Looking through these presentations gave me a real bad flashback to my internship at Boeing HSF&E when we did the JPL RFP for the Mars Sample Return, although that was a 100-page monstrosity we had plastered up on the wall (and guess who was the "Wall Fascist"...)

t/Space was the first that I read, although that may have set too high a standard for all of the rest. I do recognize a few of the members from the MSR project, but it's still surprisingly innovative thinking.

Some of the numerous reasons for and against EML-1

For:
Gateway between Earth/Moon/Mars and other planetary bodies
Increases the number of launch opportunities between Earth & Moon/planets
Low amount of station-keeping delta-V (~ 10 m/s per year[!!!])
Supports Earth/L1 Gateway/Moon communications infrastructure
Superior "time-to-safety" [Draper/MIT: "SOS value delivery pathway"]
Gateway to low delta-V trajectories throughout the Solar System
Safe, Earth, and Lunar access/logistics
Module docking, refueling, stockpiles, safe haven, medical, robotic services, ComSat/NavSat, sensor network

[there are many, many others]

Against:
Benefits of Earth-Moon L1 Gateway do not appear to justify costs (Orbital. Probably because they looked at it solely in terms of its direct costs to a direct Lunar return, versus the ancillary benefits that would render only a part of the EML-1 cost applicable to a return to our Moon)

For
Andrews Space
Boeing (although they clearly want the CEV contract)
Northrop Grumman
Schafer/Phantom Works (Boeing)
t/Space

Against:
Draper/MIT (LLO)
LockMart (LLO)
Orbital (Direct/Free Return)
SAIC (LLO)
SpaceHab (LLO, nice slide layout though)

Abstain:
Raytheon (graphic on one slide mentions "Trade studies will establish utility of the indicated exchanges", but does mention EML1 access to NEOs as resources, as well as Mars Trojans, a surprise to me. I'll have to go check on that one, but SML4 and SML5 would both benefit from access to the low-energy Inter-Planetary Superhighways, and by extension EML1)

I liked:
Draper/MIT's comment "System of systems architecture"
Lots of acknowledgement that the public is important and must be engaged
Schafer's blatant hommage to Moonbase Alpha
t/Space: "Safety results from design choices, not oversight"

Things I didn't like:
-Andrews' solo-node between Earth & Moon (EML-1 allows access from most LEO inclinations with little corresponding delta-V penalty. The ISS doesn't have to be a white elephant)
-Draper/MIT slide "Objectives for Lunar Exploration", first bullet "Immediate obectives", first point "Develop resource knowledge throughout the Solar system". Umm, no. The immediate objective is to develop a better resource knowledge of the Moon for Lunar Exploration and utilisation. Duh!
-I can't believe Boeing missed satellite servicing in GEO as a VSE economic activity (evil grin)
-Northrop Grumman: SEL1 - Sun-Moon Lagrange Point 1 (Ooops! I'll bet that was done at 2am after a long day).
-LockMart wants a fixed equatorial base? Says "More mass to be landed relative to polar site (going through L1), for given ETO launch capability". I'm not so sure about that one unless they just pass through the point on the way to the Moon, but don't use it as a logistics point.
-LockMart: POD (2015-2020) Lunar Architecture slide. Ignores EML-1 and shows Solar Flare/Warning System(s) out by the Sun, but no relation to Lunar transportation architecture. This tells me they didn't do any more than pay lip-service to the idea of EML-1 as an access point for the servicing and upgrade of these Sun-watching assets, a la Hubble.

Not bad for a first round. If I had to pick an architect today I'd have to go with t/Space. I'd give the crew systems to SpaceHab, maybe the Lunar base as well. Boeing would get the CEV contract. They'll all get something out of it, but there was a lot of stale thinking in this batch. NASA needs to go out to the Academic and Industrial and Commercial communities to get more NEW ideas for moving forward into space.