VADR On-Ramp Source Selection Decision_Redacted.pdf

CUI//SP-SSEL

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

for

VADR On-Ramp

On July 2, 2024, as the designated Source Selection Authority (SSA) for the Venture-Class Acquisition of Dedicated and Rideshare (VADR) Launch Services acquisition, I along with senior officials of the Launch Services Program (LSP) and Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Office of Procurement (OP), met with the VADR on-ramp 2023 acquisition team (VADR Team), to independently review its evaluation of proposals received in response to the VADR launch services solicitation. Relevant portions of the VADR Team’s evaluation and the rationale for my decision on selection of the successful offerors are set forth in this Source Selection Statement.

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

The principal purpose of the VADR launch services acquisition is to acquire Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-licensed commercial launch services for NASA and NASA-sponsored payloads to a variety of orbits. VADR launch services are available for payloads with a risk tolerance of Class D per NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8705.4, Risk Classification for NASA Payloads, or payloads that do not have defined risk classification. Resultant contractor(s) will perform all tasks necessary to safely and reliably provide launch services in accordance with Government-defined mission objectives. Launch services include launch vehicle planning, analysis, design, development, production, integration, and testing to transport the payload to the desired orbit.

The original VADR launch services acquisition effort resulted in the award of 13 fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts with five-year ordering periods. The VADR contract also includes a special on-ramp and technology insertion provision to foster competition for future requirements for launch services and to enable contract holders to introduce new capabilities not available or identified at the time of award of the initial VADR launch services contract.

The acquisition was conducted using other than full and open competitive procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302-5, “Authorized or required by statute.” The Commercial Space Act of 1998, 51 U.S.C. § 50131, requires that all commercial space transportation services be procured from domestic providers.

In accordance with Clause 2.11.1 On-Ramp, the VADR on-ramp 2023 acquisition process began to allow qualified new providers the opportunity to provide services. The following information pertains to the VADR on-ramp 2023 acquisition.

acceptability standards for non-price factors. The RFP defined three evaluation factors:

Technical/Management Capability, Price, and Past Performance.

For the Technical/Management Capability factor, the RFP advised offerors that the Government would evaluate proposals for acceptability and assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” for each area. Only proposals that were individually rated “Acceptable” in all areas would be eligible for contract award. The Technical/Management Capability factor consisted of the following areas: Minimum Launch Service Criteria, Launch Service Overview, Management Approach, Financial Information, Small Business Subcontracting, and Statement of Acceptance/Summary of Exception.

For the Price factor, the RFP advised offerors that the Government would evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). Cost analysis and data other than certified cost or pricing data was not required to support a determination of fair and reasonable price.

For the Past Performance factor, the RFP advised offerors that the evaluation would be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), and that the Government would evaluate the recent and relevant performance of the offeror (to include proposed Major Subcontractors) in the areas of technical, schedule, management, small business, cost/price, and mission success. Recent was defined as performance within the past three years prior to proposal submission. The RFP further advised that the Government would not consider efforts on newly awarded contracts without any assessable performance completed. Relevant performance included contracts, task orders, and/or agreements similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the solicitation. The RFP advised that the Government could supplement the information contained in the proposal, with information obtained from Government organizations and personnel, commercial sources, public information sources, and data gathered during the discussion phase of the evaluation if it was determined to be necessary to complete the evaluation. Finally, the RFP advised offerors that the evaluation would result in assignment of a rating of “Acceptable,” “Neutral,” or “Unacceptable,” as outlined in the table below.

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings:

Rating Definition Acceptable The Offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but the contractor took effective corrective action.

Neutral The Offeror has no relevant past performance history or for whom past performance information is not available.

Unacceptable The Offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas; performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, were required. For the remainder of the items, all offerors’ proposals were found to be acceptable.

For the Price factor, the VADR Team analyzed each offeror’s proposed prices using one or more of the following techniques: (a) comparison to historical prices, (b) comparison to commercial prices, (c) and analysis of data other than certified pricing data. All offeror’s proposed prices were found reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b).

For the Past Performance factor, Impulse and Momentus provided recent, relevant past performance that was pertinent to this acquisition, and demonstrated effective performance responsive to contract requirements, which may have included reportable problems, but effective corrective action was taken to resolve.

For Arrow, the VADR Team found the past performance not relevant and assigned it a Neutral rating.

As a result, all offerors were found to be either Acceptable or Neutral.

DECISION

During the presentation, I was fully briefed on the procurement process and was given detailed evaluation materials concerning the proposals evaluated. I questioned the evaluation team on the material presented and carefully considered the detailed findings presented by the team. I also recognize that the RFP states that “All Offerors whose price is determined reasonable and are not “unacceptable” in the Technical/Management Capability and Past Performance factors will be eligible for a contract award” and that the Government “may elect to award a single task order contract or to award multiple task order contracts . . . to two or more sources under this solicitation.” The selection rationale that follows is based on a comparative assessment of proposals against each of the source selection factors.

I believe, consistent with the evaluative ratings above, that all offerors in the competitive range demonstrated, under the Technical/Management Capability factor, that they can successfully perform VADR requirements. While I note that this decision is a product of my independent judgment, my review of the VADR Team’s evaluations under this factor led me to adopt them as my own. I believe that the evaluation of each of the offerors’ proposals was comprehensive, thorough, and well documented. The resultant ratings (i.e., Acceptable or Unacceptable) captured by the VADR Team represent the relative merits of each proposal and are ultimately reflective of the overall acceptability of the technical capabilities offered. All offerors in the competitive range provided an acceptable response to the Technical/Management Capability factor.

The price evaluation considered whether the proposed prices are reasonable based on the common launch vehicles proposed. At the presentation, the VADR Team explained its analysis of the proposal in detail, including assessment of the proposed launch vehicle and its prices in relation to current market pricing, previously competed prices on relevant contracts, and other vehicles in the same class. I questioned the methodology of proposed NTE price, which included only the price of a dedicated orbital transfer vehicle and requested that the VADR Acquisition Team request a dedicated launch service NTE price that included a dedicated launch vehicle. provided a dedicated launch service NTE price the next day, and I concurred with the price evaluation. Accordingly, under the Price factor, I find that the proposals offer prices that are fair and reasonable based on the common launch vehicles proposed.

Under the Past Performance factor, all Offerors were found to be either “Acceptable” or “Neutral.” I considered the VADR Team’s evaluation and explanation of how it considered each element of past performance as stated in the RFP and agree with the ratings.

In consideration of the foregoing, I conclude that, consistent with the RFP, three of the eight offerors are eligible for award. Accordingly, after considering the selection criteria, the findings of the evaluation team, and exercising my independent judgment, I hereby select the following offerors for award of a VADR Launch Service contract:

Arrow Science and Technology, LLC Impulse Space, Inc.

Momentus Inc.

Jennifer W. Lyons Date Source Selection Authority Deputy Program Manager Launch Services Program

JENNIFER

LYONS

Digitally signed by

JENNIFER LYONS

Date: 2024.08.07 14 25:04 -04'00'