LSA_RFP_Amendment_1.pdf

Solicitation No.: FA8811-17-9-0001

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)

Launch Service Agreement (LSA)

Request for Proposals under

Other Transaction (OT) Agreement

Issued by:

Space and Missile Systems Center Launch Enterprise Directorate

(SMC/LE)

5 October 2017

Amendment 1: 26 January 2018

This page is left intentionally blank.

CONTENTS PAGE

1. LAUNCH SERVICE AGREEMENTS INFORMATION 1

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 5

3. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS 6

3.1 Proposal Content

3.1.1 Section I: Executive Summary

3.1.2 Section II: Factor 1 EELV Approach

3.1.3 Section III: Factor 2 Technical

3.1.4 Section IV: Factor 3 Investment Cost

3.1.5 Section V: Agreement Section

3.1.6 Section VI: NDAA Compliance

4. EVALUATION 22

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

4.3 Negotiations and Portfolio Selection

5. DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY 26

6. EELV REFERENCE ORBITS 27

7. EELV SAMPLE MANIFEST: NOTIONAL 28

8. SIGNIFICANT EELV DATES 29

9. RFP CROSS REFERENCE MATRIX 30

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

1. LAUNCH SERVICE AGREEMENTS INFORMATION

1.1 Background and Overview

This solicitation continues the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Program strategy to quickly transition from the use of non-allied space launch engines, implement sustainable competition for National Security Space (NSS) launch services, and maintain assured access to space as required by 10 United States (U.S.) Code (U.S.C.) 2273. The goal of the EELV acquisition strategy is to leverage commercial launch solutions in order to have at least 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 Fiscal Year (FY)14 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.

The focus of this solicitation is to leverage industry’s commercial launch solutions and ensure they are modified to meet NSS requirements. The Launch Service Agreements (LSAs) facilitate development of at least three EELV Launch System prototypes as early as possible, allowing those launch systems to mature prior to a future selection of two NSS launch service providers for Phase 2 launch service procurements, starting in FY20. The development of launch system prototypes under this Agreement 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 from the use of non-allied space launch engines, maintain assured access to space, 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 LSAs 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 launch system prototypes shall be completed as part of the LSA. Offerors with pre-existing RPS agreements should reference Section 3.1.5.2 for instructions on including existing RPS efforts as part of the LSA proposal. The goal is to use innovative business arrangements that leverage industry’s ongoing efforts to develop new and/or upgraded commercial launch systems.

These public-private agreements will be tailored to each launch service provider’s needs in order to enable commercial launch systems to meet all NSS requirements. Subsequent procurements 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.

Through this solicitation, the Government requests proposals for shared public-private investment in the development of launch system prototypes, 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.

Related definitions can also be found in Section 4.0 of the Statement of Objectives (SOO) (Annex A).

Prototype: A fully developed and certified EELV Launch System, including the validation of all non-recurring engineering (NRE) work.

Development: All activities from initial concept up to, but not including, production. This could include full development of a new launch system or modifications to an existing launch system, including facilities and infrastructure. Development includes all efforts leading up to and including EELV certification (and the validation of all NRE work) to meet the full range of EELV mass-to-orbit requirements and all requirements in the EELV Standard Interface Specifications (SIS) and System Performance Requirements Document

(SPRD).

EELV Launch System: The EELV Launch Vehicle Segment(s) and EELV Ground Segment(s) along with associated operation and support services and personnel that provide the capability to perform all EELV missions. Reference SPRD Section 6.1.1 for further definitions related to “EELV Launch System.”

These LSAs will initially be funded using a portion of the $297 million budgeted for in FY2018 and $247 million in FY2019.

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 domestic launch systems, the Air Force intends to competitively award Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-Part 12 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. LSAs with ongoing development will continue for those who receive launch service awards at that time.

The Air Force is exploring ordering launch services from the selected providers using a dual source strategy. 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 remaining launch services. This ratio would be applied to all of the Payload Category A and B (medium through intermediate class) launch vehicles (LVs) in the ordering period. The order of Payload Category C (heavy class) LVs may be determined separately. Payload Categories are defined in Section 6.0.

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. LEI may begin as early as FY18, and EIS may begin as early as FY19.

Under this approach, the Air Force would expect to order launch services annually. The ordering ratio would be applied across the entire ordering period, which is expected to be at least five years starting in FY20. If a company has not closed all non-recurring engineering work plans prior to an annual order, the Government will 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 planning to include a Launch Service Support (LSS) FFP task order as part of the launch services contracts. LSS will only cover specified 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 recurring NSS-unique infrastructure costs, such as operating and maintaining vertical integration facilities and classified facilities.

1.2 Competition Process

For this solicitation, the Government intends to use the competition process described below. Proposal Submittal Instructions are in Section 3.0 and Evaluation Criteria are in Section 4.0. Throughout this process, the Government can communicate with Offerors at any time and reserves the right to make audio recordings of conversations.

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. The Government may ask the Offerors questions during the Government’s evaluation and Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals. These questions will focus on items in the proposal that are unclear, proposal text that appears to be contradictory, and/or areas that appear to be missing information. Updates to the proposals may be allowed if required in response to the Government’s questions.

The Government will notify the Offerors with the proposals that are most advantageous to the Government that they are in the competitive field and will begin Evaluation Dialogue, if necessary.

The Government will also notify the other Offerors that their proposals were not selected for the competitive field. The Government will not include more than one proposal per Offeror in the competitive field.

3. Evaluation Dialogue: 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. Final Negotiations: The Government will negotiate with those Offerors with the best-rated proposals. The Government will notify Offerors that will not be considered for further negotiations.

The portfolio 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 (see Section 3.1.5.1). 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 for award. 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.

Offerors may submit no more than two proposals per company. Each proposal shall only include one proposed EELV Launch System prototype. The prototype can be developed using an incremental approach, such as achieving the launch capability for Payload Categories A and B prior to achieving launch capability for Payload Category C. The Government will award a maximum of one agreement for one EELV Launch System prototype per company. The Government plans to award a portfolio of at least 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 in coordination with the Competition Advocate.

2. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

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

• Mass-to-orbit parameters for all reference orbits as defined in the SPRD Rev B and SIS Rev C (Annex C, Attachment 4)

• 97.5% mission reliability as defined in the SPRD Rev B

• Standard payload interfaces as defined in the SIS Rev C

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 an EELV 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.

As outlined in SOO Section 2.0 (Annex A), launches required for EELV certification can be included in the proposed LSA effort. The Air Force does not intend to provide NSS payloads for certification launches.

See Sections 3.1.5.2 and 3.1.5.3 for further details on incorporating Certification Plan(s) into the Statement of Work (SOW) and Milestone Payment Plan.

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 bid, proposal, and source selection information, as defined in FAR 2.101. Certification Plans and draft Certification Plans will not be treated as bid, proposal, and 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, 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 1-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 1-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 disclosure, such as proposals, EN responses, updates, and any documents provided to support negotiations, 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 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 separately bound with an applicable security designation color cover, conforming to the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), Department of Defense (DoD) 5220.22M, dated 28 February 2006, the DoD Directives (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: Monday 20 Nov 2017, by 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time.

All updates as requested by the amendments to this RFP shall be submitted and received by the applicable deadline: Monday 19 Feb 2018, 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 (compatible with Microsoft Office 2013) or Adobe .pdf format as defined in Table 2 (Section 3.1).

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.

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. Classified proposals shall be delivered to the following:

The Aerospace Corporation, Visitor’s Center 1 2310 E. El Segundo Blvd.

El Segundo, CA 90245

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

- Solicitation Number: FA8811-17-9-0001

- 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 will not be accepted. Acceptance of late proposals will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(3) (Jan 2017).

The Government will use selected contractor support personnel to assist in providing technical, business and investment expertise during proposal evaluations. Any support contractor involvement 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 (Table 1) 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 Tecolote Research, Inc. 2120 E. Grand Ave, Suite 200, El Segundo, CA 90245

Support contractors are required to exclude personnel with conflicts of interest consistent with standards for Government employees, sign appropriate non-disclosure agreements to protect proprietary and competition sensitive information, and must have accepted limitations on future contracting for their company.

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.

3.1 Proposal Content

Proposals should be specific and quantifiable in describing how the proposed effort culminates in development of a EELV Launch System prototype meeting the full range of EELV requirements. The EELV 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 10 Adobe .pdf

I Executive Summary Briefing 3.1.1 N/A MS PowerPoint

II EELV Approach 3.1.2 15 Adobe .pdf III Technical: Design 3.1.3.1 30 Adobe .pdf

III Technical: Schedule 3.1.3.2 15 Adobe .pdf and MS Project*

IV Investment Cost 3.1.4 Unlimited MS Excel and Adobe .pdf

V Agreement 3.1.5 Unlimited MS Word VI NDAA Compliance** 3.1.6 4 Adobe .pdf

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

** NDAA = National Defense Authorization Act

3.1.1 Section I: Executive Summary

The Offeror shall include an executive summary describing the proposed EELV Launch System prototype, the prominent and distinguishing features of the proposed EELV Launch System prototype, the planned configurations of the proposed EELV Launch System prototype and which configurations are expected to be used for each EELV reference orbit in the SPRD Rev B (Annex C, Attachment 4), 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 EELV 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 future launch services using the launch system developed under the LSA, the Offeror shall include the projected commercial and Government sales prices, separately listing each major configuration of the launch system.

• The Offeror shall briefly describe the EELV Approach, Technical and Investment Cost information.

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

• The Offeror shall identify its teaming partners and major subcontractors, including a brief description of their role in the prototype development.

In addition to the written narrative for the Executive Summary, the Offeror shall provide an in-person briefing of the significant content of the Executive Summary and any other points the Offeror would like to include. The briefing, including any briefing material, and the written Executive Summary will be used to orient the Government team to the Offeror’s proposal. The briefing, briefing material, and Executive Summary will not be rated.

The logistical details for the Executive Summary briefing are:

• The briefing shall not exceed one hour

• The briefing shall be presented at a Government-selected location in El Segundo, CA

• The Offeror shall contact the AO no later than 3 Nov 17 by 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time to coordinate a time slot for the briefing o The Offeror can bring up to five people and shall submit names in advance to the AO o The briefings will be held within ten business days of proposal receipt o Coordinating a time slot for the briefing does not obligate a company to provide a proposal

• Briefing materials, if used, shall be in Microsoft PowerPoint format. Briefing slides that are not included in the verbal briefing will be discarded.

• The Government will record the briefing (audio and visual)

3.1.2 Section II: Factor 1 EELV Approach

The Offeror shall describe its approach to develop and qualify a launch system that meets EELV launch service requirements. The SPRD and SIS are listed in Annex C, Attachment 4. At a minimum, the Offeror shall address the following topics:

1. The ability to meet all EELV reference orbits defined in Table 10 at the orbital insertion accuracy required in SPRD 3.2.4

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

3. The ability of the launch system to meet the payload orientation requirement in SPRD 3.2.7

4. The ability of the launch system to meet the basing requirement in SPRD 3.2.11

5. The ability of the launch system to meet the EELV mated payload protection requirement in

SPRD 3.3.2

6. The ability of the launch system to meet the payload envelope requirement in SIS 3.1.3

7. The proposed mission assurance approach to ensure low risk and high confidence in launching

NSS missions

8. The ability to slow or surge production to accommodate uncertain NSS, commercial, and civil launch forecasts

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: Factor 2 Technical

3.1.3.1 Subfactor 1: Design

3.1.3.1.1 Booster System Technical Feasibility

The Offeror shall provide a technical feasibility analysis for the booster system(s).

The technical feasibility analysis shall include the following information:

a. Design, including brief explanations of any major components with launch flight heritage and hardware reflight

b. Plan to progress 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

d. Identification of the top technical risks with a timeline and plan for mitigating each of those risks

3.1.3.1.2 Upper Stage Technical Feasibility

The Offeror shall provide a technical feasibility analysis for the upper stage(s).

The technical feasibility analysis shall include the following information:

a. Design, including brief explanations of components with launch flight heritage

b. Plan to progress from the current 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

d. Information to address long duration coast, engine re-light, thermal environments, guidance and control, and radiation environments driven by the Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) Direct 1, MEO Direct 2, Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) 1, and GEO 2 reference missions, as defined in Table 10 and Table 11

e. Identification of the top technical risks with a timeline and plan for mitigating each of those risks

3.1.3.2 Subfactor 2: Schedule

The Offeror shall provide one Microsoft Project schedule for the development of launch system(s) capable of launching Category A and Category B payloads. The schedule shall include all necessary activities and tasks to include the development of the launch vehicle(s) and the launch pad infrastructure for the launch system capable of launching Category A and B payloads and meeting applicable EELV requirements.

The Offeror shall provide a second Microsoft Project schedule for the development of launch system(s) capable of launching Category C payloads. The schedule shall include all necessary activities and tasks to include the development of the launch vehicle(s) and the launch pad infrastructure for the launch system capable of launching Category C payloads and meeting applicable EELV requirements. The schedule shall include the development of a payload fairing with the capability to interface with the NRO Mission Support Equipment as defined in the SIS.

Each schedule shall be no less than 250 lines and no more than 1000 lines. Each schedule shall include, at a minimum, the following:

1. Payment milestones

2. Validation of non-recurring engineering work through the certification process

3. Identification of a valid software-generated critical path

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

5. A column identifying the relevant SOW section

The Offeror shall provide a narrative that describes the assumptions, methodology, and supporting data used to formulate the provided schedules.

The Offeror shall clearly identify the tasks related to the upper stage, and the additional tasks that pose the most schedule risk. The Offeror shall provide a detailed narrative that describes the assumptions, methodology, and supporting data used to formulate task durations for all tasks related to the upper stage and at least three additional tasks that pose the most schedule risk. The durations shall be supported by the Offeror’s historical performance data with background information explaining why it is considered relevant. If the Offeror does not have relevant performance data, estimating rationale shall be provided.

3.1.4 Section IV: Factor 3 Investment Cost

Notional cost figures are included in the tables in this section as examples only. The Offeror shall provide all cost tables in unlocked Microsoft Excel formatting with active formulas.

3.1.4.1 Projected Total Investment Costs

The Offeror shall provide the projected total costs to complete the EELV Launch System prototype, including all scope proposed in the SOW. 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 FY. The Offeror shall utilize the format in Table 3 below while also adhering to the Cost Guidelines set forth in Section 3.1.4.5. The Offeror shall provide Table 3 for the entire prototype even if the Offeror is proposing to develop the prototype incrementally (e.g., Payload Category A and B capability first, followed by Category C capability).

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.

non-federal sources must be at least one-third of the Total Investment Cost. Regardless of the intended Government cost share percentage, Government investment will be a fixed dollar amount, not a percentage of costs incurred.

2. At no time during the period of performance will the industry cost share contribution be less than one-tenth of costs-to-date. Offerors shall ensure that payment milestones will result in no less than a one-third industry cost share contribution by the end of the period of performance.

3. Non-Government investment shall only include those investments made after the date the Government enters into initial negotiations with an Offeror. For planning purposes, use 21 Feb 18.

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

a. Cash: Outlays of funds to perform a portion of the proposed EELV Launch System prototype development effort; Cash includes payments for labor, materials, new equipment, and relevant subcontractor efforts. Sources include Research and Development (R&D) funds, profit or fee from another contract, overhead or capital equipment expense pool. R&D funds offered to be spent on the EELV 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 EELV Launch System prototype development effort. This reasonable value should not include the residual value of these materials, equipment, or other property after completion.

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 5.

6. Offerors may include in their cost share the depreciable cost basis of a tangible asset that remains at the start of negotiations, but not any depreciation recognized before the start of negotiations.

7. Termination liability costs may be included in calculating the Offeror's cost share during performance of the Agreement. All termination liability shall be liquidated no later than the final Milestone Payment. These amounts shall be explicitly recorded on a per milestone basis in the Offeror’s proposed Milestone Payment Plan.

8. 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 (3)

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 SOW); typically these activities will be undertaken regardless of whether the proposed project proceeds

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)

i. Depreciation of tangible assets realized before the start of agreement negotiations

j. Reserves for potential future cost incurrence, such as “management reserves”

3.1.5 Section V: Agreement Section

3.1.5.1 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 o Offerors shall fill in the level of proposed data rights in paragraph A.

o While the wording of ARTICLE XII is not negotiable, the level of proposed data rights is negotiable.

• ARTICLE XIII: Foreign Access to Technology

• ARTICLE XV: Other Applicable Laws and Regulations

• ARTICLE XVI: Order of Precedence

• ARTICLE XXIII: Article Execution

If an Offeror is developing the prototype using an incremental approach, such as achieving the launch capability for Payload Categories A and B prior to achieving launch capability for Payload Category C, the Offeror shall delineate the efforts in Article II, Section B, of the Model Agreement (Annex C).

3.1.5.2 Statement of Work

The Offeror shall propose a SOW that accomplishes all objectives and instructions identified in the Government-provided 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. If the Offeror is already participating in an RPS OT agreement, then the Offeror shall include in the proposed LSA SOW any remaining RPS effort that is required to complete the proposed EELV Launch System prototype.

3. Description of the EELV Launch System prototype development effort to be performed under the proposed OT agreement. Related definitions can also be found in SOO Section 4.0 (Annex A).

4. Description of the systems engineering and specialty engineering processes to be used for the EELV 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.

5. Certification Plan(s) for the proposed EELV Launch System development. The Certification Plan(s) shall be developed jointly with the EELV program office using the United States Air Force Launch Services New Entrant Certification Guide, 27 October 2011. 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(s) in order to have the proposed EELV 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 Space and Missile Systems Center Commander (SMC/CC) approval. The 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.

3.1.5.3 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 in alignment with the Certification Plan[s]) and expected expenditure (consistent with the Cost Element Summary).

Termination liability costs may be included as part of the Offeror’s non-Government cost share. These amounts shall be explicitly recorded on a per milestone basis in the Offeror’s proposed Milestone Payment Plan.

In Table 1 in Annex C Attachment 2 the Offeror shall clearly identify which milestones cover effort to complete RPS development (i.e., main booster, first-stage rocket engine or motor only) and which milestones cover effort to complete EELV Launch System prototype development. The Offeror shall not develop milestones that cover effort for both RPS prototype development and EELV Launch System prototype development. The intent of this payment delineation is to facilitate compliance with Section 1604 of the FY15 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), as amended.

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

3.1.5.4 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 information in the DD Form 254, the Offeror shall include a narrative identifying the changes and providing a rationale for them.

The Offeror’s proposed DD Form 254, when accepted by the Government, will be included as Attachment 3 in the resultant agreement.

3.1.5.5 Government Property

If the Offeror proposes the use of GP, the Offeror shall list the GP proposed for use, which will be included as Attachment 6 in the resultant agreement, when accepted by the Government. 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 in accordance with Section 3.1.4.4.

3.1.5.6 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

The Offeror shall conduct an OCI review to determine whether there are any potential or actual OCIs.

If any OCIs are identified, the Offeror shall complete and submit an OCI Mitigation Plan as applicable in accordance with the SMC Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan Checklist (Annex B of this solicitation). The proposed OCI Mitigation Plan shall:

a. describe in detail any potential OCIs of which the Offeror is aware associated with its or any of its divisions’/affiliates’/subcontractors’ performance under any contract it or any of its divisions/affiliates/subcontractors has been or may be awarded by any federal agency or any other entity whose performance may create an OCI if awarded an EELV Launch System development agreement, including if the Offeror is a member of more than one team, consortium, or partnering arrangement that is proposing EELV Launch System development efforts under this agreement;

b. describe in detail the methodology the Offeror used to identify those potential OCI issues; and

c. describe in detail the specific techniques the Offeror intends to use to mitigate each potential OCI identified in its proposed OCI Mitigation Plan, and affirm that if awarded an agreement, the Offeror cannot and will not compete for future EELV systems engineering and integration (SE&I) contracting support or similar advisory and assistance services.

3.1.6 Section VI: NDAA Compliance

The letters requested below are required to ensure compliance with FY15 NDAA Section 1604, as amended and FY18 NDAA Section 1605. The letters will not be given a rating.

For the purposes of this section, RPS means main booster, first-stage rocket engine or motor. The term does not include a launch vehicle, an upper stage, a strap-on motor, or related infrastructure.

3.1.6.1 Domestic Rocket Propulsion System

The Offeror shall provide a signed letter stating that any RPSs developed under this LSA will be Made in the United States or stating that no RPSs will be developed under this LSA. For the purposes of this section, “Made in the United States” means manufactured in the United States with the cost of domestic components exceeding 50% of the cost of all the components. For the purposes of determining whether or not an RPS is Made in the United States, refer to FAR 25.003 for further definitions.

3.1.6.2 Non-Exclusivity of Rocket Propulsion System Sales

The Offeror shall provide a signed letter acknowledging understanding of the FY15 NDAA Section 1604 (E) requirement that any RPSs developed under this LSA will be available for purchase by all space launch providers of the United States. The implementation of this requirement is addressed in Article XIX of the Model Agreement (Annex C). If the Offeror is not proposing to develop any RPSs under this LSA, the Offeror shall provide a letter with that statement.

3.1.6.3 RPS Developed By Not Later Than 2019

The Offeror shall provide a signed letter stating whether or not the RPS(s) developed under this LSA are scheduled to complete development by 31 December 2019. The letter shall include a reference to the related tasks in the schedule (Section 3.1.3.2).

3.1.6.4 Primarily NSS Capabilities

In accordance with FY18 NDAA Section 1605, the Offeror shall provide a signed letter certifying that the proposed Government cost share will only be used to develop capabilities necessary to enable existing or planned commercially available space launch vehicles or infrastructure that are primarily for national security space missions.

4. EVALUATION

The Government will use the process described in Section 1.2 to conduct evaluations.

Proposals must conform to the solicitation’s requirements. Any submitted proposal that does not adhere to the requirements laid out in this solicitation may be determined to be unresponsive by the AO and eliminated from the competition. 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. The selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

4.1 Evaluation Factors

LSAs will be awarded as described in Section 4.3. Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2. Factor 2 is of equal importance to Factor 3. Factors 2 and 3 combined are more important than Factor 1.

Technical Subfactor 1 is more important than Technical Subfactor 2.

Factor 1: EELV Approach

Factor 2: Technical

Subfactor 1: Design

Subfactor 2: Schedule

Factor 3: Investment Cost

4.2 Evaluation of Proposals

4.2.1 Factor 1: EELV Approach

The Government will rate the EELV Approach factor using a Technical Rating and a Technical Risk Rating. The evaluation shall utilize the Technical Ratings listed in Table 7 and the Technical Risk Ratings listed in Table 8. The Government will assess Factor 1 for weaknesses, significant weaknesses, strengths, and deficiencies.

A “weakness” means a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful agreement performance.

A “significant weakness” is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful agreement performance.

A “strength” is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government.

7. The proposed mission assurance approach to ensure low risk and high confidence in launching NSS missions

8. The ability to slow or surge production to accommodate uncertain NSS, commercial, and civil launch forecasts

4.2.2 Factor 2: Technical

The Government will rate the Technical Subfactors separately. Each Technical Subfactor will receive a Technical Risk rating as defined in Table 8. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall rating for the Technical factor.

Technical Risk is manifested by the identification of weakness(es). For Technical Risk ratings, the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated in terms of weaknesses and significant weaknesses.

A…