Subcat 1.1 Source Selection Statement (Final).pdf

Page 1: SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR NSN SERVICES (Subcategory 1.1 Only)

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR

NEAR SPACE NETWORK (NSN) SERVICES (Subcategory 1.1 Only)

SOLICITATION NO. 80GSFC22R0029

On November 13, 2024, I along with senior officials from National Aeronautics and Space

Administration’s (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) held a meeting with the Near

Space Network (NSN) Services Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to hear findings based on the evaluation of the Subcategory 1.1 “Earth Proximity Direct to Earth (DTE)” proposals for the

NSN Services procurement. This memorandum documents my decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION

The NSN Services procurement will result in the award of multiple Firm Fixed Price, Indefinite

Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract(s). The principal purpose of this procurement is to acquire communication and navigation services for missions in the Near Space region (surface of Earth to 2 million kilometers (km)) for NASA and other federal agencies under two distinct categories:

Category 1 - Near Space Direct-To-Earth (DTE), which covers Direct-to-Earth communication and navigation services for customer missions, spacecraft, or payloads up to 2 million kilometers from Earth.

Category 2 - Near Space Relay, which covers Space Relay communication and navigation services for customer missions, spacecraft, or payloads up to 2 million kilometers from Earth.

This Source Selection Statement only pertains to Subcategory 1.1 “Earth Proximity DTE” of the

NSN Services Procurement.

NASA issued the Request for Proposal (RFP) on February 21, 2023, followed by five amendments.

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED

The following five (5) offerors submitted timely proposals:

• Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL)

• Kongsberg Satellite Services AS (KSAT)

• Parsons Government Services, Inc.

• SSC Space US, Inc.

• Viasat, Inc.

Page 2: SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR NSN SERVICES (Subcategory 1.1 Only)

The RFP stated that the Government intended to evaluate proposals and award the contract(s) without discussions with Offerors. The RFP also stated that the Government reserved 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 12, 2024, Johns Hopkins

Applied Physics Laboratory, Kongsberg Satellite Services AS, SSC Space US, Inc., and Viasat, Inc. were notified in writing that they were included in the competitive range. Parsons

Government Services, Inc. was not among the most highly competitive offerors and was therefore not included in the competitive range. In response to NASA’s September 12, 2024, competitive range letter, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory informed the Contracting

Officer of its decision not to continue in this procurement. As a result, discussions were conducted with the three offerors remaining in the competitive range, Kongsberg Satellite

Services AS, SSC Space US, Inc., and Viasat, Inc. in accordance with Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) 15.306. After discussions concluded, Kongsberg Satellite Services AS, SSC

Space US, Inc., and Viasat, Inc. submitted timely Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs).

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Offerors were required to demonstrate responsibility to be considered for award, in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in FAR Subpart 9.1. Offerors were also required to provide an acceptable Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Avoidance Plan. Additionally, large businesses were required to submit Small Business Subcontracting Plans.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) Technical Evaluation criteria stated that proposals must be rated

“Acceptable” in all ten Technical Acceptability Standards (TAS) to be eligible for contract award.

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY STANDARDS

According to the RFP, the following TAS were evaluated by the SEB to determine the Offeror’s

Technical Acceptability:

1. Infrastructure

2. Information Technology (IT) Security (ITSec)/Communications Security - (COMSEC)

3. Spectrum Management

4. Export Control

5. Customer Base and Partners/Business Viability/Financial Resources

6. Risk Reduction

7. Interfaces

8. Functional, Performance, and Mission Assurance Requirements

9. Asset Characteristics and Geographic Diversity

10. Representative Task Order (RTO) Capability Validation Technical Compliance and Schedule

The RFP identified three potential ratings for each of the ten TAS identified above: Acceptable, Potentially Acceptable, or Unacceptable. The TAS (1-10) were evaluated for acceptability. To determine acceptability, each of the ten TAS were evaluated for adequacy, reasonableness, Page 3: SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR NSN SERVICES (Subcategory 1.1 Only) credibility, and risk related to the offeror’s ability to successfully meet the technical acceptability standards. A proposal was rated “Potentially Acceptable” in a TAS area when after the initial evaluation, the evaluation team determined additional or revised descriptive or narrative information could be provided by an Offeror during discussions (if utilized) that may result in a proposal rating of acceptable.

PRICE

A price analysis was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1). Price analysis is described at FAR 15.404-1(b). This analysis was done to ensure that a "fair and reasonable" price is paid by the Government. The offerors' prices were compared to one another and to the

Government's estimate (Derived Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE)). The basis of estimate (BOE) provided in the proposal was also reviewed. Each proposed Representative Task

Order (RTO) pricing contained in Enclosure BB, along with the pricing contained in Exhibit B

“Near Space Network Services Pricing Model,” were assessed to determine the reasonableness of the proposed subcategory validation price, along with the Not-To-Exceed (NTE) Operational

Services price per minute rates. For Subcategory 1.1, the total evaluated price, including the

Total Price for Operational Services Minutes for Contract Years 1-10 and the proposed Not-to-

Exceed Capability Validation Total Price was presented to me, as well as the results of the price analysis of the Offeror’s proposal. Proposed Operational Services price per minute rates that are outside of Contract Years 1-10 were evaluated for price reasonableness only and were not included in calculating the total evaluated price for this subcategory.

PAST PERFORMANCE

The offeror’s past performance was evaluated based on FAR Part 15 and provision M.6 of the

RFP. All past performance references must have met the “recent” and minimum average annual cost/fee expenditures criteria for the prime contractor references in order to be evaluated. If the contract was deemed recent and met the minimum average contract value criteria for size, the

Government then determined the degree of relevance - i.e., level of pertinence - of the contract based on content. Content is more important than size in the evaluation of relevance. The term

“content” means the type and complexity of services or work, in comparison to the requirements of this solicitation. The evaluation of past performance relevance was completed based on the specific SOW subcategory(s) proposed. The performance evaluation was based primarily on customer satisfaction and/or contract data in meeting technical, schedule, cost, and management requirements. In evaluating Past Performance, the SEB relied on the past performance evaluation input provided through customer questionnaires, the narrative on relevant past/current contracts provided by the Offerors, and the Government-wide Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) database. The Past Performance factor was assigned an overall confidence 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.”

FINAL EVALUATION RESULTS

Page 4: SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR NSN SERVICES (Subcategory 1.1 Only)

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

For the Technical Acceptability evaluation, Kongsberg Satellite Services AS, SSC Space US, Inc., and Viasat, Inc. submitted technical proposals that addressed all ten TAS at the level of detail required by the solicitation instructions for each TAS, resulting in an Acceptable rating for each TAS from the SEB.

PRICE EVALUATION

Pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) and (v), the Government determined that the offers submitted by Kongsberg Satellite Services AS, SSC Space US, Inc., and Viasat, Inc. were fair and reasonable based on adequate price competition, namely a comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation and comparison of proposed prices with the independent

Government estimate. In addition, the BOEs provided for Kongsberg Satellite Services AS, SSC

Space US, Inc., and Viasat, Inc.’s prices were determined to be reasonable. The provided estimates reasonably and appropriately take into account the technical complexity of performing the Earth Proximity DTE services to be acquired, which have not previously been performed.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

In evaluating the updated Past Performance submittal in the FPR, the SEB determined

Kongsberg Satellite Services AS to have 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. SSC Space US, Inc. was determined by the SEB to have an overall Past

Performance Level of Confidence rating of "High" based on the combination of “High” Overall

Relevance and “High” Overall Performance. Viasat, Inc. was determined by the SEB to have an overall Past Performance Level of Confidence rating of "High" based on the combination of

“High” Overall Relevance and “Very High” Overall Performance.

The results of the SEB’s final evaluation were presented to me and are discussed below.

DECISION

During the presentation, I solicited input from key management personnel who had heard the presentation and who have responsibility relative to the procurement. I carefully reviewed the presentation and findings of the evaluation team in comparison to the evaluation criteria in the

RFP.

I determined that the evaluation results presented by the SEB, as documented in its presentation, were detailed, consistent with the evaluation criteria in the NSN Services RFP, and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal in addressing the TAS. I discussed with the SEB its rationale for the evaluation of each of the ten TAS ratings.

Page 5: SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR NSN SERVICES (Subcategory 1.1 Only)

I referred to the RFP which stated that only proposals evaluated as “Acceptable” will be considered in the Past Performance and Price trade-off process. The RFP further stated that the

Past Performance factor is approximately equal in importance to the Price factor.

For the Technical Acceptability factor, the Kongsberg Satellite Services AS, SSC Space US, Inc., and Viasat, Inc. proposals were rated as technically acceptable in each of the 10 TAS, and were therefore rated Acceptable overall. The SEB presented detailed evaluation documentation demonstrating how each of the TAS requirements were addressed in all three proposals. Under the Past Performance factor, Kongsberg Satellite Services AS received a Very High Level of

Confidence rating, based on a combination of Very High relevance and Very High performance;

SSC Space US, Inc. received a High Level of Confidence rating, based on a combination of High relevance and High performance; and Viasat, Inc. received a High Level of Confidence rating, based on a combination of High relevance and Very High overall Performance.

Under the Price factor, the total evaluated prices proposed by Kongsberg Satellite Services AS, SSC Space US, Inc., and Viasat, Inc. were determined to be fair and reasonable.

Based on the final evaluation results, three offerors were rated as “Acceptable” under the

Technical Acceptability Factor and are eligible to be considered for award. Under this solicitation, the Government may elect to make multiple awards. I have determined that:

Kongsberg Satellite Services AS’ proposal being Technically Acceptable, with a Very High past performance rating, and a fair and reasonable price; SSC Space US, Inc.’s proposal being

Technically Acceptable, with a High past performance rating, and a fair and reasonable price;

and Viasat, Inc.’s proposal being Technically Acceptable, with a High past performance rating, and a fair and reasonable price provide best value to the Government. Accordingly, I select

Kongsberg Satellite Services AS, SSC Space US, Inc., and Viasat, Inc. for contract awards under the Near Space Network Services acquisition for Subcategory 1.1 “Earth Proximity DTE.”

Kenneth D. Bowersox Date

Source Selection Authority