ASLON-45_Final_Combined_Synopsis-Solicitation_Rev_1_(2May19).pdf

Combined Synopsis/Solicitation Revision 1, 02 May 2019

Department of the Air Force Advanced Systems and Development Directorate (SMC/AD)

Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico

Requirement Title:

Solicitation#: FA8818-18-R-0011

Solicitation Issue Date: Tuesday, 23 April 2019

Response Deadline: Thursday, 23 May 2019 no later than 1630 hours Mountain Daylight Time (MDT)

Point(s) of Contact: Ms. Alicia Cawley / alicia.cawley@us.af.mil / 505-846-3640

Ms. Julia Lagace / julia.lagace@us.af.mil / 505-846-9438

1. This is a combined synopsis/solicitation (combo) for commercial items utilizing FAR Subpart 13.5. This combo has been prepared in accordance with the format in Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation.

2. This solicitation is being issued as a Request for Proposal (RFP).

3. This solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through:

Federal Acquisition Circular 2019-01 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Public

20181227

Air Force Federal Acquisition Circular 20180711

4. In accordance with FAR 19.502-2, this acquisition is a total small business set-aside. The North American Industry Size Classification System (NAICS) code associated with this requirement is 481212, size standard 1,500 employees applies for this proposed acquisition.

Description:

The Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) anticipates award of a Small Rocket Program–Orbital (SPR-O) contract to provide orbital launch services in support of the ASLON-45 mission requirements. The primary purpose of this acquisition is to provide orbital launch services for delivering payloads in support of the SMC, Launch Enterprise (LE), Small Launch and Target Division (LEX) Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP). Launch service requirements are defined in Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS), which includes the Mission Requirements Document

(MRD).

Acquisition Agility is an Air Force Strategic Master Plan (SMP) focus area and SRP-O and ASLON-45 are a direct result of an Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) tasking on the prospect of an agile small launch. The ASLON-45 Space Vehicle (SV) manifest, detailed in the MRD requires a dedicated launch service; all payload capacity will be reserved for Government use. The Launch Service Contractor (LSC) will provide all required dispensers and perform all required payload integration and launch operations. The ASLON-45 is a Mission Assurance (MA) Category 1 launch service, Firm-Fixed Price, SRP-O contract.

Bidder’s Library documents for this solicitation will be available from the PCO upon email request. Documents will be released via Compact Disc (CD) to potential bidders on file with the PCO. See FBO posting for instructions.

Attachments:

Attachment 1 – Provisions and Clauses Attachment 2 – PWS & MRD, dated 12 April 2019 Attachment 3 – Offer Sheet – Offeror to complete and return by response deadline Attachment 4 – CDRLs

General Information

Requirement

Agile Small Launch Operational Normalizer (ASLON)-45 mailto:kim.baker.3.gb@us.af.mil

CLIN Description Qty Total Cost

FFP

Mission Design, Integration, and Launch Service

1 $

FFP

Data and Reports

Lot NSP

FAR provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (Jan 2017), applies to this acquisition. As prescribed in FAR 12.301(b)(1), the following addendum is provided for this solicitation and hereby amends any language therein:

A. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of the proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including:

1. Terms and conditions

2. Representations and certifications

3. Technical requirements

Per FAR 9.103, the contracting officer must make an affirmative determination of the offeror’s responsibility to make an award. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

Notice to Offeror(s): The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an offeror for any costs.

The Government’s terms, conditions, and respective clauses contained within this solicitation are prescribed in accordance with United States Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and are not subject to conditionally proposed revisions or changes requested by offerors.

Offerors’ specific terms and conditions that may be contingently proposed for subsequent inclusion into the contract, if awarded, will not be considered by the Government in its evaluation of proposals. Additionally, the PCO must ensure that before a non-Government advisor is given access to proprietary information, that the Government has received the consent of the offeror to provide access to the contractor who is to assist in the evaluation. Therefore, the offeror shall expressly state (in Attachment 2 – Offer Sheet) whether or not it consents to the release of its proposal information to The Aerospace Corporation, a Federally Funded Research & Development Center (FFRDC) who will be acting as non-Government advisors during the evaluation. Offerors that are not able to comply with the aforementioned conditions, may be determined as noncompliant with the solicitation requirements, and therefore could be removed from consideration for award.

B. The proposal shall consist of two (2) separate volumes;

Volume I - Technical Volume II - Price

C. Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in provisions and in the on-line Representations and Certifications at www.sam.gov.

Return the provision FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items along with the proposal. For other provisions and clauses in the solicitation, the offeror is required to submit the pages that require an offeror fill-in.

D. Proposal Submission Instructions:

1. Volume II shall be submitted as Attachment 2 – Offer Sheet to Ms. Alicia Cawley and Ms. Julia Lagace by the response deadline. It is the offeror’s responsibility to confirm receipt of the proposal from the Government prior to the submittal due date and time. The offeror will then be contacted within seven days of no later than fourteen (14) days after the response deadline to schedule Volume I, which will be presented in the form of an oral/visual presentation to the Government. Instructions for the oral presentations are provided in Paragraph 1.0 General Instructions.

2. Offerors shall also return Attachment 1 – Provisions and Clauses providing applicable information in the fill-ins. This includes the offeror representations and certifications.

Instructions to Offerors

3. All offers shall contain sufficient detail for effective evaluation as detailed in Addendum 52.212-2 of this solicitation.

4. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f) ―Late submission, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of offers.

The submittal due date for proposals is 23 May 2019, by 1630 hours Mountain Daylight Time (MDT).

E. Format for proposal Volumes I & II shall be as follows:

VOL TITLE Format I TECHNICAL Oral/Visual Presentation II PRICE Submit Attachment 2 – Offer Sheet

F. Further changes to the original FAR clause 52.212-1.

1. Paragraph 52.212-1(c), Period for Acceptance of offers is tailored as follows: The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 120 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.

2. Paragraphs 52.212-1(d), 52.212-1(e), 52.212-1(h) and 52.212-1(i) do not apply to this acquisition.

G. Specific Instructions:

VOLUME I – TECHNICAL PRESENTATION

1.0 General Instructions

1.1 Proposal Format – The offeror’s proposal shall consist of an oral and visual presentation. The offeror SHALL NOT provide any hard copies for the Government, except for Attachment 2 – Offer Sheet. Offeror will orally present any and all visual products. All information provided according to RFP instructions is subject to evaluation as described in the Evaluation Criteria section.

1.2 Oral and Visual Presentation Guidelines

1. Offerors will be contacted no later than 14 days from proposal due date to schedule oral presentations which will be no later than 21 calendar days from date of contact

a. Presentations will begin at 9:00AM on the scheduled date

2. The presentation and Q&A session will be videotaped by the government in their entirety

3. The scheduled events of the presentation day are as follows:

a. 8:15am – 9:00am: Offerors arrival, introduction, orientation, and set-up

b. 9:00am – 12:00pm: Offerors Presentation

c. 12:00pm – 1:00pm: Government Caucus/Lunch

d. 1:00pm-2:00pm: Q&A with offeror (if needed)

i. Acceptable timeline modifications see section #5

4. Presentation Content. Presentations will only be evaluated based off of content, not presentation skill level. Offeror will orally present any and all visual products. The following minimum content should be provided to ensure the government receives sufficient information to assess the Technical Capability and Technical Risk of the proposed launch solution. The Solicitation Correlation Matrix on page 7 delineates technical capability/technical risk criteria.

a. Basic design of the proposed launch solution (dimensions, type of propulsion, materials).

b. Maturity assessment of propulsion system (degree of design, build, and test effort completed).

c. Maturity assessment of avionics and guidance/navigation/control systems.

d. Maturity assessment of structures.

e. Maturity assessment of any ordnance or pneumatic systems.

f. Maturity assessment of mission software.

g. Milestone dates for completing development of incomplete subsystems.

h. Identification of any mission-specific modifications to basic design (e.g. payload dispensers).

i. Description of payload dispenser(s), including mass and volume accommodations.

j. Performance analysis to demonstrate launch solution performance to proposed orbit.

k. Readiness assessment of fabrication/manufacturing/test facilities.

l. Supply chain assessment for launch subsystem/component vendors.

m. Launch site and/or launch platform basic design.

n. Status of launch site and/or launch platform fabrication.

o. Identification of Ground Support Equipment required for launch execution.

p. Status of Ground Support Equipment fabrication.

q. Facilities required for launch, including payload processing/integration/encapsulation.

r. Status of facility fabrication and installations.

s. Status of FAA license process.

t. Status of integration/launch site environmental approvals.

u. Status of flight safety design approvals.

v. Description of flightworthiness approach (e.g. qualification and acceptance test policy).

w. Outline of launch campaign sequence of events for the proposed launch solution.

x. Outline of transportation modes planned to the integration and launch site(s).

y. Planned dates for PWS- and MRD-designated reviews and milestone events.

z. Planned methods for ensuring orbital debris compliance.

5. The oral presentations shall consist of a 3 hour block for the offerors presentation, followed by a 60 minute Government Caucus/Lunch, then a Q&A (if needed) with the offeror not to exceed 1 hour

a. Offerors will not be penalized for not using the full 3 hour block of presentation time

b. If full 3 hour block is not used for presentation, once the presentation is complete the 60 minute

Government Caucus/Lunch will begin

6. During the Q&A period any questions asked by the Government will be questions approved by the PCO

7. At the end of the Q&A period the PCO will read a standardized script instructing the offeror on the next steps of the evaluation team’s process.

8. The presentation will take place in Albuquerque, NM – specific address will be communicated when contacted

a. Electronic items that will be available for use by the offeror are as follows:

i. Projector with VGA, HDMI and display port connections (all connections do support Audio)

ii. Access to a computer to utilize a CD/DVD drive to present

iii. Power outlets available (110-volt)

VOLUME II – PRICE

1. Complete the Offer Sheet attached to this RFP (Attachment 2). In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation, with attachments. Additionally, the PCO must ensure that before a non-Government advisor is given access to proprietary information, that the Government has received the consent of the offeror to provide access to the contractor who is to assist in the evaluation. Therefore, the offeror shall expressly provide its consent (in Attachment 2 – Offer Sheet) to the release of its proposal information to The Aerospace Corporation, a Federally Funded Research & Development Center (FFRDC), who will be acting as non-Government advisors during the evaluation. Please contact the PCO prior to receipt of proposals with any questions regarding The Aerospace Corporation’s participation, or if there is an issue with providing consent. Please understand that failing to provide consent may affect offerors’ ability to propose for this effort.

2. Firm Fixed Priced Proposals: In accordance with FAR 12.207 the resultant contract will be Firm Fixed Priced. Accordingly, proposed pricing by offerors shall be firm-fixed, and not subject to revision and/or negotiation if selected for contract award.

Ensure that unit prices are rounded to the nearest dollar.

3. Proposals shall remain valid for 120-days after the closing date of this solicitation.

FAR Provision 52.212-2, Evaluation -- Commercial Items (Oct 2014), applies to this acquisition. As prescribed in FAR 12.301(c), the following addendum is provided for this solicitation and herebv amends any language therein:

Evaluation Criteria

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: The evaluation will be conducted using the Trade-off Process described in FAR 15.101-1 and the associated DFARS and AFFARS parts. There are two factors to the award decision: Technical and Price. The Technical Factor will be significantly more important than the Price Factor. Under the Technical Factor, each proposal will receive ratings for Technical Capability and Technical Risk. The Technical Capability rating will be either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Only proposals determined Acceptable for Technical Capability will be eligible for award. Among proposals determined Acceptable for Technical Capability, the award decision will be based on a best value trade-off between risk and price. The Decision Authority will select the proposal presenting the combination of risk and price providing the most value to the Government. This may result in the selection of a higher-price proposal if the Government determines that the higher-priced proposal presents a risk trade-off that provides more value to the Government.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions. Upon completion of the Government’s initial evaluation of proposals, exchanges with offerors may occur, for purpose of clarifications and communications in accordance with FAR Part 15. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with offerors for the purpose of negotiations at any point during the evaluation if deemed in the best interest of the Government. Once discussions, if conducted, have been concluded, the Contracting Officer will request Final Proposal Revisions from each of the offerors remaining within the competitive range.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD: Each proposal will be evaluated according to the two (2) factors (i.e. Technical and Price) described below. To be selected for award, a proposal must:

1. Be determined Acceptable with respect to Technical Capability

2. Be determined Low, Moderate, or High with respect to Technical Risk

3. Be determined Reasonable with regards to Price

4. Present the Technical Risk and Total Evaluated Price combination representing the best value to the

Government based on a subjective, integrated assessment

BEST VALUE MATRIX

Factor Elements Factor Ratings Technical Factor Technical Capability Acceptable/Unacceptable

Technical Risk Low/Moderate/High/Unacceptable Price Factor Total Evaluated Price (TEP) $

Reasonableness Yes/No/TBD/Not Assessed

9. Technical Evaluation: Each proposal will receive two (2) ratings under the Technical Factor: Technical Capability and Technical

Risk. The Solicitation Correlation Matrix on page 7 outlines delineates technical capability/technical risk criteria.

Technical Capability: The Government will evaluate Technical Capability on a pass/fail basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable, or Unacceptable (see Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating table below). Technical acceptability shall be evaluated against the following Technical Criteria.

A. Orbital Insertion: Proposals will be evaluated based off of the offerors ability to have their launch vehicle (LV) place the ASLON-45 space vehicles (SVs) into the parameters listed in table 3.1 below from the

MRD.

B. Payload Accommodation: The LSC shall accommodate the space vehicle volume and mass detailed in the

MRD (MRD 007).

C. Launch Readiness: The initial launch capability (ILC) will be No Earlier Than June 2020 and No Later Than December 2020 Objective will be February 2021 and the ILC Threshold will be August 2021;

proposals will be evaluated based off the offerors contract award to ILC schedule.

D. Payload Processing: The LSC shall provide the ASLON-45 SVs payload processing facility (PPF) and SV/LV integration and encapsulation facility (MRD 069).

Table 3.1: Insertion Orbit Parameters

Parameter Value Dispersion Insertion Apse (or altitude) 550 km +/- 50 km Non-Insertion Apse (or altitude) 550 km +/- 50 km Eccentricity (Goal) 0 + TBP

Inclination 45 deg + 5 Argument of Perigee N/A N/A Right Ascension of Ascending Node N/A N/A

a. A determination of acceptable or unacceptable will be assigned to the Technical Capability factor using the following ratings and descriptions:

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

b. The Government will not select for award any offeror that receives a Technical Capability rating of Unacceptable.

Technical Risk: Any proposal that is evaluated for Technical Capability as Acceptable will also be assessed for risk relative to the Technical Criteria and receive a single Technical Risk Rating based on the following scale. Any proposal that is evaluated for Technical Capability as Unacceptable will not be assessed for risk relative to the Technical Criteria and is unawardable. The Government will not select for award any offeror that receives an overall technical risk rating of Unacceptable.

Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal contains no significant weaknesses. Proposal may contain weaknesses which have little potential to cause schedule delay, or performance degradation which could affect mission success. Minimal additional contractor effort and/or Government monitoring will likely be able to acceptably mitigate technical risk.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which are likely to cause schedule delay, or performance degradation which could affect mission success. Additional special contractor effort and/or close Government monitoring will likely be able to acceptably mitigate technical risk.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant schedule delay, or performance degradation which could significantly affect mission success. Significant special contractor effort and/or Government intervention will likely be able to acceptably mitigate the technical risk.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a combination of significant weaknesses and/or weaknesses which is very likely to cause unacceptable schedule delay, or performance degradation which could likely cause mission failure. Significant special contractor effort nor Government intervention is unlikely to be able to acceptably mitigate technical risk.

The evaluation will follow the definitions of weakness and significant weakness as follows:

Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Price Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the Firm Fixed price submitted in Attachment 2 – Offer Sheet. The Government Evaluation Team will present a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) to the Decision Authority. Offerors should propose the best available pricing to the Government for CLIN 0001. Price information submitted in each offeror’s price proposal, as required by the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Items, will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.305. Note that proposals that have been assessed to be Unacceptable with regards to Technical Capability, or have been assigned a Technical Risk Rating of Unacceptable, are ineligible for award, and may not receive a Price Volume evaluation.

The offeror’s proposal will be assessed for reasonableness, where reasonableness is an assessment of whether the price is too high. The price is reasonable, if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that amount which would be paid by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business (FAR 31.201-3). Reasonableness may be established through adequate price competition is such competition is determined to exist. The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. However, if at any time during this competition the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price. The Government may use any of the price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to determine reasonableness. A determination of unreasonableness will render the proposal un-awardable. In addition, proposals that have been assessed to be technically unacceptable are ineligible for award, and as a result, a reasonableness determination will not be made for technically unacceptable, un-awardable proposals.

Tech Capability Tech Risk Tech Capability Tech Risk Tech Capability Tech Risk Tech Capability Tech Risk 4a X X 4b X (P) 4c X (P) 4d X (P) X (P) 4e X (P) X (P) 4f X (P) 4g X (S) 4h X X 4i X 4j X 4k X (S) 4l X (P) X (S)

4m X 4n X (S) 4o X 4p X (S) 4q X 4r X (P) 4s X (S) 4t X (S) 4u X (S) 4v X (P)

4w X X 4x X 4y X 4z X

Notes:

X(P) = Performance Risk Assessment X(S) = Schedule Risk Assessment

Presentation Content

A - Orbital Insertion B - Payload Accomodation C - Launch Readiness D - Payload Processing Technical Criterion

Solicitation Correlation Matrix