CALL_Booster_Propulsion_Technical_Maturation_FINAL_FBO_15_086.pdf

BOOSTER PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY

MATURATION PROJECT BROAD AGENCY

ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER 15-086

TWO-STEP CALL ANNOUNCEMENT: CALL 0001

Issue Date: 02 June 2015

2 | P a g e

IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS

2-Step BAA Call Process: Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Call evaluations will be using a two-step process.

STEP 1 – REQUEST FOR AND EVALUATION OF

WHITE PAPER SUBMISSIONS

STEP 2 – REQUEST FOR AND EVALUATION OF

PROPOSALS

Classification: Classified white papers/proposals will not be accepted under the

Booster Propulsion Technology Maturation BAA Call #1.

Solicitation Instructions: Please read the entire solicitation carefully prior to submitting your White Paper(s).

Points of Contact: If you have questions about the Booster Propulsion Technology

Maturation BAA Call #1, please submit to the Contracting Officer, Ms. Kathy

Scholefield at kathleen.scholefield@us.af.mil.

NOTE: Only Contracting Officers are legally authorized to commit the Government.

3 | P a g e

Table of Contents

1.0 General Information

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Agency Name

1.3 Research Opportunity Title

1.4 Announcement Number

1.5 Two-Step Call Solicitation Process

1.6 BAA Call White Paper Submission

1.7 Submission Location

1.8 Key Schedule Dates

1.9 Contract Type

1.10 Contractor Eligibility…

1.11 Estimated Number and Value of Awards……

2.0 BAA Call Focus Areas

2.1 Focus Area #1 Material Manufacturing and Development

2.2 Focus Area #2 Advanced Technologies

3.0 White Paper Package Preparation & Submission Instructions

3.1 White Papers

3.2 White Paper Package Structure

3.2.1 Volume One – Cover Sheet

3.2.2 Volume Two – White Paper Narrative

3.2.3 Volume Three – Quad Chart

3.3 Format of White Papers

3.3.1 Number of Pages

3.3.2 Number of Copies & Format

3.3.3 Text & Font Format

3.3.4 Headers

3.4 Submission of White Paper Packages

4.0 Proposal Preparation Instructions

4.1 Proposal Overview

4.2 Submission of Late Proposals

4.3 Proposal Evaluation and Notification

4.4 DCMA-Adequate Accounting System

4.5 Commitment to Small Business

4 | P a g e

5.0 Evaluation Information

5.1 White Paper Package Evaluations

5.1.1 Evaluation Criteria

5.1.2 Order of Importance

5.1.3 White Paper Peer Review Assessment

5.2 Proposal Evaluations / Negotiations

5.2.1 Evaluation Criteria

5.2.2 Order of Importance

5.2.3 Proposal Peer Review Assessment

6.0 Potential Organizational Conflict of Interest

5 | P a g e

1.0 General Information

1.1 Introduction

This solicitation addresses the urgent need to transition from the Russian supplied RD-

180 main engine and implements Section 1604 of the Fiscal Year 2015 National

Defense Authorization Act. Section 1604 requires that:

“(a) DEVELOPMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall develop a next-generation rocket propulsion system that enables the effective, efficient, and expedient transition from the use of non-allied space launch engines to a domestic alternative for national security space launches.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The system developed under paragraph (1) shall—

(A) be made in the United States;

(B) meet the requirements of the national security space community;

(C) be developed by not later than 2019;

(D) be developed using full and open competition; and

(E) be available for purchase by all space launch providers of the United

States.”

Furthermore, the FY 15 Appropriations Act Joint Explanatory Statement specified “The strategy should include plans for targeted risk reduction projects and technology maturation efforts to buy down risk and accelerate potential launch system solutions”.

1.2 Agency Name

Space and Missile Systems Center (AFSPC), 483 North Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, California 90245-2808

1.3 Research Opportunity Title

Booster Propulsion Technology Maturation Project

1.4 Announcement Number

15-086 Call #0001

1.5 Two-Step Call Solicitation Process

THIS WILL BE A TWO-STEP CALL SOLICITATION PROCESS:

First Step: WHITE PAPER EVALUATION: In accordance with the Booster

Propulsion Technical Maturation BAA, the Air Force is specifically requesting

6 | P a g e white papers on the focus areas defined in this call. White papers for these focus areas must be submitted by 16 Jun 2015 at 12:00PM PDT. All White Paper submissions must comply with the submission guidelines and templates provided in

Section 3.0. Failure to comply may result in rejection of the White Paper during the review.

Second Step: Complete Proposals in accordance with FAR 15.2 will be required within 30 days after the white paper notifications (see Open BAA Announcement

Section 2.2).

1.6 BAA Call White Paper Submission

A limit of two (2) white papers may be submitted for each focus area per offeror under this BAA Call. Each white paper must indicate which focus area it is addressing, the

Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM), and proposed schedule, as detailed in Section 3.0.

Offerors must submit white papers for this BAA Call by 16 Jun 2015 at 12:00PM PDT to be evaluated.

1.7 Submission Location

White Paper packages may be submitted electronically to the SMC/AD Booster

Propulsion Technology BAA email account at Smc.ad.bptbaa@us.af.mil or hand delivered via CD to 483 North Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, California 90245-2808 with

48 hour coordination with the PCO, Ms. Kathy Scholefield (310-653-9679). Offerors are to ensure white papers are received by the Government before the stated submission date to be included in the white paper evaluations.

1.8 Schedule Key Dates

Event Date Time

Release BAA

Call/Request for White

Papers

02 JUN 2015

White Papers Due 16 JUN 2015 12:00 PM PDT

Request Full Proposals based on White Papers

Evaluations

JUL 2015

Proposals Due (Stated in Letters of

Encouragement)

1.9 Contract Type

The offeror shall propose and provide rationale for a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) or Cost

Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) in the white paper package in accordance with FAR Part 16, Contract Types. The Offeror’s determination may vary depending on the risk

7 | P a g e assessment of each white paper. The contractor may propose more than one contract type should they propose more than one task per white paper.

For deliverables that incur more risk, the contractor may propose a CPFF contract. If the contractor proposes a CPFF contract, an adequate accounting system is required. White papers shall include affirmation that DCMA has determined the offeror’s accounting system is adequate.

The contract type is ultimately at the discretion of the Government. The Government preferred contract type will be included in the Request for Proposal (RFP) contained in the contractor’s letter of encouragement per Section 2.2 of the Open BAA

Announcement.

1.10 Contractor Eligibility

Per Section 1604 of the FY15 NDAA referenced in Section 1.1, all International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) cleared contractors capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit two (2) white papers for each Focus Area under this BAA, for a total of four (4) white papers. Contractors shall comply with DFARS 252.225-7048, Export-

Controlled Items. Additionally, propulsion system providers shall state that any engine resulting from this TECHNOLOGY MATURATION effort must be manufactured in the

United States and there will not be an Exclusive Sales Agreement between the BAA contractor and any other company for any engine/motor that benefits from this technology maturation effort.

1.11 Estimated Number and Value of Awards

The anticipated funding amount for all awards under Call #1 is $32M.

The anticipated number of contract awards under Call #1 for both focus areas is six (6) to eight (8) individual awards. The final number awards are at the Government’s discretion.

The anticipated award value range per white paper for each successful offeror is between $500K and $8M. Each white paper may propose more than one segregable task; however the total award value for one white paper shall not exceed $8M. No more than $16M shall be awarded to any one offeror under this BAA Call.

2.0 BAA Call Focus Areas

This BAA Call will have two focus areas (1) Material Manufacturing and Development and (2) Advanced Technologies.

8 | P a g e

In the context of this BAA, the "rocket propulsion system" is defined as those components which, as part of a specific system, directly contribute to the flow and/or combustion of propellants used in the main engine(s)/motor(s) of a launch vehicle's first stage. This definition excludes systems or components associated with electronic engine controls, instrumentation, propellant loading/conditioning/venting, propellant pressurization systems and thrust vectoring mechanisms.

In the context of this BAA, the "booster" is defined as the portion(s) of the launch vehicle that contributes to rocket-powered ascent prior to the ignition of an engine/motor intended for vacuum operation only (i.e. that of an upper stage).

The goal of the booster propulsion technology maturation project is to support requirements of the national security space community to provide propulsive capability for an "EELV-class" launch vehicle. In the context of this BAA, an "EELV-class" launch vehicle is defined as a launch vehicle that meets EELV System Performance

Requirements Document (SPRD) Rev A. A copy of the EELV SPRD Rev A will be made available upon request to the Contracting Officer.

2.1 Focus Area #1 Material Manufacturing and Development:

The purpose of this focus area is reducing costs of booster propulsion components and subsystems. This focus area seeks advancements in propulsion component-level technologies that offer a reduced cost or potential gains in performance, safety, or efficiency that intend to support requirements of the national security space community by 2019. Potential topics within this focus area may include, but are not limited to:

• Additive manufacturing

• Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) techniques

• Standards, criteria and qualification test programs

• Testing strategies and mechanical properties characterization

• Solid motors and casings

• Coatings intended for thermal protection, damage tolerance or oxygen compatibility as well as adhesion technology

• Advanced manufacturing processes

• Alternative material intended for use in booster propulsion systems

2.2 Focus Area #2 Advanced Technologies:

The purpose of this focus area is to advance the technology of next generation booster propulsion cycles, configurations, or propellants that offer gains in performance, safety, cost-effectiveness, reliability, and/or efficiency suitable for notional or existing launch systems that intend to support the requirements of the national security space community by 2019. Potential topics within this focus area may include, but are not limited to:

9 | P a g e

• Advancements of engine cycles (e.g. Oxygen Rich Stage Combustion (ORSC))

• Innovative or unique liquid-fueled rocket engine configurations

• Solid-rocket motors and casings

• Alternative propellants

• Software models and analysis

• Advancements in engine subsystems components

3.0 White Paper Package Preparation & Submission Instructions

3.1 White Papers

White Papers shall address ONLY ONE (1) of the focus areas listed in Section 2. Each

Offeror may submit two (2) White Paper packages per focus area for a total of four (4) white paper packages per offeror. Each white paper shall indicate which focus area it is addressing. Only UNCLASSIFIED White Papers will be accepted. The Government’s decision to request a proposal will be based upon project funding and the evaluation results of the White Paper submission. White paper packages may be withdrawn by written notice received at any time before receiving RFP. Withdrawals are effective upon receipt of notice by the Contracting Officer.

3.2 White Paper Package Structure

A complete White Paper package submission will consist of three volumes. The cover sheet is Volume One, the White Paper Narrative is Volume Two, and the quad chart is

Volume Three.

3.2.1 Volume One – Cover Sheet

Offerors shall submit the following information on the (1-page PDF file) cover sheet:

• Organization Information: Name, Website, Mailing Address, Federal Tax ID. CAGE code, DUNS Number and NAICS Code o Technical POC, Phone Number, and Email address o Business POC, Phone Number, and Email Address

• White Paper Information: Requirement Number and Title o White Paper Title o Duration of Effort o Estimated Cost of Effort o Organization Type: (select one) o Small business o Large business

10 | P a g e o Academic institution o Other (Specify):__________________

• Applicant Information:

• Has the submitter done business with DoD before? (select Yes/No)

• Has this approach been proposed to or funded by the DoD or another Federal Agency

(see Open BAA Announcement Section 6.2)? (select Yes/No)

If yes, identify the agency, solicitation, funds received and contract/grant number

• Identify the estimated percentage of effort to be performed by the Offeror and percentage of work by other team members (e.g. prime contractor, subcontractor, consultants). This section should identify team members and state if considered small business.

Offeror: _____%

Team Members (Breakdown per Team Member): _____%

3.2.2 Volume Two - White Paper Narrative

Ensure your White Paper Volume Two (5-page PDF file), adequately describes the proposed approach and resulting contributions. The white paper narrative shall include the following sections in the order given below:

3.2.2.1 Contribution to the Focus Area:

• Describe the proposed technology maturation effort(s) and objectives and how successfully achieving those objectives would mature focus areas 1 or 2 in terms of current and planned Technical Readiness Levels (TRL) and/or

Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRL). The maturation and/or development effort must be able to substantiate current Technology Readiness Level and/or

Manufacturing Readiness Level that provides a clear strategy for technology maturation that would support a future operational transition.

• Include system level pros/cons, potential risks and system trades.

• Describe how the proposed efforts support requirements of the National

Security Space Community and development of a next-generation rocket propulsion system by 2019. Describe your potential technology transition roadmap/plans for the technology.

• Describe data rights and/or limitations on releasability of technical data related to Government deliverables.

• White paper shall state that any engine resulting from this effort must be manufactured in the United States.

• White paper shall state offeror will not enter into an Exclusive Sales

Agreement for any engine resulting from this effort with another contractor.

11 | P a g e

• White paper shall provide proof the Offeror is International Traffic in Arms

Regulations (ITAR) cleared.

3.2.2.2 Technical Approach/Qualifications:

• Describe the high level tasks, milestones and methods to achieve each of the proposed objectives and/or products. Include any significant testing, qualification and/or validation efforts. Describe the major areas of technical expertise to carry out objectives and how that expertise will be provided. In addition, include any heritage capability in these areas.

• Describe the types of facilities/equipment necessary to perform the technical effort(s) and if any of the facilities/equipment is existing or would be purchased.

• Contractor shall state that effort will comply with MIL-STD-882E, DoD

Standard Practice for System Safety, Sections 3 and 4.

3.2.2.3 Costs:

Categorize and describe the estimated costs for the proposed technical approach, including:

• The methods (e.g., expert judgment, analogous estimating, and parametric estimating) used to ensure that the proposed Rough Order of Magnitude

(ROM) costs are reasonable for the technical approach proposed.

• Any other (additional) funds that would not be provided from this contract award, if any, expected to complete the project including the timing, source, amount, and planned use of the funds. Describe funding dependencies, if any or known, such as a firm commitment from a government organization, and/or

Internal Research and Development, which may be critical to the completion of a task. The Government does not anticipate offering cost-sharing contracts for efforts under this BAA.

• Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) will not be provided by SMC. Any costs associated with using GFE (from another federal agency) should be included in the cost ROM.

• If the offeror is proposing more than one task per white paper, each task should have a segregable ROM cost.

3.2.2.4 Schedule:

Describe how the proposed schedule is achievable for the proposed technical approach within 24 months of contract award. Discuss and/or use a Gantt chart or similar master planning to describe:

• Major activities/milestones

• Deliverables

• Metrics/measures of success

• Potential risks and risk mitigation plans

• If the offeror is proposing more than one task per white paper, each task

12 | P a g e should have a segregable schedule.

3.2.3 Volume Three – Quad Chart

The unclassified Quad Chart (1-page PDF file) shall be prepared outside of the respective White Paper Narrative (5-Page PDF file).

• Heading (Arial 24pt Bold)

• Title of Project

• Company

• Requirement #

• Upper Left Quadrant (Arial 12pt Normal):

• Picture or graphic illustrating proposed technology development

• Lower Left Quadrant (Arial 12pt Normal):

• Project objectives and scope

• Related prior or current work

• Upper Right Quadrant (Arial 12pt Normal):

• How the technology contributes and addresses the focus area

• Technical Readiness Level (TRL) and, if applicable Manufacturing Readiness

Level (MRL) (current level and anticipated level at project completion)

• Lower Right Quadrant (Arial 12pt Normal):

• Estimated costs

• Major activities/milestones

• Deliverables, metrics/measures of success

• Potential risks

3.3 Format of White Papers

3.3.1 Number of Pages:

The White Paper Narrative (Volume 2) is limited to five pages (front only). The

White Paper cover sheet and quad chart are not included in the page limit. Pages submitted in excess of the white paper narrative page limit will not be read or evaluated.

3.3.2 Number of Copies & Format:

One electronic copy of the White Paper, in Portable Document Format (PDF), shall be submitted electronically to the PCO or hand delivered on a CD with 48 hour coordination with PCO.

3.3.3 Text & Font Format:

Text shall be at least single-spaced, on 8½ x 11 inch paper, with a minimum of one-

13 | P a g e inch margin all around. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. Font size shall be of minimum 10-point font and preferably Times New Roman. Bolding, underlining, and italics may be used to identify topic demarcations or points of emphasis.

Graphic presentations, including tables, while not subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, shall have spacing and text that is easily readable.

3.3.4 Headers:

The Offeror's name and applicable focus area shall be in the header of each page.

The header may be included in the one-inch margins.

3.4 Submission of White Paper Packages

White Papers must be submitted via the instructions identified in Sections 1.6 and 1.7.

White Paper packages sent by any other means WILL NOT be considered. Offerors that intend to submit multiple White Paper packages must prepare a separate cover sheet for each package.

4.0 Proposal Preparation Instructions

4.1 Proposal Overview

An Offeror must submit a white paper for evaluation prior to submitting a proposal.

Proposals must not rely on information previously submitted with the white paper. The proposal shall consist of two volumes; a technical volume and a cost/price volume. The technical volume shall consist of a detailed statement of work, work breakdown structure and associated schedule. The statement of work shall include the requirement to comply with Mil-Standard 882E, DoD Standard Practice for System Safety, Sections

3 and 4. The letter of encouragement will contain specific instructions and requirements for the cost/price volume. Only unclassified proposals will be accepted. Specific due date and time will be included in the letters.

The cost of preparing submissions in response to this solicitation is not considered an allowable direct charge to any resulting or any other contract; however, it may be an allowable expense to a normal Bid and Proposal indirect cost as specified in FAR

31.205-18.

Do not lock any files submitted as part of the proposal submission. Proposal prices and terms and conditions shall remain valid for 180 days from the submission date.

4.2 Submission of Late Proposals

Offerors are responsible for submitting proposals to be received no later than the date and time specified. Offerors are encouraged to submit early to avoid potential delays encountered in the course of the submission. All submissions shall be fully submitted before the due date and time in order to be considered.

14 | P a g e

4.3 Proposal Evaluation and Notification

It is anticipated that the evaluation process will be complete within six to eight weeks after proposal submission. As soon as the proposal evaluation process is complete, Offerors will be notified of their project’s selection or non-selection for funding.

Offerors may be removed from award consideration should the Government and the contractor fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions and cost/price.

4.4 DCMA-Adequate Accounting System

Offerors selected for a cost-type award must have an adequate accounting system as determined by DCMA at the time of award.

4.5 Commitment to Small Business

The DoD is strongly committed to providing meaningful subcontracting opportunities for small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, woman-owned small businesses, HUBZone small businesses, veteran-owned small business, service disabled veteran-owned small businesses, historically black colleges and universities, and minority institutions through its awards.

For proposed awards that exceed $650,000 to other than small businesses, the Offeror is required to submit a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9.

Subcontracting Plans shall be compliant with FAR Subpart 19.7.

5.0 Evaluation Information

The evaluation process will be conducted using a technical subject matter expert review as described in FAR 6.102(d)(2) and FAR 35.016(d). All documents necessary for the review and evaluation of White Paper packages and proposal submissions shall be provided as described in this BAA Call.

5.1 White Paper Package Evaluations

The Government reserves the right to request clarifications (limited exchanges between the Government and Offeror) on all aspects of the white paper in the course of the evaluation, as needed.

5.1.1 Evaluation Criteria

White Paper packages for BAA Call #1 will be evaluated using four criteria. All factors will be evaluated using a “Go” or “No Go” decision making process to determine whether or not the white paper meets or is deficient in meeting the evaluation criteria for each of the white paper evaluation factors. Packages that are deemed “No Go” in either

Factor #1 or Factor #2 will not be considered for further review in Factor #3 or #4.

White papers that receive a “No Go” in any factor will no longer be considered for peer

15 | P a g e review.

• Factor #1 – Contribution to Focus Area

White Paper demonstrates a technical solution that supports the requirements of the national security space community by 2019 and demonstrates at least one of the following benefits: life cycle cost reduction, reliability, safety, efficiency, releasability to broad industrial base, and/or other benefits to the focus area(s).

• Factor #2 – Technical Approach/Qualifications

White Paper demonstrates technical approach is credible and feasible.

• Factor #3 – Cost

Cost go/no-go decision during the white paper evaluation will be based upon whether the proposed Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) is in compliance with the funding limitation stated in Section 1.11.

• Factor #4 – Schedule

White paper demonstrates effort can be completed within 24 months of award.

5.1.2 Order of Importance

The order of importance of these factors is as follows. Factor #1 and Factor #2 are equally important. Factor #3 and Factor #4 are equally important. Factors #1 and #2 when combined are significantly more important than Factor #3. The government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical capabilities than with making awards at a lower cost to the government.

5.1.3 White Paper Peer Review Assessment

A peer review will be conducted by focus area. The peer review will assess the merit of each white paper that receives a "Go" decision for every evaluation factor. White papers that receive a "No Go" decision for any evaluation factor will not be assessed. The assessment of merit will consist of a review of the white papers' advantages, and the quality of those advantages, for each evaluation factor. The Government will create a prioritized list of white papers for each focus area based upon the results of the peer review. The Government will select which white papers receive a Letter of

Encouragement, a Letter of Partial Encouragement, or a Letter of Discouragement based on the prioritized lists and available funds. The Government is under no obligation to select any white papers to receive a Letter of Encouragement or a Letter of Partial

Encouragement under either or both of the focus areas.

5.2 Proposal Evaluations/Negotiations

16 | P a g e

The Government reserves the right to clarify and have discussions regarding all aspects of the proposal in the course of evaluation, as needed.

5.2.1 Evaluation Criteria

Proposal packages for BAA Call #1 will be evaluated using four criteria. All factors will be evaluated using a “Go” or “No Go” decision making process to determine whether or not the proposal meets or is deficient in meeting the evaluation criteria for each of the proposal evaluation factors. Packages that are deemed “No Go” in either Factor #1 or

Factor #2 will not be considered for further review in Factor #3 or #4. Proposals that receive a “No Go” in any factor will no longer be considered for peer review.

• Factor #1 – Contribution to Focus Area

Proposal demonstrates a technical solution that supports the requirements of the national security space community by 2019 and demonstrates at least one of the following benefits: life cycle cost reduction, reliability, safety, efficiency, releasability to broad industrial base, and/or other benefits to the focus area(s).

• Factor #2 – Technical Approach/Qualifications

Proposal demonstrates technical approach is credible and feasible.

• Factor #3 – Cost

The Contracting Officer will obtain cost or pricing data necessary to support the reasonableness of the Offeror’s cost/price and will evaluate the proposal using one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. For a cost/price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business (reference FAR 31.201-3(a)). An offer that is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award.

If the proposal exceeds $700,000, certified cost or price data will be required IAW FAR

15.403-4 (if the Contracting Officer determines that none of the exceptions in 15.401-

1(b) applies).

For all proposals, the proposed cost/price shall meet the funding requirements outlined in the BAA Call Section 1.11.

• Factor #4 – Schedule

Proposal demonstrates effort can be completed within 24 months of award.

5.2.2 Order of Importance

The order of importance of these factors is as follows. Factor #1 and Factor #2 are equally important. Factor #3 and Factor #4 are equally important. Factors #1 and #2

17 | P a g e when combined are significantly more important than Factor #3. The government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical capabilities than with making awards at a lower cost to the government.

5.2.3 Proposal Peer Review Assessment

A proposal peer review will be conducted by focus area. The peer review will assess the merit of each proposal that receives a "Go" decision for every evaluation factor.

Proposals that receive a "No Go" decision for any evaluation factor will not be assessed.

The assessment of merit will consist of a review of the proposal’s advantages, and the quality of those advantages, for each evaluation factor. The Government will create a prioritized list of proposals for each focus area based upon the results of the peer review.

The Government will select which proposals receive an award based on the prioritized lists and available funds. The Government is under no obligation to select any proposals to receive an award under either or both of the focus areas.

6.0 Potential Organizational Conflict of Interest

a) There is a potential organizational conflict of interest (see FAR Subpart 9.5, Organization and Consultant Conflicts of Interest) due to other Government organizations, specifically NASA, access to proprietary information provided in response to the SMC Booster Propulsion and Launch System Request for Information

(RFI) 14-090, posted to FedBizOpps on 20 Aug 2014. Accordingly:

1) Restrictions are needed to ensure that potential unequal access to information

OCIs are mitigated. As such, any and all individuals who had access to RFI 14-

090 responses shall not be involved, in any way, shape or form, in providing inputs to BAA 15-086 Call 0001 white papers, proposals, or performance of any subsequent contract award.

2) As part of the proposal, the offeror shall provide the Contracting Officer with complete information of previous or ongoing work that is in any way associated with the contemplated acquisition. All white papers and/or proposals shall highlight any proposed involvement of NASA. All such white papers and proposals shall include an OCI mitigation plan that addresses NASA involvement.

b) If award is made to the offeror, the resulting contract may include an organization conflict of interest limitation applicable to subsequent Government work, at either a prime contract level, at any subcontract tier, or both. During evaluation of proposal, the Government may, after discussions with the offeror and consideration of ways to avoid the conflict of interest, insert a special provision in the resulting contract which shall disqualify the offeror from further consideration for award of future contracts.

Failure to reach a mutually agreeable conflict of interest mitigation plan may result in an offeror being removed from consideration for a BAA award.

c) The organizational conflict of interest clause included in this BAA Call may be modified or deleted during negotiations.