SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT for ‘Venture Class Demonstration 2 (VCLS Demo 2) Launch Service On November 4, 2020, as the Source Selection Authority (SSA), I met with the team that was appointed to evaluate proposals for award of the VCLS Demo 2 contract. Relevant portions of the team’s evaluation of proposals, and my decision on selection of the successful offeror is set forth in this Source Selection Statement PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION The NASA Launch Services Program (LSP) is seeking to establish multiple firm fixed price launch service contracts for the delivery of CubeSats to orbit and to demonstrate a launch vehicle capability for future use on operational missions. Each resultant contract will consist of only one mission with a separate and single launch for each mission. There are two mission types as described below. Mission One shall consist of a dedicated launch service for CubeSats that will include a single launch with a delivery of 30 kg payload mass to 500 km at inclination of degrees between 40-60 degrees. ‘Two shall consist of a launch service with CubeSats as the Primary Payload. The primary payload, as referenced in this Statement of Work (SOW), drives all mission requirements including, launch schedule and orbital trajectory. This will include a single launch for delivery of Constellation A and B. Constellation A is a 75 kg payload mass to 2.550 km Sun-Synchronous Orbit (SSO). Constellation B is a second delivery of 20 kg to 550 km SSO with a minimum 10-degree plane change. Offerors were permitted to submit proposals to only one of the two missions. The resultant contractor(s) will be required to perform launch vehicle planning, analysis, design, development, production, integration, and testing required to provide the launch service appropriate to transport the payload to the desired orbit. BACKGROUND 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. § $0131, requires that all commercial space transportation services be procured from domestic providers. In addition, in accordance with FAR 19.5, “Small Business Total Set-Asides, Partial Set-Asides, and Reserves”, it was set- aside for only small businesses that qualify under NAICS code 481212; 1,500 Employees. A draft Request for Proposal (draft RFP) was posted to beta. SAM. gov on June 22, 2020 and prospective offerors were encouraged to submit questions/comments. Six (6) prospective offerors responded with questions/comments on to the draft RFP.An Industry Day was held July 7, 2020 via WebEx that resulted in 45 attendees from 26 interested companies. Participants were encouraged to submit questions during the WebEx presentation. Three participants submitted questions, ‘The REP was posted to beta. SAM. gov on July 31, 2020 following the team’s review and consideration of industry questions/comments on the draft RFP and Industry Day. The RFP sought proposals for only one of the mission launch services as described above. Offerors were advised that exceptions to the terms and conditions that introduce technical, schedule, or cost risks may result in a determination of proposal unacceptability (NFS 1815.305- 70), may preclude award to an Offeror if an award is made on initial proposals, as intended, or may otherwise affect an Offeror’s competitive standing, In response to the REP, the following nine companies submitted timely proposals on or before the due date of August 31, 2020: Mission One Aevum, Inc, Astra Space, Inc. Gloyer-Taylor Laboratories LLC Interorbital Systems Phantom Space Corporation Phoenix Launch Systems, Ine. Relativity Space Inc. Mission Two Firefly Black LLC Momentus, Inc. One late offer was received from Wagner Star Industries, LLC and was not accepted in accordance with FAR 52.212-l, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items (Jun 2020), paragraph (£)(2)(i). EVALUATION PROCEDURES This acquisition is being conducted as a commercial, competitively negotiated, acquisition in accordance with FAR 12.203, Procedures for Solicitation, Evaluation, and Award, in conjunction with FAR Part 15.3, Source Selection, and NFS Part 1815.3, Source Selection, This acquisition allows for NASA awarding one or more contracts for each of the two CLINs using a tradeoff process, as described in FAR 15.101, to obtain the best value for the Government; however, the Government reserves the right to make award(s) under only one of the two CLINs. In accordance with the RFP, proposals were evaluated for technical and management capability, compliance with solicitation requirements, as well as price. Proposals were evaluated on the completeness and quality of the information provided to demonstrate the Offeror's qualifications Sensitive But Unclasifed (SBU) ~ Proprietary Information’ Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.1010 and 3.104)in terms of experience, capability, and proposed approaches to meet all the requirements of the ‘SOW and their proposed launch solution. All evaluation factors (Technical/Management Capability) other than price when combined are approximately equal to price. Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: The relative order of importance of these factors is Technical/Management Capability is approximately equal to Price Summary of Evaluation Factors Technical/Management Capability Factor The Offeror's technical/management proposal was evaluated on the following subfactors using the criteria identified below: 1, Launch Service Requirements The proposed Launch Service was evaluated for the risk and feasibility of the approach to meet the requirements in Attachment 01, Statement of Work, and the proposed launch date and orbit insertion date(s) that are no later than June 30, 2022, 2. Launch Vehicle Design The proposal was evaluated on the Offeror’s demonstrated knowledge, skill and understanding of design, test, analysis, and manufacturing of the proposed launch vehicle. The proposal was evaluated on Offeror’s proposed launch vehicle capabilities, with ‘extra emphasis on propulsion systems maturity, to meet the VCLS Demo 2 requirements described in the SOW, as well as its proposed mission integration process, launch processing, and launch environments imposed on the spacecraft. The evaluation addressed, but was not limited to, the following: Launch Vehicle Characteristics, Propulsion System maturity, Other Systems maturity, and Payload Capabilities. Proposed launch vehicles that are closer to qualification completion may be more favorable than those at earlier stages of development. 3. Concept of Operations ‘The proposed concept of operations was evaluated for the risk and feasibility to meet the requirements of VCLS Demo 2 4. Financial Stability: The proposal was evaluated for the Offeror’s financial capability and their ability to secure financing for the development, if required, of their launch service vehicle that does not rely solely on award of the VCLS Demo 2 contract. This information may also be used to support a responsibility determination in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1 Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) ~ Proprietary Information Souree Selection Information (See FAR 2.1010 and 3.104)5. Statement of Acceptance/Summary of Exception: Proposals were required to be prepared as prescribed in the RFP. Accordingly, the Government reserved the right to reject proposals determined unacceptable as described under NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of unacceptable proposals, Furthermore, proposals with exceptions to the terms and conditions, inaccurate conditional assumptions or new terms, conditions, or clauses may result in the proposal being determined unacceptable, may preclude award to an Offeror if award is made without discussions, or may otherwise affect, an Offeror’s competitive standing Price Factor The Launch Service proposed CLIN price was evaluated in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4 ‘The Government will perform a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine the reasonableness of the proposed price. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS Utilizing the aforementioned evaluation process, the team conducted an evaluation of the proposals from Aevum, Ine. (Aevum), Astra Space, Inc. (Astra), Firefly Black LLC (Firefly Black), Gloyer-Taylor Laboratories LLC (GTL), Interorbital Systems (IOS), Momentus, Ine. (Momentus), Phantom Space Corporation (Phantom), Phoenix Launch Systems, Inc. (Phoenix), and Relativity Space Inc. (Relativity). The resulting technical/management capability and price evaluation of each of the nine offerors’ proposal provided the basis for making an award decision. In acordance with the evaluation criteria in the RFP, the Contracting Officer determined that discussions were not necessary, and three awards will be made without discussions. TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY FACTOR MISSION ONE: Aevum In the evaluation of the Mission One launch service offered by Aevum, the team identified six significant weakness, two strengths, and one weakness. There were not any deficiencies or significant strengths identified. Significant Weaknesses Unacceptable Payload Fairing Contamination Environment: The first significant weakness was attributed to payload processing and the increased risk with the payload fairing environment exceeding the contamination levels in the SOW. This is due to the level of proposed cleanliness dropping below the Class 8 or better requirement. The proposal does not address how the required contamination environment within the fairing will be maintained since the proposed level of cleanliness after encapsulation is less than Class 8. Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) ~ Proprietary Information Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.1010 ang 3.104)Unclear Approach to Control Moisture in Fairing: The second significant weakness was due to the risk of spacecraft contamination after a launch contingency resulting in condensation inside the fairing, Without discussion of this potential design flaw, the proposal demonstrates a lack of understanding of the potential challenges of an air-launch system that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Payload Integration and Interface Risk: The third significant weakness was a combination of the following risks that demonstrates a lack of understanding in the areas of payload integration and interfaces, such as, the launch environment exceeds proposed dispenser specification, and unrealistic integration/launch timelines. This lack of understanding in payload integration and interfaces results in a significant increase in risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Lack of Details on Launch Vehicle Propulsion: The fourth significant weakness was attributed to lack of detail on the proposed first stage propulsion system which requires modifications. Aevum proposed a first stage propulsion system; however, the proposal did not include the required data plots for these engines. The proposal did provide data plots of the second and third stage rocket engines showing an ability to provide the required thrust and mission duration. The proposal stated that all engines have been qualified; however, without providing the data plots for the first stage engine, it was not demonstrated how the proposed engines will meet the required thrust for the first stage. Risk to Schedule due to Launch Vehicle Design: The fifth significant weakness was associated with schedule risk and the proposal’s lack of descriptive narrative showing how Aevum will complete all qualification and testing, fully integrate the stages, and meet their first scheduled launch date. As proposed, this is a very complex launch system that requires extensive systems integration and testing to achieve the full capability of the launch vehicle, Without a more descriptive narrative supporting the schedule, as required by the instructions to offerors, there is a significant increase in risk that they do not fully understand the complexity and challenges associated with achieving first launch Lack of Details on Risk Associated with Program: The sixth significant weakness was attributed to the lack of details on the risks associated with the proposed technical solution as required in ‘the Concept of Operations. In this section of the proposal, Aevum identified one risk area and it did not provide an adequate mitigation plan. The proposal also stated there are 27 major risks ‘with 200 mitigations and provided a timeline to resolve those risks, but it did not identify what the risk were, how they would be mitigated, nor how the proposed risk mitigation schedule could be achieved. Since the proposed solution lacks details with identified risks and mitigations, there is an appreciable increase in risk of unsuccessful contract performance. In addition to the significant weaknesses, the following two strengths and one weakness was identified: Strength Proactive Approach to Concept of Operations Enhancements to Design and Test of the Launch Vehicle Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU)~ Proprietary Information Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.1010 and 3.104)Weakness Launch Delay Risk Due to Wind Constraints Astra In the evaluation of the Mission One launch service offered by Astra, the team identified one significant strength, one strength, and one weakness. There were not any deficiencies or weaknesses identified. Significant Strength Mature Launch Vehicle: The significant strength was attributed to their mature launch vehicle design and qualification status of the engines and other systems. The proposed launch vehicle has been built and qualified and will only require minor delta-qualification for slight changes to upper stage engine and avionics, The first stage engine qualification achieved over 100% of the thrust and duration required, and the upper stage achieved over 100%/98% of the required engine ‘thrust and duration, respectively. Furthermore, the proposed launch vehicle has completed wet dress rehearsals and static hot fires of fully integrated rocket. As a result, there is an increased likelihood of contract success given the maturity of the overall proposed launch vehicle, taking into consideration the propulsion system qualification, testing approaches implemented, and qualification of other systems. In addition to the significant strength the following strength and weakness was identified: Strength Favorable Manifest Management with Established Licensing and Approval Experience Weakness Increased Burden and Schedule Risks associated with the Launch and Integration Site GIL In the evaluation of the Mission One launch service offered by GTL, the team identified two deficiencies, two significant weakness, and one strength. There were not any significant strengths or weakness identified. Deficiencies Failure to Fully Demonstrate an Approach to Technical/Management Capabilities: The first deficiency is attributed to the proposal lacking an approach to manage and technically meet VCLS Demo 2 mission. The proposal simply restated many of the Statement of Work requirements and provided limited details in several other areas. This led to an assessment that the proposal did not demonstrate the knowledge, skill, and understanding in terms of experience, capability, and proposed approaches to meet all the requirements of the VCLS Demo 2 mission as instructed in the REP. When all these areas are combined, it increases the risk of unsuccessful ‘contract performance to an unacceptable level Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) ~ Proprietary Information Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.1010 and 3.104)Unacceptable Exceptions to Terms and Conditions: The second deficiency is attributed to unacceptable exceptions to terms and conditions of the contract in the areas of milestone payments, adjustments to launch schedule, and excusable delays. The RFP cautioned Offerors that exceptions to the terms and conditions, inaccurate conditional assumptions or new terms, conditions, or clauses may result in the proposal being determined unacceptable and may preclude award to an Offeror if award is made without discussions. As a result, the proposed exceptions represent a material failure to the solicitation requirements and therefore increase the proposal risk to an unacceptable level Significant Weaknesses Heavy Reliance on VCLS Demo 2 for Funding of Development: The first significant weakness ‘was attributed to GTL’s financial capability and their ability to secure financing for development. As proposed, there is an appreciable increase in risk that financing will not be accomplished in sufficient time to support development of the proposed launch vehicle that does not rely on the VCLS Demo 2 contract. Launch Environments Not Provided: The second significant weakness was attributed to lack of details on the environments that the payload will endure, such as, the predicted random vibration, shock, and thermal environments on the VCLS Demo 2 mission. The lack of details appreciably increases the risk that the environments will damage the spacecraft to the point that the mission cannot be accomplished. In addition to the deficiencies and significant weaknesses, the following strength was identified Launch Vehicle Risk Reduction via Design and Testing Approach Jos In the evaluation of the Mission One launch service offered by IOS, the team identified one deficiency and four significant weakness, There were not any significant strengths, strengths, or weakness identified De jency Demonstrates a Lack of Understanding of the Complexity of a Space Launch Service: The deficiency is attributed to a lack of understanding of the complexity of a space launch service to meet the VCLS Demo 2 Mission. The proposed solution fails to be specific, detailed, and ‘comprehensive to clearly and fully demonstrate understanding of the requirements and the inherent risks associated with VCLS Demo 2 mission. As a result, the proposal materially failed to meet the solicitation requirements, and this increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. Significant Weaknesses Lack of Details on an Unconventional Dispenser: The first significant weakness is attributed to lack of details on an unconventional dispenser. Due to the unconventional system and lack of discussion in the proposal, it is unclear that the dispenser will effectively interface with a Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) ~ Proprietary Information Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.1010 and 3.108)conventional payload and this appreciably increases the risk of an unsuccessful performance contract performance Insufficient Data Provided to Evaluate Engine Performance: The second significant weakness is attributed to insufficient data that infers that incomplete data was included in the proposal or that the test was not run with a high enough data rate to evaluate the performance of the engines. The insufficient data increases the uncertainty that the launch vehicle would be ready in time to meet the VCLS Demo 2 mission and appreciably increases the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Lack of Supporting Details: The third significant weakness is attributed to lack of supporting details to demonstrate capability to meet all the requirements and proposed launch solution. The proposal did not propose specific information as directed in the solicitation and in some cases reiterated language directly from the statement of work without providing a proposed solution Launch Environments Not Provided: The last significant weakness was due to the proposal not addressing the launch environments imposed on the spacecraft as required in the RFP. This appreciably increases the risk that the environments will damage the spacecraft to the point that the mission cannot be accomplished. Phantom In the evaluation of the Mission One launch service offered by Phantom, the team identified three significant weaknesses, two strengths, and two weaknesses. There were not any deficiencies or significant strengths identified. Significant Weaknesses Restrictive Payload Accommodations: The first significant weakness was due to restrictive payload accommodations. The proposed CubeSat dispenser solution affects compatibility with a significant portion of rail-based CubeSats and lacks a clear solution for tab-based CubeSats, thereby, significantly increasing the risk that the Government will be unable to utilize the full 30 kg payload capacity. Financial Risk with Uncertain Mitigation Plan: The second significant weakness was attributed to Phantom’s financial capability and their ability to secure financing for development. As proposed, there is an appreciable increase in risk that funding rounds will not be accomplished in sufficient time to support development of the proposed launch vehicle that does not rely on the VCLS Demo 2 contract. Payload Environments Not Provided: The third significant weakness was attributed to the proposal not addressing the launch environments imposed on the spacecraft as required in the REP. The lack of environments that the payloads will endure, such as, predicted random vibration, shock, and thermal environments, appreciably increases the risk of damage to the spacecraft to the point that the mission cannot be accomplished In addition to the significant weaknesses the following strengths and weaknesses were identified: e FAR 2.1010 and 3.104) Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) ~ Proprietary Information Source Selection tnformation(SStrength Enhancement to Design and Test of the Launch Vehicle Positive Elements of Concept of Operations Weakness Conflicting Approaches to meet Payload Processing Support Insufficient Description on Engine Modifications Phoer In the evaluation of the Mission One launch service offered by Phoenix, the team identified one deficiency, four significant weaknesses, and one strength. There were not any significant strengths or weakness identified. Deficiency Fails to Meet VCLS Demo 2 Mission Requirements: The deficiency was attributed to the proposal failing to demonstrate that the launch system has the capabilities to meet the proposed Mission One requirements. This material failure increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level Significant Weaknesses No Payload Environments Provided: The first significant weakness was attributed to lack of details on the environments that the payload will endure, such as, the predicted random vibration, shock, and thermal environments on the VCLS Demo 2 mission. The lack of details appreciably increases the risk that the environments will damage the spacecraft to the point that the mission cannot be accomplished. Uncertainty in the Ability to Secure Financing for the Development of the Launch Vehicle: The second significant weakness was attributed to Phoenix's financial capability and their ability to secure financing for development. As proposed, there is an appreciable increase in risk that financing will not be accomplished in sufficient time to support development of the proposed launch vehicle Lack of Details on Risk Associated with Proposed Solution: The third significant weakness was attributed to the lack of detail in the proposal to demonstrate a clear understanding of risks associated with launch vehicle design and launch service and how they would be mitigated. The lack of a feasible mitigation plan appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract, performance ‘Unclear Approach for Launch Operations: The last significant weakness was attributed to the proposal lacking an approach for launch site operations; such as obtaining a launch site, providing a payload processing facility, and acquiring range support to accomplish the VCLS Demo 2 mission. The lack of an approach appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) ~ Proprietary Information Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.1010 and 3.104)10 In addition to the deficiency and significant weaknesses, the following strength was identified Strenath Element of the Launch Vehicle Design Relativity In the evaluation of the Mission One launch service offered by Relativity, the team identified two strengths, and one weakness. There were not any deficiencies, significant strengths, or significant weaknesses identified. Strength Positive Elements to Relativity's Concept of Operations Launch Vehicle Design Risk Reduction ikness Risk to Achieving Development Schedule MISSION TWO: Firefly Black In the evaluation of the Mission Two launch service offered by Firefly Black, the team identified ‘one significant strength and two strengths. There were not any deficiencies, significant weaknesses or weakness identified Significant Strength The significant strength was attributed to their mature concept of operations that included a flexible manifest in case of schedule delays, mature launch site, non-ordnance fairing separation, AS9100 certified along with key vendors, and other noteworthy concepts that greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance. In addition to the significant strength the following strengths were identified: ‘Launch Vehicle Characteristics and Launch Vehicle Design Maturity. Comprehensive Approach of Payload Integration Momentus In the evaluation of the Mission Two launch service offered by Momentus, the team identified one deficiency, one significant strength, one significant weakness, and two strengths. There were not any weaknesses identified. Sensitive But Unclassified (SU) ~ Proprietary Information Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.1010 and 3.104)Deficiency Primary Payload Launch Service Not Proposed: The deficiency was attributed to VCLS Demo 2 not being the primary payload. ‘The proposed solution does not meet the Mission Two material requirement for the NASA payloads to be launched as the Primary Payload. As a result, the proposed solution was determined unacceptable. This material failure to meet a Government requirement increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. Significant Weakness. Lack of Payload Environmental Data from Liftoff Through Orbital Transfer and Final Orbit Insertion: The significant weakness was attributed to the proposal not describing the environments that will be imposed on the spacecraft during the total mission timeline. Depending on the launch schedule, the payload can endure thermal cycles every 30 minutes which causes. extreme temperature changes during every cycle. Without demonstrating an understanding of the environments that payloads will endure during transit, there is an appreciable increase in risk and likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Significant Strenath Use of a Launch Vehicle with Certification: The significant strength was attributed to the level of certification already achieved for the proposed launch vehicle. This approach demonstrates that the proposed launch vehicle is mature and minimizes risk. In addition to the deficiency, significant strength, and significant weakness, the following two strengths were identified: Strength Orbital Operations Resilience Maturity of Orbital Transfer Vehicle Qualification Status PRICE MISSION ONE: In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), comparison of proposed prices was used for price analysis to determine reasonableness of the proposed prices. To be considered in this analysis the proposal needed to satisfy the Government's expressed requirement as described in FAR 15.403-1(c)(1). Since the following three companies that submitted proposals to Mission One were evaluated with deficiencies, they have not met the expressed VCLS Demo 2 requirements and therefore their price cannot be evaluated for reasonableness. These companies are: Phoenix, 108, and GTL. Of the remaining offerors under Mission One, the proposed prices by Aevum, Astra, Phantom, and Relativity were determined fair and reasonable based on comparison of proposed competitive prices received in response to the solicitation. Phantom was the lowest price, followed by Relativity, Astra, and then Aevum, Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) ~ Proprietary Information Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.1010 and 3.104)MISSION TWO: Under Mission Two, Firefly Black is the only offeror that met the Government's expressed requirement. Although Momentus’ proposed price was submitted under the premise of competition, price competition could not be used to determine reasonableness since the proposal did not meet the Government's expressed requirement as stated in the solicitation, 80KSC020R0034. As a result, the assessment relied upon a comparison with the independent ‘government estimate and with prices obtained through market research, Based on this analysis, the proposed price was determined fair and reasonable, 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 and advisors on the material and carefully considered the detailed findings presented. I concluded that the evaluation of proposals was comprehensive, consistent, complete, and well-documented | noted that the RFP states that the award resulting from this solicitation will be to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. Utilizing a best, value analysis permits me to use a trade-off process, as described at FAR 15.101-1, in making the source selection. In determining which proposals offered the best value to NASA, I referred to the following relative order of importance of the evaluation factors specified in the RFP: Alll evaluation factors (Technical/Management Capability) other than price when combined are approximately equal to price. Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: The relative order of importance of these factors is Technical/Management Capability is approximately equal to Price. The RFP also notified offerors that NASA anticipates awarding one or more contracts for each of the two CLINs using a tradeoff process, as described in FAR 15.101, to obtain the best value for the Government; however, the Government reserves the right to make award(s) under only one of the two CLINs. The selection rationale that follows was based on a comparative assessment of proposals against each of the source selection factors 1 began by reviewing the findings presented by the evaluation team within the Technical/Management Capability Factor. While I note that this decision is a product of my independent judgment, my review of the findings 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 findings (i.e. significant strength, strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and weaknesses) captured by the evaluation team represent the relative merits of each proposal and are ultimately reflective of the overall quality of the technical solutions offered Under Mission One, I first note within the Technical/Management Capability Factor that there is an appreciable difference between these proposals, First and foremost, | find that Astra clearly Seasitive But Unclassified (SBU) ~ Proprietary Information Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.1010 and 3.108)13 provided the strongest overall proposal and technical solution demonstrating they are capable of meeting the Mission One requirements with a significant strength assigned for maturity of the launch vehicle proposed. Astra is proposing a launch vehicle that has an increased likelihood of contract success given the maturity of the overall proposed launch vehicle and taking into consideration the propulsion system qualification, testing approaches implemented, and qualification of other systems. In addition, the launch vehicle has proceeded through wet dress rehearsals and static hot fires of their fully integrated rocket at the time of proposal submission. 1 view this level of maturity a clear delineator in capabilities from the other offerors. Contributing to this assessment is Astra’s strength for demonstrating an established approach to FAA licensing/approval. In addition, their manifest management allows them to shift their commercial customer's launch dates as needed to support the VCLS Demo 2 launch schedule, This reduces the risk of a launch delay as the VCLS Demo 2 mission can be ‘manifested before any or all the manifested commercial launches, as needed, in case of a schedule delay. I recognize that there was a weakness attributed to their proposed launch and integration site; however, in the context of the VCLS mission and the timeline to launch, it is my assessment that this weakness has minimal impact on the strength of the overall proposal, Relativity submitted a sound proposal with two strengths and one weakness. Of the two strengths identified, neither was impactful enough to view them more favorably than Astra Furthermore, it is my assessment that the development schedule risk, while meaningful, is due to ‘a success-oriented schedule that is typical of launch vehicles in development. This schedule risk is manageable given the margin between the proposed launch date and the end date of the required launch period, Therefore, when taking into consideration the overall risk associated with Relativity’s Technical/Management Capability proposal, they have the ability to meet the Mission One requirements and are clearly superior to the remaining offeror's who proposals contain significant levels of risks. When I look across the remaining offerors, itis clear that proposals with a deficiency failed to demonstrate sufficient ability to meet the Mission One requirement and therefore will not be considered for award. Aevum and Phantom are the only remaining offerors without a deficiency; however, their proposed solutions have significant risk ‘Aevum was assessed with six significant weaknesses of which each is a substantial concern When I look across their findings it is evident that there will be significant risk with the payloads due to contamination along with integration and interface issues. Furthermore, the lack of detail provided on the propulsion system and program risk is very concerning given the complexity of the proposed launch system. I contemplated they were also assigned a weakness associated with wind constraints, but I did not view this finding impactful in my overall decision. In a similar ‘manner, I recognize that Aevum was assigned two strengths, but given the level of concern I have with the findings in the significant weaknesses, they are not enough to overcome the significant amount of risk assessed. Phantom’s significant weaknesses were attributed to their payload accommodations, financial risk, and complete omission of payload environments which are most concerning and amount to a level of risk that is very high, I contemplated that they were also assigned weaknesses for lack of description on engine modifications and payload processing support, but neither of these two Sensitive But Unclassified (SU) ~ Proprietary Information Souree Selection Information (See FAR 2.1010 and 3.104)14 findings, while of concern to the evaluators, were impactful in my overall decision. I also recognized that Phantom was assigned two strengths, but given the level of concern I have with the findings in the significant weaknesses, they are not enough to overcome the significant amount of risk assessed. Under Mission Two, I note within the Technical/ Management Capability Factor that there is an appreciable difference between Firefly Black and Momentus in terms of the findings assigned. Firefly Black was considerably superior with one significant strength and two strengths as opposed to Momentus” findings which included the same number of significant strengths and strengths but was also assessed with one deficiency and one significant weakness. Firefly Black's significant strength was attributed to its proposed concept of operations. Within this finding 1 noted their manifest flexibility in case of schedule delays, the maturity of their proposed launch site, and that they have an AS9100 certified Quality Management System as very favorable to NASA. In addition, I viewed the strengths assigned for launch vehicle maturity and their comprehensive approach to payload integration as strong indicators of their ability to meet the Mission Two requirements. The fact that Momentus’ proposal was assessed with a deficiency for NASA not being the primary payload on a rideshare mission makes their proposal unawardable since this is a material requirement under Mission Two: the Statement of Work stated that Mission Two shall consist of a launch service with CubeSats as the Primary Payload, This issue is further compounded by the risk associated with their significant weakness for not providing the environments that will be imposed on the spacecraft as required in the solicitation. I recognize the significant strength they received for the certified launch vehicle, and their strengths for orbital operations resilience and the maturity of the proposed orbital transfer vehicle; however, in my view they do not compensate for the material failure of the proposal that resulted in the deficiency nor the impact of not knowing what environments the spacecraft will experience. [finally considered the offeror’s respective prices. If the offeror’s evaluation resulted in a deficiency under the Technical/Management Capability Factor, I did not consider the proposed price in my assessment since they did not meet the Government's expressed requirement and therefore the proposed price could not be determined reasonable. Under Mission One, of the remaining four offerors which were determined to have a reasonable price, Phantom was the lowest price. Relativity had the next lowest price, which was slightly higher than Phantom. Astra was moderately higher than Relativity and Aevum had the highest price, which was significantly higher than Astra. Under Mission Two, Firefly Black was the only offeror whose price was considered reasonable and I concur with this assessment. In consideration of the foregoing discussion I recognized that the RFP states that the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Although the Government reserved the right to conduct discussions if determined in the best interest of the Government. I qualitatively compared the proposals, considered the documented evaluations, and have reached an independent conclusion as to the evaluations and relative merits of the Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) ~ Proprietary Information Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.1010 and 3.104)15 competing proposals. To that end, and in carefully considering all of the available information, my decision follows. For Mission One, I find that Astra’s proposal represents the overall best value to the Agency when considering the Technical/Management Capability Factor in combination with Price Although their price is higher than Relativity and Phantom, the difference is more than offset by the maturity of the overall proposed launch vehicle and taking into consideration the propulsion system qualification, testing approaches implemented, and qualification of other systems. I consider Relativity to be next highest rated proposal when considering the Technical/ ‘Management Capability Factor in combination with Price. Here I note that they are priced slightly higher than Phantom, but when considering the risk assessed in Phantom’s proposal as described above, the slightly higher price is more than offset by the reduced level of risk. Even though Phantom had the lowest overall price, | am not considering them for award due to my concerns noted above with the level of risk assessed. In a similar manner, | also have ‘concerns with Aevum’s assessed risks, but in addition, they were the highest priced of the four offerors and therefore they will not be considered for award. For Mission Two, I find that Firefly Black's proposal represents the overall best value to the ‘Agency when considering the Technical/Management Capability Factor in combination with Price, ‘Accordingly, after considering the above cited selection criteria and the findings of the evaluation team and exercising my independent judgment, I hereby select Astra and Relativity for Mission One and Firefly Black for Mission Two contract awards. Seen 12. [1/2020 Scott Syring Date Source Selection Authority Commercial Space Office, OP-LS Kennedy Space Center National Aeronautics and Space Administration Sensitive But Unelasifed (SBU) ~ Proprietary Information Source Selection Information (See FAR 2.1010 and 3.104)