SSS.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR

NOAA’s Space Weather Next L1 Series Magnetometer (MAG)

SOLICITATION 80GSFC23R0037

On November 18, 2024, I along with senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Goddard Space held a meeting/teleconference with the Independent Evaluation Board (IET) to hear findings based on the evaluation of the proposals for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Space Weather Next L1 Series Magnetometer instrument procurement. This memorandum documents my decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this contract is to acquire two (2) instruments in support of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather forecasting operations. NASA is selecting a contractor to perform hardware development activities for the Space Weather Next L1 Series project. The MAG is a tri-axial fluxgate magnetometer that measures the three components of the interplanetary magnetic field carried by the solar wind. The contract scope includes the tasks and deliverables necessary to design, analyze, develop, fabricate, integrate, test, verify, evaluate, support launch, supply and maintain the instrument Ground Support Equipment (GSE), and support Mission Operations at the NOAA Satellite Operations Facility (NSOF). This requirement was issued as a full and open competition procurement.

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

Amendment 01 - Extension of the proposal due date to March 01, 2024, and Q&A.

Amendment 02 - Change to GSFC Clause 52.211-91 “Scope of Work,” Revised Mission Suitability criteria located in GFC Provision 52.252-10, and corrected Box submittal address.

Amendment 03 - Changes to Proposed page count requirements.

Amendment 04 - Change to GSFC Provision 52.215-300, Source Selection and Evaluation Factors

Amendment 05 - Clarification of the level of detail required in the SPEC Compliance Matrix and increase page limits, Revised Mission Suitability criteria located in GFC Provision 52.252-10, Change ISO 9001 Standards

Amendment 06 - Proposal page count increase to GSFC provision 52.215-201, Proposal preparation - General Instructions

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) hardware contract for two (2) instruments. The contract has no options.

The period of performance of this contract is from Award through January 2034.

a) The first delivery date is scheduled for September 2027, with an anticipated launch date of December 2028.

b) The second delivery date is June 2029, with an anticipated launch date of October 2032.

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

The following Offerors submitted timely proposals:

• The University of Iowa (Iowa)

• Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)

• The University of California Los Angeles (UCLA)

The RFP stated that the Government intended 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 determined them to be necessary. After evaluating proposals, the CO found that establishment of a competitive range was necessary, a determination with which I concurred. On September 16, 2024, all offerors were included in the competitive range.

Discussions were concluded on October 2, 2024, and the Final Proposal Revisions were received on October 16, 2024.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

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

The 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 IET procedures at NFS 1815.370 were applied.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) defined the evaluation factors as Mission Suitability, Past Performance and Cost. 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 the most important and the Mission Suitability Factor is more important than the Past Performance Factor.

Mission Suitability Factor

There were no subfactors under the Mission Suitability Factor. The Mission Suitability Factors were evaluated using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and ranges 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 members evaluated each Offeror’s proposal and documented findings for each factor based on evaluation criteria as stated in Section M of the solicitation. The voting members then used the finding definitions to reach a consensus for each finding (significant strength, strength, weakness, significant weakness, deficiency). After determining the findings under Mission Suitability, the STIS 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.

Past Performance Factor

For the Past Performance Factor, the past performance evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 and provision GSFC 52.215-331 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."

Cost Factor

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 were presented to me, along with any issues and risks associated with the proposed costs.

MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

The Mission Suitability evaluation produced the following results:

Mission Suitability Offeror Rating Iowa Good SwRI Very Good UCLA Good

The University of Iowa (Iowa)

Iowa received an adjectival rating of "Good" with one (1) Strength, one (1) Weakness, no Significant Strengths, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

Iowa received one (1) Strength in the following area:

(1) Single magnetometer range for full operational range. Iowa proposed an instrument that has a single range for the full operational dynamic range. This single instrument range increases the likelihood of exceeding the requirements for the data availability and data continuity which increases the probability of successful contract performance.

Iowa received one (1) Weakness in the following area:

(1) Flaw in the proposed schedule. Iowa proposed a flawed schedule, by proposing the spare instrument to be delivered after the required delivery date of the spare subassemblies for FM1 model, which slightly increases the risk of late delivery and unsuccessful contract performance.

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)

SwRI received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one (1) Significant Strength, five

(5) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

SwRI received one (1) Significant Strength in the following area:

(1) Mature design. SwRI’s proposed design is a very mature design from the magnetometer integrated and tested for the SWFO-L1 mission. Having a very mature design significantly reduces the risk of development issues and therefore significantly reduces the risk of cost and schedule overrun. This very mature design also increases the likelihood for the Size, Weight, and Power of the instrument to remain below requirements, which lowers the risk that the Magnetometer instrument would exceed spacecraft allocations.

SwRI received five (5) Strengths in the following areas:

(1) Single magnetometer range for full operational range. The high 24-bit Analog to Digital allows the full operational dynamic range to be covered by a single instrument range. This approach simplifies the calibration procedures and possible data loss at automated range changes.

(2) Increased sample time cadence. The higher than required sample time cadence significantly reduces space weather forecasting dropouts due to single spurious data spikes. The higher time cadence also increases the likelihood of exceeding the requirements for the data availability and data quality and improves the accurate identification of space weather events which increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(3) Magnetometer parts procurement approach. The proposal has detailed focus on supply chain risk mitigations to ensure parts procurement reduces schedule risk towards the required delivery date. The detailed supply chain risk mitigations reduce the risk of schedule delays which increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(4) Low Noise Floor. The offeror’s approach produces a low noise floor. This design reduces the noise almost an order of magnitude lower than the noise requirement which increases the probability of successful contract performance.

(5) Small Business Subcontracting. SwRI’s small business subcontracting plan has exceeded the government recommended individual Small Business Category goals.

The University of California Los Angeles (UCLA)

UCLA received an adjectival rating of "Good" with five (5) Strengths, no Significant Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

UCLA received five (5) Strengths in the following areas:

(1) Detailed Calibration Plan. UCLA’s instrument calibration plan is very detailed. The level of detail provided demonstrates a high level of understanding of the calibration requirements and a complete plan to meet and exceed the requirements.

(2) High Heritage of Instrument Electronics. The instrument electronics developed by UCLA have decades of heritage of use for spaceflight magnetometer instruments. The offeror’s mature and proven sensor electronics reduces development and performance risks and improves the probability of meeting the mission requirements. This approach increases the probability of successful contract performance.

(3) Single magnetometer range for simplified instrument operations. The high 24-bit Analog to Digital allows the full operational dynamic range to be covered by a single instrument range. This single instrument range increases the likelihood of exceeding the requirements for the data availability and data continuity which increases the probability of successful contract performance.

(4) Increased sample time cadence. UCLA’s proposed instrument has higher than required sample time cadence which significantly reduces space weather forecasting dropouts due to single spurious data spikes. The higher time cadence also increases the likelihood of exceeding the requirements for the data availability and data quality and improves the accurate identification of space weather events which increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

(5) Low Noise Floor. The Offeror’s approach produces a low noise floor. This design reduces the noise an order of magnitude lower than the noise requirement which increases the probability of successful contract performance.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Offeror Rating University of Iowa (Iowa) High

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) Very High

University of California, Los Angeles High

In evaluating the Past Performance of the Offerors, the IET determined the Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Rating for Iowa to be "High" based on the combination of "Very High" Overall Relevance and "High" Overall Performance.

The IET determined that SwRI had an overall Past Performance Level of Confidence rating of "Very High" based on the combination of "Very High" Overall Relevance and "Very High" Overall Performance.

The IET determined that UCLA had an overall Past Performance Level of Confidence rating of "High" based on the combination of "High" Overall Relevance and "Very High" Overall Performance.

COST EVALUATION

The IET evaluated the total proposed cost, inclusive of fee, and determined the Government's probable cost for all the Offerors. SwRI’s total proposed cost of $26,162,610 was slightly lower than Iowa’s total proposed cost which was very slightly lower than UCLA’s proposed cost.

No probable cost adjustments were made to the Final Proposal Revision cost proposals.

For UCLA, the IET was unable to validate or verify the employee fringe rates and benefit amounts due to a lack of adequate information in the proposal. Therefore, the IET deemed the unspecified fringe rates to be a cost risk.

Based on the IET's evaluation results, SwRI had the lowest proposed/probable cost of $26,162,610.

DECISION

As the SSA for this procurement, I carefully reviewed the IET's documentation entitled "Space Weather Next L1 Series Magnetometer Presentation to Source Selection Authority.” On November 18, 2024, I met with the IET, along with several ex-officio members, 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 and discussed the rationale for the evaluation of Cost and Past Performance. I agree with the IET'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 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 the most important and the Mission Suitability Factor 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.

Under the Cost Factor, I observed that the proposed/probable cost for SwRI was the lowest. SwRI’s proposed cost was slightly lower the Iowa’s proposed cost which in turn was very slightly lower than UCLA’s proposed cost. Therefore, I found that SwRI’s lowest proposed/probable cost offerors a slight advantage for the Cost factor.

Regarding the Mission Suitability Factor, I noted that two of the Offerors received Good adjectival ratings (UCLA & Iowa), while SwRI received a Very Good rating. I noted a discriminator with SwRI’s Significant Strength for a mature design; whereas, neither UCLA nor Iowa received any Significant Strengths. I found that SwRI’s Significant Strength for having a proven and very mature design will significantly reduce the risk of development issues.

I noted that UCLA received a Strength for their High Heritage, which was less compelling than SwRI’s Significant Strength for a Mature Design. Further, I noted both Offerors received similar Strengths for low noise floor, increased sample time cadence, and a single magnetometer range. UCLA had one additional strength for a detailed calibration approach while SwRI had two additional strengths, one for their parts procurement approach, and one for their small business subcontracting plan. I noted that Iowa received only one strength for a single magnetometer range, similar to the Strengths received for SwRI and UCLA. However, I found Iowa’s Weakness for a flawed schedule slightly increases the risk of late delivery and unsuccessful contract performance. Therefore, I concluded that Iowa’s Mission Suitability proposal was the least competitive in this factor.

Overall, based on the content of the findings, I found that the Mission Suitability approach proposed by SwRI, rated Very Good, was more advantageous than the proposals submitted by UCLA and Iowa, rated Good.

Regarding the Past Performance factor, I noted that SwRI received the highest rating of a Very High Level of Confidence. Both UCLA and Iowa received lower ratings of High Level of Confidence. Therefore, I concluded that SwRI was more advantageous in the Past Performance factor as it received the highest rating.

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. Regarding Cost, the most important factor, SwRI’s proposed/probable cost was slightly lower than the proposed/probable cost for Iowa and UCLA, respectively. Under the next most important factor, Mission Suitability, I determined that SwRI’s proposal received the highest rating with a Very Good and was more advantageous than either UCLA or Iowa’s proposal both receiving a Good rating for the reasons articulated above. For the Past Performance factor, I concluded that SwRI’s Very High past performance was the most advantageous. Thus, SwRI’s proposal was the highest rated proposal in all three factors: Cost, Mission Suitability, and Past Performance. Therefore, I concluded that SwRI’s proposal offers the best value to the Government and is more advantageous than the other two Offeror’s proposals.

Therefore, I select Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) for award of the Space Weather Next L1 Series Magnetometer Procurement.

Candace Carlisle Date Source Selection Authority