SEV_Industry_Study_BAA.docx

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

SPACE AND MISSILE SYSTEMS CENTER (SMC)

LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA

Release of the

SPACE ENTERPRISE VISION

INDUSTRY STUDY

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

Announcement Number: FA8814-17-R-0003

Issue Date: 16 June, 2017

Distribution A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS

2-Step BAA process: This BAA will use a two-step evaluation process.

STEP 1 – REQUEST FOR AND EVALUATION OF

WHITE PAPER SUBMISSIONS

STEP 2 – REQUEST FOR AND EVALUATION OF

PROPOSALS

White Papers: This BAA is requesting offerors to provide white papers that provide innovative and unique ideas for implementing the Space Enterprise Vision within the focus area that the Advanced Systems and Development Directorate (SMC/AD) is interested in maturing.

Security Classification: Responses may be classified up to Special Access Program (SAP) levels. If an offeror wishes to submit a response at a classification level higher than unclassified, that offeror must first call Mr. Brian Smith at 310-653-9166 or Ms. Maureen Ady at 310-653-9233.

Solicitation Instructions: Please read the entire solicitation carefully before responding.

Points of Contact: Single point of contact for this effort is the Procuring Contracting Officer, Mr. Harwinder Singh at harwinder.singh@us.af.mil or at 310-653-9052.

NOTE: Only Contracting Officers are legally authorized to commit the Government.

Table of Contents

1.0 General Information

1.1 Introduction

This publication constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as prescribed in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 35.016 and FAR 6.102(d)(2)(i). This BAA is issued by the Space and Missile Systems Center Advanced Systems and Development Directorate (SMC/AD).

SMC/AD will not issue paper copies of this announcement. SMC/AD reserves the right to fund all, some, or none of the proposals in response to this announcement. SMC/AD provides no funding for direct reimbursement of proposal development costs. White papers, technical, and cost or price proposals (or any other material) submitted in response to this BAA will not be returned. All proposals will be treated as sensitive competitive information.

1.1.1 Scope

This BAA is designed to acquire industry insights in implementing enterprise-level (satellite, launch, and ground) solutions that will enable resilient, space warfighting capabilities, as identified within the Space Enterprise Vision (SEV). Industry feedback will be an important consideration in helping to inform the Rocket Propulsion System (RPS) and follow-on activities leading to the next generation of launch systems. Industry feedback will also be useful in providing indications of the types of space systems that would be fielded to implement the SEV, as well as mass to orbit needs and launch frequency. Likewise for satellite design, the goal is to inform new approaches to the satellite bus acquisition process and/or design approach (e.g., bus designed for upgrades and/or employing standard modular bus design(s)). Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) plans to implement a Resilient Enterprise Ground concept to integrate all ground services onto a common service-oriented architecture framework, which is in the early stages of development across the enterprise to include launch range, user equipment, and command and control functions. For this reason, alternative ground concepts will not be a primary focus of this study; however, impacts to the ground segment should be addressed.

This SEV Industry Study BAA is intended as the first step to formal industry engagement related to transitioning the space enterprise to a more resilient future state. The studies completed under this BAA will contain proposed concepts, demonstrations, and prototypes that industry believes are necessary to meet AFSPC Commander’s Intent for the SEV. The Air Force is currently working to structure a Space Enterprise Consortium Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) which may serve as a mechanism for executing the demonstrations and developing the prototypes defined in these BAA studies.

To provide a basis for understanding the foundational imperatives of the SEV, the following sections present the Commander’s Intent and provide additional Government Background. The Commander’s Intent is a summary that outlines the reason for embarking on initiatives that enable resilient, space warfighting capabilities and provides some desired architectural attributes. The Government Background is to inform industry of the architectural areas that the government has examined. These sections are meant to guide contractor’s investigations into how to implement SEV imperatives, but are not intended to be prescriptive. The government is seeking new and innovative ideas from industry on ways to achieve end-to-end space systems’ resiliency needed in the future.

1.1.2 Commander’s Intent

In his Initial Commander’s Guidance and Intent after he assumed command of Air Force Space Command in October 2016, General John Raymond wrote:

“As we move into our 35th year as a command, we can't do business the way we have in the past - we don't have that luxury. Space and cyberspace are no longer benign environments; they are contested operational domains. We will meet the challenges in these domains by aggressively driving toward resiliency with initiatives like the Space Enterprise Vision and Cyber Secure. We must enhance awareness in these domains and develop a robust capability to command and control operations on tactically relevant timelines. We will actively innovate and experiment to enhance our capabilities and continue to pursue initiatives like the Space Mission Force to ensure our operators have the advanced training they need to execute our critical missions. Last, but certainly not least, our world-class acquirers will drive to acquire needed capabilities that will improve our resilience and help us realize the SEV.”

More recent discussions on the space enterprise have elucidated General Raymond’s plan for a Space Warfighting Construct (SWC). This SWC is a framework to make the SEV an operational reality and to prepare Air Force Space Command for a conflict that extends into space. The graphic below illustrates this construct.

As stated above, General Raymond intends to pursue the Space Enterprise Vision announced by his predecessor, General Hyten, in April 2016. The paragraphs below outline the imperatives of the SEV.

Preserve the Space and Cyberspace Environments for Future Generations

"The future space enterprise will maintain our nation's ability to deliver critical space effects throughout all phases of conflict," General Hyten said. "Operating as an enterprise as opposed to a set of independent platforms improves resiliency and is critical to the ability to survive and deliver effects in a contested environment."

Fight through Contested, Degraded, and Operationally-Limited Environments

"In the recent past, the United States enjoyed unchallenged freedom of action in the space domain," said General Hyten. "Most U.S. military space systems were not designed with threats in mind, and were built for long-term functionality and efficiency, with systems operating for decades in some cases. Without the need to factor in threats, longevity and cost were the critical factors to design and these factors were applied in a mission stovepipe. This is no longer an adequate methodology to equip space forces."

Deliver Integrated Multi-Domain Combat Effects in, from, and through Space and Cyberspace

"The future space enterprise will be built by changing how we architect, develop, acquire, and operate our space systems," General Hyten said. "Going forward, we will rigorously focus on a clear definition of warfighter requirements with programs acquired using greater horizontal integration across the space enterprise. We will also move toward shorter program life cycles and decreased time between constellation updates, which improves the availability of new technology on-orbit."

Architect, Acquire, Operate, and Sustain a Resilient Enterprise

· Measure effectiveness by increasing enterprise Resilience Capacity, rather than sustaining individual system Functional Availability.

· Solidify minimum essential warfighter requirements early and leave trade space to balance capability with cost. Do not set and chase objective requirements. Integrate acquisitions, intelligence, concepts of operations, and requirements development to adapt to evolving threats based on real-world and future campaign models.

· Use all sources of innovation, prototyping, experimentation, and pathfinders to test assumptions, validate solutions, and field ad-hoc solutions. Demand timely delivery while providing operational test environments and feedback.

· Reduce system and programmatic complexity. Maximize re-use of existing systems, minimize new technology development, and use the current state-of-the-art technology to deliver outstanding capability without added risk.

· Enable and use competition to improve buying power. Encourage competition and innovation, and reduce risk by avoiding “all or nothing,” “winner takes all” acquisition strategies. Use open, common standards to enable competition in sustainment.

· Employ cost as a critical program parameter, but do not let cost drive Warfighter Essential Requirements.

1.1.3 Government Background

This BAA solicits feedback from industry on an affordable approach to enterprise resilience, defined in this context as the ability to continue delivering warfighter essential capabilities while the system is under duress. The focus of this solicitation is the space segment and the corresponding launch segments for the Air Force Space Superiority Activity Areas:

· Nuclear Survivable Communications

· Launch Detection / Missile Warning

· Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT)

· Space Situational Awareness & Battlespace Awareness

· Assured Space Access / Spacelift

· Space Command and Control

· Satellite Operations

· Protected, Tactical Communications

· Space Control

· Unprotected Communications

· Space to Surface Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)

· Terrestrial Environmental Monitoring

· Nuclear Detonation Detection

The following describes initiatives the government has accomplished within these areas and is provided as a background for contractors. It is not intended as direction for offerors. Further investigation into these areas is welcomed, as are new and innovative approaches not discussed herein.

Space Segment

Current Program of Record spacecraft leverage relatively large and very capable individual satellites. In a contested environment, this represents an architectural vulnerability in the Air Force’s ability to provide space capabilities through all phases of conflict, particularly if that conflict extends into the space domain. The SEV is a roadmap to increase the resilience of the national security space enterprise and increase our ability to fight a war that extends into space.

Initial efforts by the Government have identified several approaches to increase resilience. Some of these approaches are dependent upon the mission area under consideration. Approaches can include architectural options, acquisition changes and increased use of partnerships.

· Disaggregating payload functions and spreading them across more numerous, smaller spacecraft

· Searching for areas where small requirement changes result in a large cost reduction or resilience increase

· Orbit diversity with consideration of user/mission impact

· Hosted national security payloads on commercial spacecraft

· Spacecraft that are serviceable or refuelable on-orbit

· Adopting commercial fee-for-service models

· Integrating Allied capability (for example, Global Navigation Satellite System signals)

Launch Segment

The space segment architecture selected impacts the launch architecture. The selection of a space segment architecture that is both resilient and affordable to deploy and sustain is an iterative process that includes the launch and ground segments. Commercial market pressures are reducing the price of launch, especially in particular weight classes. Reusability, at least partial reusability, is now an option.

Launch system capability and cost is a frequent topic of analysis and discussion. The lowest cost configuration of any launch system also has its lowest capability. Increasing capability comes at additional cost, but the relationship is highly non-linear and very dependent on the launch system. Furthermore, a simple measure of cost per unit mass favors the heaviest lift configuration and is inadequate in defining the “sweet spot” when trying to balance overall enterprise resiliency, performance, and cost. This is especially true if spacecraft get smaller.

As in the space segment, the Government’s analysis identified some potentially promising approaches that drive cost out of the launch function. A goal of this effort is to create a “freight train to space” in which payloads become interchangeable with a more common launch system and launches are routine and regularly scheduled. Potentially enabling aspects of this model include:

· Launching to common LEO or GTO injection point and then using an Orbital Transfer Element (OTE) for delivery to the final destination orbit

· More frequent use of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Secondary Payload Adapters (ESPA) in either a simple adapter mode or more complex propulsive or long duration capacity

The OTE could transfer spacecraft from standard LEO or GTO injection orbits to their final mission orbit, much like a traditional upper stage, but would have an extended on-orbit life (several years) and could provide additional support for spacecraft maneuver and repositioning, including end-of-life disposal. The OTE may use chemical propulsion, highly efficient electric propulsion, or any combination of these. If an electrical or combination approach is used, an OTE may also provide additional electrical power for increased spacecraft mission capability and resiliency. The OTE could be designed to be fully integrated into a satellite bus, mated to the bus as a lifetime companion, or function as a space tug to provide on-orbit servicing like spacecraft refueling, repair, or upgrade. OTEs could be a new spacecraft design, a new launch system element, or an advanced modification of an upper stage.

The Air Force is beginning an annual purchase of one (1) ESPA to increase auxiliary payload launch opportunities. The ESPA can be a simple adapter ring or include propellant and thrusters for additional maneuver capability (a so called “propulsive ESPA”). Other variations under consideration add avionics, navigation, and power systems to essentially act as a spacecraft bus. The ESPA or similar systems are seen as one option to increase on-orbit capability and resiliency as a building block or standalone system. ESPA and other auxiliary payload opportunities represent the government’s attempt to increase prototyping and experimentation to meet rapidly emerging threats and insertion of changing technology.

1.2 Agency Name

Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), 483 North Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, California 90245-2808

1.3 Research Opportunity Title and Focus Area Description

Title: Space Enterprise Vision Industry Study

Focus Area: The purpose of this focus area is to develop a concept of the space enterprise through year 2030 that is highly resilient to survive in threatened environments, and continue to provide mission capabilities in tactically relevant timelines. The concept will incorporate the following elements of resilience: distribution, diversification, disaggregation, deception, protection, and proliferation (definitions of these terms are included in Appendix A). The response should be enterprise-level, with a focus on innovative space and launch system elements, while bearing in mind that AFSPC plans to implement a Resilient Enterprise Ground concept to integrate all ground services onto a common service-oriented architecture framework. System-level inputs (e.g., launch system, space system) must be considered within the overall enterprise, not in isolation from other enterprise elements. The government is seeking contractor concepts that may or may not be included in the Government Background section. Responses to this BAA will address the below three segments under single focus area. Not all aspects in each of the three segments must be discussed in the White Paper submission. In Step 2 of this BAA (Full Proposal Submission), the Government anticipates that qualified offerors will cover all or a majority of the aspects in each of the three elements.

Future Space Enterprise Architecture (First Segment of the Focus Area)

· Provide an integrated and resilient enterprise concept that includes space and launch system elements aligned with the Commander’s Intent for SEV

· If applicable, describe how the architecture makes use of the space domain mission assurance attributes of distribution, diversification, disaggregation, deception, protection, and proliferation

· Articulate the impacts of the contractor’s proposed architecture on deployment and sustainment. Aspects to consider may include:

· How will the concept affect the long-term launch system needs in terms of lift capability and launch rate?

· Identify whether delivery and replenishment of mission orbit fuel may be a viable option to support resiliency in the proposed architecture

· Include enabling and/or enhancing approaches towards achieving a “freight train to space” paradigm

· Articulate the implications of the contractor’s proposed architecture on the ground segment and user or mission

· Identify potential capacity or latency issues and how they might be mitigated

· Identify suggested approaches to refresh space and launch system technology to respond to an increasing and rapidly changing threat environment, as well as newly emerging requirements and acquisition approaches

· Identify any impacts this may have on ground systems

Transition and Development Planning (Second Segment of the Focus Area)

· Discuss enabling technologies and current Technology Readiness Levels

· Propose prototypes and other demonstrations that would lower risk and enable the transformation to the proposed architecture

· Provide an assessment of risk (risk(s) for cost, schedule, and technology) and mitigation approach for the architecture and concepts proposed

· Identify a notional timeline that begins to deploy capability from 2020 to 2025 in order to meet a rapidly maturing threat

Business Case Analysis (Third Segment of the Focus Area)

· Provide initial government business case analysis that might describe the capability value and economic benefit of the solution to the government

· Provide performance data on mass to orbit and provide relative launch cost data ranging from $80M to $199M per launch – by including the following: average unit cost and profit or fee that the government would pay at the flight rate that supports your architecture (the above launch cost data range applies to the medium to intermediate payload class). Please note that submissions can incorporate other payload classes that are outside of this cost range, if they demonstrate added capability value to the enterprise

· Provide an assessment of the commercial market investments and direction (space, launch, and ground), and how the government can best align with these investments and direction to the government’s advantage

· Discuss how the concept will affect industry business case including if the proposed approach includes integration of commercial services

· Consider whether commercial practices in development, production, operations, and mission assurance of spacecraft, launch systems, and ground systems can be leveraged to improve resilience and reduce cost and schedule

1.4 Announcement Number

FA8814-17-R-0003

1.5 Two-Step Solicitation Process

THIS WILL BE A TWO-STEP SOLICITATION:

First Step: The Air Force is specifically requesting white papers focused on the areas defined in this announcement. White papers and a one-page “Non Proprietary Executive Overview” for the focus area must be submitted by COB 10 July 2017 at 1600 PDTF to be considered for evaluation. Failure to comply with white paper instructions above may result in rejection of the white paper during the review.

Second Step: Complete Proposals in accordance with FAR 15.2 will be required within thirty (30) calendar days after the white paper notifications (see 2.3). An offeror must submit a white paper for evaluation prior to submitting a proposal. Only proposals expressly requested by the Government will be evaluated.

1.6 Amendments to BAA

The Government may amend this BAA at any time at its discretion. Amendments or links to amendments will be posted to the FEDBIZOPPS – https://www.fbo.gov/.

(Note: Although other web pages may re-post these amendments, offerors are advised that the FEDBIZOPPS web page is the only official record.)

2.0 Award Information

2.1 Estimated Number and Value of Awards

The anticipated funding amount for all awards under this BAA is $3M. The anticipated number of contract awards is five to eight individual awards. The final number of awards are at the Government’s discretion. The anticipated award value for each resulting contract is between $375K and $600K.

2.2 Notifications

White Papers All offerors that submit a white paper in response to this BAA will receive a government notification letter either requesting a Full Proposal or notifying the offeror that its White Paper is not selected for Step 2 of this BAA and that a Full Proposal is therefore not requested.

Full Proposals Offerors invited to submit Full Proposals will receive a written notification from the Contracting Officer providing instructions for the submission of a full proposal.

(Note: Notification of white paper and proposal selection is not an authorization to begin work.)

2.3 Contract Type

Anticipated awards will be a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type.

2.4 Period of Performance

The period of performance for the study contract is expected to be 90 calendar days.

2.5 Debriefings

Only offerors that submit Full Proposals will be entitled to a debriefing.

3.0 General Evaluation and Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104)

Any contract(s) awarded based on responses to this BAA are considered to be the result of full and open competition (see FAR 6.102(d)(2)(i)) and are in full compliance with the provisions of Public Law (PL) 98-369, “The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984.”

The selection of white papers submitted in response to this BAA will be based on a peer review process. The major purpose of the evaluation will be to determine the relative merit of the technical approach of each white paper. Business and contractual aspects, including proposed Rough Order of Magnitudes (ROMs) and budgetary constraints, will also be considered as part of the evaluation.

3.1 Evaluation Criteria

White papers and full proposal(s) will be evaluated against the following factors:

· Factor #1 – Contribution to Focus Area: The degree to which the proposed concept addresses the Focus Area and aligns with the Space Enterprise Vision. In performing this review, evaluators will consider your responses to all of the three segments in the focus area (Future Space Enterprise Architecture, Transition and Developmental Planning, and Business Case Analysis.)

· Factor #2 – Technical Approach: The degree to which the proposed technical approach is innovative and technically achievable. For technical achievability, evaluators will consider the probability for transitioning the proposed technical approach into acquisition program, military system, or other military capability.

· Factor #3 – Knowledge of Space Enterprise: The extent to which the offeror’s white paper and full proposal demonstrates an understanding of the space enterprise. Offeror may demonstrate understanding of the space enterprise by providing full enterprise concept(s) or knowledge of the relevant interfaces to the offeror’s concept(s). For instance, if the offeror’s concept mainly consists of an innovative launch system, the offeror may show how that system would interact with space and ground systems.

· Factor #4 – Cost: A Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) is required for the study effort. For the White Paper, your proposed ROM estimate must be consistent with the estimates included in paragraph 2.1 above. For the full proposal, the proposed price must be reasonable in accordance with FAR 31.201-3(a) and must be consistent with the estimates provided in paragraph 2.1 above. Adequate Price Competition is anticipated for this acquisition and will be used as basis for determining price reasonableness.

The order of importance of the above factors is as follows: Factors 1, 2, and 3 are equally important and when combined are significantly more important than Factor 4.

Based on the evaluation of the independent peer review of each White Paper, the government will create a prioritized list of offerors. Full Proposals will then be selected based on available funding.

The Government reserves the right to remove offeror(s) from award consideration should the parties: 1) fail to reach agreement on terms, conditions, and cost or price within a reasonable time, or 2) the offeror fails to provide requested additional information in a timely manner.

3.2 Notional Timeline

4.0 Submission Information

The Government intends to make multiple awards resulting from this BAA. The Government reserves the right to select for award any, all, part, or none of the proposals received. Offerors must be able to certify by the time of White Paper submission that they have an appropriate facility clearance to meet the security requirements of work proposed, and key personnel must be certified as holding an appropriate security clearance. This certification should be included in the Offerors’ cover page.

The security clearance level for this BAA may be up to SAP levels.

4.1 White Papers (Step 1):

UNCLASSIFIED and CLASSIFIED White Paper responses, up to SAP levels will be evaluated. The White Papers shall be no more than 10 pages. Supplemental information, such as supporting videos, shall not be submitted; but screenshots or photos may be incorporated provided they are within the page limit. Each offeror is limited to one White Paper.

The offeror shall submit a one-page “Non Proprietary Executive Overview” of the proposed architecture, studies, concepts, and demonstrations. It must also specifically address the first three bullets of the business case analysis section of the focus area. This overview shall be included with the White Paper submittal, and will not count against the 10 pages. This one-page “Non Proprietary Executive Overview” shall assert a minimum of Government Purpose Rights, and be used by SMC/AD to inform strategic planning and Future Year Defense Program planning inputs to Air Force Space Command. SMC/AD will remove all offeror information from the “Non Proprietary Executive Overview” prior to submittal to Air Force Space Command Headquarters.

Following information is requested in your White Paper submission:

1. Cover page with company name and address, proposal title, technical and administrative points-of-contacts, and facsimile number(s). Additionally, include certification required in Section 4 above by clearly stating in your cover page: “Appropriate facility clearances are in place to meet the security requirements associated with our proposed work and the associated key personnel are certified as holding an appropriate security clearance.” This cover page is not included in the 10-page limit;

2. White Paper in response to the Focus Area in this BAA;

3. If any portion of the proposed effort is predicated upon the use of Government-owned resources of any type (e.g., government furnished equipment), the contractor shall clearly identify: the resources required, the date the resource is required, the duration of the requirement, the source from which the resource may be acquired, if known, and the impact on the effort if the resource is not provided. White Paper should specifically address any data rights or intellectual property claims associated with the outcome of this effort. Specifically, the offeror shall justify the use of proprietary, vendor-unique, or closed components including but not limited to hardware, software and interfaces in current or future designs. The Government supports open systems architecture principles, asserting rights less favorable to the government than Government Purpose Rights may result in not receiving an invitation to submit full proposal;

4. For each White Paper submission, pages are to be 8.5 x 11 inch, single-sided. Minimum font is 10 point. All margins shall be one-inch. Electronic submittals should be clearly readable as a ‘pdf’ version (an additional Word (.doc) document is unnecessary but may be provided). It is preferred that the entire file name be: CompanyName_Title_WhitePaper.pdf.

Following are specific instructions for delivering your White Paper Submission:

White Papers that are Unclassified shall be submitted to Maj Pel’s unclassified email account at: veasna.pel@us.af.mil. Mr. Dan Nelson will serve as backup to receive submissions if Maj Pel is not available. Mr. Nelson’s unclassified email address is daniel.nelson.36@us.af.mil.

If an offeror wishes to submit a classified White Paper, that offeror must first call Mr. Brian Smith at 310-653-9166 or Ms. Maureen Ady at 310-653-9233 to identify the appropriate submission process.

All White Papers will be delivered electronically. Hard copies are not requested. The offeror is responsible for timely, complete, and readable electronic delivery and following specific delivery instructions in this BAA. It is recommended that interested offeror coordinate in-advance with Maj Pel, Mr. Smith, or Ms. Ady to ensure timely, complete, and readable electronic delivery.

4.2 Full Technical and Cost Proposals (Step 2):

Offerors will submit Full Proposal (technical and price volumes) only after receiving a written Request for Proposal (RFP) from the Contracting Officer (Step 2 of this BAA). Full Proposals are expected to consist of two separate volumes. The Government anticipates 30 calendar days for Full Proposal preparation. Additional proposal preparation instructions will be provided to the offerors who are selected to advance to Step 2 of this BAA.

4.3 Offeror Exceptions

If an offeror takes exception(s) to the requirement(s) called out in RFP, the exception(s) should be clearly stated in the offeror’s Full Proposal.

5.0 Other Information

At contract award, the Offeror will be required to commit to contractual terms and conditions by signing the resulting contract. The outline that follows is illustrative of the types of terms that will be evaluated by the Government during white paper and proposal evaluation, may be discussed in negotiations, and may be included in the awarded contract. (Note: this list does not include all of the contract terms and conditions.)

5.1 Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI)

Compliance with FAR 9.5, Organizational and consultant Conflicts of Interest, is mandatory.

5.2 Technical and Administrative Support by Non-Government Personnel

The DoD may use non-government personnel (e.g., Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) support personnel in the evaluation, review and administration of submittals for this BAA. Specifically, the Aerospace Corporation (hereinafter, “Aerospace”) will be accessing proposal information including information that may be considered proprietary. Non-disclosure agreements will be required from non-government and government personnel in order to protect proprietary information. By submitting a White Paper or Full Proposal, the offeror is consenting to release of the submitted information to Aerospace personnel involved in this BAA.

5.3 Desired Data Rights

The Government will assess the need for data rights based on the type of contractor-proposed activities. If necessary, the Government may request financials of previous Internal Research and Development (IRAD) investment.

5.4.1 Technical Data

The Government’s preference is to have Technical data, Non-Commercial Software (NCS), and NCS documentation delivered with at least Government Purpose Rights. Offerors that propose delivery of non-commercial or commercial technical data, NCS, or NCS documentation subject to Limited Rights, Restricted Rights, or Specifically Negotiated License Rights may also be considered. The Government expects that delivery of technical data, NCS, and NCS documentation subject to Government Purpose Rights will fully meet the program needs.

The one-page “Non Proprietary Executive Overview” shall assert a minimum of Government Purpose Rights, and be used by SMC/AD to inform strategic planning and Future Year Defense Program planning inputs to Air Force Space Command. In order to protect bidder information, do not identify bidder name or affiliation in the “Non Proprietary Executive Overview.”

Contracting Officers may obtain the right to inspect data at the contractor’s facility by the use of DFARS clause 252.227-7014. Additionally inspection may be made by the contracting officer or designee (including non-governmental personnel) for the purpose of verifying a contractor’s assertion regarding the limited rights or restricted rights of data, or for evaluating work performance under the contract. This right may be exercised up to three years after the acceptance of all items to be delivered on contract.

Offerors are reminded that the Identification and Assertion of Restrictions on the Government’s Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions under DFARS 252.227-7017 and are due at time of proposals. Assertions must be completed with specificity with regard to each item, component, or process listed. Nonconforming assertions lists will be rejected.

Note that DFARS 252.227-7014(d) Third Party Copyrighted Computer Software or Computer Software Documentation describes requirements for incorporation of third party computer software (commercial and non-commercial). Any commercial software to be incorporated into a deliverable must be clearly identified in the proposal. Because many commercial software licenses are not transferrable or may not be acceptable to the Government, commercial software licenses proposed for delivery to the Government must be approved by the contracting officer prior to award.

As used in this BAA, the terms Unlimited Rights, Government Purpose Rights, Specifically Negotiated License Rights, and Limited Rights in non–commercial and commercial technical data, noncommercial computer software, and noncommercial software documentation are as defined in DFARS 252.227-7013 and DFARS 252.227-7014.

5.4 Export Control

The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120 through 130, and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730 through 799, will apply to this BAA, which is considered basic and applied research. More information is available at http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html.

Appendix A – Key Terms

Distribution is the utilization of nodes, working together, to perform the same mission or functions as a single node. An example is GPS – no individual satellite fundamental to its PNT mission.

Diversification is the contribution to the same mission in multiple ways using different platforms, orbits, or systems. An example is using the Galileo SATNAV constellation if GPS is unavailable.

Disaggregation is the separation of dissimilar capabilities into separate platforms or payloads. An example is separating tactical and strategic capabilities onto different satellite platforms.

Deception is confusing or misleading an adversary with respect to the capability of a system. An example of this is making all satellites look identical to hide their intent.

Protection consists of passive measures to ensure mission operation in any operating environment or condition. An example of this is radiation hardening satellite systems.

Proliferation is the deployment of larger numbers of the same platforms, payloads, or systems of the same time to perform the same mission. An example is deploying six extra communication satellites than is necessary for mission accomplishment.

image2.jpeg image1.PNG