RSLP_MA_Industry_Day_Final.pptx

Rocket Systems Launch Program Mission Assurance (RSLP MA) Industry Day

INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS BRIEF IS TENTATIVE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE

Launch Enterprise Systems Directorate

Building the Future of Military Space

Agenda Tuesday, 18 Sep 2018 (City Place Room 604) 0900 – 0930 Small Launch & Targets Division Briefing 0930 – 1030 RSLP MA Briefing Contract Overview Overview, Trends, Challenges Proposal Expectations and Source Selection Process 1030 – 1100 Q&A Session 1100 – 1200 Lunch 1200 – 1600 Scheduled One-on-One Sessions

LAUNCH ENTERPRISE DIRECTORATE

Questions Questions may be asked in the open Q&A or during one-on-one sessions Discussion notes for one-on-one sessions will be recorded

Later questions must be submitted in writing Send to PCO via e-mail at any time prior to Final RFP release, est Q3 FY19 alicia.cawley@us.af.mil or julia.lagace@us.af.mil

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

Sources of questions will not be disclosed

Delta IV Atlas V Falcon 9 Delta IV Heavy Falcon Heavy

Launch is Key to Space Warfighting Operations

EELV – Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle RSLP – Rocket Systems Launch Program Space Vehicle Full EELV Secondary Payload Adapter

72 successful launches;

>$50B in capability successfully placed on-orbit Tailored mission assurance enabling Assured Access To Sace for future architectures

Air Force launches the most critical National Security Space (NSS) satellites:

Nation’s eyes and ears Secure communications Position, Navigation & Timing Space warfighting capability

Targets Minotaur IV Minotaur I

700+ successful small launches

Responsive Access to Space Launch Enterprise Systems Directorate

SMC/LE Organization

Sr. Aerospace Leads Mr. Randolph Kendall Dr. Mark Brosmer Mr. Akhil Gujral Capt Kyle Rowland Executive Officer Ms. June Moore Administrative Assistant Functionals Products Col Robert Bongiovi Director, Launch Enterprise

(SMC/LE)

Mr. Kevin Hobbs Contracting

(SMC/LEK)

Mr. Michael Sanjume Acquisitions

(SMC/LEA)

Mr. Edward Porr Management Operations

(SMC/LEO)

Col Jon Strizzi Engineering

(SMC/LEE)

Mr. Michael Dolan Executive Director

(SMC/LE)

Col Timothy Cole Mission Procurement

(SMC/LEM)

Col Shane Clark Atlas & Delta

(SMC/LEG)

Col Michelle Idle (outbound) Replacement Pending IMA to the Director

(SMC/LE)

Lt Col Ryan Rose Small Launch & Targets

(SMC/LEX)

Dr. Walter Lauderdale Falcon

(SMC/LEF)

Mr. Chinson Yew Program Control

(SMC/LEP)

Col Douglas Pentecost Deputy Director

(SMC/LE)

SMC/LEX Organization Division Chief, Program Manager Lt Col Ryan A. Rose

Deputy Division Chief Mr. Thomas Freeman

Logistics Branch Mr. Jose Rivera Motor Storage Inventory Configuration Mgmt Sustainment Tech Orders Aging Surveillance Motor Processing Transportation & Handling Field Operations Motor Demil/Disposal Operating Location Hill AFB Engineering Section Mr. Randy Riddle Systems Engineering Systems Safety Future Mission Dev Special Missions/Studies Policies and Procedures Training Development Launch Operations Branch Mr. Robert Douglass Mission Mgmt Range Rqmts Mission Assurance Financial Mgmt Payload Integration Launch/Field Ops Flight Readiness Rvws Information Assurance GFE Prod Assurance Manifest Mgmt Environmental Asmt Acquisitions Branch Lt Col Michael Klietz Project Management Acquisition Strategy Dev Source Selections Lessons Learned Risk Management SMC/LEX Contracting Support provided by SMC/ADK

Small Launch and Targets Division Mission SMC/LEX – 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

Maintain active control and management of all Air Force deactivated ICBM motors

LEX 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 Mission Assurance Services

Risk Mgmt Lessons Learned Fixed Mil/Civ PM, Eng, Financial Mgmt, and Contract Mgmt METIS Program A&AS SAFS Program A&AS Funded Program Reimbursable Program Aerospace Corp FFRDC

RSLP MA Contract

Contracting POC(s)

Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) Ms. Alicia Cawley Phone: (505) 846-3640 email: alicia.cawley@us.af.mil

Contract Specialist Ms. Julia Lagace Phone: (505) 846-9438 email: julia.lagace@us.af.mil

Notional Project Schedule Q2 FY19: Draft RFP Release

Q3 FY19: RFP Release

Q1 FY20: Contract Award

Notional Contract Basics Performance-Based Service Acquisition

Single-Award Indefinite Deliver/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Service Contract Proposed Task Order (TO) types:

IV&V of missions MA training of new entrants XBM sustainment support Studies

Period of performance TBD

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

Notional MA Requirements Excess Ballistic Missile (XBM) Sustainment Storage Support Support for Aging Surveillance (AS)

New Launch Vehicle System IV&V SRP New Developments & OSP Preliminary Designs

Launch of Existing System IV&V

OSP, SRP

MA Training

Studies

MA Expectations Creep (Always “Up”)

Rapidly Expanding Scope (OSP, SRP)

Mission Assurance in the “Trade Space” Category 1,2,&3, Construct 2 Expect increased operational vs. experimental missions

Multi-Payload Missions Rideshare, ESPA Rings, P-PODs

Less XBM-based, more smaller commercial LVs New solutions (liquid-fueled, air-launched, etc) LEX Mission Assurance Trends

Sharing “mission space” with incumbent RSLP MA missions parallel with LSMA missions RSLP MA XBMs used on LSMA missions

Ability to support a surge in missions from one year to the next

Help support new launch entrants in learning government MA process MA Challenges

XBM Sustainment Engineering

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)

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 launch-site activities Develop standard ops procedures, general motor type-specific baseline requirements, and mission-specific work requirements for motor refurbishment 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 and document the flight performance of XBM motors

Launch Provider MA Category 1 Satisfies Launch Provider PWS Requirements; FAA Licensed Launch Government Insight Program Management Tasks Planning/Scheduling/Critical Path Risk Management System Engineering Tasks Requirements Allocation/Verification Developmental Test Plan/Execute Acceptance Test Plan/Execute Functional Test Plan/Execute Pathfinders/Fit Checks Major Review Prep/Closure Pedigree Review

MA scope limited; most CDRLs submittal only (limited approvals)

Launch Provider MA Category 2 Basic PWS + Cat 2 Scope = SMC Certification Cat 2 Program Management Tasks Cat 2 System Engineering Tasks Invoke Approval CDRLs Red Team Review of Major Review Entry Criteria Space Flight Worthiness Criteria Certification Cat 2 Mission Assurance Tasks MA Contractor Data Access and Procedural Oversight SMC IRRs (w/ pre-briefs) SMC MRR Support (w/ pre-briefs) SMC FRR Support (w/ pre-briefs) SMC IRRT support (via COR) SMC PFR (w/ pre-briefs)

Greater scope; approval CDRLs enabled

Category 2 MA Baseline Overview 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

TRR

PDR

CDR

Pedigree

PSRR

IRR

MRR

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

Launch Provider MA Category 3 Basic PWS + Cat 2 Scope + Cat 3 Scope = SMC Certification Cat 3 Tasks Weekly TIMS, Monthly PMRs, Comprehensive Final Review/Space Vehicle Customer Direct IRRT and/or Customer MA Interface Additional Space Vehicle Interface Reviews Added Space Vehicle COR Functions/Interface

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

MA Training and 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 XBM work and LEX launches

Provide training to launch contractors as needed to ensure their MA responsibilities are understood OSP & SRP new entrants Training reduces new entrant learning curve

Notional RFP Structure The RFP will contain:

Model Contract

PWS and CDRLs

Section L Instructions on Proposals – Volumes, contents, page limits, due dates

Section M Evaluation Criteria

Sample Missions Anticipated Section L will include Sample Missions and Sample Study Requirements Documents for evaluation purposes Sample missions may include:

Minotaur 6 Firefly Alpha

MRBM

Suborbital launch AFSPC launch

STP

Electron LauncherOne

Sample missions may be awarded as real missions; the requirement will be included in the resultant contract award

The CWBS and CWBS Dictionary are considered cornerstone documents for the proposals received. These artifacts take the place of most information that is typically found in the main Technical Volume of a proposal by defining in a structured manner what the offeror intends to do to meet the PWS requirements. Offerors are encouraged to pay attention to the correlation between the CWBS and:

The Government’s PWS Offeror schedules Offeror BoEs Proposal Expectation

CWBS

… correlation between the CWBS and:

The Government’s PWS The offeror’s CWBS must demonstrate offeror’s knowledge of the effort required at least one level “deeper” than the PWS.

Example: PWS 1.8.3.6.2.5 Acceptance Testing: Once the design has been qualified, acceptance testing may commence. The LSC shall not ship major hardware to the Range for field processing until acceptance testing has been successfully completed, test documentation has been verified and the as-built verification of all hardware and software has been completed.

The Government’s PWS Example continued: PWS 1.8.3.6.2.5 Correlation Matrix says:

PWS 1.8.3.6.2.5=CWBS 2.4.2 Acceptance Testing CWBS Dictionary:

2.4.2 Acceptance Testing: Once the design has been qualified, acceptance testing may commence. The LSC shall not ship major hardware to the Range for field processing until acceptance testing has been successfully completed, test documentation has been verified and the as-built verification of all hardware and software has been completed.

The Government’s PWS Example continued: PWS 1.8.3.6.2.5 Correlation Matrix says:

PWS 1.8.3.6.2.5=CWBS 2.4.2 Acceptance Testing CWBS Dictionary:

2.4.2 Acceptance Testing

2.4.2.1 Confirm Test/Flight Article Configuration: [Definition]

2.4.2.2 Confirm Test/Flight Article Environments: [Definition]

2.4.2.3 Draft Acceptance Test Plan: [Definition]

2.4.2.4 Acceptance Test Plan Review/Approval: [Definition]

2.4.2.5 Procure Test House Services: [Definition]

2.4.2.6 Ship Hardware to Test House: [Definition]

2.4.2.7 Receive Hardware and Test Data Post-Test:[Definition]

2.4.2.8 Complete/Deliver Test Report [Definition]

2.4.2.9 Update Pedigree Data [Definition]

P

Offeror schedules

2.4.2 Acceptance Testing

CWBS

Offeror schedules

Offeror BoE A full BoE includes:

1) Offeror’s estimated hours for the effort

2) Some detail on allocation of hours by skill mix

3) The basis of the estimated hours, such as:

3a) A source estimate 3b) Analytical comparison of source effort to proposed effort 3c) Derivation of estimate for proposed effort Example: 2.4.2 Acceptance Testing “Carol’s Rocket Company has conducted over 5,000 acceptance tests for 22 previous missions. Our estimate for this rocket is 872 hours based on this experience base. Half of the effort is performed by an Engineer 2 and the other half is performed by an Engineer 5.”

Offeror BoE Example continued: 2.4.2 Acceptance Testing

2.4.2.1 Confirm Test/Flight Article Configuration

“Carol’s Rocket Company has conducted over 5,000 acceptance tests for 22 previous missions. Our estimate to confirm flight article configuration is 8 hours per component, multiplied by our estimated 42 components for this rocket. 25% of the effort is performed by an Engineer 2 to compile the design data and hardware build record, and 75% is performed by an Engineer 5 to develop the comparison.”

2.4.2.2 2.4.2.2 Confirm Test/Flight Article Environments “Carol’s Rocket Company has conducted over 5,000 acceptance tests for 22 previous missions. Our estimate to confirm flight article environments is 16 hours per component, multiplied by our estimated 42 components for this rocket. 27% of the effort is performed by an Engineer 3 to evaluate the environments analysis and 73% is performed by an Engineer 5 to compare the analysis to the test plan.”

2.4.2.3 etc….

Offeror BoE Example continued: 2.4.2 Acceptance Testing “Carol’s Rocket Company conducted 34 acceptance tests for the Medium Air Launched Target, a rocket with similar design requirements to the proposed launch vehicle design. The acceptance testing for MALT required a total of 800 hours. Since the proposed system has a more complex attitude control requirement than MALT, we estimate approximately 10% more acceptance tests will be required, for a total of 880 hours proposed. For MALT, these hours were approximately equally distributed between Engineer 2, Engineer 3, and Engineer 5, so we have applied a similar allocation to the proposed effort.

Proposal Expectation

Bottom Line: The government expects the offeror’s CWBS Dictionary to define what (tasks) they’ll be doing to meet the PWS requirements; for the mission schedules to demonstrate appropriate sequencing, iterations, and durations when those tasks will be performed; and for the BoE to provide an experience-based estimate of how much and what kind of resources those tasks require.

Result: The offeror who meets these expectations will be evaluated as fully knowledgeable of the effort required to meet the PWS requirements to meet the mission schedule with realistic cost estimates.

Source Selection DoD Source Selection Procedure

AF FAR Supplement Mandatory Procedure 5315

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; Consolidate Evaluations; Prepare Evaluation Notices Conduct Discussions Provide Offeror Initial Ratings, Release All Other ENs & Discuss Model Contract Issues 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 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

Yes

Questions ??

Agenda Tuesday, 18 Sep 2018 (City Place Room 604) 0900 – 0930 Small Launch & Targets Division Briefing 0930 – 1030 RSLP MA Briefing Contract Overview Overview, Trends, Issues PWS Requirements RFP Structure Proposal Expectations and Source Selection Process 1030 – 1100 Q&A Session 1100 – 1200 Lunch 1200 – 1600 Scheduled One-on-One Sessions

Wednesday, 19 Sep 2018 (City Place Room 604) Scheduled One-on-One Sessions

Acronym List MRA – Mission Readiness Assessment MRR – Mission Readiness Review NASA – National Aeronautics and Space Administration OSP – Orbital Suborbital program P-POD – Poly Picosat Orbital Deployer PAR – Program Assessment Report PCO – Procuring Contract Officer PDR – Preliminary Design Review PFR – Post-flight Review PK – Peacekeeper PSRR – Pre-ship Readiness Review PMR – Program Management Review PWS – Performance Work Statement RFP – Request For Proposals RSLP – Rocket Systems Launch Program SAFS – SMC Acquisition and Financial Support SFWC – Space Flight Worthiness Criteria SRP – Small/Suborbital Rocket Program SRR – System Requirements Review SSA – Source Selection Authority SSDD – Source Selection Decision Document SSEB – Source Selection Evaluation Board TIM – Technical Interchange Meeting TRR – Test Readiness Review XBM – Excess Ballistic Missile ALC – Air Logistics Complex BOE – Basis of Estimate CDR – Critical Design Review CDRL – Contract Data Requirement List CONOPS – Concept of Operations COR – Contracting Officer Representative CWBS – Contractor Work Breakdown Structure EN – Evaluation Notice ER – Emergency Response ESPA – EELV Secondary Payload Adapter FAR – Federal Acquisition Regulation FRR – Flight Readiness Review FPR – Final Proposal Revision ICBM – Intercontinental Ballistic Missile IRR – Incremental Readiness Review IRRT - Independent Readiness Review Team IV&V – Independent Verification & Validation LSC – Launch Service Contractor LSMA – Launch Services Mission Assurance contract LRR – Launch Readiness Review LVSM – Launch Vehicle Single Manager MDA – Missile Defense Agency METIS – Management Operation, Enterprise architecting, Test & Validation, Integration and Systems Engineering MM – Minuteman

Backup Slides image1.png image9.png image10.png image11.png image12.jpeg image2.jpeg image3.jpg image4.jpeg image5.png image6.jpeg image7.png image8.jpeg image13.png image14.png image15.png image16.jpeg image17.jpeg image18.png image19.jpeg image20.jpeg image21.jpeg image22.emf