SPOC On-Ramp Source Selection Decision SpaceLaunch.pdf

CUI//SP-SSEL

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

for

SPACECRAFT PROCESSING OPERATIONS CONTRACT (SPOC)

On-Ramp 80KSC022R0020 Rev A.

On July 30, 2026, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the Spacecraft Processing Operations Contract (SPOC) acquisition, I met with members of the evaluation Team to independently review its evaluation of proposals received in response to the SPOC solicitation. This Source Selection Statement explains the evaluation results and why the offeror was not selected.

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

The principal purpose of the SPOC is to procure facilities and services for spacecraft/launch vehicle organizations to conduct processing and integration activities in preparation for mating the spacecraft with the launch vehicle at facilities near launch sites. SPOC Contractor facilities are located near either Kennedy Space Center (KSC)/Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) or Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB), or both.

On February 23, 2022, the original Sources Sought Synopsis was issued that sought information to determine industry interest and capability, assist the Agency in developing the acquisition strategy, and facilitate consideration of a potential small business set-aside. This industry input was considered in the original SPOC solicitation. The resultant solicitation included Clause 2.22, On-Ramp Insertion as follows:

The purpose of this clause is to create an opportunity for qualified new, emerging spacecraft processing facility providers and incumbent spacecraft processing facility providers to introduce its services not available at the time of the award of the initial contract. The intent of the On-Ramp is to foster competition for future requirements for spacecraft processing services.

In accordance with this clause, the original solicitation (as revised) shall remain open in accordance with Section 2.11, Ordering Period. The decision to request proposals under this clause will be solely at NASA’s discretion and will only occur after the action has been synopsized. When requested (synopsized), new facilities or new service providers will be allowed to submit proposals that may result in contract award(s)…

Accordingly, NASA's Launch Services Program (LSP) issued Request for Proposals 80KSC022R0020 REV A on May 11, 2026, seeking proposals from established and emerging spacecraft processing facility providers. This action was taken in response to the critical need for facilities, particularly those capable of supporting nuclear mission processing requirements.

Currently, SPOC lacks providers that possess or are willing to operate facilities suitable for nuclear mission processing. LSP maintains an inhouse payload processing capability through the Government owned Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility (PHSF) at KSC. While the PHSF provides essential support for both nuclear and nonnuclear missions, the growing cadence of upcoming launches has made sole reliance on this single facility a critical vulnerability. The absence of adequate payload processing service facilities would place mission readiness and launch schedules at significant risk, creating critical vulnerabilities that could disrupt planned operations. As demand continues to increase, depending on one Government facility for all compliant PPF services introduces a single point of failure that NASA must proactively address to ensure uninterrupted spacecraft integration, testing, and encapsulation support.

The original deadline for proposals was June 10, 2026. An extension request was approved on June 7, 2026, moving the deadline to June 17, 2026. A subsequent extension was granted on June 15, 2026, establishing July 1, 2026, as the new deadline. All offerors were informed of the extension requests and had the opportunity to submit proposals and schedule oral presentations at their discretion. The decision was to allow offerors the flexibility to align submissions with their company schedules, while ensuring that there was no risk to LSP. The SPOC solicitation allows for awarding multiple contracts based solely on a provider’s facility capabilities, without competition between providers. This strategy facilitates faster awards to eligible facilities, which is particularly important given LSP’s urgent need to acquire more providers and increase competition.

On June 10, 2026, one proposal was received:

• L3Harris Technologies, Inc.

On June 17, 2026, one proposal was received:

• Blue Origin, LLC

On July 01, 2026, three proposals were received:

• All Points Logistic (APL), LLC

• Firefly Aerospace, Inc.

• SpaceLaunch, LLC

On July 15, 2026, the oral presentation was held for SpaceLaunch, LLC

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This acquisition was conducted as a commercial, competitive acquisition in accordance with FAR 12.203, Procedures for Solicitation, Evaluation, and Award, in conjunction with FAR Part 15.3, Source Selection, and NFS Part 1815.3, Source Selection. The RFP advised offerors that the Government would award one or more contracts to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, provided fair and reasonable not-to-exceed prices, and was found acceptable for all non-price factors. The RFP defined two evaluation factors:

Technical/Management Capability and Price.

For the Technical/Management Capability factor, the RFP advised offerors that the Government would evaluate proposals for acceptability and assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” for each area. Only proposals that were individually rated “Acceptable” in all areas would be eligible for contract award. The Technical/Management Capability factor consisted of two aspects, a written proposal and an oral presentation on each facility offered. The written proposal included an Offered Services proposal, Common Launch Site Support Plan (LSSP) Requirements Commitment, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and Statement of

Acceptance/Summary of Exception. The oral presentation required Offerors to address Facility Criteria and Management Criteria.

For the Price factor, the RFP advised offerors that the Government would evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). Cost analysis and data other than certified cost or pricing data were not required to support a determination of fair and reasonable price, although the RFP stated that other than certified cost or pricing data may be needed to support not-to-exceed prices.

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The Team conducted all evaluations using the above summarized evaluation criteria as specified in the RFP. The Team reviewed for completeness each offeror’s administrative data, which included Sections from the Standard Form 1449, model contract, contractor representations and certifications, and other solicitation provisions requiring fill-ins.

On July 30, 2026, members of the Team provided the results of its initial evaluation of proposals to me as the SSA. The following table provides a summary of the ratings associated with the evaluation:

Offeror

Technical/ Management

(Oral)

Technical/ Management

(Written) Price

SpaceLaunch, LLC Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable

For the Technical/Management Capability Written and Oral assessment, the offeror was deemed unacceptable for the following reasons:

As part of the Written Technical/Management Capability, SpaceLaunch’s proposal acknowledged 219 of the 258 LSSP requirements outlined in Attachment A.1, Common LSSP Revision B‑1 Final. Of those acknowledgments, 108 are identified as Standard Service, 7 as Operationally Proven, 78 are categorized as Partial, GAP, or Priced, indicating that additional funding would be required to meet full LSSP compliance, and 9 requirements are marked as Not Offered (N/O).

The technical team assessed services “minimally at best” for this subset of the requirements only.

One of the most critical N/O requirements identified was associated with SpaceLaunch's proposed facility lacking an Encapsulation Bay (EB) nor was there a space identified that is capable to accommodate a Launch Vehicle (LV) fairing. This requirement was questioned and confirmed during Orals. While this facility may be feasible for CubeSat dispenser integration, SPOC is not used for CubeSat missions, and the facility does not meet the needs of the scientific NASA missions supported by SPOC. The absence of an adequate EB for LV fairing processing would necessitate procuring encapsulation services from a secondary facility, thereby duplicating operational steps such as transporting the spacecraft and associated Ground Support Equipment

(GSE) to another location, additional loading and unloading activities, re-cleaning of the spacecraft before entry into the secondary facility, and conducting functional tests to verify integrity after transport. These redundant procedures introduce unnecessary risks and increase operational complexity without delivering mission benefits.

With respect to the Price factor, SPOC requested a firm-fixed price (FFP) not-to-exceed (NTE) for facility occupancy covering Standard Services, including Common LSSP and SOW requirements. SpaceLaunch’s proposal established a FFP NTE based on several assumptions outlined below and included the following statement: SpaceLaunch has priced this proposal based on what the Impulso Space Facility provides today. These assumptions and the accompanying statement are governed by the Impulso business model, as the facility is owned and operated by them. As a result, both elements impact the integrity of the proposed FFP NTE prices, since they are determined by the subcontractor rather than the Prime contractor.

Accordingly, the Government is unable to substantiate the Prime contractor’s proposed FFP NTE prices to determine their reasonableness.

The evaluation team concluded that the proposal was unacceptable to meet essential facility and management criteria, and that price submitted could not be verified as reasonable because it relied on assumptions tied to a subcontractor’s facility, undermining the Government’s ability to assess price validity. Based on the results of the initial evaluation, the Contracting Officer recommends not engaging in discussions with SpaceLaunch, LLC due to the determination of unacceptability in both the Technical/Management Capability and Price factors.

DECISION

During the presentation on July 30, 2026, the evaluation team fully briefed me on the procurement process and their evaluation of the SpaceLaunch proposal. The team presented detailed technical finding and pricing data. I questioned members of the evaluation team about the material presented and carefully considered the detailed information presented by the members. My review of the evaluation team’s conclusions leads me to adopt them as my own.

I recognize that the RFP states that: “Award will be made to offerors whose price is determined reasonable, are not “unacceptable” in the Technical/Management Capability, and are otherwise eligible to receive award…” and that the Government “…may elect to award a single task order contract or to award multiple task order contracts . . . to two or more sources under this solicitation.”

In accordance with the RFP, awards may only be made to offerors whose prices are determined reasonable, who do not receive an “unacceptable” rating under the Technical/Management Capability factor, and who otherwise meet all eligibility requirements. SpaceLaunch did not meet these criteria and was therefore rated unacceptable.

SpaceLaunch’s proposal failed to offer Encapsulation Bay capability, nor did the offeror provide adequate space to handle a Launch Vehicle fairing. Based on the inability to meet these requirements, I concur with the evaluation team that the Technical/Management Capability is unacceptable. Given that missions utilizing SPOC require these capabilities, I view the lack of these critical requirements as a material failure.

Additionally, in the proposal, the offeror included a statement that all costs were based on what the subcontractor‑owned Impulso Space Facility “provides today.” This statement raises concerns regarding the validity of the pricing submitted by the offeror. Therefore, I concur with the Contracting Officer’s assessment that the offeror’s price reasonableness cannot be determined and price was considered unacceptable.

Based on these findings, I have determined that, in accordance with the RFP, SpaceLaunch, LLC is not eligible for award.

[Electronic Signature Redacted] Norman R. Wolfinger Source Selection Authority Chief, Commercial Space Procurement Office