Attachment 2 - Proposal Instructions.pdf

Solicitation HQ085020R0003 Section L

Attachment 2

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE

SDA TRACKING LAYER TRANCHE 0 (T0)

WIDE FIELD OF VIEW (WFOV) PROGRAM

Dated June 15, 2020

The Offeror shall propose to develop and deliver Tracking T0 WFOV space vehicles (SVs) via three volumes. Specific volume contents and associated page limits are detailed below.

• Volume I – Schedule and Solution shall contain a detailed description of the Offeror’s proposed technical solution to Space Development Agency’s (SDA’s) requirements and their schedule to deliver SVs for integration into a launch vehicle, deployment on orbit, and ready for on-orbit and flight testing.

• Volume II – Price and Rationale shall contain the Offeror’s Firm Fixed Price and associated detail. This volume shall also include the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan and/or Small Business Participation Commitment Document.

• Volume III – Experience and Past Performance shall contain résumés for key personnel to be assigned to this effort and up to five (5) recent (within the last five (5) years), relevant examples of on time, and on-cost/price delivery of complex systems, subsystems, or components. Offerors may also include up to three (3) past performance examples for each team member, Subcontractor, partner, intra-company provider and/or vendor the Offeror considers significant in the accomplishment of the requirements contained in Attachment 1 – SOW. Offerors are free to define “significant” but shall clearly describe their rationale for such a designation within their proposal.

• Appendix A – Organizational Conflict of Interest Plan

In some cases, appendices and supplements that do not count against page limits are allowed.

SDA requests these as references that may be used to clarify material in the primary three volumes but may not review or evaluate all of the material contained in them.

SDA requests Offerors submit all unclassified content electronically. Proposals received after 1200 ET on 16 July 2020 will be considered late and will not be evaluated. Offerors whose proposals are considered late will be so informed by the contracting officer and their proposals deleted without any files being opened or read. Classified Appendices, Attachments and/or Volumes may be submitted if required following advance notification to SDA of their pending submittal. Classified submittals may be delivered electronically or via hard copy.

Electronic submission instructions:

All Volumes along with any Appendices or Attachments should be submitted only in .pdf format and must be submitted independently by file as SDA will not accept .zip files. Files are limited to twenty (20) megabytes (MB) each. All electronic submissions must be received NO LATER THAN 1200 July 16, 2020. Offerors should submit one (1) copy of each unclassified Volume and Appendices and/or Attachments to be used for any and all printing or official copy retention.

Offerors are free to request read receipts for each email sent.

1. Unclassified Information may be emailed to osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-rfp-20- 0003@mail.mil. Files larger than 20 MB should be sent via DoD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE). Offerors submitting via DoD SAFE must send an email to the address above notifying SDA of this submission method NO LATER THAN 1200 ET on July 14, 2020.

2. Confidential and Secret information may be emailed to OSD.SDA.Proposals@mail.smil.mil. Offerors submitting Confidential and/or Secret information must send an unclassified email to osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-rfp-20- 0003@mail.mil notifying SDA of this submission method NO LATER THAN 1200 EDT on July 14, 2020.

3. Top Secret Information may be emailed to SDA.Proposals@osdj.ic.gov. Offerors submitting Top Secret information must send an unclassified email to osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-rfp-20-0003@mail.mil notifying SDA of this submission method NO LATER THAN 1200 EDT on July14, 2020.

Hard copy submission instructions:

Hard copy submissions shall only be used by Offerors who are submitting classified information and who do not have access to the electronic submission methods mentioned above. Hard copy classified submissions shall be delivered with inner envelope sealed and addressed to SDA, ATTN: Mr. Chris Glista, with reference to the Request for Proposal (RFP) number, and conspicuously marked with the appropriate classification level. The outer envelope shall be sealed with NO RFP identification or classification and only addressed to SDA SECURITY, ATTN: Mr. Denver Best. If delivering hard copy submissions, then Offerors should submit one

(1) copy of each Volume and Appendices and/or Attachments to be used for any and all printing or official copy retention requirements and one (1) additional copy of each Volume and Appendices and/or Attachments. Offerors submitting hard copy classified information must send an unclassified email to osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-rfp-20-0003@mail.mil notifying SDA of this submission method NO LATER THAN 1200 ET on July 14, 2020 in order to coordinate receipt of the submission. Hard copy submissions must be received NO LATER THAN 1200 EDT on July 16, 2020.

1. Confidential and Secret information may be hand-carried or mailed, in accordance with DoD 5220.22-M, to 3015 Defense Pentagon, Room 5B1066, Washington, DC 20301.

Hand-carried delivery shall have arrival time of delivery coordinated by contacting R&E Security at 703-695-3717.

mailto:osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-rfp-20-0003@mail.mil mailto:osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-rfp-20-0003@mail.mil mailto:OSD.SDA.Proposals@mail.smil.mil mailto:osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-rfp-20-0003@mail.mil mailto:osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-rfp-20-0003@mail.mil mailto:SDA.Proposals@osdj.ic.gov mailto:osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-rfp-20-0003@mail.mil mailto:osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-rfp-20-0003@mail.mil mailto:osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-rfp-20-0003@mail.mil

2. Top Secret Information must be hand-carried to Room 5B1066 with arrival time coordinated, as stated above. Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) must be marked, managed and transmitted in accordance with DoDM 5105.21, Volumes 1-3.

The font in normal text for all volumes shall be no smaller than Times New Roman 12 pt., while text in figures and tables shall be no smaller than Times New Roman 10 pt. All margins (top, bottom, left, and right) shall be no smaller than one inch. All pdf pages formatted larger than 8.5 inches X 11 inches shall be counted as two pages. Note: Nonconforming proposals will be rejected without review.

Use of Non-Government Advisors

Offerors are advised that technical and price data submitted to the Government in response to this solicitation may be released to non-Government advisors that have signed non-disclosure agreements for review and analysis. Any objection to release shall be provided in writing to the Contracting Officer within 10 days of RFP issuance and shall include a detailed statement of the basis for the objection. The detailed statement shall identify the specific portions of the proposal the Offeror objects to disclosure to non-Government advisors.

Overview

The Government is purchasing the following:

Up to eight (8) SVs to be awarded to up to two (2) vendors; the ratio between vendors, or the decision to have only one (1) vendor will be determined during source selection. It is important to highlight that a major evaluation factor for this RFP is the demonstrated ability to procure or manufacture commoditized buses1 at low cost and high reliability while achieving economies of scale as demonstrated in the commercial sector. The number of SVs and SV providers will be decided upon as a result of the merit, maturity and cost of the responses that are received. The Government is selecting an orbit altitude of 1000 km and an inclination that will fall within the range of 80-100 degrees. The Offeror may propose different orbits but must understand it is the Government’s intent that all vehicles from all vendors will operate at the same altitude and inclination.

Each SV shall have the capability to interoperate with SDA Transport Layer SVs via an Optical Intersatellite Link (OISL). While the technology maturity of OISLs has improved, the SDA understands the risk associated with the reliance on OISLs for the Transport Tranche 0 SVs. As

1 A commodity space vehicle utilizes an existing bus design that can be easily manufactured and reused across multiple space vehicles and for multiple missions. A commoditized bus has been designed for manufacture and is suitable for, or currently being produced by, an assembly line like process at economies of scale.

such, the SDA is requesting that proposals include, and Offerors prepare costing options for, radio frequency (RF) crosslinks in addition to the OISLs. The V-band RF crosslinks should operate in the same manner as the OISLs. The decision to include or delete the RF crosslinks from the final SV configuration will be made by SDA no later than the Critical Design Review (CDR) for the Transport Tranche 0 SVs. That decision will then be immediately conveyed to the T0 WFOV SV Contractors. For proposal pricing purposes only, Offerors should assume down select to either OISLs or V-band RF communications at the T0 WFOV CDR.

Volume I – Solution and Schedule (NTE 35 Pages)

1. Executive Summary

The Offeror shall present their proposed solution concept for the T0 WFOV program including their team construct and expected contributions by each team member. The Executive Summary should include an OV-1 or equivalent high-level overview of the proposed space and ground segments. The graphics shall depict the type of SVs proposed, means by which they sense key tactical data, means by which they communicate with each other and the ground, and means by which they provide key tactical data to the warfighter or operational interface. Integrated into this graphical representation shall be a high-level roll-up of the Offeror’s milestone-driven Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for capability delivery, culminating in on-orbit performance per SDA’s schedule requirements. A detailed IMS may be included as an appendix and will not count against the page limit.

2. Mission Design

The Offeror shall describe the mission design, including but not limited to: the orbit and its impacts (e.g., eclipse time, radiation environment, etc.) on the SV design, delta-v/propellant budget, maneuver CONOPS, and approach to the phases of the mission from deployment from the launch vehicle through passivation and disposal. Operational constraints resulting from orbit geometry and the SV design (OISL field of regard, solar exclusion, power and thermal bounds, etc.) should be considered.

3. Space Vehicle Overview

The Offeror shall present an overview of the SV, including but not limited to: a block diagram, delta-v budget, high-level mass budget, power budget with power modes, and vehicle configuration showing all major components. This section should also include an overview of the SV Concept of Operations (CONOPS). A Master Equipment List (not to exceed five (5) pages) with mass, power, and Technical Readiness Level, Manufacturing Readiness Level, or other flight heritage shall be included as an appendix and will not count against the page limit.

4. T0 WFOV Payload Architecture and Design

The Offeror shall present their T0 WFOV payload architecture and design. For each payload element below, the Offeror shall include, but not be limited to, a discussion of payload hardware, software, control, data storage and data transfer capability and/or limitations, and power requirements. Any redundant system capabilities shall be listed. Previously published commercial data sheets (not to exceed four (4) pages each) submitted to other customers as part of system or subsystem delivery may be attached as Appendices to this section and will not count against the page limit. This section shall detail:

A. WFOV Sensor: Detailed description of the Offeror’s proposed sensor system, subsystems and components to include manufacturability, flight heritage, space environment susceptibility, and power requirements. Describe the payload assembly, test, and calibration approach. Include a discussion of key technical dependencies between the primary payload and other SV subsystems, ground elements, and/or communication systems which could adversely affect overall mission performance.

B. SV Communication: Detailed description of optical and/or RF subsystems proposed to enable SV-to-SV and/or SV-to-ground communication. In each case, identify frequencies, orbital constraints, data formats, and any other parameters considered key by the Offeror. Of particular interest is a discussion of the Offeror’s approach to integrate with SDA Transport Layer assets. Critical to this analysis are any assumptions made by the Offeror regarding data required from external sources for their T0 WFOV mission approach and data collected by the Offeror to be provided externally.

C. Mission Data Processing: Detailed description of the Offeror’s proposed Mission Data Processing systems. Define the functions that will be executed on-board the space vehicle and the physical location of the processing algorithms. Include in the discussion the criteria and rationale for moving each processing step on-board and its anticipated impacts on the communications network. Include in the discussion any dependencies on Government-provided portions of the ground system and identify the required interfaces.

Include on-board storage requirements and limitations as well as anticipated uses. Of particular interest is a discussion of the Offeror’s approach to information exchanges with overall Missile Warning, Tracking and Defense architecture to include interoperability with the Missile Defense Agency and OPIR enterprise command & control systems.

5. Baseline SV Bus Design

The Offeror shall present their SV design based on the manufacture or purchase of commoditized SV buses per the definition included in Attachment 1 - SOW. Should the Offeror elect a non-commoditized bus alternative, they shall present their process for commoditizing the alternative bus. Any redundant system requirements and capabilities shall be listed. Previously published commercial data sheets (not to exceed four (4) pages each) submitted to other customers as part of system or subsystem delivery may be attached as appendices to this section and will not count against the page limit. This section shall detail:

A. Bus Design and Heritage: Detailed description of the SV bus size, weight and power available. Include in this description a discussion of the bus heritage: where and how many have flown; the design life and what has been the experienced flight life; types and frequency of experienced anomalies and their solutions; and the number and types of customers that have purchased the bus. If the proposed bus has not flown, provide the heritage from an existing bus (if applicable) and the changes made to reach the proposed bus along with rationale for each of the changes.

B. SV Subsystems: For each of the major subsystems (electrical and power; attitude control; telemetry, tracking and control; etc.) provide a detailed description of the subsystem as well as system heritage (similar to that for Bus Design and Heritage above).

Describe the proposed implementation of security concerns, such as red-black isolation, encryption, and command authentication. Discuss engineering (radiation, electromagnetic interference, contamination control, etc.) issues and approaches as appropriate. Discuss the overall fault management approach, including the safe mode implementation.

C. Launch Interface Requirements: SDA intends to provide launch services to the Offeror as a Government-furnished service through the U.S. Space Force, with which the Offeror will work for design interface, space vehicle mating, final interface testing, launch readiness rehearsals, etc. Describe how the SV integrates into any recommended launch vehicle. On what vehicle(s) can the proposed solution be launched? Does the proposed design limit the Government’s launch options? Are there any atypical interface requirements? Are any particular launch services (such as a T-0 dry nitrogen purge) or additional accesses required to support launch vehicle integration? If the SV dispenser is a non-standard launch product (e.g., the ESPA family), describe the solution for launching multiple SVs on a shared launch vehicle. If the proposed bus has not flown on an EELV-class launch vehicle, provide the heritage from an existing bus (if applicable) and changes expected to enable launch of the proposed bus.

6. Ground Systems and Operations

The Government shall provide an operations center facility, Ground Entry Points (GEPs) and a communications network. Within those Government Furnished Equipment constraints the Offeror shall present their approach to ground systems and operations. Define what functions the ground system and mission operations are assumed to provide. Describe the suggested approach for verification that the ground system at the Government-provided facility at Blossom Point Tracking Facility, Maryland, and Ground Entry Points (RF and optical) are fully compatible with the proposed SV. Describe the systems and approach for maintaining inventory accountability and control.

Please note that the SOW task to transition satellite operations to the Government is unscoped future work. Contractors are instructed not to bid costs for this work at this time.

7. Test, Demonstration and Verification

The Offeror shall present their hardware and software, ground- and orbit-based test and demonstration approach(es). This section should address all aspects of test and demonstration to include modeling, simulation, emulation, ground and space-based testing. Offerors should address verification at the component, subsystem, system, vehicle, and constellation levels. All requirements verification up to and through environmental testing should be discussed. Describe test approaches, methodologies, performance, verification, documentation, and staffing. This section should include sample test artifacts from previous programs, identification of test platforms and hardware maintained by the Offeror, and any test activities which must be accomplished outside of the Offeror’s direct control. For those cases, the Offeror should identify their approach for test conduct and the experience level of the organization the Offeror plans to use to conduct the test. Of particular interest to the SDA is the Offeror’s approach to conduct tests and demonstrations in concert with the Government-provided operations center prior to launch and during early orbit operations and checkout, as well as exercise of the SVs in conjunction with warfighter exercises once on orbit. Finally, Offerors should examine the OV-1 included in the Executive Summary and present their approach(es) for bi-directional compatibility testing associated with each communication or data link shown on that diagram both prior to and after launch. The Government will provide a hardware-in-the-loop (HITL) testbed capability to verify physical and network layer interoperability between the multiple WFOV program Contractors, as well as with the Transport T0 providers. Offerors shall describe their approach for providing specified hardware, or recommended alternatives to achieve functional equivalent, for interoperability verification testing at the Government-furnished HITL.

8. Program Management, Systems Engineering and Mission Assurance

The Offeror shall describe the program management and systems engineering approach and processes to be applied to the T0 WFOV program. The Offeror shall thoroughly discuss the approach to plan for, ensure, and validate integration and interoperability with the SDA Transport Layer Tranche 0 space vehicles, the OPIR enterprise architecture, and the Missile Defense System. The Offeror shall also describe the mission assurance approach and Offeror’s quality systems, and include a discussion of relevant standards and certifications and what sustaining engineering processes, tools and approach will be applied to this system as part of the Offeror’s approach. The Offeror shall describe the proposed team that each organization brings to the effort, discuss the management team and approach, and include a list of the primary risks on the project, the planned mitigations, and the approach for managing risks throughout the life cycle.

The Offeror shall present the milestone-driven Integrated Master Schedule designed to meet the Government’s objective to have SVs delivered for launch integration thirty (30) days before launch. The Offeror should identify program milestones to include entry criteria, key accomplishments and exit criteria for each milestone. If the milestones proposed correspond to progress payments anticipated by the Offeror, this volume should so state and link (electronically if possible) to the appropriate section in Volume II – Price and Rationale so that the justification for the progress payment appears in Volume I and the payment amount, terms, conditions and Government acceptance criteria for payment appears in Volume II. At least two (2) of the pages should be a separable, standalone detailed Gantt chart (or similar) clearly presenting the Offeror’s milestone-driven Integrated Master Schedule to include dependencies, critical path activities, assumed Government or Subcontractor hardware, software or information deliveries, tests, demonstrations, reviews, and/or any other key activities in the Offeror’s proposed program.

The Offeror shall also assess and highlight any key schedule risks and provide preliminary response plan for identified risks. Offerors may submit their full Integrated Master Schedule in either pdf or MS Project format as a separate stand-alone file for examination by SDA. If submitted this will not count against the Volume I page limit.

9. Specialty Engineering

The Offeror shall discuss their approach to the specialty engineering disciplines and how they will be involved in the design of the space and ground segments. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, those listed in the SOW such as: cryptologic systems, spectrum management, security operations, cybersecurity, software protection and electromagnetic testing.

Describe the process on how specialty engineering requirements will be matured through the design process, e.g., through the systems engineering design process, through working or focus groups, or through the delivery of implementation or management plans. Describe the decision to adopt company corporate processes or the generation and/or tailoring of new processes.

Describe the process maturity level of the specialty engineering disciplines and include any lessons learned and/or process pedigree associations between the T0 WFOV program and previous programs.

Please note that the SOW task for special studies is unscoped future work. Contractors are instructed not to bid costs for this work at this time.

Volume II – Price and Rationale (No Page Limit)

The Government requests the following information to assist in its determination of Price Reasonableness (see Evaluation Factors for Award, Section M).

1. Executive Summary and Pricing Rationale

The Offeror shall detail their pricing assumptions and rationale that guided their firm fixed price (FFP) submission. SDA needs to understand what the Offeror has assumed in building their final price so that any discussions deemed of value can be conducted. Discuss any constraints on the Government such as time to review and/or approve contractual documentation, constraints on mission partners such as time to receive needed data or information, etc. Where appropriate, the Offeror should discuss their use of learning in driving down subsequent SV costs when producing more than a single copy and where such learning has led to cost savings on previous programs.

2. Detailed Price Proposal

The SDA requests the Contractor provide the total price for delivering space vehicles in quantities from 1-8 using the following table. Each entry in the table should reflect the total price for the delivered number of space vehicles (i.e. the entry for the 3 SV row should reflect the total price to deliver 3 space vehicles, not the unit price for space vehicle 3).

Number of SVs Price

A. Supporting Pricing Data:

1) Provide the total price and elements of price broken down by milestone, including at a minimum:

a) Price of major tasks by fiscal year by Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) element (Level 3 or below)

b) A summary of projected funding requirements by month to enable fiscal and milestone payment planning

c) A summary of projected funding requirements by quarter for Government Fiscal

Year, Contractor Fiscal Year and Calendar Year to enable fiscal and milestone payment planning

d) An itemization of major Subcontractors

e) Price and percentage of price by the prime and major Subcontractors

f) Price by major risk/activity

g) Materials

h) Other Direct Costs (ODCs) (e.g., travel, equipment, etc.)

i) Identification of pricing assumptions of which may require incorporation into the resulting award instrument (e.g., use of Government Furnished Property, access to Government Subject Matter Experts, etc.)

2) The WBS should include but not be limited to the following elements:

a) Project Management

b) Mission and System Engineering

c) Payloads, including a separate element for the backup V-band RF crosslink system through CDR

d) SV (broken down by subsystem)

e) Assembly, Integration, and Test

f) Ground Segment

g) Mission Operations

This information will be used by the Government to evaluate the reasonableness of and risks associated with the proposed technical solution, schedule, and cost.

B. Subcontractor Proposals

The Awardee is responsible for compiling and providing all Subcontractor proposals (PRICE PROPOSAL ONLY) for the Government. There is no limit to the overall percentage of work assigned to Subcontractors by the Prime Contractor. Subcontractor proposals should include ITWAs or similar arrangements. All proprietary Subcontractor proposal documentation, prepared at the same level of detail as that required of the prime (see Section A above), which cannot be provided with the proposed prime Contractor’s proposal, shall be provided to the Government either by the prime Contractor or by the Subcontractor organization by e-mail (osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-rfp-20-0003@mail.mil ) when the proposal is submitted. The subject line of the e-mail shall contain the lead organization’s proposal title, lead organization name, lead organization proposal submission date, and Subcontractor name. Each file submitted must be clearly labeled with the SDA RFP number, proposer organization, proposal title (short title recommended), Volume number and

Appendix or Attachment number (as appropriate). The submission of Subcontractor proposals is for the purpose of allowing SDA to more completely understand Subcontractor pricing and therefore overall offer price reasonableness. Subcontractor proposals are not a means for Offerors to circumvent the page limitation imposed on Volume I. The Offeror’s technical solution must be completely contained in Volume I. Any technical information contained in Subcontractor proposals will not be evaluated nor considered during source selection.

C. Technical Data and Computer Software Rights Assertions

The Offeror shall clearly delineate all limitations on data/hardware/computer software rights.

It is SDA’s assumption that no hardware, technical data or computer software will be provided with less than Government Purpose Rights (see DFARS 252.227-7013, 7014, 7015) and that the vast majority of information generated will be provided with Unlimited Rights to the Government. Should the Offeror disagree they must clearly identify those elements to be provided with less than Unlimited Rights and identify the rationale for their assertion(s) using the following format.

Technical Data Computer

Software To be Furnished with

Restrictions

Summary of Intended Use in the Conduct of the Effort

Basis for Assertion Asserted Rights

Category

Name of Person Asserting

Restrictions

(LIST) (NARRATIVE) (LIST) (LIST) (LIST)

D. Small Business Utilization Plan / Small Business Participation Commitment Document

Offerors shall submit a Small Business Utilization Plan (if required - see FAR 52.219-9) and Small Business Participation Commitment Document (see Attachment 8) detailing their anticipated small business inclusion for this procurement to include selection, integration and evaluation processes. While the SDA will not mandate specific percentage goals by individual small business type, Offerors must meet the minimum quantitative requirement of small business participation which is five percent (5) of the total proposed contract value (to include options).

Offerors shall detail planned small business contribution by type (Woman-Owned, Disadvantaged, Veteran-Owned, Service Disabled, etc.) and by type of work expected to be performed (administrative, engineering, assembly, test and evaluation, modeling and simulation, etc.). The SDA expects that significant engineering and technical elements of this procurement shall be contributed by other than traditional large aerospace and defense Contractors, including but not limited to new and emerging small, commercial bus, and/or payload providers. Their specific, technical inclusion and participation will contribute significantly to the Offeror’s overall proposal. Simply including a standard corporate Small Business Plan without specific tailoring to T0 WFOV requirements will be considered a significant weakness in the Offeror’s approach.

Volume III – Experience and Past Performance (No page limit)

1. Executive Summary

The Offeror should introduce the current and past performance citations and résumés of key personnel that are included in this volume. The Offeror should clearly state why they have chosen both the efforts and the staff they believe best proves their ability to design, develop and deliver the SVs and key mission sensors requested by the SDA. Each citation and each résumé should provide specific, measurable validation of the Offeror’s rationale and document successful current and past performance directly relevant to the current solicitation. The SDA expects direct correlation between the current and past performance citations and the résumés submitted. Significant disconnects between the efforts cited and the personnel identified could be grounds for elimination from further consideration for award.

2. Recent, Relevant Current and Past Performance

For no less than two (2) and up to five (5) separate efforts by the prime and at least one (1) and up to three (3) separate efforts for each major Subcontractor, the Offeror should clearly demonstrate their ability to satisfy the totality of SDA’s T0 WFOV requirements. Offerors are free to define “major” based on their proposed solution but should provide rationale for such designation. For each example, the Offeror should identify:

a) Customer (Name, domestic or foreign, phone, email, affiliation)

b) Scope to include number of SVs/payloads/systems/subsystems/components to be delivered

c) Place of performance, period of performance (must be within last five (5) years), contract/agreement type

d) Bid cost/price, currently invoiced cost/price, Estimate at Completion with rationale for any variance greater than ten (10) percent of original bid cost/price

e) Specific rationale for effort selection and detailed justification of relevance

Offerors are highly encouraged to use key graphics to convey important elements of their current and past performance. OV-1 level graphics depicting numbers and locations of SVs, Gantt charts showing key program milestones planned and achieved, Earned Value charts (if applicable) showing estimates and current status, etc., are all substantially more valuable to the Government for relevance evaluation purposes than detailed written explanations. These artifacts should be taken directly from the efforts cited and be suitable for use by the SDA in conjunction with interviews which may be conducted with the customers named in each citation.

3. Personnel Résumés (Not to Exceed Two (2) Pages Each)

The Offeror should identify the key personnel planned to be assigned to this program. Résumés should be in bullet format and include:

a) Summary statement highlighting experience and expertise

b) Current role with the Offeror to include current assignments/programs

c) Planned role within the T0 WFOV program

d) Education (Academic and military if applicable)

e) Military or Government space-related experience (if any)

f) Commercial sector space-related experience (if any)

g) Traditional aerospace/defense Contractor space-related experience (if any)

h) Anticipated percentage to be assigned to this program

i) Signed statement agreeing to support the SDA T0 WFOV program if awarded

Proposed staff members not currently employed by the Offeror may be included as appropriate.

In those cases, the Offeror shall include signed contingent offer letters. These letters shall be signed by both the Offeror and the proposed staff member and should state the willingness of the proposed staff member to join the Offeror in support of the T0 WFOV program if awarded.

4. Personnel / Performance Matrix

Offerors should compare and contrast their submitted current and past performance as well as personnel résumés against the SDA T0 WFOV requirements to validate corporate and individual experience and expertise thereby giving the SDA confidence in the Offeror’s probability of success. Format for this comparison is entirely up to the Offeror but this section of the proposal should stand alone for evaluation.

Appendix A - Organizational Conflict of Interest Plan (No page limit)

IAW FAR 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest, the Contracting Officer has analyzed the planned acquisition and determined that no known actual or potential Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) situations exist with respect to this solicitation.

The Offeror shall perform its own OCI analysis and submit the results of that analysis as part of its proposal. Specifically, the Offeror shall analyze the planned acquisition for actual or potential OCI situations associated with its, or any of its teammate’s or subcontractor’s, performance under any contract it, or any of its teammates or subcontractors, has been or may be awarded by any federal agency or other entity. The Offeror shall describe in detail the methodology used to identify actual or potential OCI issues. If the Offeror identifies any actual or potential OCI with respect to its, or its subcontractor’s or teammate’s, performance, the Offeror shall provide an OCI Mitigation Plan to be incorporated as an attachment to any resulting contract. Any proposed avoidance or mitigation techniques shall be consistent with FAR 9.5 and the most recent decisions of the Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

If an award is made to the Offeror, the resulting contract may include an organizational conflict of interest limitation applicable to subsequent Government work, at either a prime contract level, at any subcontract tier, or both. During evaluation of proposals, the Government may, after discussions with the Offeror and consideration of ways to mitigate or avoid identified actual or potential conflicts of interest, insert a clause or term and condition in the resulting contract that disqualifies the Offeror from further consideration for award of future contracts.

Resolution of OCI issues are treated in a manner similar to the Contracting Officer’s contractor responsibility determination. Any communications necessary to resolve OCI issues shall not be considered discussions. As such, the Contracting Officer may issue Evaluation Notices to the Offeror prior to any decision to enter into discussions in order to resolve questions or concerns with the Offeror’s OCI analysis or mitigation plan.

Appendix A - Organizational Conflict of Interest Plan (No page limit)