Attachment 7 - RMWT LEO GEPs Section L Proposal Instructions.pdf

FA240126R0003 ATTACHMENT 7

Resilient Missile Warning Tracking (RMWT) Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Ground Entry Points (GEPs)

Attachment 7 – Section L - Proposal Instructions, Conditions and

Notice to Offerors

18 September 2026

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1.1.1 SUBMISSION VIA DOD SAFE INSTRUCTIONS

1.2 PROPOSAL FORMAT INSTRUCTIONS

2 GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1 USE OF NON-GOVERNMENT ADVISORS

2.2 ALTERNATIVE OR MULTIPLE PROPOSALS

2.3 DEFINITIONS

3 PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION

3.1 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME I: TECHNICAL APPROACH

3.1.1 NARRATIVE SUMMARY

3.1.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH

3.1.3 VOLUME ORGANIZATION

3.1.4 PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE MATRIX

3.1.5 SUBFACTOR 1- UNDERSTANDING OF REQUIREMENTS

3.1.6 SUBFACTOR 2- FEASIBILITY AND COMPLETENESS OF APPROACH

3.1.7 SUBFACTOR 3- SCALABILITY

3.1.8 TECHNICAL DATA AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE RIGHTS ASSERTIONS

3.1.9 UNPRICED BASIS OF ESTIMATE (BOE)

3.2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME II: PROGRAM/PROJECT MANAGEMENT

3.2.1 NARRATIVE SUMMARY

3.2.2 PROGRAM/PROJECT MANAGEMENT

3.2.3 VOLUME ORGANIZATION

3.2.4 PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE MATRIX

3.2.5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3.2.6 SUBFACTOR 1 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT

3.2.7 CONTRACTOR WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE (CWBS) AND DICTIONARY

3.2.8 CONTRACTOR STAFFING/ORGANIZATION PLAN

3.2.9 SUBFACTOR 2 - SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT

3.2.10 SUBFACTOR 3 - SUBCONTRACTOR/TEAMMATE AND FOREIGN SUBCONTRACTOR

MANAGEMENT

3.2.11 SUBFACTOR 4- SECURITY AND CUI/CLASSIFIED DATA HANDLING

3.3 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME III: PAST PERFORMANCE

3.3.1 PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES (PPQS)

3.4 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME IV – PRICE

3.4.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.4.3 NARRATIVE AND METHODOLOGY

3.4.4 PRICING DATA REQUIREMENTS

3.4.5 ROUNDING

3.4.6 TRAVEL

3.4.7 OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODCS)

3.4.8 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY

3.5 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME V: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI)

ASSESSMENT AND PLAN

3.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME VI: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

3.7 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME VII: MODEL CONTRACT/OFFER

3.7.1 VOLUME ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.7.2 COVER LETTER

3.7.3 OFFER/SF 33

4 ATTACHMENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

This acquisition will be conducted in accordance with RFO 52.215-1, ‘Instructions to Offerors- Competitive Acquisition” wherein the Government intends to award without discussions. In addition, the Government will not accept alternate proposals. The Offeror shall submit a proposal for the Resilient Missile Warning Tracking (RMWT) Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Ground Entry Points (GEPs) in seven (7) volumes. Specific volumes with associated page limits are detailed below.

Volume/Tab Title Page Limit Volume I Technical Approach 35 pages excluding:

• Technical Data and Computer Software Rights Assertions (Unlimited pages)

• Unpriced Basis of Estimate (Attachment 7c) Volume II Program/Project Management 30 pages excluding:

• IMS (Unlimited pages)

• CWBS and Dictionary (Unlimited pages)

• Staffing Plan/Organization Structure (Not To

Exceed (NTE) 10 pages)

Volume III Past Performance

12 pages:

• NTE 4 citations; NTE 3 pages per citation (using

Section L Attach 1: Past Performance Questionnaire Template)

Volume IV Price Unlimited

Volume V OCI Assessment & Plan Unlimited

Volume VI Small Business Participation Commitment Document

(SBPCD)

5 pages

Volume VII Model Contract Unlimited Note: Classified addendums are included in the page count identified above Note: Cover pages, tables of contents, compliance tables, glossary, and acronym lists are not part of the page count

Proposals must be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail to support a thorough and efficient evaluation. Offerors are urged to not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements.

Proposals must provide convincing rationale supported by factual, verifiable information that fully demonstrates that the Offeror understands the requirements outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW) for this acquisition. Proposals must clearly describe how the Offeror intends to fully satisfy these requirements. The Offeror should assume the Government has no prior knowledge of its capabilities and experience and will base its evaluation solely upon the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal except for Past Performance.

1.1 SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

The Space Development Agency (SDA) requests that Offerors submit only electronic proposals. All Volumes along with any appendices and/or attachments shall be submitted only in a searchable .pdf format, except in cases where another format is explicitly required, and must be submitted independently by file as SDA will not accept .zip files. Offerors shall submit their responses via Department of Defense

(DoD) Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE): https://safe.apps.mil. Offerors shall submit one (1) original copy of each Volume and appendices and/or attachments to be used for any and all printing (i.e., official copy retention requirements) no later than 4 PM Eastern, 02 November 2026 for all Volumes.

Each Volume shall be submitted as a separate .pdf file. Offerors shall submit their proposal via a separate DoD SAFE submission and all files should be included in a single DoD SAFE submission.

Each file submitted must be clearly labeled with the SDA Request for Proposal (RFP) number, prime contractor organization name, prime contractor proposal title (short title recommended), and Volume number and appendix or attachment number (as appropriate). The size limit for each SAFE file transmission is 8192 MB. Proposals submitted shall be appropriately marked in accordance with DoD Instruction 5200.48 – Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), dated March 6, 2020, if CUI is present, or appropriate security classification guide if classified information is present. Within the DoD SAFE submission form, the Offeror shall check both the “Encrypt every file” check box and the “Send me an email when each recipient picks up the files” check box. The password shall be sent under separate email to the email address below with the subject line: RMWT LEO GEPs RFP Submission SAFE Request (m of n) Password and the Offeror’s organization name. The “Short note to the Recipients” field shall clearly identify the Offeror’s organization name, the proposal name, and the number of the submission.

1.1.1 SUBMISSION VIA DOD SAFE INSTRUCTIONS

SAFE Drop-Off Request: The Offeror shall request a SAFE Drop-off Request, via an email to ussf.pentagon.sda.mbx.fa240126R-006@mail.mil no later than 23 October 2026. The Offeror shall request a SAFE Drop-off Request regardless of whether or not they have access to DoD SAFE already.

The subject line shall be: RMWT LEO GEPs RFP Submission SAFE Request (m of n) and the Offeror’s organization name, where m is the request number and n the total number of requests that will be made by the Offeror. If the Offeror’s submission will exceed the DoD size limit, then they shall make the required number of requests to complete their submission. Within the body email, the Offeror shall clearly state the email address to which the Drop-off Request will be sent. The Offeror is free to request read receipts for each Drop-off Request email sent.

SAFE Drop-Off Email Response: The Offeror will receive an email with their SAFE Drop-Off Request no later than 27 October 2026. Note that this email will not come from the email address listed above.

SAFE Proposal Submission (02 November 2026): The Offeror shall upload the proposal to DoD SAFE NLT 4 PM Eastern.

Within the DoD SAFE submission form, the Offeror shall check both the “Encrypt every file” check box and the “Send me an email when each recipient picks up the files” check box. The password shall be sent under separate email to the email address above with the subject line: RMWT LEO GEPs RFP Submission SAFE Request (m of n) Password and the Offeror’s organization name. The “Short note to the Recipients” field shall clearly identify the Offeror’s organization name, the proposal name, and the number of the submission.

SDA expects Volumes I – VII to be unclassified or CUI. Should a classified Volume III, Past Performance, be required, the Offeror must contact SDA via email to ussf.pentagon.sda.mbx.fa240126R-006@mail.mil for submission instructions. Request for instructions should be received NLT 23 October 2026 to allow for timely submission. Offerors desiring to submit classified Past Performance attachments must ensure the information is appropriately classified and marked in accordance with the appropriate security classification guidance.

Proposals received after the proposal submission date and time will be considered late and not evaluated.

If any part of the submission is late, all parts of the proposal will be removed from consideration.

mailto:ussf.pentagon.sda.mbx.fa240126R-006@mail.mil mailto:ussf.pentagon.sda.mbx.fa240126R-006@mail.mil

Offerors whose proposals which are considered late will be so informed by the Contracting Officer (CO) and their proposals will be deleted without any files being opened or read.

1.2 PROPOSAL FORMAT INSTRUCTIONS

The font in normal text for all volumes shall be no smaller than Times New Roman 12 pt., while text in tables and figures shall be no smaller than Times New Roman 10 pt. A table shall consist of at least two

(2) columns in every row. Tables that are deemed as attempts to circumvent these text formatting restrictions will be removed from the proposal and not evaluated. All margins (top, bottom, left, and right) shall be no smaller than one (1) inch. No less than single line spacing shall be used for all text in paragraphs, bulleted lists, and tables. All .pdf pages, in all volumes, formatted larger than 8.5 inches X 11 inches shall be counted as two (2) pages. Line numbers shall be applied to all text sections in all volumes and shall be set within the left margin of the page so as not to reduce the usable size of the page. Title pages and tables of contents, tables of figures and/or tables will not count against the page counts of the respective volumes and will not be evaluated for content. Page numbering should start at the beginning of each section or volume and not represent a continuation of numbering from a previous volume. Note:

Nonconforming proposals may be rejected without review.

2 GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1 USE OF NON-GOVERNMENT ADVISORS

The Offeror is advised that schedule, 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 (NDAs) for review and analysis. These non-Government advisors are employed by the following entities:

• Avantus-TEC Solutions

• AirIn Technologies

• Alpha 2

• Altus Amentum (forumally Centra)

• Athena Group

• ArcSpace

• Bryce Tech CenCore

• Custom Analysis Emolbi

• FullRev

• GoLion Company

• KBR (formally LinQuest)

• MMAX

• MTSI

• PLC Q2

• QinetiQ

• Qualis

• SnowDrift Govt Solutions, LLC

• Strategic Analysis

• System Engineering Solutions

• SSSI

• Stacia Group

• TEC Solutions

• The Aerospace Corporation

• JHU APL

• MITRE

• Sandia National Labs

• Space Dynamics Laboratory

All non-Government advisors performing this role are expressly prohibited from performing SDA-sponsored technical research and are bound by appropriate nondisclosure agreements. No Past Performance information will be reviewed by other than Government employees. Any objection to release shall be provided in writing to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) within ten (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 which the Offeror objects to disclosure to non-Government advisors.

2.2 ALTERNATIVE OR MULTIPLE PROPOSALS

Alternative proposals will not be considered. Each Offeror may submit only one (1) proposal.

2.3 DEFINITIONS

Within this Attachment, the following definitions are used:

• Prime: The RMWT LEO GEPs Offeror.

• Major Teammate/Subcontractor: A member of the Prime's development team (at any tier) with a different Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code from the prime Offeror, that accounts for at least ten (10) percent of the proposed price.

• Additional definitions are provided in Attachment 1 – SOW.

3 PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION

3.1 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME I: TECHNICAL APPROACH

3.1.1 NARRATIVE SUMMARY

To facilitate evaluation, the Offeror’s Technical volume shall be specific and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the Resilient Missile Warning Tracking (RMWT) Low Earth Orbit (LEO) GEPs program requirements. The Offeror’s proposal shall clearly articulate a technical approach that addresses all requirements identified within Section L that provides the Government confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform all requirements contained within the Technical Requirements Document (TRD), SOW and reference/compliance documents. Using the instructions provided below, the proposal shall provide as specifically and clearly as possible the actual methodology the Offeror would use for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors. Statements that the Offeror understands, can or will comply with the requirements in this RFP; statements paraphrasing the requirements in this RFP or parts thereof; and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used,” etc., will be considered unacceptable. The Offeror should note that data submitted prior to the proposal submission will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation; therefore, such data shall not be relied upon or incorporated in the Technical proposal by reference.

3.1.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH

The purpose of this Volume is to set forth, in the most comprehensive manner, the Offeror’s understanding of the RMWT LEO GEPs SOW requirements and to clearly demonstrate the ability to meet the evaluation requirements of Section M, Factor 1 Technical. This section shall present a clear, concise description of how the Offeror plans to meet solicitation requirements. This section shall represent that the Offeror will fulfil all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure completeness of the proposal. The Government will not assume an Offeror possesses any capability that the Offeror fails to identify in its proposal. In the Technical Volume, the Offeror shall address their approach for meeting the Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of each subfactor.

The Offeror’s proposal shall address any technical or technical management related risks associated with the Offeror’s proposed Technical approach considered to have the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or increase the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Offeror shall classify each risk in accordance with a standard 5x5 likelihood and consequence risk cube and provide a reporting matrix as outlined in the DoD Risk, Issues, and Opportunities Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs. The Offeror shall describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of contract requirements (for example SOW or TRD requirement) and whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors. The Offeror shall propose a realistic risk mitigation strategy for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risks to an acceptable level. The Offeror shall identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation.

3.1.3 VOLUME ORGANIZATION

The Technical Volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

• Table of Contents

• List of Tables and Drawings

• Glossary

• Proposal Compliance Matrix

• Factor 1: Technical

• Subfactor 1: Understanding of Requirements

• Subfactor 2: Feasibility and Completeness of Approach

• Subfactor 3: Scalability

3.1.4 PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE MATRIX

The Proposal Compliance Matrix shall be a table that maps Statement of Work (SOW), TRD, Section L, and Section M requirements where/as applicable to sections of the Offeror’s proposal. This shall act as a roadmap to ensure every SOW requirement and evaluation criteria is addressed and allow evaluators to easily locate where in the proposal those requirements are met. The compliance matrix or table shall list the RFP/SOW reference number and page with a corresponding column listing the specific proposal section, paragraph or page number where it is addressed.

3.1.5 SUBFACTOR 1- UNDERSTANDING OF REQUIREMENTS

The Offeror shall identify the factors (i.e., what they are, and why they are important) and considerations used to assess the proposed PWSA T3 RF GEP locations from the Government Furnished Information (GFI) RMWT LEO GEPs Study, to optimize, refine and identify the numbers/types of terminals per GEP location. A description of the analytic approach/tools that would be used to perform/model the analysis for this determination is also required. The Offeror shall identify the methodology to be used to assess additional data needs/clarifications related to the GFI RMWT LEO GEPs Study, for determining the GEPs types, locations and phasing/order of laydown of the GEPs.

The Offeror shall identify and describe key performance metrics and measures relevant/impactful to GEP site, RF antenna designs, and how these shall be used to ensure compliance with requirements/needs.

The Offeror shall describe the end-to-end GEP Systems Engineering and Engineering Support processes to be used in the requirements, design and architecting of the RMWT LEO GEPs as an integrated set of systems within the PWSA, as well as the site development and integration steps including GEP site surveys, pre-construction approvals, civils, antenna installation, site verification, and GEP site integration activities with DISA and T3 GSD and SV systems. The Offeror shall describe the approach to meeting uplink/downlink bandwidth requirements and overall GEP terminal availability.

The Offeror shall describe their approach to integration, verification, validation and testing and the planned test timeline for GEPs, Network connectivity to Ops Centers, and test support to T3 Space Vehicle Vendors (SVVs).

The Offeror shall describe their approach to GEP maintenance and sustainment, including parts sparing, response to outage or discrepancy report timelines, integration with/use of the Enterprise Change and Configuration Management tools and processes for maintaining system version control and discrepancy reporting/response.

3.1.6 SUBFACTOR 2- FEASIBILITY AND COMPLETENESS OF APPROACH

The Offeror shall describe their approach to coordinating GEP site and GSE development prioritization, including collaboration activities with Stakeholders, addressing such considerations as collaborative development of interface documents and networking/ integration activities. The Offeror shall describe their approach to identifying and obtaining necessary permits/approvals, and spectrum authorization related to the construction, development, integration, test and transition to operations/operational use of the GEPs. The Offeror shall describe their RF antenna development/procurement processes, including identification of supply chain providers and timelines associated with critical components for GEP Terminals and Test equipment (e.g., Ground Segment Equipment required for S-band and Ka-band checkout and test) development timelines. The Offeror shall describe how their technical approach achieves the reliability, resiliency and availability requirements for the GEPs and their components (e.g., antennas, front end processors (FEPs), shelters, etc.) and how this aligns with their proposed maintenance approach. Completeness of approach shall be evaluated based on Proposal Compliance matrix completeness of SOW and TRD requirements addressed in the Technical Volume.

3.1.7 SUBFACTOR 3- SCALABILITY

The Offeror shall describe how they will adjust resources and capabilities based on task order scope, specifically managing multiple, simultaneous projects of varying size and complexity, while maintaining quality. This shall include a description of the Offeror’s approach to surge support to ensure schedule milestones are achieved across multiple simultaneous task orders.

3.1.8 TECHNICAL DATA AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE RIGHTS ASSERTIONS

The Offeror (and teammate) shall deliver, as part of the Technical Volume, a Technical Data and Computer Software Rights Assertion, with a brief narrative that shall clearly delineate all limitations on data, and computer software rights using the format shown in Table 1. It is the Government’s assumption that no technical data or computer software will be provided with less than Government Purpose Rights (GPR) (see R-DFARS 252.227-7013,7014) and that the vast majority of information generated will be provided with Unlimited Rights to the Government. The Government’s intent of this effort includes ground infrastructure and software development that can be expanded or competed in the future. Data rights must enable this intent, therefore requiring GPR at a minimum. The Offeror shall clearly identify those elements to be provided with less than Unlimited Rights and identify the rationale for their assertion(s) using the format shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Technical and Data Rights Assertion Template

Technical Data/ Computer Software to be Furnished with Restrictions

Summary of Intended Use in the Conduct of the Effort

Basis for Assertion

Asserte d Rights Categor y

Name of Person Asserting Restrictions

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

3.1.9 UNPRICED BASIS OF ESTIMATE (BOE)

The Offeror shall complete and submit Attachment 7c for the IDIQ Base and Attachment 7c.1 for Task Order 01: RMWT LEO GEPs BOE Template in its original Excel format. The unpriced BOE shall contain no cost or price information, but must fully detail the proposed labor categories, labor hours, travel, and the Unpriced Bill of Materials (BOM) mapped to each Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) element and CLIN.

Offerors must complete all tabs within the template in accordance with the BOE_Template_Instructions".

The labor hours and categories proposed in this template must perfectly reconcile with the technical approach described in Volume I and the price proposal in Volume IV. Any inconsistency between the unpriced BOE and the price proposal may be grounds for a determination of non-compliance.

3.2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME II: PROGRAM/PROJECT MANAGEMENT

3.2.1 NARRATIVE SUMMARY

The Program/Project Management Volume shall be specific and complete to clearly address and fully demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to manage the RMWT LEO GEPs IDIQ efforts, which shall include notionally up to five simultaneously executing Task Orders at geographically dispersed locations both within and outside the Continental United States. The Offeror’s Program Management proposal shall clearly articulate an approach that addresses all requirements identified in Section L that provide the Government confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform all requirements contained within the SOW and TRD. Using the instructions provided below, the proposal shall provide as specifically and clearly as possible the actual methodology the Offeror would use for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors.

Statements that the Offeror understands, can, or will comply with the requirements in this RFP;

statements paraphrasing the requirements in this RFP or parts thereof; and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used,” etc., will be considered unacceptable. The Offeror should note that data submitted prior to the proposal submission will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation; therefore, such data shall not be relied upon or incorporated in the Program Management proposal by reference.

3.2.2 PROGRAM/PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The Purpose of this Volume is to set forth, in the most comprehensive manner, the Offeror’s understanding of the RMWT LEO GEPs SOW requirements and to clearly demonstrate the ability to meet the evaluation requirements of Section M, Factor 2 Program Management. This section shall present a clear, concise description of how the Offeror plans to meet solicitation requirements. This section shall represent that the Offeror will fulfil all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure completeness of the proposal. The Government will not assume an Offeror possesses any capability that the Offeror fails to identify in its proposal. In the Program/Project Management Volume, the Offeror shall address their approach for meeting the Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of each subfactor.

The Offeror’s proposal shall address any programmatic or program/project management related risks associated with the Offeror’s proposed Management approach considered to have the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or increase the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Offeror shall classify each risk in accordance with a standard 5x5 likelihood and consequence risk cube and provide a reporting matrix as outlined in the DoD Risk, Issues, and Opportunities Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs. The Offeror shall describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of contract requirements (for example SOW or TRD requirement) and whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors. The Offeror shall propose a realistic risk mitigation strategy for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risks to an acceptable level. The Offeror shall identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation.

3.2.3 VOLUME ORGANIZATION

The Program/Project Management Volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

• Table of Contents

• List of Tables and Drawings

• Glossary

• Proposal Compliance Matrix

• Executive Summary

• Factor 2: Management

• Subfactor 1: Project Management

• Subfactor 2: Schedule Management

• Subfactor 3: Subcontractor/Teammate and Foreign Subcontractor Management

• Subfactor 4: Security and CUI/Classified Data Handling

3.2.4 PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE MATRIX

The Proposal Compliance Matrix shall be a table that maps Statement of Work (SOW), Section M, and Section L to sections of the Offeror’s proposal. This shall act as a roadmap to ensure every SOW requirement and evaluation criteria is addressed and allows evaluators to easily locate where in the proposal those requirements are met. The compliance matrix or table shall list the RFP/SOW reference number and page with a corresponding column listing the specific proposal section, paragraph or page number where it is addressed.

3.2.5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Executive Summary shall contain a narrative summary of Offeror’s entire proposal. An effective Executive Summary will function as a proposal roadmap, helping the Government evaluator understand the Offeror’s overall approach to satisfying the requirements of the RFP. The Executive Summary should highlight the proposal’s most significant strengths and capabilities that make the Offeror qualified to perform the effort and should contain an overview of the program/project management approach, staff resourcing and qualifications including team composition and organization as well as contributions of each major teammate. The salient features shall tie in with the Section M evaluation factors/subfactors.

Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portion of other volumes of the proposal. The Executive Summary will not be evaluated.

3.2.6 SUBFACTOR 1 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The Offeror shall describe how they will organize, structure, and manage resources (personnel, equipment, etc.,), to meet schedule needs, simultaneous delivery schedules, and execute/achieve the work described in the SOW and associated technical deliverables. This includes the plan for recruiting and training qualified staff to support tasks and surge needs. The Offeror shall provide a contract start up plan with milestones and schedule of activities informed by Government & TRKT3 SVV need dates for GSE and the conduct of associated testing, as well as T3/Enterprise milestones, events, activities. The Offeror shall describe their approach to integrating with or within PWSA processes and associated reviews and boards for approval. This section shall include a description of the IMS, critical paths, milestones, and how dependencies are managed. It shall include a description of the Offeror’s processes for handling scope creep and approving change requests to ensure capabilities are delivered on time and to need. The Offeror shall identify specific, measurable, and relevant quality metrics to be used within the Program, including how progress will be measured. The Offeror shall describe their plan for engagement, reporting cadence, and communication strategies with stakeholders. The Offeror shall describe their approach to identifying, assessing communicating, mitigating, and managing technical risk, schedule risk, and risks associated with contract execution and task order performance, and identify and describe inherent/existing risks and associated analysis of alternatives.

3.2.7 CONTRACTOR WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE (CWBS) AND DICTIONARY

The Offeror shall provide a comprehensive, product-oriented hierarchical decomposition of the total contract scope of work, including hardware, software, data and services for which the Offeror is responsible, representing a decomposition/break down of the project into manageable work elements (work packages). The Offeror shall develop the CWBS by extending or modifying where needed the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) provided in the Cost and Software Data Report (CSDR) Plan (DD2794) (Attachment 9). The CWBS shall be accompanied by a CWBS Index and Dictionary.

3.2.8 CONTRACTOR STAFFING/ORGANIZATION PLAN

The Offeror shall provide a Staffing/Organization Plan demonstrating that the Offeror has the proper team, expertise and management structure to successfully execute the project. It shall outline key roles, recruitment strategies, and resource management to ensure technical compliance and mitigate project risks. The Staffing/Organization plan shall reflect the use of only tier 1 subcontractors. It shall define the project organization, key personnel, roles and reporting relationships to ensure clear accountability. It shall include roles and relationships and qualifications of Subcontractors/ teammates, and include reporting hierarchy information related to subcontractors including non-U.S persons and specialized tradesmen if/when needed.

3.2.9 SUBFACTOR 2 - SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT

The Offeror shall describe their development, integration and verification approach for the GEPs, in alignment with Space Vehicle Vendor needs and T3/PWSA Enterprise schedule milestones. The Offeror shall describe how they enable flexibility to adapt schedules to meet varying task order requirements. The Offeror shall describe their approach to risk mitigation for schedule delays.

3.2.9.1 INTEGRATED MASTER SCHEDULE (IMS)

The Offeror shall provide a single IMS with all necessary logic for the RMWT LEO GEPs program. The IMS shall cover the entire scope of work through contract completion. The IMS shall focus on the events, accomplishments, entrance/exit criteria anticipated by the Offeror. The Offeror shall provide a robust, fully networked IMS identifying a complete set of Offeror and, Tranche-specific events, activities, giver receiver items, and dependencies, demonstrating knowledge in program management/execution, and task orchestration across multiple concurrent site developments.

3.2.10 SUBFACTOR 3 - SUBCONTRACTOR/TEAMMATE AND FOREIGN SUBCONTRACTOR

MANAGEMENT

The Offeror shall identify/describe a contract structure that minimizes/limits subcontracting to only tier 1 subcontractors. The Offeror shall describe how they will recruit/team with (e.g., for specialty skills), maintain and manage subcontracting relationships, including those with foreign contractors, while ensuring compliance with security, quality performance/deliverables and schedule requirements. The Offeror shall describe how they will train and provide oversight and management of foreign subcontractors, including compliance with security protocols and restrictions on access to CUI and classified information, and how they will manage escorting of non-U.S. persons, if required, in OCONUS locations.

3.2.11 SUBFACTOR 4- SECURITY AND CUI/CLASSIFIED DATA HANDLING

The Offeror shall convey an understanding of which elements of the RMWT LEO GEPs program are CUI and which are classified, how they will protect CUI and classified information through physical, electronic and procedural controls (identifying the measures to be used). This shall include details of how they will handle and safeguard sensitive information and prevent unauthorized access by foreign subcontractors or other personnel. The Offeror shall identify required security training and compliance programs for personnel and subcontractors, with an emphasis on how the Offeror shall sensitize their team to the potential use and restrictions on use of non-US personnel. The Offeror shall describe incident reporting & mitigation procedures for security breaches.

The Offeror shall complete and provide Attachment 7e: Personnel & Facilities Template as an appendix to this volume. This template must be used to detail the Offeror's and major teammates' facility clearances, security points of contact, and Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) status. The Offeror must also list all Cleared Personnel, providing their full name and security clearance level to demonstrate they meet the requirements for handling classified program data.

3.3 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME III: PAST PERFORMANCE

The purpose of this Volume is to provide the Government with the necessary references to, in the most comprehensive manner, assess the degree of confidence in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance in accordance with Section M, Factor 3 Past Performance. The Offeror shall introduce the current and relevant past performance citations, clearly stating why they have chosen the efforts and how they best demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to perform the proposed work scope. The Government expects direct correlations between the past performance citations and the proposed RMWT LEO GEPs technical approach.

The Offeror shall include information on recent/current programs that are similar in magnitude, scope, and complexity to this program. These submissions should clearly demonstrate the ability of the Offeror and its teammates to satisfy the totality of the RMWT LEO GEPs requirements. Past performance from recently acquired companies or subsidiaries is acceptable. All submissions shall have a period of performance within five (5) years from the RMWT LEO GEPs proposal due date.

For each submitted citation, the Offeror shall identify:

• Customer (Name, phone, email, affiliation)

• Scope and relevance to the RMWT LEO GEPs requirements

• Place of performance, period of performance, contract/agreement type

• Bid price, currently invoiced price, Final price/Estimate at Completion

• If Award or Incentive Fee: scores and fee percentages earned for each completed fee period

• If CPARS have been completed by the Customer: ratings earned for each completed rating period

In each citation, the Offeror shall address the relevance of the effort and how well it fulfilled the contractual requirements to include schedule management, technical requirements, subcontract management (if applicable) and suppliers.

3.3.1 PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES (PPQS)

For each past performance citation, the Offeror shall provide the attached Past Performance Questionnaire to the Government or industry contracting officer or program manager to complete and submit directly to the SDA in accordance with the questionnaire instructions (see Attachment 7a). The Offeror shall provide a list of names and points of contact for the PPQs.

Current and Past Performance citations shall only include work that has been completed or is ongoing.

Offerors are hereby notified that SDA intends to survey Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) and to conduct interviews with customers identified in Volume III. SDA reserves the right to survey other past performance information beyond the submitted citations. Information obtained via either of these methods will be included in Offeror evaluations per the criteria in Attachment 5 – RMWT LEO GEPs Section M Evaluation Criteria.

3.4 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME IV – PRICE

This volume consists of relevant information describing the Offeror's proposed price for meeting solicitation requirements. The Offeror's proposal shall contain sufficient factual information to establish the reasonableness, not un-balance, and completeness of the proposed price, as evaluated against the criteria in RFP Attachment 8 – RMWT LEO GEPs Section M Evaluation Criteria.

3.4.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Compliance with these instructions is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of the proposal. Data or information submitted in the Price Volume shall be information essential to document or support the price position. Data beyond what is required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless the Offeror considers it essential to document or support its price position.

No pricing data or information shall be included in any other volume, including cover letters, unless specifically requested by the Government in the respective volume. If price information is included elsewhere in the documentation, the proposal may be deemed unacceptable and the proposal may not be evaluated. The Offeror shall comply with the intent of the pricing instructions in supplying information that is current, timely, and in full support of the proposal. Exceptions or deviations will not be accepted.

3.4.2 VOLUME ORGANIZATION

The Pricing Volume shall consist of the following sections, submitted as two separate files:

Pricing Template (MS Excel): A completed Pricing Template in accordance with the specific instructions included in the spreadsheet (RFP Attachment 7d). The completed spreadsheet shall be submitted as an electronic Microsoft Excel file with active formulas.

Narrative and Methodology (MS Word): A concise and well-organized narrative of the basic pricing approach and methodology used to generate prices.

The Offeror shall submit a fully completed Price Volume that complies with all instructions in this solicitation.

- Provide a price for every Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) CLIN for the base and all option periods.

- Keep the exact Government-provided Not-To-Exceed (NTE) plug values for all Cost-

Reimbursable (CR) CLINs.

- Provide a price for the Material Base Period (CLIN 0004).

- (If applicable) Provide all requested Government Property (GP) proposed for use on a Rent-Free, Non-Interference Use (RFNIU) basis.

- Ensure all mathematical calculations within the Pricing Template (Attachment 7d) are accurate, formulas are intact, and totals roll up correctly.

- Ensure the approach described in the Price Template are consistent with the resources proposed in the Technical Volume.

3.4.3 NARRATIVE AND METHODOLOGY

The Offeror shall provide a concise and well organized narrative of the basic pricing approach and methodology used to generate prices. The Offeror’s narrative should provide sufficient detail and correlate to and/or supplement information elsewhere in the Price volume to add clarity but avoid repetition or conflict to demonstrate price credibility and to enable the evaluation for reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, and completeness. The proposal must be sufficiently detailed to address reasonableness, completeness, and balance with the understanding that the burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the Offeror.

3.4.4 PRICING DATA REQUIREMENTS

The PCO has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition.

Upon examination of the initial offers, the PCO will review this determination and if, in the PCO’s opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional cost information will be requested and certification under RFO 15.403-4 will not be required. IAW RFO 15.403-2(b), RFO 15.403-1(a), and RFO 15.403-1(e) information other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. Information shall be provided IAW RFO 15.105-4. If, after receipt of proposals, the PCO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in RFO 15.403-2 apply, the Offeror shall be required to submit cost or pricing data.

3.4.5 ROUNDING

All dollar amounts provided in response to these instructions shall be rounded to the nearest dollar.

3.4.6 TRAVEL

For evaluation purposes, the Government has established Not-To-Exceed (NTE) plug values for the Travel CLINs. No fee shall be applied to this CLIN.

3.4.7 OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODCS)

For evaluation purposes, the Government has established Not-To-Exceed (NTE) plug values for the ODC CLINs. No fee shall be applied to this CLIN.

3.4.8 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY

GFP is anticipated for this effort. If the Offeror requires Government Furnished Information (GFI) or Property (GFP) other than identified in the IDIQ or TO 01 Statement of Work (SOW), the Offeror shall clearly identify any GFP they propose to use on a Rent-Free Non-Interference Use (RFNIU) basis. Offerors shall include the contract holder’s RFNIU agreement signed by the Contracting Officer (CO) having cognizance over the property/equipment, or a letter stating the CO’s willingness to provide RFNIU in the event of award. All property/equipment provided by the Government will be furnished “as is”. For evaluation purposes, Offerors proposing the use of GFP other than identified in the IDIQ or TO 01 SOW, shall provide the necessary property data (including property description, acquisition cost, age, and proposed periods of use). The Government will use this data to calculate and apply a Government Property (GP) Rental Equivalent Evaluation Factor in accordance with RFO 52.245-9.

3.5 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME V: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI)

ASSESSMENT AND PLAN

The Government has determined there is potential organizational conflict of interest (see RFO Subpart 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest) due to the nature of the anticipated separate solicitations and contracts for the entire Tranche 3 Program. The entire, fully integrated T3 Program will likely include multiple T3 SV contractor(s) (primes and subs) and T3 Ground contractor(s) (primes and subs) who will interface with the RMWT LEO GEPs contractor.

Therefore, if a RMWT LEO GEPs contractor intends to bid or perform on any other T3 contract, there will be an OCI. In addition, the Space Development Agency’s OCI policy clearly states that SDA SETA must remain OCI free within SDA; therefore, a contractor cannot concurrently be an SDA SETA contractor and a RMWT LEO GEPs contract provider.

As a part of the proposal, the Offeror shall provide the Contracting Officer with complete information of previous, potentially impending, or ongoing work that is in any way associated with the contemplated acquisition. The Offeror shall provide a written assessment addressing why there is no OCI and whether a future OCI is likely or will be avoided. In the event there is a known OCI or if the bidder intends to bid on future T3 Program acquisitions, the Offeror shall include an OCI Plan in addition to the Assessment. An Offeror who assesses it will avoid OCI with the T3 Program MUST include a statement (guarantee) attesting it will avoid OCI for the life of this RMWT LEO GEPs contract. If no OCI exists or will exist, the Offeror need only provide the Assessment. If a conflict exists or may exist, both the Assessment and the OCI plan are required to be a complete proposal.

The resulting contract will include an organizational conflict of interest limitation applicable to the related Government scope of work, at either a prime contract level, at any subcontract tier, or both.

During evaluation of proposals, the Government may also, after engagement with the Offeror and consideration of ways to avoid the conflict of interest, insert a special provision addressing eligibility for future contract awards within the existing Tranche 3 Program.

3.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME VI: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

For Large Businesses Only: The Offeror shall submit a Small Business Utilization Plan (SBUP) and/or Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) (see Attachment 7b) detailing their anticipated small business inclusion for this procurement to include selection, integration and evaluation processes. While SDA will not mandate specific percentage goals by individual small business type, the Offeror must meet the Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) of small business participation which is five (5) percent of the total proposed contract value (to include options). This requirement may be filled by subcontractors or small business suppliers. The Offeror 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 Government expects that some engineering and technical elements of this procurement will be contributed by other than traditional large aerospace and defense contractors, including but not limited to new and emerging small businesses. The SBPCD shall address the following:

a. The quantitative degree (based on the percentage of total price) to which the Offeror will utilize small business (including small, disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, historically underutilized business zone [HUB Zone] small business, veteran-owned small business, and service-disabled and veteran-owned small business). Small business participation constitutes small business utilization contributions to contract performance at the first-tier subcontract level only.

b. Identification of participating small businesses by type of business, product/service, dollar value, timeframe, as available.

c. The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform.

d. Enforceable commitments to use such firms. Enforceable commitments (e.g., fully executed teaming agreement, planned purchase order, signed letters of commitment) are more convincing than non-enforceable ones. The SBPCD for the successful Offeror will be incorporated into the respective contract as an Attachment.

For Small Businesses: If an Offeror is a small business (NAICS 541715; less than or equal to 1,000 employees) the Offeror shall submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) (see Attachment 7b) detailing their anticipated small business participation for this procurement. While SDA does not mandate specific percentage goals by individual small business type, the Offeror must meet the Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) of small business participation which is 50% for services and 15-25% for construction. the Government will evaluate the offeror's self-performance—which must comply with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting—as well as any proposed subcontracting to other Small Businesses. Note: In accordance with RFO 19.109(b)(1), Small Business offerors are exempt from submitting a formal Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

3.7 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME VII: MODEL CONTRACT/OFFER

3.7.1 VOLUME ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

This Volume shall include the following:

• Cover Letter

• Offer/SF 33

Both documents shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer as soon as possible 02 November 2026 at 16:00 (4:00 PM) Eastern Time via email to ussf.pentagon.sda.mbx.fa240126R-006@mail.mil. Failure to submit this information may result in the Offeror being deemed nonresponsive and removed from consideration for award.

The completion and submission to the Government of the above items will constitute an offer. Upon notification of award and request by the Contracting Officer, the successful Offeror shall provide a signed contract with Sections A through K, fully completed, as applicable, to the Contracting Officer.

3.7.2 COVER LETTER

The cover letter shall include the following information and be signed by an official authorized to legally bind the Offeror:

• Information required by RFO 52.215-1, "Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisitions." For the purpose of providing this information, the cover letter is not considered the first page of the proposal as stated in RFO 52.215-1.

• The names, titles, and telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of persons to be contacted for clarification or questions regarding this proposal. List no more than two people.

• The names, titles, and telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of the company point of contact and an alternate to be contacted regarding source selection decisions.

• A statement that the proposal is firm for a period of not less than 180 days from the proposal due date.

• A statement that the Offeror’s accounting system meets the requirements of R-DFARS 252.242- 7006, “Accounting System Administration”.

• If the Offeror does not have an approved accounting system, the offer shall complete the following documents and submit to the Contracting Officer in advance of proposal submission

• Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contracting (Accounting System) (SF 1408)

• Pre-award Accounting System Adequacy checklist located at: https://www.dcaa.mil/Checklists-

Tools/Pre-award-Accounting-System-Adequacy-Checklist/.

• Any exceptions taken to the terms and…