FA1 Eval Factor_20250825.docx

Factor 1: Technical/Management Approach (Functional Area 1)

SECTION L-Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents

Subfactor 1: Corporate Experience

Offerors shall provide (1) one relevant corporate experience project that demonstrates the capability in managing spacecraft operations, including geosynchronous (GEO) fleet support, anomaly response processes, and operator escalation structure. The project submitted shall clearly identify the following information:

a. Program/Mission Name—project title

b. Customer/Client--name of agency or organization, point of contact

c. Contract/Task order—contract or order number; contract type, period of performance, and total contract value.

d. Scope Description—type of work performed, including technical requirements, functions, or services, including support for managing spacecraft operations, including GEO fleet support, anomaly response processes, and operator escalation structure.)

e. Offeror’s Role—indicate whether the offeror served as the prime contractor, subcontractor, or teaming partner, and the percentage of work performed.

f. Relevance narrative—a brief explanation of how the experience is relevant to the requirements of the solicitation for recency, size, scope and complexity.

Recency: The dates of performance (base and option periods) Size: The contract value and the magnitude of effort performed by the offeror.

Scope: The type of work performed.

Complexity: The integration requirements or specialized expertise involved and how they related to the solicitation requirements. Including technical and management challenges such as ITU filing compliance, international coordination, mission-critical operations.

Corporate experience is limited to 2 pages and shall be submitted on Attachment X, Corporate Experience template. To receive an Acceptable rating, the project must meet all relevancy criteria defined in Section M. Proposals that do not meet the relevancy criteria will receive an Unacceptable rating under subfactor 1.

Subfactor 2: PWS Subtask 2.7.2 Launch Services and International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Coordination for Procured Spacecraft

Offerors shall provide a comprehensive narrative describing its approach in meeting requirements of PWS Subtask 2.7.2. Proposals shall include sufficient technical detail, processes and methodologies to allow the Government to assess the feasibility, adequacy and soundness for the proposed approach.

At a minimum, the proposal shall demonstrate the following:

a. The ability to launch any built Government spacecraft and provide the necessary actions to raise the spacecraft to GEO orbit and position the spacecraft in the assigned orbital slot; and

b. A plan for managing orbital slot coordination, including ITU filing ownership and ability to work with international operators to avoid harmful interference.

To receive an Acceptable rating, the proposal shall demonstrate the ability to meet the minimum requirements. Proposals that do not meet the minimum requirements will receive an Unacceptable rating under subfactor 2.

Subfactor 3: Technical Scenario PWS Task 2.2 Task 2 – Operational Customer Specific MGEO End-User Service

The Government requires offerors to respond to the following Technical Scenario as part of the proposal submission under Factor 1-Techncal/Management Approach. This scenario is intended to evaluate the offeror’s ability to apply technical knowledge, mission planning and operational and maneuvering methodologies representative of meeting the task requirements of PWS Task 2.2 Task 2 – Operational Customer Specific MGEO End-User Service.

Scenario: The Government requires global support with the capable of maneuvering between orbital slots; including the ability to transition between orbital slots multiple times. These transitions may require quick traversal methods that should weigh speed versus lifetime fuel impact. Responsibility includes positioning and orienting satellites, reserving/tasking resources, and allocating capacity accordingly. You are asked to relocate a satellite from its current position over the Atlantic (30°W) to a new operational slot over the Pacific (135°E), describe your plan including timing, fuel usage, and your plan for mitigating the associated risks.

Offerors shall provide a written response limited to (5) five pages. The response to subfactor 3 shall describe the offeror’s plan, approach, and methodology. Offerors shall not provide generic descriptions or responses; the submission must be specific to the scenario. Diagrams or figures may be included and count towards the page limitation.

To receive an Acceptable rating, the response to the technical scenario shall demonstrate the ability to meet the solicitation requirements. Proposals that do not meet the requirements will receive an Unacceptable rating under subfactor 3.

SECTION M-Evaluation Factors for Award

Subfactor 1: Corporate Experience

The Government will evaluate the offerors’ corporate experience submission to determine if it demonstrates the capability to manage spacecraft operations, including GEO fleet support, anomaly response processes, and operator escalation structure. Subfactor 1-Corporate experience will be evaluated using a Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable rating method. To be considered Acceptable, the corporate experience submission must meet all minimum relevancy criteria defined below:

Recency-Performed within the last 3 years from the date of solicitation closing, with at least six consecutive months of performance.

Size- Comparable magnitude in contract value, personnel, and mission scale Scope- Work is similar in functional requirements to the Functional Area 1 PWS and includes on-orbit spacecraft or satellite mission management, mission planning and scheduling, anomaly detection, troubleshooting and resolution, ground station network coordination.

Complexity- Comparable technical and management challenges such as International Telecommunication Union filing compliance, international coordination, mission-critical operations.

Projects that fail to meet these minimum requirements will be rated Unacceptable.

Subfactor 2: PWS Subtask 2.7.2 Launch Services and ITU Coordination for Procured Spacecraft

The Government will evaluate subfactor 2-Launch Services and ITU Coordination for Procured Spacecraft to determine if the proposal demonstrates a clear and effective approach to managing orbit coordination responsibilities. Specifically, the evaluation will consider the Offeror’s understanding and approach in the following:

a. Launching spacecraft successfully, conducting all required orbital maneuvers to raise the spacecraft into GEO orbit, and positioning and maintaining the spacecraft in the assigned orbital slot; and

b. Managing orbital slot, coordination of ITU filings, and working with international and domestic operators to maintain safe orbital separation.

Subfactor 2 will be evaluated using a Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable rating method. To be considered Acceptable, the submission to subfactor 2 shall demonstrate the ability to meet the minimum requirements above. Proposals that fail to meet the solicitation requirements will be rated Unacceptable.

Subfactor 3: Technical Scenario PWS Task 2.2 Task 2 – Operational Customer Specific MGEO End-User Service

The Government will evaluate subfactor 3- Operational Customer Specific MGEO End-User Service to determine if the offeror’s response to the technical scenario provided in Section L, demonstrates an ability to apply technical knowledge, mission planning and operational and maneuvering methodologies representative of meeting PWS 2.2 task requirements. Specifically, the evaluation will consider if the proposal demonstrates an understanding and technically sound method in its plan, approach, and methodology to the following:

a. capability of globally maneuvering between orbital slots; including the ability to transition between orbital slots multiple times;

b. plan with consideration for fuel usage; and

c. identification of risks and proposed mitigation plan

Subfactor 3 will be evaluated using a Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable rating method. To be considered Acceptable, the submission to subfactor 3 shall demonstrate the ability to meet the minimum requirements above. Proposals that fail to meet the solicitation requirements will be rated Unacceptable.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method