SSPARS Industry Day Briefing_06Mar2024.pdf

W E P U T T H E “ A C E ” I N S PA C E

Solid State Phased Array Radar System Industry Day 12-14 February 2024

Includes Government Updates as of 06 March 2024

Highest Overall Classification:

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

INFORMATION PROVIDED SUBJECT TO CHANGE

Items updated since 12 February 2024 are highlighted in Green

W E P U T T H E “ A C E ” I N S P A C E

Agenda

As of: 3/6/2024 2

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

• OPEN FORUM

• 0900 – 1100: Briefings

• 1100 – 1115: BREAK

• 1115 – 1200: Open Discussion (Q&A)

• 1200 – 1300: Lunch

• ONE-ON-ONEs

• 12 Feb: 1300 – 1700

• 13 – 14 Feb: 0900 – 1700 50-minute time slots Located in the Blue Spruce Executive Conference Room

As of: 3/6/2024 3

Forum Overview

• Rules of Engagement

• Multi-Function Team

• Space Delta 4 Welcome

• Space Delta 4 Mission Brief

• SAIO Director Welcome

• Project Overview

• SSPARS Overview

• Acquisition Strategy/Solicitation Overview

• Post Award Management

Open Forum Rules of Engagement

As of: 3/6/2024 4

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

• Questions & Answers

• Will collect all questions received before, during, and after today’s event

• Clearly identify information you consider proprietary

• All official responses to non-proprietary questions will be posted to SAM.gov

• Proprietary responses will be provided directly to the company

• After the final solicitation is released, communications are strictly limited to the Contracting Officer

• Include the Contracting Officer & Program Manager on all correspondence

Multi-Functional Team

As of: 3/6/2024 5

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Program Executive Officer Ms. Nancy Andrews, AFPEO/CM Requirement Owner Colonel Ernest Schmitt, Delta 4/CC Program Manager Mr. Ken Friesz, SAIO/PMG Contracting Officer Mr. Steven Dyer, SAIO/PKG Quality Assurance Manager Mr. Mike Gusta, SAIO/PMG Legal Advisor Mr. Eric Beckstrom, SAIO/DRJ Head of Contracting Activity / Clearance Authority Maj Gen Alice Trevino, SAF/AQC

Director of Small Business Mr. Anthony Archut, SBD1/SB

As of: 3/6/2024 6

Space Base Delta 4 Welcome

Lt Col Andrew Downey Deputy Commander Delta 4

Headquarters U.S. Space Force

Space Delta 4 Mission Brief

1st Lt Davis Pinckney

DEL 4/CCX

Sgt Tyler Witzel

DEL 4/SELA

Space Base Delta 4 Mission Space Delta 4 executes global missile warning, missile defense, and battlespace awareness operations to defend the homeland, protect human lives, support the Joint Force, allies, and partners, and bolsters space superiority against adversaries anywhere in the world.

Multi-Domain Support

Battlespace Awareness Missile Defense Technical IntelligenceSpace Domain Awareness

Intel-driven, cyber-resilient and ready to fight tonight in a CDO environment

Before 24 July 2020

Space Delta 4 History

Space Based Missile Warning

Ground Based Missile Warning

On 24 July 2020 Missile Warning

Space Delta 4 History, cont.

• Organization Today

Space Delta 4 History, cont.

Missile Warning

2 SWS 6 SWS 10 SWS7 SWS 11 SWS

5 SWS3 SCS DET 2

12 SWS

13 SWS

• Organization Today

Space Delta 4 History, cont.

Missile Warning

Direct Supporting Units

64 CYS DET 4 4 SWS 8 SWS RAF

Fylingdales

Thule

UEWR

12 SWS

SBIRS/DSP

2 SWS & 11 SWS

UEWR

7 SWS

UEWR

6 SWS

PARCS

10 SWS

UEWR

13 SWS

RAF FYLINGDALES

COBRA

DANE

Peterson/Schriever

Eareckson

Buckley Cape Cod

Cavalier

Fylingdales

Clear

JBER

Beale

Space Delta 4 - Ground Based Radars

LRDR

Space Delta 4 - OPIR

Joint Tactical Ground Station

(JTAGS)

3 SCS: Buckley SFB, CO & Delta Base, Germany

Ground Antenna located at Buckley SFB, CO

Joint Tactical Ground Station (JTAGS)

Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) Constellation

Ground Antenna located at Buckley SFB, CO

Questions?

As of: 3/6/2024 16

Space Acquisition & Integration Office

Welcome & Overview Ms. Katharine Weimer, NH-IV Director

SAIO Overview

• Integrated services acquisition organization chartered to support

• HQ SpOC and Deltas

• USSPACECOM

• NORAD/USNORTHCOM

• HQs STARCOM and Deltas/Squadrons (temporarily)

• Provide cradle-to-grave program, contracting, and quality management support for $9B portfolio

• Activated 13 Dec 22

• Aligned under SpOC/CC

• Located at Peterson SFB, with two Divisions on Schriever SFB

As of: 3/6/2024 17

UNCLASSIFIED

SAIO Organization

As of: 3/6/2024 18

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Director Ms. Katie Weimer

Program Management Directorate Ms. Nicole Pilato

PMG Division SDA, MW, ISR & Space Operations

Mr. Dave Donahue

PMO Division Space, Cyber & Satellite Operations

Ms. Nancy Anderson (@ Schriever)

PMA Division Knowledge Based Services

VACANT

Contracting Directorate Lt Col Casey Walterscheid

PKG Division SDA, MW, ISR & Space Operations

Mr. Scott Brindus

PKO Division Space, Cyber, & Satellite Operations

Mr. Danny Cowell (@ Schriever)

PKA Division Knowledge Based Services

Ms. Terri Dyke

) Acquisition Support Division Mr. Jeremy Lubbert

Operations Manager Ms. Ethel Amutan

Legal* Mr. Blaine “Eric” Beckstrom

CIV / MIL / CTR / TOTAL

91 / 2 / 1 / 94

* ADCON: SpOC/JA

OPCON: SAIO/DR

As of: 3/6/2024 19

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Project / Program Overview

Mr. Ken Friesz, NH-III Program Manager

SAIO/PKG

Project Overview Key Stakeholders

As of: 3/6/2024 20

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

• Requirements and Program/Contract Management:

• Space Delta 4 (Requirement Owner for UEWR and LRDR)

• Space Systems Center (SSC) (Requirement Owner for SSC Remote Terminal)

• Space Acquisition & Integration Office (SAIO) (Program Management and Contract

Management Pre-Award and Post-Award Execution)

• Contracting Authority: SAF/AQC & AFICC/KS

• SAF/AQC = “Clearance” to release the final solicitation and award the contract

• AFICC/KS = Senior Contracting Official / liaison to SAF/AQC

• Acquisition and Source Selection Authority: AFPEO/CM

Project Overview, cont.

Milestones

As of: 3/6/2024 21

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Milestones Date Post Draft Performance Work Statement & Appendices 11 Jan 24 Industry Day / One-on-Ones 12-14 Feb 24 Small Business Capabilities Request 19 Mar 24 Clear SFS Site Visit (Tentative based on funding) 5 Jun 24 Beale AFB Site Visit (Tentative based on funding) 8 Jun 24 Release Draft Solicitation 12 Jun 24 Pre-Proposal Conference / Final Solicitation Issued 11 Sep 24 Proposals Due (~45 days allotted for preparation) 25 Oct 24 Source Selection (12 months allotted) Oct 24 – Oct 25 Contract Award 4 Nov 25 Transition (90 days allotted) 30 Jan 26 – 30 Apr 26 Performance Start 1 May 26

SSPARS Program Overview

As of: 3/6/2024 22

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

• Mission

• Program Scope of Work

• Sites/Locations

• Performance Work Statement (PWS) Highlights

• Risks

Mission

As of: 3/6/2024 23

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

• Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR)

• Comprised of four radar sites at the following Geographically-Separated Units (GSUs) in the Northern Hemisphere: 6th Space Warning Squadron (SWS) at Cape Cod Space Force Station (SFS) MA; 7 SWS at Beale Air Force Base (AFB) CA; 12 SWS at Pituffik Space Base (SB) Greenland (GL) and 13 SWS at Clear SFS AK

• Combined, these sites provide missile warning, missile defense, and space surveillance capabilities in support of the Delta 4 missions

• Radar operations are performed by military members assigned to the four GSUs. The contractor performs operations and maintenance (O&M) and communications of Installation/Site requirements in support of these missions

• Royal Air Force (RAF) Fylingdales, United Kingdom (UK) provides Military Satellite Communications (MILSATCOM) support to the UEWR maintained by the UK contractor

• Contractor on-site maintenance and communications support is provided to the Space Systems Center (SSC) Remote Terminal (R/T) located at Clear SFS, AK

Mission

As of: 3/6/2024 24

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

• Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR)

• LRDR is a Solid State, phased-array, S-Band, 2-faced radar, remotely operated through the use of the Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) Command, Control, Battle Management and Communications (C2BMC) system

• Radar’s primary mission is to support Homeland Defense against long-range missile threats by expanding Missile Defense (MD) with persistent, long range, mid-course discrimination, and precision tracking and hit assessments

• LRDR’s O&M support occurs on-site at Clear SFS, LRDR operator support is executed remotely from LRDR Sector Operations Center (SOC) – Beale (SOC-B) (Primary), and SOC – Cheyenne Mountain (SOC-CM) (Alternate)

• LRDR Space Crew consists of, at minimum, two (2) qualified Missile Defense Radar Operators (MDROs) per shift at SOC-B and at SOC-CM on a 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week (24/7) basis

• Contractor also performs radar operator/intelligence support of the LRDR mission at Beale AFB, CA and Cheyenne Mountain Space Force Station (CMSFS), CO

Scope of Work

As of: 3/6/2024 25

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

• Provide all non-personal services, administrative, financial, and managerial resources necessary on a continuous 24/7 basis to support the six SSPARS Installations/Sites in the following missions and services areas:

• Includes security classification up to Top Secret (TS)/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) level in support of site Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) and communications requirements

Radar Operations Support Occupational Health Radar and Mission Computer Maintenance Medical and Public Health Technical Assistance Military Satellite Communications Exercises and Testing Support Supply Training Development Fuels Communications-Electronics Vehicle and Traffic Management Civil Engineering Environmental

Sites/Locations

As of: 3/6/2024 26

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

• UEWR Mission:

• 6 SWS, Cape Cod SFS, Massachusetts

• 7 SWS, Beale AFB, California

• 12 SWS, Pituffik SB, Greenland

• 13 SWS, Clear SFS, Alaska

• RAF Fylingdales, England

• LRDR Mission:

• 7 SWS, Sector Operations Center-Beale (SOC-B), Beale AFB, California

• 7 SWS, Sector Operations Center-Cheyenne Mountain (SOC-CM), Cheyenne Mountain

SFS, Colorado

• 13 SWS, Clear SFS, Alaska

• SSC Remote Terminal Mission:

• 13 SWS, Clear SFS, Alaska

Scope Changes

As of: 3/6/2024 27

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

•The following scope changes were made to SSPARS:

• Changed Clear SFS Dining Facility to Restaurant Style

• Added Clear SFS and Cape Cod SFS Emergency Management (EM) Coordinator

• Added Clear SFS Licensed Psychiatric Counselor (LPC)

• Added LRDR Missile Defense Radar Organizational Maintainer (MDROM) and

LRDR System Administrator (L-SA)

• Added Beale AFB Mission Qualification Training (MQT)

• Added SSC Remote Terminal (R/T) OM&S

• Added RAF Fylingdales Crypto Support

Service Summary Items

As of: 3/6/2024 28

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Performance Objectives (POs) Performance Objective PWS

Paragraph Performance Threshold

PO #1. UEWR Radar Availability. Operate and maintain site technical and support equipment to meet radar mission requirements for missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance on a 24/7 basis.

Para 3.1 Radar Contractor Controlled Availability (Acc) of not less than 99.7% PO #2. LRDR Radar Availability. Operate and maintain site technical and support equipment to meet radar mission requirements for missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance on a 24/7 basis.

Para 3.1 Radar Contractor Controlled Availability (Acc) of not less than 99.7% PO #3. Satellite Communications System. Operate and maintain the AN/GSC- 39/52/52B (V) 5 terminals and facilities on a continuous basis. Provide operations and maintenance of the Military Earth Terminals (MET) when legacy terminals are replaced.

Para 3.2 Satellite Communications

System(s) Acc rate of not less than 99.7%

PO #4. Family of Advanced Beyond Line-of-Sight Terminals (FAB-T) Operate and maintain the site FAB-T terminals and facilities on a continuous basis.

Para 3.3 Milstar Acc of not less than 99.7%

PO #5. Communications Processing System (CPS). Operate and maintain the CPS and facilities on a continuing basis.

Para 3.5 CPS Acc of not less than 99.7%

PO #6. Installation/Site NIPRNet/SIPRNet (Network) Management. Manage, operate, and maintain network infrastructure to include all network hardware, peripheral equipment, file/print servers, software, configuration, security and interfaces.

Para 8.1 Maintain an email, web, file/print, and network infrastructure Acc rate of 99.7%.

Program Risks

As of: 3/6/2024 29

Risk Event Contractor Program Management

Risk Strategy Control

IF the contractor does not have a robust program management approach and understanding of the program management requirements, Apply lessons learned from current contract

Ensure requirement documented in PWS is performance-based to the maximum extent practicable

Include robust contractor program management requirements in the PWS

THEN the contractor will be unable to satisfy the SSPARS requirements consistently and will not be able to maintain a consistent level of risk to the mission that is commensurate with the Government's assessment of risk made during source selection.

Evaluate offerors' program management approach and understanding of the program management requirements in source selection; consider for possible trade-off against cost/price; focus areas

Ensure relevant proposal elements (e.g. strengths, process characteristics that contribute to higher ratings, incentives, etc.) are incorporated into contract

Ensure surveillance and contract administration focus on contractor program management performance throughout execution

Program Risks, cont.

As of: 3/6/2024 30

Risk Event Contractor Program Management

Risk Strategy Control

IF the contractor does not have a robust approach and understanding of the requirement for transitioning from the incumbent contractor, to include identifying, hiring and deploying qualified personnel who have the knowledge, skills, and abilities, Ensure comprehensive transition requirements are included in the PWS

Evaluate offeror's transition approach and understanding of the requirement in source selection; focus areas - hiring and retention;

projected workload (hrs per FTE), knowledge capture, transfer and maintenance, metrics for "workforce status"

THEN the new contractor will be unable to satisfy the SSPARS requirements upon becoming responsible for performance.

Ensure relevant proposal elements (e.g. strengths, process characteristics that contribute to higher ratings, incentives, etc.) are incorporated into contract

Issues

Staffing at Pituffik SB and the LRDR MDROs

Clear SFS Dining Facility Variance (food cost versus USD brought in from patrons)

As of: 3/6/2024 31

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Acquisition Strategy/ Solicitation Overview

Mr. Steven Dyer, NH-IV Contracting Officer

SAIO/PKG

Contracting Overview

As of: 3/6/2024 32

• Key Contractual Aspects

• Contract Type

• CLIN Structure

• Source Selection Methodology

• Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

• Source Selection Process Roadmap and Process

• Draft RFP Posting

• Points of Contact

Key Contractual Aspects

As of: 3/6/2024 33

• Solicitation Number: FA2518-24-R-XXXX

• NAICS Code: 517810 – All Other Communications

• Non-commercial acquisition IAW FAR Part 15

• Government Furnished Equipment (GFE):

• GFE listing will be provided with RFP

• Excess or expired GFE turned in to Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services.

• Equipment acquired during performance and purchased using government funds is then considered contractor acquired property until the end of the contract. Equipment is maintained by the contractor.

• Effective January 22, 2024, DFARS 252.245-7005 - Management of Government Property (JAN 2024) will be incorporated into the solicitation / contract award.

Key Contractual Aspects, cont.

As of: 3/6/2024 34

• Small Business Set Aside Determination not yet established

• Market Research Set-Aside Questionnaire posted to SAM.gov on 11 January 2024

• Government currently evaluating Industry responses

• If solicited Full & Open competition, Small Business Subcontracting goal will be established

• Subcontracting plans required for Large Businesses

• IAW FAR Part 19 – Small Business Programs

Contract Type & Period of Performance

As of: 3/6/2024 35

• Type: Prospective Single Award IDIQ with a 10-year ordering period

• Issued Task Orders anticipated to contain Firm-Fixed Price w/ Cost-

Reimbursable Line Items

• Anticipated 1st Task Order Period of Performance:

Period of Performance Transition Period 30 Jan 26 – 30 Apr 26 Base Period of 12-Months 01 May 26 – 30 Apr 27 9 Each, 12-Month Option Periods 01 May 27 – 30 Apr 36 6-month Extension 01 May 36 – 31 Oct 36

CLIN Structure

As of: 3/6/2024 36

CLIN # TYPE TITLE DESCRIPTION/LOCATION

XX10 Non-Personal Services Cape Cod SFS XX11 FFP Operations, Maintenance, and Support Cape Cod SFS XX12 FFP MILSATCOM Cape Cod SFS XX13 FFP Environmental (Pollution Prevention (P2)) Cape Cod SFS

XX14 FFP Environmental (Environmental Compliance (EC)) Cape Cod SFS

XX15 CR Environmental Reimbursable (P2) Cape Cod SFS

XX16 CR Environmental Reimbursable (EC) Cape Cod SFS

CLIN Structure

As of: 3/6/2024 37

CLIN # TYPE TITLE DESCRIPTION/LOCATION

XX20 Non-Personal Services Beale AFB XX21 FFP Operations, Maintenance, and Support Beale AFB XX22 FFP MILSATCOM Beale AFB XX23 FFP LRDR MDRO Beale AFB XX24 FFP LRDR MDRO Cheyenne Mountain SFS

XX25 CR LRDR SMDC Sensor Manager Courses Beale AFB and Cheyenne Mountain SFS

XX26 CR LRDR Supplies and Toner Beale AFB and Cheyenne Mountain SFS

CLIN Structure, cont.

As of: 3/6/2024 38

CLIN # TYPE TITLE DESCRIPTION/LOCATION

XX30 Non-Personal Services Pituffik SB

XX31 FFP Operations, Maintenance, and Support Pituffik SB

XX32 FFP MILSATCOM Pituffik SB

As of: 3/6/2024 39

CLIN # TYPE TITLE DESCRIPTION/LOCATION

XX40 Non-Personal Services Clear SFS XX41 FFP Operations, Maintenance, and Support Clear SFS XX42 FFP MILSATCOM Clear SFS XX43 FFP Environmental (Pollution Prevention (P2)) Clear SFS XX44 FFP Environmental (Environmental Compliance (EC)) Clear SFS XX45 FFP LRDR Facility OM&S Clear SFS XX46 FFP LRDR MDROM and L-SA Clear SFS XX47 CR Dining Facility Food Cost Reimbursable Clear SFS

XX48 CR Environmental Reimbursable (P2) Clear SFS

XX49 CR Environmental Reimbursable (EC) Clear SFS

XX50 FFP SSC R/T OM&S Clear SFS

As of: 3/6/2024 40

CLIN # TYPE TITLE DESCRIPTION/LOCATION

XX60 Non-Personal Services RAF Fylingdales

XX61 FFP Operations, Maintenance, and Support RAF Fylingdales

XX62 FFP MILSATCOM RAF Fylingdales

XX70 CR Cost Reimbursable Non-Personal Services All Sites

XX71 CR Cost Reimbursables All Sites

XX72 TBD Individual Job Orders (IJOs) All Sites

Start

END

Source Selection Process Roadmap

Source Selection Process Roadmap

As of: 3/6/2024 41

Start

END

Source Selection Process Roadmap image1.png

Source Selection Methodology

As of: 3/6/2024 42

• Acceptable / Unacceptable

• Proposal meets or does not meet requirements

• Tradeoff IAW FAR 15.101 and DoD Source Selection Procedures (August 20, 2022)

• Analysis compares the significant strengths, strengths, deficiencies, uncertainties, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and cost/price of the competing proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value to the Government.

• Assessments address for each technical subfactor component whether or not the proposed approach “Meets” the requirement, OR HAS….:

Evaluation Criteria Definitions

As of: 3/6/2024 43

Significant Strength Strength Deficiency Significant

Weakness Weakness Uncertainty

Aspect of an offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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.

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.

A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Evaluation Factors

As of: 3/6/2024 44

FACTORS

Factor 1 Technical

Factor 2 Past Performance

Factor 3 Cost / Price

Factor 1 – Technical is slightly more important than Factor 2 – Past Performance. When combined, Factor 1 – Technical and Factor 2 – Past Performance are significantly more important than Factor 3 – Cost/price.

Evaluation Factors & Subfactors

As of: 3/6/2024 45

FACTOR 1 – Technical

Subfactor 1 Mission Operations & Maintenance

Subfactor 2 Program Management

Subfactor 3 Knowledge Capture and Labor Force Retention

Subfactor 4 Resource Management Overall rating for Factor 1 will not be assigned

Subfactor 1 - Mission Ops & Maint

As of: 3/6/2024 46

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Evaluated on an ‘acceptable / unacceptable’ basis.

An offeror’s proposal must receive an ‘acceptable’ rating for continued evaluation and award consideration.

Subfactor 2 – Program Management

As of: 3/6/2024 47

Evaluated on a combined technical/risk rating based on five

(5) elements

1 Staffing

2 Organizational Structure and Personnel

3 Communications

4 Quality

5 Small Business Participation Commitment

Subfactors 3 & 4

As of: 3/6/2024 48

Evaluated on a combined technical/risk rating

Subfactor 3 Knowledge Capture and Labor Force Retention

Subfactor 4 Resource Management

Subfactors 2, 3, & 4

As of: 3/6/2024 49

Evaluated on a combined technical/risk rating Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

As of: 3/6/2024 50

Evaluated based on recency, relevancy, and quality. Government will assign a single, overall, integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. Past performance not qualifying as recent will not be evaluated further.

• Recency – Ongoing or completed within the past five (5) years from the date the solicitation is issued

• Relevency – Will determine the scope, magnitude, and complexity

• Quality of Performance

• Gather information from references on how well the offeror performed on past/ongoing projects

• Government will only evaluate quality on past performance information that is determined recent and “Relevant” or “Somewhat Relevant”

Past Performance Evaluation Process

As of: 3/6/2024 51

Obtain Past Performance Information on Each Offeror and Determine Recency

Assess Relevancy for Each Recent Contract

Review Performance Quality for Each Contract

Review Offeror Relevancy and Performance Ratings

Assign Offeror’s PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR Confidence Rating

Past Performance Evaluation

As of: 3/6/2024 52

• Submit Past Performance Information (PPI)

• Up to four (4) PPI references may be submitted; minimum of two (2) for Prime and remaining may consist of Subcontractor, Teaming Partners, Joint Venture Partners, and/or for Prime.

• Recent – at least 12 months of performance within last five (5) years from SSPARS solicitation date. If an aspect of performance recency exceeds the 5-year timeframe, the Government will deem it recent so long as performance was occurring within 5 years of the date the solicitation was issued.

• PPI Summary – 5-page narrative describing:

• Roles of proposed team

• How each reference is relevant (individually or in aggregate in demonstrating ability to perform full range of PWS requirements)

• Sub-contractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letter

• Organizational Change History (within past 5 years)

Past Performance Relevancy

As of: 3/6/2024 53

Rating Definition

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

*Scope & magnitude criteria will be updated & posted for industry comment prior to RFP release

Past Performance Relevancy, cont.

As of: 3/6/2024 54

• The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained

• Offeror must demonstrate past performance in the following:

• Meeting performance thresholds of large and complex mission systems

• Staffing large and complex mission systems with personnel having the appropriate qualifications, skills, experience, certifications, and security clearances

• Conducting information assurance on large and complex mission systems

• Managing collective bargaining agreements (CBAs)

• Demonstrating Past Performance in the following would be an advantage:

• Managing multiple locations on a single contract

• Managing locations outside of the Continental United States

• Managing contracts which total value exceeds $100 million

Past Performance Quality Ratings

As of: 3/6/2024 55

PERFORMANCE RATING DEFINITIONS

E

EXCEPTIONAL – Contractor performance met (or meets) contractual requirements and exceeded (or exceeds) many contractual requirements to the Government’s benefit. Contractor accomplished (or is accomplishing) contractual performance with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken were (or are) highly effective.

VG

VERY GOOD - Contractor performance met (or meets) contractual requirements and exceeded (or exceeds) some contractual requirements to the Government’s benefit. Contractor accomplished (or is accomplishing) contractual performance with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken were (or are) effective.

S SATISFACTORY – Contractor performance met (or meets) contractual requirements. Contractor accomplished (or is accomplishing) contractual performance with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken were (or are) or appear to be satisfactory.

M MARGINAL – Contractor performance did (or does) not meet some contractual requirements.

Contractor performance contained (or contains) a serious problem for which corrective actions have not yet been identified or were not fully implemented.

U UNSATISFACTORY – Contractor performance did (or does) not meet many contractual requirements and recovery did not occur (or is not likely to occur)

NA NOT RATED - Unable to provide a score or does not apply to this contract.

Past Performance Confidence Ratings

As of: 3/6/2024 56

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description 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 recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

FACTOR 3 Cost/Price

As of: 3/6/2024 57

• Conduct Price Analysis – Established by Adequate Price Competition (APC):

• APC is a technique based on:

Two or more responsible offerors, competing independently;

Submitted priced offers that satisfy government expressed requirement;

Award made to offeror whose proposal represents best value or lowest price technically acceptable(LPTA); and

No finding that price of successful offeror is unreasonable

• Determine if prices are balanced

• Exists when price of one or more CLINs is significantly overstated (despite acceptable total evaluated price)

• Mathematically unbalanced

• offer is based on nominal prices for some work and enhanced prices for other work

Draft Request for Proposal (RFP)

As of: 3/6/2024 60

• Draft RFP tentatively scheduled to be posted to SAM.gov in June 2024 timeframe

• Industry review and input is encouraged… We want to hear for you….

• Government will post responses to questions to SAM.gov without publicizing the originating source(s)

• SAM.gov URL: https://sam.gov/content/home https://sam.gov/content/home

Site Visit / Pre-Proposal Conference

As of: 3/6/2024 61

• Formal site visit before release of final RFP

• Tentatively scheduled for June 2024 timeframe

• Location: Clear SFS, AK and Beale AFB, CA

• Information needed prior to site visit

• Name of attendees (no more than 2 per offeror / joint venture / partnership)

• Company Name

• Job Title

• Photo Identification (needed to access the site)

• Social Security Number

• Driver’s License Number and State of Issue

• Cell number, business and/or personal (24/7)

• Email, business and/or personal (24/7)

Post-Award Management

As of: 3/6/2024 62

• Program Management Office (PMO) Structure

• Dedicated Multi-Function Team (MFT) and Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs)

• SAIO PM, CO, and Quality Assurance Manager (QAM)

• Quality Assurance Approach

• QAM advises CORs on effective quality assurance practices and leads Contractor Performance

Assessment Teams (CPATs)

• Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC) provides policy and support to Contracting Officer

Representatives (CORs)

• CORs inspect performance IAW Performance Plan and Quality Control Plan

• Contract Assessment Performance Report (CAsPR)

• Monthly rating from Certificate of Service that contributes to the annual CPAR

• Conduct Program Management Reviews (PMRs) with Prime Contractor and Delta 4 leadership

• Held annually; more frequently if needed

• May include teaming partners

• Emphasis on overall performance, risks, issues, process improvement, sharing of info, and cost control

Contractor Assessment Performance Report (CAsPR)

As of: 3/6/2024 63

• CAsPR is a tool the MFT uses to assess the contractor’s performance against the performance thresholds, measurements, metrics, and incentives identified in the contract

• CAsPR is generated from the monthly Certificate of Service provided from each site

• The Government also compares the CAsPR to the contractor’s monthly quality status report self-assessment

• An individual incident or performance measure may affect more than one sub-element and possibly more than one category in either a positive or negative way. It’s the decision of the assessing official as to whether the incident will be applied to one or multiple areas

• In the event of a problem of “serious magnitude,” the Government reserves the right to assign a CPARS rating based on the severity of the event, regardless of the final score. The CPARS Guide states, “A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating”

As of: 3/6/2024 64

As of: 3/6/2024 65

As of: 3/6/2024 66

As of: 3/6/2024 67

Points of Contact

As of: 3/6/2024 68

• Steven Dyer, Contracting Officer

• SAIO/PKG

• (719) 556-9382

• steven.dyer.5@spaceforce.mil

• Ken Friesz, Program Manager

• SAIO/PMG

• (719) 556-4286

• kenneth.friesz@spaceforce.mil

• Internet Link:

• https://sam.gov/content/home

• Reference Solicitation No. FA251824RXXXX mailto:steven.dyer.5@spaceforce.mil mailto:kenneth.friesz@spaceforce.mil

As of: 3/6/2024 69

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Break

TURN IN ALL WRITTEN QUESTIONS

As of: 3/6/2024 70

UNCLASSIFIED

Open Discussions

As of: 3/6/2024 71

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Closing Remarks

TURN IN ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS