08_Attachment_5_EELV_Phase_2_Instructions_To_Offerors.docx

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Phase 2 Launch Service Procurement

FA8811-19-R-0002

Attachment 5 Instructions to Offerors

3 December 2018

PRE-DECISIONAL

The Air Force is seeking industry's feedback on the EELV Phase 2 Launch Service Procurement (LSP) draft Request for Proposal (RFP), which is designed to provide Assured Access to Space for National Security Space (NSS) Requirements. This is industry's opportunity to provide the Air Force feedback on this draft RFP and how industry can best meet NSS launch requirements, provide the warfighters the launch flexibility they need, while leveraging commercial launch capability. This is the first of two draft EELV Phase 2 RFPs the Air Force plans to release.

1. Program Structure and Objectives The Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) anticipates two requirements contract awards for launch services delivering multiple missions with annual ordering periods from FY 2020 through FY 2024, with options for three additional one-year ordering periods. The general requirements for the launch services are defined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), while mission-specific requirements will be defined in mission-specific Interface Requirements Document (IRD) for National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) missions and Mission Requirements Annex (MRA) for Air Force missions. Requirements in the PWS with specific Multi-manifest-only references appear in italicized text.

1. General Instructions The Offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by this Request for Proposal (RFP) and must be submitted in accordance with (IAW) these instructions. In developing the proposal, the Offeror shall ensure that its proposed offer complies with all the requirements contained in the RFP, to include the PWS and CDRLs. Noncompliance with the instructions provided in this RFP may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

The Offeror’s proposal shall be clear and concise and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the full range of NSS requirements. The launch system the Offeror is proposing to fill the NSS requirements may include a single launch vehicle (LV) or a family of vehicles. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of its capabilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal.

The Government reserves the right to make award of the two requirements contracts without the use of discussions upon evaluation of the Offerors’ initial proposals. However, the Government intends to set a competitive range and subsequently enter into discussions. The Government reserves the right to make a written request for proposal updates to incorporate any directly relevant information from ongoing early integration studies, mishap and anomaly findings, and updates to the joint work plan schedules or certification efforts. The Government also reserves the right to incorporate into the awarded requirements contracts any particular features of the Offeror’s proposal that are evaluated as “strengths” because of their beneficial or advantageous use.

The proposal validity date must be specified and the proposal must be valid for at least 180 days after date of submission. IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the Offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Point of Contact The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), Mr. David Sharp, is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the PCO at david.sharp.5@us.af.mil or 310-653-3697. Written questions or concerns regarding this RFP may be sent to the PCO at the address for the Launch Enterprise contracting office (SMC/LEK) located on the front page of the model contract/ solicitation.

Debriefings The PCO will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range if a competitive range is established, whereupon they may request and receive a pre-award debriefing IAW FAR 15.505. In addition, the PCO will notify unsuccessful Offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision IAW FAR 15.506. Upon such notification, unsuccessful Offerors may request and receive a post-award debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request IAW the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

Discrepancies If an Offeror believes that the requirements in this RFP contain an error or omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the PCO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the PCO to consider as related to the omission or error.

Electronic Reference Documents Referenced documents for this solicitation are available at http://www.fbo.gov. Potential Offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

Exchanges Exchanges of source selection information between the Government and Offerors will be controlled by the PCO.

Discussions The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. However, if it is in the Government’s best interest to hold discussions, then the Government may conduct discussions with Offerors after establishing a competitive range based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria. The Government reserves the right to record audio telecommunications with the Offerors during the source selection.

Use of Non-Government Advisors Offerors are advised that data submitted to the Government in response to this solicitation will be released to individuals who work for the following companies as nonGovernment advisors for review and analysis:

Table 3.7-1: Source Selection Support Contractor(s)

TBD

TBD

TBD

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

Proposal submission constitutes written consent for the Government to release data submitted in response to this solicitation to the above-named companies.

Alternative Proposals Alternative proposals will not be considered.

1. Proposal Format/Limits Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in Table 4.1-1: Proposal Organization. The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits. The Volumes identified in the table shall be separately bound in threering, loose-leaf binders, plus each Volume’s electronic copy shall be saved on a separate compact disc (CD) or digital video disc (DVD). The Executive Summary and Model Contract volumes (I and V) may be combined into one (1) binder. For the Volume II binder, page separation tabs for each Factor and Sub-factor shall be provided. The Offeror shall provide one hard copy of the proposal and two electronic copies of the proposal on CDs or DVDs (unclassified only). All classified sections of the proposal response shall be provided in accordance with Paragraph 4.4. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the paragraph as noted in the table below:

Table 4.11: Proposal Organization

II

Technical – Category A/B (Factor 1) Sub-factor 1:

Category B, LEO

Element 2: LEO Mass-to-Orbit/Orbital Injection Accuracy

Element 3: LEO Launch Operations Concept of Operations (CONOPS)

Element 4: LEO Mission Unique Integration (Secondary Payloads)

Element 5: LEO Environments

Element 2: Molniya Mass-to-Orbit/Orbital Injection Accuracy

Element 3: Molniya Vertical Integration

Element 4: Molniya Environments

Element 5: Molniya RF Attenuation

Sub-factor 3:

Category B, GEO 1.5

Element 2: GEO 1.5 Mass-to-Orbit/Orbital Injection Accuracy

Element 3: GEO 1.5 Mission Unique Integration (Co-Manifested Payloads)

Element 4: GEO 1.5 Long Coast

Element 5: GEO 1.5 Classified Payload Management

Element 6: GEO 1.5 Environments

Sub-factor 4 Category A/B System Readiness

Technical – Category C (Factor 2) Sub-factor 1:

Category C GEO 2

Element 2: GEO 2 Mass-to-Orbit/Orbital Injection Accuracy

Element 3: GEO 2 Mission Support Equipment (MSE) Accommodations

Element 4: GEO 2 Vertical Integration

Element 5: GEO 2 Environments

Element 6: GEO 2 Radio Frequency (RF) Attenuation

Sub-factor 2:

Category C Polar 2

Element 2: Polar 2 Mass-to-Orbit/Orbital Injection Accuracy

Element 3: Polar 2 Mechanical Interfaces

Element 4: Polar 2 Vertical Integration

Element 5: Polar 2 Spot Cooling

Sub-factor 3: Category C System Readiness

Sub-factor 2: Business Approach

Sub-factor 3: Small Business Participation

Area 2: Mission-Specific Non-Standard Services Price

Area 3: Other Required Pricing Tables

Area 4: Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Page Limitations Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal, and excess paper copies will be shredded. If the Government issues Evaluation Notices (EN) for discussions, page limitations may be placed on responses to EN. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters sent along with the EN to the Offerors. Unless otherwise specified, each page shall be counted except the following: cover pages, table of contents, tabs, and glossaries. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

Page Size and Format A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 by 11 inches (in.), not including foldouts. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 point using Times New Roman font type. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 in. margins on the top and bottom and ¾ in. side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page size and format restrictions shall also apply to EN responses.

Legible tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated and legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 17 in. in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and each face of the foldout containing information will be counted as a single page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, and figures, not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs, and figures, the text may be in the Offeror’s preferred format.

Classified Information If classified information is provided as part of the proposal response, it shall be provided electronically via appropriate communication channels and as a single classified addendum. No bound, hard copies will be required. The electronic classified addendum shall be submitted according to the applicable security regulations as follows: Department of Defense (DoD) 5220.22M, the EELV Security Classification Guide, NRO Classification Guide page 8, NRO Information Protection Guide, and the DD Form 254. Each entry in the classified addendum shall be referenced to the proposal volume, Factor/Sub-factor, 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. Pages in a classified addendum will be included in the page count for the applicable volume.

Cross-Referencing Each volume shall be written on a standalone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. However, cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

Indexing Each volume shall contain a table of contents with more detail than the master table of contents included in the Executive Summary Volume, to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used with a definition for each.

Binding and Labeling Each volume of the proposal shall be separately bound in a three-ring, loose-leaf binder, permitting the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet shall be bound in each volume, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the Offeror’s name. The same identifying data shall be placed on the spine of each binder. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed IAW FAR 52.215-1(e) (Restriction on disclosure and use of data) and FAR 3.104-4 (Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information).

Electronic Offers The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copy. All CDs shall be placed in plastic sleeves that open on the top in one separate binder, with the volume number and title indicated on each disc. Hypertext links shall be used to facilitate navigation within the document. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including factors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2007/2010, MS Office Excel 2007/2010, MS Office Project 2007/2010, and MS Office Power Point 2007/2010, as applicable; exception applies to the Executive Summary and the Model Contract. In the event there are discrepancies between the hard copy and the electronic copies of the proposal, the electronic copies will be used for evaluation. The “original” electronic copy of the proposal shall be identified.

Delivery Instructions Delivery of proposals shall be coordinated with the PCO at least one (1) business day in advance of the due date and time. Early deliveries of proposals shall also be coordinated with the PCO. Electronic and hard copies of proposals are due XX Month 2019 by 4:00 pm Pacific Time. Proposals received after the date and time specified will be treated IAW FAR 52.212-1(f). If a proposal will contain classified information, Offerors shall coordinate with the PCO at least seven (7) calendar days in advance of the due date and time.

Proposals shall be addressed to the PCO and mailed or hand carried to:

SMC/LEK

Attn: Mr. David Sharp 483 N. Aviation Blvd.

El Segundo, CA 90245

1. Volume I – Executive Summary The purpose of the Executive Summary Volume is to provide a complete overview of the Offeror’s proposal. The Executive Summary Volume will not be evaluated, scored, or used to clarify other discrepant information in other volumes. Any summary material presented in the Executive Summary Volume will not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal. Do not include cost information. The Offeror shall provide the following information in the Executive Summary:

3. Narrative Summary The Executive Summary shall describe the proposed launch system and its prominent and distinguishing features. The narrative summary of the entire proposal shall be concise, to include addressing any risk areas and mitigation plans, and highlighting any key or unique features. The salient features shall tie in with the evaluation factors in Attachment 6, Evaluation Criteria. The executive summary shall stand alone and not directly reference the other sections of the proposal. At a minimum, the Offeror shall address the following topics:

· The ability to meet all NSS reference orbits’ mass-to-orbit requirements and payload envelope categories, as defined in the EELV System Performance Requirements Document (SPRD) Revision B, Tables 1 and 2, and EELV Standard Interface Specification (SIS) Revision C, paragraph 3.1.1.4,

· The ability to meet all NSS reference orbital parameter accuracy requirements, as defined in the SPRD Rev B, Tables 3 and 4,

· The characteristics of its launch system infrastructure, including a description of both the East and West coast launch sites, that meet NSS requirements in the SPRD Rev B, paragraphs 3.2.7 Payload Orientation, 3.2.9 Launch Rate, 3.2.11 Basing, and 3.3.2 Protection of NSS Payload requirements,

· 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 the LV (or family of LVs) that meets all NSS launch requirements,

· The Offeror shall briefly summarize any relevant launch system experience.

The Offeror shall state its launch system offering’s performance capabilities for each reference orbit (as defined by the SPRD Rev B, Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4) in Tables 5.1-1 and 5.1-2. For the purposes of the Executive Summary, the Offeror shall identify in Tables 5.1-1 and 5.1-2, for each reference orbit, a single, “primary” launch vehicle configuration that meets all orbit requirements. The Offeror shall also provide, in Table 5.1-3, the mass-to-orbit capabilities for each of its proposed configurations for each reference orbit which the configuration is capable of meeting SPRD, Rev B, Tables 1 and 2 requirements. The maximum mass-to-orbit capabilities are calculated as defined in the SPRD Rev B, Appendix A, and must be inclusive of all Government directed and any applicable contractor performance reserves. If the Offeror intends to recover launch service hardware, the Offeror shall ensure that the performance required to recover the hardware is included under its contractor performance reserves and so indicate in its configuration description. Mission reliability is defined in the SPRD Rev B, Appendix B.

Table 5.1-1: EELV Approach

LEO

Polar 1

Polar 2

MEO Direct

MEO Direct 2

MEO Transfer

MEO Transfer 2

GTO

Molniya

GEO 1

GEO 1.5

GEO 2

Table 5.1-2: Orbital Parameter Accuracies

LEO

N/A

Polar 1

N/A

Polar 2

N/A

MEO Direct

N/A

MEO Direct 2

N/A

MEO Transfer

MEO Transfer 2

GTO

Molniya

GEO 1

GEO 1.5

GEO 2

Table 5.1-3: Mass-to-Orbit Capabilities of Proposed Configurations by Reference Orbit

Configuration a

Configuration b

Configuration n

Configuration a

Configuration n

3. Offeror’s Proposed Team The Offeror shall briefly identify the Offeror’s team to include major subcontractors.

3. Master Table of Contents The Offeror shall include a master table of contents of the entire proposal.

3. Cross Reference Matrix The Offeror shall fill in the proposal column of the cross reference matrix below with the volume, sections, and paragraph numbers from its proposal that correspond with the paragraph numbers from Attachment 5 and Attachment 6 listed below.

Table 5.4-1: Cross Reference Matrix

Volume I: Executive Executive Summary

* To be filled in by Offeror

Volume II – Factor 1: Technical – Category A/B In this volume, the Offeror shall address how its launch system(s) will accomplish representative EELV Category A/B payload envelope missions. These representative missions are illustrative of missions that could be assigned under the Phase 2 contract; however, they are defined here for evaluation purposes only. Each mission has a supporting IRD or MRA. Additionally, the Offeror shall address the maturity of the proposed system(s) towards meeting EELV Initial Launch Capability (ILC) dates for Category A/B missions. While the evaluation addresses these representative missions, the Offeror’s launch system(s) shall meet the requirements of the SPRD Rev B and the SIS Rev C in totality.

For each Sub-factor Mission Profile/Sequence of Events section, the Offeror shall provide evidence for the portions of the mission profile that have been flight demonstrated by the proposed launch vehicle system or a relevant comparison launch vehicle. The Offeror shall identify any portions of the mission profile that have not yet been flight demonstrated by the proposed launch vehicle system or relevant comparison launch vehicle. For these undemonstrated mission profile portions, the Offeror shall provide engineering and risk analyses of the affected launch vehicle subsystems. The Offeror shall provide mitigation approaches that address identified risks associated with the undemonstrated portions of the proposed mission profile.

Sub-factor 1: Category B LEO This mission is a Category B “high” (7500 km semi-major axis) LEO mission launched from the Eastern or Western Range at the Offeror’s option. The Integrated Payload Stack (IPS) consists of a primary SV, which is Category A in volume, and four EELV Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) class satellites on an ESPA “Grande” ring. The orbital parameters and injection accuracy requirements are those listed in Phase 2 LEO IRD Tables 3.4.1.1-1 and 3.4.1.2-1. The SV mass-to-orbit requirements are specified in Phase 2 LEO IRD paragraph 3.1.3.1. Other mission-specific requirements are provided in the Phase 2 LEO IRD. The following tables summarize performance requirements.

Table 6.1.1-1: Mission Performance Requirements

* Per Phase 2 LEO IRD paragraph 3.1.3.1, maximum primary payload weight 11,600 pounds and maximum ESPA payload weight is 3,140 pounds (ESPA Grande ring and four secondary SVs).

** Primary PL is payload envelope A, while Integrated Payload Stack including ESPA Grande is payload envelope B.

Table 6.1.1-2: Mission Orbital Accuracy Requirements

The following are mission-specific requirements:

8. RF attenuation

9. Multi-manifest/Rideshare (ESPA Grande) The Offeror shall provide the following detailed information for this representative mission:

LEO Mission Profile/Sequence of Events: The Offeror shall describe its launch configuration for this representative mission. The Offeror shall provide a mission profile including upper stage disposal approach demonstrating Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (ODMSP) compliance with a 90% probability of success. The mission profile shall include the proposed launch site and significant sequence of events to include times with respect to liftoff and orbital parameter summary. At a minimum, the sequence of events shall include the following mission profile events listed below (a-k); and the Offeror shall include any other significant events in the proposed mission profile. If an event is not applicable, the Offeror shall provide supporting rationale for its exclusion.

a. First stage propulsion system(s) start

b. Solid rocket motor ignition (if applicable)

c. Solid rocket motor burnout and jettison sequence (if applicable)

d. First stage, and subsequent (if applicable), engine cutoff and separation events

e. PLF jettison

f. Upper stage engine burn ignition(s), cutoff(s) and coast time(s)

g. SV separation

h. Four ESPA SV separations

i. Initiation of upper stage CCAMs

j. Upper stage disposal initiation

k. End of mission for upper stage, where end of mission is defined as the completion of passivation with no further planned maneuvers, or through upper stage impact after controlled reentry LEO Mass-to-Orbit/Orbital Injection Accuracy The Offeror shall provide its maximum mass-to-orbit for the launch configuration proposed, the orbital parameters listed in Tables 6.1.1-1 and 6.1.1-2, and the proposed sequence of events described in paragraph 6.1.2 for a LEO mission. The Offeror shall provide an analysis and a description of the methodology used to generate the final mass-to-orbit for this mission. The Offeror shall fill in the vehicle specific payload equivalent mass values in Table 6.1.3.1-1. The Offeror shall provide the upper stage performance margin to the mission profile with the Total Mass as defined in Table 6.1.3.1-1. If the Offeror intends to recover launch service hardware, the Offeror shall ensure that the performance required to recover the hardware is bookkept under its contractor performance reserves and so indicate in its configuration description. The Offeror shall describe and quantify any performance reserves held.

Table 6.1.3.1-1: LEO Mass-to-Orbit

The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of its approach to meet all orbital injection accuracy requirements for the launch configuration proposed. The Offeror shall complete the “Proposed 3-sigma Accuracy” column in Table 6.1.3.2-1 for both the primary SV and ESPA-class satellites. 3-sigma for injection accuracy is defined as 99.73% probability at 50% confidence. The Offeror shall describe the methods used and justification in determining the orbital injection accuracy performance.

Table 6.1.3.2-1: LEO Mission Orbital Accuracy Requirements

The Offeror shall describe the dispersions used to generate injection accuracy performance. Dispersions shall be listed in Table 6.1.3.2-2 with required data to describe the dispersions used, including statistical distribution type (e.g. Gaussian, uniform).

Table 6.1.3.2-2: LEO Mission Dispersions List

LEO Launch Operations CONOPS: The Offeror shall provide a Launch Operations CONOPS which includes a description of the proposed launch operations flow from the time the Government provides the IPS to the Offeror as Government property for encapsulation through liftoff, to include any contingency procedures. The Offeror shall provide a graphical representation of the proposed CONOPS. The Offeror shall show compliance with the requirements in the Phase 2 LEO IRD. The Offeror shall specifically address SV processing and encapsulation plans, oriented to the Astrotech Processing Facility (APF) at Vandenberg Air Force Base for a Western Range solution or the Eastern Processing Facility (EPF) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station for an Eastern Range solution, and horizontal/vertical payload handling. The Offeror shall describe LV to SV mechanical and electrical interface verification to include end-to-end ordnance circuit continuity testing as defined in the Phase 2 LEO IRD, paragraph 3.2.3.7.5.6.

LEO Mission Unique Integration (Secondary Payloads): The Offeror shall provide CONOPS for the integration of four ESPA-class Auxiliary Satellites (ASVs) to the ESPA Grande carrier and into the IPS on the LV in accordance with the Phase 2 LEO IRD paragraphs 1, 3.1.1.4, and 3.5.1. The following assumptions shall be used:

1. The Launch System Integrating Contractor (LSIC) is providing the ESPA Grande and the ASVs.

1. The LSIC will mate the ASVs to the ESPA Grande at the launch base.

1. The Government will provide design properties, mission design constraints, and configuration for the ASVs to the LV provider NLT L-12 months.

1. The LV provider shall perform flight mate of the ESPA Grande (with ASVs) to the LV interface (the ESPA Grande with ASVs will be available NET L-2 months in the launch processing flow).

1. During ground processing, the LV provider shall provide access to the ASVs for battery charging and closeout operations per the Phase 2 LEO IRD.

e. The Government will provide mass simulators if any of the ASVs are not available to support launch.

The Offeror shall describe the following: integration of the ESPA Grande to the LV, encapsulation processes, payload access during integration and prior to final closeouts, separation attitude and re-contact analyses, multiple separation signal capabilities, Electrical Ground Support Equipment and umbilical capabilities for ASVs, and launch environments for the ASVs. In addition, the Offeror shall provide a detailed description of its approach for placing the four ASVs in the same initial orbit as the Primary SV. The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of its approach to perform deployment of the four ASVs per the Phase 2 LEO IRD. The Offeror shall include a description of its approach to “Do-No-Harm.”

LEO Environments: The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of its approach to meeting the SV acoustic environment as described in SIS Rev C, paragraph 3.8 and Phase 2 LEO IRD paragraph 3.3.4.2.1 for the IPS. Note: The Primary SV requires the payload envelope Category A acoustic environment even though the entire IPS with the MPC is a Category B payload envelope. The Offeror’s approach shall address how the PLF acoustic environment is predicted. The Offeror shall describe the analysis used to demonstrate that its approach satisfies the acoustic requirements. The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of its approach and rationale to meeting the IPS oscillation requirements as described in Phase 2 LEO IRD paragraph 3.1.3.3. The Offeror shall describe the analysis used to demonstrate that its approach satisfies the IPS oscillation requirements.

Sub-factor 2: Category B Molniya This mission is a Category B mission for a modified Molniya orbit launched from the Western Range. The orbital parameters and injection accuracy requirements are those listed in Phase 2 Molniya IRD Tables 3.1.1.1-1 and 3.1.1.2-1. The SV mass-to-orbit requirements are specified in Phase 2 Molniya IRD paragraph 3.1.1. Other mission-specific requirements are provided in the Phase 2 Molniya IRD. The following tables summarize performance requirements.

Table 6.2.1-1: Mission Performance Requirements

Table 6.2.1-2: Mission Orbital Accuracy Requirements

The Offeror shall provide the following detailed information for this representative mission:

Molniya Mission Profile/Sequence of Events: The Offeror shall describe its launch configuration for this representative mission. The Offeror shall provide a mission profile including upper stage disposal approach. The mission profile shall include the proposed launch site and significant sequence of events to include times with respect to liftoff. At a minimum, the sequence of events shall include the following mission profile events listed below (a-k); and the Offeror shall include any other significant events in the proposed mission profile. The Offeror shall address Launch Profile Unique Maneuvers as required in the Phase 2 Molniya IRD, paragraphs 3.1.1 through 3.1.4. If an event is not applicable, the Offeror shall provide supporting rationale for its exclusion.

a. First stage propulsion system(s) start

b. Solid rocket motor ignition (if applicable)

c. Solid rocket motor burnout and jettison sequence (if applicable)

d. First stage, and subsequent (if applicable), engine cutoff and separation events

e. PLF jettison

f. Upper stage engine burn ignition(s), cutoff(s) and coast time(s)

g. SV separation

h. Secondary SV separation (if applicable)

i. Initiation of upper stage CCAMs

j. Upper stage disposal initiation

k. End of mission for upper stage, where end of mission is defined as the completion of passivation with no further planned maneuvers, or through upper stage impact after controlled reentry Molniya Mass-to-Orbit/Orbital Injection Accuracy The Offeror shall provide its maximum mass-to-orbit for the launch configuration proposed, the orbital parameters listed in Tables 6.2.1-1 and 6.2.1-2, and the proposed sequence of events described in paragraph 6.2.2 for a Molniya mission. The Offeror shall provide an analysis and a description of the methodology used to generate the final mass-to-orbit for this mission. The Offeror shall fill in the vehicle specific payload equivalent mass values in Table 6.2.3.1-1. The Offeror shall provide the upper stage performance margin to the mission profile with the Total Mass as defined in Table 6.2.3.1-1. If the Offeror intends to recover launch service hardware, the Offeror shall ensure that the performance required to recover the hardware is bookkept under its contractor performance reserves and so indicate in its configuration description. The Offeror shall describe and quantify any performance reserves held.

Table 6.2.3.1-1: Molniya Mass-to-Orbit

The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of its approach to meet all orbital injection accuracy requirements for the launch configuration proposed. The Offeror shall complete the “Proposed 3-sigma Accuracy” column in Table 6.2.3.2-1. 3-sigma for injection accuracy is defined as 99.73% probability at 50% confidence. The Offeror shall describe the methods used and justification in determining the orbital injection accuracy performance.

Table 6.2.3.2-1: Molniya Mission Orbital Accuracy Requirements

The Offeror shall describe the dispersions used to generate injection accuracy performance. Dispersions shall be listed in Table 6.2.3.2-2 with required data to describe the dispersions used, including statistical distribution type (e.g. Gaussian, uniform).

Table 6.2.3.2-2: Molniya Mission Dispersions List

Molniya Vertical Integration: The Offeror shall describe its approach to vertically integrate the payload during all launch operations at the Western Range launch site in accordance with SIS Rev C, paragraph 4.2.1. The Offeror shall describe its approach to providing SV access post encapsulation in accordance with Phase 2 Molniya IRD paragraph 3.2.5. The Offeror shall provide its approach to providing a PLF-adjacent, work area platform, to include a scale drawing, to facilitate payload access at the launch pad. The Offeror shall describe its approach to providing a launch complex payload Electrical Ground Support Equipment (EGSE) room in accordance with Phase 2 Molniya IRD paragraphs 3.5.2 and 3.5.4.

Molniya Environments: The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of its approach and rationale to meeting the SV acoustic environment as described in SIS Rev C, paragraph A.12 and Phase 2 Molniya IRD paragraph 3.4.3. The Offeror’s approach shall address how the PLF acoustic environment is predicted. The Offeror shall describe the analysis used to demonstrate that its approach satisfies the acoustic requirements. The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of its approach and rationale to meeting the LV-to-SV shock requirements as described in SIS Rev C, paragraph 3.9.1 and Phase 2 Molniya IRD paragraph 3.4.4. The Offeror shall describe the analysis used to demonstrate that the approach satisfies the shock requirements.

Molniya RF Attenuation: The Offeror shall demonstrate that its proposed payload envelope RF attenuation approach is technically sound and meets the requirements of SIS Rev C, paragraph A.7 and Phase 2 Molniya IRD paragraph 3.3.8.1.4. The Offeror shall define the internal intentional LV RF sources and describe the approach to shielding these sources from the payload compartment. The Offeror shall define its approach and timing to supporting a system level PLF and PLF access enclosure RF shielding effectiveness test in accordance with Phase 2 Molniya IRD paragraph 5.2.4. The Offeror shall describe the analysis used to demonstrate that the approach satisfies the RF attenuation requirements.

Sub-factor 3: Category B GEO 1.5 This mission is a co-manifested representative mission with an augmented ESPA aft payload and a testbed satellite vehicle (SV) forward payload. This mission is a Category B GEO 1.5 mission. The orbital parameters and injection accuracy requirements are those listed in Phase 2 GEO 1.5 MRA Tables 2.1-1 and 2.1-2. The SV Mass-to-Orbit requirements are specified in Phase 2 GEO 1.5 Table 2.1-1. Other mission-specific requirements are provided in the Phase 2 GEO 1.5 MRA. The following tables summarize performance requirements.

Table 6.3.1-1: GEO 1.5 Mission Performance Requirements

Table 6.3.1-2: GEO 1.5 Mission Orbital Accuracy Requirements

1. Multi-manifest/rideshare

2. Forward and aft Space Vehicle access after encapsulation

3. Additional separation ordnance circuits

4. Primary and redundant ordnance circuit end-to-end continuity test at the launch complex

5. Aft payload fairing Environmental Control System (ECS)

6. T-0 GN2 instrument (spot) purge

7. Payload power during ascent

8. Auxiliary payload integration/swap @ NLT L-30 days

9. Cleared integrators The Offeror shall provide the following detailed information for this representative mission:

GEO 1.5 Mission Profile/Sequence of Events: The Offeror shall describe its launch configuration for this representative mission. The Offeror shall provide a mission profile including upper stage disposal approach. The mission profile shall include the proposed launch site and significant sequence of events to include times with respect to liftoff. At a minimum, the sequence of events shall include the following mission profile events listed below (a-j); and the Offeror shall include any other significant events in the proposed mission profile. This mission requires multiple separation events – first, the separation of the testbed SV, and second, the separation of the augmented ESPA SV. If an event is not applicable, the Offeror shall provide supporting rationale for its exclusion.

a. First stage propulsion system(s) start

b. Solid rocket motor ignition, burnout and jettison sequence (if applicable)

c. First stage, and subsequent (if applicable), engine cutoff and separation events

d. PLF jettison

e. Upper stage engine burn ignition(s), cutoff(s) and coast time(s)

f. Testbed SV separation

g. Augmented ESPA SV separation(s)

h. Initiation of upper stage CCAMs

i. Upper stage disposal initiation

j. End of mission for upper stage, where end of mission is defined as the completion of passivation with no further planned maneuvers, or through upper stage impact after controlled reentry.

GEO 1.5 Mass-to-Orbit/Orbital Injection Accuracy The Offeror shall provide its maximum mass-to-orbit for the launch configuration proposed, the orbital parameters listed in Tables 6.3.1-1 and 6.3.1-2, and the proposed sequence of events described in paragraph 6.3.2 for a GEO 1.5 mission. The Offeror shall provide an analysis and a description of the methodology used to generate the final mass-to-orbit for this mission. The Offeror shall fill in the vehicle specific payload equivalent mass values in Table 6.3.3.1-1. The Offeror shall provide the upper stage performance margin to the mission profile with the Total Mass as defined in Table 6.3.3.1-1. If the Offeror intends to recover launch service hardware, the Offeror shall ensure that the performance required to recover the hardware is bookkept under its contractor performance reserves and so indicate in its configuration description. The Offeror shall describe and quantify any performance reserves held.

Table 6.3.3.1-1: GEO 1.5 Mass-to-Orbit

The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of its approach to meet all orbital injection accuracy requirements for the launch configuration proposed. The Offeror shall complete the “Proposed 3-sigma Accuracy” column in Table 6.3.3.2-1. 3-sigma for injection accuracy is defined as 99.73% probability at 50% confidence. The Offeror shall describe the methods used and justification in determining the orbital injection accuracy performance.

Table 6.3.3.2-1: GEO 1.5 Mission Orbital Accuracy Requirements

The Offeror shall describe the dispersions used to generate injection accuracy performance. Dispersions shall be listed in Table 6.3.3.2-2 with required data to describe the dispersions used, including statistical distribution type (e.g. Gaussian, uniform).

Table 6.3.3.2-2: GEO 1.5 Mission Dispersions List

GEO 1.5 Mission Unique Integration (Co-Manifested Payloads): The Offeror shall provide CONOPS for the integration of the two SVs. The Offeror shall describe the following: encapsulation processes, forward and aft payload access during integration and prior to final closeouts, and meeting unique environmental control system requirements for both SVs while encapsulated on the launch pad. Furthermore, the Offeror shall describe its: launch environments for the two SVs, separation attitude and re-contact analyses, and multiple separation signal/circuit capabilities. In addition, the Offeror shall provide a detailed description of its approach for placing the augmented ESPA in the same initial orbit as the testbed SV per the Phase 2 GEO 1.5 MRA.

GEO 1.5 Long Coast: The Offeror shall provide an approach to conduct the extended duration GEO mission which details the following, but not specifically limited to:

a. In-flight propellant performance management

b. Propellant re-pressurization following a long coast period and secondary or tertiary burn

c. Reaction control system propellant management during thermal conditioning rolls

d. Managing in-flight electrostatic discharge in order to mitigate the risk of catastrophic discharge in areas of flight prone to magnetosphere sub-storms

e. Complying with in-flight battery power requirements to include an upper stage extended battery configuration as necessary

f. Communication systems

g. Meeting thermal requirements GEO 1.5 Classified Payload Management: The Offeror shall provide a detailed plan to manage and process classified payloads (Special Access Program/Special Access Required), and handle and protect classified mission data (requirements, analysis inputs and results). The proposed plan shall be supported by previously demonstrated efforts. If never demonstrated, the Offeror shall provide evidence-based rationale to support the proposed plan.

GEO 1.5 Environments: The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of its approach and rationale to meeting the testbed SV PLF acoustic environment as described in SIS Rev C, paragraph A.13 and Phase 2 GEO 1.5 MRA paragraph 6.2. The Offeror’s approach shall address how the PLF acoustic environment is predicted. The Offeror shall describe the analysis used to demonstrate that its approach satisfies the acoustic requirements. The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of its approach and rationale to meeting the augmented ESPA LV-to-SV low frequency sine vibration requirements as described in Phase 2 GEO 1.5 MRA paragraph 6.3. The Offeror shall describe the analysis used to demonstrate that its approach satisfies the sine vibration requirements. The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of its approach and rationale to meeting the LV-to-SV shock requirements as described in SIS Rev C, A.14 and Phase 2 GEO 1.5 MRA paragraph 6.1. The Offeror shall describe the analysis used to demonstrate that its approach satisfies the shock requirements.

Sub-factor 4: Category A/B System Readiness The Offeror’s launch system design and performance is evaluated through the Launch System Maturity Assessment Process (LSMAP) (LE OI 17-001 dated 29 December 2016) within the New Entrant Certification Process (if not already completed). Whether the Offeror is involved in current EELV certification efforts or will need to initiate future EELV certification efforts, the Offeror shall request, from the New Entrant Certification Team (NECT), LSMAP evaluation reports for its Category A/B system. The Category A/B maturity assessment shall be based on a) Category A/B payloads that require vertical integration from Cape Canaveral AFS/Kennedy Space Center, with an ILC of 1 April 2022 and b) Category A/B payloads that require vertical integration from Vandenberg AFB, with an ILC of 1 October 2024. The Offeror shall append the LSMAP evaluation reports to its proposal (no page limit). The Offeror may be requested to provide updated LSMAP reports after proposal submission.

Category A/B System Readiness: In a narrative, the Offeror shall provide a summary of its Category A/B system technical and schedule maturity assessments provided by the NECT, highlighting the primary drivers for the assessments. The Offeror shall also describe the reasons for any low, medium, and/or high scores in the technical and schedule maturity assessments and its plans to support an ILC of 1 April 2022 for Cape Canaveral AFS/Kennedy Space Center, and an ILC of 1 October 2024 for Vandenberg AFB. The Offeror shall provide the assumptions, supporting data, and explain the methodology used to formulate its plans.