Tab 60- Fast Tracking Ground Station Antenna System SSS.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration John H. Glenn Research Center Lewis Field 21000 Brookpark Road Cleveland, OH 44135-3191

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

Fast Tracking Ground Station Antenna System Request for Quote 80GRC020R0019

Background

The NASA Glenn Research Center has a requirement for a Fast Tracking Ground Station Antenna System for The Aerospace Communications Facility (ACF) that will support high bandwidth (e.g. DVB-S2/S2X) space and aeronautics communications research. The antenna system will be permanently mounted on a raised platform on the ACF rooftop. This system shall be designed to accommodate a radome (and meet performance metrics) to enable experiments year round during inclement weather.

Based on market research, it was determined that the solicitation would be issued as Full and Open Competition. To accomplish this effort, the Government will award a single Full Fixed Price Award.

The Request for Quotes (RFQ) was issued August 13, 2020, through beta.sam.gov. Quotes were received by October 2, 2020 from the following two offerors:

TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. (Comtech)

Viasat, Inc. (Viasat)

Quote Requirements

Technical Merit Requirements

Sub-Factor 1: System Block Diagram- Block diagram shall show, at minimum, major components (e.g. radio frequency (RF), electro-mechanical, controllers) of the antenna system and simplified wiring between components. The approximate location (e.g. antenna, pedestal, and building interior) of components shall be provided.

Sub-Factor 2: Preliminary Roof Integration Plan- Shall provide description of anticipated requirements for mounting antenna system to a raised steel grate roof platform (e.g. loads, weights, frame bolts, welds, etc.)

Sub-Factor 3: Requirements Compliance Matrix- Shall complete the Attachment A – Requirements Compliance Matrix template. Offerors shall mark an "X" in column D, entitled "Compliance", for Each Requirement Listed, if the antenna system is Compliant with the requirement. Requirements are based on Attachment B - Fast Tracking Ground Station Antenna Specifications and Requirements. Offerors shall describe any deviations to specifications and requirements for the antenna system in column E, entitled "Notes". Expected performance of design shall be based on similar prior work and sound engineering principles.

Sub-Factor 4: Narrative not to exceed 20 pages, describing technical merit for meeting or exceeding the Attachment B- Fast Tracking Ground Station Antenna Specifications and Requirements, including Antenna Parameters, S-band Parameters, Ka-band Uplink Parameters, Ka-band Downlink Parameters, Controller Parameters, Environmental Parameters, Structural Parameters; Quote Deliverables including: System Block Diagram, Preliminary Roof Integration Plan, Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment A); Contract Deliverables, and Design Options.

Past Performance Requirements

Shall provide examples of similar antenna systems produced and delivered within the last 3 years, including contract number and point of contact information for the purchaser.

Price Requirements

Offerors shall provide Price quotes for line items referenced in the solicitation number provided below: Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Structure: The following table shall be completed in full

Clin Description Total Cost 0001 Fast Tracking Ground Station

Antenna System

0002 Radome Option 0003 Storage Option (Fixed) 0004 Storage Option Month 1-3 0005 Storage Option Month 4-6

Evaluation Process and Criteria

In order to obtain the Best Value to the Government for this procurement, a Trade-Off evaluation approach was employed in accordance with FAR 15.212-2. The complex requirements for Fast Tracking Ground Station Antenna System justify the Government trading off a better value features and performance goals for a higher priced quote.

A Technical Team was appointed to evaluate all quotes received in response to the RFQ. The Evaluation Factors considered were Technical, Price and Past Performance. Offerors that provided better value features, performance goals that go above and beyond what the Government is minimally asking for were rated more favorably than those who did not. Offerors who did not provide these better value features were not rated negatively for failing to provide them. However, offerors who do meet or exceed any of the requirements for this solicitation can be rated more favorably.

As individual factors, Technical Merit was more important than Past Performance, which was approximately equal to Price. Technical Capability and Past Performance, when combined, were significantly more important than Price.

The following factors were used to evaluate offers:

1. TECHNICAL MERIT – The ability of the offeror to successfully meet the required delivery schedule and the minimum specifications for all technical requirements. Details provided per FAR 52.212-1(b). Technical merit was determined by review of information submitted by the offeror, which were required to provide a description in sufficient detail to show that the product offered meets the Government's requirement.

a. System Block Diagram- In accordance with Requirements for Antenna System Table.

b. Preliminary Roof Integration Plan- In accordance with Requirements for Antenna System Table. (See Attachment C - ACF Rooftop Antenna Drawings)

c. Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment A) - In accordance with Requirements for Antenna System Table

d. Narrative not to exceed 20 pages, describing technical merit for meeting or exceeding the Attachment B- Fast Tracking Ground Station Antenna Specifications and Requirements, including Antenna Parameters, S-band Parameters, Ka-band Uplink Parameters, Ka-band Downlink Parameters, Controller Parameters, Environmental Parameters, Structural Parameters;

Proposal Deliverables including: System Block Diagram, Preliminary Roof Integration Plan, Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment A); Contract Deliverables, and Design Options.

2. PAST PERFORMANCE – The past performance evaluation was conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.305(a)(2). The Government considered information submitted by the offeror and information contained in Federal Systems.

3. PRICE – Cost was evaluated in accordance with specifications and completion of the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Structure for CLIN items 1-5.

Technical Evaluation

On October 13, 2020, the technical quotes were distributed to the Technical Evaluation Team for evaluation. The evaluation team met independently and submitted their Individual Proposal Evaluation Worksheets on November 5, 2020. The Contracting Officer has reviewed the Individual Proposal Evaluation Worksheets, and is in agreement with the ratings.

Technical Merit Evaluation

Comtech Technical Merit Evaluation Proposal Rating- Very Good Overall Technical Merit Summary: Comtech’s proposed solution met the major technical requirements of the solicitation. Their design has a number of identified strengths, including a significant strength due to their novel feed design. There were no significant weaknesses or significant deficiencies and all identified minor weaknesses can be accommodated by NASA, if necessary.

Technical Merit Evaluation Subfactor 1- System Block Diagram System block diagram provided by Comtech clearly identifies major subsystems and interconnects, including both radio frequency (RF) and network communications/controls.

Comtech is able to meet all of NASA’s operations objectives of simultaneous S/Ka-band operations, with switchable polarization on transmit (Tx) and simultaneous left-hand/right-hand circular(LHC/RHC) polarizations on Ka-band receive. Comtech is able to meet all requirements without need to switch out feed assemblies, which is critical for conducting some of NASA’s project demonstration objectives with this ground station.

Technical Merit Evaluation Subfactor 2- Preliminary Roof Integration Plan

The submitted “plan” includes basic antenna information and bolt patterns for the antenna and radome. This is enough information to gauge the size of the antenna. The building structure can support the provided antenna weights. Because this is just a “preliminary” Rooftop Integration Plan, the roof platform framing and connections to the building superstructure will need to be reevaluated based on the precise location of this antenna on the roof platform and the imposed loads.

Technical Merit Evaluation Subfactor 3- Requirements Compliance Matrix

Comtech indicates in the compliance matrix that all major requirements are fully compliant in their proposed design. The noted partial compliance for cross-polarization isolation is considered to be fully compliant under the more complete axial ratio requirement. There were a few missing entries on the compliance matrix (namely 13a, 15d, 18a, 20c, and 30a, 56) that the evaluation team determined were minor oversights because the requirements were either mentioned elsewhere in the proposal or easily accommodated. Ultimately, the noted weaknesses would not negatively affect the overall system performance.

Technical Merit Evaluation Subfactor 4- Narrative Describing Technical Merit

Comtech demonstrates a unique approach to solving the multiple Ka-band operational modes required by NASA use cases. They achieve this through a custom designed wideband Ka-band feed horn assembly and a dichroic subreflector which allows simultaneous S-band/Ka-band operations across all Ka modes. There are no significant weaknesses to the approach. The dish wind loading issue is a minor weakness that can be easily accommodated with the radome option or by implementing minor operational constraints.

Viasat Technical Merit Evaluation

Proposal Rating- Poor Overall Technical Merit Summary: Viasat’s proposed solution to the solicitation had a number of significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, and weakness with slightly more weaknesses than strengths. The proposed separate feed system represents a deficiency to the requirements of the solicitation. This represents a significant risk that the proposed solution will not meet NASA requirements.

Technical Merit Evaluation Subfactor 1- System Block Diagram

During the formal Questions and Answers period Viasat asked “Due to the complexity in the feed network and physical limitations of an antenna of this aperture, would NASA consider separate feeds and RF that are physically swappable?” and NASA responded with “Automated reconfiguration of the feed system is a key component for this antenna system to support research on switching between different communication networks.” Therefore, Viasat’s design approach does not meet NASA’s requirements for a remotely configurable feed system.

Technical Merit Evaluation Subfactor 2- Preliminary Roof Integration Plan

The submitted “plan” includes basic antenna information and bolt patterns for the antenna and radome. The building structure can support the provided antenna weights. The “plan” does not give specific mounting requirements, just general weights and a potential antenna bolt pattern and radome. However, this is enough information to gather basic size. The “plan” states that more specific information will be provided once under contract. Because this is a “preliminary” Rooftop Integration plan, the roof platform framing and connections to the building superstructure will need to be reevaluated based on the precise location of this antenna on the roof platform and the imposed loads.

Technical Merit Evaluation Subfactor 3- Requirements Compliance Matrix

Viasat indicated that their approach was not compliant on several of the operational requirements (wind loading, sidelobe performance, intermodulation, gain/group delay variation) of the ground station. All non-compliant elements can be overcome by selecting the radome option along with additional flexibilities in NASA’s operation of the system. This will require a significant burden on NASA to accommodate these weaknesses.

Technical Merit Evaluation Subfactor 4- Narrative Describing Technical Merit

Viasat’s narrative explanation of approach was very well described. Their autotrack solution using monopulse tracking significantly exceeds our tracking requirements. The Graphical User Interface (GUI) for ground station monitoring and control appears to be well vetted with their systems and easy to use. A significant weakness is the radome losses were not described in the proposal. There is a significant risk that the system will not meet G/T (the ratio of gain to system temperature), and Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) requirements with the radome option.

Past Performance

Comtech – Very High Level of Confidence

One highly relevant past performance record was found for Comtech using Cage Code 0HAL7 (Contract W15P7T13D0018 0004), with a Product Service Code beginning with 5, and within the last 3 years. No records of past performance were found using the submitted DUNS 081343909. Based on the past performance record, it was determined that Comtech would receive a “Very High Level of Confidence” for past performance. Comtech received a “Satisfactory” in Quality, “Very Good” in Schedule, “Satisfactory” in Cost Control, “Very Good” in Management, and “Satisfactory” in Regulatory Compliance. No significant weaknesses exist.

Viasat – Neutral

There were no past performance records found for Viasat for Cage Code 1Q601 or DUNS 156199346. A search was conducted using the Offeror’s company name but no relevant past performance records were found using Product Service Code beginning with 5 and within the last 3 years. Viasat did provide information for four relevant past performance subcontracts, one was not within the last 3 years and the other three did not provide major subcontract numbers.

Attempts to connect with the Points of Contacts provided by Viasat went unanswered. Therefore, Viasat received a “Neutral” for past performance.

Evaluation Findings

The detailed final findings results are indicated below:

Offeror Technical

Capability Relevant Experience and Past Performance

Price

Comtech Very Good Very High Level of Confidence

$1,354,345.00

Viasat Poor Neutral Highest

Determination of Fair and Reasonable Pricing

FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) states “Normally, adequate price competition establishes a Fair and Reasonable Price…” Adequate price competition was obtained for this solicitation, as at least one other offer was submitted that was eligible for award.

The quoted price by Comtech of $1,354,345.00 is higher than that of the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). After consideration was given to the supply chain issues due to Covid-19 and in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(v), the price is determined as Fair and Reasonable in comparison with the IGCE.

Award Determination

Based on the aforementioned information, it is my determination that Comtech’s proposal offers distinct technical advantages over Viasat’s, with a very high level of confidence. Comtech’s proposed pricing, when considering Covid-19 supply chain issues, is fair and reasonable and also lower than Viasat’s. Accordingly, no trade off is required. Comtech’s proposal provides the best overall value to the Government. Accordingly, award will be made to Comtech.

________________________ December 11, 2020 Brian Huth, Contracting Officer Date Branch Chief, Research and Space Operations Branch