141120_ORS-5_Launch_Services_BFI_V4.pdf

ORS-5 Launch Services Acquisition Briefing For Industry

20 November 2014

Mr. Dale Shell

ORS-5 Launch Services Acquisition Lead

Dale.Shell.3@us.af.mil

505-846-6647

Ms. Lisa Berenberg

Aerospace Corporation

Lisa.Berenberg.ctr@us.af.mil

505-853-7799

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited mailto:Dale.Shell.3@us.af.mil

ORS-5 Anticipated Dates

Unclassified Cleared for Public Release

• ORS-5 Overview

• ORS-5 Objectives

• ORS-5 Risk Classification

• Mission Schedule

• Spacecraft Layout

• Ground Architecture

ORS-5 Mission Overview

• ORS to develop/launch SSA GEO operational demo in response to a USSTRATCOM Urgent Need

– 1-satellite operational demo

• Transition developed technology from ORS to SBSS FO

• The Program is being executed by a joint ORS and SMC/SY program office

• The ORS-5 Mission is classified as a Class C Mission

ORS-5 Overview

• Provide “good enough” solution to JFC SSA need

– Meet USSTRATCOM validated ORS-5 Capability Requirements Document (CRD)

• GEO SSA requirements: Sensitivity, Coverage, Detect/Track/ID, and Object Custody

– Need date: FY17

– Meet cost constraints w/ reasonable schedule & performance trades

• $20M allocated to the Launch Services

• Provide risk reduction to SBSS Follow-On

• Develop ORS enablers and demonstrate ORS principles

ORS-5 Objectives

• The AFSPC/CC has made the following determination on the risk of the ORS-5 Mission

• “The launch vehicle will be classified as a Category 2 vehicle as defined in the New Entrant Classification Guide. This vehicle is categorized as “Medium Risk” and suitable for Class B or C payloads. The launch vehicle may be classified as Alternative 1, 2, or 3 (of Category 2) by the AFPEO/SP in the source selection depending on the range of commercial providers available to meet the mission.”

• “The intent of the ORS-5 mission to be an Operational Demonstration classifies the SV as Class B as defined in NASA Procedural Requirements 8705.4 . . . However, cost constraints on the ORS-5 program do not allow for the system complexity or mission duration needed to meet Class B standards.

Therefore, the ORS Office proposes doing a Class C space vehicle…”

ORS-5 Risk Classification

ORS-5 Mission Is Class C

ORS-5 Risk Classification

ORS-5 Mission Schedule

SV SRR 15 July 14

Mission Baseline 1 Aug 14

SV PDR 2QFY15

SV CDR 4QFY15

SV I&T Start 2QFY16

SV PSR 2QFY17

ILC 3QFY17

Candidate Spacecraft Layout

• Pre-PDR Design

• Early focus on volume and packaging

• Biased towards rapid schedule and low-risk approaches

• Structural design and refinement in progress for PDR and CDR

Cover

Radiator

Sensor

Sun Side Earth Side

Baffle

Antennae

• Solicitation

• Exhibit A – CDRLs

• Attachment 1 – Performance Work Statement

• Attachment 2 – Technical Requirements Document

• Attachment 3 – Milestone Deliverable Descriptions and Requirements

• Attachment 4 – Price Adjustment for GFP and Services

– These are in review for potential updates

• Attachment 5 – Small Business Plan

• Attachment 6 – DD254

• Attachment 7 – Instruction to Offerors

• Attachment 8 – Evaluation Criteria

Draft RFP Outline

• A001 – Meeting/Review Documentation

• A002 – Countdown Documentation

• A003 – SV to LV Interface Control Document

• A004 – ICD Requirements Verification Report

• A005 – Final Flight Report

• A006 – SV - LV Integration Procedures

• A007 – Technical Report – Launch Vehicle and GSE Telemetry Formats TO BE DELETED

• A008 – Integrated Master Schedule

CDRLs

• Purpose is to define the scope of work

– Document has 9 sections

1. Scope and Objectives

2. Planning

3. Launch Vehicle Analysis, Design

4. Development and Production

5. Integration

• Note the specific requirement for a fit check

6. Launch Operations

7. Payload Processing

• LSC is required to provide SV facilities at integration location

8. Safety, Quality and Security

9. Launch Delays

• ORS is soliciting feedback on this section

Performance Work Statement

• 120 Kg SV mass, includes MLB Mark II

• Altitude requirement is that the apogee and perigee need to both be between 600 km and 700 km

– Targeting strategy is left to the LSC

• Draft TRD requirement is stated as 2° with an accuracy of +/-0.2°

– The ORS Office would like 0° inclination

– ORS is looking for technical and cost impacts for inclination requirements between 0° - 2°

• Environments – ORS is looking for feedback on technical and cost impacts of meeting the defined requirements

Technical Requirements Document

• Qualification Testing Milestone will not be required

• SRR, PDR and CDR are for Mission Unique and First Flight Items only

• Design Certification Review

– Should consist of 2 parts:

• Detailed data presentation of the qualification artifacts

• Executive summary presentation

– ORS will utilize an Independent Review Team to accomplish this DCR

– The results of the DCR will be used as the basis for the Launch Risk Assessment presented to the SMC/CC

Milestone Deliverable Descriptions and Requirements

• Multiple Proposals are allowed, but must be delivered as separate proposals

• The Government reserves the right to award without discussions

• No Past Performance will be evaluated

Instructions to Offerors

• Lowest Price Technically Acceptable

• Currently conflicting requirements for either 1 or 3 launch(es) prior to proposal submittal

– This is still under evaluation by SMC/CC and he will consider industry comments via the contracting officer

• Past Performance will not be evaluated

• The government will award one contract

• The government intends to award without discussion

• Technical proposal will be evaluated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning a rating to each subfactor

– Any unacceptable rating will render the entire proposal unawardable

Evaluation Criteria

1. With what confidence can the stated orbit inclination be achieved?

2. Can the acceptable error tolerance (up to 2 degrees) be tightened without significant impact to your planned technical solution? If so, what alternate error tolerance can you withstand?

3. What is you perspective on the Launch Delay section of the PWS?

4. What is your feasibility of meeting the $20M price for this launch service?

5. Do you understand the definition of a “new subsystem” as defined in the RFP?

6. General comments/concerns on any programmatic or technical requirements as stated in the PWS and

TRD, respectively.

7. ORS is considering requiring a Preliminary CLA at

ATP+60 days. Would that be achievable?

Specific Questions

• Ideally, the ORS-5 SV would be inserted into a 0°orbit.

• The SV may be able to meet requirements up to 2° inc.

• ORSO would like industry to quantify the cost impact (if any) to the lower inclination req’t.