Attachment 5 Ordering Guide Rev3.pdf

Attachment 5 Orbital Services Program-4 (OSP-4)

Ordering Guide

Basic: 29 July 2019

Rev 1: 6 December 2020

Rev 2: 8 November 2021

Rev 3: 13 Dec 2022

1. Purpose This Ordering Guide establishes procedures for using the Orbital Services Program-4

(OSP-4) Multiple Award Contract- Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (MAC IDIQ). The procedures for selecting contractors for order awards under OSP-4 are governed by FAR 16.505 and supplements. Unless otherwise specified in a Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR), the following defines ordering instructions and the process of tailoring evaluation criteria to meet unique mission requirements.

2. General Information Ordering Period. OSP-4 has a nine (9) year ordering period, ending 10 Oct 2028.

Performance under Task Orders (TO) or associated options may extend beyond the ordering period. However, a TO may not have a period of performance that extends beyond 11 years from the date of award of the basic contract.

The contract allows for both on-ramps and off-ramps throughout the ordering period. In order to preserve, stimulate or enhance the OSP-4 competition pool, the Government will reopen the original OSP-4 solicitation on a yearly basis to on-ramp new IDIQ contract Offerors to the vendor pool. On-Ramps will utilize the same basis for award as the Basic RFP. In contrast, the Government may utilize off-ramps to remove a contractor from the vendor pool if the contractor: submits a written request to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) to be removed; has a TO terminated for cause; or if the contractor ceases business operations.

Order Limitations. All qualifying Offerors will be awarded $50,000 to satisfy OSP-4’s minimum order, the Launch Service User Guide (LSUG). The Government does not guarantee orders beyond this minimum. Performance cannot be authorized except by a TO issued by the PCO. OSP-4 has a ceiling of $986,000,000. The ceiling will be monitored by the Space Systems Command (SSC). Once the ceiling is reached, no new TOs, modifications, or options shall be awarded or exercised.

Task Orders. Orders shall be issued on a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) basis. The Contract

Line Item Number (CLIN) structure on each order will reflect the FFP for each line item, and must strictly follow the CLIN structure outlined in the IDIQ contract.

Decision Authority. The task order decision authority will be the SSC/Launch

Enterprise director, unless delegated.

Small Business Set-Asides. In addition to the Small Business procedures found under FAR 19 and supplements, the following procedures will be used for determining the applicability of Small Business Set-Asides. These procedures only apply when two or more Small Businesses are on the OSP-4 basic IDIQ contract.

The PCO may perform market research to determine if there is a reasonable expectation of at least two OSP-4 IDIQ contract small business concerns submitting proposals. If market research reveals there is a reasonable expectation that two or more small business concerns will propose, then the TO will be a Small Business Set- Aside competed only among those small businesses. If the contracting officer receives no acceptable offers, then the FOPR shall be withdrawn. If the requirement is still valid the FOPR shall be resolicited on an unrestricted basis to the entire pool of OSP-4 IDIQ contract awardees.

3. Ordering Procedures – Design, Integration, & Launch Services (CLIN 0001) Proposal Process. The PCO will issue a FOPR to all prime contractors, unless a fair opportunity exception exists (see FAR 16.505(b)(2)). Any questions pertaining to the FOPR package shall be submitted to the PCO within three (3) business days of FOPR issuance date.

The FOPR (Appendix A) will include, at a minimum, the following information:

1. Tracking number (assigned by PCO)

2. Issuance date

3. Proposal due date

4. Proposal validity date

5. PCO E-mail address/mailing address of Government contracting office

6. Instructions to Offerors

7. Evaluation criteria

8. Mission Requirements Document

FOPR Tailoring. The FOPR will need to be tailored for each mission to select the appropriate evaluation criteria. Each FOPR will have some or all of the following evaluation criteria depending on the unique requirements for each mission. The Offerors will only be evaluated on the criteria listed in the FOPR. This flexible methodology assesses mission requirements using select evaluation factors to determine which proposal is most advantageous to the Government.

Technical (Factor 1)

Subfactor 1: Capability Gate Element 1: Launch Solution Maturity Element 2: Mass-to-Orbit

Subfactor 2: Mission Accomplishment Element 1: Mission Execution Element 2: Payload Interface Element 3: Launch Authority Element 4: Mission Assurance Process Element 5: Payload Integration

Element 6: Analysis Studies Past Performance (Factor 2) Price (Factor 3)

Technical (Factor 1)

3.2.1.1. Subfactor 1: Capability Gate. The purpose of this subfactor is to validate whether or not the Offeror’s Launch Solution (LS) meets the minimum requirements (i.e., the gate); this includes Element 1 and Element 2. The Government will not evaluate a proposal further if an Offeror does not meet the minimum requirements. The Offeror will be notified the reason(s) the Government did not consider their proposal, no further action will be taken.

3.2.1.2. Subfactor 2: Mission Accomplishment. In this section, the Government’s focus is assessing the Offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the mission and adhere to requirements. These requirements are found in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), Mission Requirements Document (MRD), Small Launch Performance Requirements Document (SLPRD), and Small Launch Interface Specification (SLIS).

Past Performance (Factor 2). The primary purpose of past performance evaluations is to ensure the contractor is held accountable for its performance. Past performance evaluations provide a record of the contractor’s performance, both positive and negative. Contractors who receive a marginal or worse Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) rating or a negative Past Performance Questionnaire for the performance on a current and/or previous effort may be impacted adversely.

Price (Factor 3). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b). The sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices will be the Total Proposed Price (TPP), which will be used to calculate the Government’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

Evaluation Process. Orders will be evaluated on a best value tradeoff basis, relative importance of factors and subfactors shall be identified in each FOPR, based on mission needs. The FOPR will identify the specific process for each mission. The Government’s evaluation team consisting of the PCO, Buyer, program technical team members, and/or advisors will evaluate each contractor’s proposal. Solicitations are issued with the anticipation of adequate price competition, therefore certified cost and pricing data is not required. However, if adequate price competition does not exist, the Government reserves the right to request other than certified cost or pricing data. Upon award of a task order, all Offerors may, but are not required to, request a debriefing concerning the evaluation of their proposal.

Best Value Tradeoff. The expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. It represents the most advantageous tradeoff between price, past performance and technical. Best value is determined based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria including strengths.

4. Ordering Procedures – Mission Assurance (CLIN 0003) The purpose of the Mission Assurance (MA) is to support the Government’s discipline application of proven scientific, engineering, quality, and program management principles toward the goal of achieving mission success.

5. Ordering Procedures – Mission Analysis Study (CLIN 0005) The purpose of a Mission Analysis Study (MAS) is to provide supplemental analysis on a specific mission (i.e., study to address an issue that arises during the execution of a mission). The Government will not compete a MAS; the contractor who holds the active TO in which supplemental analysis is required will be awarded the study. The Government’s solicitation may request additional information to determine fair and reasonableness. The Government will complete and provide Appendix B – Mission Analysis Study to the contractor. The contractor shall adhere to Appendix B instructions to produce the study.

6. Ordering Procedures – Concept Analysis Study (CLIN 0007) The purpose of a Concept Analysis Study (CAS) is to develop or explore the feasibility of a new concept, design, or technical capability. The Government will compete a CAS among the contractors in the OSP-4 vendor pool. The CAS will be evaluated against the Evaluation Criteria listed in Appendix A – FOPR Template.

7. Ordering Procedures – GFP Closeout Services (CLIN 0009) The purpose of the GFP Closeout Services is to return all GFP utilized during mission execution back to the Government. The Government’s solicitation may request additional information to determine fair and reasonableness.

8. Ordering Procedures – Hardware Services (CLIN 0011) The purpose of Hardware Services is to design, produce, and/or acquire hardware items and equipment to support mission requirements. The contractor who holds the active TO in which hardware items are required will be awarded the hardware services. The Government’s solicitation may request additional information to determine fair and reasonableness.

Appendices A – FOPR Template

OSP-4 FOPR

Template_13 Dec 22.d B – Mission Analysis Study

Mission Analysis Study

Template Instructions: The FOPR provides Sections L&M equivalent information and will need to be tailored for each mission. Complete the highlighted sections with appropriate information. If an element (i.e., evaluation criteria) will not be used, keep the element header and state “This element will not be used” to maintain paragraph numbering.

<Insert mission name>

Ordering Guide – Appendix A Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR)

FOPR Tracking Number: <Insert internal FOPR/IDIQ tracking number> Issuance Date: <Insert date of issuance> Proposal Due Date: <Insert due date>

1.0 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1.1 General Instructions

1.1.1 This is a competitive fair opportunity selection conducted in accordance with (IAW)

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 16.505(b)(1). Orders placed under FAR 16.505 Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts are not source selections and are not subject to FAR 15.3 procedures. Accordingly, issuance of an order under this Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR), should an award be made, shall follow the ordering procedures outlined in FAR 16.505, as supplemented.

1.1.2 The proposal submitted in response to this FOPR must be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Orbital Services Program-4 (OSP-4) multiple award Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract, requirements as stated in the FOPR and attachments, the Performance Work Statement (PWS), and the Mission Requirements Document (MRD). Non-conformance with these instructions may result in rejection of the proposal or an unfavorable proposal evaluation or being deemed ineligible for award.

1.1.3 The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but, rather, shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements.

Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities or experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal.

1.1.4 The proposal validity date shall be specified, and the proposal shall be valid for at least 180 days after date of submission. IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the Offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

1.2 General Information

1.2.1 Point of Contact. The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), <Insert Name>, is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the PCO at <Insert Email> or <Insert Number>. Written questions or concerns regarding this FOPR may be sent to the PCO at the address located on the front page of the model contract/solicitation.

1.2.2 Debriefings. The PCO will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range if a competitive range is established, whereupon they may request and receive a pre-award debriefing IAW FAR 15.505. In addition, the PCO will notify unsuccessful Offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision IAW FAR

15.506. Upon such notification, unsuccessful Offerors may request and receive a post-award debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request IAW the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

1.2.3 Discrepancies. If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the PCO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the PCO to consider as related to the omission or error.

1.2.4 Communication. Exchanges of source selection information between Government and

Offerors will be controlled by the PCO. Email may be used to transmit such information to Offerors only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104” in the Subject line.

1.2.5 Classified Information. If classified information is provided as part of the proposal response, it shall be provided electronically via appropriate communication channels and as a single classified addendum. No bound, hard copies will be required. The electronic classified addendum shall be submitted IAW the Department of Defense (DoD) 5220.22M and the DD Form 254. Each entry in the classified addendum shall be referenced to the proposal volume, Factor/Sub-factor, page number, and paragraph number to which it applies. Similarly, a reference shall be placed in the unclassified volume where the classified insert applies, giving the page and paragraph numbers within the addendum where it can be found. Pages in a classified addendum will be included in the page count for the applicable volume. For example, if the unclassified section is one-half page and the classified section is one-half page, they will be evaluated as a single page with regard to the page count, not as two pages.

1.2.6 Use of Non-Government Advisors. 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 for review and analysis.

Technical and price data submitted to the Government may be released to non-Government advisors working for companies identified in Table 1.2.6-1, Non-Government Advisors.

Any objection to disclosure of a portion of the proposal shall be provided in writing via email to the PCO within 10 calendar days of FOPR issuance and shall include a detailed statement of the basis for the objection and include the specific portions of the proposal the Offeror objects to disclosure to non-Government advisors.

Table 1.2.6-1: Non-Government Advisors

TBD

1.3 Proposal Preparation

1.3.1 Organization. The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Table 1.3.1-1, Proposal Organization, below and submit one hard and electronic copy. The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified.

Table 1.3.1-1 – Proposal Organization

Volume Title Subfactor(s) Elements Page Limit

I Executive Summary

N/A N/A 2

II

Technical (Factor 1)

Subfactor 1:

Capability Gate

Element 1: Launch Solution Maturity

Up to 3 page per Spacelift System

(SS) type Element 2: Mass-to-

Orbit Up to 3 pages per launch

Subfactor 2: Mission Accomplishment

Element 1: Mission Execution

Unlimited

Element 2: Payload Interface

Up to 2 pages per Space Vehicle

(SV)

Element 3:

Launch Authority

Element 4:

Mission Assurance

Process

Element 5:

Payload Manifest

Table 1.3.1-1 – Proposal Organization

Volume Title Subfactor(s) Elements Page Limit

Element 6: Concept Analysis Study

III

Past

Performance (Factor 2)

N/A N/A 2

IV Price (Factor 3) N/A N/A Unlimited

V Contract

Documentation N/A N/A Unlimited

1.3.2 Page Limitations. Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal, and excess paper copies will be shredded. If the Government issues Interchange Notices (IN) for discussions, page limitations may be placed on responses to IN. The specified page limits for IN responses will be identified in the letters sent along with the IN to the Offerors.

Unless otherwise specified, each page shall be counted except the following: cover/title pages, compliance matrix, cross-reference matrix, table of contents, lists of figures and tables, tabs, glossaries, and list of acronyms. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

1.3.3 Page Size and Format. A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 by 11 inches (in.), not including foldouts. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 point using Times New Roman font type. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 in. margins on the top and bottom and ¾ in. side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page size and format restrictions shall also apply to IN responses.

Legible tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible and shall not exceed 11 by 17 in. in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and each face of the foldout containing information will be counted as a single page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, and figures, not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs, and figures, the text may be in the Offeror’s preferred format.

1.3.4 Cross-Referencing. To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. However, cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

1.3.5 Indexing. Include a master Table of Contents (TOC) of the entire proposal in Volume I –

Executive Summary. Each volume shall contain a more detailed TOC to delineate the contents within that volume. A TOC does not count against page limitations. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

1.3.6 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used and an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

1.3.7 Binding and Labeling. This requirement isn’t applicable with electronic copies.

1.3.8 Electronic Offers. One electronic copy of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2010/2016, MS Office Excel 2010/2016, MS Office Project 2010/2016, and MS Office Power Point 2010/2016, as applicable. Hypertext links shall be used to facilitate navigation within the document. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including factors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. All Excel files shall keep working formulas instead of pasted values, when applicable, for calculation logic. Additionally, the Offeror shall submit a second electronic copy of the proposal in Adobe PDF format to assist in the verification of compliance with page count, margins, and other FOPR requirements. In the case of a conflict between the PDF and Word copy, the PDF will be considered the correct version. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, appendices, annexes, and attachments, if any.

1.3.9 Distribution The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted by DOD Safe

(safe.apps.mil) to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist as identified below:

Contracting Officer: Insert PCO

Contracting Specialist: Insert CS In order to upload their proposal electronically to the DoD SAFE site, the Offeror must request a drop-off upload link. Requests for an upload link shall be received between Insert Date/Time. Proposals shall be uploaded by the proposal due date Insert Date/Time

1.3.10 Volume Content

1.3.10.1 Volume I – Executive Summary. The purpose of the Executive Summary Volume is to provide a complete overview of the Offeror’s proposal to include the Proposal Correlation Matrix, see para. 1.3.10.1.1. below. The Executive Summary Volume will not be evaluated, scored, or used to clarify other discrepant information in other volumes. Any summary material presented in the Executive Summary Volume will not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal. Do not include cost information.

1.3.10.1.1 Proposal Correlation Matrix. The Offeror shall complete the FOPR Proposal

Correlation Matrix, Table 1.3.10.1.1-1. The matrix identifies which section of the Offeror’s proposal addresses each particular evaluation criteria. The FOPR Proposal Correlation Matrix shall not contain informational notes, as the content is not evaluated and the Technical Volume provides ample opportunity for discussion and description of the Offeror's approach for evaluation. The FOPR Proposal Correlation Matrix has no page limitation and does not count against the Executive Summary Volume page limit.

Table 1.3.10.1.1-1 – FOPR Proposal Correlation Matrix

Element Instructions to Offerors

Evaluation Criteria

MRD

Proposal Technical

Paragraph(s)* Launch Solution Maturity 1.4.1.1 2.4.1.1 2.4.1 Mass-to-Orbit 1.4.1.2 2.4.1.2 3.2 Mission Execution 1.4.2.1 2.4.2.1 2.4.2 Payload Interface 1.4.2.2 2.4.2.2 3.4.3 Launch Authority 1.4.2.3 2.4.2.3 N/A Mission Assurance Process 1.4.2.4 2.4.2.4 N/A Payload Manifest 1.4.2.5 2.4.2.5 3.1 Concept Analysis Study 1.4.2.6 2.4.2.6 N/A Past Performance 1.5.1 2.5.1 N/A

*To be completed by Offeror

1.3.10.2 Volume II – Technical. The Technical Volume shall be specific, detailed, credible, and provide all the necessary information. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. The Offeror’s responses will be evaluated against the applicable Evaluation Criteria listed in section 2 of this FOPR. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By submitting a proposal, the Offeror is representing that they will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary to state this in the Offeror’s proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

1.3.10.3 Volume III – Past Performance. The purpose of this volume is to consider the Offeror’s performance on previous relevant efforts. Past performance evaluations provide a record of the contractor’s performance, both positive and negative.

1.3.10.4 Volume IV – Price. The Offeror shall submit their proposed prices for all CLINs and sum the CLIN prices for the Total Proposed Price (TPP).

1.3.10.5 Volume V – Contract Documentation. The purpose of this volume is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file.

The Offeror’s proposal shall include one (1) signed and dated copy of the Standard Form (SF) 1449, delivered with the SF1449 Continuation pages, the Addendum, the Contract Documents, and Exhibits and Attachments. The original shall be clearly marked and shall be provided without any punched holes. The SF1449 shall not have any proprietary markings. Fill in all blanks in the Solicitation. Additionally, the Offeror’s proposal shall include all the forms required under Contractor Responsibility.

1.4 Volume II – Technical (Factor 1)

1.4.1 Subfactor 1: Capability Gate. An Offeror’s proposal narrative used to substantiate data (i.e., analysis, test results) in an “evidence narrative”. The Government will not evaluate a proposal further if an Offeror does not meet the minimum requirements. The Offeror will be notified the reason(s) the Government did not consider their proposal, no further action will be taken.

1.4.1.1 Element 1: Launch Solution Maturity. The Offeror shall complete the Orbital Flight

History below, table 1.4.1.1-1, to demonstrate the proposed Launch Solution (LS) meets the orbital flight history requirement of X successful orbital launch(es)*. The Offeror shall substantiate their response by submitting an evidence narrative that expands upon the information provided in the table. The LS must have achieved an accurate orbital insertion (± 10 nmi (±18.5 km) for apogee and perigee, ± 0.2 degrees inclination) and a successful spacecraft separation on a previous mission using the same launch vehicle (LV) configuration proposed for this mission. The LS should not require performance improvements, or development work, to successfully accomplish the mission, except development work related to ODMSP requirement compliance. The Offeror shall substantiate their response by submitting an evidence narrative that expands upon the information provided in the table. The Offeror shall list any failures that have occurred since the Offeror’s last successful launch and describe vehicle configuration root cause analysis and corrective actions. If an Offeror experiences a launch related anomaly at any time between proposal submission and contract award, it is required to immediately notify the PCO. The Government has the right to request additional data regarding the incident.

*A successful orbital launch is defined as one in which the Launch Service Contractor (LSC) has inserted the space vehicle(s) into the required orbit without exceeding the bounds of the predicted launch environments (suborbital flight history is not applicable).

1.4.1.2 Element 2: Mass-to-Orbit. The Offeror shall identify and describe the configuration baseline of the LS proposed to meet the requirements of the solicitation. The Offeror shall specify whether the launch solution proposed is offered as a dedicated or primary (when allowed by the MRD) launch solution. The Offeror shall demonstrate the proposed LS meets the mass-to-orbit requirement(s) listed in the MRD from the proposed range.

The Offeror shall provide the mass-to-orbit capability and describe the analysis and

Table 1.4.1.1-1 – Orbital Flight History

Mission Nomenclature

Vehicle Configuration

Mission Date

Target Orbit (Perigee/Apogee/

Inclination)

Achieved Orbit (Perigee/Apogee/

Inclination) Anomalies

Ex. AFSPC-

Candlestick – Block 4.1

10 Oct 17 LEO (500 km/500 km/28.5) LEO (490 km/500 km/28.49)

(1) Temporary loss of telemetry data;

(2) Premature engine shutdown methodology it used to calculate the mass-to-orbit capability. The analysis and methodology shall be based on either demonstrated flight performance or engineering data. The Offeror shall state the launch origination point (e.g., Eastern/Western Range, Air Launched) used for their calculation.

1.4.2 Subfactor 2: Mission Accomplishment. The Government may identify, or the Offeror may nominate strengths under this Subfactor for Government consideration. To nominate a strength, the Offeror shall: (1) Provide a title for and description of the nominated strength;

(2) Identify the specific advantage to the Government; and (3) Identify the PWS and/or MRD change(s) required to implement this strength as a contractual requirement.

1.4.2.1 Element 1: Mission Execution. Provide an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and IMS dictionary as described below. The ILC for this mission is [Insert timeline].

Integrated Master Schedule: The Offeror shall provide an IMS based on the schedule requirements (e.g., ILC) listed in the MRD. The IMS shall:

1. Include the required activities to execute the PWS and satisfy the MRD requirements

2. Include and identify any developmental work required to meet the requirements of the solicitation

3. Logically link task predecessor/successor relationships

4. Identify the critical path

5. Correlate to the IMS dictionary using a common numbering system

IMS Dictionary: The Offeror shall develop an IMS Dictionary to describe each task in detail. If the IMS Dictionary makes reference to key internal documents to provide this description, the offeror must include a copy of the referenced document. The IMS Dictionary shall:

1. Correlate to each IMS task by using a common numbering system

2. Not contain information beyond the scope of defining each IMS task

1.4.2.2 Element 2: Payload Interface. The Offeror shall demonstrate how the proposed LS meets the payload interface requirements listed below.

Insert list of SLIS/SLPRD

1.4.2.3 Element 3: Launch Authority. The Offeror shall provide their approach for coordinating with the cognizant Launch Authority to verify their LS complies with AFSPCMAN 91- 710 (or equivalent document specified by the proposed range). The Offeror shall identify their approach for gaining Launch Authority approval of range safety requirements tailoring including deviations and/or equivalent levels of safety.

1.4.2.4 Element 4: Mission Assurance Process. The Offeror shall describe its proposed mission assurance process including governing documents and products to be generated from launch system development through flight. The Offeror shall describe how it will integrate the Government into the Offeror’s mission assurance processes and products as applied to the mission assurance category (insert cat) requirements detailed in the PWS.

1.4.2.5 Element 5: Payload Manifest. The Offeror shall demonstrate the proposed LS can integrate all of the payloads listed in the MRD.

1.4.2.6 Element 6: Concept Analysis Study. The Offeror shall provide a ‘White Paper’ describing their approach (e.g., assumptions, methodology, analysis, etc.) to meeting the requirements defined in Appendix A – CAS Statement of Work (SOW).

1.5 Volume III – Past Performance Factor (Factor 2)

1.5.1 Past Performance. The Offeror shall provide the following information related to up to 5 of its recent and most relevant efforts. A recent effort is one which was in progress or completed within the 30 month period prior to proposal due date. A relevant effort is an orbital or suborbital launch service for a commercial or government customer. For the purpose of identifying the most relevant efforts, efforts for government customers are more relevant than efforts for commercial customers; orbital launch services are more relevant than suborbital launches; and launch services with comparable mission assurance review and data deliverable requirements are more relevant than those without. Any Offeror who has not been awarded a recent and relevant effort shall state “No previous record of performance exists” and does not need to provide any further information.

Contract Number Date of Award and/or Launch Government/Commercial Customer Mission Manager’s Name and Contact

Information Mission Status and/or Results

The Offeror shall forward the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) at Appendix F to each Customer Mission Manager with request to complete the PPQ as completely as possible and forward to the PCO by the proposal due date. By providing the Mission Manager Contact Information, the Offeror consents to the government team discussing the Offeror’s Past Performance with the Mission Manager. The government team may also consult the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) for additional information on recent and relevant efforts by the Offeror.

1.6 Volume IV – Price Factor (Factor 3)

1.6.1 General Instructions: The Offeror shall include a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Price Volume in accordance with CLIN 000X of the basic OSP-4 contract. All dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. The Offeror shall not include price information in the Technical Volume of the proposal; the inclusion of price information in the Technical Volume may invalidate the proposal. The Offeror, when completing Table 1.6.4-1 shall fill in the same price for CLINs as the SF 1449 Continuation pages. The Government will compare the information the Offeror provides in the Model Contract to the information provided in the Price Volume. If any inconsistency exists between the Model Contract and the Price Volume, the Government reserves the right to determine that the Model Contract will take precedence.

1.6.2 Price Reasonableness: The content requested in the pricing volume is necessary to facilitate

Government’s price reasonableness determination. The Government reserves the right to request additional pricing information if additional information becomes necessary to document price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and FAR 15.403-3(a).

The Offeror is responsible for ensuring the credibility of the proposed price. Insufficient details to support the determination of reasonableness may exclude the Offeror’s proposal from consideration for award; the burden of proof rests with the Offeror. In conducting the reasonableness analysis the Government will use one or more of the analysis techniques described in, but not limited to, FAR 15.404-1.

1.6.3 Government Furnished Property (GFP) The Government plans to provide the items listed in Appendix B of this FOPR at the Offeror’s request. The Government eliminates any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror’s proposed use of GFP by requiring the Offeror to add the GFP Cost Offsets at Appendix B, and/or GFP Rental Equivalency from Table 1.6.3.1-1 to the Offeror’s proposed prices in order to develop a Total Evaluated Price. If the Offeror requests any GFP items from Appendix B, the Offeror shall complete the Table in Appendix B by identifying the items requested, the quantity, and the total cost offset and insert the sum of all GFP Cost Offsets in the Total Proposed Price table 1.6.4-1.

1.6.3.1 If the Offeror requires the use of GFP other than that specified in Appendix B, the Offeror shall complete and submit Appendix C, Government Property, IAW procedures and definitions detailed in DFARS 245.103-72 and 245.201-70. For more information, see the Department of Defense Procurement Toolbox at:

http://www.dodprocurementtoolbox.org/site/detail/id/26. Additionally, the Offeror shall complete Table 1.6.3.1-1 using the acquisition cost information from Appendix C and the rental equivalency method described in FAR 52.245-9(e)(2) as laid out below:

• In Column (A), identify the requested GFP

• In Column (B), identify the acquisition cost from Appendix C and list the dollar value

• In Column (C), multiply column (B) by 2% (round to the nearest dollar) to determine the monthly acquisition cost of the item and list the dollar value

• In Column (D), divide column (C) by 720 to determine the hourly rental rate (round to the nearest cents) and list the dollar value

• In Column (E), propose the rental time required (round to the nearest whole hour) and list the value; “rental time” is defined in FAR 52.245-9(a)

• In Column (F), multiply column (D) by (E) (round to the nearest dollar) to determine the total rental charge for the requested item and list the dollar value

• Add the sum of Rental Charges per mission in Column (F), insert the sum in Table

1.6.4.1 Total Proposed Price in the row labeled Rental Equivalency

Table 1.6.3.1-1: Rental Equivalency for Government Furnished Property Use

(A) Item

Requested

(B) Acquisition

Cost

(C) Monthly

Acquisition Cost (Multiply B *2%)

(D) Hourly Rental

Rate (Divide C by 720)

(E) Rental

Time (hrs)

(F) Rental Charge (Multiply D*E)

Item A $100,000 $2,000 $2.78 400 $1,112

Item B $77,777 $1,556 $2.16 250 $540

Sum of Rental Charges for All GFP Items:

(Insert Sum into Table 1.6.4-1)

$1,652

1.6.4 Total Proposed Price (TPP): The Offeror shall fill in the table below. The TPP is the summation of the CLINs listed below:

Table 1.6.4-1 – Total Proposed Price CLIN Description Qty/Unit FFP

0001 Design, Integration, and Launch Services (DILS)

1 Launch Service $ Offeror Fill In

0002 DILS Data and Reports As required NSP 0003 Mission Assurance (MA) 1 Mission Assurance $ Offeror Fill In 0004 MA Data and Reports As required NSP GFP (From Appendix B)

Cost Offsets N/A $ Offeror Fill In

GFP (From Table 1.6.3.1-1

Rental Equivalency N/A $ Offeror Fill In

TOTAL PROPOSED PRICE $ Offeror Fill In

1.7 Volume V – Contract Documentation

1.7.1 General Instructions for Model Contract: The Offeror shall complete blocks 17a, 24, 30a, 30b, and 30c on the SF 1449 –Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items. For block 17a, enter the respective cage code, address, and telephone number. For block 24, enter the total price, including all options. For block 30a, include the signature of an authorized representative for the corporation. For block 30b, type or print the name and title of signer. For block 30c, enter the date of signature. Signature by the Offeror on the SF1449 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept. The SF 1449 solicitation/contract form shall be electronically submitted as part of the proposal.

Proposals without signature may warrant a rejection of the proposal submittal. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representation and certifications, and technical requirements. Therefore, any tailoring to the solicitation is not allowed and may warrant a rejection of the proposal.

1.7.2 CLIN Prices: The Offeror shall fill-in prices for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) except for the Data & Reports CLINs, as they are not separately priced. The CLIN definitions and prices section of the SF 1449 continuation pages is a required submittal of the Offeror’s proposal. Signature by the Offeror on the SF 1449 constitutes an offer consistent with the CLIN fill-ins. All dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest dollar.

1.7.3 CLIN Launch Configuration: The Offeror shall fill in the launch configuration under the applicable CLIN description section of the SF 1449. The launch configuration shall be consistent with the configuration baseline identified under Subfactor 1, Element 2 Mass to Orbit.

1.7.4 GFP: For each item of GFP requested, the “Use As Is” column shall be filled in as “true.”

Failure to complete each applicable data field in Appendix C may render the Offeror non-responsive and un-awardable. For each item of GFP requested, the Offeror shall provide a written authorization of availability from the cognizant Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO). GFP proposed without an authorization from the cognizant ACO may render the Offeror non-responsive and un-awardable.

1.7.5 Subcontracting Plan: Other than Small Business (OTSB) Offerors shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219-9.

1.7.6 Contractor Responsibility. Failure to meet the requirements below may result in the Offeror being determined ineligible for award.

1.7.6.1 Financial Resources. IAW with FAR 9.104-1(a) a contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. The Offeror shall fill out highlighted portions of SF-1407 Pre-award Survey of Prospective Contractor (Financial Capability), Appendix D, to help determine adequate financial resources.

1.7.6.2 U.S Commercial Provider, IAW FAR 9.104-1(g), for purposes of this award the Offeror must comply with the U.S Commercial Provider definition IAW Commercial Space Act of 1998, Title II Public Law 105-303.

1.7.6.2.1 The Offeror shall provide supporting documentation and signed statement attesting to how the Offeror meets the requirements of a U.S Commercial Provider.

1.7.6.2.2 The Offeror shall complete all portions of SF-328 Certificate Pertaining To Foreign

Interest, Appendix E.

2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

2.1 Basis of Award. The award will be made in accordance with the basic contract ordering procedures and the procedures specified in the FOPR, to the Offeror whose proposal results in the best value tradeoff to the Government. Relative importance of factors are identified below; the importance of Past Performance (Factor 2) will be determined on a Task Order basis. An order may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the FOPR’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the FOPR instructions) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government.

Relative Importance – Insert relative of Importance based on mission requirements:

1. Example: Technical (Factor 1) is more important than Past Performance (Factor 2).

Technical and Past Performance (Factor 1 and Factor 2) when combined are significantly more important than Price (Factor 3).

2.2 Interchanges. Interchanges are fluid interaction(s) between the PCO and the Offerors that may address any aspect of the proposal and may or may not be documented in real time. The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting interchanges. Therefore, each offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to hold interchanges using Interchange Notices (INs) if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offeror responses to INs will be considered in making the order selection decision. Any proposal revisions are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. Interchanges may be conducted with one, some, or all Offerors as the Government is not required to conduct interchanges with any or all Offerors responding to this FOPR.

2.3 Decision Authority. The Decision Authority will select the best submission that conforms to the FOPR requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the submission instructions), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who is best suited to fulfill the Space Force requirements. This process may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Decision Authority reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

2.4 Volume II – Technical (Factor 1) Ratings

2.4.1 Subfactor 1: Capability Gate. The Government will assign one of the ratings described in

Table 2.4.1-1 below:

Table 2.4.1-1 – Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.4.1.1 Element 1: Launch Solution Maturity. The Government will evaluate whether the

Offeror’s proposed LS meets the orbital flight history requirement of X successful orbital launches and whether the evidence narrative is technically sound.

2.4.1.2 Element 2: Mass-to-Orbit. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed

LS meets the mass-to-orbit requirements and whether the evidence narrative is technically sound.

2.4.2 Subfactor 2: Mission Accomplishment. The Government will select one of the following rating approaches described in Table 2.4.2-1 or Table 2.4.2-2 below:

Table 2.4.2-1 – Technical Rating Color Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength*.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 2.4.2-2 Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Color Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths*, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple

Good

Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength*, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal contains one or more deficiencies**, and/or risk of performance is unacceptable, and is therefore unawardable.

When utilizing the rating approach in Table 2.4.2-2 (Combined Technical/Risk Rating), the technical risk is defined in accordance with the table below:

Table 2.4.2-3 Technical Risk Rating Method

Low Proposal may contain weakness***/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness**** or combination of weaknesses*** which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness**** or combination of weaknesses*** which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency** or a combination of significant weaknesses**** that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

*Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. In order to achieve an outstanding rating, the Government must concur the proposed strength is advantageous. Strengths will be incorporated into the contract award.

**Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. This definition applies only when utilizing the rating approaches in Tables 2.4.2-2 and 2.4.2-3.

***Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. This definition applies only when utilizing the rating approaches in Tables 2.4.2-2 and 2.4.2-3.

****Significant Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. This definition applies only when utilizing the rating approaches in Tables 2.4.2-2 and 2.4.2-3.

2.4.2.1 Element 1: Mission Execution. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed:

i. IMS and IMS dictionary encompasses the required activities to execute the proposed LS

ii. IMS demonstrates a realistic approach that supports the schedule requirements

2.4.2.2 Element 2: Payload Interface. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed LS satisfies the payload requirements and is technically sound.

2.4.2.3 Element 3: Launch Authority. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an effective approach for AFSPCMAN 91-710 (or equivalent) compliance and interfacing with the range.

2.4.2.4 Element 4: Mission Assurance Process. The Government will evaluate whether the

Offeror’s approach to supporting the Government Mission Assurance is technically sound.

2.4.2.5 Element 5: Payload Manifest. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed LS integrates all the payloads listed in the MRD.

2.4.2.6 Element 6: Concept Analysis Study. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed “White Paper’ meets the desired <select the focus area(s) from the list below> capability and whether the approach is technically sound.

Example Focus Areas – Remove this list once focus area(s) is/are selected

Ground Launch Air Launch Lessons Learned Mass-to-Orbit Launch Vehicle Performance Hardware/Software Space Vehicle Integration Responsive Spacelift Combination of these factors

2.5 Volume III – Past Performance Factor (Factor 2)

2.5.1 Past Performance. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the

Offeror’s record of performance provides confidence in the Offeror’s ability to meet future mission requirements. The Government will assign one of the ratings described in Table 2.5.1-1 below.

Table 2.5.1-1 Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s…