Source Selection Statement Receipt of One Proposal under Full and Open Competition for 80GRC025R7016 (FINAL).pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

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

September 2, 2025

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FROM: PR/Claude David/Contract Specialist, Procurement Division

SUBJECT: Receipt and Evaluation of Single Proposal under Full and Open Competition for

80GRC025R7016

1. BACKGROUND

This memorandum documents the outcome of solicitation 80GRC025R7016, issued under full and open competition in accordance with FAR Part 6. A Sources Sought Notice was posted on April 11, 2025, and two responses were received from IP Exchange at Auburn University and Northrop Grumman Corporation. Of those respondents, only Northrop Grumman was identified as technically capable of performing the requirement. Following the market research phase, a Presolicitation Synopsis was posted on June 12, 2025, which was 15 days prior to release of the solicitation, in accordance with FAR 5.203(a).

2. SOLICITATION

The Request for Proposal (RFP) was posted on June 27, 2025, and remained open for 30 calendar days on SAM.gov. The solicitation was made available to all interested sources and contained clear instructions, evaluation criteria, and terms consistent with FAR Part 15 procedures. Section M(a)(1) of the RFP provided:

Selection and award will be made to that offeror whose offer will be most advantageous to the Government, with consideration given to the factors of proposed technical merit, past performance/experience, and price. This means that award will be conducted on a BEST VALUE basis. It is critical that offerors provide adequate detail to allow evaluation of their offer. Award will be made to the responsible offeror(s) whose proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation and provides the best value to the Government.

Section M(b) of the RFP identified the following evaluation factors: (1) Technical Capability; (2) Past Performance/Experience; and (3) Price. According to the RFP, as individual factors, Technical Capability is more important than Price, and Technical Capability and Past Performance/Experience are approximately equal in importance. When combined, Technical Capability and Past Performance are significantly more important than Price.

3. RECEIPT OF ONE PROPOSAL

At the closing date on July 28, 2025, one proposal was received, submitted by GE Aerospace.

4. EVALUATION OF SINGLE PROPOSAL RECEIVED

The single proposal received was evaluated in accordance with the RFP’s stated evaluation criteria. Under the Technical Capability Factor, the proposal was evaluated by technical personnel in accordance with the solicitation requirements. The offeror has provided an overview of the facility and personnel distribution. A significant part of their cleanroom is dedicated to SiC device development and production. Also detailed is a pathway to accomplish each step listed in the Government SOW. Based on these factors, the offeror has demonstrated the capability to meet the SOW requirements. and determined to be technically acceptable.

Under the Past Performance/Experience Factor, the proposal was evaluated as “Good”. Most of the SiC JFET-R fabrication tasks described in the Government SOW for this procurement have been previously performed by the offeror under prior NASA contracts 80GRC020F0017 and 80NSSC23PC582 on a prior set of “IC Gen. 12” and 80GRC025CA009 on a prior set of “IC Gen.13” NASA-provided 4H-SiC wafers. Therefore, the offeror performance and experience gained on these past contract tasks can reasonably serve as an appropriate starting basis for this resource evaluation.

Under the Price Factor, a price analysis was conducted on the proposal, and the proposed amount of $340,317 was determined to be fair and reasonable. This determination was supported through the application of two price analysis techniques: (1) comparison to previously proposed prices, historical prices paid by the Government and other sources, and contract prices for the same or similar end items; and (2) comparison with the Independent Government Estimate (IGE)."

Based on the above evaluation results and the underlying documentation of those results, the Contracting Officer determined that the proposal was acceptable for pursuant to NFS 1815.305- 71(a)(1).

5. ANALYSIS OF SOLICIATION

When only one proposal is received in response to a solicitation, NFS 1815.305-71 requires the contracting officer to determine whether the solicitation was flawed or unduly restrictive and determine if the single proposal is an acceptable proposal. In this case, the requirement was synopsized and competed in accordance with the FAR and NFS on a full and open basis, the solicitation was available for the required 30 days, and the Contracting Specialist reviewed the solicitation and found no evidence that the terms were unduly restrictive or tailored to a particular source. Considering the limited responses to the Sources Sought and Presolicitation Synopsis, it is reasonable to conclude that additional proposals were unlikely and that reissuing or altering the solicitation would not have produced a different outcome. Furthermore, as documented above, the Contracting Specialist determined that the proposal submitted by GE Aerospace constituted an acceptable proposal.

The Source Selection Authority reviewed the Contracting Specialist’s above determination and directed the Contracting Specialist to award a contract to GE Aerospace after negotiating an acceptable contract.

In addition, FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(ii)(A) provides that adequate competition exists even if only one offer is received, provided that:

(A) There was a reasonable expectation, based on market research or other assessment, that two or more responsible offerors, competing independently, would submit priced offers in response to the solicitation's expressed requirement, even though only one offer is received from a responsible offeror and if-

(1) Based on the offer received, the contracting officer can reasonably conclude that the offer was submitted with the expectation of competition, e.g., circumstances indicate that–

(i) The offeror believed that at least one other offeror was capable of submitting a meaningful offer; and

(ii) The offeror had no reason to believe that other potential offerors did not intend to submit an offer; and

(2) The determination that the proposed price is based on adequate price competition and is reasonable has been approved at a level above the contracting officer;

FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(ii)(A). Here, as detailed above, the Government received two responses to its Sources Sought Notice, one of which was determined to be technically acceptable.

Additionally, the Government received a proposal from a third source that was determined acceptable by the Contracting Specialist. Based on the interest of these three companies, the Contract Specialist concludes that GE Aerospace believed that at least one other offeror was capable of submitting a meaningful offer and that GE Aerospace had no reason to believe that other potential offerors did not intend to submit an offer. Accordingly, the Contacting Specialist finds that the proposed price of GE Aerospace’s proposal to be based on adequate price competition. This determination has been reviewed and approved by the Source Selection Authority, who is a level above the Contracting Specialist.

6. SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Based on the information above and for the reasons stated in this memorandum, the Source Selection Authority finds the GE Aerospace proposal 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 the best value. Therefore, the Source Selection Authority hereby selects GE Aerospace to perform the contract requirements as outlined in solicitation 80GRC025R7016.