Source Selection Statement SWN SWiPS Final.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION

STATEMENT FOR

NASA L1 Series Space Weather Next Solar Wind Plasma Sensor (SWiPS)

INSTRUMENT

SOLICITATION NO. 80GSFC23R0035

On September 16, 2024 with a follow up meeting on October 2, 2024, I, along with senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), held a meeting with the SWiPS Integrated Evaluation Team (IET), its Subject Matter Expert (SME), and ex-officios to hear findings based on the evaluation of the proposals for the NASA L1 Series Space Weather Next Solar Wind Plasma Sensor (SWiPS) instrument implementation procurement. This memorandum documents my decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this contract is to acquire implementation and instrument development activities for the two (2) SWiPS instruments and related services for the Flight Projects Directorate, in support of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with the goal of providing NOAA with the continuity of solar wind data and X-Ray irradiance measurements plus Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) imagery. The contractor shall design, analyze, develop, and fabricate the required quantity of sensor instruments. The contractor shall also integrate, test, calibrate, evaluate and support launch and on-orbit check-out of the instruments. NASA is selecting a contractor to perform the implementation and hardware development activities for the SWiPS instrument for Space Weather Next L1 Series. The SWiPS requirement was issued as a full and open competition procurement. The L1 Series is a follow-on successor to the Space Weather Follow-On Lagrange 1 (SWFO-L1) Mission that is currently in development. SWiPS is used to measure solar wind, a supersonic flow of hot plasma from the Sun and provide early warning of changes which affect the geomagnetic environment. Although the Space Weather Next L1 Series SWiPS instrument is a new acquisition, there are many similarities to the SWFO-L1 program SWiPS instrument.

NASA issued the Request for Proposal (RFP) on January 12, 2024, followed by six (6) amendments.

The North American Industry Classification (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 336414 and the small business size standard is 1,300 employees. The resultant contract will be a Cost-Plus-Fixed- Fee (CPFF) research and development contract for two (2) Flight Model instruments (FM1 and FM2). The contract does not include options.

The anticipated period of performance for this contract is from contract award to January 2034. This date is 15 months following successful launch of FM2 (anticipated to be October 2032).

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

The following companies submitted timely proposals by March 1, 2024:

University of California Berkeley (UCB)

University of New Hampshire (UNH)

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)

Assurance Technology Corporation (ATC)

University of Michigan (UM)

The RFP provided Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the contract without

The RFP also provided 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.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

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

The SWiPS IET evaluated proposals in accordance with the source selection procedures identified in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 "Source Selection" and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS)

1815.3. The Source Evaluation Board procedures at NFS 1815.370, "NASA Source Evaluation Boards" were not applied. A trade-off process, as described at FAR 15.101-1, was used in making a best value source selection.

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

The Cost Factor is approximately equal in importance to the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual factors, the Cost factor is slightly more important than the Mission Suitability factor which is significantly more important than the Past Performance factor.

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

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(b) 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 GSFC 52.215-231 of the solicitation. Each Offeror' s contract references were evaluated to determine the degree of relevance based on size, content, and/or complexity. In evaluating Past Performance, the IET relied on the Government-wide Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) database and customer feedback, in addition to the narrative on relevant past/current contracts provided by the Offerors. The Past Performance factor was assigned an adjectival rating of "Very High Level of Confidence," "High Level of Confidence," "Moderate Level of Confidence," "Low Level of Confidence," "Very Low Level of Confidence," or "Neutral."

MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

The table below provides the overall adjectival ratings assigned for Mission Suitability for the five (5) SWiPS proposals.

Mission Suitability Offeror Rating

UCB Fair UNH Very Good SwRI Good ATC Poor UM Fair

UCB

UCB received an overall Fair (1) Significant Strength, one (1) Strength, three

(3) Weaknesses, three (3) Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

UCB received one (1) Significant Strength in the following area: Time of Flight. The inclusion of the Time of Flight (TOF) section of the instrument permits determination of particle speed as well as energy allowing determination of particle mass. This strength significantly enhances the likelihood of successful contract performance.

UCB received one (1) Strength in the following area: High Heritage Design. By proposing the SWIPS sensor head with high heritage and by leveraging ground processing algorithms, tools, operational products, and a proven calibration approach, UCB reduces the SWIPS development risk.

UCB received three (3) Weaknesses in the following areas: 1. Inconsistent Size Weight and Power (SWAP) values. The SWAP values indicated in the proposal are inconsistent with those in the description of the SWiPS Electronics Module. 2. Risk Descriptions. risk descriptions lack context that informs the basis of the Likelihood and Consequence ratings. Due to the lack of context, unclear what the consequence of this risk are, or if the mitigations are sufficient to mitigate the risk. 3. Telemetry Plan. The proposal does not adequately address the proposed telemetry plan. The inadequate detail obscures the technical capabilities of the instrument that would be needed to identify what data is going to be sent to ground within the telemetry allocation and then compute the expected accuracy achievable with this data as a function of solar wind conditions.

UCB received three (3) Significant Weaknesses in the following areas: 1. Proposal Flaw related to Accuracy Requirements.

requirements can be met over part of parameter regime. 2. Magnetic Cleanliness.

fails to adequately address how the instrument will achieve magnetic cleanliness The magnetic cleanliness states the plan is, to later develop a magnetic cleanliness plan and execute it like the offeror has done on previous missions. This provides inadequate evidence that the definition of magnetic cleanliness is understood or that the strategy can meet the requirements in the specifications. 3. Quality Assurance Plan. UCB provided a Quality Manual which highlighted generalized top-level callouts for procedures that exist; however, it did not deliver any details into those procedures. The proposal required Offerors to provide a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) to address quality management procedures specific to this acquisition. Based upon what was submitted, this does not fully address the requirements for the Quality Assurance plan and increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

UNH

UNH received an overall adjectival rating of Very with one (1) Significant Strength, no Strengths, two (2) Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

UNH received one (1) Significant Strength in the following area: Technical Approach. UNH provided a detailed and comprehensive technical approach. Specifically, the proposed approach provides greater confidence in meeting ion measurement requirements at the maxima and minima of the required range.

In addition, the description of the ground processing algorithm was particularly robust with extensive detail on both the theoretical basis for the algorithm and its implementation. proposal also provided thorough details about how the full scope of work would be accomplished and their approach, illustrating understanding of the technical requirements. Collectively, their comprehensive approach significantly increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

UNH received two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: 1. Mission Assurance Structure. UNH proposed delegating performance of the mission assurance function to the subcontractor. In addition, the Project Control Board (PCB) members and responsibilities does not include the Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) manager. 2. Proposal Flaw related to Accuracy Requirements. UNH had a proposal flaw that failed to fully explain how it will meet accuracy requirements over a very small part of the parameter regime.

SwRI

SwRI received an overall adjectival rating of with no Significant Strengths, five (5) Strengths, two (2) Weaknesses, one (1) Significant Weakness, and no Deficiencies.

SwRI received five (5) Strengths in the following areas: 1. High Heritage Design. SwRI proposed a SWiPS design that re-uses nearly all of the recently completed build of SWiPS developed for the Space Weather Follow On Lagrange 1 (SWFO-L1) instrument. 2. Instrument Level Redundancy.

SwRI proposed to provide instrument level redundancy, mitigating risk of a full instrument failure on orbit. 3. High Margin on Mass, Volume, and Power.

margin on the Mass, Volume and Operational Power requirements. 4. Quality Assurance Plan. The QAP was clear, detailed, efficient, and completed and exceeded the proposal requirements. 5. Small Business Utilization Plan

SwRI received two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: 1. Risk Statement. SwRI provides risks with inadequate explanation to justify the likelihood and consequences, which did not demonstrate a thorough understanding of the risks and risk management. 2. Triple Modular Redundancy. SwRI proposal does not fully demonstrate they will meet SWiPS-2771 requiring full triple modular redundancy on all Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA).

SwRI received one (1) Significant Weakness in the following area: Proposal Flaw related to Accuracy Requirements. The proposed instrument will not meet accuracy requirements over part of the parameter regime, and the extent and degree of those exceedances is likely larger than that indicated in the accuracy requirements exceedances.

ATC

ATC received an overall adjectival rating of Poor with one (1) Significant Strength, three (3) Strengths, one (1) Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and one (1) Deficiency.

ATC received one (1) Significant Strength in the following area: Small Business Utilization. ATC is a recommended goals. The proposed work is considered high technology work that significantly increases the likelihood of successful small business utilization implementation while meeting contract performance.

ATC received three (3) Strengths in the following areas: 1. Mature Heritage Design. ATC proposed a design that utilizes flight-proven Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 9 instrument components. 2.

Risk Management Approach. provided a detailed risk management approach that included details about how risks are developed and managed. 3. Quality Assurance Plan.

ATC proposed a QAP that is clear, detailed, efficient, and complete and demonstrates a comprehensive approach to quality.

ATC received one (1) Weakness in the following area: Risk Descriptions. The risk descriptions in the proposal are incomplete which makes it unclear what the actual risk is.

ATC received one (1) Deficiency in the following area: Material Failure to demonstrate the ability to meet Accuracy Requirements. The proposal does not demonstrate that it can meet accuracy requirements due to a material failure to provide sufficient detail on sources of error, effective means to mitigate those errors, and key performance characteristics necessary to evaluate the ins performance. Specifically, the proposal lacks sufficient information on key performance characteristics such as the Full-Width Half-Max (FWHM) of energy, azimuthal, or equirements.

Additionally, the proposal has inadequate discussion of considerations of dynamic range, systematic errors, or Poisson statistics. This deficiency increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

UM

UM received an overall adjectival rating of with no Significant Strengths, no Strengths, two (2) Weaknesses, two (2) Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

UM received two (2) Weaknesses in the following areas: 1. Mass and Power Maximum Expected Value (MEV). UM had discrepancies in the proposal related to Maximum Expected Value (MEV) for mass breakdown. These discrepancies reduce confidence in the maturity of the design. 2. Quality Assurance Plan. The proposed QAP does not currently comply with all the requirements of SAE AS9100. The QAP did not demonstrate a clear management structure. Finally, the QAP did not clearly demonstrate that government participation is required as a voting member on major level one non-conformances as required by MAR requirement QMS_09.

UM received two (2) Significant Weaknesses in the following areas: 1. Proposal Flaw related to Accuracy Requirements. UM provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate the requirement over a part of the parameter regime will be met. 2. Risk Ranking Matrix. does not have adequate discussion of potential or expected risks. The proposal describes a general posture towards Risk Management; however, the Mission Suitability volume is missing the matrix showing the ranking of risks associated with the Space Weather Faraday Cup (SWFC) sensor.

COST EVALUATION

The lowest proposed and probable costs were provided by ATC, followed by UNH, which was slightly higher and UCB which was slightly higher than UNH. UM proposed cost was substantially higher than ATC and SWRI was significantly higher than ATC in both proposed and probable cost. The cost ranking of the Offerors did not change with the probable cost adjustments.

The IET probable cost for all the Offerors. The IET determined that all Offerors required a probable cost adjustment.

UCB: The IET determined an upward probable adjustment was required to increase direct labor hours for special studies, travel costs for missing trips required in the statement of work and costs for performance through January 2034.

UNH proposed $24,275,747. The IET determined an upward probable adjustment was required to add additional special study hours, which resulted in a probable adjustment. There were costs risks associated with cost proposal due to minor inconsistencies. costs after the probable adjustment was $24,615,426.

SwRI: The IET determined a downward probable adjustment was required to remove the reserves since the IET is confident that the offeror is capable of completing the work without reserves; reserves will be held at the program level. This resulted in a negative probable adjustment. The IET identified a cost risk related to the lack of description for the proposed professional levels.

ATC: The IET took exception to the proposed Ground Support Equipment (GSE) approach and deemed an upward probable cost adjustment was necessary to ensure GSE materials were readily available. The IET identified costs risks related to cost for use of the test facility not being included in the proposal. In addition, the IET observed minor inconsistencies between the Cost Volume exhibits.

UM: The IET determined an upward probable adjustment was required to add travel costs for missing trips required in the statement of work. In addition, the IET determined a downward probable adjustment was required to remove reserves since the IET is confident that the offeror is capable of completing the work without reserves; reserves will be held at the program level. There were no costs risks associated with cost proposal.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

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

Offeror Overall Relevance Overall Performance Overall Past Performance

Level of Confidence Rating UCB Very High Very High Very High UNH High High High SwRI Very High High High ATC Very High Very High Very High UM Moderate Very High Moderate

DECISION

As the SSA for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the documentation entitled L1 Series Solar Winds Plasma Sensor (SWiPS) Presentation to Source Selection Authority On September 16 and October 2, 2024, I met with the SWiPS IET, along with several advisors, to receive the findings of the IET. I determined that the findings presented by the IET, as documented in its presentation were detailed and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the RFP and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal. I discussed with the IET its rationale for the findings, adjectival ratings for Mission Suitability, and discussed the rationale for the evaluation of Cost and Past Performance, and I agree with the findings.

In determining which proposal offered the best value to NASA, I referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP:

The Cost Factor is approximately equal in importance to the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual factors, the Cost factor is slightly more important than the Mission Suitability factor which is significantly more important than the Past Performance factor.

My selection was based on the comparative assessment of the proposals against each of the RFP evaluation factors to determine which proposal represented the best value to the Government.

Under the Cost Factor, which was slightly more important than Mission Suitability, I observed that the probable cost for ATC was the lowest, followed by the slightly higher UNH as the second lowest, UCB as the third lowest, which was slightly higher still, and UM as the fourth lowest which was substantially higher than ATC, with SwRI having a significantly higher cost than ATC and the highest proposal cost. All received some cost adjustments, but the ranking remained the same and the cost difference remained comparable.

cost offers a slight advantage over UNH, a moderate advantage over UCB and substantial advantage over UM, and a significant advantage over SWRI for the Cost factor.

UNH had the strongest and highest rated Mission Suitability proposal with a rating of Very Good.

This was based on its Significant Strength, for a detailed and comprehensive technical approach which presented several technical advantages. Further, the UNH proposal had only two Weaknesses; and was the only proposal that received no Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies. All other Offerors were rated lower in the Mission Suitability factor, having fewer beneficial Significant Strengths and Strengths as well as more impactful Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, and/or Deficiencies. This provided UNH an advantage over the SwRI proposal, which was rated Good, and a substantial advantage over UCB, UM, and ATC.

Regarding the Past Performance factor, the least important factor, I noted ATC and UCB received a Very High Level of Confidence rating, while UNH and SwRI received a High Level of Confidence, and UM received a Moderate Level of Confidence rating. I noted a slight advantage with UCB and ATC receiving a Very High overall performance rating compared to SwRI and

High overall performance rating. UM received a Moderate overall relevance rating, primarily due to the Moderate relevance, making it least competitive in the Past Performance factor.

In order to make my selection, I referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors, as specified in the RFP. The Cost Factor is approximately equal in importance to the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual factors, the Cost factor is slightly more important than the Mission Suitability factor which is significantly more important than the Past Performance factor. First, I noted that ATC and then UNH had the lowest Costs, which was the Most Important Factor. I then considered the Mission Suitability Factor. I noted that UNH received the highest Mission Suitability adjectival rating of all offerors, Very Good, based largely on their comprehensive significant strength for their technical approach, which I found to be very strong. In contrast, the ATC Mission Suitability proposal was rated Poor based on a Deficiency for its material failure to demonstrate ability to meet accuracy requirements. This resulted in ATC being far less competitive in the Mission Suitability Subfactor.

UNH also did not have any Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies. Mission Suitability evaluation was a clear discriminator from all Offerors. For Past Performance, I found that UCB and ATC had an advantage over UNH, SWRI, and UM based on the combination of Very High Relevance and Performance on their past contracts and recognized that this is the least important factor.