FA2 Eval Factor_20250825.docx

Factor 1: Technical/Management Approach (Functional Area 2)

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 control and maneuver planning, including payload operations, mission assurance processes and integration. 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 activities relevant to spacecraft control and maneuver planning, collision avoidance and space domain awareness coordination, health and status monitoring, payload operations, mission assurance processes, integration with government operations centers, etc. Comment by Hunter, Zachary [USA]: @Thompson, Dustie [USA] @Townes, Shawn [USA] hows this? Comment by Thompson, Dustie [USA]: The first sentence is from the FA-1 scope, should i delete that? @Hunter, Zachary [USA] Comment by Hunter, Zachary [USA]: Good catch, better? Comment by Townes, Shawn [USA]: I feel like this will work.....it seems to cover all bases and will hopefully supply the information the team will need to fully vet an offeror. Comment by Thompson, Dustie [USA]: thanks guys-that will do it

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: Technical and operational difficulties, including coordination, maneuver planning under strict orbital or safety constraints, integration of payload, etc.

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 Task 2.1 – Operational Packaged MGEO End-User Service

Offerors shall provide a comprehensive narrative describing its approach in meeting requirements of PWS Subtask 2.1. Proposals shall include sufficient technical detail, processes and methodologies to allow the Government to assess the feasibility, adequacy and soundness for the proposed approach.

PWS Task 2.1 requires support for a range of service capacity from the smallest unit to the full capacity of a leasable resource, including leasing an entire payload on each satellite. At a minimum, the proposal shall demonstrate the following:

a. The capability to support operational managed and/or leased-resource services via GEO commercial satellites globally;

b. the ability to provide services on satellites that are capable of maneuvering between orbital slots; and

c. the ability to position and orient satellites, enable resources, and reserve capacity, identifying the corresponding conflicts and limitations.

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: PWS Subtask 2.1.4 – Commercial Gateway Services and Leased Terrestrial Backhaul

Offerors shall provide a detailed description of the proposed approach to delivering internet access through commercial gateways and leased terrestrial backhaul connectivity from the commercial gateways to the designated Government site. Proposals shall include sufficient detail to allow the Government to verify compliance with the availability requirements specified below. Verification may be submitted by providing network architecture, monitoring & reporting tools, metrics, or similar verification methods.

At a minimum, the proposal shall address the following:

a. Commercial Gateway Internet Access-Identify the commercial gateways to be used, including location, capacity and operational processes. Offerors shall demonstrate how each proposed gateway will meet an operational availability of 99.95% or better over each 30-calendar day period.

b. Terrestrial Backhaul Connectivity-Identify the leased terrestrial backhaul solution from the commercial gateways to the Government site, including providers, capacity and routing architecture. Offerors shall demonstrate how the backhaul connectivity will maintain an operational availability of 99.95% or better over each 30-calendar day period.

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 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 control and maneuver planning, including payload operations, mission assurance processes, and integration. 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 2 tasks and includes managing spacecraft control and maneuver planning, including payload operations, mission assurance processes, and integration.

Complexity- Comparable technical and operational difficulties, including coordination, maneuver planning under strict orbital or safety constraints, integration of payload, etc.

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

Subfactor 2: PWS Task 2.1 – Operational Packaged MGEO End-User Service

The Government will evaluate subfactor 2 PWS Task 2.1 – Operational Packaged MGEO End-User Service to determine if the proposal demonstrates a clear and effective approach to managing global operational satellite communications. Specifically, the evaluation will consider the offeror’s understanding and methodology for the following:

a. Operational managed and/or leased-resource services via GEO commercial satellites on a global scale;

b. The ability to manage services on satellites capable of relocating between orbital slots; and

c. The ability to position and orient satellites, manage resources and reserve capacity, and identify corresponding conflicts and limitations.

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

Subfactor 3: PWS Subtask 2.1.4 – Commercial Gateway Services and Leased Terrestrial Backhaul

The Government will evaluate subfactor 3- Commercial Gateway Services and Leased Terrestrial Backhaul to determine compliance with the requirements for internet access through commercial gateways and leased terrestrial backhaul connectivity. Specifically, the evaluation will consider the following:

a. Commercial Gateway Internet Access-Proposal demonstrates that each gateway meets or exceeds 99.95% availability, with sufficient detail to substantial compliance.

b. Terrestrial Backhaul Connectivity- Proposal demonstrates that each the terrestrial backhaul connectivity meets or exceeds 99.95% availability, with sufficient detail to substantial compliance.

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

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method