Subcat 1.3 Source Selection Statement (Final).pdf

Page 1: SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR NSN SERVICES (Subcategory 1.3 Only)

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR

NEAR SPACE NETWORK (NSN) SERVICES (Subcategory 1.3 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 1.3 “xCislunar 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 1.3 “xCislunar 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)

• Intuitive Machines, LLC

• Kongsberg Satellite Services AS (KSAT)

• Parsons Government Services, Inc.

• SSC Space US, Inc.

Page 2: SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR NSN SERVICES (Subcategory 1.3 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 16, 2024, Kongsberg Satellite

Services AS, Intuitive Machines, LLC, and SSC Space US, Inc. were notified in writing that they were included in the competitive range. Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and Parsons

Government Services, Inc. were not among the most highly competitive offerors and were therefore not included in the competitive range. Discussions were conducted with offerors in the competitive range, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.306. After discussions concluded, Kongsberg Satellite Services AS, Intuitive Machines, LLC, and SSC

Space US, 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, 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

Page 3: SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR NSN SERVICES (Subcategory 1.3 Only) 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 1.3, 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.”

Page 4: SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR NSN SERVICES (Subcategory 1.3 Only)

FINAL EVALUATION RESULTS

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

For the Technical Acceptability evaluation, Kongsberg Satellite Services AS, Intuitive Machines, LLC, and SSC Space US, 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, Intuitive Machines, LLC, and SSC Space US, 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, Intuitive Machines, LLC, and SSC Space US, Inc.’s prices were determined to be reasonable.

The provided estimates reasonably and appropriately take into account the technical complexity of performing the xCislunar DTE services to be acquired, which have not previously been performed. Intuitive Machines, LLC had the lowest total evaluated price, followed by a slightly higher evaluated price from SSC Space US and a significantly higher evaluated price from

Kongsberg Satellite Services AS. The evaluated price from Kongsberg Satellite Services AS was more than double the price of other Offerors.

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 “Moderate” based on the combination of “Moderate” Overall Relevance and “Very High”

Overall Performance. Intuitive Machines, LLC 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. 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.

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

Page 5: SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR NSN SERVICES (Subcategory 1.3 Only) 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. I noted that Kongsberg Satellite

Services AS’s, Intuitive Machines, LLC’s, and SSC Space US, Inc.’s 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. The RFP stated that only proposals evaluated as “Acceptable” will be considered in the Past Performance and Price trade-off process.

Therefore, I considered all three of these Offerors in my trade-off decision.

In determining which proposal offered the best value to NASA, I referred to the RFP which stated that:

A trade-off process (Price Performance Trade Off (PPTO)), as described at

FAR 15.101-1, will be used in making source selection.

The relative order of importance of factors as specified in the RFP is as follows:

The Past Performance factor is approximately equal in importance to the

Price factor.

The RFP also stated that:

The Government contemplates award of multiple fixed-price, indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contracts resulting from this solicitation.

My selection is based on the comparative assessment of the proposals against the RFP evaluation factors to determine which proposal represented the best value. Regarding the Past Performance factor, Kongsberg Satellite Services AS received a Moderate Level of Confidence rating, based on a combination of Moderate relevance and Very High performance; Intuitive Machines, LLC received a High Level of Confidence rating, based on a combination of High relevance and High performance; and SSC Space US, Inc. received a High Level of Confidence rating, based on a combination of High relevance and High performance. I concluded that Kongsberg Satellite

Services AS was less competitive in this factor in comparison to both Intuitive Machines, LLC’s and SSC Space US, Inc.’s higher Past Performance ratings, giving both Intuitive Machines, LLC and SSC Space US, Inc. an equal, moderate advantage within this factor.

Under the Price factor, Intuitive Machines, LLC’s proposal had the lowest total evaluated price while Kongsberg Satellite Services AS’s proposal had the highest total evaluated price. SSC

Space US, Inc.’s proposal was slightly higher than Intuitive Machines, LLC’s proposal.

Kongsberg Satellite Services AS’s total evaluated price was significantly higher than both

Intuitive Machines, LLC and SSC Space US, Inc. I concluded that Intuitive Machines, LLC had a slight advantage over SSC Space US, Inc., and that both Intuitive Machines, LLC and SSC

Space US, Inc. have a significant advantage over Kongsberg Satellite Services AS in this factor.

Finally, I again referred to the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors as specified in the RFP; the Price Factor is approximately equal to the Past Performance Factor. Under Past

Page 6: SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT FOR NSN SERVICES (Subcategory 1.3 Only)

Performance, both Intuitive Machines, LLC and SSC Space US, Inc. had an equivalent moderate advantage over Kongsberg Satellite Services AS based on their higher confidence ratings. In the

Price factor, while Intuitive Machines, LLC’s proposal had a slight advantage over SSC Space

US, Inc.’s proposal, both Intuitive Machines, LLC’s and SSC Space US Inc.’s proposals were clearly far more advantageous in this factor than Kongsberg Satellite Services AS’s proposal. I concluded that the proposals of Intuitive Machines, LLC and SSC Space US, Inc. are superior to

Kongsberg Satellite Services AS’s proposal in both the Price and Past Performance factors, which are of equal importance.

I have determined that Intuitive Machines, LLC and SSC Space US, Inc.’s proposals provide the best value; Intuitive Machines, LLC and SSC Space US, Inc. both received a High past performance rating, which offers a moderate advantage over Kongsberg Satellite Services AS, and significantly lower and far more advantageous total evaluated prices. Based on its lower

Past Performance Rating (Moderate) and significantly higher price, I concluded that Kongsberg

Satellite Services AS’s proposal does not provide best value to the Government. Accordingly, I select Intuitive Machines, LLC and SSC Space US Inc. for contract awards under the Near Space

Network Services acquisition for Subcategory 1.3 “xCislunar DTE.”

Kenneth D. Bowersox Date

Source Selection Authority