Attachment_5_Instructions_to_Offerors_3_May_19.pdf

Instructions to Offerors FA8811-19-R-0002

National Security Space Launch (NSSL)

Phase 2 Launch Service Procurement

FA8811-19-R-0002

Attachment 5

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

3 May 2019

1 PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES

The Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) anticipates two requirements contract awards for launch services delivering multiple National Security Space (NSS) missions with annual ordering periods from Fiscal Year (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). Additionally, missions for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) will have a companion contract for mission integration and additional security requirements.

2 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

The Offeror's proposal must include all data and information required 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 all its appendices, and CDRL. Any submitted proposal that does not adhere to the requirements in this RFP may be eliminated from the competition and ineligible for award.

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 or exceed 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. Nonetheless, during the source selection evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use data from other relevant sources.

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 anticipates setting a competitive range and subsequently entering into discussions. The Government reserves the right to make a written request for information to evaluate any directly relevant information from performance on other contracts, ongoing early integration studies (EIS)/leading edge integration (LEI), mishap and anomaly findings, progress toward completing open Non-Recurring Design Validation (NRDV), and progress toward closing risk mitigation plans.

The proposal validity date must be specified and the proposal must be valid for at least 365 days after date of submission. In accordance with 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.

3 GENERAL INFORMATION

3.1 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 Systems Directorate contracting office (SMC/LEK) located on the front page of the model contract/solicitation.

3.2 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 or a post-award debriefing IAW FAR 15.506. In addition, the PCO will notify unsuccessful Offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision IAW FAR 15.503. 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.

3.3 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.

3.4 ELECTRONIC REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

Referenced documents for this solicitation are available at http://www.fbo.gov and the Bidders’ Library. Offerors should contact the PCO to obtain access to the Bidders’ Library. Potential Offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

3.5 EXCHANGES

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

3.6 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 of the most highly rated proposals 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.

3.7 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 company as non-Government advisors for review and analysis:

Table 3.7-1: Source Selection Support Contractor

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

Individuals from the above support contractor 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 company.

3.8 ALTERNATIVE OR MULTIPLE PROPOSALS

Alternative proposals will not be considered. Each Offeror may only submit one proposal.

4 PROPOSAL FORMAT

4.1 ORGANIZATION

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 three-ring, loose-leaf binders, plus each Volume’s electronic copy shall be saved on a separate compact disc (CD) or digital video disc (DVD) for a total of six (6) total CDs or DVDs. Offeror shall use page separation tabs for each Factor and Subfactor for the Volume I and Volume II binders. 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 IAW Paragraph 4.4. The contents of each proposal volume are noted in the table below:

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.

4.4 CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

The Offeror shall provide unclassified proposal responses to the greatest extent possible. 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 Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Security Classification Guide, Integrated NRO Classification Guide, NRO Launch Information Protection Guide, and the Air Force DD Form 254. Each entry in the classified addendum shall be referenced to the proposal volume, Factor/Subfactor, 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.

4.5 CROSS-REFERENCING

Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone 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.

4.6 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.

4.7 GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

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

4.8 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 placed in the front sleeve of 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).

4.9 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.

4.10 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.

Except as described in 4.10.1, electronic and hard copies of proposals are due 1 August 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

4.10.1 MONTE CARLO ORBITAL PARAMETER ACCURACY AND MASS-TO-ORBIT DELIVERY

INSTRUCTIONS

The Offeror shall deliver the Monte Carlo Orbital Parameter Accuracy and Mass-to-Orbit analyses for LEO, Molniya, GEO 1.5, GEO 2, and Polar 2 at proposal submission. The remaining seven reference mission analyses shall be delivered on 30 September 2019 by 4:00 pm Pacific Time (60 days after proposal submission).

5 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 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:

5.1 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 Executive Summary shall stand alone and not directly reference the other sections of the proposal. At a minimum:

a. The Offeror shall address the ability to meet or exceed 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.

b. The Offeror shall address the ability to meet or exceed all NSS reference orbital parameter accuracy requirements, as defined in the SPRD Rev B, Tables 3 and 4.

c. The Offeror shall address the characteristics of its launch system infrastructure, including a description of both the East and West coast launch sites, that meet or exceed 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.

d. If the Offeror is involved in current NSSL certification efforts or will need to initiate future NSSL certification efforts, the Offeror shall outline the plan to achieve NSSL certification for the LV (or family of LVs) that meets or exceeds all NSS launch requirements.

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

f. The Offeror shall state in Table 5.1-1, for each reference orbit, a single, “primary” launch vehicle configuration that meets or exceeds all of the reference orbit requirements. Mission reliability for a single space vehicle (SV) payload is defined in the SPRD Rev B, Appendix B.

Table 5.1-1: NSSL Approach

Reference Orbit Primary Launch Vehicle Configuration Mission Reliability

LEO

Polar 1

Polar 2

MEO Direct

MEO Direct 2

MEO Transfer

MEO Transfer 2

GTO

Molniya

GEO 1

GEO 1.5

GEO 2

5.2 OFFEROR’S PROPOSED TEAM

5.3 MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Offeror shall include a master table of contents of the entire proposal.

5.4 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.

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

Table 5.4-1: Cross Reference Matrix

* To be filled in by Offeror

6 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

The purpose of this volume is to evaluate how the Offeror’s proposed launch system(s) will meet or exceed NSS requirements, meet selected requirements of representative NSSL missions, and meet key mission Initial Launch Capability (ILC) dates. The SPRD Rev B and the SIS Rev C are listed as compliance documents in PWS Appendix C, and nothing in this ITO relieves Offerors from having to meet those requirements.

6.1 RESERVED

6.2 RESERVED

6.3 SUBFACTOR 1: SYSTEM CAPABILITY

6.3.1 MASS-TO-ORBIT

The Offeror shall state its launch system offering’s mass-to-orbit capabilities for each proposed configuration for applicable reference orbits (as defined by the SPRD Rev B, Tables 1 and 2) in Table 6.3.1-1. For each reference orbit, the Offeror shall designate (with an upper case “P”) a

Volume Attachment 5:

Instructions to

Offerors

Attachment 6:

Evaluation Criteria

Counted Towards

Maximum Page

Limitation (Y/N)

Proposal Volume, Section, Paragraphs

Volume I: Executive Summary

5.1 N/A Y *

5.2 N/A Y *

5.3 N/A N *

5.4 N/A N *

Volume II:

Technical/System

Capability

6.3 6.3 Y *

Volume II:

Technical/Category

A/B

6.4 6.4 Y *

Volume II:

Technical/Category C 6.5 6.5 Y *

Volume II:

Technical/System Risks and Mitigations

6.6 6.6 Y *

Volume I: Past Performance 7 7 Y *

Volume I: Small Business Participation 8 8 N *

Volume III: Price 9 9 N * Volume III: Model

Contract 10 N/A N * single, “primary” LV configuration, which meets or exceeds all requirements for that reference orbit. The maximum mass-to-orbit capabilities shall be 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 Flight Performance Reserve value shall be calculated for the primary launch vehicle configuration for each reference orbit by 6 degrees-of-freedom Monte Carlo methodology or an alternate method. The preferred method is Monte Carlo. If the Monte Carlo methodology is selected, then a minimum of 10,125 runs shall be performed. The propellant margin values from these runs shall be sorted from their lowest to highest values and the 14th lowest value will be the 99.865% probability at 50% confidence propellant margin. If an alternate method is selected, the Offeror shall provide evidence that demonstrates the flight performance reserve is conservative with respect to the Monte Carlo evaluation described above.

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 Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (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 6.3.1-1: Mass-to-Orbit Capabilities of Proposed Configurations by Reference Orbit

Configuration LEO Polar

Polar

MEO

Direct

MEO

Transfer

GTO Molniya GEO

GEO

Configuration a Configuration b Configuration n

Configuration MEO Direct 2

MEO

Transfer 2

GEO

1.5

Configuration a Configuration b Configuration n

Each capability listed shall be also listed in the Basic Launch Service Pricing Table within Attachment 8.

6.3.2 ORBITAL PARAMETER ACCURACY

For the primary launch vehicle configuration of each reference orbit (as designated in section 6.3.1), the Offeror shall provide, in Table 6.3.2-1, the orbital parameter accuracies for that configuration IAW SPRD Rev B 3.2.4 probability and 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. The orbital parameter accuracy values shall be calculated by 6-degrees-of-freedom Monte Carlo methodology or by Covariance analysis. The preferred method is Monte Carlo. If the Monte Carlo methodology is selected, then a minimum of 10,125 runs shall be performed. The orbital parameters having a two-sided distribution shall be sorted from their lowest to highest values, and the 14th lowest and 14th highest values will be the 99.73% probability at 50% confidence orbital parameters. The orbital parameters having a one-sided distribution shall be sorted from their lowest to highest values, and the 14th highest value will be the 99.865% probability at 50% confidence orbital parameters. If a Covariance analysis is selected to determine the orbital parameter accuracy, the Offeror shall provide evidence that demonstrates the orbital parameter accuracy is conservative with respect to the Monte Carlo evaluation described above. The Offeror shall describe and justify the methods used in determining the orbital parameter accuracy. The analysis methodology shall be based on either demonstrated flight performance or engineering data.

Table 6.3.2-1: Orbital Parameter Accuracies

Reference Orbit Primary Launch Vehicle

Configuration

Apogee Altitude

(nmi)

Perigee Altitude

(nmi)

Inclination (deg)

Argument of Perigee

(deg)

Right Ascension of Ascending Node (deg)

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 N/A N/A

GEO 1.5 N/A N/A

GEO 2 N/A N/A

For each reference orbit, the Offeror shall describe all dispersions used to generate orbital parameter accuracy. All dispersions shall be listed in Table 6.3.2-2 with required data to describe the dispersions, including statistical distribution type (e.g., Gaussian, uniform), including justifications in a separate narrative.

Table 6.3.2-2: Reference Orbit Dispersions List

Dispersion -3 sigma value Nominal +3 sigma value Statistical Distribution Type

Parameter i [Offeror to fill-in] [Offeror to fill-in] [Offeror to fill-in] [Offeror to fill-in]

Parameter n [Offeror to fill-in] [Offeror to fill-in] [Offeror to fill-in] [Offeror to fill-in]

6.3.3 MISSION ASSURANCE

6.3.3.1 Mission Assurance Approach

The Offeror shall describe its mission assurance approach, the processes and relevant command media used, and the products it routinely generates as part of its mission assurance process from launch system development through flight to ensure mission success. The Offeror shall describe how the mission assurance approach identifies, assesses, and mitigates risk from launch system development through flight.

6.3.3.2 Integration of Mission Assurance Products

The Offeror shall provide a description of how it will integrate its mission assurance processes, products, and command media with the Government’s mission assurance processes.

6.3.3.3 Subcontractor Mission Assurance

The Offeror shall describe how it flows down mission assurance requirements to subcontractors of flight critical items (hardware and software). The Offeror shall describe how it will ensure that subcontractor mission assurance approaches, processes, and products are in alignment with its own and Government mission assurance requirements. The Offeror shall describe how the mission assurance approach identifies, assesses, and mitigates subcontractor related risks.

6.4 SUBFACTOR 2: CATEGORY A/B

This Subfactor addresses the Offeror’s approach to launching representative NSSL 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 information purposes only. Each representative mission described in this document has an Interface Requirements Document (IRD) that is available in the Bidders’ Library. For the purposes of the proposal evaluation, representative mission requirements, specified in this ITO, take precedence over the representative mission IRD. Additionally, this Subfactor addresses the readiness of the Offeror’s proposed launch system(s) towards meeting NSSL ILC dates for Category A/B missions.

6.4.1 CATEGORY A/B SAMPLE MISSIONS

6.4.1.1 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 in the Bidder’s Library. 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 6.4.1.1-1: Mission Performance Requirements

Nearest Ref

Orbit

Integrated Payload

Stack Mass (lbm)

Semi-major Axis (km)

Eccentricity Inclination (deg)

Argument of Perigee

(deg)

RAAN

(deg)

Payload Envelope

LEO 14,903* 7500.5 0.0131 63.535 190 0 B**

* 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 multi-manifest SVs).

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

Table 6.4.1.1-2: Mission Orbital Accuracy Requirements

Nearest Ref Orbit

Apogee (km) Perigee (km) Inclination (deg)

Argument of Perigee (deg)

RAAN (deg)

LEO ±22.2 ±9.2 ±0.15 ±5 ±0.2

The following are mission-specific requirements provided for information purposes only:

a. Electrical trailblazer per Phase 2 LEO IRD Appendix B

b. Horizontal or vertical integration

c. Ordnance circuit verification

d. Flight umbilical checkouts

e. SV preparations at launch site

f. Category A EELV SIS Rev C payload envelope acoustic environment

g. Multi-manifest/Rideshare (ESPA Grande)

6.4.1.1.1 LEO Launch Operations Concept of Operations (CONOPS)

The Offeror shall describe their Phase 2 LEO IRD compliant Launch Operations CONOPS, including a graphical representation. The CONOPS shall include:

1. 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;

2. SV processing and encapsulation plans, either oriented to the Astrotech Processing Facility (APF) at Vandenberg Air Force Base for a Western Range solution, or oriented to the Eastern Processing Facility (EPF) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (AFS) for an Eastern Range solution, and horizontal/vertical payload handling; and

3. LV to IPS 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.

6.4.1.2 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 located in the Bidder’s Library. The SV mass-to-orbit requirements are specified in Phase 2 Molniya IRD paragraph

3.1.1. The following tables summarize performance requirements.

Table 6.4.1.2-1: Mission Performance Requirements

Nearest Ref

Orbit

Payload Mass (lbm)

Apogee (nmi)

Perigee (nmi)

Inclination (deg)

Argument of Perigee

(deg)

RAAN

(deg)

Payload Envelope

Molniya 12,900 9287 1250 63.4 270 TBD B

Table 6.4.1.2-2: Mission Orbital Accuracy Requirements

Nearest Ref Orbit

Apogee (nmi) Perigee (nmi) Inclination (deg)

Argument of Perigee (deg)

RAAN (deg)

Molniya ±60 ±5 ±0.1 ±0.1 ±0.1

The following are mission-specific requirements provided for information purposes only:

a. Vertical or horizontal integration of the encapsulated SV to the LV

b. Radio Frequency (RF) attenuation as documented in the Phase 2 Molniya IRD to include during Payload Fairing (PLF) door access operations

6.4.1.2.1 Molniya Mission Profile

The Offeror shall describe its launch configuration for this representative mission. The Offeror shall provide a mission profile including upper stage ODMSP compliant disposal approach. The mission profile shall include the 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. Payload Fairing (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 Contamination and Collision Avoidance Maneuver(s) (CCAM)

i. Upper stage disposal initiation (ODMSP compliant)

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 applicable 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 applicable 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 applicable 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 applicable undemonstrated portions of the proposed mission profile.

6.4.2 CATEGORY A/B SYSTEM READINESS

This element addresses the Offeror’s launch system readiness with respect to the Launch System Maturity Assessment Process (LSMAP) (LE OI 17-001 dated 2 April 2018) and Offeror’s plans to complete NRDV. Whether the Offeror is involved in current NSSL certification efforts or will need to initiate future NSSL certification efforts, the Offeror shall request, from the Government, LSMAP reports for its launch system(s) that meets all Category A/B requirements. The Offeror shall not include LSMAP reports for secondary launch vehicles. The Offeror shall append the LSMAP evaluation reports to its proposal (no page limit). The Government will request updated LSMAP reports at least once during discussions.

6.4.2.1 Category A/B System Technical Assessment

In a narrative, the Offeror shall provide a summary of its Category A/B system LSMAP technical assessment and describe the primary drivers for the assessments. The Offeror shall describe plans to complete remaining NRDV, to include all data and support for AF IV&V completion, for its Category A/B system. The Offeror shall provide the rationale, assumptions, supporting data, and methodology used to formulate its plans.

6.4.2.2 Category A/B System Eastern Range Schedule Assessment

In a narrative, the Offeror shall provide a summary of its Category A/B system LSMAP schedule assessment for launch capability from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (AFS) and/or Kennedy Space Center (KSC). The Offeror shall describe the primary drivers for the assessment. The

Offeror shall describe its plan to meet the ILC dates below, using the proposed launch system.

The Offeror shall provide the rationale, assumptions, supporting data, and methodology used to formulate its plans. Secondary launch systems will not be considered a viable risk mitigation strategy for the Eastern Range schedule assessment for meeting ILC dates.

1. A mission with an ILC of 1 April 2022 from Cape Canaveral AFS or KSC.

2. A mission requiring vertical integration with an ILC of 1 July 2022 from Cape Canaveral

AFS or KSC.

6.4.2.3 Category A/B System Western Range Schedule Assessment

In a narrative, the Offeror shall provide a summary of its Category A/B system LSMAP schedule assessment for launch capability for a mission with an ILC of 1 August 2025 from Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB). The Offeror shall describe the primary drivers for the assessment. The Offeror shall describe its plan to meet the ILC date using the proposed launch system. The Offeror shall provide the rationale, assumptions, supporting data, and methodology used to formulate its plans.

6.5 SUBFACTOR 3: CATEGORY C

This Subfactor addresses the Offeror’s approach to launching representative NSSL 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 information 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, this Subfactor addresses the readiness of the Offeror’s proposed launch system(s) towards meeting NSSL ILC dates for Category C missions.

6.5.1 CATEGORY C SAMPLE MISSIONS

6.5.1.1 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 6.5.1.1-1: Mission Performance Requirements

Nearest Ref Orbit

Payload Mass (lbm)

Apogee (nmi) Perigee (nmi) Inclination (deg)

Payload Envelope

GEO 2 14500 19323 19323 0 C

Table 6.5.1.1-2: Mission Orbital Accuracy Requirements

Nearest Ref Orbit

Apogee (nmi) Perigee (nmi) Inclination (deg) Right Ascension of Ascending Node

(RAAN) (deg)

GEO 2 ±80 ±80 ±0.1 N/A

The following are mission-specific requirements provided for information purposes only:

a. Vertical integration with on-pad payload access

b. RF protected payload compartment from Payload Processing Facility (PPF) departure through PLF separation per SIS Rev C, Appendix A.7

c. Mission Support Equipment (MSE) accommodations

d. Long coast

e. Five “Dipout” maneuvers during transfer orbit coast

f. 1 hour launch window with eclipse period avoidance constraints, any day of the year

6.5.1.1.1 GEO 2 Mission Profile

The Offeror shall describe its launch configuration for this representative mission. The Offeror shall provide a mission profile including upper stage ODMSP compliant 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, and 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), dipout(s) timing, and coast time(s)

g. SV separation

h. Initiation of upper stage CCAM(s)

i. Upper stage disposal initiation (ODMSP compliant)

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 applicable 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 applicable 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 applicable 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 applicable undemonstrated portions of the proposed mission profile.

6.5.1.1.2 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 Launch Service Integration Contractor (LSIC) during the encapsulation process. The Offeror shall describe its capability to issue the MSE arm and fire discrete commands, including timing of MSE firing commands to support MSE release.

6.5.1.2 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 6.5.1.2-1: Mission Performance Requirements

Nearest Ref Orbit

Payload Mass (lbm)

Apogee (nmi)

Perigee (nmi)

Inclination (deg)

Payload Envelope

Polar 2 37500 450 450 98.20 C

Table 6.5.1.2-2: Mission Orbital Accuracy Requirements

Nearest Ref Orbit

Apogee (nmi) Perigee (nmi) Inclination (deg) Right Ascension of Ascending Node (RAAN) (deg)

Polar 2 ±3 ±3 ±0.05 ±0.2

The following are mission-specific requirements provided for information purposes only:

a. A-Frame Mechanisms (unique 3-point interfaces which drive mission-unique payload adaptor and separation system)

b. Spot cooling of the SV

6.5.1.2.1 Polar 2 Mission Profile

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 ODMSP compliant 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 any Launch Profile Unique Maneuvers as required in the Phase 2 Polar 2 IRD, paragraphs 3.1.2, 3.1.6, and 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 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 (ODMSP compliant)

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 applicable 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 applicable 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 applicable 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 applicable undemonstrated portions of the proposed mission profile.

6.5.1.2.2 Polar 2 Spot Cooling

The Offeror shall describe its approach, including methodology and justification, to providing a secondary, independently controlled source of conditioned air or clean dry gas into the SV spot cooling duct, with capabilities meeting cleanliness requirements as described in the Phase 2 Polar

2 IRD.

6.5.1.2.3 Polar 2 A-Frame Mechanical Interfaces

The Offeror shall describe its approach to interfacing with the A-Frame mechanisms that contain the separation system and interfaces between the SV and the Payload Adaptor, as described in the Phase 2 Polar 2 IRD. The Offeror’s approach shall describe its ability to meet and maintain envelope, clearance, PLF access door, and mechanical attachment requirements described in the Phase 2 Polar 2 IRD.

6.5.2 CATEGORY C SYSTEM READINESS

This element addresses the Offeror’s launch system readiness with respect to the LSMAP (LE OI 17-001 dated 2 April 2018) and the Offeror’s plans to complete NRDV. Whether the Offeror is involved in current NSSL certification efforts or will need to initiate future NSSL certification efforts, the Offeror shall request, from the Government, LSMAP reports for its launch system that meets all Category C requirements. The Offeror shall append the LSMAP evaluation reports to its proposal (no page limit). The Government will request updated LSMAP reports at least once during discussions.

6.5.2.1 Category C System Technical Assessment

In a narrative, the Offeror shall provide a summary of its Category C system LSMAP technical assessment and describe the primary drivers for the assessment. The Offeror shall describe plans to complete remaining NRDV, to include all data and support for AF IV&V completion, for its Category C system. The Offeror shall provide the rationale, assumptions, supporting data, and methodology used to formulate its plans.

6.5.2.2 Category C System Eastern Range Schedule Assessment

In a narrative, the Offeror shall provide a summary of its Category C system LSMAP schedule assessment for a launch capability from Cape Canaveral AFS or KSC. The Offeror shall describe the primary drivers for the assessment. The Offeror shall describe its plan to meet an ILC of 1 January 2026 for a mission requiring vertical integration from Cape Canaveral AFS or KSC.

The Offeror shall provide the rationale, assumptions, supporting data, and methodology used to formulate its plan.

6.5.2.3 Category C System Western Range Schedule Assessment

In a narrative, the Offeror shall provide a summary of its Category C system LSMAP schedule assessment for a launch capability from Vandenberg AFB. The Offeror shall describe the primary drivers for the assessment. The Offeror shall describe its plan to meet an ILC of 1 September 2025 from Vandenberg AFB. The Offeror shall provide the rationale, assumptions, supporting data, and methodology used to formulate its plan.

6.6 SUBFACTOR 4: SYSTEM RISKS AND MITIGATIONS

For the launch vehicle or family of launch vehicles being offered, the Offeror shall identify the top technical risks. Specifically, these would be technical risks that have the potential to result in less than full compliance with NSSL 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 shall address the expected effectiveness of the plan and associated uncertainties.

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

a. Booster Stages (e.g., rocket propulsion system, structures, avionics, software)

b. Upper Stages (e.g., rocket propulsion system, structures, avionics, software)

c. Long Coast Capability (e.g., GEO 1, GEO 1.5, and GEO 2)

d. Infrastructure (e.g., production, launch, and recovery/refurbishment, as applicable)

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

f. RF Attenuation Approach (e.g., Molniya and GEO 2)

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

h. Operational (e.g., production, system integration, launch, recovery or refurbishment)

i. Vertical integration (e.g., SV processing and encapsulation, post encapsulation access, and launch operations)

j. LV/SV interface risks (e.g., loads, vibration, shock (especially Molniya and GEO 2), thermal, acoustic, Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), and contamination)

k. Requirements flow down to subcontractors

l. Any additional top risks not covered above

The Government reserves the right to identify additional technical risks, for which the Offeror shall provide corresponding risk mitigation plans.

7 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror is responsible for providing no more than five recent and relevant launch contracts, to include the applicable CAGE codes, contract numbers, program manager and/or contracting officer contact email and phone number, and enough information to ascertain why the offeror believes the identified contracts to be recent and the most relevant to this acquisition.

If the Offeror does not have any recent or relevant launch contracts, a declarative statement to this effect is required.

If the Government obtains adverse past performance information regarding the Offeror, the Offeror will be given an opportunity to respond to this information.

8 FACTOR 3: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

8.1 RESERVED

8.2 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

8.2.1 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

Other than Small Business (OTSB) Offerors shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219-9 including information required in paragraphs (d) (1) through (d) (15) of that clause. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan must be determined to be acceptable by the PCO in order for the Offeror to be eligible for contract award.

Offerors shall ensure that the information provided in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is consistent with the information included in the Small Business Participation Commitment Document.

If the Offeror is operating under a DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan IAW DFARS 252.219-7004, or a Commercial Subcontracting Plan, the Offeror shall submit that document.

To be considered for award, the submitted document must be current and valid as of the date of its submission in response to this solicitation.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan or DoD Comprehensive or Commercial Subcontract Plan for each successful Offeror will be incorporated into their respective contract as Attachment 3A.

8.2.2 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT

IAW Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 215.304(c)(i), the extent to which Offerors identify and commit to small business participation shall be evaluated in other than lowest priced technically acceptable acquisitions. All Offerors, including small businesses and those OTSB companies operating under a DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan or a Commercial Subcontracting Plan, shall submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD), which specifies the Offeror’s level of commitment to small business utilization in performance of this requirement. The SBPCD shall address the following:

a. The quantitative degree (based on the percentage of Total Launch Service price) to which the Offeror will utilize small business (including small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, historically underutilized business zone (HUB Zone) small business, veteran-owned small business, and service-disabled and veteran-owned small business). A minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of 4% or better of the Total Launch Service price (CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0010) for small business participation is required. The 4% may be met by each launch service task order, or on an average basis for all launch services ordered in a year. Small business primes may take credit for their performance in calculating the 4% or better participation. Small business participation constitutes small business utilization contributions to contract performance at the first tier subcontract level only.

b. Identification of participating small businesses by type of business, product/service, dollar value, timeframe, as available.

c. The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform.

d. Enforceable commitments to use such firms. Enforceable commitments (e.g., fully executed teaming agreement, planned purchase order, signed letters of commitment, etc.)

are more convincing than non-enforceable ones. The Offeror shall submit evidence of the existence of at least three (3) enforceable commitments to use small business in the performance of this effort. (Note: this information will not be incorporated into the resultant contract.)

The SBPCD for each successful Offeror will be incorporated into their respective contract as Attachment 3B.

9 FACTOR 4: PRICE

All proposed pricing inputs shall be returned to the Government as a part of Volume III, Price, and are required to be input into Attachment 8 to the Model Contract, NSSL Launch Service Procurement Pricing Tables. Offerors shall provide pricing inputs in the following areas:

1. Directly related to…