ASTROS II RFI Package.pdf

Air Force Test Center / Aerospace Systems Support Branch Edwards AFB, CA

Request For Information (RFI)

For

“Aerospace System’s Technical Research and Operation Services (ASTROS) II”

Date: 29 Apr 2026

This document including the cover page and all attachments consists of 137 pages.

ASTROS II RFI Page 1 of 137

Table of Contents

General Information…………………………………………………….… Non-Solicitation Statement………………………………………………..…... 3 Purpose Statement………………..……………………………………… Series 03 - Industry Day Notice…………………………………………….… 4 Submission Instructions……………………………………………………..… 4 Points Of Contact (POC)……………………………………………….….…... 4 Conclusion And Additional Feedback………………………………….……... 4 Attachment 01 - Series 01 Capabilities and Experience……………………….. 5 Attachment 02 - Series 02 Proposal Evaluation Approach…………………….. 9 Attachment 03 - Draft Performance Work Statement (PWS)…………..…….. 12 Attachment 04 - Draft Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs)……… Attachment 05 - Draft DD Form 254, Department of War Contract Security Classification Specification…………………………………..…….. 86

Attachment 06 - Notional Award Fee Plan………………..…………………… 92 Attachment 07 - Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC)

General Information………………………………………..………………... 127

ASTROS II RFI Page 2 of 137

GENERAL INFORMATION:

The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Rocket Lab at Edwards AFB, CA is conducting market research to define the acquisition strategy for the Aerospace System’s Technical Research and Operation Services (ASTROS) II contract. This is the follow-on effort to the current ASTROS contract (FA9300-16-C-0001). A Draft Performance Work Statement (PWS) for ASTROS II is provided as Attachment 03. It details the revised and expanded scope of work for this effort.

The primary work location is the Edwards Rocket Lab, CA, which is a secure site located within a controlled and restricted area. All required travel to other government or contractor facilities will be specified in the PWS or an approved Work Plan (WP).

The Government is considering all contracting strategies and types, including the potential for a small business set-aside. The anticipated North American Industry Classification (NAICS) code for this procurement is 541715 - Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology). The corresponding small business size standard is 1,300 employees, with Exception 3 - Guided Missiles and Space Vehicles, Their Propulsion Units and Propulsion Parts.

The Government anticipates that the successful offeror will be required to maintain a comprehensive security program in accordance with (IAW) the draft Department of War Contract Security Classification Specification, DD Form 254 (provided as Attachment 05). At a minimum, all contractor personnel supporting this effort must possess a favorable National Agency Check with Inquiries (NACI). Respondents should note that performance may require personnel to obtain and maintain Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) clearances during the contract lifecycle. Additionally, to comply with R-DFARS 252.204-7021 and 252.204- 7025, the Government expects that both the prime contractor and any subcontractors will be required to achieve and maintain the appropriate Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC). General information regarding this CMMC requirement is outlined in Attachment 07.

The anticipated period of performance is 10 years, which may include performance incentives.

The target date for contract award is June 2027, with performance scheduled to begin in September 2027.

THERE IS NO SOLICITATION AT THIS TIME

This is a Request for Information (RFI) posting ONLY. This RFI does not constitute a request for proposals and is not to be construed as a commitment by the Government - no contract will be awarded by this RFI. Submission of any information in response to this RFI is purely voluntary -the Government assumes no financial responsibility for any costs incurred. The Government is under no obligation to acknowledge receipt of any information received or provide feedback to respondents with respect to any information submitted. Telephone inquiries will not be accepted or acknowledged.

The Government may revise or cancel this RFI at any time. The information contained herein is subject to change before a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) is issued.

ASTROS II RFI Page 3 of 137

PURPOSE STATEMENT:

This RFI is structured as a three-part series, detailed in Attachments 01 through 02 and Series 03 noted below. The insights gathered during this initial phase are critical in helping the Government evaluate the industry capabilities and experience available to execute the required work. Series Two will focus on gathering feedback to shape the Proposal Evaluation Approach.

Finally, Series 03 will be an upcoming Industry Day, designed to acquaint prospective offerors with the AFRL Rocket Lab's unique mission, specialized infrastructure, and remote operational environment.

Industry feedback is a critical component in finalizing the acquisition strategy for the ASTROS follow-on contract. We respectfully request and encourage potential offerors to submit detailed responses across all three series to help ensure a well-structured and effective procurement.

SERIES 03 – INDUSTRY DAY NOTICE:

The Government intends to host an Industry Day at Edwards AFB, CA to provide interested contractors with further insight into the mission requirements, unique location, and the security protocols outlined in this RFI. This event will serve as an opportunity for industry partners to engage with program stakeholders and clarify expectations. Specific details, including the date, location, and registration instructions, will be posted to the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) at a later date.

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS:

Responses to Series 01 and 02 are due no later than 21 May 2026 at 1600 PST. Please submit your response electronically with the subject line "Response to ASTROS II RFI – Insert Company Name.”

All interested parties must have an active Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code, as well as be registered in System for Award Management (SAM) to be eligible for any potential contract award. Information on registration and annual confirmation requirements may be obtained at https://sam.gov/content/home.

POINTS OF CONTACT (POC):

The following are your government POCs for this acquisition. Please ensure that any correspondence to the government references the Contract Name and is addressed to the individuals listed below. The government requests that all inquiries be made by writing via e-mail.

Name Title Email Mathew Pierson Contracting Officer mathew.pierson@us.af.mil Lauren Petrey Contract Specialist lauren.petrey@us.af.mil

CONCLUSION AND ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK:

Thank you for your time and effort in responding to this RFI. Your input is a critical component in the development of our acquisition strategy.

ASTROS II RFI Page 4 of 137 https://sam.gov/content/home

Attachment 01 - Series 01 Capabilities and Experience

For

“Aerospace System’s Technical Research and Operation Services (ASTROS) II”

Date: 29 Apr 2026

This attachment including the cover page consists of 4 pages

ASTROS II RFI Page 5 of 137

ASTROS II RFI - Series One (1) – Capabilities and Experience

Please answer each question separately for your organization and for any recurring teaming partners. For all referenced experience, please provide details from the last five years, including the contract number, point of contact (e.g., Program Manager, Contracting Officer's Representative, or Contracting Officer), period of performance, and the agency or organization supported.

1. Describe your company’s experience with multi-million-dollar build-up/modification of rocket test stands and facility operations to include:

a. Liquid rocket engine test stands? As applicable, include thrust ratings (lbs), propellants used, propellant flow rates (lbs/sec), and propellant feed, purge pressures (psi).

b. Solid rocket motor test stands? As applicable, include thrust ratings (lbs), Weights of handled motors (lbs), and Hazard Classification Code.

c. Hybrid propulsion testing?

d. Testing altitudes? As applicable, include Sea level, High altitudes (100,000 ft), and

Hard vacuum (10-6 Torr).

e. Innovations?

2. Describe your company’s experience with build-up/modification of spacecraft propulsion (e.g. electric, Hall thrust, and storables), test stands (micro-Newton, milli-Newton) and facility operations.

3. Describe your company’s methodology for cost control measures e.g. earned value management (EVM) or any similar processes.

4. Describe your company’s experience with Resource Loaded Schedules (RLS) and Integrated Master Schedules (IMS), or any similar tools your company has experience with.

5. Describe 1 or 2 examples of how your company responded to managing changes in the following areas:

a. Changing scope/requirement

b. Design modifications

c. Funding (increases/decreases)

d. Personnel (turnover, surge, downsizing, skill mix, overtime)

e. Response time to the changes

f. Creative/innovative solutions

g. Complex subcontracts

ASTROS II RFI Page 6 of 137

h. DoW or civilian agency security clearances

i. Multiple major test campaigns in parallel

6. Describe experience inspecting pressure retaining devices in the following areas:

a. National Boiler Inspection Code (or equivalent) inspection capability

b. Repairing relief valves up to 10k PSI and ASME stamp (such as “R” and “U” stamp) certifications

c. Weld Inspection and X-Ray certifications

7. Describe experience performing and managing welding in the following areas:

a. Structural

b. Stainless Steel piping 16” diameter @ 10k PSI

c. Welding exotic materials (such as Monel™)

8. For each applicable area, describe experience in performing and managing instrumentation and controls in the following areas:

a. Programmable logic controllers

b. Low speed data acquisition systems, 2,000 sps

c. Rocket engine controllers

d. High speed data acquisition systems, 200k sps

e. High speed digital video, 500 fps and above

f. Cryogenic and high temperature measurement instruments

g. Strain gauge pressure transducers

h. Cryogenic level sensors

9. Provide a description of your business systems (approval status) to include:

a. Accounting/property

b. Level of automation

c. Level of integration w/sub-ledgers, payroll, and purchasing

d. What levels of job costing/tracking do your system support?

e. Will you provide the customer with access to this information?

f. Are your systems web-based?

g. Do they allow use of Common Access Card for log-in?

h. Do they allow for Air Force/DoW port access?

10. Provide a description of your management cost reports and process to track budgetary variances to include:

a. What management reporting system(s) are you currently using?

b. How long has the system been in use?

c. Is your system customer accessible for queries?

d. Do you have any current contracts with Cost Accounting Standards?

ASTROS II RFI Page 7 of 137

e. Is your system web-based?

f. Does it allow use of Common Access Card for log-in?

g. Does it allow for Air Force/DoW port access?

11. Describe your experience working in a highly technical, highly regulated work environment, while maintaining/sustaining the following:

a. Safety compliance

b. Security compliance

c. Quality

d. Code/regulation/logistics

e. Environmental compliance

12. Describe your configuration management process, address the following areas:

a. Change control

b. Re-sizing and completing drawings

c. Pressure vessel (modifications) and use history

d. Equipment accountability, calibration, and traceability

13. Describe experience you have with correcting a non-compliance situation in any of the following areas:

a. Safety

b. Security

c. Environmental

d. Code/regulation/logistics

14. Please list all active Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract vehicles that your company currently holds. For each IDIQ, provide the contract name, number, sponsoring agency, and its period of performance.

ASTROS II RFI Page 8 of 137

15. Please provide any examples of your company providing identical services that meet the definition of Commercial Services as follows:

a. Such services are procured for support of a commercial product

b. The source of such services provides similar services contemporaneously to the general public under terms and conditions similar to those offered to the Federal Government Code/regulation/ logistics

c. Service of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace based on established catalog or market prices for specific tasks performed or specific outcomes to be achieved and under standard commercial terms and conditions

Attachment 02 - Series 02 Proposal Evaluation Approach

For

“Aerospace System’s Technical Research and Operation Services (ASTROS) II”

Date: 29 Apr 2026

This attachment including the cover page consists of 3 pages

ASTROS II RFI Page 9 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Series Two (2) – Proposal Evaluation Approach

Answer each question separately for yourself and your recurring team partners (if any). Provide your most recent experiences (within last five years), to include: contract numbers, point of contact (i.e. program manager, contracting officer’s representative, or contracting officer), period of performance, and agency/organization supported with the following questions.

1. The Government anticipates a ten-year performance period consisting of a three-year base period, a three-year first option, and a four-year second option. Please provide your organization’s perspective and historical experience with award-term contracts versus long-term Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) structures. In your response, identify your preferred award approach, explain its operational benefits, and detail how industry views variable incentive fees as a performance driver. Additionally, what evaluation frequency for these award fees most effectively impacts and motivates management operations?

2. What specific quality metrics, feedback formats, and award thresholds are most effective in driving active, upper-level management engagement in performance oversight?

Furthermore, how does your executive management team integrate Government feedback into the continuous oversight of an executing service contract, and what frequency of Government feedback is required for your company to effectively review and implement quality improvements throughout the contract lifecycle?

3. The current projected NAICS code is 541715 - Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology), 1,300 employees with exception Space Vehicles and Guided Missiles, their Propulsion Units, their Propulsion Units Parts, and their Auxiliary Equipment and Parts. Do you take exception to the code? If so, why and what code do you recommend?

4. In the interest of stimulating the most competition, which type of source selection would your company prefer for this acquisition? Please explain why you prefer this method.

a. Highest Technically Rated Offeror

b. Performance Price Trade-off, no technical

c. Performance Price Trade-off, with technical pass/fail

d. Full Trade-off, Best Value

5. If the response to question 3 is Full Trade-off, Best Value, then please rank the following evaluation factors on a scale with one being the most important, three the least important.

Factors can have equal value of importance.

a. Technical

b. Past Performance

ASTROS II RFI Page 10 of 137

c. Cost/Price

6. To assist the Government in establishing a realistic acquisition milestone schedule, please indicate the estimated number of calendar days your organization would require to prepare and submit a comprehensive proposal following the release of a final Request for Proposal

(RFP).

ASTROS II RFI Page 11 of 137

Attachment 03 - Draft Performance Work Statement (PWS)

For

“Aerospace System’s Technical Research and Operation Services (ASTROS)

II”

Date: 26 Mar 2026

This attachment including the cover page consists of 41 pages

ASTROS II RFI Page 12 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 13 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 14 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 15 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 16 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 17 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 18 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 19 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 20 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 21 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 22 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 23 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 24 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 25 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 26 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 27 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 28 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 29 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 30 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 31 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 32 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 33 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 34 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 35 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 36 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 37 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 38 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 39 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 40 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 41 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 42 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 43 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 44 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 45 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 46 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 47 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 48 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 49 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 50 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 51 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 52 of 137

Attachment 04 - Draft DD Form 1423-1, Exhibit A

For

“Aerospace System’s Technical Research and Operation Services (ASTROS) II”

Date: 29 Apr 2026

This attachment including the cover page consists of 33 pages

ASTROS II RFI Page 53 of 137

DRAFT

ASTROS II RFI Page 54 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 55 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 56 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 57 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 58 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 59 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 60 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 61 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 62 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 63 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 64 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 65 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 66 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 67 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 68 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 69 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 70 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 71 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 72 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 73 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 74 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 75 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 76 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 77 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 78 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 79 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 80 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 81 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 82 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 83 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 84 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 85 of 137

Attachment 05 - Draft DD Form 254, Department of War Contract Security Classification Specification

For

“Aerospace System’s Technical Research and Operation Services (ASTROS) II”

Date: 29 Apr 2026

This attachment including the cover page consists of 6 pages

ASTROS II RFI Page 86 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 87 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 88 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 89 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 90 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 91 of 137

Attachment 06 - Notional Award Fee Plan

For

“Aerospace System’s Technical Research and Operation Services (ASTROS) II”

Date: 29 Apr 2026

This attachment including the cover page consists of 35 pages

ASTROS II RFI Page 92 of 137

Table of Contents

Section Title Page

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Organization

3.0 Responsibilities

4.0 Award-Fee Processes

5.0 Award-Fee Plan Change Procedure

6.0 Contract Termination

Annex Title Page

1 Award-Fee Organization

2 Award-Fee Allocation by Evaluation Periods

3 Award Fee Evaluation Criteria

4 Work Plan Manager’s Performance Evaluation Summary Report

5 Evaluation Summary Report

6 Key Personnel

ASTROS II RFI Page 93 of 137

Award-Fee Plan

1. INTRODUCTION

This award-fee plan is the basis for the evaluation of the contractor's performance and for presenting an assessment of that performance to the Fee Determining Official (FDO). It describes specific criteria and procedures used to assess the contractor’s performance and to determine the amount of award-fee earned. Actual award-fee determinations are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government; however, the determination is subject to the Disputes clause or the contract. The methodology for determining award-fee is a unilateral decision made solely at the discretion of the Government if the contractor is notified in writing at least one day prior to the start of the affected award-fee evaluation period.

The award-fee earned will be provided to the contractor through contract modifications and is in addition to the cost plus award-fee provisions of the contract. The award-fee earned and payable will be determined by the FDO based upon review of the contractor's performance against the criteria set forth in this plan. The FDO may unilaterally change this plan prior to the beginning of a new evaluation period. The contractor will be notified of changes to the plan by the Contracting Officer (CO) in writing, at least one day before the start of the affected evaluation period.

Changes to this plan that are applicable to a current evaluation period will be incorporated by mutual consent of both parties.

2. ORGANIZATION

The award-fee organization consists of: the FDO, an Award Fee Review Board (AFRB) which consists of a chairperson and members, the CO, a recorder, other functional area participants, advisor members, and the performance monitors. The FDO, AFRB members, and performance monitors are listed in Annex 1.

3. RESPONSIBILITIES

a. Fee Determining Official: The FDO approves the award-fee plan and any significant changes there to. The FDO reviews the recommendation(s) of the AFRB, considers all pertinent data, and determines the earned award-fee amount for each evaluation period.

b. Award-Fee Review Board: AFRB members review performance monitors' evaluation of the contractor's performance, consider all information from pertinent sources, prepare interim performance reports and arrive at an earned award fee recommendation to be presented to the FDO.

The AFRB may also recommend changes to this plan.

c. Chairperson, Award Fee Review Board: Award Fee Review Board. AFRB Chairperson is responsible for the overall functioning of the AFRB in the performance of its members. The duties of the AFRB Chairperson include the following:

ASTROS II RFI Page 94 of 137

(1) Schedule all meetings of the AFRB and notify its members of the meetings.

(2) Conduct the briefing to the FDO with regard to the recommendations of the AFRB.

d. AFRB Recorder: The AFRB recorder is responsible for coordinating the administrative actions required by the performance monitors, the AFRB and the FDO including:

(1) Receipt, processing and distribution of evaluation reports from all required sources;

(2) Scheduling and assisting with internal evaluation milestones, such as briefings; and

(3) Accomplishing other actions required to ensure the smooth operation of the award fee process

e. Contracting Officer: The CO is the liaison between contractor and Government personnel.

CO is the only individual authorized to monetarily obligate the Government.

f. Performance Monitors: The contracting officer's representative (COR) is the performance monitor responsible to maintain written records and prepare interim and end-of-period evaluation reports as directed by the AFRB. Work plan performance monitors write written records of the contractor's performance in their assigned evaluation area(s), so that a fair and accurate evaluation is obtained. Work plan performance monitors submit monthly written records to the COR.

Performance monitors are prohibited from being AFRB members.

4. AWARD FEE PROCESSES

a. Available Award-Fee Amount: The available award-fee for each evaluation period is shown in Annex 2. The award-fee earned will be paid based on the contractor's performance during each evaluation period.

b. Evaluation Criteria: If the CO does not give specific notice in writing to the contractor of any change to the evaluation criteria prior to the start of a new evaluation period, then the criteria previously listed for the period will be used in the subsequent award-fee evaluation period. Any changes to evaluation criteria will be made by revising Annex 3 and notifying the contractor prior to starting that period.

c. Monthly Evaluation Process: The AFRB Recorder notifies each performance monitor by the 25th of each month to submit their summary performance report. Performance monitors submit their evaluation reports to the COR by the 7th of each month. The COR provides summary to the CO, who notifies the contractor of any weaknesses for the current evaluation period.

d. End-of-Period Evaluations: The AFRB Recorder notifies each AFRB member and performance monitors of the end of the evaluation period 14 calendar days before the end of the evaluation period. Performance monitor s submit their evaluation reports to the AFRB seven calendar days after the end of the evaluation period. The AFRB prepares its evaluation report and recommendation of earned award-fee. The AFRB briefs the evaluation report and recommendation to the FDO. At this time, the AFRB may also recommend any significant changes to the award-fee plan for FDO approval. The FDO determines the overall grade and earned award-fee amount for the

ASTROS II RFI Page 95 of 137 evaluation period within 45 calendar days after each evaluation period. The FDO letter which 'will be forwarded to the contractor by the CO informs the contractor of the earned rating/award-fee amount. The CO issues a contract modification authorizing the payment of the award-fee earned within 15 calendar days after the FDO’s decision is made.

e. Award-Fee Calculation: The contractor will earn zero award-fee for unsatisfactory performance. If the contractor meets all of the contract requirements in the PWS (provides “satisfactory” support) the contractor could earn 50% of the award-fee pool. The contractor must exceed all of the government's subjective and objective PWS standard requirements to possibly earn 100% of the award-fee pool.

The award-fee calculation has two major parts. The first part is the contractor's ability to execute to the objective acceptable quality level (AQL) or standard (STD). The objective portion constitutes 60% of the overall Award Fee assessment. All active work plans will be evaluated by the performance monitors on a monthly basis (see Annex 4). The COR will record, and at the end of the award-fee period, determine an average for each of the PWS requirements. If a PWS requirement is not applicable to the work plan, then that requirement does not affect the average calculation. The work plan performance monitors annotates: N/A, not meeting AQL or STD, or, meeting the AQL or STD. Space is provided for the performance monitors to provide explanatory comments. The contractor receives a score of 0 for not meeting the PWS requirement, 0.5 for meeting AQL and

0.75 for meeting STD. The PWS requirement score is multiplied by a weighting factor and added together.

The second major part of the Award Fee calculation is the subjective evaluation. The subjective portion constitutes 40% of the overall Award Fee assessment. Each subjective area can account for up to one-third of the average subjective portion of the Award Fee. The contractor will be evaluated in three areas that consist of: responsiveness, quality of work, and quality of service. Those areas are further broken down into whether the contractor is executing to unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, very good, or excellent levels of performance. All active work plans will be evaluated by the performance monitors on a monthly basis (see Annex 4). Each subjective area is scored with the following fractional ranges: N/A, unsatisfactory 0.00 - 0.34, satisfactory 0.35 - 0.50, good 0.51 - 0.75, very good 0.76 - 0.90, and excellent 0.91-1.00. The COR will record those inputs obtained from the Work Plan Managers, and at the end of the award-fee period, determine an average for each of the subjective evaluation areas. Each of the subjective area Award Fee points will then be calculated using the formula:

(40/3)(x), where “x” is the average fractional subjective score of a subjective area as determined by the COR.

The sum of the two parts (objective and subjective evaluation) is the performance monitor's overall evaluation of the contractor's execution. The COR records and reports the results of the performance monitor’s assessment to the AFRB. (See Annex 5) The AFRB then provides their recommendation to FDO. The FDO can adjust the award fee percentage up or down at their discretion.

f. Contractor’s Self-Assessment: When the contractor chooses to submit a self-evaluation, it must be submitted to the CO within five working days after the end of each evaluation period. This written assessment of the contractor's performance throughout the evaluation period may also

ASTROS II RFI Page 96 of 137 contain any information that may be reasonably expected to assist the AFRB in evaluating the contractor's performance. The contractor's self-assessment may not exceed ten pages using 12 point font.

5. AWARD-FEE PLAN CHANGE PROCEDURE

All significant changes are approved by the FDO. The CO in coordination with the AFRB Chairperson approves other changes. Examples of significant changes include changing evaluation criteria, adjusting weights to redirect contractor's emphasis to areas needing improvement, and revising the distribution of the award-fee dollars. The contractor may recommend changes to the CO no later than 30 days prior to the beginning of the new evaluation period. After approval, the CO shall notify the contractor in writing of any change(s). The FDO may make unilateral changes to the award-fee plan if the contractor is provided written notification by the contracting officer at least one day before the start of the upcoming evaluation period. Changes affecting the current evaluation period must be by mutual agreement of both parties.

6. CONTRACT TERMINATION

a. Termination for Convenience: In the event that the contract is terminated for the convenience of the Government, the amount of award-fee to which the contractor is entitled shall be determined as follows:

(1) Award-fee earned or earnable by the contractor for award fee evaluation periods completed prior to the effective date of the termination will not be affected by the termination.

(2) Award-fee deemed earned and to be paid for performance during the period in which the termination becomes effective will be determined by the FDO in accordance with the approved award fee criteria and will not be subject to negotiation as part of the equitable adjustment. This will be done in accordance with the termination clause of the contract for purposes of fee determination. Contractor performance evaluation will end as of the date of termination.

(3) The remaining award-fee dollars for all periods subsequent to the period in which the termination becomes effective will not be considered earned or earnable and therefore will not be paid.

b. Termination for Default: If the Government terminates this contract for default, (i.e., contractor's performance is less than satisfactory), the contractor shall not earn any fee for the period in which the default occurred. Consequently, no additional award-fee shall be paid during the termination settlement of the contract. Award-fee earned or earnable by the contractor for award-fee evaluation periods completed prior to the effective date of the termination will not be affected by the termination, unless other provisions of the contract and/or award-fee plan require payback of previously earned fee.

ASTROS II RFI Page 97 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 98 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 99 of 137

STD: No more than +5% cumulative end-of-period cost variance from the actual vs. planned costs due to inaccurate Davis-Bacon estimate between the work plan and the cost report.

B. Technical Performance

4.2.1 The Contractor shall provide a fully empowered/skilled on-site program manager (PM) for administrative and operational management.

4.2.1.1 The primary PM shall be on site during normal duty hours. If the primary PM will not be available, a designated fully empowered alternate shall be appointed and the government notified.

STD 100% of the time.

4.2.1.2 Available telephonically 100 % of the time and able to correspond through their encrypted AF email account.

AQL: 1-2 hours during duty hours.

STD: within 1 hour during duty hours.

4.2.1.3 Available telephonically 100% of the time and able to correspond through their encrypted AF email account.

AQL: within 3 hours of non-duty hours.

STD: within 2 hour during non-duty hours.

4.2.2 The Contractor shall obtain and maintain the appropriate security clearance for all efforts IAW DD254. Prior to assuming contract duties, the PM and key contractor employees shall possess the appropriate security clearance. See Annex 6 for a list of key personnel.

STD 100 % of the time.

4.2.3 The Contractor shall develop work plans for all efforts based on authorized work plan requests from the government.

4.2.3.1 The Contractor shall have

AQL: 8-14 business days to submit an initial (original) detailed work plan to the government work plan manager after the contractor receives the government’s work plan request.

STD: <7 business days to submit an initial (original) detailed work plan to the government work plan manager after the contractor receives the government’s work plan request.

4.2.3.2 The Contractor shall have

AQL: 6-10 business days to submit a revised (updated)/reworked detailed work plan to the government work plan manager after the contractor receives the government’s work plan request.

ASTROS II RFI Page 100 of 137

STD: <5, business days to submit a revised (updated)/reworked detailed work plan to the government work plan manager after the contractor receives the government’s work plan request.

4.2.4 The Contractor shall hire and retain necessary qualified personnel for all efforts in order to meet the flexible demands outlined in the work plans.

AQL: Execute the work plans with no delay in the critical path due to the unavailability of contractor qualified personnel.

STD: Execute the work plans with no delay in critical and non-critical path schedule due to the unavailability of contractor qualified personnel.

4.2.5 The Contractor shall ensure personnel receive the appropriate training for all efforts and that they meet the requirements for a safe work environment and mission needs.

AQL: All critical training (that enable test operations) completed by training due date and all non-critical training must be completed within 15 calendar days past the training due date.

STD: All training critical (that enables test operations) and non-critical must be completed by the required due date.

4.2.6 The Contractor shall provide personnel for Site Operations Control Center (SOCC) support for all efforts. (Input obtained from Safety, but scored by the

COR)

STD: SOCC staffed 100 % of the time during normal hours of operation and during testing operations or as applicable outside normal hours of operation.

4.2.7 The contractor shall provide government personnel who are identified by the COR electronic, exportable read-only access to the contractor's data for all efforts.

4.2.7.1 Availability of Contractor’s MIS

AQL: Available 95% of the time not including scheduled outages.

STD: Available 100 % of the time not including scheduled outages.

4.2.7.2 New Access to Contractor’s MIS

AQL: Newly COR-identified personnel have access within 6 - 10 business days of COR request.

STD: Newly COR-identified personnel have access within 5 business days of

COR request.

4.2.8 The Contractor shall provide training to personnel identified by the COR/ government PM on the Contractor's data system for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of exported data and the government reports.

AQL: Provide training within 6-10 business days to personnel identified and requested by the government.

ASTROS II RFI Page 101 of 137

STD: Provide training within 5 business days to personnel identified and requested by the government.

4.2.9 The Contractor shall maintain security (e.g. OPSEC and COMSEC) for all efforts.

4.2.9.1 Disclosures. (COR input)

STD: Zero unauthorized disclosures or security violations.

4.2.9.2 Security credentials. (COR input)

AQL: No more than two lost AF issued security credentials (e.g. AF Form

1199 Line Badge or Common Access Cards [CACs]) per award fee period.

STD: Zero lost AF issued security credentials per award fee period.

4.2.9.3 Security credentials and keys (COR input)

STD: All security credentials and key(s) turned in upon employee termination per award fee period.

4.2.10 Contractor routed data shall contain proper STINFO markings.

AQL: No more than one STINFO violation.

STD: Zero STINFO violations.

4.2.11 The contractor shall comply with all applicable safety standards for all efforts.

The Recordable Injury Rate (RIR) and Lost Workday Rate (LWR) metrics come from the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data for the construction industry and will be based on 100 employees, working 40 hours per week for 25 weeks.

To emphasize the areas where the risk occurs by compensating for the management task, only 85% of the employees on contract will be used in the safety rate calculations. (COR input)

4.2.11.1 Recordable Injury Rate

STD: A Recordable Injury Rate (RIR) which is less than or equal to 4.5 instances per 100 people per award fee period.

4.2.11.2 Lost Workday Rate

STD: A Lost Workday Rate (LWR) which is less than or equal to 41 days lost work days per 100 full-time employees per award fee period.

4.2.12 The Contractor shall comply with all inspections (QA, Logistics, PMI, vessels etc.) for all efforts. (COR input based on Division QA observations)

AQL: Obtain an excellent rating (90-94.99%) on local quality assurance inspections.

STD: Obtain an outstanding rating (95-100%) on local quality assurance inspections.

ASTROS II RFI Page 102 of 137

4.2.13 The Contractor shall maintain accessible, accurate and current electronic versions of documents IAW the configuration management plan for all efforts.

Documents consist of drawings, specifications, SOP's, SOI's, vessel inspection records, safety procedures, personnel technical certifications/qualifications, TOP's, SRB's, TRB's, TRR's etc. Electronic versions shall be stored on an Air Force owned system(s).

4.2.13.1 Critical Control Document Availability from Configuration Management AQL: Critical control documents must be made available within 3 hours of government request.

STD: Critical control documents must be made available within 1 hour of government request.

4.2.13.2 Non- Critical Control Document Availability from Configuration Management AQL: Non-critical control documents must be made available within 1 business day of government request.

STD: Non-critical control documents must be made available within 4 hours of government request.

4.2.14 The Contractor shall upload current versions of configuration managed (CM) documents for all efforts to a government specified network location.

4.2.14.1 Document Upload into Configuration Management

AQL: Within 3 business days of the receipt of a CM document STD: Within 1 business day of the receipt of a CM document.

4.2.14.2 Configuration Management Document Completeness and Tracking STD: All CM items (e.g., documents, drawings, analysis, reports and procedures) prepared under the Work Plan shall be document controlled, uploaded into CM, 100% complete and properly version controlled.

4.2.15 The Contractor shall provide a government approved web-based automated work plan work flow for all efforts.

4.2.15.1 Work Plan Workflow

AQL: Available 95% of the time not including scheduled outages.

STD: Available 100 % of the time not including scheduled outages.

4.2.15.2 Work Plan Workflow Training

AQL: Provide access and training 3-5 business days to personnel identified by the government.

STD: Provide access and training within 2 business days to personnel identified by the government.

ASTROS II RFI Page 103 of 137

C. Schedule

4.3.1 The Contractor shall meet agreed upon milestones for all efforts as defined in the work plans or its referenced document.

AQL: The tolerance will be identified in each individual work plan or its referenced document.

STD: The tolerance will be identified in each individual work plan or its referenced document.

4.3.2 The Contractor shall submit deliverables (excluding Work Plans) on time, complete and accurate for a given effort IAW the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL).

4.3.2.1 Deliverable Submission

AQL: All deliverables shall be submitted no more than 5 business days after the due date.

STD: All deliverables shall be submitted on time.

4.3.2.2 Deliverable Acceptance

AQL: First pass acceptance of deliverables 90% of the time.

STD: First pass acceptance of deliverables 95% of the time.

4.3.3 The Contractor shall assign and apply resources in a timely manner.

4.3.3.1 Resource Assignment

AQL: Resources (e.g. personnel, support stock, tools, equipment, subcontractors, and funding) are assigned to the newly anticipated workload within 5 business days of the effort being approved. After being assigned, on-site resources shall begin performing the new workload within 1 business day.

STD: Resources (e.g. personnel, support stock, tools, equipment, subcontractors, and funding) are assigned to a previously unanticipated workload within 3 business days of the effort being approved. After being assigned, on-site resources shall begin performing on the new workload within 1 business day.

4.3.4 The contractor shall notify the government Work Plan Manager in writing when an agreed upon schedule will slip by more than x days prior to the scheduled milestone. Whereby “x” is defined in the Work Plan.

AQL = notification within 6-10 business days of discovery of a schedule slip. STD = notification within 5 business days of discovery of a schedule slip.

ASTROS II RFI Page 104 of 137

Subjective Criteria

Contractor Responsiveness (Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, or Unsatisfactory) Quality of work (Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, or Unsatisfactory) Quality of Service (Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, or Unsatisfactory)

1. The following standard s of performance shall be employed as criteria in determining award- fee earned:

Award-Fee Pool Ratings/Definitions

Award-Fee Adjectival

Rating

Award-Fee Pool Available to be

Earned

Description

Excellent 91 % - 100% Contractor has exceeded almost all of the significant award fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Very Good 76% - 90% Contractor has exceeded many of the significant award fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Good 51% - 75% Contractor has exceeded some of the significant award fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period

Satisfactory No Greater Than 35%-50% Contractor has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Unsatisfactory 0%-34% Contractor has failed to meet overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract as defined and measured against the criteria in the award -fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

ASTROS II RFI Page 105 of 137

Award-Fee Adjectival

Rating

Range of Rating Points

Award-Fee Pool Available to be Earned

Excellent 91-100 91% - 100% Very Good 76-90 76%- 90%

Good 51-75 51% - 75% Satisfactory 35-50 35%- 50%

Unsatisfactory Less than 35 0%

ASTROS II RFI Page 106 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 107 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 108 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 109 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 110 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 111 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 112 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 113 of 137

VERY GOOD (0.76 – 0.90 points.)

Contractor has exceeded many of the responsiveness award fee criteria of the contract:

• Project management permitted quick diagnosis of all significant technical. Management, budgetary, and scheduling problems

• Highly effective interface relationships throughout all significant phases \which greatly enhanced communications

• Majority of actual work tracks to the estimated plan and the majority of the variances are approved by the government work plan manager. Unapproved variances do not create a significant cost or schedule issue. Contractor able to reconcile without government assistance.

GOOD (0.51 - 0.75 points.)

Contractor has exceeded some of the responsiveness award fee criteria of the contract:

• Project management permitted diagnosis of all significant technical, management, budgetary, and scheduling problems with some difficulty

• Effective interface relationships throughout all significant phases which allowed good communications

• Majority of the work tracks to the estimated plan and the majority of the variances are approved by the government work plan manager. Unapproved variances do not create a significant cost or schedule issue. Contractor able to reconcile with some government assistance.

SATISFACTORY (0.35 - 0.50 points.)

Contractor has met overall the responsiveness award fee criteria of the contract:

• Project management made it difficult to diagnosis most significant technical, management, budgetary. and scheduling problems

• Adequate interface relationships throughout most significant phases which allowed suitable communications

• Majority of the work tracks to the estimated plan and the majority of the variances are approved by the government work plan manager. Unapproved variances creates some cost or schedule issues. Contractor able to reconcile with government assistance.

ASTROS II RFI Page 114 of 137

UNSATISFACTORY (0.00 – 0.34 points.)

Contractor has failed to meet overall the responsiveness award fee criteria of the contract:

• Project management failed to diagnosis most significant technical, management, budgetary, and scheduling problems

• Inadequate interface relationships throughout most significant phases which led to ineffective communications

• Actual work does not track to the estimated plan. Significant cost and schedule issues were created by unapproved variances. The government had to reconcile cost and schedule issues created by the contractor.

Comments:

Provide Quality of Work

NOTE: Only check one box

EXCELLENT (0.91 - 1.00 points.)

Contractor has exceeded almost all the quality of work award fee criteria of the contract:

• Total understanding of task requirements, provided innovative technical approach

• Solved most problems without government assistance

• All work was thorough and accurate. reflected highest professional standards

• Proactively followed all safety procedures/guidelines/regulations and no safety/environmental incidents

VERY GOOD (0.76 – 0.90 points.)

Contractor has exceeded many of the quality of' work award fee criteria of the contract:

• Understood and implemented task assignments using high standards

• Solved all basic problems and majority of complex problems with no Government assistance

• Work was thorough and accurate, reflected professional standards

• Followed all safety procedures/guidelines/regulations and only relatively minor safety/environmental incidents and effective corrective actions

ASTROS II RFI Page 115 of 137

ASTROS II RFI Page 116 of 137

Provide Quality Service

NOTE: Only check one box

EXCELLENT ( 0.91- 1.00 points)

Contractor has exceeded almost all the quality of service award fee criteria of the contract:

• All products or services were provided with proactive quality enhancements and proactive sound recommendations all of the time.

• All known problems/issues were identified and alternative approaches to products/services were provided in a timely manner.

• Product or service changes were negotiated fairly, expeditiously and successfully.

Responsiveness lo the government meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the government's benefit.

• Contractor always completed interrelated products and services concurrently.

• Contractor kept the government informed of delays, resolved them independently, and exceeded many expected quality of products and services objectives.

• No major issues and/or more than three minor issues documented in the MPR and all corrective actions were highly effective with no repeat occurrence.

VERY GOOD (0.76 - 0.90 points)

Contractor has exceeded many of the quality of service award fee criteria of the contract:

• All products or service s were provided with proactive quality enhancements and proactive sound recommendations most of the time.

• Most known problems/issues were identified, and alternative approaches to products/services were provided in a timely manner.

• Product or service changes were mostly negotiated fairly, quickly and successfully.

Responsiveness to the government meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the government’s benefit.

• Contractor mostly completed interrelated products and services concurrently.

• Contractor kept the government informed of delays resolved them independently as soon as they were recognized, and exceeded some quality of products and services objectives.

• One major issue and/or between three to seven minor issues documented in the MPR and all corrective actions were effective with no repeat occurrences.

ASTROS II RFI Page 117 of 137

GOOD (0.51 - 0.75 points)

Contractor has exceeded some of the quality of service award fee criteria of the contract:

• Often products or services were provided with proactive quality enhancements and sound recommendations some of the time.

• Some known problems/issues were identified and alternative approaches to products/services were provided in a timely manner.

• Product or service changes were often negotiated fairly, on time and successfully.

Responsiveness to the government meets contractual requirements.

• Contractoroften completed interrelated products and services concurrently.

• Contractor…