Source Selection Statement OCX Final signed 5.15.24.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION

STATEMENT FOR

NASA GEOXO OCEAN COLOR (OCX)

INSTRUMENT

SOLICITATION NO. 80GSFC23R0014

On April 11, 2024 and April 26, 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 meetings with the OCX Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to hear findings based on the evaluation of the proposals for the NASA Geostationary and Extended Observations (GeoXO) Ocean Color (OCX) instrument implementation procurement. This memorandum documents my decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this contract is to acquire up to four (4) instruments in support of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ocean monitoring operations. NASA is selecting a contractor to perform the implementation and hardware development activities for the OCX instrument for the GeoXO satellite series. The OCX requirement was issued as a full and open competition procurement. OCX is a new instrument for the NOAA Geostationary program. OCX will provide hyperspectral imagery in the near infrared to UV spectrum of the United States Exclusive Economic Zones and other areas of interest. OCX will provide daily observations of ocean biology, chemistry, and ecology to assess ocean productivity, ecosystem changes, water quality, and hazards such as harmful algal blooms. Ocean Color observations provide critical data for ecological forecasters, marine resources managers, fishers, health departments, water treatment managers, and other commercial and recreational industries. Deployment of OCX in Geostationary orbit enables faster revisit times compared to traditional Ocean Color instruments in Low Earth Orbit. The contract scope includes the tasks and deliverables necessary to design, analyze, develop, fabricate, integrate, test, verify, and support OCX flight instruments, as well as supply and maintain the instrument ground support equipment and support Mission Operations at the NOAA Satellite Operations Facility.

NASA issued the Request for Proposal (RFP) on August 31, 2023, followed by one (1) amendment.

Amendment One to the RFP was issued on September 21, 2023. This amendment posted the Final RFP Questions and Answers, as well as updated Attachment E, Attachment G, and RFP Sections B.1, J.1, K.1, and L.13.C.

The North American Industry Classification (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 336414 and the small business size standard is 1,250 employees. The resultant contract will be a Cost-Plus-Award- Fee (CPAF) hardware contract for two (2) Flight Model instruments (FM1 and FM2) and parts for two optional builds (FM3 and FM4). The contract includes six (6) options. Option 1 is for the build for FM3. Option 2 is for the build for FM4. Options 3-6 are for additional value to perform Engineering Studies, valued at $2M per option.

The anticipated period of performance for this contract includes support for 10 years of on-orbit operations and 5 years of on-orbit storage, for a total of 15 years of operations for each Flight Model (FM).

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

The following companies submitted timely proposals by October 16, 2023:

• Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation (Ball)

• Raytheon Company (Raytheon)

The RFP stated, “The Government intends 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 determines 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.

On February 16, 2024, BAE Systems completed the acquisition of Ball Aerospace. After conducting an analysis and assessment of the potential impact of this transaction, the Contracting Officer concluded that there should be no meaningful impact or effect on the Ball Aerospace proposal, nor should it impact its ability to perform the prospective OCX Instrument contract.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

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

The OCX SEB 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 SEB procedures at NFS 1815.370, NASA Source Evaluation Boards, were applied.

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

The Cost factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability factor and the Past Performance factor. As individual Factors, Mission Suitability Factor is more important than the Cost Factor, which is more important than the Past Performance Factor.

The RFP established that the Mission Suitability Factor would be point scored in the evaluation process. The Mission Suitability Factor consisted of the following three (3) subfactors with assigned points as indicated.

MISSION SUITABILITY SUBFACTOR POINTS

Subfactor A Technical Approach 750 Subfactor B Management Approach 150 Subfactor C Small Business Utilization (SBU) 100

TOTAL 1000

The Mission Suitability Factors were evaluated using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The SEB first reviewed each proposal and generated consensus findings (i.e., Deficiencies, Significant Weaknesses, Weaknesses, Strengths, and Significant Strengths) within each subfactor. Next, the SEB considered the findings under each subfactor and applied the adjectival rating definitions set forth in NFS 1815. 305(a)(3)(A) to assign a rating based on the merit of the proposal within that subfactor. After assigning the adjectival rating for the subfactor, the SEB determined the associated percentile score with the range set forth in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The maximum points available for each subfactor were then multiplied by the assigned percent for each subfactor to derive the score for the particular subfactor. For example, if a subfactor has a possible 200 points and receives a percentile rating of 80, then the score of that subfactor would be 160 points.

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.

For the Past Performance Factor, the past performance evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 and provision M.5 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 SEB 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 not point scored but 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."

MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

The Mission Suitability factor has three subfactors as follows: Subfactor A - Technical Approach;

Subfactor B - Management Approach; and Subfactor C - Small Business Utilization.

Each subfactor was evaluated in accordance with the weights delineated in the RFP. The table below provides the adjectival ratings assigned in each Mission Suitability subfactor for the two (2) OCX proposals.

Offeror Subfactor A Technical Approach

Subfactor B Management

Approach

Subfactor C Small Business

Utilization

Mission Suitability

Points Ball Aerospace Very Good Good Good 784 Raytheon Good Good Good 640

Ball

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, Ball received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one

(1) Significant Strength, three (3) Strengths, two (2) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Ball received one (1) Significant Strength in the following area: (1) Ball proposed a significantly shorter revisit time of two hours for the driving Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) which is one hour faster than the requirement of three hours. The significantly shorter revisit time is a major performance enhancement that increases data utility and operational flexibility for users. Enhancing the frequency of ocean color observations in comparison to legacy missions is a key objective of OCX. This capability greatly increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Ball received three (3) Strengths in the following area: (1) by proposing a design that exceeds several key performance requirements with good margin, Ball has increased the likelihood that as-built performance will meet and/or exceed specifications and enhance science data quality; (2) by proposing an instrument that leverages heritage electronics and software from recent and relevant missions, Ball decreases the contract’s technical, schedule, and cost risks; and (3) by performing comprehensive verification before and after environmental testing, Ball reduces the risk of not meeting performance on orbit. These Strengths increase the likelihood of successful performance of the contract.

Ball received two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) by omitting acoustic testing from the test plan, Ball increases the likelihood of not being able to meet this requirement within the proposed resources; and (2) by proposing a low-maturity, low-heritage Door Diffusor Mechanism Assembly, Ball increases technical risks. These Weaknesses increase the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, Ball received an adjectival rating of Good with no Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, one (1) Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no

Ball received one (l) Strength in the following area: (1) by proposing several key components are built in-house at Ball, the offeror gains enhanced control of oversight, schedule, prioritization, and costs, increasing the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Ball received one (1) Weakness in the following area: (1) by proposing a schedule with several issues there is a low risk to FM1 delivery and the FM 3-4 milestone schedule. This Weakness increases the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU), Ball received an adjectival rating of “Good,” with no Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no

Ball received one (1) Strength in the following area: (1) Effective processes and plans for commitment to small business increases successful small business utilization and contract

Raytheon

Under Subfactor A, Technical Approach, Raytheon received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths, three (3) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Raytheon received two (2) Strengths in the following areas: (1) by proposing a concept with good margin on polarization sensitivity, Raytheon improves science data quality; and (2) by proposing large margins in accommodation and interface requirements, Raytheon decreases risk to instrument and mission development. These Strengths increase the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Raytheon received three (3) Weaknesses in the following areas: (1) by proposing a design with low margins against several key performance requirements, there is elevated risk that one or more performance requirements will not be met resulting in degraded data quality; (2) by overestimating the technological maturity and applicability to the requirements of the electronics subsystem, as well as providing insufficient information on simulators, Raytheon increases technical development risk;

and (3) by proposing to perform acoustic testing without a subsequent Comprehensive Performance Test, Raytheon increases risk to instrument performance and schedule. These Weaknesses increase the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Under Subfactor B, Management Approach, Raytheon received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no

Raytheon received two (2) Strengths in the following area: (1) by proposing a high-confidence schedule with good margin and slack, Raytheon increases the likelihood of executing its proposal within the proposed milestones and resources; and (2) by proposing several key subsystems are built in-house, and sufficient resources exist for oversight of significant subcontractors, Raytheon gains enhanced control of oversight, schedule, interfacing, and costs. These Strengths increase the likelihood of successful contract

Under Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization (SBU), Raytheon received an adjectival rating of

“Good,” with no Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Raytheon received one (1) Strength in the following area: (1) Effective processes and plans for commitment to small business increases successful small business utilization and the likelihood of successful contract performance.

COST EVALUATION

The SEB evaluated the total proposed cost, inclusive of fee, and determined the Government’s probable cost for all the Offerors. Ball’s total proposed cost, inclusive of fee ($458,868,688), was moderately higher than Raytheon’s total proposed cost. The SEB determined that an upward probable cost adjustment was required for both offerors.

For Ball, the SEB made an upward probable adjustment to costs associated with correcting issues documented in their schedule and acoustic testing weaknesses. A slight downward adjustment was also necessary to fix an error in Ball’s proposed costs related to inclusion of Options 3-6 in the Base proposal.

For Raytheon the SEB made an upward probable cost adjustment to account for the low performance margins technical risk.

Based on the SEB’s evaluation results, Ball had a total probable cost ($465,354,082), which was moderately higher than Raytheon’s probable cost.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

In evaluating the Past Performance of the Offerors, the SEB determined the Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating for Ball to be “High” based on the combination of “Very High” Overall Relevance and “High” Overall Performance. The SEB determined Raytheon to have an overall Past Performance Level of Confidence rating of “Moderate” based on the combination of “Very High” Overall Relevance and “Moderate” Overall Performance.

DECISION

As the SSA for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the SEB’s documentation entitled “Geostationary Extended Observations (GeoXO) Ocean Color (OCX) Procurement Source Selection Authority Presentation” and the associated Cost Report. On August 11, 2024, I met with the OCX SEB, along with several ex-officio members, to receive the findings of the SEB. At this meeting, I requested additional information and considerations from the SEB. A follow-up meeting was held on April 26, 2024.

I carefully reviewed the Contracting Officer’s documentation on the acquisition of Ball Aerospace by BAE Systems and concurred that the acquisition would have no meaningful impact or effect on the Ball Aerospace proposal, nor will it impact their ability to perform the prospective OCX Instrument contract.

I determined that the findings presented by the SEB, as documented in its presentation and the accompanying cost report, 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 SEB its rationale for the findings, adjectival ratings, and scores for the Mission Suitability Subfactors, and discussed the rationale for the evaluation of Cost and Past Performance, and I agree with the SEB’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 significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and Past Performance Factor. As individual Factors, the Mission Suitability Factor is more important than the Cost Factor, which 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. Regarding the Mission Suitability Factor, the most important factor, under Subfactor A (Technical Approach) I noted that Ball received a Very Good adjectival rating which was higher than Raytheon’s rating of Good.

Under Subfactor B (Management Approach) I noted than both Offerors received Good ratings with Raytheon having a slight advantage. However, I noted that Subfactor B is weighted significantly less important than Subfactor A. Under Subfactor C (Small Business Utilization) I noted both offerors received a rating a Good with no meaningful discriminators between the Offeror’s findings.

Regarding Subfactor A, the most heavily weighted subfactor, I found a discriminator between Ball’s Very Good rating when compared to Raytheon’s Good rating. Ball received one Significant Strength, three Strengths, and two Weaknesses, while Raytheon received no Significant Strengths, two Strengths, and three Weaknesses.

I noted that Ball received a Significant Strength in this subfactor for its high-performance OCX design, capable of a 2-hour revisit time in the driving Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) verses the 3-hour requirement. This enhancement of one of OCX’s key performance requirements enables greater data value and operational flexibility and is a significant benefit to the Government.

Specifically, the primary benefit of a shorter revisit time is cloud avoidance. A faster revisit time greatly increases the ability of capturing a cloud-free scene over a particular area over the course of the observing period. I noted that Ball’s fast revisit time concept significantly increases value to the Government and greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

In addition to the Significant Strength, I found that Ball received three (3) Strengths, as follows:

(1) good performance margins on some Key Performance Requirements which increases the likelihood that the as-built performance will meet/and or exceed specifications and improve the science data quality; (2) the use of heritage electronics and software from recent and relevant missions reduces technical and schedule risk; and (3) proposing comprehensive verification before and after environmental testing which reduces technical risk.

I noted that Ball received two (2) Weaknesses, as follows: (1) the offeror’s omission of acoustic testing means additional resources may be needed to meet the OCX requirements; and (2) dependance on a low-heritage Door Diffuser Mechanism Assembly increases technical risks.

While acknowledging Ball’s Weaknesses, I found that these Weaknesses for Ball did not significantly detract from their overall Very Good technical approach.

By contrast, I noted that Raytheon did not receive any Significant Strengths under Subfactor A.

I noted that Raytheon received two (2) Strengths, as follows: (1) good margins on Polarization Sensitivity that improve data quality; and (2) large margins in Accommodation and Interface requirements which reduce technical risks to the instrument and GeoXO mission.

I noted Raytheon received three (3) Weaknesses, as follows: (1) low margins in some key performance requirements that increases technical risk; (2) low-TRL and insufficient information on Electronics and Simulators which increases technical risk; and (3) omission of post-acoustic testing verification which increases technical risk. While I found that Raytheon’s Strengths will have some positive impact for successful performance, I noted these Strengths were offset by its’ three Weaknesses. Specifically, I found that Raytheon’s Low Performance Margin and Electronics and Simulators weaknesses increase technical and schedule risk and therefore detracts from their overall technical approach.

In comparing Subfactor A, I discerned a clear and significant discriminator between the proposals.

While Raytheon’s proposal offers some Strengths, the Strengths were offset by Weaknesses. Ball’s Strengths not only outbalanced the Weaknesses, but also included a Significant Strength for a faster revisit time which greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance. Therefore, I found that Ball’s Technical Approach is significantly stronger.

Within Mission Suitability Subfactor B, Management Approach, Ball received an adjectival rating of Good with one (1) Strength, and one (1) Weakness. Raytheon received an adjectival rating of Good with two (2) Strengths. Each Offeror received similar Strengths related to the efficiencies gained through in-house building of subsystems. Raytheon also received a Strength for proposing a high confidence schedule that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance, while Ball received a Weakness for proposing a schedule with several issues which increases the risk that Ball will not be able to meet the proposed schedule milestones. However, I noted that Ball’s proposed schedule carries substantial slack and therefore there is low risk of not achieving the contractual schedule milestones. After reviewing each offeror's findings in Subfactor B, I found a slight discriminator in favor of Raytheon due to the schedule findings noted above for each offeror.

Therefore, I concluded that Raytheon’s Management Approach is slightly stronger.

Within Mission Suitability Subfactor C, Small Business Utilization, I noted that Ball and Raytheon each received a Good adjectival rating, each receiving (1) Strength for similar findings demonstrating commitment to small business. Therefore, there is no discriminator between the proposals for Small Business Utilization.

Under the Cost Factor, I observed that the probable cost for Ball was moderately higher than the probable cost of Raytheon, resulting in a moderate cost advantage for Raytheon. Both Offerors’ proposals did receive some cost adjustments, but the cost difference remained comparable. I accepted the cost differences as reasonable and realistic.

Regarding the Past Performance factor, I noted that Ball received a High Level of Confidence rating while Raytheon received a Moderate Level of Confidence rating. While both Offerors received Very High overall relevancy ratings, I noted a slight advantage with Ball receiving a High performance rating compared to Raytheon’s Moderate performance rating. I reviewed the reference contracts performance ratings for each Offeror. While both Offeror’s past performance evaluation revealed issues with cost and schedule, overall Ball received mostly High and Very High performance ratings; whereas, Raytheon received mostly Moderate performance ratings.

Therefore, I concluded that while both Offerors could successfully perform this contract, Ball’s higher level of confidence rating offers a slight advantage over Raytheon in the Past Performance factor.

Finally, I carefully considered the findings in relation to the evaluation criteria in the RFP and again referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP.

Under Mission Suitability, the most important factor, I determined that Ball’s proposal was significantly more advantageous than Raytheon’s proposal, based primarily on Subfactor A, as described above. I found that Ball’s significant advantage over Raytheon in Subfactor A, which was the most heavily weighted subfactor and of significantly more value than Subfactor B, outweighed Raytheon’s slight advantage over Ball in Subfactor B. I concluded that Ball’s significant Mission Suitability advantage outweighs Raytheon’s moderate advantage regarding Cost, the second most important factor. For Past Performance, the least important factor, Ball also has a slight advantage over Raytheon, as noted above.

Overall, I concluded that Ball’s significant Mission Suitability advantage and slight Past Performance advantage outweighs Raytheon’s moderate cost advantage. As such, I concluded that Ball’s proposal offers the best value to the Government.

Therefore, I select Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation for award of the OCX contract.

Cynthia W. Simmons Date Source Selection Authority