts in the government database, CPARS, which indicates that MVG-Orbit lacks relevant experience with Federal contracts. Consistent with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), I do not view MVG-Orbit’s lack of relevant CPARS data or Federal contracting experience favorably or unfavorably. Overall and based on the above-described evaluation results under this Factor, I find that MVG-Orbit’s relevant past experience instills confidence that MVG- Orbit can fulfill the B330 MSL equipment requirements.

Finally, as to Price—which Section M.6 of the RFP identifies as the least important factor among Technical Capability, Relevant Experience and Past Performance, and Price—I find MVG-Orbit’s FPR total price of $11,891,316 to be acceptable. The SEC advised during the SSA presentation that the total price of MVG-Orbit’s proposal is considered fair and reasonable based on the Government’s estimate as well as the SEC’s technical experts’ understanding of the current market and the nature of the contract requirements and the innovative and highly technical nature of the solutions presented. Given the technical requirements and innovations involved, I agree that the total price of MVG-Orbit’s final proposal is acceptable.

For all of these reasons, I find MVG-Orbit’s proposal, as negotiated, to be acceptable for contract award pursuant to NFS 1815.305-71(a)(1), to meet the requirements of the RFP, and to provide the Government with an advantageous contract and best value. Therefore, based on the information presented and for the reasons stated in this decision, I hereby select MVG-Orbit Advanced Technologies, Inc. to perform the contract requirements as outlined in solicitation 80GRC020MSLSTE.

Kurt A. Straub Date Source Selection Authority