TSIS-2 Source Selection Statement (FINAL) - signed.pdf

SELECTION STATEMENT

TOTAL AND SPECTRAL SOLAR IRRADIANCE SENSOR (TSIS-2) SPACECRAFT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) 80GSFC20R0009

On June 4, 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 Total and Spectral solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS-2) Spacecraft. This memorandum documents my decision.

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY

The purpose of this contract is to acquire a spacecraft and related services, including mission operations for the (TSIS-2) mission for the TSIS-2 Project, within the Earth Science Projects

Division.

The contractor shall provide core spacecraft development and test; Observatory integration and test; Observatory functional, performance, and environmental testing; shipment to the launch site; support of launch operations; on-orbit performance verification; operation of Mission

Operations Center (MOC), 3 years mission operations and Decommissioning for the TSIS-2 mission.

The TSIS-2 Spacecraft requirement was issued as a full and open, competitive procurement. The guidance for a full and open competitive procurement was followed in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15. The contract consists of a thirty-four (34) month base period of performance with three (3) one-year options. The base covers spacecraft development, while the options cover on-orbit operations and decommissioning. This procurement resulted in a

Hybrid, Firm Fixed Price / Time & Materials contract.

Two (2) amendments were issued to the RFP between December 5, 2019 and February 13, 2020.

Amendment One, issued on December 12, 2019, updated sections in the Request for Proposal

(RFP) and attachments. Amendment Two, issued January 29, 2020, answered questions and extended the proposal due date to February 13, 2020.

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 companies submitted timely proposals by February 13, 2020:

• General Atomics – Electromagnetic Systems Group (GA)

• Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)

• Millennium Space Systems (MSS)

The Contracting Officer, in conjunction with the Integrated Evaluation Team (IET), determined that the proposal from MSS was unacceptable. The proposal was excluded from the competition in accordance NFS 1815.305-70. MSS was informed that they were eliminated from the competition on March 31, 2020. The other two (2) proposals were deemed sufficiently acceptable and were evaluated.

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 Mission Suitability, Past Performance and Price. The RFP specified the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors as follows:

The Price Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the

Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual factors, the Price

Factor is less important than the Mission Suitability Factor but more important than the

Past Performance Factor.

The RFP established that the Mission Suitability Factor would be evaluated by classifying findings as strengths, weaknesses, significant strengths, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies using the following:

Weakness – a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Significant Weakness – a proposal flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Deficiency – a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level

Strength – a proposal area that enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the government

Significant Strength – a proposal area that greatly enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes significantly toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the government

In accordance with NFS 1815.304-70(b)(1), the Mission Suitability factor was weighted and scored on a 1000 point scale.

The weights (points) associated with each Mission Suitability subfactor are as follows:

Subfactor Points

A – Management Approach 300

B – Technical Approach 600

C – Small Business Utilization 100

Total: 1000

The Mission Suitability subfactors were evaluated using the adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges at NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The IET 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 IET then determined the percentile score for the subfactor, consistent with the scale associated with the assigned rating. The maximum points available for each subfactor were multiplied by the assessed percent for each subfactor to derive the score for the particular subfactor.

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 TSIS-2 Spacecraft 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.”

The Price Factor was evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1), FAR 15.404-1(b) and

NFS 1815.305(a)(1), and solicitation provision M.6 – Price Evaluation Factor. The proposed prices were evaluated to ensure that a "fair and reasonable" price is paid by the Government.

MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION

Below is summary of the Mission Suitability Subfactors and Adjectival Ratings. Southwest

Research Institute had the highest total Mission Suitability point score.

Offeror GA SwRI

Management Approach (300 Max) Good Good

Technical Approach (600 Max) Very Good Excellent

Small Business Utilization (100 Max) Good Good

The substance of the IET’s evaluation of Mission Suitability for each offeror is detailed below:

General Atomics – Electromagnetic Systems Group (GA)

For the Management Approach Subfactor, GA received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no

Significant Strengths, one (1) Strength, one (1) Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no

Deficiencies.

GA received a Strength for Capability Maturity Model Integration for Development (CMMI-

DEV) certification that exceeds the RFP requirement.

GA received a Weakness finding for a minor flaw in its milestone payment percentages.

For the Technical Approach Subfactor, GA received an adjectival rating of “Very Good” with one (1) Significant Strength, two (2) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

GA received a Significant Strength for its spacecraft design, which is based on heritage spacecraft requiring minimal design changes to meet the TSIS-2 requirements, and is designed for five to seven years, which is significantly longer than the mission requirements. The offeror described each subsystem to define changes to accommodate the TSIS-2 requirements and provided a risk assessment of the changes and as well as alternatives. This approach requires minimal design changes to meet the spacecraft requirements, which significantly increases the probability of mission success.

GA received a Strength for the significant degree of redundancy in its proposed design, which is nearly fully redundant.

GA received a Strength for a security approach that exceeds the RFP requirements, which would result in a more secure spacecraft and reduce the risk of any outside interference in its operation.

For the Small Business Utilization Subfactor, GA received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, no Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)

For the Management Approach Subfactor, SwRI received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no

Significant Strengths, three (3) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no

SwRI received a Strength for a comprehensive contamination control approach that ensures the observatory will exceed the cleanliness requirements of the instruments as well as the contamination-sensitive star-trackers.

SwRI received a Strength for its senior management engagement that will promotes effective management and enables high quality products.

SwRI received a Strength for its approach to environmental testing which provides greater schedule control and will reduce the risk associated with transportation and handling of the hardware.

For the Technical Approach Subfactor, SwRI received an adjectival rating of “Excellent” with one (1) Significant Strength, five (5) Strengths, one (1) Weakness, no Significant Weaknesses, and no Deficiencies.

SwRI received a Significant Strength for its proposed Mission Operations Center (MOC), which currently has Authorization to Operate, eliminating a schedule concern with a new facility that would need to be evaluated and approved. Additionally, the offeror proposed a proven approach to support automated flight operations and a MOC staffing approach that significantly reduces the risk that mission operations problems may go unaddressed. This approach significantly increases the potential for success and provides significant value to the Government.

SwRI received a Strength for showing substantial margins in mass, power, and telemetry.

SwRI received a Strength for its approach to simulation, which permits an in-depth understanding early in the life-cycle for mission critical components, spacecraft-payload interfaces, their interaction and systems level performance.

SwRI received a Strength for its proposed fault tolerant spacecraft architecture that enhances the overall reliability and increases the probability of mission success.

SwRI received a Strength for its sparing approach that reduces the risk of schedules delays.

SwRI received a Strength for its proposed approach to attitude disturbance control, which increases assurance that the mission will exceed its spectral resolution science requirements.

SwRI received a Weakness for its proposed approach to strength testing, which lacks clarity regarding the testing of the spacecraft primary structure.

For the Small Business Utilization Subfactor, SwRI received an adjectival rating of “Good” with no Significant Strengths, two (2) Strengths, no Weaknesses, no Significant Weaknesses, and no

SwRI received a Strength proposing an overall small business subcontracting goal which is higher than the Government’s recommended goal.

SwRI received a Strength for identifying “High Technology” subcontract work to be performed by small businesses.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The overall Level of Confidence rating for GA was MODERATE, based on contract references demonstrating High overall relevance and Moderate overall performance.

The overall Level of Confidence rating for SwRI was VERY HIGH, based on contract references demonstrating Very High overall relevance and Very High overall performance.

PRICE EVALUATION

The Price Factor was evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1), FAR 15.404-1(b) and

NFS 1815.305(a)(1), and solicitation provision M.6 – Price Evaluation Factor. The proposed prices were evaluated to ensure that a "fair and reasonable" price is paid by the Government.

Price reasonableness was primarily determined by successful price competition yielding comparable pricing, and a comparison of both proposed prices to historical prices. Specifically, the price evaluation team compared the proposed prices to four (4) previous NASA Missions with similar characteristics. The historical prices were adjusted to account for materially differing terms and conditions, quantities and market and economic factors. Based on the successful price competition with multiple offerors and the comparison of proposed prices to historical prices, the proposed prices for both Offerors were considered to be fair and reasonable.

DECISION

As the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for this procurement, I met with the TSIS-2 Spacecraft

IET and several ex-officio members on June 4, 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 Factor and discussed the rationale for the evaluation of Past Performance and

Price. Further, I solicited the views of ex-officio members in their areas of expertise. I carefully reviewed the IET’s documentation entitled “TSIS-2 Spacecraft SSA Presentation (Post FPR

FINAL).” I found that the findings presented by the IET, as documented in its presentation were detailed, consistent with the evaluation criteria in the TSIS-2 Spacecraft RFP, and provided a clear description of the merits of each proposal. I determined that the findings were reasonable and valid for 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 Price Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the

Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual factors, the Price

Factor is less important than the Mission Suitability Factor but more important than the

Past Performance Factor.

Regarding the Mission Suitability evaluation, I noted that both offerors received “Good” ratings within the Management subfactor. GA received a Strength for its software development certification and a Weakness for a flaw in it milestone payment schedule. I found this finding to be a very minor proposal flaw that would not affect contract performance. SwRI received three strengths for its contamination control, senior management engagement, and schedule & risk control. There were no significant findings awarded. While both offerors received the same ratings, and are relatively close in merit in this subfactor, I determined that SwRI has a slight edge in this subfactor by virtue of the greater breadth of its Management strength findings.

Within the Technical Approach subfactor, which was significantly more heavily weighted, I noted that GA received a “Very Good” rating while SwRI received an “Excellent” rating. Within this subfactor, two Significant Strength findings were awarded, one for each offeror.

I first focused on the offerors’ significant findings in the subfactor. The SwRI proposal received a Significant Strength within this same subfactor for its proposed Mission Operations Center

(MOC), which already has its Authorization to Operate. The proposed MOC and its associated approach to flight operations support provides value and significantly increases the potential for contract success. GA received a Significant Strength for its spacecraft design, which is based on a heritage design, and that will require minimal design changes to meet the TSIS-2 requirements.

I found this design to be very beneficial to NASA from a risk and schedule perspective. The minimal level of design changes needed significantly reduces design and development risk and significantly increases the chances of successful contract performance. I noted that in contrast, SwRI’s proposed spacecraft will require more substantial design modification to accommodate the TSIS-2 requirements. I found that GA has a significant competitive edge in its spacecraft design, and in considering the details of both Significant Strengths, I concluded that GA’s

Significant Strength has more value to NASA due to its greater overall performance impact in conjunction with the criticality of the spacecraft design to mission success.

Next in examining the offerors’ other Technical Approach findings, I noted that both offerors received multiple Strengths, all of which I found to provide value to NASA. Specifically, GA earned strengths for their approach to redundancy methodology and spacecraft security. SwRI received strengths for their approach to margins, simulation, fault tolerance, sparing, and attitude disturbance control. I also noted that both offerors received Weakness findings. When I examined the content of these Weakness findings, I found that both Weaknesses to be relatively minor and did not meaningfully detract from the overall technical merit of either proposal.

Overall, I recognized that SwRI had more strengths overall within the subfactor, providing a wider variety of technical approach benefits. However, when I also considered the relative value of each offeror’s Significant Strengths as described above, I determined that the greater value of

GA’s Significant Strength (as compared to SwRI’s Significant Strength), closed this technical approach gap substantially. When considering the Technical Approach findings collectively, I concluded that SwRI’s proposal has a very modest edge over GA’s proposal in this subfactor.

For the Small Business Utilization Subfactor, which was the least heavily weighted Mission

Suitability Subfactor, I noted the both Offerors achieved a Good rating. However, the SwRI proposal had an overall advantage based on their Strengths for subcontracting goals and proposed high technology subcontract work.

Overall, the IET rated the SwRI proposal higher under Mission Suitability, both in score and adjectival ratings. Based on the totality of the findings and their content, I agree that SwRI has an advantage in this Factor, though I placed more emphasis on the content of the findings, rather than adjectival ratings or points scores. In summary, I determined that SwRI’s proposal is slightly more competitive than GA’s in the Mission Suitability Factor. The combination of

SwRI’s significant strength and numerous strengths provide the most performance benefit overall. While GA has less Strengths, the significant value of their proposed spacecraft design makes the GA proposal competitive within this Factor, the most important Factor.

Within the Price Factor, I noted that GA offered a notably advantageous proposal in comparison to SwRI. Specifically, GA offered a price that was more than 40% lower than SwRI. When I inquired about this difference, the IET informed me of the details of its price analysis and conclusions that, based on its comparison of the competitively bid prices, and its comparison to historical prices of similar spacecraft, that both prices were fair and reasonable. I concur in this assessment. I determined that GA has a very substantial competitive advantage over SwRI in the

Price Factor, the second most important Factor.

For the Past Performance Factor, GA was rated with a Moderate Level of Confidence. SwRI was rated with a Very High Level of Confidence. I carefully examined the past performance assessment for both offerors, and after discussing the ratings with the IET, I concurred with the overall performance ratings. For SwRI, I observed the Very High overall rating was substantiated by two Very Highly relevant references with Very High performance. Regarding

GA’s Moderate overall rating, I examined the contract references underlying that rating to examine the performance concerns. I noted that GA demonstrated Very High performance on its most relevant contract, which was assessed a highly relevant. The two contract references that detracted from its overall performance rating were considered to be less relevant (moderate relevance) and, for both references, customers reported some improvements since the performance issues occurred. Overall, while I observed GA’s performance on these two references reflected an upward trajectory, I determined that SwRI’s overall performance record was superior and it had a clear advantage in the Past Performance Factor, the least heavily weighted Factor in the evaluation criteria.

In considering which proposal to select, I again referred to the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors as specified in the RFP. The Price Factor is significantly less important than the combined importance of the Mission Suitability Factor and the Past Performance Factor. As individual factors, the Price Factor is less important than the Mission Suitability Factor but more important than the Past Performance Factor.

In making my trade-off decision, I first considered the Mission Suitability factor and noted that the

SwRI proposal had a slight overall advantage. With respect to GA, I observed that its proposal had the more impactful Significant Strength. I determined that GA’s Spacecraft Design represented a clear discriminator, finding it very beneficial to Government from a risk and schedule perspective.

While SwRI also had a Significant Strength as well as more overall Strengths, in my assessment, the advantage resulting from the combined weight of those findings was slight compared to those of

GA. I recognized GA’s Mission Suitability proposal was slightly less advantageous overall, but found it was still very competitive. Second, I considered that GA offered a far more advantageous price, the second most important factor. This represented a large discriminator when compared to

SwRI, and I characterize the 40% difference in price as a very substantial advantage. Finally, I looked at the Past Performance factor, the least important factor, noting that SwRI had a clear competitive advantage over GA. Thus, having weighed each offeror’s relative advantage within each Factor, I determined that GA’s very substantial advantage in the Price Factor--the second most heavily weighted factor--more than offset SwRI’s slight advantage in the most highly weighted factor (Mission Suitability) and least heavily weighted factor (Past Performance). While this was a close selection, I have concluded that the very substantial magnitude of the firm fixed price difference is worth more to NASA than the slight Mission Suitability advantages offered by

SWRI’s proposal, as well the two ratings higher level of confidence rating received by SwRI in the

Past Performance assessment.

Therefore, I select General Atomics as the best value proposal for award of the Total and

Spectral solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS-2) Spacecraft contract.

Wanda C. Peters Date

Deputy Director for Planning and Business Management

Flight Projects Directorate

Source Selection Authority

June 25, 2020 wcpeters Stamp