08_Attachment_6_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Phase 1A-6 Competitive Acquisition 15 for NROL-85, NROL-87, SILENTBARKER, SBIRS GEO-5, and AFSPC-44 16

FA8811-18-R-0001 19

Attachment 6 20

Evaluation Criteria 21

31 January 2018 23

Evaluation Criteria FA8811-18-R-0001

RESPONSIBILITY 1

1.1 The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) will make a responsibility determination after the 2 evaluation of proposals to determine whether an Offeror is eligible for contract award. In addition to 3 the general responsibility matters provided under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 9.104-1, the 4 PCO will consider directly relevant early integration studies, anomaly findings, and the Space and 5 Missile Systems Center (SMC) Commander's certification of the Offeror's proposed launch system 6 as a certified Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) launch system to determine adequate 7 technical skill, among other standards listed in FAR 9.104-1, to launch National Security Space 8 (NSS) missions. 9

1.2 The evaluation of the necessary organization, experience, technical skills, quality assurance, 10 safety programs, and other elements of responsibility is necessarily more rigorous than the 11 responsibility determination for other types of work. Within the evaluation, the PCO will verify an 12 Offeror has an EELV Launch System capable of meeting the mission requirements of this 13 solicitation. Information from the EELV certification process pertaining to an Offeror’s launch 14 system may be considered, which align with the categories provided within in the New Entrant 15 Certification Guide (NECG). The NECG lays out a framework providing multiple paths to achieve 16 certification. Launch system certification is an agreed-to process to review the non-recurring 17 portions of the launch system mission assurance process. Launch system certification consists of the 18 validation of launch vehicle and infrastructure design and qualification along with verification of the 19 Launch Vehicle Contractor’s (LVC) engineering, manufacturing, and integration processes. This 20 framework provides a methodology for certification of launch systems based on payload risk 21 classification. The NECG lists the standards and specifications the LVC must satisfy, data the LVC 22 must provide to support the Government’s independent verification and validation process, and the 23 evaluation process SMC uses to determine if launch system certification requirements are satisfied. 24 Therefore, certification informs a rigorous responsibility determination necessary to ensure the high 25 level of organization, experience, technical skills, quality assurance, safety programs, and other 26 elements of responsibility necessary for NSS missions. 27

1.3 Below are examples of critical certification assessments made to ensure Offerors can meet 28 Government requirements. 29

a. Flight Margin Verification – Assesses mass-to-orbit performance margin and three-sigma30 margin protection of all critical flight parameters, including performance margin, battery life,31 controls, structures, and dynamics from liftoff through end of mission.32

b. Flight Hardware and Software Qualification – Hardware qualification is the verification33 that a hardware item, subsystem, or system, together with its embedded software, meets all34 requirements and constraints of the environmental and operating conditions anticipated over35 its life cycle, including specified margin to the maximum predicted flight environment.36 Software qualification verifies that all software requirements and constraints can be satisfied37 using operationally representative data in an operationally representative configuration.38

c. Compliance with Orbital Insertion Accuracy – EELV-class launch systems are required to39 provide three-sigma orbital injection accuracy. The accuracy at the final orbit injection point40 for each payload mission is defined by variables such as: apogee, perigee, inclination,41 eccentricity, argument of perigee, longitude of ascending node, and Right Ascension of42

Ascending Node, with values defined in the NECG. 1

d. Design and Mission Reliability – Design reliability is the product of structure and2 mechanical reliability; propulsion and thrust vector control reliability; avionics and guidance3 reliability and electrical power subsystem reliability along with the reliability (probability of4 success) for each staging event. Mission reliability is composed of two components: (1)5 vehicle design and (2) launch processing. This takes into account the vehicle design6 reliabilities and the probability that ground operations (including infrastructure) or7 workmanship will induce a fault which can result in a mission failure.8

e. Compliance with Standard Interface Specification – Defines the standard interface9 between the payload and the launch system. The interface includes mechanical, electrical10 and avionics interfaces, fluid interfaces and services, thermal environments, contamination11 control, acceleration load factors, dynamic environments, ground and facilities processing.12

1.4 The SMC Commander is responsible for determining launch system certification. Once 13 certification is determined, the SMC Commander issues a formal EELV Certification Letter 14 detailing any limitations against the certification and conditions for maintaining the certification, 15 including verification of the acceptability of any changes to the vehicle or ground systems, 16 maintenance of the technical data underpinning the certification, and continued process discipline. 17 Launch system certification can be withdrawn at any time by the SMC Commander if a 18 determination is made that requirements upon which certification is based are no longer being 19 satisfied. 20

1.5 Launch system certification is a key element to gaining insight into the rigorous technical 21 capabilities and processes that demonstrate the ability to launch NSS missions and contributes to the 22 overall NSS flight worthiness process. Flight worthiness certification for a specific NSS mission is 23 determined prior to launch through the SMC Flight Readiness Review process by the SMC 24 Commander. 25

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD 1

2.1 This is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with FAR 15.3, Source 2 Selection, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS), Air Force FAR Supplement 3 (AFFARS), and Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016. The 4 Government will select the best value overall offer(s), based upon an integrated assessment of 5 Technical and Technical Risk, Small Business, Past Performance, and Price. The Government 6 intends to make multiple awards to the Offeror(s) who is deemed responsible in accordance with the 7 FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all 8 stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this 9 solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and Sub-factors, to represent the best 10 value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where 11 the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) 12 reasonably determines that the technical approach of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price 13 difference while maintaining acceptable Small Business participation. While the Government will 14 strive for maximum objectivity in its evaluations, the source selection process, by its nature, is 15 subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. 16

2.2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY IS SUMMARIZED IN TABLE 2-1. 17

Table 2-1 Evaluation Methodology 18

Title Methodology for Evaluation

Factor 1 - Small Business Acceptable/Unacceptable (Section 6)

Factor 2 - Past Performance Confidence Rating Scale (Section 7)

Factor 3 - Performance Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating (Section 8)

Factor 4 - Schedule Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating (Section 8)

Factor 5 - Price Reasonableness, Unbalanced Pricing (Section 9)

2.3 RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE 20

Table 2-2 below indicates the relative Factor order of importance. When combined, Factors 2, 3, and 21 4 are significantly more important than Factor 5, Price. 22

Table 2-2 Relative Order of Importance 23

Factor Order of Importance

Factor 3 - Performance

Factor 4 - Schedule

Factor 2 - Past Performance

Factor 5 - Price

Factor 1 - Small Business Within Factor 3 Performance, each mission annex will provide the Sub-factors’ order of 24 importance. Within Factor 4 Schedule, Sub-factor 1 IMS and Sub-factor 2 Risk Mitigation Plans are 1 of equal importance. 2

NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED 1

3.1 The Government intends to make multiple award decisions: individual award decisions for 2

(1) NROL-85; (2) NROL-87; (3) SILENTBARKER; (4) SBIRS GEO-5; and (5) AFSPC-44. Should3 an Offeror be awarded multiple missions, the missions shall be awarded and executed on one 4 contract. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. 5

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 1

4.1 The Government will evaluate, in accordance with this attachment, all information the 2 Offeror provides in accordance with Attachment 5, Instructions to Offerors with the exception of the 3 executive summary. It is mandatory for Offerors to respond via a proposal for all missions in this 4 Request for Proposal (RFP). In the event an Offeror cannot technically perform a specific mission, 5 then they can submit a waiver for Government approval in lieu of a proposal for that specific 6 mission. Submission of insufficient information may result in the Offeror being unresponsive. 7

Notice to Offeror(s)/Supplier(s): Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award 8 will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to 9 cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels 10 this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an Offeror for any costs. 11

4.2 Discussions 12

The Government’s intent is to award upon initial proposals without discussions with the 13

Offerors. If discussions are deemed necessary and in the best interest of the Government, the 14 Government shall make a competitive range determination (see FAR 15.306(c)). Offeror responses 15 to Evaluation Notices and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) shall be requested for evaluation and 16 award from all Offerors who remain in the competitive range. The Government may conduct 17 discussions on a mission-by-mission basis. The Government reserves the right to record audio 18 telecommunications with the Offerors during the source selection. If discussions occur, the 19 Government reserves the right to request proposal updates. Requested proposal updates may include 20 directly relevant early integration study results, anomaly resolution findings, progress toward 21 completing open NRDV (Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph 8.1), and progress toward closing risk 22 mitigation plans (Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph 8.2). Any proposal updates shall be evaluated 23 according to the evaluation criteria specified herein. 24

4.3 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions 25

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, 26 small business subcontracting plan, OCI analysis results, representations and certifications, and 27 technical requirements, in addition to those identified as Factors or Sub-factors. Failure to comply 28 with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. 29 The Government reserves the right to cross-reference between volumes and sections of volumes to 30 support proposal evaluation. 31

CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS 1

5.1 In accordance with FAR 15.306(d)(5), an Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive 2 range at any time during discussions if it is no longer considered to be among the most highly rated 3 Offerors being considered for award, whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been 4 discussed, or whether or not the Offeror has been afforded an opportunity to submit a proposal 5 revision. 6

5.2 The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of 7 proposals. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the 8 Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and 9 is not considered reasonably correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. 10

EVALUATION OF SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION 1

6.1 FACTOR 1: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION 2

6.1.1 RATINGS 3

6.1.1.1 The Small Business Participation evaluation results in Offerors receiving a rating of 5 “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” Offerors must receive a Small Business Participation rating of 6 “Acceptable” to be eligible for award. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document 7 (SBPCD) focuses on the Offeror’s performance in the utilization of small business concerns and its 8 evaluation will be included within the rating of the Small Business Participation Factor. 9

Table 6-1: Small Business Rating Method Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives

6.1.2 Evaluation Process 11

6.1.2.1 The Government will evaluate the SBPCD as measured against the total proposed price 13 of the mission. Offerors must meet the Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) level of small 14 business participation, which is 4%. MQR of 4% which is based upon total contract value to include 15 base and all exercised options, and demonstrating adequate evidence of commitment to use small 16 businesses. 17

6.1.2.2 The SBPCD is a separate document than the Subcontracting Plan required by FAR 19.7. 18 The subcontracting plan will be assessed in accordance with FAR 19.704 and must reflect the level 19 of small business participation commitment outlined in the SBPCD. 20

EVALUATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE 1

7.1 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE 2

The Past Performance evaluation results in Offerors receiving a Past Performance Relevancy 3 rating IAW Table 7-1 for each recent mission, a Past Performance Quality rating IAW Table 7-2 for 4 each recent and relevant mission and one Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating IAW 5 Table 7-3 for the overall Factor. 6

Offerors must receive a past performance rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory 7 Confidence or Neutral Confidence to be eligible for award of any mission, reference Table 7-3 Past 8 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. 9

7.2 EVALUATION PROCESS 10

The Past Performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant 11 record of performance in providing launch services as well as contract execution. In conducting the 12 Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information 13 provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other 14 sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance 15 Information Retrieval System, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, 16 Electronic Subcontract Reporting System, or other databases; interviews and questionnaires with 17 Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract 18 Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. 19

7.3 RECENCY EVALUATION 20

An evaluation of the past performance information (PPI) will be made to determine if it is 21 recent. To be recent, the mission must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 3 22 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. PPI that does not meet this definition will not be 23 evaluated. 24

7.4 RELEVANCY EVALUATION 25

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained 26 to determine whether the launch services and contract execution relate to any of the missions 27 proposed with this RFP (NROL-85, NROL-87, SILENTBARKER, SBIRS GEO-5, and AFSPC-44). 28 For each recent past performance reviewed, consideration will be given to performance of missions 29 involving launch services that are similar to the scope, magnitude and complexity of these missions. 30 This will result in relevancy assessment ratings for each mission. A relevancy determination of the 31 Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including 32 joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of the 33 mission performed under individual contracts, the Government will only consider the specific 34 mission or portion consistent with that proposed to be completed by the prime, subcontractor or 35 teaming partner. PPI and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the 36 relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions in 37 Table 7-1 when assessing recent, relevant missions. 38

TABLE 7-1 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Description

VERY RELEVANT

A past or ongoing mission that involved launch services for an EELV mission for either a single payload or multi-mission payload involving essentially the same scope, magnitude and complexity as the evaluated mission.

RELEVANT

A Government mission for launch services for either a single payload or multi-mission payload involving similar scope, magnitude and complexity as the evaluated mission.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

A Government or commercial mission for launch services for either a single payload or multi-mission payload involving some of the scope, magnitude and complexity as the evaluated mission.

NOT RELEVANT

A Government or commercial mission for launch services for either a single payload or multi-mission payload involving little or none of the scope, magnitude and complexity as the evaluated mission.

7.5 PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT 2

The Government will assess the performance quality of only recent and very relevant, 3 relevant, somewhat relevant missions. For each recent, relevant and somewhat relevant past 4 performance mission, the quality of the work performed will be assessed for performance, and 5 schedule resulting in a quality assessment rating. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the evaluation 6 will also consider the extent to which the Offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates 7 compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. The quality assessment 8 may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as PPI that results in an unsatisfactory 9 rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a 10 formal rating system (e.g., past performance questionnaires). For adverse information identified, the 11 evaluation will consider the number and severity of the adverse information, mitigating 12 circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in any sustained 13 improvements. The Government will use the following quality ratings in Table 7-2 for the quality of 14 recent and relevant missions: 15

Table 7-2: Past Performance Quality Ratings

Rating Description

Exceptional (E)

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good (VG)

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.

Satisfactory (S)

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal (M)

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory (U)

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

7.6 PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT 2

The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record 3 of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. Combined, these three assessments will result in 4 one (1) confidence assessment rating for each mission (NROL-85, NROL-87, SILENTBARKER, 5 SBIRS GEO-5 and AFSPC-44). 6

TABLE 7-3 PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE

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

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

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

NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE

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

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

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

NO CONFIDENCE

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

EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE & SCHEDULE FACTORS 1

8.1 The Performance and Schedule evaluation will receive a Technical and Technical Risk rating 2 at the Sub-factors level. Sub-factors ratings will not be combined into overall ratings for the 3 Performance or Schedule Factors. The Technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s 4 technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The Technical Risk rating considers 5 the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement. 6

The Government will assign a Technical rating IAW Table 8-1 below for each Sub-factors. 7 The Government may assign Strengths or Deficiencies in the Offeror’s proposal. Strengths and 8 deficiencies are defined as follows: 9

8.1.1.1 A “strength” is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified 10 performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the 11 Government. The Government reserves the right to incorporate a "Strength" process or 12 feature into the awarded contract. 13

8.1.1.2 A “deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a 14 combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful 15 contract performance to an unacceptable level. 16

The Government will assign a Technical Risk rating IAW Table 8-2 below for each Sub-17 factors. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of Weakness and 18 Significant Weaknesses, considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, 19 the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful performance. The 20 definitions for Weakness and Significant Weakness are as follows: 21

8.1.2.1 A “weakness” means a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A 22

“significant weakness” is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract 23 performance. 24

8.1.2.2 A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of 25 unsuccessful contract performance. 26

Offerors must receive a Performance and Schedule Factor and Sub-factor Technical rating of 27 Marginal, Acceptable, Good, or Outstanding and receive a Performance and Schedule Factor and 28 Sub-factor Risk rating of Moderate or Low to be eligible for award of any mission, reference Table 29 8-1 Technical Ratings and Table 8-2 Technical Risk Ratings.30

8.2 RATINGS 31

Each Performance Sub-Factor and each Schedule Sub-Factor will receive one of the 32

Technical ratings defined in Table 8-1 below. 33

TABLE 8-1 TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

Each Performance Sub-Factor and each Schedule Sub-Factor will receive a separate 1 Technical Risk Rating as defined below in Table 8-2. 2

TABLE 8-2 TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness (es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

8.3 FACTOR 3: PERFORMANCE 3

See Annexes 1-5 to this document for each mission’s Factor 3 criteria. 4

8.4 FACTOR 4: SCHEDULE 5

SUB-FACTOR 1: INTEGRATED MASTER SCHEDULE (IMS) 1

Factor 4, Schedule, Sub-factors are of equal importance. 2

8.4.1.1 The Government will evaluate whether and the extent to which the Offeror’s schedule risk 3 assessment (SRA) demonstrates at least a 90% probability of meeting the Initial Launch Capability 4 (ILC) or earlier. This includes an evaluation of whether and, the extent to which the Offeror’s SRA 5 is performed IAW Paragraphs 8.1.3 and 8.1.4 Attachment 5, Instructions to Offerors, and the three-6 point estimates are deemed credible and reasonable based on the Offeror’s historical performance 7 data, rationale-lessons, and statements of assumptions. 8

8.4.1.2 The Government will evaluate whether and the extent to which the Offeror’s IMS satisfies 9 all four (4) of the criteria in Paragraphs 8.4.1.2.1-8.4.1.2.4 below: 10

8.4.1.2.1 The Offeror’s IMS reflects all activities that support or effect the launch service, including 11 all open non-recurring design validation and risk mitigation plan tasks; 12

8.4.1.2.2 The Offeror’s IMS task durations are credible and reasonable based on the Offeror’s 13 historical performance data, rationale/lessons learned, and statements of assumptions; 14

8.4.1.2.3 The Offeror’s justifications for all components that fall beyond the guideline thresholds 15 from section 8.1.4, Attachment 5, Instructions to Offerors, are credible and reasonable; 16

8.4.1.2.4 The Offeror's IMS is credible and reasonable, and supports the ILC. This includes an 17 evaluation of whether and the extent to which the Offeror's IMS demonstrates closure of 18 all open non-recurring design validation tasks by L-14 months. 19

SUB-FACTOR 2: RISK MITIGATION PLANS 20

8.4.2.1 The Government will evaluate the quality and associated risk of the Offeror’s proposed 21 Flight Critical Items List (FCIL) associated with the launch vehicle system proposed IAW CDRL 22 B018. 23

8.4.2.2 The Government will evaluate the quality, thoroughness and associated risk of the Offeror’s 24 proposed risk mitigation plan(s) for Government-identified and Offeror-identified Low-Medium, 25 Medium, and High risks. This includes an evaluation of whether, and the extent to which, the risk 26 mitigation plan(s) demonstrate a low risk rating prior to ILC. If any risks higher than Low have 27 been previously accepted by the EELV Spaceflight Worthiness Certification process, the 28 Government will evaluate whether the Offeror has provided appropriate written evidence of 29 Government risk acceptance. The Government will evaluate whether and the extent to which the 30 Offeror’s proposed IMS demonstrates closure of all open non-recurring design validation (NRDV) 31 by L-12 months. 32

8.4.2.3 The Government will evaluate the quality, thoroughness and associated risk of risk 33 mitigation or corrective action plans provided due to mishap or flight anomaly. This includes an 34 evaluation of whether and the extent to which the risk mitigation or corrective action plans impact 35 the Offeror’s ability to meet performance and schedule requirements. 36

8.4.2.4 The Government will evaluate whether and the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal 37 provides a credible and reasonable plan for use of excess performance margin. The Government 38 will evaluate whether and the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal provides a plan with rationale 39 that (1) meets each mission’s requirements; (2) does not harm the primary mission; (3) does not 40 impact the ILC; (4) demonstrates NRDV closure by L-12 months; and (5) demonstrates a Low risk 41 rating prior to ILC. 42

EVALUATION OF PRICE FACTOR 1

9.1 FACTOR 5: PRICE 2

For source selection evaluation purposes only, total evaluated price (TEP) for each individual 3 mission will be determined by adding together the values from each mission Tables 10-5 (NROL-4 85), 11-6 (NROL-87), 12-5 (SILENTBARKER), 13-6 (SBIRS GEO-5), and 14-5 (AFSPC-44) in 5 Attachment 5. If the Offeror proposes the use of Government Property (GP), the rental equivalency 6 cost of the GP will be incorporated into the TEP based on the unit acquisition cost of each item 7 requested. As defined by FAR 45.1, the Government may assess a different unit acquisition cost of 8 any GP stated by the Contractor if the Government’s evaluation supports another value. 9

The Offeror’s prices for each mission will be evaluated for Reasonableness and Unbalanced 10 pricing. In the evaluation, the Government may use data, external to the Offeror’s proposal, such as, 11 but not limited to, field pricing reports, industry information, Government estimates, same or similar 12 DoD contracts, and commercial data. 13

The Offeror’s proposal for each mission will also be evaluated for (1) accuracy in calculating 14 the Total Proposed Price (TPP)and Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and (2) compliance with the 15 instructions for calculating the TPP and TEP. 16

REASONABLENESS 17

9.1.4.1 The proposal must contain sufficient details for the Government evaluation of the following 18 areas: 19

9.1.4.1.1 Reasonableness (Applies to all proposed prices): 20

9.1.4.1.1.1 The offeror’s proposal will be assessed for reasonableness, where reasonableness is an 21 assessment of whether the price is too high. The price is reasonable, if, in its nature and 22 amount, does not exceed that amount which would be paid by a prudent person in the 23 conduct of competitive business. Reference FAR 31.201-3. 24

9.1.4.1.1.2 In conducting the reasonableness analysis, the Government will use one or more 25 analysis techniques described in, but not limited to, FAR 15.404-1. 26

9.1.4.1.1.3 A determination of unreasonableness will render the proposal un-awardable. 27

9.1.4.1.1.4 In addition, proposals that have been assessed to be technically unacceptable are 28 ineligible for award, and as a result, a reasonableness determination will not be made for 29 technically unacceptable, un-awardable proposals. 30

9.1.4.2 In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or 31 pricing data may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. If, after receipt of 32 proposals, the PCO determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price 33 reasonableness, the Offeror shall be required to submit additional data other than certified cost or 34 pricing data. 35

UNBALANCED PRICING 36

9.1.5.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed prices for unbalanced pricing in 37 accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable 38 total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or 39 understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An offer 40 may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an 41 unacceptable risk to the Government. 42

ANNEX 1: NROL-85, FACTOR 3 PERFORMANCE 1

10.1 NROL-85 SUB-FACTORS IMPORTANCE 2

Within Factor 3, Performance, Sub-factor 1 and Sub-factor 2 are of equal importance. Sub-3 factors 1 and 2 are independently more important than either Sub-factor 3 and Sub-factor 4. Sub-4 factors 3 and 4 are of equal importance. Sub-factors 3 and 4 are independently more important than 5 Sub-factor 5. Sub-factor 5 is the least important of the Sub-factors. 6

10.2 SUB-FACTOR 1: ORBITAL ACCURACY 7

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed 8 solution to meet the five NROL-85 Orbital Injection Target and Accuracy Requirements, utilizing 9 data from Attachment 5 Table 10-1 and Table 10-2, is technically sound. The five requirements are 10 apogee radius, perigee radius, inclination, right ascension of ascending node, and argument of 11 perigee, as specified in NROL-85 IRD Paragraphs 3.4.1.1 and 3.4.1.2 and Tables 3.4.1.1-1 and 12 3.4.1.2-1. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraphs 10.2.1, 10.2.2 and 10.2.3) 13

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach and 14 methodology, used to determine 3-sigma injection accuracy, are technically sound. (Reference 15 Attachment 5, Paragraphs 10.2.2 and 10.2.3) 16

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s analysis 17 demonstrates how historical launch data from Attachment 5, Table 10-3 supports the orbital 18 accuracy predictions, how supporting rationale provided explains differences between launch results 19 and predictions, and is technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 10.2.4) 20

The Government will evaluate if applicable, whether, and the extent to which, the secondary 21 objective impact (including lack of impact) to Orbital Accuracy criteria is technically sound. 22 (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 10.2.5) 23

10.3 SUB-FACTOR 2: LOADS AND DYNAMICS 24

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach to 25 comply with launch vehicle loads, space vehicle loads, and acoustics requirements in the NROL-85 26 IRD Paragraphs 3.3.4.1 and 3.3.4.2, is technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraphs 27

10.3.1 and 10.3.2) 28

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach to 29 comply with the NROL-85 payload oscillation requirement in NROL-85 IRD section 3.1.2.4, is 30 technically sound and assesses the degree to which the proposed technical solution has been tested 31 and/or demonstrated in operation. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 10.3.3) 32

The Government will evaluate if applicable, whether, and the extent to which, the secondary 33 objective impact (including lack of impact) to the Loads and Dynamics criteria is technically sound. 34 (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 10.3.4) 35

10.4 SUB-FACTOR 3: LAUNCH OPERATIONS 36

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed 37

Launch Operations Concept of Operations (CONOPS) demonstrates compliance with the 38 requirements in the Appendices C and D of the NROL-85 IRD and is technically sound. (Reference 39 Attachment 5, Paragraphs 10.4.1 and 10.4.2) 40

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach to 1 NROL-85 integrated SV/LV processing and encapsulation through the proposed payload processing 2 facility, demonstrates technically sound procedures. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 10.4.3) 3

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach to 4 comply with horizontal/vertical payload handling requirements, in the NROL-85 IRD Paragraphs 5 3.5.3, 3.5.4, and 3.5.5.2, is technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraphs 10.4.4 and 6 10.4.5) 7

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach to 8 comply with the LV to SV mechanical and electrical interface verification requirements in the 9 NROL-85 IRD Paragraphs 3.1.1.4.2, 3.2.3.7.5.5, 3.2.3.7.5.6, and 3.2.3.7.5.7, is technically sound. 10 (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 10.4.6) 11

The Government will evaluate if applicable, whether, and the extent to which, the secondary 12 objective impact (including lack of impact) to the Launch Operations criteria and the proposed 13 Security Plan (Attachment 12) are technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraphs 2.2.5.8 14 and 10.4.7) 15

10.5 SUB-FACTOR 4: MISSION UNIQUE INTEGRATION 16

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach for 17 rideshare, to include the (1) integration of two integrated 12U CubeSat/Dispensers (Aft multi 18 Payload Carrier Payloads, [APLs]) on the launch vehicle and (2) launch and deployment of AMPC 19 Space Vehicles (ASVs) into the same initial orbit of NROL-85 is technically sound. (Reference 20 Attachment 5, Paragraphs 10.5.1, 10.5.4, 10.5.5 and 10.5.6) 21

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s plan and 22 processes demonstrates ability to: (1) accommodate the modification of the final APL configuration 23 up to Launch (L) – 12 months, and (2) validate proposed approach from past performance, or if 24 never demonstrated, from evidence-based rationale, with a detailed description and technically 25 sound rationale. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraphs 10.5.2 and 10.5.3) 26

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach for 27 the electrical trailblazer is technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 10.5.7) 28

The Government will evaluate if applicable, whether and the extent to which, the secondary 29 objective impact (including lack of impact) to the Mission Unique Integration criteria is technically 30 sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 10.5.8) 31

10.6 SUB-FACTOR 5: MASS-TO-ORBIT 32

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s analyses 33 demonstrate the capability to lift the total mass provided in Attachment 5, Table 10-4 to the target 34 orbit requirements in Table 10-1 with a performance margin greater than or equal to zero, and is 35 technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 10.6.1) 36

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach for 37 upper stage Flight Performance Reserve value, calculated using the methodology described in 38 Attachment 5, Paragraph 10.6.2a, is technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 39 10.6.2a) 40

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s analysis 41 quantifies and describes the NRO/OSL Reserve, along with any additional reserves and performance 1 margin and is technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, paragraph 10.6.2b, c, and d) 2

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror's demonstration 3 of compliance with Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (ODMSP), to include a ≥ 90% 4 probability of success for completing the planned upper stage disposal, is technically sound. 5 (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 10.6.4) 6

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach to 7 accomplish the proposed NROL-85 mission profile, and supporting evidence, for flight 8 demonstrated mission profile portions is technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraphs 9

10.6.3 and 10.6.5) 10

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s analyses of 11 risks and associated mitigations for undemonstrated mission profile portions and unproven 12 capabilities are technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 10.6.5.1) 13

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror provides 14 technically sound analysis that (1) demonstrates nominal uncontrolled jettisoned body impacts occur 15 over water, (2) demonstrates, if applicable, any de-orbit of the upper stage will result in a reentry 16 location in the broad ocean area, and (3) substantiates casualty expectation. (Reference Attachment 17 5, Paragraph 10.6.6) 18

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s demonstrates 19 with technically sounds analysis (1) how historical flight data supports the trajectory predictions, 20 and (2) explains differences between flight results. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 10.6.7) 21

The Government will evaluate, if applicable, whether, and the extent to which, the secondary 22 objective impact (including lack of impact) to the Mass-to-Orbit criteria is technically sound. 23 (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 10.6.8) 24

ANNEX 2: NROL-87, FACTOR 3 PERFORMANCE 1

11.1 NROL-87 SUB-FACTORS IMPORTANCE 2

Within Factor 3, Performance, Sub-factors 1 and 2 are equally important and independently 3 more important than Sub-factor 3, which is more important than Sub-factor 4. 4

11.2 SUB-FACTOR 1: LAUNCH OPERATIONS AND INTEGRATION 5

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the offeror’s proposed 6

Launch Operations Concept of Operations (CONOPS) is technically sound. (Reference Attachment 7 5, Paragraphs 11.2.1 and 11.2.2) 8

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the offeror’s approach to 9 NROL-87 integrated SV/LV processing and encapsulation through the proposed payload processing 10 facility demonstrates technically sound procedures. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 11.2.3) 11

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach to 12 process and manage classified payloads is technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 13 11.2.4) 14

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach for 15 NROL-87 SV Contamination Management demonstrates compliance with the environmental control 16 and cleanliness requirements of the NROL-87 Launch Service Requirement Document (LSRD) 17 Paragraphs 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.2, 3.3.2.2, and 3.3.2.3, and is technically sound. (Reference 18 Attachment 5, Paragraph 11.2.4) 19

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach for 20 GN2 purge during SV processing and encapsulation through T-0 launch demonstrates compliance 21 with the NROL-87 IRD Paragraphs 3.3.2.4, and is technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, 22 Paragraph 11.2.6) 23

The Government will evaluate if applicable, whether, and the extent to which, the secondary 24 objective impact (including lack of impact) to the Launch Operations criteria and the proposed 25 Security Plan (Attachment 12) are technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraphs 2.2.5.8 26 and 11.2.7) 27

11.3 SUB-FACTOR 2: SHOCK AND ACOUSTICS 28

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach for 29 space vehicle acoustics proposed demonstrates compliance with the requirements in the NROL-87 30 IRD Paragraph 3.3.4.3, and is technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 11.3.1) 31

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach for 32 launch vehicle/space vehicle shock proposed demonstrates compliance with the requirements in the 33 NROL-87 IRD Paragraphs 3.3.4.4, and is technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 34 11.3.2) 35

The Government will evaluate, if applicable, whether, and the extent to which, the secondary 36 objective impact (including lack of impact) to the Shock and Acoustics criteria is technically sound. 37 (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 11.3.3) 38

11.4 SUB-FACTOR 3: ORBITAL ACCURACY 1

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed 2 solution meets the four NROL-87 Orbital Injection Target and Accuracy requirements (apogee 3 altitude, perigee altitude, inclination, and Mean Local Time of Ascending Node (MLTAN)), 4 specified in NROL-87 IRD Paragraphs 3.4.3 and 3.4.3.1 and Tables L2-LSRD-193 and L2-LSRD-5 194, utilizing data from Table 11-1 and Table 11-2 is technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, 6 Paragraph 11.3.1 and 11.4.3) 7

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach and 8 methodology used to determine 3-sigma injection accuracy (defined as 99.73% probability at 50% 9 confidence) is technically sound, utilizing data from Table 11-1 and Table 11-2. (Reference 10 Attachment 5, Paragraphs 11.4.1, 11.4.2 and 11.4.3) 11

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed 12 solution achieves compliance with the NROL-87 separation accuracy parameters, in NROL-87 IRD 13 Paragraphs 3.4.5.2 and 3.4.5.3., utilizing data from Table 11-3, are technically sound. (Reference 14 Attachment 5, Paragraph 11.4.4) 15

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s analysis 16 demonstrates how historical launch data from Table 11-4 supports the orbital accuracy predictions 17 and how the supporting rationale provided explains differences between launch results and 18 predictions, and is technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 11.4.5) 19

The Government will evaluate, if applicable, the extent to which the secondary objective 20 impact (including lack of impact) to the Orbit Accuracy criteria is technically sound. (Reference 21 Attachment 5, Paragraph 11.4.6) 22

11.5 SUB-FACTOR 4: MASS-TO-ORBIT 23

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s analysis 24 demonstrates the capability to lift the total mass provided in Attachment 5, Table 11-5 to the target 25 orbit requirements IAW Attachment 5, Table 11-1 with a performance margin greater than or equal 26 to zero, and is technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraphs 11.5.1 and 11.5.2) 27

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach for 28 upper stage Flight Performance Reserve value, calculated using the methodology described in 29 Attachment 5, Paragraph 11.5.2, is technically sound.(Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 11.5.2) 30

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror's demonstration 31 of compliance with Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (ODMSP), to include a ≥ 90% 32 probability of success for completing the planned upper stage disposal, is technically sound. 33 (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 11.5.4) 34

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach for 35 the proposed NROL-87 mission profile and the supporting evidence for flight demonstrated mission 36 profile portions is technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraphs 11.5.3 and 11.5.5) 37

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s analyses of 38 risks and associated mitigations for undemonstrated mission profile portions and unproven 39 capabilities are technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 11.5.5.1) 40

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror provides 41 technically sound analysis that (1) demonstrates nominal uncontrolled jettisoned body impacts occur 42 over water, (2) demonstrates, if applicable, any de-orbit of the upper stage will result in a reentry 1 location in the broad ocean area, and (3) substantiates casualty expectation. (Reference Attachment 2 5, Paragraph 11.5.6) 3

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s demonstrates 4 with technically sounds analysis (1) how historical flight data supports the trajectory predictions, 5 and (2) explains differences between flight results. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 11.5.7) 6

The Government will evaluate, if applicable, whether, and the extent to which, the secondary 7 objective impact (including lack of impact) to the Mass-to-Orbit criteria is technically sound. 8 (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 11.5.8) 9

ANNEX 3: SILENTBARKER, FACTOR 3 PERFORMANCE 1

12.1 SILENTBARKER SUB-FACTORS IMPORTANCE 2

Within Factor 3, Performance, Sub-factor 1 and Sub-factor 2 are of equal importance. Sub-3 factors 1 and 2 are independently more important than either Sub-factor 3 and Sub-factor 4. Sub-4 factors 3 and 4 are of equal importance. Sub-factors 3 and 4 are independently more important than 5 Sub-factor 5. Sub-factor 5 is the least important of the Sub-factors. 6

12.2 SUB-FACTOR 1: ORBITAL ACCURACY 7

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s…