00_LSA_OTA_Draft_RFP.pdf

DRAFT

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)

Launch Service Prototypes

Request for Proposals under

Other Transaction (OT) Agreement Authority

Issued by:

Space and Missile Systems Center Launch Enterprise Directorate

(SMC/LE)

DD MMM 2017

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

CONTENTS PAGE

1. LAUNCH SERVICE AGREEMENTS INFORMATION 4

1.1 Background and Overview

1.1.1 Launch Service Agreements

1.1.2 Future Launch Service Procurement

1.2 Competition Process

1.3 Basis for Agreement Awards

1.4 Objections

2. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 8

3. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS 9

3.1 Proposal Content

3.1.1 Section I: Executive Summary

3.1.2 Section II: EELV Approach

3.1.3 Section III: Technical Factor

3.1.4 Section IV: Investment Cost

3.1.5 Section V: Estimated Launch Service Prices

3.1.6 Section VI: Agreement Section

4. EVALUATION 25

4.1 Evaluation Factors

4.2 Evaluation of Proposals

4.2.1 Factor 1: EELV Approach

4.2.2 Factor 2: Technical

4.2.3 Factor 3: Investment Cost

4.2.4 Factor 4: Estimated Launch Service Prices

4.3 Negotiations and Portfolio Selection

5. DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY 30

6. EELV ORBIT DESCRIPTIONS 31

7. EELV REFERENCE MANIFEST 32

8. SIGNIFICANT EELV DATES 33

9. RFP CROSS REFERENCE MATRIX 34

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

Annex A – Statement of Objectives

Annex B – Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Checklist

Annex C – Model Agreement

Attachment 1 – Statement of Work (SOW) Placeholder

Attachment 2 – Milestone Payment Plan Writing Instructions

Attachment 3 – DD 254

Attachment 4 – Compliance Documents

Attachment 5 – Reference Documents

Attachment 6 – List of Government Furnished Property Placeholder

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

1. LAUNCH SERVICE AGREEMENTS INFORMATION

1.1 Background and Overview

This solicitation implements the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Program strategy to quickly transition from the use of non-allied space launch engines and to implement sustainable competition in National Security Space (NSS) launch services through public private partnership agreements that will partially fund industry’s new and/or upgraded launch systems in return for commitments to provide future NSS launch services. The goal of the EELV acquisition strategy is to leverage industry’s commercial launch solutions in order to have two domestic, commercial launch service providers that also meet NSS requirements, including the launch of the heaviest and most complex payloads. The strategy began with technology maturation, funded in FY14 and FY15, to raise the technology readiness level and increase the knowledge base for the entire U.S. rocket propulsion industrial base. The results of the technology maturation effort, which is currently underway, will be available to U.S. industry to the maximum extent practicable. The Air Force held an Industry Day in June 2016 to share the progress of these technical maturation efforts with industry and other Government agencies.

The strategy continued with investment in domestic Rocket Propulsion Systems (RPS). The Air Force awarded RPS development public-private partnership Other Transaction (OT) agreements to SpaceX, Orbital ATK, ULA and Aerojet Rocketdyne in January 2016 and February 2016. In order to receive an award, each of these companies demonstrated the proposed rocket propulsion system(s) are part of a planned or ongoing industry EELV-class launch system upgrade or development.

This solicitation builds on the RPS other transaction authority (OTA) agreements awarded in early

2016. The focus of this solicitation is to facilitate development of prototypes for up to three launch systems as early as possible, allowing those launch systems to mature prior to a future selection of two

NSS launch service providers. The development of launch system prototypes includes completing the development of any RPSs required, as applicable for the launch systems proposed.

1.1.1 Launch Service Agreements

While the technical maturation and RPS investments are important enablers, the key step to transition off the RD-180 and introduce sustainable competition for future EELV NSS launch services will be public private partnership agreements that partially fund industry’s new and/or upgraded launch system solutions. These Launch Service Agreements (LSA) are intended to allow the Air Force to competitively procure launch services in the future from domestic commercial launch service providers that meet EELV requirements. Any required RPS efforts associated with the LSA awards will be completed as part of the LSA OTA. The specifics of the transition from the RPS OTA to the

LSA OTA will be handled on a case-by-case basis. The goal is to use innovative business arrangements that leverage industry’s ongoing efforts to develop new and/or upgraded commercial launch systems. These agreements will be tailored to each launch service providers’ needs to modify or develop these launch systems to meet all NSS requirements. This will allow launch system fixed costs to be shared across more launches, including commercial and civil, and will reduce the overall cost to the Air Force.

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

Through this solicitation the Government requests proposals for shared public-private investment in launch system prototype development efforts, to include the development and test of any required

RPSs, the launch vehicle and its subsystems, infrastructure, manufacturing processes, test stands, and other items required for industry to provide domestic commercial launch services that meet all NSS requirements. As part of the response to this solicitation, Offerors may propose the completion of

RPS prototype development begun under the current RPS investments, if required to complete the proposed launch system. These Launch Service Agreements (LSAs) will initially be funded using

$TBD in FY2017.

For the purposes of the Other Transaction Agreements for Prototypes resulting from this solicitation, the prototype is defined as a fully developed EELV-certified launch system. For the purpose of this solicitation development is defined as all activities from initial concept up to, but not including, production. However, producibility will be assessed during development. Development includes all activities leading up to and including EELV certification to meet the full range of EELV mass-to-orbit requirements and the validation of non-recurring engineering work. This could include full development of a new launch system or modifications to an existing launch system to meet NSS requirements.

For the Government’s investment in this development, industry must agree to provide the items at the

Not To Exceed (NTE) prices, per table 10 below, for any resultant future contracts. The Government plans to treat these NTE priced items as options, with the Government’s unilateral right to call for delivery of the items at the NTE prices. The evaluation of the priced items does not obligate the

Government to “exercise the option.” In the event market conditions drive a decrease in prices, the

Government’s intent is to negotiate lower prices. See section 3.1.5 and Model Agreement (Annex C) for more details.

1.1.2 Future Launch Service Procurement

Per national policy, the Air Force intends to ensure that there are two reliable sources for all national security launches. Depending on progress in developing new US domestic launch systems, the Air

Force intends to explore the competitive award of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-based firm fixed price (FFP) contracts to two launch providers for NSS launch procurements as soon as possible, but no later than 2020 for 2022 launches. The LSAs will continue for those who receive launch service awards at that time. The Air Force intends to maintain mission success and assured access to space, transition from use of foreign propulsion systems, acquire NSS launch services at fair and reasonable prices, and create an environment in which industry may recoup their share of investment in new and/or upgraded launch services that meet NSS needs.

The Air Force is exploring ordering launch services from the selected providers using a share ratio.

Under such an arrangement, the Offeror providing the Government with the best value would be awarded the majority of the available launch services, and the Offeror providing the Government with the next best value would be awarded the remainder. This share ratio would be applied to all of the

Payload Category A and B (medium through intermediate class) launch vehicles (LVs) in the ordering period. To encourage lower prices, the Air Force is considering what types of commitments, if any, it might make to launch service providers. The order of Payload Category C (heavy class) LVs may be determined separately from the share ratio.

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

Early Integration Studies (EIS) for launch services during this period may be included in the launch services contracts. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Leading Edge Integration (LEI) will continue to be performed under NRO contracts. Both EIS and LEI may begin as early as FY19.

Under this approach, the Air Force would expect to order launch services annually. The share ratio would be applied across the entire ordering period, which is expected to be FY20-FY24. If a company has not closed all Space Flight Worthiness non-recurring engineering work plans prior to an annual order, the Government would assess the launch service provider’s progress toward closing the work plans and the launch system’s technical maturity in order to determine if the Air Force has confidence that the launch provider will be ready to meet the launch date. If the launch provider is not ready to meet the launch date, the launch services for that year may be assigned to another provider.

The Air Force is considering including a Launch Service Support (LSS) FFP task order as part of the launch services contracts. LSS will only cover non-discrete costs for NSS-unique launch service needs. Examples of possible non-discrete NSS-unique costs include fleet surveillance (access to commercial/civil launch data), access to fleet design data for Government mission assurance, NSS unique readiness efforts, and NSS unique infrastructure costs, such as vertical integration facilities and classified facilities.

1.2 Competition Process

For this solicitation, the Government intends to use the competition process described below as well as those in Sections 3 Proposal Submittal Instruction and Sections 4 Evaluation of this document.

Throughout this process, the Government may communicate with Offerors at any time.

1. Release of the Solicitation: The Government encourages Offerors to ask questions prior to submitting proposals. See Section 3 for instructions on how to contact the Agreements Officer.

2. Evaluation of Proposals: The Government will evaluate the proposals against the criteria listed in

Section 4.

3. Discussions: The Government will send Evaluation Notices (ENs) to the Offerors regarding the evaluation of their proposals against the evaluation criteria in Section 4. The Government may schedule meetings to discuss the Offeror’s proposal and to request additional information as necessary.

The Government will request an updated proposed agreement prior to final negotiations (see Section

4.3).

4. Negotiations: The Government will negotiate with those Offerors with the highest rated proposals.

The Government will notify Offerors that will not be considered for further negotiations. The selection may require concurrent or sequential negotiations separately with multiple parties for total investment amounts, terms, and conditions. The Government may negotiate directly with the Offerors regarding any aspect of a proposal, except for those articles that are identified as non-negotiable. Section 4.3 addresses negotiations and portfolio selection.

5. Agreement Award or Non Award: After the Government completes negotiations, the Source

Selection Authority (SSA) will select a portfolio of solutions that represents the best value to the

Government by most effectively supporting the Government’s goal to achieve assured access to space

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX via two or more domestic commercial launch service providers that also meet NSS requirements.

Awards, if any, might not occur simultaneously. Sections 1.3 and 4.3 address portfolio selection and agreement award.

5a. In addition to the Offerors who are awarded an agreement, Offerors whose proposals are not awarded an agreement will be notified.

5b. All Offerors will be given the opportunity to be debriefed by the Government. Offerors shall request debriefings within 14 days of notification of agreement award or non-award. Debriefings will not occur until the last award, if any, is made.

1.3 Basis for Agreement Awards

Agreements will be awarded in accordance with the Other Transaction Authority for Prototype

Projects (10 U.S.C. § 2371b). Unless specifically addressed in the solicitation, the FAR and its supplements do not apply to this selection process. Based upon an integrated assessment of the EELV

Approach, Technical, Investment Cost, and Estimated Launch Service Prices evaluations and

Government funding limitations, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will select a portfolio of solutions that represents the best value to the Government by most effectively supporting the

Government’s goal to achieve assured access to space via two or more domestic commercial launch service providers that also meet NSS requirements.

Offerors may submit one proposal per company. The Government plans to award a portfolio of up to three agreements, but reserves the right to award any number of agreements, including none. The actual number of awards will be determined based on several factors including, but not limited to, number and quality of proposals received, amount of funding requested by Offerors, and total amount of funding available.

1.4 Objections

Any objections to the terms of this solicitation, evaluation of proposals, or award of agreements must be presented in writing to the Agreements Officer (AO), within ten calendar days of (1) the release of this solicitation or (2) the date the objector knows or should have known the basis for its objection.

Objections should be provided in letter format, clearly stating that it is an objection to this solicitation, or to the evaluation or award of an agreement, providing a clearly detailed factual statement of the basis for objection. Failure to comply with these directions is a basis for summary dismissal of the objection. The AO will adjudicate all objections.

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

2. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

EELV System Performance Requirements are provided in Table 1 LSA OT Compliance Documents of Annex C, Attachment 4. The key performance requirements for the launch system are:

- Mass to orbit (MTO) parameters for all reference orbits as defined in the SPRD and SIS (Annex

C, Attachment 4) (Additionally, rideshare interface requirements documents are in development and expected to be completed in 2016.)

- 97.5% mission reliability as defined in the System Performance Requirements Document

(SPRD) Rev A*

- Standard payload interfaces as defined in the Standard Interface Specifications (SIS) Rev B*

In order for a proposal to be accepted under this solicitation, Offerors must submit any existing

Certification Plan(s), draft Certification Plan(s), or a draft update to an existing Certification Plan that cumulatively addresses system development to meet the full range of EELV requirements. If there is an existing Certification Plan for a launch system, but it does not address the full range of EELV requirements, an updated draft Certification Plan that addresses the remaining EELV requirements must be submitted. See Sections 3.1.6.2 and 3.1.6.3 for further details on incorporating Certification

Plan(s) into the Statement of Work (SOW).

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

3. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

The Agreements Officer, Mr. David Sharp, is the sole point of contact for this solicitation. Address any questions or concerns to the AO at david.sharp.5@us.af.mil or 310-653-3697. Contacting other members of the Government regarding the source selection may result in elimination from the source selection.

The Government will not recognize nor pay any cost associated with the submission of a proposal.

Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation will not be returned. All proposals will be treated as source selection information, as defined in FAR 2.101.

Proposals shall be clear and concise and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. Proposals shall not simply rephrase or restate the

Government's requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal.

Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

Each section of the proposal shall be separately tabbed within a single three-ring, loose-leaf binder, permitting the binder to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet shall be included in each book, clearly marked with the title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the Offeror’s name. The same identifying data shall be placed on the spine of each binder. All unclassified document binders shall have a color other than red or other applicable security designation colors.

A page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8 ½” x 11”, with at least one-inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12-point type, with the exception of tables and figures, which may use 8-point type.

A foldout is defined as one side of a sheet, 11” x 17”, with at least one-inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12-point type, with the exception of tables and figures, which may use 8-point type.

A foldout counts as two pages. Title pages, section and appendix cover pages, tables of contents, tabs, and glossaries/acronym listings, proposal cross reference matrix, list of figures, and list of tables are excluded from the specified page counts. Additionally, specific proposal sections have an unlimited page count as indicated in Section 3.1. Pages submitted in excess of the page limits identified in the solicitation will not be evaluated.

Offerors shall mark proposal information that requires protection for five years from Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA) disclosure in accordance with 10 U.S.C Section 2371. The submission of a proposal means the Offeror agrees that the amount of investment (both Offeror and Government shares) for an awarded agreement is publicly releasable.

If classified information is required in the proposal, the Offeror shall provide a classified supplement and bound in a single classified addendum. Each entry in the classified addendum shall be referenced to the proposal volume, page number, and paragraph number to which it applies. Similarly, a reference shall be placed in the unclassified volume where the classified insert applies, giving the page and paragraph numbers within the addendum where it can be found. The classified addendum shall be

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX separately bound with an applicable security designation color cover, conforming to the National

Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), DoD 5220.22M, dated 28 Feb 2006, the

DD Form 254 Contract Security Classification Specification, and the EELV Security Classification

Guide. Pages in a classified addendum will be included in the page count for the applicable volume.

One hardcopy of the proposal shall be submitted and received by the applicable deadline: TBD, by

10:00 a.m. Pacific Time.

In addition, two electronic copies of proposal(s) shall be submitted on CD-ROMs at the same time the hardcopies are submitted. The CD-ROMs shall be labeled as Copy 1 of 2 and Copy 2 of 2. The CD-

ROMs shall be labeled with the same company and proposal identifiers used on the hardcopies. The proposal shall be in Microsoft Office formats or Adobe .pdf format as defined in Table 2.

In the event of a discrepancy between the hardcopy and electronic copies of the proposal, the hardcopy shall have precedence.

Proposals shall be addressed and delivered to the following:

SMC/LEK

Attn: Mr. David Sharp

483 N. Aviation Blvd.

El Segundo, CA 90245

Delivery of proposals shall be coordinated with the AO at least 24 hours in advance of the due date and time. Early deliveries of proposals shall also be coordinated with the AO. Classified proposals shall be delivered to the following:

The Aerospace Corporation, Visitor’s Center 1

2310 E. El Segundo Blvd.

El Segundo, CA 90245

If a proposal will contain classified information, Offerors shall coordinate with the AO at least seven

(7) calendar days in advance of the due date and time to confirm delivery details and coordinate a time for the Government to receive the classified package.

Proposal packages must be clearly marked on the outside of the package with the following information:

- Solicitation Number: FA8811-17-x-xxxx

- The AO’s name and office information

- Offeror’s name and address clearly marked on the outside of the package

Proposals received by the Government after the published date and time for receipt may not be accepted. Acceptance of late proposals will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(3).

The Government will use selected contractor support personnel to assist in providing technical, business and investment expertise during proposal evaluations. Any support contractor involvement

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX in the evaluation process shall be free of conflicts of interest, will be bound by appropriate non-disclosure agreements to protect proprietary and competition sensitive information, and must have accepted limitations on future contracting.

By submitting a proposal under this announcement, the Offeror is deemed to have consented to release of data in its proposal to the following Air Force support contractors advising on the evaluation of proposals:

Table 1 - Air Force Support Contractor(s)

Company Name Address

The Aerospace Corporation P.O. Box 92957, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957

ManTech International Corporation 2101 W. Maple St., El Segundo, CA 90245

Scitor Corporation 185 S. Douglas St, Suite 200, El Segundo, CA 90245

Tecolote Research, Inc. 2120 E. Grand Ave, Suite 200, El Segundo, CA 90245

Individuals from the above support contractors have signed individual non-disclosure agreements with the Government which strictly prohibits any release or disclosure of information outside the source selection team.

If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error or omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the AO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the AO to consider.

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

3.1 Proposal Content

Proposals should be specific and quantifiable in describing how the proposed effort culminates in development of a launch system prototype meeting the full range of EELV requirements. The launch system prototype may include a single launch vehicle or a family of launch vehicles.

Proposals shall be submitted using the following format and page limits:

Table 2 - Proposal Content

Section Title

Instructions to

Offerors

Paragraph

Page Limit File Format

I Executive Summary 3.1.1 5 Adobe .pdf

I Verbal Presentation of

Executive Summary

3.1.1 N/A

Microsoft

Powerpoint

II EELV Approach 3.1.2 6 Adobe .pdf

III Technical: Design 3.1.3.1 25 Adobe .pdf

III Technical: Schedule 3.1.3.2 10

Adobe .pdf and

Microsoft

Project*

IV Investment Cost 3.1.4 Unlimited MS Excel and

Adobe .pdf**

V Estimated Launch

Service Prices

3.1.5 Unlimited

MS Excel and

Adobe.pdf**

VI Agreement 3.1.6 Unlimited Microsoft Word

* Schedules in Section 3.1.3.2 shall be provided in Microsoft Project format. Microsoft Project schedules have an Unlimited page count.

3.1.1 Section I: Executive Summary

The Offeror shall include an executive summary describing the proposed launch system prototype, the prominent and distinguishing features of the proposed launch system prototype, and how Government investment in the prototype will lead to a launch service that leverages industry’s commercial development and also meets EELV requirements. The executive summary shall stand alone and not directly reference the other sections of the proposal.

For the proposed launch system prototype, the Offeror shall describe how existing RPS development, if applicable, will transition to the LSA effort.

If the Offeror is involved in current EELV certification efforts or will need to initiate future

EELV certification efforts, the Offeror shall outline the plan to achieve EELV certification for a launch vehicle (or family of launch vehicles) that meets all EELV launch requirements.

For the launch services using the launch system developed under a launch service agreement, the Offeror shall include the commercial sales prices, separately listing each major configuration of the launch system.

The Offeror shall briefly describe the Technical and Investment Cost information.

The Offeror shall briefly summarize any past successful launch system development efforts.

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

The Offeror shall identify its teaming partners and major subcontractors.

In addition to the written narrative for the Executive Summary, the Offeror shall provide a verbal briefing of the significant content of the Executive Summary and any other points the Offeror would like to include. The Offeror shall have up to two hours to brief. The briefing will be video recorded.

The briefing, briefing slides, and the written Executive Summary will be used to orient evaluators to the Offeror’s proposal. The briefing, briefing material, and Executive Summary will not be evaluated.

If the Government has questions regarding the briefing, they will be provided to the Offeror before the briefing or during formal discussions. The briefing slides shall be delivered in Section I of the proposal. Dates and times for the briefings will be determined mutually between each Offeror and the

Government, and the briefing schedule will be finalized within three business days of proposal receipt.

The briefings shall be at Los Angeles Air Force Base, California within 10 days of proposal receipt.

3.1.2 Section II: EELV Approach

The Offeror shall describe the approach to meet EELV launch service requirements. At a minimum, the Offeror shall address the following topics:

1) The ability to meet all EELV reference orbits, as defined in the SPRD and SIS (Annex C, Attachment 4)

2) The ability to support up to five NSS launches per year

3) The characteristics of launch system infrastructure, including both the East and West coasts, that meet EELV requirements in the SPRD and SIS (Annex C, Attachment 4)

4) The proposed mission assurance approach to ensure low risk and high confidence in launching

NSS missions

5) The ability to slow or surge to accommodate uncertain NSS, commercial and civil launch forecasts

In addition to any of the items addressed above, the Offeror may include a proposed approach to exceed other launch service requirements, which are documented in Annex C Attachment 4.

The Offeror shall clearly identify significant aspects of its proposed approach that may be of benefit to the Government during the performance of the LSA or during the performance of future launch service contracts.

3.1.3 Section III: Technical Factor

3.1.3.1 Subfactor 1: Design

3.1.3.1.1 Technical Feasibility

The Offeror shall provide a technical feasibility analysis for:

1) Stage Separation System(s)

2) Engines/Motors

3) Payload Fairing (address all SIS fairings)

Each of the technical feasibility analyses listed above shall include the following information:

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

a) Design or flight heritage,

b) Roadmap that demonstrates progression from the current technology readiness level

(TRL) to TRL 9 using analyses, testing, and demonstration, as applicable,

c) Description of new and existing technologies, materials, and processes used to drive the design, and;

d) Technical risks with risk handling plans.

3.1.3.2 Subfactor 2: Schedule

3.1.3.2.1 Schedule Activities

The Offeror shall provide a single Microsoft Project schedule that includes the following:

1) Lowest level of tasks/activities necessary for performance visibility for all supporting launch system development, payment milestones, and certification efforts (to include certification flights) through the completion of Space Flight Worthiness non-recurring engineering effort.

2) All necessary activities and tasks to include the development of LV booster, upper stage, and the launch pad infrastructure for the Payload Category A and B LVs that meets applicable

EELV requirements, including activities to accomplish the tasks in the Offeror’s proposed

SOW. For the purposes of Subfactor 2, Payload Category A and B LVs are defined as LVs capable of achieving all EELV Mass-to-Orbit Requirements except GEO 2 and Polar 2 as defined in the orbit descriptions in Table 9 “Estimated Pricing for Launch Services.”

3) All necessary activities and tasks to include the development of LV booster, upper stage, and the launch pad infrastructure for the Payload Category C LV that meets applicable EELV requirements, including the development of a payload fairing (PLF) with the capability to interface with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Mission Support Equipment

(MSE) as defined in the SIS, and activities to accomplish the tasks in the Offeror’s proposed

SOW. For the purposes of Subfactor 2, the Payload Category C LV is defined as an LV capable of achieving the GEO 2 and Polar 2 EELV Mass-to-Orbit Requirements as defined in the orbit descriptions in Table 9 “Estimated Pricing for Launch Services,” which includes a 173-inch diameter standard interface and a payload fairing with a minimum payload static envelope as defined in Table 4.

4) Certification efforts (to include certification flights) with NRE work validated in time to support applicable ILC dates as defined in paragraph 3.1.3.2.2.

5) LSA payment milestones.

6) All tasks supporting launch system development, including the development of an LV booster(s), upper stage(s), and launch pad infrastructure through the completion of Space

Flight Worthiness non-recurring engineering effort.

7) Identification of a valid critical path.

8) Relationships/dependencies that identify how predecessor and successor tasks and milestones are logically linked.

9) Use of tasks with durations greater than forty-four (44) working days is less than 5% of all tasks within the schedule.

10) The Offeror shall provide a narrative that describes the assumptions, methodology, and supporting data used to formulate task durations. Task durations shall be supported by the

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

Offeror’s actual historical performance data. If the Offeror does not have relevant performance data, estimating rationale shall be provided.

Table 4. EELV Payload Category C Class Payload Static Envelope

Ref SIS Rev B Fig 3.1.3-2

3.1.3.2.2 Schedule Risk Assessment

The Offeror shall perform a schedule risk analysis for completing the development and certification of an EELV certified launch system that meets:

1) EELV Payload Category A and B launch vehicle mass-to-orbit requirements, covering all except the Payload Category C launch vehicle mass-to-orbit requirements (Polar 2 and GEO

2) as defined in the orbit descriptions in Table 9 “Estimated Pricing for Launch Services,” including NRE validation, by no later than the start of FY22;

2) EELV Payload Category C launch vehicle mass-to-orbit requirements (Polar 2 and GEO 2) as defined in the orbit descriptions in Table 9 “Estimated Pricing for Launch Services, which includes a 173-inch diameter standard interface and a payload fairing with a minimum payload static envelope as defined in Table 4, including NRE validation, by no later than the start of FY25.

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

The schedule risk analysis shall include the following:

1) Schedule risk analysis results derived using Monte Carlo methodology with a minimum of

10,125 runs performed.

2) Cumulative probability distributions (S-curve) for the target end dates with specific completion dates for every 10th percentile from 10% to 90%.

3) Use of best, most likely, and worst case probability distributions.

The Offeror shall provide a narrative explaining the following:

1) Assumptions and methodology used to formulate the best case, most likely case, and worst case probability distributions.

2) Historical performance data used to formulate the best case, most likely case, and worst case task durations. If the probability distribution does not reflect historical performance, then the

Offeror shall provide an explanation for the deviation.

3.1.4 Section IV: Investment Cost

Notional cost figures are included in the tables in this section as examples only.

3.1.4.1 Projected Total Investment Costs

The Offeror shall provide all cost tables in unlocked Microsoft Excel formatting with active formulas.

The Offeror shall provide the projected total costs to complete the launch system prototype. Of the projected total costs, the Offeror shall specify the period of performance and identify the proposed dollar amounts between Non-Government and Government funding sources by Government Fiscal

Year (FY). The Offeror shall utilize the format in Table 5 below while also adhering to the Cost

Guidelines set forth in Section 3.1.4.6.

Table 5. Offeror Projected Investment Costs

Funding Sources FY17 FY18 FY19 FY…n Total of

All Years

Cost

Share

Launch System

Prototype

(specify period of performance)

Non-Government

Source #1 $200 $150 $150 $500

35% Non-Government

Source #2 $50 $50

Government $300 $400 $300 $1000 65%

Industry Cost Share by Year (%) 40% 33% 33% 35% -

Total Non-

Government $200 $200 $150 $550 35%

Total Government

Investment $300 $400 $300 $1000 65%

Total Combined

Investment $500 $600 $450 $1550 100%

3.1.4.2 Investment Cost Element and Funding Summary

The Offeror shall provide a cost element summary and funding summary; a sample format is provided below at Table 6 and Table 7, respectively. Offerors may choose to provide the information in another format based on their accounting system. However, the Offeror shall address all items included in the table or otherwise explain why they are not addressed.

The Offeror shall describe the content of each cost element and shall describe how the dollars were determined. The Offeror shall provide a schedule of indirect and direct rates used and approval status of the rates. Per Section 3.1.4.5, fee, profit and Cost of Money shall not be proposed. The Offeror shall explain the estimating methodology used and any underlying assumptions.

Table 6. Investment Cost Element Summary

Cost Elements in Dollars ($) FY17 FY18 FY…n Total of All

Years

Direct Labor $100 $150 $200 $450

Indirect Labor (e.g., Fringes) $50 $75 $75 $200

Company Overheads (e.g., G&A) $50 $75 $75 $200

Materials $150 $250 $200 $600

Subcontracts $150 $100 $150 $400

Other Direct Costs (not captured in other cost elements) $50 $50 $50 $150

Total Cost $550 $700 $750 $2,000

Table 7. Funding Summary

Funding Sources FY17 FY18 FY…n Total of All

Years

Non-Government

(a) Source A $100 $100 $100 $300

(b) Source B $200 $300 $400 $900

(c) Source C* $100 $100 $100 $300

Total Non-Government

Investment $400 $500 $600 $1500

Proposed Government

Investment $100 $100 $100 $300

Government Property Rental

Equivalency $50 $100 $50 $200

Total Government

Investment $150 $200 $150 $500

Total Combined Investment $550 $700 $750 $2,000

* Include Independent Research and Development (IR&D) funds as a separate line item if being proposed as a source of non-Government funding. See Cost Guidelines in Section 3.1.4.6 below.

3.1.4.3 Supporting Information

The Offeror shall provide supporting estimating rationale for the proposed Non-Government

Investment, Government investment and Total Combined Investment, to demonstrate that the proposed figures are an accurate projection for the proposed development effort. The Offeror shall show the methodology and calculation to derive its final estimates for the launch system prototype development. The Offeror shall also describe why the proposed development cost share is appropriate given the risks and opportunities presented to the Offeror and the Government.

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

The Offeror shall provide the name and contact information of the cognizant Administrative

Contracting Officer (ACO).

3.1.4.4 Treatment of Government Property (GP)

If the Offeror requires the use of Government Property (GP), the Offeror shall include the rental equivalency for that property in the Total Government Investment amount in Table 7. If an Offeror is renting property from another Government entity (e.g., NASA test facilities), but not for Government use on a Government contract, it shall not be included in the Total Government Investment. For each applicable fiscal year, the Offeror shall complete Table 8 in Microsoft Excel format (unlocked and with active formulas) using the acquisition cost information and the rental equivalency method described in FAR 52.245-9(e)(2) as laid out below:

In Column (A), identify the requested GP

In Column (B), identify the acquisition cost from Attachment TBD and list the dollar value

In Column (C), multiply column (B) by 2% (round to the nearest dollar) to determine the partial acquisition cost of the item and list the dollar value

In Column (D), divide column (C) by 720 to determine the hourly rental rate (round to the nearest cents) and list the dollar value

In Column (E), propose the rental time required (round to the nearest whole hour) and list the value; “rental time” is defined in FAR 52.245-9(a)

In Column (F), multiply column (D) by (E) (round to the nearest dollar) to determine the total rental charge for the requested item and list the dollar value

In Column (G), briefly describe the need for the use of the GP

Add the sum of Rental Charges in Column (F) and add the resulting dollar value to

Table 7 above

The Offeror shall provide documentation that the proposed Government property usage has been approved by, or at a minimum, pre-coordinated with the cognizant ACO.

Table 8. Rental Equivalency for Government Property Use

A

Item

Requested

B

Acq Cost

C

Partial

Acq Cost

(Multiply B

*2%)

D

Hourly

Rental

Rate

(Divide C by 720)

($ per hr)

E

Rental

Time

(hours)

F

Rental

Charge

(Multiply D *

E)

G

Description of Need

Item A $100,000 $2,000 $2.78 400 $1,112

Item B $77,777 $1,556 $2.16 250 $540

Sum of Rental Charges for All GP Items:

(Insert amount into Table 7)

$1,652

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

3.1.4.5 Investment Cost Guidelines

The Offeror shall comply with the following cost guidelines:

1. The Government and the Offeror will be cost sharing partners in the proposed project. The total investment from Non-Government sources must be at least 1/3 of the Total Investment Cost. The proposed cumulative Government payments shall not exceed the maximum (2/3) cost share of total investment costs at any point. Regardless of the intended Government cost share percentage, Government investment will be a fixed dollar amount, not a percentage of costs incurred.

2. Non-Government investment shall only include those investments made after the date the

Government enters into final negotiations with an Offeror. For planning purposes, use TBD DD

MMM YY.

3. There are two types of investment that the Offeror may contribute as a non-Government funding source:

a. Cash: Outlays of funds to perform the proposed launch system prototype development effort;

Cash includes labor, materials, new equipment, and relevant subcontractor efforts. Sources include new R&D funds, profit or fee from another contract, overhead or capital equipment expense pool. New R&D funds offered to be spent on the launch system prototype development effort and subject to the direction of the project management may be proposed as total cost of the project.

b. In-Kind: Reasonable value of materials and the use of equipment or other property used in performance of the proposed launch system prototype development effort. This reasonable value should not include the residual value of these materials, equipment, or other property after completion.

4. The Offeror shall identify the proposed period of performance, labor rates for all proposed hours, and an explanation of each proposed cost element.

5. If the Offeror includes Independent Research and Development (IR&D) funds as part of the Non-

Government investment, then the Offeror shall provide documentation that inclusion has been approved by the cognizant Divisional Administrative Contracting Officer (DACO). The Offeror shall specify the amount of IR&D funds to be invested in Table 7.

6. The Offeror shall not include the following as part of the projected Total Costs:

a. Sunk costs or costs incurred before the reference date listed above in Section 3.1.4.5 (2)

b. Foregone fee or profit

c. Foregone General and Administrative expenses or cost of money applied to a base of R&D

d. Fee, Profit, or Cost of Money

e. Bid and proposal costs

f. Value claimed for intellectual property or prior research

g. Parallel research or investment, i.e., research or other investments that might be related to the proposed project but which will not be part of the Statement of Work (SOW). Typically these activities will be undertaken regardless of whether the proposed project proceeds.

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

h. Off-Budget Resources, i.e., resources that will not be risked by the Offeror on the SOW, will not be considered when evaluating the total cost.

3.1.5 Section V: Estimated Launch Service Prices

The Offeror shall use the format provided below in Table 9 and Table 10 to propose estimated prices for launch services in Then Year (TY) dollars. Table 9 assumes a minimum of 20 launches split between two launch service providers over a five year ordering period (FY20-FY24). Table 9 also shows a scenario in which the Offeror receives orders for 40% of the minimum (eight launches) and one order to launch a Payload Category C. Offerors shall use Table 10 to propose NTE prices for reference orbits that may be ordered between FY20-FY24. The prices proposed should include all discrete effort required for the launch services. Orbit descriptions and a reference manifest are provided in Section 6.0.

The purpose of Table 9 is for the Government to understand the Offeror’s most likely pricing scenario.

The purpose of Table 10 is for the Offeror to provide the Government with NTE pricing.

The Offeror shall use the format provided below in Table 11 to propose estimated prices for an annual

FFP launch service support (LSS) CLIN. The prices proposed should include all non-commercial

(NSS unique) non-discrete effort required for the launch services. Examples of possible LSS costs due to NSS unique requirements include scope to conduct fleet surveillance (access to commercial/civil launch data), access fleet design data for Government mission assurance, support

NSS unique readiness efforts, and develop and/or maintain NSS unique infrastructure, such as vertical integration facilities and classified facilities.

The Offeror shall describe how the proposed pricing was determined, addressing the pricing differences for various orbits and the variations in LSS prices per year. The Offeror shall describe the effort included in the LSS prices. The Offeror shall provide a schedule of indirect and direct rates used and approval status of the rates. The Offeror shall explain the estimating methodology used and any underlying assumptions.

Table 9. Scenario for Estimated Pricing for Launch Services (40% and Payload Category C)

Orbit

Description

Year of

Procurement

Year of

Launch

Price of Launch

Service

MEO Transfer GFY20 GFY22 {Offeror fill in}

GTO 2 GFY21 GFY23 {Offeror fill in}

MEO Transfer GFY21 GFY23 {Offeror fill in}

GEO 1 GFY22 GFY24 {Offeror fill in}

GEO 2 GFY22 GFY27 {Offeror fill in}

GTO 2 GFY23 GFY25 {Offeror fill in}

MEO Transfer GFY23 GFY25 {Offeror fill in}

LEO GFY24 GFY26 {Offeror fill in}

GTO 2 GFY24 GFY26 {Offeror fill in}

NOTE: Orbit Descriptions listed in Table 9 are for pricing purposes and should not be used for manifest planning purposes.

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

Table 10. NTE Pricing for Other Reference Orbits (FY20-FY24)

Orbit Description Procured at

L-XX

Price of Launch

Service

GEO 1 24 months {Offeror fill in}

GEO 2 60 months {Offeror fill in}

LEO 24 months {Offeror fill in}

Polar 1 24 months {Offeror fill in}

Polar 2 60 months {Offeror fill in}

MEO Direct 24 months {Offeror fill in}

MEO Transfer 24 months {Offeror fill in}

GTO 1 24 months {Offeror fill in}

GTO 2 24 months {Offeror fill in}

Molniya 24 months {Offeror fill in}

NOTE: Orbit Descriptions listed in Table 10 are for pricing purposes and should not be used for manifest planning purposes.

Table 11. Launch Service Support (LSS) Pricing for Launch Services

GFY19 GFY20 GFY21 GFY22 GFY23 GFY24

{Offeror fill in} {Offeror fill in} {Offeror fill in} {Offeror fill in} {Offeror fill in} {Offeror fill in}

3.1.6 Section VI: Agreement Section

3.1.6.1 Model Agreement

The Government has provided a model agreement. The Offeror shall fill in all applicable information as indicated, including company names and dates. Articles are subject to negotiation except for the following, which are nonnegotiable:

ARTICLE I: Authority

ARTICLE III: Applicable Law and Severability

ARTICLE XI: Patent Rights

ARTICLE XII: Data Rights

ARTICLE XIII: Foreign Access to Technology

ARTICLE XV: Other Applicable Laws and Regulations

ARTICLE XVI: Order of Precedence

ARTICLE XXI: Article Execution

Offerors shall delineate their proposed efforts into Payload Category C class LV prototypes and a prototype for all other LV configurations.

3.1.6.2 Statement of Work (SOW)

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

The Offeror shall propose a SOW that accomplishes all objectives and instructions identified in the

Government-provided Statement of Objectives (SOO), which is included as Annex A to this document. The Offeror shall address in the SOW:

1) Each of the objectives listed in the Government SOO. The Offeror’s proposal shall include a separate cross reference matrix that clearly indicates which portions of the SOW fulfill each objective listed in the Government SOO.

2) Description of the launch system prototype development effort to be performed under the proposed OT agreement. Launch system development is defined in Section 1.1.1 and in the

SOO.

3) Description of the systems engineering and specialty engineering processes to be used for the launch system development to be performed under the proposed OT agreement. This may include command media, instructions, or other process documentation followed by the Offeror.

4) Certification Plan(s) for the proposed launch system development. Certification Plan(s) shall be included as Annex(es) to the SOW. The Offeror shall include any relevant, approved

Certification Plan(s) at the time of proposal delivery. If the Offeror requires an updated or additional Certification Plan in order to have the proposed launch system certified to meet all

EELV launch requirements, then the Offeror shall include a draft Certification Plan or a draft update to an existing Certification Plan as an Annex to the SOW. The Government will work with the Offerors outside of the source selection to finalize the Certification Plans and obtain

SMC/CC approval. The approved Certification Plan(s) will be incorporated as Annex(es) to the SOW and will be included in the resultant agreement after negotiations.

The Offeror’s proposed SOW will be included as Attachment 1 in the resultant agreement after negotiations.

3.1.6.3 Milestone Payment Plan

The Offeror shall propose a schedule of milestones and payments for the proposed development effort that includes key milestones consistent with the Certification Plan(s) included as an Annex(es) to the

SOW. The proposed milestones will include clear and concise descriptions of the event, objective success criteria, completion evidence, and a planned completion date to enable assessment of technical and schedule progress. Milestones should be planned with enough frequency that they may be used as a means to monitor progress and serve as decision points for continued funding. The schedule of milestones and payments should correlate to the accomplishment of the proposed work (consistent with the SOW) and expected expenditure (consistent with the Cost Element Summary).

The proposed cumulative Government payments shall not exceed the maximum (2/3) cost share of cumulative total investment costs at any point.

In Table 1 in Annex C Attachment 2 the Offeror shall clearly identify which milestones cover effort to complete RPS prototype development and which milestones cover effort to complete launch system prototype development. The Offeror shall not develop milestones that cover effort for both RPS prototype development and launch system prototype development.

The Offeror shall complete Table 1 in Annex C Attachment 2. Below Table 1, the Offeror shall describe the cash and in-kind investment details. Using the additional requirements included in Annex

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-X-XXXX

C Attachment 2, the Offeror shall write in the appropriate milestones and success criteria in the narrative after the table. Annex C Attachment 2 includes mandatory milestones that must be included in the Offeror's proposed Milestone Payment Plan. The Milestone Payment Plan shall be included as

Attachment 2 to Annex C.

The Offeror’s proposed Milestone Payment Plan will be included as Attachment 2 in the resultant agreement after negotiations.

3.1.6.4 DD Form 254

The Offeror shall fill in all appropriate information in the DD Form 254, Contract Security

Classification Specification. If the Offeror recommends changing any of the pre-filled…