SWiPS Source Selection Statement_final.pdf

SELECTION STATEMENT

FOR

SPACE WEATHER FOLLOW ON (SWFO) SOLAR WIND PLASMA SENSOR (SWiPS)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) 80GSFC20R0010

On May 28, 2020, I along with senior officials from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) met with the Independent Evaluation Team (IET) appointed to evaluate proposals in connection with the Space Weather Follow On (SWFO) Solar Wind Plasma Sensor (SWiPS) procurement. This memorandum documents my decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY

The SWiPS instrument is used to measure solar wind, a super-sonic flow of hot plasma from the Sun and provide early warning of changes which affect the geomagnetic environment. The measurements are used to characterize coronal mass ejections (CMEs), corotating interaction regions (CIRs), interplanetary shocks and high-speed flows associated with coronal holes. In particular, SWiPS measurements include the bulk ion velocity, ion temperature and density and derived dynamic pressure. The instrument is planned to be part of the Space Weather Follow-on Lagrange-1 payload.

The SWiPS requirement was issued as a full and open competitive procurement. This procurement will result in a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract.

NASA issued the Request for Proposal (RFP) on October 31, 2019. Four amendments and one posted notice to identify the changes made to RFP Attachments under Amendment 001 were issued to the RFP between November 22, 2019 and January 7, 2019. The Independent Evaluation Team (IET), which I appointed, included a team of technical and business members and consultants from appropriate disciplines to assist in proposal evaluation.

The following entities submitted timely proposals by January 10, 2020:

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) University of New Hampshire (UNH)

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 reserved the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer (CO) later determined them to be necessary. After the IET evaluated the proposals, the CO determined that conducting discussions was in the best interest of the Government. I concurred with the CO’s determination that conducting discussions based on the initial evaluation was appropriate.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The RFP defined evaluation factors as Cost, Mission Suitability, and Past Performance. 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.

The Cost Factor was evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B), and solicitation provision M.4 – Cost Evaluation Factor. The proposed costs were assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism. Proposed fee was not adjusted in the probable cost assessment.

The RFP established that the Mission Suitability Factor would be evaluated using adjectival ratings defined as follows:

ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DEFINITIONS

Excellent A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists.

Very Good A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates over-all competence.

One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.

Good A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a reasonably sound response.

There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly detract from the offeror’s response.

Fair A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses.

Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.

Poor A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to correct.

The Mission Suitability Factor was evaluated using the adjectival ratings and definitions in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The IET voting members reviewed each Mission Suitability proposal and collectively generated consensus findings in the form of Deficiencies, Significant Weaknesses, Weaknesses, Strengths, and Significant Strengths. The IET next assigned an adjectival rating, utilizing the definitions provided in the RFP.

The Past Performance Factor was evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15 and solicitation provision M.5 – Past Performance Evaluation Factor. In evaluating past performance, the IET evaluated each offeror’s record (including the record of significant subcontractors as defined in the RFP) for performing services that are similar in size and content to the requirements of the RFP in terms of relevance and performance. The IET considered only recent contracts, as defined in the SWiPS RFP.

The IET relied on narratives of relevant past and current contracts provided by the offerors, past performance evaluation input provided via customer interviews, information retrieved from the government-wide Contractor Performance Assessment Retrieval System (CPARS) database and award fee letters, if any, for the reference contracts identified by the offerors. The Past Performance Factor was not point scored, but 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 EVALUATION

The cost evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(B).

In accordance with Section M.4 of the RFP, Cost Evaluation Factor, the proposed costs were assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism. The cost realism analysis was performed to determine if the costs proposed by each offeror are realistic and reflect a clear understanding of the requirements.

The IET evaluated the total proposed cost and determined a small probable cost adjustment was necessary for the SwRI proposal. SwRI’s proposed cost/fee of $15,579,930 was adjusted to a probable cost/fee of $15,977,240. Following probable cost adjustment, SwRI’s probable cost was moderately lower than UNH.

MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

SwRI received an adjectival rating of “Very Good”, while UNH received a rating of “Good”. The substance of the IET’s evaluation of Mission Suitability for each offeror is described below:

SwRI

SwRI received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one Significant Strength, no Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

SwRI received a Significant Strength finding for proposing an innovative approach to providing instrument level redundancy that mitigates the risk of a full instrument failure. This approach utilizes a flight-proven heritage design, has a high technology readiness level, and includes a number of valuable design elements to ensure measurement accuracy, extend sensor life, and provide redundancy. This approach greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance which contributes significantly toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the Government.

UNH

UNH received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, no Strengths, one Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

UNH received a Weakness finding for its proposed Small Business Subcontracting Plan goals which were lower than the recommended goals in the RFP.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The IET found that SwRI and UNH both demonstrated very high relevance and high performance across their Past Performance contracts. SwRI demonstrated overall Very High relevance and High performance, with its relevant references overall demonstrating very effective performance with only minor problems with little identifiable effect on performance. UNH demonstrated overall Very High relevance and High performance, with its relevant reference contracts overall demonstrating very effective performance with only minor problems with little identifiable effect on performance.

Both SwRI and UNH received Overall Past Performance Level of Confidence Ratings of “High,” based on the combination of Very High Overall Relevance and High Overall Performance.

DECISION

As the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for this procurement, I met with the SWiPS IET and several ex-officio members on May 28, 2020, to hear and discuss the IET’s evaluation findings. I discussed with the IET its rationale for the findings and the adjectival ratings for the Mission Suitability Subfactors and discussed the rationale for the evaluation of Cost and Past Performance. Further, I solicited the views of ex-officio members in their areas of expertise. I carefully reviewed the IET’s documentation entitled “Solar Wind Plasma Sensor (SWiPS) Presentation to Source Selection Authority.” I found that the findings presented by the IET, as documented in its presentation were detailed, consistent with the evaluation criteria in the SWiPS RFP, and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal. I determined that the findings were reasonable and valid for the purpose of making a selection decision.

My selection was based on a comparative assessment of each proposal against each of the RFP evaluation criteria. 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.

I examined the IET’s cost evaluation and I agree with the IET’s cost assessment, including the upward probable cost adjustment made to the SwRI proposal. Within the Cost Factor I noted that SwRI had a clear advantage as its proposed and probable costs were more than 10 percent lower than UNH.

Therefore, I found SwRI to have an appreciable competitive advantage over UNH in the Cost Factor.

Regarding the Mission Suitability evaluation, I noted that SwRI received a Very Good rating with one Significant Strength and UNH received a Good rating with one Weakness.

I found SwRI’s Significant Strength for its innovative approach to providing instrument level redundancy to be a very strong finding that is of substantial value to the Government, since it provides several benefits that maximize the instrument’s ability to meet or exceed mission requirements, and that greatly increase the likelihood of mission success. I noted that SwRI’s Mission Suitability evaluation had no Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies. Alternatively, the UNH evaluation had no Strengths or Significant Strengths, but had one minor Weakness related to Small Business Subcontracting Goals. Overall, I concluded that SwRI had a clear Mission Suitability advantage due to its Significant Strength in its innovative approach to providing instrument level redundancy.

For the Past Performance Factor, both SwRI and UNH received Very High overall relevance based on very highly pertinent reference contracts that showed performance that mapped to all areas of the SWiPS’ statement of work, and that showed primarily very high relevance with respect to contract size. Across the references, both SwRI and UNH also demonstrated very effective performance overall with only minor problems with little identifiable effect on performance. Accordingly, both UNH and SwRI received High overall performance ratings. I carefully examined the IET’s assessment for each of the references for SwRI and UNH and agreed with the IET’s assessment. Therefore, I found the past performance for SwRI and UNH to be essentially equal and I did not find a competitive advantage for either offeror in this Factor.

In making my selection, I again referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP. I noted that 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. First, I noted that SwRI had a clear and appreciable advantage in Cost, which was the most important factor. Secondarily, I considered the Mission Suitability factor. I noted that SwRI received the highest overall adjectival rating. More importantly, it was the only offeror to receive a significant strength finding, the content of which I found to be very strong and of substantial value, as described above. This also represented a clear discriminator in favor of SwRI. As noted above, I found UNH and SwRI to be essentially equal in Past Performance and did find a discriminator when I examined the details of the Past Performance assessment. Therefore, I moved my consideration to the remaining two Factors.

With Cost as the most heavily weighted factor and Mission Suitability the second most heavily weighted, I determined that SwRI’s proposal was superior in both factors, with an appreciable cost advantage and a marked Mission Suitability advantage, as described above.

Thus, I concluded the SwRI’s proposal offered the best value to the Government on the basis of its appreciably lower cost, Very Good Mission Suitability proposal that offered a marked technical advantage, and its High Past Performance rating. Therefore, I select SwRI for award of the Solar Wind Plasma Sensor (SWiPS) contract.

10 June 2020 Nipa N. Shah Date Associate Chief Earth Sciences Procurement Office Source Selection Authority

DECISION