1. Industry Day Briefing Charts (Posted 14 Mar 2024 - REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY).pdf

Space Systems Command (SSC) Assured Access to Space (AATS)

Acquisition & Financial Support Services (SAFS)-2.1

Industry Day

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT C: Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies and their contractors; Administrative or Operational Use; 24 August 2021. Other requests for this document shall be referred to SSC/LE.

DESTRUCTION: Comply with distribution statement and destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.

PM: Ms. Rebecca Jara March 7th, 2024

Unclassified 1

Industry Day Agenda

LocationDurationSpeakerTopic07 Mar

Daedalian30 MIN CHECK-IN0730

Daedalian5 minMr. John SteinmeyerOpening Remarks0800

Daedalian10 minLt Col Pinak TrivediIntro/Admin Details0805

Daedalian10 minMr. Kevin HobbsRules of Engagement0815

Daedalian10 minLt Col Pinak TrivediIntroductions and AATS/NSSL Overview0825

Daedalian10 minMs. Rebecca JaraSAFS-2.1 Draft RFP0835

Daedalian15 minMs. Rebecca JaraQ&A / Closing Remarks0900

271 LobbyTRANSITION TO CR 642 (ONE-ON-ONES)0930

CR 64230 minSAFS-2.1 TeamOne-on-One Discussions1000

Unclassified 2

Administrative Details

• Security

• Unclassified general briefing

• No recording of general or one-on-one sessions

• No photos

• Note-taking is permissible

• SSC will provide charts after Industry Day for all attendees

• Personal devices must be left outside CR or left in car

Unclassified 3

Rules of Engagement Mr. Kevin Hobbs

Procuring Contract Officer

Unclassified 4

Disclaimer

• Information presented is for planning purposes only and subject to change

• Government is not seeking proposals at this time

• Does not constitute a promise to issue a solicitation in the future

• Does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service

• Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this event; costs are solely at responding party’s expense

• Companies who are not Occupancy Agreement Space Inventory System- Small Business (OASIS-SB) Pool 5B prime contractors are authorized to attend the Industry Day for the upcoming SSC/AATS SAFS 2.1 procurement if they intend to partner with an OASIS-SB Pool 5B prime contractor to pursue this requirement. They may attend as a member of the prime contractor’s team.

Unclassified 5

AATS and NSSL Overview Lt Col Pinak Trivedi

Space Systems Command/Assured Access to Space (SSC/AAM)

CUI/Gov Only

Unclassified 6

AATS Organization Chart

Unclassified 7

AATS Lines of Effort

Unclassified 8

Responsive and Reliable Launch

9Unclassified

Resilient & Ready Spaceport

SPACEPORT OF THE FUTURE (SOTF)

Increasing launch tempo places more demand on spaceport infrastructure, manpower, and payload processing – USSF spaceports must not constrain U.S launch industry growth & innovation

Eastern & Western Ranges already the busiest in the nation… and launch tempo is increasing:

o SLD 45 supported 57 launches in 2022 o SLD 30 supported 19 launches in 2022 ‐‐ highest space launch tempo in 26 years o 2023 launch projections: 92 (SLD 45) & 42 (SLD 30) – continues to escalate beyond 2023…

SOTF focused on transitioning from a legacy launch range construct to a spaceport model;

more than just updating equipment and processes, but also updating authorities, policies, and business models

SSC leading Spaceport Transformation initiative to drive USSF spaceports to a more “port‐ like” business operations structure while ensuring NSS equities and facilitating commercial growth o Service catalog development underway to clearly define government provided launch services and associated costs for industry (a standardized “menu of services”)

10Unclassified

Space Mobility & Logistics

• Concepts include:

- Assembly & Manufacturing Operations

- In-Orbit Satellite Servicing Operations

- Point-to-point Delivery

- Active Debris Removal

• Desired Outcomes

- Increased On-Orbit Capability

- The “Immortal Spacecraft”

- Sustained Maneuver

- Point-to-Point Logistics

- Sustainable Space

Future: Connecting and unifying stakeholders, and formalizing CONOPS and requirements, to establish a stable program that can grow as resources are identified and technologies mature

11Unclassified

EoQ: Economic Order Quantities IDIQ: Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity LSP: Launch Service Provider

Phase 3 Dual-Lane Approach

Lane 2 Upfront Commitment

Lane 1 Rolling Competitions

Secures launch capacity/AATS

Provides consistent demand, gain EoQ

Addresses manifest flexibility

Ensures capability for hard missions

Dual Lane Advantages

Provides annual opportunities so systems in development can on-ramp when ready

Provide additional resiliency through new launch systems

• Operational Imperative: Launch must deliver national security space capability to the warfighter to deter/defeat current, emerging and future threats

• Approach to meet imperative: Provide assured access to space to the integrated space architecture at affordable prices

• Phase 3 Acquisition Strategy: Execute a dual-lane approach with two separate contract types to fulfill program requirements

Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to on-ramp new systems & emerging providers for missions that are more risk tolerant

Longer-term Indefinite Delivery, Requirements contracts - commitment to assure access to space for missions that cannot fail

12Unclassified

Semper Supra

Phase 3 Dual Lane Approach Lane 1 and Lane 2 Contract Parameters

Lane 2: ~49 Specified Missions Indefinite Delivery, Requirements (IDR) Contracts

Lane 1: ~30 Other Missions Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)

Contracts Parameter

3 IDR contracts (Firm Fixed Price)Multi-award IDIQ contracts (Firm Fixed Price)Contract Type

5-year base (FY25-29); encompassing critical missions with long lead integration5-year Base + 5-year Option (FY25-FY34)Ordering Period

8 years; orders FY25-29 & launches FY27-3213 years; covers launches through FY37Period of Performance

3 Launch Service Providers:

Best Value Share: 60%; Next Best Value Share: 40%;

3rd Best Value receives 7 select missions (starting in OY2)

Unlimited Launch Providers; Lane 2 providers eligible to compete

# of Launch Providers

None in Phase 3 Ordering Period (FY25-FY29)Annual for new launch provider or systemOn-ramping

Mission Assignment Process and Requirements Table for share ratio allocation, nominal 2-year integration cycle

Annual task order competitions (individually or in blocks). 1- to 3-year integration cycle

Ordering Procedures

Annual LSS to cover NSS-unique non-discrete costs (NTE $100M per year per LSP)None, pricing will be fully burdened

Launch Service Support (LSS)

Unclassified 13

AATS Future Needs

• Transition to resilient space architecture

• Increase in higher energy missions

• More multi-manifested missions (dedicated / excess)

• Potential new orbits/mission areas

• Increase number and type of launch systems

• Increase number of and geographic dispersion of launch sites

• Operate through threats like weather, cyber, etc.

• Varied payload security requirements

• Ability to do traditional and rapid SV/LV integration

• Supporting anticipated launch tempo increase

• Harness innovative best practices

• No significant launch development RDT&E investment

• Transformation Mission Assurance

• Implementation of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Tools

• Increased Cybersecurity

Unclassified 14

(Waiting for DAG)

Unclassified

NSSL: Hypervisible Program

AATS receives preponderance of Congressional RFIs at

SSC

SAFS - 2.1 Draft RFP Overview Ms. Rebecca Jara

Unclassified 16

Semper Supra 10

EmailNameRole kevin.hobbs.3@spaceforce.milMr. Kevin HobbsContracting Officer irma.seferi-gonzalez@spaceforce.milIrma Seferi-GonzalezContract Specialist

NameRole

Brig Gen Kristin PanzenhagenProgram Executive Officer

Col Douglas PentecostProgram Manager

Col Chad MeloneSenior Material Leader

Lt Col Pinak TrivediChief, Enterprise Acquisitions Branch

SAFS-2.1 Leadership

SAFS-2.1 dRFP Contracting Team

Note: When communicating with the Program office, Offerors shall also copy the PCO and Contract Specialists

EmailNameRole linda.cole.1@spaceforce.milLinda ColeLead PM rebecca.jara@spaceforce.milRebecca JaraPM devesh.mehta.1@spaceforce.mil Lt. Devesh MehtaDeputy PM

SAFS-2.1 dRFP Program Team

Acquisition Structure

Unclassified 17

SAFS-2.1 Contract Information

• This is a fair opportunity competition under GSA OASIS-SB Pool 5B

• Awarded based on Best Value Trade-off

• PoP: 5-year contract (Base Year + 4 OYs)

• Type: Firm Fixed Price

Some Cost Reimbursable CLINs for travel (ODCs) + GSA Fees

• Positions: 109 estimated FTE, 85 Minimum FTE

• Stakeholders: SSC/AATS, NSSL, SML, SLD 45, SLD 30, RSLP, LTRS

PROJECTED AWARD NOVEMBER 2024

Key Areas Of Support and Locations

Denotes >10% estimated FTE

Unclassified 19

DESCRIPTIONTYPECLIN

Labor Base YearFFP0001 Data and ReportsFFP0002 Other Direct Costs (ODC)CR0003 GSA Contract Access FeeCR0004

Labor Option 1 YearFFP1001 Data and ReportsFFP1002 Other Direct Costs (ODC)CR1003 GSA Contract Access FeeCR1004

Labor Option 2 YearFFP2001 Data and ReportsFFP2002 Other Direct Costs (ODC)CR2003 GSA Contract Access FeeCR2004

Labor Option 3 YearFFP3001 Data and ReportsFFP3002 Other Direct Costs (ODC)CR3003 GSA Contract Access FeeCR3004

Labor Option 4 YearFFP4001 Data and ReportsFFP4002 Other Direct Costs (ODC)CR4003 GSA Contract Access FeeCR4004

CLIN Structure

Unclassified 20

The relative importance of each factor/subfactor are as follows: Factor 2 - Technical is significantly more important than Factor 3 - Cost/Price. Within Factor 2, the three subfactors will each have their own ratings. Subfactor 1 is significantly more important than Subfactors 2 and 3 combined, and Subfactors 2 and 3 are of equal importance.

The Government evaluation team will first evaluate Factor 1- RFP Compliance and if Factor 1 is rated “unacceptable”, the proposal may be eliminated from the competition without any further evaluation and thus ineligible for award. If Factor 1 is rated “acceptable”, the evaluation team will then evaluate each Factor 2 Subfactor. If any Factor 2 Subfactor is evaluated as “unacceptable” this will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award.

Evaluation Criteria

RatingEvaluated AreasFactors

UnacceptableAcceptable

Model Task Order

Factor 1‐ RFP Compliance

Current Facility Clearance

OCI Mitigation Plan

Total Compensation Plan

UnacceptableAcceptableGoodOutstandingPersonnel Management PlanSubfactor 1

Factor 2‐ Technical UnacceptableAcceptableGoodOutstandingProblem Statements 1 & 2Subfactor 2

UnacceptableAcceptableGoodOutstandingScenarios 1 & 2Subfactor 3

$$TEP

Factor 3‐ Cost/Price

NoYesPrice Reasonableness

NoYesLimitation on Subcontracting

NoYesUnbalanced Pricing

Factor 1 ‐ RFP Compliance Rating

Factor 1 – RFP Compliance DescriptionRating

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements.Acceptable

Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements.Unacceptable

Unclassified 22

Factor 2 ‐ Technical

DescriptionRating

• Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements;

• Contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength; and

• Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low

Outstanding

• Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements;

• Contains at least one strength or significant strength; and

• Risk of unsuccessful performance is low

Good

• Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements; and

• Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate Acceptable

• Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, thus, contains one or more deficiencies; or

• Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

• Proposal is un‐awardable.

Unacceptable

Unclassified

Factor 2 ‐ Technical Rating

Subfactor 1: Personnel Management Plan

Section L (Instructions to Offerors – Abridged)

• Offeror shall submit a completed Personnel Management Plan and include the following (attachment 4-1): Transition, Management, Staffing Stability, Staffing Plan; a structured schedule, and associated risks; Staffing matrix (attachment 4-2)

• 15 PAGE LIMIT

Resume for Key Personnel with Letter of Commitment

Section M (Evaluation Criteria)

• The Government will evaluate:

• The extent to which the offeror’s Personnel Management Plan meets or exceeds RFP requirements, including the Government Minimum Qualification Requirements, and is credible;

• The extent to which the offerors Personnel Management Plan demonstrates efficient on-ramp of personnel so that all Key Personnel are in place on the first day of task order performance and all other personnel are in place NLT 30 calendar days after performance start; and

• The extent to which the proposed Contractor Staffing Matrix meets or exceeds RFP requirements including the Government’s Minimum FTE Requirements identified in ITO Attachment 4-2 Staffing Matrix.

Unclassified 24

Subfactor 2: Cost Estimate 1

Section L (Instructions to Offerors - Abridged)

Problem Statement. You shall demonstrate your understanding of Section 3.2 of the PWS requirements by producing a Space Force Program Office Cost Estimate that provides accurate calculations, insightful analysis and adequate documentation using the following parameters:

I. Estimate #1

1. Estimate Description: This risk-adjusted estimate is for a launch vehicle capable of placing an 8,000 lbs. payload into Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO). Assume the launch vehicle is in the Post Milestone-C production phase of manufacturing and on its 3rd re-flight (4th flight total) of the same re-usable booster.

Section M (Evaluation Criteria) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s responses are accurate, complete and in compliance with all applicable regulations for the Cost Estimation Problem Statements.

Unclassified 25

Subfactor 2: Cost Estimate 2

Section L (Instructions to Offerors - Abridged)

Problem Statement. You shall demonstrate your understanding of Section 3.2 of the PWS requirements by producing a Space Force Program Office Estimate that provides accurate calculations, insightful analysis and adequate documentation using the following parameters:

II. Estimate #2

1. Estimate Description: This NSSL risk-adjusted estimate is for a fully burdened commercial launch vehicle required for a NSS mission in LEO orbit. Consider companies currently in the market that would be able to develop this vehicle with minimum Government Mission Assurance. This estimate is for one mission launching from Cape Canaveral.

Section M (Evaluation Criteria) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s responses are accurate, complete and in compliance with all applicable regulations for the Cost Estimation Problem Statements.

Scenario 1 The Program Manager is preparing an acquisition strategy for an upcoming National Security Space Launch Program contract award for the United States Space Force. In the context of increasing space-based competition and supporting operational requirements, what would your strategic analysis and recommendations be for developing the acquisition strategy and addressing future operational needs while fully leveraging industry capabilities?

Describe the strategic analysis you would use to help create the acquisition strategy, specific tasks you would conduct in helping to develop the plan, and communication analysis and products you would recommend for building support.

Section M (Evaluation Criteria) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s summarized strategic analysis of possible acquisition strategies, and the stakeholder engagement plan is likely to achieve stated goals.

Subfactor 3: Strategic Cell & Acquisition Planning Scenario

Unclassified 27

Subfactor 3: Strategic Communications Scenario

Scenario 2 As an Enterprise Integrator or Strategic Communication Professional, you are an integral part of the Director’s Action Group (DAG) and AATS Leadership Team. You are charged with the responsibility to ensure the equities of the organization in which you are embedded is represented in all internal and external communication and taskers.

It is imperative to have the knowledge and writing capability required, to develop satisfactory responses to media queries and congressional report requests for the DAG Chief and Senior Leadership.

In the scenario that the USSF NSSL team did not successfully deploy a satellite due to launch vehicle failure, provide an example of a communication plan and strategic messaging campaign that you would develop for external audiences and describe the key individuals or organizations that you would notify in this case.

Section M (Evaluation Criteria) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s response develops an engagement product that will achieve the strategic messaging campaign goals.

Unclassified 28

Questions/Comments

• CRM Excel file will be sent out to all contractors after Industry Day

• Government accepting written questions or comments on the comment form provided (mark if proprietary)

• Follow directions on excel file to input questions and comments

• Government shall not be liable in any way for proprietary information that is not properly identified

Unclassified 29

Questions & Answers/ Closing Remarks

Unclassified 30

One-on-One Meeting Location Lobby of Bldg 271

GCC

Main Entrance

N

R

Parking Garage

Unclassified 31