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

21 February 2019

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 second 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. 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. Per the FY 15/16/17 NDAA, the Government will not allow use of rocket propulsion systems from non-allied countries for launch services ordered after 2021. 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 or certification schedules or efforts. The Government also intends 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 (Factor 1) Sub-factor 1:

System Capability

Element 2: Orbital Parameter Accuracy

Element 3: System Risks

Element 2: Molniya

Element 3: Category A/B System Readiness

Sub-factor 3:

Category C

Element 2: Polar 2

Element 3: Category C System Readiness

Sub-factor 2: Business Approach

Sub-factor 3: Small Business Participation

(Factor 5)

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/title pages, compliance matrix, cross-reference matrix, table of contents, lists of figures and tables, tabs, glossaries, and list of acronyms. For the Executive Summary, the page limit applies only to the Narrative Summary. Past Performance Information (PPI) Forms do not count towards the Past Performance page limits. 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. For example, if the unclassified section is one-half page and the classified section is one-half page, they will be evaluated as a single page with regard to the page count, not as two pages.

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. 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 2010/2016, MS Office Excel 2010/2016, MS Office Project 2010/2016, and MS Office Power Point 2010/2016, as applicable. 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 in Table 5.1-1, for each reference orbit, a single, “primary” launch vehicle configuration that meets all of the reference orbit requirements. The “primary” designation also indicates the configuration that the Offeror is proposing for the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) calculation. Mission reliability for a single space vehicle payload 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

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 Summary

* To be filled in by Offeror

Volume II – Factor 1: Technical In this volume, the Offeror shall address how its launch system(s) will meet NSS requirements and accomplish representative EELV missions. First, under the System Capability Sub-factor, the Offeror shall address how its offering meets reference orbit mass-to-orbit and orbital parameter accuracy requirements. The Offeror shall also address how it intends to address those technical risks that have potential to result in less than full compliance with SPRD or SIS requirements. Next, under the Category A/B and C Sub-factors, the Offeror shall address how its offering meets selected requirements of representative EELV 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 representative mission has a supporting IRD. For the purposes of the proposal evaluation, representative mission requirements, specified in the ITO, take precedence over the representative mission IRD. Additionally, the Offeror shall address the maturity of the proposed system(s) towards meeting EELV Initial Launch Capability (ILC) dates for Category A/B and C missions. The SPRD Rev B and the SIS Rev C are listed as compliance documents in PWS Appendix C, and Offerors will meet those requirements accordingly.

Sub-factor 1: System capability The System Capability Sub-factor addresses how the Offeror’s launch system (or launch system family) meets SPRD Rev B requirements for mass-to-orbit and orbital parameter accuracy. Furthermore, the Offeror will state how it is addressing technical risks towards meeting all SPRD and SIS requirements.

Mass-to-Orbit: The Offeror shall state its launch system offering’s mass-to-orbit capabilities for each reference orbit (as defined by the SPRD Rev B, Tables 1 and 2) in Table 6.1-1. For each reference orbit, the Offeror will designate (with an upper case “P”) a single, “primary” launch vehicle configuration that meets all reference orbit requirements which the Offeror is proposing for the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) calculation. 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. The Offeror shall describe the analysis and methodology it used to calculate the mass-to-orbit capability. The analysis methodology shall be based on either demonstrated flight performance or engineering data. The Offeror shall state the launch origination point (Eastern or Western Range) used for their calculation. The mass-to-orbit capability shall correspond to an ODMSP compliant disposal of the upper stage. 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.

Table 6.1-1: Mass-to-Orbit Capabilities of Proposed Configurations by Reference Orbit

Configuration a

Configuration b

Configuration n

Configuration a

Configuration n

Each capability listed must be also listed in the Basic Launch Service Pricing Table 9.1.1-1.

Orbital Parameter Accuracy: For the primary launch vehicle configuration of each reference orbit (as designated in section 6.1.1), the Offeror will provide, in Table 6.1.2-1, the orbital parameter accuracies for that configuration in accordance with SPRD Rev B 3.2.4 probability/confidence requirements and SPRD Rev B Appendix A Section A.5. The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of its approach to meet all orbital parameter accuracy requirements for the launch configuration proposed. 3-sigma for orbital parameter accuracy is defined as 99.73% probability at 50% confidence. The Offeror shall describe the methods used and justification in determining the orbital parameter accuracy performance. The analysis methodology shall be based on either demonstrated flight performance or engineering data.

Table 6.1.2-1: 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

For each reference orbit, the Offeror shall describe the dispersions used to generate orbital parameter accuracy performance. Dispersions shall be listed in Table 6.1.2-2 with required data to describe the dispersions used, including statistical distribution type (e.g., Gaussian, uniform).

Table 6.1.2-2: Reference Orbit Dispersions List

System Risk: For the family of launch vehicles being offered, the Offeror shall identify the top technical risks it is tracking at the time of proposal submission. Specifically, these would be technical risks that have the potential to result in less than full compliance with EELV performance or interface requirements. For each identified technical risk, the Offeror shall provide a corresponding risk mitigation plan (“waterfall” chart and narrative) which should address off-ramps, as appropriate. Each risk mitigation narrative should address the current state of maturity of the plan and associated uncertainties, and the expected effectiveness of the plan and associated uncertainties.

The Offeror shall provide the top technical risk(s) in each of the following areas:

1. Booster Stage

2. Upper Stage

3. Production, launch (and recovery/refurbishment, as applicable) infrastructure

4. Design (e.g., new and modifications to existing design)

5. Development and qualification risks (e.g., anomalies, design changes)

6. Operational (e.g., production, system integration, launch, long coast, recovery or refurbishment)

7. Interface risks which may impact satisfaction of SV requirements (e.g., associated with loads, vibration, acoustic, thermal and other environments which impact/may drive changes or tailoring of the SIS or Interface Control Documents)

8. Requirements flow down to subcontractor The Offeror may include any additional top risks not covered above.

Sub-factor 2: Category A/B In this Sub-factor, 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. For the purposes of the proposal evaluation, representative mission requirements, specified in the ITO, take precedence over the representative mission IRD. 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.

Category B LEO: The following information is provided as context for addressing the specific requirements in the following subparagraphs. 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 6.2.1-1: Mission Performance Requirements

* Per Phase 2 LEO IRD paragraph 3.1.3.1, maximum primary payload weight is 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 6.2.1-2: Mission Orbital Accuracy Requirements

The following are mission-specific requirements provided for reference only:

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

LEO Launch Operations Concept of 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 elements 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 applicable launch operations 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 the ESPA Grande carrier, with four ESPA-class Auxiliary Satellites (ASVs) installed, 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. 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.

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 ESPA Grande 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.

Category B Molniya: The following information is provided as context for addressing the specific requirements in the following subparagraphs. 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 6.2.2-1: Mission Performance Requirements

Table 6.2.2-2: 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-j). 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 (if applicable)

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

g. SV separation

h. Initiation of upper stage CCAM(s)

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 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.

Molniya Vertical Integration: The Offeror 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, including a scale drawing, to providing a PLF-adjacent, work area platform to facilitate payload access at the launch pad.

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.

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 technical maturity assessment shall be based against all Category A/B reference orbits. In addition, the Category A/B schedule maturity assessment will be applied to both a mission launched from Cape Canaveral AFS/Kennedy Space Center that requires vertical integration, with an ILC of 1 April 2022, and a mission launched from Vandenberg AFB that requires vertical integration, 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 Technical Maturity: In a narrative, the Offeror shall provide a summary of its Category A/B system technical maturity assessment provided by the NECT, highlighting the primary drivers for the assessments. The Offeror shall describe mitigation plans that will ensure that its system meets all Category A/B reference orbit requirements. The Offeror shall provide the assumptions, supporting data, and explain the methodology used to formulate its plans.

Category A/B System Eastern Range Schedule Maturity: In a narrative, the Offeror shall provide a summary of its Category A/B system schedule maturity assessment for an Eastern Range launch with an ILC of 1 April 2022 provided by the NECT, highlighting the primary drivers for the assessment. The Offeror shall describe mitigation plans that will ensure that it meets the required ILC. The Offeror shall provide the assumptions, supporting data, and explain the methodology used to formulate its plans. Alternate Launch Vehicle Segments will not be considered a viable risk mitigation strategy for the Eastern Range schedule maturity assessment.

Category A/B System Western Range Schedule Maturity: In a narrative, the Offeror shall provide a summary of its Category A/B system schedule maturity assessment for a Western Range launch with an ILC of 1 October 2024 provided by the NECT, highlighting the primary drivers for the assessment. The Offeror shall describe mitigation plans that will ensure that it meets the required ILC. The Offeror shall provide the assumptions, supporting data, and explain the methodology used to formulate its plans.

Sub-factor 3: Category C In this Sub-factor, the Offeror shall address how its launch system(s) will accomplish representative EELV Category C 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. For the purposes of the proposal evaluation, representative mission requirements, specified in the ITO, take precedence over the representative mission IRD. Additionally, the Offeror shall address the maturity of the proposed system(s) towards meeting the EELV Initial Launch Capability (ILC) date for Category C missions.

For each Mission Profile/Sequence of Events section under section 6.3, 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.

Category C GEO 2: The following information is provided as context for addressing the specific requirements in the following subparagraphs. This mission is a Category C GEO 2 mission. The orbital parameters and injection accuracy requirements for the GEO 2 mission are those listed in SPRD Rev B Tables 1 and 3. The GEO 2 Space Vehicle (SV) Mass-to-Orbit requirements are specified in SPRD Rev B Table 1. Other mission-specific requirements are provided in the Phase 2 GEO 2 IRD. The following tables summarize performance requirements.

Table 6.3.1-1: Mission Performance Requirements

Table 6.3.1-2: Mission Orbital Accuracy Requirements

1. Vertical integration with on-pad payload access

2. Radio Frequency (RF) protected payload compartment from Payload Processing Facility (PPF) departure through Payload Fairing (PLF) separation per SPRD Rev B, Appendix A.7

3. Mission Support Equipment (MSE) accommodations

4. Long coast

5. Five “Dipout” maneuvers during transfer orbit coast

6. 1 hour launch window with eclipse period avoidance constraints, any day of the year The Offeror shall provide the following detailed information for this representative mission:

GEO 2 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). The Offeror shall address Launch Profile Unique Maneuvers as required in the Phase 2 GEO 2 IRD, paragraphs 3.1.1, 3.1.3 through 3.1.7. 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 event(s)

e. PLF jettison (if applicable)

f. Upper stage engine burn ignition(s), cutoff(s), dipouts/dipout timing, and coast time(s)

g. SV separation

h. Initiation of upper stage CCAM(s)

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 (Long Coast) The Offeror shall provide an approach to conduct the extended duration GEO 2 mission which details the following:

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. Complying with SV communication systems requirements

g. Meeting thermal requirements GEO 2 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 payload elements 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 applicable launch operations requirements in the Phase 2 GEO 2 IRD. The Offeror shall specifically address SV processing and encapsulation plans, oriented to the Eastern Processing Facility (EPF) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, and vertical payload handling.

GEO 2 Mission Support Equipment (MSE) Accommodations: The Offeror shall describe its approach to providing mechanical interfaces to the SV-provided MSE as described in SIS Rev C, Appendix A, paragraph A.8 and Phase 2 GEO 2 IRD, paragraphs 3.1.6 and 3.2.3.2. The Offeror shall describe analysis demonstrating that the mechanical interface is able to withstand launch and ascent loads while maintaining adequate positive clearance between the retracted MSE and the SV during all applicable flight events. The Offeror shall describe its approach to facilitate MSE installation by the LSIC during the encapsulation process. The Offeror shall describe its ability to meet the MSE release and retraction quiescent period referenced in the Phase 2 GEO 2 IRD paragraph 3.1.6. The Offeror shall describe its capability to issue the MSE arm and fire discrete commands, including timing of MSE release prior to PLF separation. Alternatively, if applicable, the Offeror shall describe its capability to issue the MSE arm and fire discrete commands, in a case where no PLF separation occurs.

GEO 2 Vertical Integration: The Offeror shall describe its approach to vertically integrate the payload during all operations at the proposed 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 GEO 2 IRD paragraph 3.5.6.2. The Offeror shall provide its approach, including a scale drawing, to providing a PLF-adjacent, work area platform to facilitate payload access at the launch pad.

GEO 2 Environments: The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of its approach to meeting the LV-to-SV shock requirements as described in SIS Rev C, paragraph 3.9.1 and Phase 2 GEO 2 IRD paragraph 3.4.4.4.1. The Offeror shall describe the analysis used to demonstrate that the approach satisfies the shock requirements. 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 GEO 2 IRD paragraph 3.4.4.3. The Offeror’s approach shall address how the PLF acoustic environment is predicted. The Offeror shall describe the analysis used to demonstrate that the approach satisfies the acoustic requirements.

GEO 2 RF Attenuation: The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of its approach to meeting the payload fairing RF attenuation requirements of SIS Rev C, paragraph A.7 and Phase 2 GEO 2 IRD paragraph 3.3.13.4.4. 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. The Offeror shall describe the analysis used to demonstrate that the approach satisfies the RF attenuation requirements.

Category C Polar 2: The following information is provided as context for addressing the specific requirements in the following subparagraphs. This mission is a Category C Polar 2 mission launched from the Western Range. The orbital parameters and injection accuracy requirements for the Polar 2 mission are those listed in SPRD Rev B Tables 1 and 3. The Polar 2 SV Mass-to-Orbit requirements are specified in SPRD Rev B, Table 1. Other mission-specific requirements are provided in the Phase 2 Polar 2 IRD. The following tables summarize performance requirements.

Table 6.3.2-1: Mission Performance Requirements

Table 6.3.2-2: Mission Orbital Accuracy Requirements

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

Polar 2 Mission Profile/Sequence of Events: The Offeror shall describe its launch configuration for a Category C Polar 2 mission, as defined in the SPRD, Rev B, Table 1. 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).