SSS Enclosure - R2_Redacted.pdf

Source Selection Statement for the Mars Ascent Vehicle Integrated System (MAVIS)

RFP 80MSFC21R0001

On January 21, 2022, I, along with other senior officials from the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), met with the source evaluation board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the MAVIS acquisition. The SEB presented their findings to me for the purpose of making a source selection decision.

I. PROCUREMENT HISTORY

The MAVIS Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on August 16, 2021. The RFP required the successful offeror to provide the necessary management, personnel, equipment, and supplies to provide systems engineering, integration, design, analysis, hardware production, assembly, and testing of the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) subsystems and integrated vehicles: Engineering Model (EM), Flight Tests (FTs), Flight Model (FM), and Assembly, Test, and Launch Operations (ATLO). The effort will also include verification and validation of subsystems and integrated EM, FTs, FM, and ATLO vehicles. The MAVIS effort will include designing and building ground support equipment, test support equipment, handling hazardous materials, transportation logistics, and implementation of planetary protection and contamination control requirements. The contract will also include design and fabrication of the Reaction Control System, Thermal Control System, Avionics, and Structures and Mechanisms subsystems. The RFP included separate Mandatory Qualification Criteria that offerors had to meet in order to be further evaluated.

The MAVIS effort will be performed under a cost-plus-fixed-fee type contract and consist of a six-year period of performance.

On August 24, 2021, an amendment was issued to the RFP to provide responses to questions submitted from potential offerors during the question period of the RFP.

The procurement was conducted as a full and open competition in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815, Contracting by Negotiation.

On September 15, 2021, one proposal was received from the following company:

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION

Lockheed Martin Space 12257 S. Wadsworth Blvd.

Littleton, CO 80127

Communications were initiated with the offeror on October 13, 2021, to address issues with documents submitted in support of the eligibility requirements of the solicitation.

The SEB evaluated this proposal and presented its initial findings to me on November 17, 2021. As a result, the contracting officer (CO), with my concurrence, determined the proposal from the Lockheed Martin Corporation to be the most highly rated proposal for inclusion in the competitive range in a memo dated November 22, 2021.

The CO opened discussions on November 23, 2021, and sent a list of weaknesses and questions to the offeror. The offeror responded on December 3, 2021, after which the CO responded with a request to schedule oral discussions on December 9, 2021. Oral discussions were held on December 13, 2021. After oral discussions were conducted on that date, the CO closed discussions on December 17, 2021, and requested that the offeror send a final proposal revision (FPR), which was received on January 6, 2022.

II. EVALUATION SUMMARY

In accordance with NFS 1815.305-71, Evaluation of a single proposal, if only one proposal is received in response to the solicitation, the CO is required to determine if the solicitation was flawed or unduly restrictive and determine if the single proposal is an acceptable proposal. Based on the analysis conducted, the CO determined that the MAVIS solicitation was neither flawed nor unduly restrictive and the proposal received by the single offeror was acceptable.

The proposal was evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in the RFP, FAR Part 15, and NFS Part 1815 with the objective of achieving the best value for the Government. The RFP listed three evaluation factors: Mission Suitability, Cost, and Past Performance. The RFP stated Mission Suitability and Past Performance would be considered to be of essentially equal importance, either of which would be considered to be more important than Cost. Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, would be significantly more important than Cost. In accordance with the RFP, a best value trade-off process, as described at FAR 15.101-1, was to be used in making the source selection.

The three evaluation factors are described as follows:

Mission Suitability: The subfactors used in evaluating Mission Suitability and their corresponding weights are listed below:

Technical Approach 900 points Small Business 100 points TOTAL 1,000 points

Cost: The reasonableness and realism of the cost proposal was evaluated to determine the probable cost of doing business. The Government performed a cost realism analysis by independently reviewing and evaluating the offeror’s proposed costs to determine if the estimated cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance as described in the offeror’s Mission Suitability proposal.

Past Performance: The offeror’s overall corporate past performance, to include the corporate past performance of any proposed major subcontractors, was evaluated. This factor was not numerically scored but was assigned an adjectival rating. The applicable adjectival ratings were “Very High Level of Confidence,” “High Level of Confidence,” “Moderate Level of Confidence,” “Low Level of Confidence,” “Very Low Level of Confidence,” and “Neutral” in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A).

The evaluations of the initial and final proposals are summarized below.

Under the Mission Suitability factor, the initial proposal was evaluated and assessed to have six strengths and five weaknesses under subfactor one, Technical Approach. The proposal was assessed to have one weakness under subfactor two, Small Business. The strengths and weaknesses associated with the Mission Suitability factor were as follows:

A strength is the proposed technical approach for manufacturing and integrating spacecraft mission hardware using production lines and a digital environment to improve efficiencies in performing requirements in Performance Work Statement Sections 4.0, 6.0, and 8.0. The proposed methods exceed requirements by assisting in process insight, quality control, transparency, and communication between the contractor and NASA.

A strength is the offeror has a facility and production methodology that exceeds requirements in the solicitation to produce MAV units during contract performance which increases the likelihood of successful delivery on schedule.

The offeror’s knowledge base for Planetary Protection (PP) and capability for safe maneuvering of the MAV units enhances the possibility of successful completion of the necessary hardware which reduces cost and schedule risk to the project.

A strength is the proposed location for Assembly, Integration, and Test (AI&T) operations which should facilitate ease of communication with, and insight/oversight by, NASA and aid in the execution of requirements in an integrated team setting with NASA.

A strength is the technical approach for identification of especially rigorous testing and analyses to be used for MAV avionics hardware which exceeds the requirements provided in the solicitation. The approach should increase the ability of the design to meet the reliability requirements for mission success.

A strength is the proposal’s demonstrated familiarity with the pyrotechnic component testing standard AIAA-S-113A and three of the offeror’s Pyro Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) are listed as co-authors on Revision B of the AIAA S- 113A standard, which is planned to be released late 2021, and would therefore be able to adapt to the new version without issue if requested.

A strength is the approach to adjust schedule which could reduce contract costs over the life of the contract. Specifically, the approach shortens the available schedule margin to Assembly, Test, and Launch Operations (ATLO) at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory by extending the design time to resolve issues and starting ATLO Assembly, Integration, and Test (AI&T) later than originally scheduled.

A weakness is that the draft Integrated Project Management Report (IPMR) Format 6 was proposed with incorrect dates, inaccurate assumptions, and omitted scope that negatively impacts the overall validity of the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and proposed risk assessments.

A weakness is the proposal does not adequately describe the approach for qualification and flight hardware test planning and execution of subsystems and integrated MAV units that are specific to implementation through the MAVIS contract which reduces NASA’ s understanding of how qualification test will be completed.

A weakness is the proposal does not adequately describe the approach for stage separation and pyrotechnic systems Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDT&E) specific for the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) which could result in crucial qualification, acceptance, and/or hardware integration testing being overlooked.

A weakness is the proposal does not adequately describe the offeror’s internal safety and mission assurance (SMA) processes and how they will support the Government processes (e.g., safety review panels, independent review teams, and peer reviews) for reviewing and accepting SMA products, as indicated in Subfactor 1(ii)(B) of the solicitation.

A weakness is the proposal either does not adequately describe the proposed internal mission assurance process for disciplines such as reliability, quality, software assurance, and industrial safety, or provides information that appears to be incorrect.

A weakness is the proposal does not adequately describe the rationale for its proposed subcontracting goals nor provide required small business subcontracting plan information as required by the solicitation.

The Technical Approach subfactor received an adjectival rating of . The Small Business subfactor received an adjectival rating of “ . Therefore, the total score for the Mission Suitability factor was points in the initial proposal.

As part of the FPR, the Lockheed Martin Corporation updated its proposal to adequately address all the weaknesses that had originally been identified. No new weaknesses were identified, and the six strengths under the Technical Approach subfactor remained. The Technical Approach subfactor received a final adjectival rating of

. The Small Business subfactor received a final adjectival rating of “ . This resulted in a total score for the Mission Suitability factor of points in the final proposal.

Under the Cost factor, the Lockheed Martin Corporation initially proposed a total cost and fee of $193,447,760. However, additional information was required to determine if any probable cost adjustments were appropriate. This information was provided as part of the FPR.

The FPR proposed a total cost and fee of $193,970,754. The increase in cost was the result of updates to forward pricing rates and changes to Other Direct Costs (ODCs).

Additionally, a probable cost adjustment in the amount of $39,285 was made due to a computation error in the BOE for Material – Common GSE and a material handling fee computation error, resulting in a probable total cost and fee of $194,010,039.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Lockheed Martin Corporation proposal received an adjectival rating of resulting from five significant strengths, no strengths, no significant weaknesses, and no weaknesses.

The significant strengths are summarized as follows:

A significant strength is the exceptional performance of Lockheed Martin when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant NASA Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security-Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) contract NNG12FD66C.

A significant strength is the exceptional performance of Lockheed Martin when serving as a subcontractor on the highly relevant Mars 2020 Aeroshell contract

80NM0018D0004.

A significant strength is the exceptional performance of Lockheed Martin when serving as the prime contractor on the very highly relevant Lucy contract to study Jupiter’s Trojan Asteroids contract NNG17FD73C.

A significant strength is the very good performance of Lockheed Martin when serving as the prime contractor on THAAD Advanced Capabilities Development (ACD) contract HQ0147-12-D-0001.

A significant strength is the exceptional performance of Lockheed Martin Corporation when serving as the prime contractor on the highly relevant U.S.

Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, Phased Array Tracking to Intercept of Target (PATRIOT) Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) contract W31P4Q-19-C-0011.

The portion of the proposal associated with the Past Performance factor was not updated for the FPR. The final adjectival rating for this factor was maintained at

III. SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

The SEB presented its evaluation findings of the proposal to me and we thoroughly discussed all of them. I carefully considered the detailed findings; the board's responses to my questions about those findings and the rationale behind them; the adjectival ratings;

the point scores; the total proposed and probable cost; and the past performance confidence level rating. I also solicited and considered the views of the officials who attended the SEB presentation. These officials have responsibility related to this procurement and understand the application of the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP.

I determined the SEB conducted a thorough and accurate review of the proposal according to the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP, identifying findings and explaining how it believed those findings would affect performance. The findings were detailed, consistent with the RFP, and provided clear descriptions of the merits of each proposal. While I agree with the findings of the SEB, I also recognize my responsibility as the source selection authority (SSA) to examine the findings, the adjectival ratings, the point scores, the total proposed and probable costs, and the past performance confidence level rating for the proposal and use my independent judgment to determine the appropriate discriminators for purpose of determining that the submitted proposal is acceptable for the purpose of making an award.

Under the Mission Suitability Factor, the Lockheed Martin Corporation proposal received a numerical score of out of a possible 1,000 points based on the merits of six strengths.

I next considered the Cost factor. The Lockheed Martin Corporation proposed a total cost and fee of $193,970,754, with the probable cost being $194,010,039, due to computation errors. The offeror's proposal is approximately less than the independent Government cost estimate (IGCE). This difference is primarily due to the materials and other direct costs estimated to be greater than the offeror proposed; however, the evaluation found the technical approach of the offeror to be acceptable and the lower material and other direct costs were acceptable for the work proposed. The offeror proposed a lower fixed fee rate than the Government estimated.

After carefully considering the detailed findings, I determined the Past Performance ratings were properly supported. I noted the Lockheed Martin Corporation proposal received a based on five significant strengths.

Based on the evaluation team's review and discussions, I am highly confident in the Lockheed Martin Corporation's ability to successfully complete the proposed work on schedule and within cost.