Bidders Library Update 20 August 2026.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

i

UNCLASSIFIED

HYBRID ARCHITECTURE AND DEVELOPMENT FOR

EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMS (HADES) SERVICES

BIDDER’S LIBRARY

OCI ANALYSIS

FA8809-26-R-B002

SPACE SYSTEMS COMMAND (SSC)

SYSTEMS DELTA 89 (SYD89)

INNOVATION AND PROTOTYPING DELTA (SD)

INNOVATION AND PROTOTYPING DIVISION GROUND (SDG)

KIRTLAND AFB, NM

24 JULY 2026

Distribution Statement A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.

Destruction Notice: For unclassified, limited documents, destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of the contents or reconstruction of the document.

ii

UNCLASSIFIED

Innovation and Prototyping Division Ground

SSC/SYD89/SDG

Kirtland AFB, NM

7/24/2026

(U) HYBRID ARCHITECTURE AND DEVELOPMENT FOR

EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMS (HADES) SERVICES

BIDDER’S LIBRARY – OCI ANALYSIS

(U) Contents

(U) Contents .................................................................................................................................................................. ii

1. (U) ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) ANALYSIS

1.1 (U) Organization Conflicts of Interest (OCI)

1.1.1 (U) Overview and Purpose

1.1.2 (U) Types of Organizational Conflicts of Interest

1.1.2.1 (U) Biased Ground Rules (FAR 9.505-1)

1.1.2.2 (U) Impaired Objectivity (FAR 9.505-2)

1.1.2.3 (U) Unequal Access to Information (FAR 9.505-4)

1.1.3 (U) HADES-Specific OCI Scenarios

1.1.3.1 (U) Associate Contractor Agreement (ACA) Scenario

1.1.3.2 (U) Incumbent Contractor Scenario

1.1.3.3 (U) Other Potential OCI Scenarios

1.1.4 (U) Disclosure Requirements

1.1.4.1 (U) Affirmative Disclosure Obligation

1.1.4.2 (U) What to Disclose

1.1.4.3 (U) Disclosure Format

1.1.4.4 (U) Subcontractor and Team Member OCIs

1.1.4.5 (U) Continuing Disclosure Obligation

1.1.5 (U) Mitigation Plans

1.1.5.1 (U) When Mitigation is Required

1.1.5.2 (U) Mitigation Plan Requirements

1.1.5.3 (U) Mitigation Plan Examples

1.1.5.4 (U) Unacceptable Mitigation Plans

1.1.6 (U) Government Evaluation of OCIs

1.1.6.1 (U) Contracting Officer Responsibilities

1.1.6.2 (U) Evaluation Criteria

1.1.6.3 (U) Possible OCI Determinations

1.1.6.4 (U) Requests for Additional Information

1.1.6.5 (U) OCI Determinations Are Not Protestable

1.1.7 (U) Consequences of OCI Determinations

1.1.7.1 (U) Unmitigable OCI

1.1.7.2 (U) Mitigated OCI

1.1.7.3 (U) Failure to Disclose OCI

1.1.8 (U) Post-Award OCI Management

1.1.8.1 (U) Continuing Obligation

1.1.8.2 (U) Annual OCI Certification

1.1.8.3 (U) Government Monitoring

UNCLASSIFIED

Copy no. ____ of ____ copies Innovation and Prototyping Division Ground

SSC/SYD89/SDG

Kirtland AFB, NM

7/24/2026

(U) HYBRID ARCHITECTURE AND DEVELOPMENT FOR

EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMS (HADES) SERVICES

BIDDER’S LIBRARY – OCI ANALYSIS

1. (U) ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) ANALYSIS.

1.1 (U) Organization Conflicts of Interest (OCI)

1.1.1 (U) Overview and Purpose Per RFO Subpart 9.5, an OCI exists when an offeror or contractor is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government, has impaired objectivity in performing contract work, or has an unfair competitive advantage. Offerors have an affirmative, continuing obligation to identify and disclose actual or potential OCIs from solicitation awareness through contract performance. Failure to disclose may result in proposal rejection, contract termination, suspension/debarment proceedings, civil or criminal penalties, or adverse impact on future source selections.

1.1.2 (U) Types of Organizational Conflicts of Interest RFO 9.505 identifies three principal types of OCIs. Each is described below with general examples. Section L

7.4.4.2 provides HADES-specific scenarios.

1.1.2.1 (U) Biased Ground Rules (RFO 9.505-1) An Offeror has set competition ground rules by preparing specifications, SOWs, or other documents describing requirements, evaluation factors, or source selection approach in a manner that favors its own products, services, or capabilities.

HADES Assessment: Biased ground rules OCIs are not anticipated. HADES requirements were developed by Government personnel without contractor assistance. Offerors believing they may have a biased ground rules OCI due to prior advisory work for SSC/SYD89/SDG must disclose per Section L 7.4.

1.1.2.2 (U) Impaired Objectivity (RFO 9.505-2) An Offeror is required to evaluate or assess its own products, services, or performance, or those of a competitor, creating situations where objectivity may be impaired.

HADES Assessment: Impaired objectivity OCIs are not anticipated. The HADES contractor will not evaluate, assess, or certify systems/services provided by other contractors or have decision-making authority over other contractors' work. Offerors believing they may have an impaired objectivity OCI due to evaluation, assessment, or advisory roles on other contracts must disclose per Section L 7.4.

1.1.2.3 (U) Unequal Access to Information (RFO 9.505-4) An Offeror has access to nonpublic information from government contract performance that may provide an unfair competitive advantage in a later competition.

What is NOT Unequal Access:

• Operational knowledge from performing similar work (standard incumbent advantage)

• Publicly available information

• Information obtained through legal means available to all Offerors

• Knowledge retained by employees from prior employment (staff mobility is not an OCI)

UNCLASSIFIED

HADES Assessment: Unequal access to information is the primary OCI concern. Two specific scenarios may create unequal access OCIs: (1) Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs) and (2) Incumbent Contractor Operational Knowledge (see Section 1.1.3).

These OCI scenarios are described in detail below.

1.1.3 (U) HADES-Specific OCI Scenarios Based on the HADES acquisition structure and mission environment, the Government has identified the following scenarios that may create actual or potential OCIs. Offerors must carefully review these scenarios and disclose any situations that apply to them.

1.1.3.1 (U) Associate Contractor Agreement (ACA) Scenario The Situation: The HADES PWS, Appendix C, requires the contractor to enter into ACAs with other contractors supporting SSC/SYD89/SDG missions. The incumbent HADES contractor has an ACA with a.i. Solutions, Inc.

(POPS-I contract FA8818-22-D-0002). Additional ACAs may be required during performance.

The OCI Concern:

• Offerors competing for HADES with existing ACAs with the incumbent may have access to the incumbent's operational approaches, interface designs, technical solutions, and lessons learned, providing competitive advantage.

• HADES awardees with ACAs with non-selected Offerors create ongoing OCI concerns, as non-selected Offerors gain access to the awardee's operational approaches for future competitions.

OCI Mitigations: ACAs include NDAs prohibiting disclosure of proprietary information. Information sharing is limited to work-relevant technical interface information, not cost information, overall technical approaches, proprietary processes, or business strategies. Government reviews/approves all ACAs and monitors information sharing.

Disclosure Requirement: If your organization has an ACA with the incumbent HADES contractor, or is a.i.

Solutions, Inc. (or another contractor requiring an ACA with the HADES contractor), disclose in Volume V, Section L 7.4, including:

• ACA identification and contracts involved

• Nature and scope of information shared

• Analysis of whether the ACA creates an actual or potential OCI

• Proposed mitigation plan (if applicable)

Government Evaluation: The Contracting Officer will evaluate whether the ACA creates an actual or potential unequal access OCI based on the nature/scope of information shared, adequacy of NDA protections, proposed mitigation measures, and steps to prevent misuse of information.

Example Mitigation Measures: Organizational firewalls, limited access to ACA information, written policies prohibiting competitive use of ACA information, personnel training, periodic audits/certifications, and independent proposal review.

1.1.3.2 (U) Incumbent Contractor Scenario The Situation: The incumbent contractor may compete for HADES and has operational knowledge and experience unavailable to other Offerors, including understanding of current architectures, actual performance requirements, Government processes/preferences, operational challenges/solutions, and mission partner interfaces.

The OCI Concern - Government's Position: Generally, No OCI exists. FAR and legal precedent recognize incumbent advantages in recompetitions are generally not "unfair" under FAR 9.505-4 unless the incumbent has access to competitors' proprietary data/proposals, source selection sensitive information, or Government decision-making information not available to others, or has shaped the competition through requirements development.

What IS unfair advantage (creates OCI):

• Access to competitors' proprietary technical data, cost information, or proposals

• Access to source selection sensitive information

UNCLASSIFIED

• Access to Government decision-making information unavailable to other offerors

• Having shaped the competition through requirements development

What is NOT unfair advantage (does NOT create OCI):

• Operational knowledge from performing the work

• Understanding of Government preferences gained through performance

• Established relationships with Government personnel

• Familiarity with systems and processes

• Staff continuity (employees moving to successor contractor)

For HADES: The incumbent does NOT have access to competitors' proposals, source selection sensitive information, or requirements development involvement. The incumbent's advantage is operational knowledge from performance—a normal market condition, not an unfair competitive advantage under FAR 9.505-4.

Disclosure Requirement: Incumbent contractors are NOT required to disclose incumbent status as an OCI. However, incumbents MUST disclose any other actual or potential OCIs existing separately from incumbent status.

Staff Continuity: Employee movement from incumbent to successor contractor is a normal labor market dynamic and is not an OCI. Knowledge in employees' heads is not "nonpublic information" creating unfair advantage.

Successor contractors are encouraged to hire qualified personnel, including incumbent employees.

1.1.3.3 (U) Other Potential OCI Scenarios Disclose if applicable:

• Parent/Subsidiary/Affiliate Relationships: Ownership or affiliation with organizations having contracts/relationships that could create OCIs

• Teaming Arrangements: Team members with contracts/relationships that could create OCIs

• Access to Nonpublic Information: Access through other contracts that could provide competitive advantage

• Evaluation or Advisory Roles: Services to the Government related to satellite ground systems or systems engineering that could create impaired objectivity OCIs

• Financial Interests: Financial interests in companies that could benefit from HADES’ performance

Key Question: Could this relationship, contract, or situation affect your ability to provide impartial advice, impair your objectivity, or provide unfair competitive advantage? If YES or MAYBE, disclose it.

1.1.4 (U) Disclosure Requirements

1.1.4.1 (U) Affirmative Disclosure Obligation All offerors must identify and disclose all actual and potential OCIs from solicitation awareness through contract performance. Disclose OCIs even if you believe they are mitigable or insignificant. The Contracting Officer makes the final determination of whether an OCI exists and whether it is mitigable.

1.1.4.2 (U) What to Disclose All In Volume V, Section 7.4 of your proposal, you must provide a comprehensive OCI analysis that addresses:

a. Identification of Actual or Potential OCIs For each actual or potential OCI, provide:

1. Description of the situation (contract, relationship, or circumstance creating potential OCI).

2. Type of OCI (FAR 9.505 category).

3. Analysis (why it creates an actual or potential OCI and how it affects HADES performance or creates unfair advantage).

4. Contracts/relationships involved (contract number, title, customer, period of performance)

5. Personnel involved (if applicable).

b. HADES-Specific Scenarios Specifically address the scenarios in Section 7.4.4.2

1. ACA Scenario (7.4.4.2): Do you currently have an ACA with the incumbent or are you a.i. Solutions, Inc.

(or another contractor that will require an ACA)?

UNCLASSIFIED

2. Incumbent Scenario (7.4.4.2): While disclosure is not required for incumbent status alone, confirm whether you have any OTHER OCIs beyond operational knowledge.

3. Other Scenarios (7.4.4.2): Address whether any other OCI scenarios apply to your organization.

c. Mitigation Plan (if applicable) If you have identified an actual or potential OCI that you believe is mitigable, provide a detailed mitigation plan in accordance with Section L 7.4.4.2.

d. No OCI Statement If you have no actual or potential OCIs to disclose, provide a clear statement to that effect:

"[Offeror name] has conducted a comprehensive review of its current contracts, relationships, and circumstances and has identified no actual or potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest related to the HADES acquisition."

This statement must be signed by an authorized representative of your organization.

1.1.4.3 (U) Disclosure Format Offeror OCI analysis should be organized as follows:

Volume V, Section 7.4: Organizational Conflicts of Interest

• 1 OCI Analysis Summary: Overview of OCI review process and summary of findings.

• 2 HADES-Specific OCI Scenarios: Address ACA, Incumbent, and Other Scenarios.

• 3 Detailed OCI Disclosures (if applicable): For each OCI, provide description, type, analysis, contracts/relationships involved, personnel involved, and proposed mitigation.

• 4 Mitigation Plans (if applicable): Detailed mitigation plan for each OCI.

• 5 No OCI Certification (if applicable): Signed statement if no OCIs identified.

• 6 Subcontractor/Team Member OCI Analysis: OCI analysis and signed certifications from each subcontractor/team member.

1.1.4.4 (U) Subcontractor and Team Member OCIs Prime Offerors are responsible for identifying and disclosing OCIs for all proposed subcontractors, joint venture partners, and team members. Include an OCI analysis for each major subcontractor (>10% of contract value or performing critical functions) and a signed OCI certification from each subcontractor/team member. Subcontractor OCIs are evaluated using the same standards as prime contractor OCIs.

An unmitigable subcontractor OCI may render the prime offeror's proposal ineligible for award.

1.1.4.5 (U) Continuing Disclosure Obligation If you discover an actual or potential OCI after proposal submission, immediately notify the Contracting Officer in writing, even if evaluation is in progress or award has been made. Include description of the newly discovered OCI, when/how it was discovered, analysis, and proposed mitigation (if applicable).

1.1.5 (U) Mitigation Plans

1.1.5.1 (U) When Mitigation is Required If you have identified an actual or potential OCI, you must either (1) propose a mitigation plan that will avoid, neutralize, or mitigate the OCI, or (2) acknowledge the OCI is not mitigable and withdraw from competition.

Disclosure without mitigation is not acceptable.

1.1.5.2 (U) Mitigation Plan Requirements A mitigation plan must be specific, detailed, and enforceable. Generic or vague mitigation measures are not acceptable.

Your mitigation plan must include the following:

a. Specific Mitigation Measures Describe exactly what actions you will take to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate the OCI. Describe exactly what actions you will take. Examples include:

UNCLASSIFIED

• Organizational Firewalls: Separate organizational units for HADES and OCI-creating work, different management chains, physical separation of personnel, separate IT systems with no shared access, prohibition on personnel movement between units.

• Information Access Controls: Identification of individuals with access to nonpublic information, justification for access (need-to-know basis), written policies prohibiting unauthorized sharing, technical controls (access restrictions, audit logs, monitoring), regular audits.

• Personnel Restrictions: Identification of individuals who will NOT work on HADES due to OCI concerns, recusal of specific individuals from HADES decision-making, training requirements on OCI obligations, certification requirements affirming compliance.

• Process Controls: Written procedures for handling nonpublic information, review/approval processes for decisions affected by OCI, documentation demonstrating independence and objectivity, periodic reporting to the Government.

• Independent Review: Third-party review of HADES work products, independent assessment of mitigation plan effectiveness, periodic audits by independent parties.

b. Implementation Timeline Describe when each measure will be implemented: before proposal submission, before contract start (if selected), or ongoing throughout performance.

c. Monitoring and Compliance Describe compliance monitoring: who is responsible, assessment frequency, records maintained, and how violations will be detected and addressed.

d. Reporting to the Government Describe reporting of mitigation plan implementation and compliance: frequency (e.g., quarterly, annually), report content, and point of contact for inquiries.

e. Enforcement Describe consequences for violations: disciplinary actions, investigation process, and corrective actions if violations occur.

f. Effectiveness Assessment Explain why the mitigation plan will be effective: how measures address the specific OCI concern, likelihood of success, and residual risk after mitigation.

1.1.5.3 (U) Mitigation Plan Examples

a. Example 1: ACA Scenario Mitigation [Offeror] has an existing ACA with the incumbent HADES contractor through POPS-I.

Mitigation:

• Organizational Firewall: Separate business units for POPS-I and HADES, different Vice Presidents, physically located in different buildings.

• Personnel Restrictions: No POPS-I personnel or personnel with ACA access will work on HADES;

restricted personnel list maintained and updated monthly.

• Information Access Controls: ACA access limited to POPS-I personnel on need-to-know basis; IT systems enforce access controls with audit logs.

• Training: All HADES personnel completed OCI training and signed certifications of non-use of ACA information.

• Independent Review: Ethics Officer (independent of both units) reviewed HADES proposal to verify no

ACA information was used.

• Monitoring: Ethics Officer conducts quarterly audits and provides reports to Contracting Officer.

This plan is effective because it completely separates HADES personnel from ACA information through organizational, physical, and technical controls.

Example 2: Financial Interest Mitigation [Offeror] has minority ownership in [Company X], which provides ground system software potentially usable on

HADES.

UNCLASSIFIED

Mitigation:

• Disclosure: Relationship disclosed; will not recommend [Company X] products without clear, documented technical justification.

• Independent Review: Any decision to use [Company X] products reviewed/approved by Chief Engineer

(no financial interest in [Company X]) with technical justification memo.

• Alternative Analysis: Before recommending [Company X] products, analyze alternatives and document why [Company X] is the best technical solution.

• Government Approval: Obtain Government approval before procuring [Company X] products.

• Recusal: CEO (who holds ownership interest) recuses from decisions regarding [Company X] products.

This plan is effective because it ensures independent, objective decision-making with Government oversight.

1.1.5.4 (U) Unacceptable Mitigation Plans The following are examples of mitigation measures that are generally NOT acceptable:

• "We will comply with all applicable laws and regulations."

o Too vague; does not describe specific actions.

• "We will avoid any conflicts of interest."

o Too general; does not explain how.

• "We will notify the Government if an OCI arises."

o Reactive, not proactive; does not prevent OCI.

• "Our employees are professionals and will act ethically."

o Mitigation plan relies on trust and are not enforceable controls.

• "We will establish a firewall."

o Too vague; does not describe firewall's specific elements.

• "We will ensure objectivity."

o Conclusory; does not explain how objectivity will be ensured.

Acceptable mitigation plans are specific, detailed, enforceable, and demonstrate how the OCI will be avoided, neutralized, or mitigated.

1.1.6 (U) Government Evaluation of OCIs

1.1.6.1 (U) Contracting Officer Responsibilities The Contracting Officer has sole authority to determine whether an actual or potential OCI exists and whether it is mitigable. The Contracting Officer will review all OCI disclosures, conduct independent investigation (including reviewing offeror's contracts/relationships, searching Government databases, consulting with Government personnel, and requesting additional information), evaluate mitigation plans for adequacy and enforceability, make OCI determinations, and determine award eligibility.

1.1.6.2 (U) Evaluation Criteria The Contracting Officer will evaluate OCIs based on:

• Completeness of Disclosure: Thoroughness of OCI analysis, disclosure of all actual and potential OCIs, completeness and accuracy.

• Severity of OCI: Type of OCI (biased ground rules, impaired objectivity, unequal access), significance of concern, potential impact on Government.

• Adequacy of Mitigation: Whether mitigation plan is specific, detailed, and enforceable; effectiveness in avoiding, neutralizing, or mitigating OCI; residual risk; and ability to monitor and enforce compliance.

• Offeror's Approach to OCI: Good-faith effort to identify and address OCIs, commitment to avoiding OCIs, systems and processes to manage OCIs.

1.1.6.3 (U) Possible OCI Determinations For each Offeror, the Contracting Officer may determine:

• No OCI Exists: Disclosed situation does not constitute an actual or potential OCI under FAR 9.505; no mitigation required; offeror remains eligible for award.

UNCLASSIFIED

• Potential OCI Exists and is Mitigated: Potential OCI exists but mitigation plan is adequate; mitigation plan will be incorporated into contract (if selected); offeror remains eligible for award subject to mitigation plan implementation.

• Actual OCI Exists and is Not Mitigable: Actual OCI cannot be adequately avoided, neutralized, or mitigated; offeror is ineligible for award and will be excluded from competitive range or not considered for award.

• Inadequate Disclosure: Offeror failed to disclose an actual or potential OCI or OCI analysis is inadequate/incomplete; Contracting Officer may request additional information or determine offeror is ineligible for award.

1.1.6.4 (U) Requests for Additional Information The Contracting Officer may request additional information regarding OCIs at any time during evaluation. Such requests are not negotiations under FAR 15.306 and do not indicate establishment of a competitive range. Requests may include clarification of disclosed OCIs, additional mitigation plan details, information about undisclosed contracts/relationships, explanation of inconsistencies, or documentation supporting OCI analysis.

Offerors must respond within the specified timeframe. Failure to respond or submission of inadequate information may result in determination of unmitigable OCI and ineligibility for award.

1.1.7 (U) Consequences of OCI Determinations

1.1.7.1 (U) Unmitigable OCI If the Contracting Officer determines an Offeror has an actual OCI that cannot be adequately mitigated, the offeror will be determined ineligible for award.

Before Award: Offeror will be notified in writing, excluded from competitive range (if negotiations are held), not considered for award, and may request a debriefing. Offeror will NOT receive further solicitation communications, Evaluation Notices, opportunity to revise proposal, or award consideration.

After Award (if OCI discovered post-award): Contract may be terminated for cause or convenience, contractor may be required to divest conflicting interest, contractor may be suspended or debarred, and civil or criminal penalties may apply.

1.1.7.2 (U) Mitigated OCI If the Contracting Officer determines an offeror has a potential OCI adequately mitigated by the mitigation plan, the Offeror remains eligible for award subject to:

• Mitigation Plan Becomes Contractual Requirement: If selected for award, mitigation plan will be incorporated as a material contract requirement; contractor must implement and maintain the plan throughout performance; failure to comply is a material breach.

• Government Monitoring: Government will monitor compliance and the contractor must provide periodic reports; Government may conduct audits or inspections.

• Consequences of Non-Compliance: Failure to implement or maintain mitigation plan may result in Corrective Action Requests, cure notices, adverse past performance ratings, contract termination, suspension or debarment, or civil/criminal penalties.

1.1.7.3 (U) Failure to Disclose OCI Failure to disclose an actual or potential OCI may result in the following:

Before Award: Proposal rejection and ineligibility for award, exclusion from competitive range, adverse impact on future source selections.

After Award: Contract termination for cause, recovery of costs paid, suspension or debarment proceedings, civil penalties under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733), criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements), adverse past performance ratings.

UNCLASSIFIED

The Government takes OCI disclosure obligations seriously. Offerors are strongly encouraged to err on the side of over-disclosure. If uncertain whether a situation constitutes an OCI, disclose it and provide your analysis. The Contracting Officer will make the final determination.

1.1.8 (U) Post-Award OCI Management

1.1.8.1 (U) Continuing Obligation The contractor's obligation to avoid, identify, and disclose OCIs continues throughout contract performance. The contractor must monitor for new OCIs arising from new contracts/relationships, changes in corporate structure (mergers, acquisitions, divestitures), personnel changes, scope changes, or other changed circumstances;

immediately notify the Contracting Officer if a new OCI is identified; propose mitigation; and implement approved mitigation and maintain compliance.

1.1.8.2 (U) Annual OCI Certification The contractor must provide an annual OCI certification signed by an authorized representative affirming: no new OCIs have arisen or any new OCIs have been disclosed and mitigated; all mitigation plans remain in effect and are being complied with; and no violations of mitigation plans have occurred.

1.1.8.3 (U) Government Monitoring The Government will monitor contractor compliance with OCI mitigation plans through review of periodic reports, audits or inspections (as needed), review of annual OCI certifications, and investigation of suspected violations.

This Page is Intentionally Left Blank

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST CLAUSE

(a) The following restrictions and definitions apply to prevent conflicting roles which may bias the Contractor's judgment or objectivity, or to preclude the Contractor from obtaining an unfair competitive advantage in concurrent or future acquisitions.

(1) Descriptions or definitions:

"Contractor" means the business entity receiving the award of this contract, its parents, affiliates, divisions and subsidiaries.

"Development" means all efforts towards solution of broadly-defined problems. This may encompass research, evaluating technical feasibility, proof of design and test, or engineering of programs not yet approved for acquisition or operation.

"Proprietary Information" means all information designated as proprietary in accordance with law and regulation, and held in confidence or disclosed under restriction to prevent uncontrolled distribution. Examples include limited or restricted data, trade secrets, sensitive financial information, and computer software; and may appear in cost and pricing data or involve classified information.

"System" means the system that is the subject of this contract.

"System Life" means all phases of the system's development, production, or support.

"Systems Engineering" means preparing specifications, identifying and resolving interface problems, developing test requirements, evaluating test data, and supervising design.

"Technical Direction" means developing work statements, determining parameters, directing other Contractors' operations, or resolving technical controversies.

(2) Restrictions: The Contractor shall perform systems engineering and/or technical direction, but will not have overall contractual responsibility for the system's development, integration, assembly and checkout, or production. The parties recognize that the Contractor shall occupy a highly influential and responsible position in determining the system's basic concepts and supervising their execution by other Contractors. The Contractor's judgment and recommendations must be objective, impartial, and independent. To avoid the prospect of the Contractor's judgment or recommendations being influenced by its own products or capabilities, it is agreed that the Contractor is precluded for the life of the system from award of a DoD contract to supply the system or any of its major components, and from acting as a subcontractor or consultant to a DoD supplier for the system or any of its major components.

ALTERNATE III verbiage. Add the following paragraph (b) to the basic verbiage substantially as written:

(b) The Contractor may gain access to proprietary information of other companies during contract performance. The Contractor agrees to enter into company-to-company agreements to: (1) protect another company's information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it is considered proprietary by the other company; and, (2) to refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. For information purposes, the Contractor shall furnish copies of these agreements to the contracting officer. These agreements are not intended to protect information which is available to the Government or to the Contractor from other sources and furnished voluntarily without restriction.

ALTERNATE VI verbiage. Add the following paragraph (b) to the basic verbiage substantially as written. If either Alternate III or IV or both are used, renumber this paragraph accordingly.

(b) The above restrictions shall be included in all subcontracts, teaming arrangements, and other agreements calling for performance of work which is subject to the organizational conflict of interest restrictions identified in this clause, unless excused in writing by the contracting officer.

UNCLASSIFIED

HYBRID ARCHITECTURE AND DEVELOPMENT FOR

EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMS (HADES) SERVICES

GROUND CONROL

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS)

NOTIONAL STAFFING PLAN

FA8809-26-R-B002

SPACE SYSTEMS COMMAND (SSC)

SYSTEMS DELTA 89 (SYD89)

INNOVATION AND PROTOTYPING DELTA (SD)

INNOVATION AND PROTOTYPING DIVISION GROUND (SDG)

KIRTLAND AFB, NM

24 JULY 2026

Distribution Statement A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.

Destruction Notice: For unclassified, limited documents, destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of the

UNCLASSIFIED

REVISION HISTORY

Revision Date Version Description 1 1/15/2026 1.0 Initial Ground Control PWS Notional Staffing Plan 2 1/28/2026 2.0 Initial published PWS Notional Staffing Plan to

SAM.gov 3 7/24/2026 3.8 Aerospace revision, Ground Control PWS Notional

Staffing Plan

UNCLASSIFIED

Copy no. ____ of ____ copies Innovation and Prototyping Division Ground

SSC/SYD89/SDG

Kirtland AFB, NM

7/24/2026

(U) Hybrid Architecture and Development for Experimental Systems (HADES) Services

Ground Control Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Notional Staffing Plan

1. (U) NOTIONAL STAFFING PLAN DISCLAIMER.

This staffing plan is provided for informational and planning purposes only. It represents the Government's notional estimate of labor categories and Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) that may be required to meet the objectives outlined in the Ground Control Task Order Performance Work Statement (PWS).

This plan is NOT a requirement, limitation, or constraint on Offeror proposals.

Offerors are encouraged to propose their own staffing approaches, labor mix, and FTE allocations based on their technical solution, management approach, and understanding of the PWS requirements. The Government will evaluate proposals based on the Offeror's ability to meet PWS requirements, not on conformity to this notional staffing plan.

This notional staffing plan reflects the Government's intent for the Task Order PWS and should not be considered limiting or final.

Table 1. (U) Ground Control PWS Notional Staffing Plan

Labor Category Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Task Order Manager (TOM) 1 System Administrator (SA) 2 Drafter 1 Network Engineer (NE) 2 Cyber 2 System Engineer (SE) 2 Hardware Engineer 0.75 Total 10.75

UNCLASSIFIED

JAGUAR

INNOVATION AND PROTOTYPING DELTA (SD)

INNOVATION AND PROTOTYPING DIVISION GROUND (SDG)

Destruction Notice: For unclassified, limited documents, destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of the

UNCLASSIFIED

REVISION HISTORY

Revision Date Version Description 1 1/15/2026 1.0 Initial Jaguar PWS Notional Staffing Plan 2 1/28/2026 2.0 Initial published PWS Notional Staffing Plan to

SAM.gov 3 7/24/2026 3.8 Aerospace revision, Jaguar PWS Notional Staffing

Plan

UNCLASSIFIED

Copy no. ____ of ____ copies Innovation and Prototyping Division Ground

SSC/SYD89/SDG

Kirtland AFB, NM

7/24/2026

(U) Hybrid Architecture and Development for Experimental Systems (HADES) Services

Jaguar Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Notional Staffing Plan

1. (U) NOTIONAL STAFFING PLAN DISCLAIMER.

This staffing plan is provided for informational and planning purposes only. It represents the Government's notional estimate of labor categories and Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) that may be required to meet the objectives outlined in the Jaguar Task Order Performance Work Statement (PWS).

This plan is NOT a requirement, limitation, or constraint on Offeror proposals.

Offerors are encouraged to propose their own staffing approaches, labor mix, and FTE allocations based on their technical solution, management approach, and understanding of the PWS requirements. The Government will evaluate proposals based on the Offeror's ability to meet PWS requirements, not on conformity to this notional staffing plan.

This notional staffing plan reflects the Government's intent for the Task Order PWS and should not be considered limiting or final.

Table 1. (U) Jaguar PWS Notional Staffing Plan

Labor Category Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Task Order Manager 1 System Engineer 3 System Administrator 6 Network Engineer 5 Hardware Engineer 2 Software Engineer 3 Test & Evaluation 1 Cybersecurity/IA 2 Configuration Management 1 Logistics Support 0.5 Total 24.5

UNCLASSIFIED

GROUND SUPPORT

INNOVATION AND PROTOTYPING DELTA (SD)

INNOVATION AND PROTOTYPING DIVISION GROUND (SDG)

Destruction Notice: For unclassified, limited documents, destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of the

UNCLASSIFIED

REVISION HISTORY

Revision Date Version Description 1 1/15/2026 1.0 Initial Ground Support PWS Notional Staffing Plan 2 1/28/2026 2.0 Initial published PWS Notional Staffing Plan to

SAM.gov 3 7/24/2026 3.8 Aerospace revision, Ground Support PWS Notional

Staffing Plan

UNCLASSIFIED

Copy no. ____ of ____ copies Innovation and Prototyping Division Ground

SSC/SYD89/SDG

Kirtland AFB, NM

7/24/2026

(U) Hybrid Architecture and Development for Experimental Systems (HADES) Services

Ground Support Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Notional Staffing Plan

1. (U) NOTIONAL STAFFING PLAN DISCLAIMER.

This staffing plan is provided for informational and planning purposes only. It represents the Government's notional estimate of labor categories and Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) that may be required to meet the objectives outlined in the Ground Support Task Order Performance Work Statement (PWS).

This plan is NOT a requirement, limitation, or constraint on Offeror proposals.

Offerors are encouraged to propose their own staffing approaches, labor mix, and FTE allocations based on their technical solution, management approach, and understanding of the PWS requirements. The Government will evaluate proposals based on the Offeror's ability to meet PWS requirements, not on conformity to this notional staffing plan.

This notional staffing plan reflects the Government's intent for the Task Order PWS and should not be considered limiting or final.

Table 1. (U) Ground Support PWS Notional Staffing Plan

Labor Category Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Task Order Manager 1 System Engineer 2 System Administrator 1 Network Engineer 1 Hardware Engineer 2 COMSEC Responsible Officer/Security Support 1 Cybersecurity/IA 1 Configuration Management 0.5 Logistics Support 0.5 Total 10