Industry_Day_Master_Presentation_v6_15_Apr_13_as-briefed_rr.pdf

Space Development and Test Directorate

Launch Systems Mission Assurance

(LSMA)

Industry Day

DIVISION CHIEF: Col Urban Gillespie LSMA Team Lead: Mr. Randy Riddle MA PROGRAM MANAGER: 1Lt Katie Thompson CONTRACTING OFFICER: Mr. Steven Wells

15 April 2013

All information in this brief is tentative and subject to change.

SPACE DEVELOPMENT AND TEST DIRECTORATE

Agenda

Monday, 15 April 2013 (AFRL Bldg 201)

– 0830 – 1000 Industry Briefing

– 1000 – 1020 Break

– 1020 – 1120 Industry Briefing (cont’d)

– 1120 – 1200 Q&A Session

– 1200 – 1300 Lunch

– 1300-1700 Scheduled One-on-One Sessions

Tuesday, 16 April 2013 (AFRL Bldg 201)

– Scheduled One-on-One Sessions

Questions

• Questions may be submitted as follows:

– During this brief using the forms provided

• These questions may be addressed today during an open Q&A session, or may be deferred for later response

• During One-on-One Sessions

• Discussion notes for these sessions will be recorded

• Later questions must be submitted in writing

• Send to PCO via e-mail at any time prior to RFP release steven.wells@kirtland.af.mil or cecilia.cantu@kirtland.af.mil

• Responses to all questions will be posted to the FedBizOps web site

• Sources of questions will not be disclosed mailto:steven.armenta@kirtland.af.mil mailto:cecilia.cantu@kirtland.af.mil

Overview

RSLP PM Comments SD and SDL Mission & Organization LSMA Contract Parameters Mission Assurance Overview, Trends, Issues LSMA PWS Requirements

Excess Ballistic Missile (XBM) Sustainment Mission IV&V “Construct 2” Support Motor Refurbishment Special Studies CDRLs

LSMA RFP Structure L : Instructions to Offerors M: Evaluation Criteria

LSMA Proposal Expectations and Source Selection Process

Space Development and Test Directorate

Develop, test, and evaluate National Security Space systems Execute advanced space development and demonstration projects

Develop and launch small launch vehicles and missile defense targets Rapidly transition capabilities to the warfighter

“One Team…Delivering Small, Responsive Space Capabilities”

SMC/SD Organization

Col Troy Brashear Director

Col Carol Welsch Acting Director

Management Operations Ms. Cheryl Wilborn

Program Control Ms. Nancy Lingo

Contracting (SMC/PKT) Lt Col John Del Barrio

Engineering and Program Integration

TBD

Space Development Division Col Todd Krueger

Space Test and Operations Division Mr. Dan Crouch

Launch Systems Division Col W. Urban Gillespie

Space Ops Branch Space Test Branch Logistics Branch

Responsive Space Branch

Human Spaceflight Payloads Branch

Mission Design Branch

Responsive Satellite C2 Branch

Space Dev Branch

Engr/Dev Branch

Launch Ops Branch

Col Jeffrey Stutz Deputy Director

SMC/SDL Organization Division Chief, Program Manager

Col W. Urban Gillespie MDA Construct 2

Mr. Michael Galfano

PKTS Contracting Branch

Mr. Steven Wells

SDP Program Control Lead Mr. Mike Mahony

Deputy Division Chief

Lt Col Winston Campbell

Logistics Branch Mr. Kurt Reisdorf

• Motor Storage

• Inventory

• Configuration Mgmt

• Sustainment

• Tech Orders

• Aging Surveillance

• Motor Processing

• Transportation & Handling

• Field Operations

• Motor Demil/Disposal

• Operating Location Hill AFB

Eng & Dev Branch Mr. Randy Riddle

• Systems Engineering

• MDA Construct 2

• Systems Safety

• Future Mission Dev

• Special Missions/Studies

• Acquisition Strategy Dev

• Source Selections

• Policies and Procedures

• Lessons Learned

• Risk Management

• Training Development

Target Launch Section Capt James Townsend

• MDA Construct 1

• Air Launch Ops

• LTPO Targets

• GFE Prod Assurance

Space Launch Section Mr. Rob Douglass

• Manifest Mgmt

• CLRSB Support

• Environmental Asmt

• 1st ASTS Coord

Launch Operations Branch Lt Col Timothy Cole

• Mission Mgmt

• Range Rqmts

• Mission Assurance

• Financial Mgmt

• Payload Integration

• Launch/Field Ops

• Flight Readiness Rvws

• Information Assurance

SMC/SDL Matrix’d

Launch Systems Division Mission

• Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP) – A unique hybrid of space and missile cultures:

• Provide cost effective space launch and target flight test mission integration and support for national operational and R&D requirements on a cost-reimbursable basis

• Maintain active control and management of all Air Force deactivated ICBM missile assets

Provide small, responsive launch architecture and capabilities Challenge status quo of launch processes with flexibility and innovation

RSLP Mission/Business Overview

Design Develop

Launch Campaign

Ship and Integrate

Launch Facility Storage Facility Transport Modes

Vehicle Synthesis

Booster Mod/Refurb Buyoff

XBM

Missions

Aging Surveillance

Storage Program

Destruction Source

Selection and TO

Competition

OO-ALC

SFWC

Cert

Launch Vehicle Single Manager Mission Director

TASC and LSMA Mission Assurance Services

Risk Mgmt

Lessons Learned

Fixed Mil/Civ PM, Eng, Financial Mgmt, and Contract Mgmt

MCR Program SE A&AS Tecolote Financial Mgmt A&AS

AT2 Program Management A&AS

Funded Program

Reimbursable Program

Aerospace Corp FFRDC

LSMA Contract

Contracting POC(s)

Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)

- Mr. Steve Wells

- Phone: (505) 846-9282

- email: steven.wells@kirtland.af.mil

Contract Specialist

- Mrs. Ceci Cantú

- Phone: (505) 853-3146

- email: cecilia.cantu@kirtland.af.mil mailto:steven.wells@kirtland.af.mil mailto:cecilia.cantu@kirtland.af.mil

Notes From The Contracting Officer

• We are still in the pre-RFP stage of the acquisition and free and open communication is our goal—though communication will be somewhat structured today

• Information presented during Industry Day is subject to change

• We have posted a Draft RFP and will update the Draft RFP if necessary

• Once the Final RFP is issued, communication will be strictly controlled by and through the Contracting Officer

• Most importantly, follow the instructions in the “FINAL” RFP

Contract Basics

• Performance-Based Service Acquisition

• Hybrid – Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Fixed Price Incentive Firm (FPIF) Target, Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF)

• Five year Period of Performance (based on exercise of all options)—two additional years allowed for mission completion

Contract Specifics

• Small Business Set Aside

– FAR 52.219-14

• At least 50% of the labor work incurred shall be accomplished by the Prime

• “C” Type Service Contract

• Special Terms and Conditions

– SD/PKT H003 “Technical Services” Clause applicable to the following CLIN(s)

• CLIN 1000 series – New System IV&V – CPIF

• CLIN 2000 series – Existing System IV&V – FPIF

• CLIN 3000 series – Special Studies – FFP

– Organizational Conflict of Interest (AFFARS) (OCT 2010) and ALT I, II, III, and VI

– Enabling Clause (SMC)

– Associate Contractor Agreements (AFFARS IG 5317.9500) (Jun 2006)

– Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest (FAR 52.203-16) (Dec 2011)

CLIN Structure

• CLIN(s) and Period of Performance (PoP)

CLIN Requirement PoP 0001 XBM Sustainment Engineering Base Year – 12 Months 0002 XBM Sustainment Engineering Option I - 12 Months 0003 XBM Sustainment Engineering Option II - 12 Months 0004 XBM Sustainment Engineering Option III- 12 Months 0005 XBM Sustainment Engineering Option IV- 12 Months

1000 Series New System IV&V *Thru Mission Completion 2000 Series Existing System IV&V *Thru Mission Completion 3000 Series Special Studies *Thru Completion

0006 Transition 3 Months *Requirements may only be added if the XBM SE CLIN is in effect for the same period of performance

Special Terms and Conditions

• SD/PKT H003 “Technical Services”

– Included to outline the process for modifying the contract to add in-scope work in one of the three mission assurance areas: Launch Service IV&V. This clause identifies the maximum number of missions that may be authorized under the Launch Service IV&V CLIN series per contract year and the maximum number of hours that can be authorized for the Special Studies CLIN series per contract year.

• Organizational Conflict of Interest –

– AFFARS (Oct 2010) and ALT I, II, III, and VI

– Due to the nature of the anticipated contract effort, wherein the contractor will work directly with launch vehicle integrating contractors and other suppliers, OCI is a significant concern

• Enabling Clause

– SMC

– Included to allow for interface between the mission assurance provider and SMC’s

FFRDC, Aerospace Corporation

Special Terms and Conditions Con’t

• Associate Contractor Agreements

– AFFARS IG 5317.9500 (Jun 2006)

– Included to require agreements between the mission assurance service provider and RSLP launch vehicle providers.

• Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest

– FAR 52.203-16 (Dec 2011)

– Included to address personal conflicts of interest by contractor employees performing acquisition functions closely associated with inherently government functions

Cost/Price

• XBM Sustainment (FPIF) and IV&V Missions (CPIF/FPIF) –

– Pre-negotiated rates for the labor skill mix and categories proposed will be established/fixed for all 5 years of contract

– These labor rates are applicable to CPIF and FPIF requirements (CLIN(s)

0001-0005, CLIN Series 1000 and CLIN Series 2000)

– These labor rates may be different for each team

• Special Studies – FFP

– Fully burdened pre-negotiated wrap rates will be established/fixed for all 5 years of contract

– Fully burdened labor wrap rates are applicable only to special study requirements (CLIN Series 3000)

– These fully burdened labor wrap rates may be different for each team

• Funding Sources

– Air Force & Other Government Agencies

– RDT&E (3600)

– O&M (3400)

– Procurement (3020)

Cost/Price

– The Government intends to publish its budget available to pay for the five years of the XBM Sustainment Engineering CLIN and Option CLIN(s)

– Available budget must pay for both cost and fee

– Offerors are not to propose costs for Level A XBM Sustainment Engineering CLIN and Option CLIN(s) that exceed the budget available to the Government

Contract Oversight & Performance Evaluation Approach

WORK IN PROGRESS

Performance

Objective PWS Section Performance Threshold Method of

Surveillance Quality of

Product or Service: PWS deliverables are complete and accurate.

All No more than one (2) sets of corrections required for any CDRL provided for a given requirement.

Customer Complaint

Schedule: PWS deliverables are submitted on time

All No more than one (1) late deliverable per month. No deliverable late more than five (5) working days.

Periodic (COR to verify all deliverables on a monthly basis)

Business Relations:

Proactive in identifying problems and recommending implementable solutions.

All No more than one (1) validated formal customer complaints/contract discrepancy reports per year on each CLIN

Customer Complaint

Quality of Services

N/A Maximum of 1 major error (cost impact greater than $10,000) and Maximum of 3 minor errors (cost impact less than $10,000) per quarter

Quarterly tally of errors resulting in a cost impact to the Air Force

Mission Assurance Overview

• What: MA is an engineering-level assessment of analysis, production, verification, validation, operation, maintenance, and problem resolution processes performed over the lifecycle of a launch system (mission conception to space vehicle separation) by which an operator/user determines that there is an acceptable level of risk to employment of a system or end item to deliver an intended capability in an intended environment.

• Why: The objective of the assurance process is to identify and mitigate design, production, and test deficiencies that could impact mission success.

• How: MA is achieved through integrated developmental processes and/or independent technical assessment and requires expenditures commensurate with the criticality of the mission and the consequences of failure.

• MA Expectations Creep (Always “Up”)

• Rapidly Expanding Scope (OSP-3)

• Mission Assurance in the “Trade Space”

– Cat 1/2/3

• Multi-Payload Missions

– Rideshare, ESPA Rings, P-PODs

SD Mission Assurance Trends

• Sharing “mission space” with incumbent

– LSMA missions parallel with TASC MA missions

– LSMA XBMs used on TASC MA missions

• Sharing building space with incumbent

• XBM Sustainment Transition

MA Issues (things that worry me)

CLIN Structure – Possible Future #1

CLIN Requirement PoP 0001 XBM Sustainment Engineering Base Year – 12 Months 0002 XBM Sustainment Engineering Option I - 12 Months 0003 XBM Sustainment Engineering Option II - 12 Months 0004 XBM Sustainment Engineering Option III- 12 Months 0005 XBM Sustainment Engineering Option IV- 12 Months 1000 Series New System IV&V *Thru Mission Completion 2000 Series Existing System IV&V *Thru Mission Completion 3000 Series Special Studies *Thru Completion 0006 Transition 3 Months

0001 0002 0003 0004 0005 0006

Time

CLIN Structure – Possible Future #2

CLIN Requirement PoP 0001 XBM Sustainment Engineering Base Year – 12 Months 0002 XBM Sustainment Engineering Option I - 12 Months 0003 XBM Sustainment Engineering Option II - 12 Months 0004 XBM Sustainment Engineering Option III- 12 Months 0005 XBM Sustainment Engineering Option IV- 12 Months 1000 Series New System IV&V *Thru Mission Completion 2000 Series Existing System IV&V *Thru Mission Completion 3000 Series Special Studies *Thru Completion 0006 Transition 3 Months

0001 0006

Time

PWS

• Excess Ballistic Missile (XBM) Sustainment

– Storage Support

– Aging Surveillance – SoS and RoF

• New Launch Vehicle System IV&V

– SRP-3/4 New Developments & OSP-3 Preliminary Designs

• Launch of Existing System IV&V

– OSP-3, SRP-3/4 repeats

• Construct 2

– Reduced scope for motor-only missions

• Flight Motor Processing

– XBM-based missions

• GTM Processing

• Special Studies

– Primarily ICBM DemVal Support http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minotaur-1_1.jpg

XBM Sustainment Engineering

Technical support to program functions which keep the XBM motor fleet viable for flight missions, including surveillance of motor aging effects, analysis of customer mission requirements and associated risks, and motor modification and refurbishment analysis and process development to meet mission needs.

Design/ Implement

Test Program

Analyze Results for

Age Related Degradation

Update Useful Life Estimates

Identify Retrofit or

Refurbishment Requirements

Modify Program to

Reflect Findings

Operational A/S Program

(M55 & SR19 only)

3 Levels A: 2-3 Static Fires B: 4-5 Static Fires C: 6-7 Static Fires

• How is the data for sustainment on existing contracts going to be handed off for bidders and at contract transition?

• Resolution: A bidders library will be made available prior to the final RFP, containing the available data. The government seeks Industry input on required bidders library content.

Building the Future of Military Space 27

Q&A: Sustainment Data

Mission Assurance Overview (Cat 2)

FRR, LRR &

Launch

Rqmts and Acquisition

System Design And Development

Hardware/ Software Integration/Test

Readiness Rvws & Launch Campaign

Mission Assurance Kickoff Review

- Program Overview/Risks

- MA Lessons Learned

- ER Review

- MA Scope/Planning

- Informs MM for CDR

Mission Assurance Midterm Review

- Program Update

- Risk Update

- IV&V Status

- MA Data/Progress Issues

- Informs MM for PSRR

MA Final Review

- Pgm Overview

- IV&V Results by Discipline

- Mission Risk Assessment

- Informs Gov MRR/FRR

MA Msn Lead Discipline Leads In-Plant & On-site Verification Team

Mission Phases/Milestones

Award

SRR

3 4 5

TRR

6 7

PDR CDR Pedigree PSRR

IRR

MRR

1 10

24 Months Nominal

On-Range Oversight Tech Lead Provides MRA MA Senior Advises LVSM

3 Categories of Mission IV&V Cat 1 is less than this Cat 2 is the norm Cat 3 is more than this

• We’ve received multiple comments that boil down to an issue that the inconsistent structure between Cat 1, 2, and 3 in the PWS make it difficult to understand, organize, and price the work.

• Resolution: The next Draft RFP release will contain a PWS that uses identical structuring/topics across the 3 different Categories.

Building the Future of Military Space 29

Q&A: PWS IV&V Cat 1/2/3 Structure

“Construct 2”

Currently only used with MDA missions utilizing XBM motors

• Provide input into development of mission requirements and mission profile

• Support development of new designs using Government furnished motors

• Provide monthly engineering analysis and technical assessments of current XBM motor topics

• Provide technical content for briefings and reports

• Support design reviews and system engineering reviews presented by the LSC

• Provide the RSLP project manager with XBM technical advice

• Provide technical review of LSC engineering documents

• Support Integrated Product Teams (IPT) meetings

• Support Technical Interchange Meetings (TIM)

• Support SMC/CC review to approve certification of motors for flight use

• Evaluate SFWC compliance of XBM motors

• Develop RSLP Lessons Learned inputs

Flight Motor Refurbishment

XBM-specific Technical Definition of 309th MMXG Depot Work

• Provide engineering services, technical knowledge, and expertise to integrate XBM motors and equipment into the LV design.

• Attend motor processing Technical Interchange Meetings (TIM) and provide technical support to the government program manager.

• Provide input for developing CONOPs involving Government-owned property for transportation & handling, motor processing, and mission.

• Develop standard ops procedures, general motor type-specific baseline requirements, and mission-specific work requirements for motor refurb.

• Support a booster pathfinder when required

• Host a formal buyoff for processed motors or boosters

• Provide oversight of motor/booster processing at Hill Air Force Base

• Participate in launch site rehearsals and launch operations.

• Support the process of refurbishing flight motors (MM and/or PK).

• Assess the flight performance of XBM motors and document.

Special Studies

• Provide technical expertise to investigate anomaly resolutions, feasibility studies, configuration trades, contamination analyses, ground support equipment hardware upgrades, and general engineering analyses in support of ICBM DemVal and SDL launches.

CDRL A006 was improperly referenced, or contained wrong content, etc.

• Resolution: An incorrect CDRL A006 from a prior contract was included in the released Draft RFP. The next Draft RFP release will contain the correct CDRL A006 which corresponds to the PWS call-outs.

Building the Future of Military Space 33

Q&A: CDRL A006

CDRLs

A001 Management Plan DI-MGMT-80004A A002 Integrated Program Management Report DI-MGMT-81861 A003 Monthly Status Report DI-MGMT-80368 A004 Technical Report, Study/Services DI-MISC-80508B A005 Report, Record of Meeting/Minutes DI-ADMIN-81505 A006 Technical Report, Study/Services DI-MISC-80508B A007 Safety Assessment Report (SAR) DI-SAFT-80102 A008 Contract Funds Status Report DI-MGMT-81468

CDRLs

A004 Technical Report, Study/Services DI-MISC-80508B

1. PWS 3.1.13 / Test Quick Look Report

2. PWS 3.1.17 / Motor/Component Aging Data Trend Analysis

3. PWS 3.1.19 / MM/PK State of the Rocket Motor/Component Report

4. PWS 3.2.2.11 / Standard Operations Procedure

5. PWS 3.2.2.11 / Motor Baseline Requirements Document

6. PWS 3.2.2.11 / Mission Work Requirements Document

7. PWS 3.2.5.8 / Motor/Booster Buyoff Package

8. PWS 3.2.5.9 / Motor Flight Use Recommendation

9. PWS 3.2.6.5 / GTM Buyoff Package

10. PWS 3.2.6.8 / GTM Performance Assessment

This CDRL captures the Reports that require Approval .

A005 Report, Record of Meeting/Minutes DI-ADMIN-81505

1. 3.2.1.6 (Cat 1 LSC reviews)

2. 3.2.1.8 (TIMs)

3. 3.2.1.9 (LSC SE reviews)

4. 3.2.2.2 (Cat 2 LSC review entry/exit criteria)

5. 3.2.2.3 (Pedigree review)

6. 3.2.2.5 (LSC practices and procedures)

7. 3.2.2.9 (Launch site prep)

8. 3.2.2.12 (Developmental Testing)

9. 3.2.3.1 (Cat 3 Augmented LSC reviews)

10. 3.2.4.3 (Construct 2 LSC reviews)

11. 3.2.4.4 (Construct 2 IPTs)

12. 3.2.4.5 (Construct 2 TIMs)

13. 3.2.5.2 (Motor Processing TIMs)

14. 3.2.5.5 (Motor Integration)

15. 3.2.5.6 (Booster Pathfinder)

16. 3.2.6.2 (GTM TIMs)

A006 Technical Report, Study/Services DI-MISC-80508B

1. PWS 3.2.2.1 / Risk Assessment and Mission IV&V Certification

2. PWS 3.2.2.23.1 / MA Kickoff Review

3. PWS 3.2.2.23.2 / MA Midterm Review

4. PWS 3.2.2.23.3 / MA Final Review

5. PWS 3.2.3.2 / Augmented Independent Verification Report

6. PWS 3.2.3.3 / Augmented Independent Validation Report

7. PWS 3.2.3.4 / Augmented Flightworthiness Assessment

8. PWS 3.2.4.6 / SMC Motor Certification and Lessons Learned Review

9. PWS 3.4.4.1 / Transition Review

This CDRL captures the Reports that Do Not Require Approval .

RFP Structure

• The RFP contains:

• Sample Contract

• PWS and CDRLs

• Section L

– L101 & L102: Instructions on Proposals – Volumes, contents, page limits, due dates

– Appendix A: Sample Mission Information Documents

– Appendix B: Sample Special Study Requirements

– Appendix C: Past Performance Forms

– Appendix D: Pricing Tables

• Section M

– M101 – Rules of Engagement

– M102 – Evaluation Details

Section L - Relative to Contract CLINs

• All Sample Missions and Sample Special Study Requirements Documents will be used for evaluation purposes

– Conversion from “Sample” Mission may be completed; as such, the requirement will be included in the resultant award

• Sample Mission MIDs

– MID 2.1 – PAP MCS Demo

– MID 2.2 – Minotaur 6

– MID 2.3 - MRBM-T1

– MID 2.4 – MRBM-T2

– MID 3.1 – NASA Suborbital

– MID 3.2 – ORS-2

– MID 3.3 – AFSPC-X

– MID 3.4 – STP-3

– MID 3.5 – Navsat

– MID 3.6 – Navsat2

– MID 3.7 – eMRBM

– MID 3.8 – MRBM-T3

The MIDs evolve as the RFP review process and mission discussions progress:

The next Draft RFP will have several changes to this list – and the final may change again

Mission Information Document

• NOT a Requirements Document

– PWS Contains All Requirements

– MID only contains mission-specific

“information” needed to develop modification proposal:

• Mission Parameters

• Customer/Payload Provider

• Launch Service Provider (when known)

• Mission Schedule

• PWS IV&V Call-out (e.g. MA Cat, # Flight Motors, # of GTMs) the PWS call-outs in the MIDs did not match the CLIN call-outs.

• Resolution: The MIDS, CLINs, and Price Tables should all match, the team will cross-check all three for next RFP release.

Building the Future of Military Space 41

MIDs vs CLINs Q&A:

• The LV is not identified for STP-3. Since the LV type determines extent of mission assurance, will the LV be identified in the final RFP? This is especially critical to accomplish a Cat 2 priced option.

• Resolution 1: The requirement to price MA options (for all sample missions) will be deleted from the final RFP.

• Resolution 2: The assumption in this MID is that the STP-3 mission will be flown on an existing OSP-3 Lane 2 launch vehicle. The offeror should scope the FPIF MA effort within that assumption space.

Building the Future of Military Space 42

MID 3.4 Q&A:

Special Study Requirements Document

• IS a Requirements Document

– PWS does not contain SS Requirements

– SSRD should be self-contained and self-sufficient

• MAY reference the PWS for convenience

RFP Structure

• Sample Special Study Requirements Documents

– SSRD 4.1 - PAP MCS Sys Eng

– SSRD 4.2 – CSM Basing Study

The SSRDs evolve as the RFP review process and mission discussions progress:

The next Draft RFP may have changes to this list – and the final may change again

RFP Structure

• Section M – Evaluation Criteria

• Factor 1: Technical

• Subf1: Technical Approach

• XBM Sustainment Engineering

• New Launch System IV&V

• Existing Launch System IV&V

• Special Studies

• Subf2: Service Performance Management

• Management Approach

• Transition Plan

• Key Personnel

• Cost Control

• Factor 2: Past Performance

• Factor 3: Price/Cost

In a well-structured RFP there should be an evident correlation between the proposal structure directed by L and the evaluation structure described by

M.

Proposal Structure

Table 2.8 - Proposal Organization

VOLUME L102

Paragraph

VOLUME TITLE /

Section

PAGE LIMIT

Due ~X Days After

RFP Release

0 3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 45

I 4.0 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL - -

I 4.2.3 Tab 3a: Subfactor 1 – TA; XBM Sustainment Engineering 25 45

I 4.2.4 Tab 3b: Subfactor 1 – TA; New Launch System IV&V 15 per sample mission

I 4.2.5 Tab 3c: Subfactor 1 - TA; Existing Launch System IV&V 10 per sample mission

I 4.2.6 Tab 3d: Subfactor 1 - TA; Special Studies 5 per SS 45

I 4.2.7 Tab 4a: Subfactor 2 – SPM; Management Approach 8 45

I 4.2.8 Tab 4b: Subfactor 2 – SPM; Transition Plan 8 45

I 4.2.9 Tab 4c: Subfactor 2 – SPM; Key Personnel 30 10 45

I 4.2.10 Tab 4d: Subfactor 2 – SPM; Cost Control/Target Price Reduction Plan 10 45

I 4.2.11-

4.2.23 Tab 5: Technical Appendices Unlimited 45

Proposal Structure

Table 2.8 - Proposal Organization

VOLUME L102

Paragraph

VOLUME TITLE /

Section

PAGE LIMIT

Due ~X Days After

RFP Release

II 5.3 FACTOR 2:

PAST PERFORMANCE

8 for each contract up to 5 contracts. Not to exceed a total of 40 pages.

II 5.3 Past Performance for Partners

8 for each contract up to 2 contracts per partner. Not to exceed a total of 48 pages for all partners.

II 5.3.2 Organizational Structure Change History Unlimited 30 II 5.4 PPQ Tracking Record Unlimited 30

III 6.0 FACTOR 3:

PRICE Unlimited 45

IV 7.0 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION Unlimited 45

• How are relevancy and quality of PP for the offeror weighted/considered relative to the relevancy and quality of PP for our subcontractor? Is the PP Factor rating significantly more weighted/driven by the prime contractor’s performance record, vice the record of the subcontractor?

• Resolution: Because of the large range of potential teaming arrangements, it is difficult to give a precise answer as to how a specific combination of prime/subcontractor efforts will affect the overall PP assessment, but the primary influence of the teaming arrangement is in the relevancy determination.

• Section M 3.3 - “In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.”

• i.e. any two efforts nominated, which are determined equally relevant, would be “weighted” equally in terms of performance quality influence on the rating, whether performed by prime or subcontractor.

Building the Future of Military Space 48

Past Performance Q&A:

• The Technical Appendices generally fall into 1 of 3 categories, and are treated as evidence and artifacts of the offeror’s proposed approach which reduce proposal risk:

– Evaluation Reference Documents

• Correlation Matrix

– Potentially pre-existing internal references and samples

• CWBS, CWBS Dictionary, Sample Presentations/Reviews, DIACAP Cert/Plan, AS9100 Cert

– Information relevant to multiple criteria

• Schedule, BoE, MAC-proposed tailoring

• Do not abuse the appendices to evade the page count limit by including “new” proposal information in the appendices

– Example: Diagrams in the Cross Reference Matrix

LSMA Proposal Expectations Technical Volume Appendices

• We’ve received multiple comments that requested provision of samples of the Technical Appendix Sample Documents (e.g. Kickoff, Midterm, etc.).

• Resolution: The government is developing a Bidder’s Library that will contain relevant background information valuable to develop proposals. Each document evaluated will be “screened” to prevent “requirements contamination”, and in general the government will not provide incumbment-generated versions of Sample Reviews/Analyses requested as Technical Appendices. The government requests specific prospective offeror input on specific Bidders Library materials, and will vet such requests responsibly.

Building the Future of Military Space 50

LSMA Proposal Expectation Sample Documents Q&A:

• We’ve received multiple comments that the Proposal BoE requested in L 4.2.10 “Cost Control/Target Price Reduction Plan” will require significantly more that the 10 pages provided for this Tab if it needs to correlate to the CWBS, and recommended that the BoE be moved to a non-page-limited Technical Appendix.

• Resolution: The government concurs. The BoE will be separately identified as a non-page-count limited appendix in the next Draft RFP. Tab 4d will retain it’s 10 page limit.

Building the Future of Military Space 51

Basis of Estimate (BoE) Q&A:

• The CWBS and CWBS Dictionary are considered cornerstone documents for the proposals received. Offerors are encouraged to pay attention to the correlation between the CWBS and:

– The Government’s PWS

– Offerror chedules

– Offerror BoE

– Offeror Key Personnel Roles and Responsibilities

– CDRL A002 IPMR Planning

Building the Future of Military Space 52

CWBS

Source Selection

• DoD Source Selection Procedure

• AF FAR Supplement Mandatory Procedure 5315

• Full Trade-Off Best Value Competition

– Allows for selection other than lowest price or highest technical rating

Evaluation Criteria

• Factor 1: Technical

– Subfactor 1: Technical Approach

– Subfactor 2: Service Performance Management

• Factor 2: Past Performance

• Factor 3: Price/Cost LSMA Offeror

FACTOR 1

Technical

Subfactor 1 Tech

Approach

Technical/ Risk B P G Y R

Subfactor 2 Service

Performance Mgmt

Technical/ Risk

B P G Y R

FACTOR 2

Past Performance

Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or

Unknown Confidence

FACTOR 3

Price/Cost

$XXXM

Reasonable Yes/No

Realistic Yes/No Unbalanced Yes/No

Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation – Technical Subfactors

Comment Comment Comment Comment Comment

Assessment (Criterion)

1. Strength

2. Meets

3. Does Not Clearly Meet

4. Weakness

5. Significant Weakness

6. Deficiency

Note: This assessment type was missing in the brief presented.

Evaluation – Technical Subfactors

Assessment (Criterion)

Assessment (Criterion)

Assessment (Criterion)

Assessment (Criterion)

Assessment (Criterion)

Assessment (Criterion) Assessment

(Criterion)

Rating (Subfactor)

High Level Schedule

• Jul 12 – Mar 13: Acq Strategy Dev/Refinement

• 26 Mar 13: Draft RFP Release

• 15 Apr 13: Industry Day

• 29 May 13: RFP Release

• Jul – Aug 13: Initial Evaluations

• Sep 13: Discussions (if held)

• Oct 13: Final Proposal Revisions

• Dec 13: Final Decision Briefing

• Jan 14: Contract Award

Air Force Source Selection Process Proposal Evaluation

Release Clarification & Communication

ENs

Competitive Range

Notification

Evaluate Clarification & Communication

Responses Revise Evaluations

Prepare Initial Evaluation Results

& Competitive Range

Initial Evaluation Conduct Evaluations(Identify Strengths/Deficiencies/ Weaknesses); Consolidate Evaluations:

Prepare Evaluation Notices

Conduct Discussions Provide Offeror Initial Ratings , Release All Other ENs & Discuss Model Contract Issues

MIRT/

CDP4

Receive & Evaluate EN Responses

Continue Discussions As Necessary To Resolve

Issues & Model Contract

Revise Initial Evaluation & Revise Model

Contract

Prepare Pre-FPR Evaluation Results

Legal Review & FPR Business

Clearance

Provide Offeror FPR Ratings & Request FPR

Receive /Review FPR Revise Evaluation

Draft PAR

Prepare Final Evaluation

Briefing

MIRT/

CDP5

MIRT/

CDP3

Award W/O Discussion

No

SSA Approval To Release FPR

Pre-Final Official Source Selection Documentation Including PAR, Comp Analysis and

SSDD

Legal Review & Final

Contract Clearance

SSA

Decision

Brief

SSA

Initial

Evaluation Comp Range

Brief (ENs)

Color codes

SSA

SSEB

MIRT

Yes

Debriefs

• Each offeror must be provided the opportunity for a debriefing:

– Unsuccessful Offerors:

• Will be offered a debrief after Award, which will identify:

– The unsuccessful offeror’s evaluation (Assessments and Ratings)

– The successful offeror’s Ratings

• If not in the Competitive Range:

– Can request an immediate debrief of Competitive Range Determination instead

– Successful Offeror:

• Will be offered a debrief after Award, which will identify:

– The successful offeror’s evaluation (Assessments and Ratings)

Evaluation Notices

• Evaluation Notices (ENs) are the government’s communication to the offeror to identify proposal:

– Deficiencies (required)

– Weaknesses (optional)

– “New” adverse PPI

• 3 Flavors of ENs:

– Communication ENs - No response required

• New negative PPI

• Pre-discussion

– Clarification ENs - Response required; no proposal change

• “What does this mean?”

• Pre-discussion

– Discussion ENs – Response required; may change proposal

• “There’s a problem with your proposal, you may want to change something.”

Questions ??