Industry Day 3 Updated Slides.pptx

Integration Support Contract (ISC) 2.0 Industry Day #3 Alex Nebeker ISC 2.0 Lead Program Manager

AFNWC/NIAAC

16 March 2020

Never Doubted, Always Feared

AIR FORCE NUCLEAR WEAPONS CENTER

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Objectives Continuous market research and information exchange Provide strategy/process updates to Industry Understand Industry concerns, risks, and gather suggestions for consideration The government is still open to feedback, questions, concerns All communication must go through the PCO Information provided/exchanged today may change based on feedback from market research

This is an open forum seeking Industry input on requirements and processes Any ideas and/or information from Industry Day the Government decides to implement into its acquisition strategy will be publicized as part of the draft RFP The public forum of Industry Day is not appropriate for proprietary disclosures

Audio/video recording of the presentations is prohibited

Rules of Engagement

Christopher Thomas

ISC 2.0 PCO

afnwc.pzbc.isc2@us.af.mil PCO Disclaimer

Nothing stated in this briefing or related discussions is contractually binding. All communications or information which pertains to this effort is for market research purposes only

Any costs incurred by an offeror prior to receipt of a contract signed by the Government Contracting Officer are the responsibility and risk of the offeror

PCO Disclaimer

GBSD

Digital Engineering Overview Col Jason Bartolomei

GBSD SPM

US Nuclear Modernization

GBSD Replaces Land-Based Leg

GBSD Program Overview System Description

Launch Systems (Facilities, Power, Etc) C2 & Associated Ground Equipment

AVE

Segment

Weapon System Console Message Processing / Receiving Message Processing / Receiving Missile Interface Box Ground Processor Security

IMU/

Post- Boost Reentry System Boost Target Generation Codes Generation Communication Methods Security Message Processing Encryption System Launch Control

ICC

E6-B Responding Forces Post-Boost Booster Guidance Reentry Vehicle Countermeasures Launcher Launch Control Modernization Launch Facility/Locations Launch Centers (Fixed or Ground Mobile)

Weapon System Console Message Processing / Receiving Message Processing / Receiving Missile Interface Box Ground Processor Security Launch Centers (Fixed or Ground Mobile)

Support Systems

Command & Launch Segment GBSD Weapon System Transporters Trainers

Total System Replacement of MMIII

GBSD By The Numbers (1 of 2)

GBSD By The Numbers (2 of 2)

GBSD capabilities and acquisition directly aligned with NDS The DoD will modernize the nuclear triad Deliver performance at speed of relevance; Organize for innovation; Drive budget discipline and affordability to achieve solvency; streamline rapid, iterative approaches from development to fielding GBSD essential role in NPR Eliminating any leg of the triad would greatly ease adversary attack planning US initiated GBSD program to begin the replacement of Minuteman III in 2029 GBSD will modernize 450 ICBM launch facilities to support fielding of 400 ICBMs Advance W78 warhead replacement 1 year/FY19 to support 2030 fielding on GBSD GBSD addresses JROC-validated ICBM capability gaps:

Maintain ICBM effectiveness (Accuracy, Probability-to-Penetrate, Range/Payload) Addresses security deficiencies Provides flexible targeting Adds Two-Way Communications to command and execution GBSD Theory of the Case Warfighter Requirements

2018 NDS

2018 NPR

2019 JROC Validated

GBSD CDD

MMIII Age-Out, Attrition Drive GBSD Deployment Schedule

GBSD Theory of the Case Framing Assumptions Assumptions about Threats through 2075 Adversary defensive improvements threaten Lethality/Terminal Survivability Adversary offensive improvements threaten ICBM launch survivability Assumptions about increasing pace of technological change GBSD must account for rapidly changing cryptographic technology, advanced computing/manufacturing, and hypersonic technology threats Assumptions about Triad All three legs are being recapitalized thru 2040…(inter-leg hedge) All three legs are required for long-term deterrence Assumption about Treaties Treaties are uncertain after 2025…may drive changes to GBSD & impact deployment Assumptions about MMIII-to-GBSD Transition MMIII age-out/attrition forecasts are accurate 400 missiles must remain on alert during transition Account for MMIII age-out & GBSD development uncertainties (intra-leg hedge)

Framing Assumptions Inform GBSD Acquisition Approach

GBSD Theory of the Case Acquisition Approach GBSD’s approved acquisition approach centers on time-certain delivery & affordability A low risk, technically mature baseline design reduces cost/schedule risk by not chasing unproven technology A Modular Open System Architecture provides valuable on-/off- ramps during development An innovative Digital Engineering Strategy and DevSecOps builds schedule margin by pulling Nuclear Surety, Safety, Cyber, and Test activities to left and avoiding costly rework cycles A comprehensive data-rights strategy that ensures AF owns key interfaces and enables competition A “Smart Commonality" approach with Navy, Space, and Missile Defense Agency to reduce program risk A contractor incentive strategy that rewards schedule performance throughout deployment A comprehensive MMIII-to-GBSD transition strategy that synergizes MMIII transition with GBSD deployment

Digital Engineering + Big Data/Analytics Developing data environment for a digital twin for entire weapon system Leveraging MMIII time-series data to buy-down risk Creating data gold-mine for modernization & sustainment

Flexible Architecture (MOSA + Margin + Diversity) Close Ops + Intel + Acquisition Synchronization AF examined billions of total system designs AF evaluated the cost and schedule impacts for every performance requirement DevSecOps + Cyber + Surety Establishing Cloud Architecture Developing GFE Software Factory Streamlining Certification

Dynamic Threat Environment Near Far Med Increasing Pace of Technology

Far

(SCI)

Hybrid Infrastructure GBSD Success = Flexibility + Digital Engineering + DevSecOps

(U) GBSD Heat Map

(U) Intel and Tech Assessment Informs GBSD Flexible Architecture

Dynamic Threat Environment

Far

Increasing Pace of Technology

Far

Ground Based Strategic Deterrent Digital Engineering/Model-Based Systems Engineering Overview

Digital Engineering Transformation is enabling:

Digital Weapon System Architecture Modeling and Simulation Big Data/Analytics (examined 1031 designs) AI/Machine Learning/Automation DevSecOps Hardware/Software-in-Loop Reimagining Test, Surety, Cyber Ground Based Strategic Deterrent Digital Engineering/Model-Based Systems Engineering Overview

Total System Replacement of Minuteman III—must operate thru 2075 New missile system & weapon system command and control Reuse Minuteman III missile silos Major Defense Acquisition Program $83B acquisition program thru 2036 w/ sustainment beyond 2075 MEGA-project: develop – transition – dual-operations – production - sustainment Safe, Secure, Effective AND Affordable System Pursue low risk, technically mature baseline design Develop flexible system architecture w/ options for on-ramps/off-ramps Revolutionizing USAF Systems Engineering and Acquisitions Trailblazing Model-Based Systems Engineering, Digital Engineering, DevSecOps Big data, advanced analytics, cyber resilience, agile software development, test Digital Workforce Transformation GBSD attracting best and brightest workforce from nation…officer & civilian Demands strong STEM workforce, new disciplines, academic partnerships Ground Based Strategic Deterrent Summary

GBSD Enterprise Macro Schedule GBSD, Fuze, and Mk21A Program Synchronization

TEMP

GBSD Theory of the Case GBSD Expanded Program Schedule

Executing GBSD’s Government Critical Path is LIMFAC to IOC

GBSD Decision Roadmap FY20-25 GBSD Decision Triggers and Red Lines Key Risk Areas

Successful RFP DP DAB held Jun 2019 GBSD EMD and early production RFP Released Jul 2019 One proposal was received Dec 2019 GBSD is in an active proposal evaluation Guard against speculation regarding information in the press Discussion regarding proposal content is off limits Necessary to protect the integrity of negotiation GBSD continues execution of TMRR contract System Functional Review closed right before DAB Recently completed evaluation of 9QTIM System Software Review evaluation is on-going Preliminary Design Review activities have already started GBSD Program Update

ICBM Systems Directorate Governance Model Col Luke Cropsey Director, ICBM Systems Directorate

We exist as the prevailing force backstopping the security of the free world.

We will operate with deep knowledge, extreme tenacity, and radical teaming.

We deliver 400 combat capable nuclear missiles that are safe, secure, and effective...from now to 2075.

Our strategic priorities are increasing operational credibility, strengthening partnerships, and optimizing resources.

The most important thing right now is to implement effective governance across the Directorate.

Organizational Clarity in ICBMSD

ICBM Enterprise Picture

Increased Operational Credibility

Optimized Directorate Resources

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 OKRs Q3 OKRs Q4 OKRs Q1 OKRs Q2 OKRs Q3 OKRs Q4 OKRs Q1 OKRs Q2 OKRs Q3 OKRs Q4 OKRs Q1 OKRs MMIII Lines of Effort Strategic Outcomes Directorate Strategic Priorities GBSD Lines of Effort AFNWC Lines of Effort Directorate Lines of Effort

Lines of Effort (LOEs) AFNWC Lines of Effort inform Directorate, MMIII, and GBSD’s enduring, long-term initiatives

Objectives & Key Results (OKRs) Lines of Effort are broken down into quarterly OKRs to define what needs to be done and how it will be accomplished Strategic Priorities The Lines of Effort and OKRs drive the Directorate towards the three strategic priorities Lines of Effort and Setting Priorities with OKRs 400 combat capable missiles

Strengthened Enterprise Partnerships

Alignment & Focus “[OKRs are] a vaccine against fuzzy thinking – and fuzzy execution.” - John Doerr Org OKRs are linked at the center so that the focus of Team and Individual OKRs move in different directions.

Team OKRs Individual OKRs Org OKRs Alignment & Focus

Individual

Team

Organization OKR Execution The 90-day cycle guides the development and execution of OKRs 90-day OKR Cycle

Develop Execute

MMIII SPO Alignment

Acquisition Branch

Sustainment Branch Integration Branch

Propulsion Section Guidance Section

RS/RV

Section Ground Mechanical Section Ground Electrical Section

IIE

Section Field Support Section ACAT-I & II Section ACAT-III Section Services Section MMIII Division Specialty Engineering Section Test and Assessment Section Data Management Section

STRATEGIC

EXECUTION

Q1FY20

Q2FY20

Q3FY20

Q4FY20

Annual LOE Success Criteria Review and Objective Planning

Monthly Key Result Review

Execution of OKRs

Quarterly Objective Review and Key Result Planning

Line of Effort and OKR Battle Rhythm Weekly Prioritization Meetings

Example: MMIII RS/RV IPT OKR

Strategy and Information Updates Alissa Fronberg

AFNWC/NIAAC

16 March 2020

Contract Structure

Options exercised annually Period of Performance (PoP) $50M Minimum 5 Task Orders (TOs) awarded with Basic Contract 18 year PoP

Minimum contract guarantee

New set of TOs (1-?)

New set of TOs (1-?)

New sets of TOs each year

Task Order/PWS Structure

TO 2 – MMIII

Sustainment TO 5 – GBSD Enterprise

(GBSD, MK21A, FUZE)

Scheduling Alt-LDTO Specialty Engineering Test & Assessment TO 4 – MMIII Integration Engineering/ Technical Program Appendices Programmatic Data Management Ground Electrical Ground Mechanical ICBM Infrastructure and Equipment (IIE)

RS/RV

Field Support Guidance Propulsion TO 1 – Directorate Support Portfolio Management Transition IT/Cybersecurity Finance Engineering TO 3 – MMIII Acquisition (ACATs I-III) Security Engineering/ Technical Modeling and Simulation Acquisition/Pgm Management Force Development Evaluation (FDE) Subject to change Lead Project Office

DEMIL

PWSs and Attachments

EACH TASK ORDER PWS

Specific requirements/tasks TO-Specific List of Labor Categories Definitions extracted from master list for labor categories needed for the TO Additional, program/function-specific labor qualifications needed for the requirements of the TO TO-Specific Labor Matrix Labor categories and quantities required for the TO Location requirements Security Clearance requirements

BASIC PWS

Contract scope and overarching requirements Master GRIDS Contract Labor Matrix Contractual labor rates for each Labor Category Master list of CDRLs Master list of Labor Categories Definitions Qualifications Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs) Examples of job duties TO-Specific List of CDRLs List of CDRLs required for the TO (extracted from master list) TO-Specific GRIDS Data/license rights for TO-specific CDRLs (extracted from master GRIDS) Attachments:

Attachments:

Requirements Clarifications

All lists or examples provided in solicitation documents are for illustrative purposes only and not intended to be all inclusive Organizational charts and descriptions in solicitation documents are for illustrative purposes only and may be changed/updated at any time during the contract period Lists, Examples, Charts

All work shall be performed in coordination and cooperation with pertinent overseeing gov personnel The gov is the system integrator and is ultimately responsible for meeting cost, schedule, technical, and performance objectives The gov is the decision authority; all decisions relative to programs supported by the Contractor are the sole responsibility of the gov ISC 2.0 requires Contractor personnel to work in close association with the gov to the extent that the Contractor will be highly visible representatives and may be required to act on behalf of the gov

Role of ISC 2.0 Contractor

ISC contractor personnel will work as part of program/ functional teams and provide support (including travel) per the specific needs of that team and IAW the program's schedule

Role of ISC 2.0 Contractor

Other Small Business participation target:

15% of total subcontract awards 15% of awarded dollars Breakout of categories still in work Transition Not a discrete cost Network transition requirements have been removed Transition period = NTE 90 calendar days Offerors are to propose the timeframe needed to implement their proposed transition approach

Source Selection

Regulations:

FAR part 15 as supplemented DFARS PGI 215.3 dated 31 March 2016 AFFARS MP5315.3 revised 25 May 2018 Tradeoff Source Selection Process Tradeoffs between Technical/Risk and Cost/Price may result in award to higher rated, higher priced offeror where:

Decision is consistent with evaluation factors Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the approach of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference, and therefore represents the best value to the gov

Source Selection Approach

Detailed and complete analysis of each proposal will be performed IAW Sections L and M of the RFP Section L – “Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors” Provides instructions the offerors must follow for preparation and submittal of proposals Section M – “Evaluation Factors for Award” Provides evaluation criteria and methodology

* By submission of an offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, not only those identified as evaluation Factors or Subfactors

Evaluation

Proposal receipt Security check (Do NOT include classified information!)

Proposal compliance review by PCO Evaluate proposals IAW Section M Send sample scenario to offerors Receive sample scenario responses Evaluate sample scenario responses Best Value contract award decision by SSA Source Selection Process

The Government intends to award without discussions, therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint Gov reserves right to conduct discussions if determined necessary If determined to be in gov’s best interest to hold discussions, a Competitive Range (CR) will be established (in lieu of Best Value contract award decision) and Source Selection continues Source Selection Process – Discussions

Send Evaluation Notices (ENs) to offerors in CR Evaluate EN responses (potential additional rounds) Close discussions, request Final Proposal Revision (FPR) from offerors still in CR Evaluate FPRs IAW Section M Best Value contract award decision by SSA

Source Selection Process (cont.)

Factors and Subfactors (SFs) represent areas of importance Tied to significant requirements and objectives Baseline against which each proposal is evaluated ISC 2.0 Evaluation Factors Factor 1: Technical Approach/Technical Risk Factor 2: Factor 2: Cost/Price Order of importance:

Technical Factor is significantly more important than Cost/Price

* Regulations prohibit numerical weighting of Factors and SFs Evaluation Criteria

Offeror’s approach to effectively and efficiently accomplish contract requirements, thereby demonstrating understanding of those requirements Consists of 4 Subfactors (listed in descending order of importance):

SF 1: Program Management Approach SF 2: Technical Expertise SF 3: Transition Approach SF 4: Sample Scenario

Factor 1:

Technical Approach/Technical Risk

Approach to provide a qualified, stable workforce, and manage contract performance efficiently and proactively Includes areas such as:

Recruiting Hiring Retention Employee Compensation Flexibility Surge Support Communication Etc.

Subfactor 1:

Program Management Approach

Approach to provide technical expertise to satisfy contract requirements Includes areas such as:

Labor Mix Technical Problem Solving Issue Handling Etc.

Subfactor 2:

Technical Expertise

RFP will include a Labor Matrix spreadsheet with gov estimate of number of FTE and CME required to fulfill each PWS’s requirements for each year of the TO Also includes location and clearance requirements For the technical proposal, offerors will appraise the requirements of the PWSs and populate the labor category worksheet with the number of FTE and CME they propose are required to fulfill each task order's requirements If the offeror's proposed number differs from the gov estimate, the offeror is to explain the basis of their estimate

* Pricing/rate information will be delivered only in the Cost/Price proposal Subfactor 2: Technical Expertise

– Labor Mix

Subfactor 2: Technical Expertise

– Labor Matrix Sample

GFS: Government Furnished Site KFS-OnB/OffB: Contractor Furnished Site–On Base/Off Base FTE: Full-Time Equivalent Dedicated to a specific labor category position and assigned to a specific effort (non-interchangeable) CME: Contractor Manpower Equivalent Number of hours; may be fulfilled by multiple individuals within the specified labor category (interchangeable)

Gov will provide a list of labor categories for use on ISC 2.0 List defines qualification requirements considered by the gov to be the minimum for workforce to be capable of performing technical requirements TO PWSs may have program-specific qualification requirements above and beyond the general definitions Subfactor 2: Technical Expertise

– Labor Categories

Transition Approach, not Transition Plan Subfactor 3: Transition Approach Subfactor 4: Sample Scenario

Sample Scenario Responses shall demonstrate processes proposed in other Subfactors Will be sent to offerors after proposal receipt Will consist of 2 stages, both prepared and finalized prior to RFP release

Experience will be evaluated, not past performance Gov is interested in situations where proposed processes were used, not contract performance Contractors are required and expected to be truthful in claims of success/struggles in provided examples Identification of specific contracts used in experience sections of the Technical proposal will be required as part of Volume III, Contract Documentation The Technical evaluation team will not contact contract POCs to verify information in the Technical proposal However, the PCO may contact sources to aid in the Responsibility Determination (IAW FAR 9) Experience vs. Past Performance

Offerors shall assess risk of proposed approaches Source Selection Team (SST) will evaluate proposal risk Assesses the degree to which proposed approaches may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, etc.

Evaluation will address the SST’s identification of weaknesses, and take into consideration the offeror’s risk assessment Gov is not bound by offerors’ proposed acceptable levels of risk mitigation Gov will make the final determination of the SF’s risk rating Risk Assessments (SFs 1-3)

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) = Awardable Task Orders (ATOs) X Multiplier 4 sets of rates for each labor category based on location:

Direct rates GFS rates KFS-OnB rates KFS-OffB rates Factor 2: Cost/Price

Offerors may propose plans to mitigate, neutralize, or avoid potential or actual OCIs that would otherwise preclude the offeror from contract award All potential or actual OCIs shall be resolved in their entirety by the end of the transition period Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of the offeror’s facilities and experience. The Government will base its evaluation solely on the information presented in the offeror's proposal.

Offerors shall submit only one proposal for the ISC 2.0 as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror. Alternate proposals will not be considered.

Other Source Selection Points

Available on the DoD SAFE website (safe.apps.mil) Bidder's Library includes/will include:

List of all systems currently used in ICMBSD Government will designate which systems the contractor will be required to use/maintain and will provide that information once finalized List of publications referenced in PWSs Referenced publications not available to the public List of GFP Contact the PCO for access

Bidder’s Library image2.png image5.png image6.jpg image7.jpeg image8.wmf image9.wmf image10.png image11.jpeg image12.jpeg image13.jpeg image14.wmf image15.JPG image16.JPG image17.png image18.png image19.png image20.png image29.png image30.png image31.png image32.png image33.png image34.png image35.png image36.png image37.png image38.png image21.png image39.png image40.png image41.png image42.png image43.png image44.png image45.png image46.png image47.png image48.png image22.png image49.png image50.png image51.png image52.png image53.png image54.png image55.png image56.png image57.png image58.png image23.png image59.png image60.png image61.png image62.png image63.png image64.png image24.png image25.png image26.png image27.jpeg image28.png image65.jpeg image66.png image67.png image74.png image75.png image68.png image69.png image70.png image71.png image72.png image73.png image76.png image77.png image78.emf image79.png image80.png image81.png image82.png image83.png image1.png image4.png