SDA T0 Launch Services Q and A (10-16-20).pdf

Document Section Section Title Page Question SDA Response

Attachment 4 SV Planning Info

In Attachment 4, SV Planning Info, the dimensions of the Tracking Vendor 1 SV appear to not fit within a SIS Rev C Cat A or Cat B fairing assuming a rectangular SV. Are these dimensions correct? Or is there more detail on geometry that can be shared so that launch service providers can determine how the SV could fit within a SIS Rev C Cat B fairing?

Updated Attachment 4 to be provided with future amendment.

Attachment 4 SV Planning Info Attachment 4, SV Planning Info, does not indicate which side of the SV is attached to the ESPA or Dispenser. Please provide so that we can determine how to attach and stack the SVs.

Updated Attachment 4 to be provided with future amendment.

General Would SDA consider providing a draft IRD to better understand the scope of the integration? It is difficult to bid a firm fixed price without sufficient detail.

Ref Attachment 2, Sec 2, pg 4 for Early Integration Studies

Attachment 1 Statement of Work

Attachment 1, SOW, states that, “The Space Development Agency (SDA) is seeking launch services for twenty‐eight (28) Satellite Vehicles (SVs) of two different types (Transport and Tracking) in two (2) circular 950 km near‐polar orbits, with an inclination between 80‐100 degrees. The SDA Tranche‐0 SV manifest will be divided into two planes of fourteen (14) spacecraft each, with the planes separated by approximately 31 degrees RAAN.” Additionally, SOW 2.5 lists launch performance requirements. However, it is not clear from the RFP which SVs are going to which of the two orbits. Please clearly indicate which SVs go to orbit/plane 1 and which go to orbit/plane 2.

Plane 1 will include All Transport Vendor 1 SVs, two Tracking Vendor 1 SVs, and two Tracking Vendor 2 SVs. Plane 2 will include All Transport Vendor 2 SVs, two Tracking Vendor 1 SVs, and two Tracking Vendor 2 SVs. There are no additional sequencing or position requirements for the SVs in each plane. Updated in Attachment 1 SOW, Sec 2.5.

General Given the inability determine integration requirements until the questions on which SVs are going to each orbit/plane, SV attachment location, and SV geometry are answered, request a proposal extension to 30 days from posting of USG answers.

No extension is planned at this time.

General In regards to the request for a detailed IMS, what is the preferred software format for SDA? Is a “.bk3” file using “Open Plan Professional (OPP)” acceptable, or does SDA require a Microsoft Project file? If Microsoft Project, what year of software is requested for use?

Preference is a MSProject compatible format and

PDF.

General

The RFP did not include terms that would usually be included in a launch services contract, such as the below. Does USG want each offeror to propose their standard commercial terms? Or are there required contract terms around the following items:

a. Launch Scheduling (e.g., Establishing Launch Period, Launch Slot and Launch Date

b. Launch Schedule Adjustments (e.g, Grace Days, Postponement Fees, Liquidated Damages)

c. Excusable Delays

d. Customer Factory and Launch Site Access

e. Licenses, Clearances and Permits

f. Exclusion of Warranty, Waiver of Liability and Allocation of Certain Risks

g. Launch Services Termination (By Customer, Contractor ‐ both for Convenience or Default)

h. Dispute Resolution

i. Order of Precedence

j. Severability

k. Survival

l. Intellectual Property/Data Rights

SDA believes the latest version of the solicitation meets the Government's needs for this effort. Many of the listed items are addressed in 52.212‐4.

Offerors should propose in accordance with the solicitation.

General How many Integration / Loads cycles are expected?

2 Trajectory analysis cycles; 2 Coupled loads analysis with option for a third CLA.

Attachment 1 Section 2.3 Statement of Work

Sec 2.3 of the SOW states LSC shall complete an early integration study and Attachment 5 notes that early integration study results as a deliverable. What is the expected scope of the early integration study? Which types of analyses are expected? What is the requested duration and completion target date of the early integration study?

Ref Attachment 2, Sec 2, pg 4 for Early Integration Studies

Attachment 1 Section 5.0 Statement of Work Under 5.0 Integration, the SOW does not discuss any required integration tests. Are any Match Mate activities expected? Will there be match mates or fit checks of electrical connections / harnesses?

Ref Attachment 2, Sec 2, pg 4 for Early Integration Studies

Attachment 4 SV Planning Info

Attachment 4 notes “SV fueling operations at the launch facility”. Please elaborate. Are the SVs fueled in the payload processing facility prior to mate to the ESPAs, or after integration to the Launch Vehicle? Please specify the fuel for all spacecraft. These details are necessary to provide a FFP bid.

Updated Attachment 4 to be provided in future amendment.

General Are there access requirements after SV encapsulation? To be provided.

General Section 9.0, data provided to the LSC, seems to be missing some data, such as a thermal model for Integrated Thermal Analysis. Are there other data models that plan to be provided to the

LSC?

Ref Attachment 2, Sec 2, pg 4 for Early Integration Studies

Attachment 8 Section 10.0 6

The SOW states that SDA will issue a DD Form 254 attached as part of a contract award. Can SDA release the DD Form 254 prior to award so that offerors may review and estimate the effort necessary to comply? Rationale: The DD Form 254 may include requirements that are unknown to the offerors.

SDA does not feel a DD 254 is warranted at the solicitation level in order for offerors to provide a qualifying proposal.

Model Solicitation

Clauses

Within this section, SDA identified FAR clauses that are applicable to solicitations and FAR clauses that are applicable to the contract. Can the SDA identify which are applicable to the solicitation?

Futhermore, which FAR clauses in this section should be completed for representation and certification purposes? For example, FAR 52.204‐24 is included in the list, but there is no section to complete the representation. Rationale: Identifying the solicitation clauses, including the representation and certification clauses, will allow offerors to complete the representations and certifications.

It is the Offeror's responsibility to carefully read the solicitation clauses/provisions. With respect to 52.204‐24, please see 52.252‐1. Any required reps and certs may be submitted with Volumes 1 ‐3. There are no page limits for these.

Model Solicitation

Clauses We request removal of FAR 52.222‐41, 52.222‐55, and 52.222‐62. The contract is not subject to the Service Contractor Labor Standards statute. Rationale: The contract is not subject to the Service Contractor Labor Standards statute.

Clauses are N/A ‐ These clauses do not apply to the prime (see 52.212‐5 ( c )) and therefore do not flow down to subs per FAR 52.212‐5 (e). No solicitation amendment required.

Model Solicitation

Clauses We request removal of FAR 52.224‐3. The contractor will not access or create a system of records. See previous answer.

Model Solicitation

Clauses We request removal of FAR 52.226‐6. We are not providing the sale of food under this contract. See previous answer.

Model Solicitation

Clauses We request removal of FAR 52.225‐26, we will not be performing private security functions. See previous answer.

Model Solicitation

Clauses We request removal of FAR 52.247‐34 and FAR 52.247‐55. These clauses apply to supply contracts.

Removed

Attachment 2 Proposal Instructions 4

Instructions state to provide a launch option for a single launch "possibly with lower RAAN separation." Please provide the minimum acceptable level of RAAN separaton that will be considered. Rationale: The RAAN separation requirement implies expenditure of launch vehicle energy during a single launch to provide the velocity difference between the two orbits. Without a minimum requirement on RAAN separation, different bidders could make different assumptions about what is acceptable or provide bids that are not useful to the government. Providing a requirement ensures that all bidders are on a level playing field for the proposal of the option.

Attachment 2, Sec 3, pg 4 language modified: If there is a single‐launch option that allows the SVs to be delivered to 2 different planes the Offeror should feel free to detail it in their response.

Attachment 2 Proposal Instructions 4

Does SDA have a requirement for the complement of SVs to be dropped off into each orbit (ie, each of 2 RAAN values)?

For example, Orbit 1 might include all 10 SVs from Transport Vendor 1 and all 4 SVs from Tracking Vendor 1, OR it could use a mix of SVs from all four vendors. We want to understand if SDA has a requirement for a certain configuration, or if this is up to the launch provider to propose. Rationale: Clarity on this point is required to ensure that the launch vehicle has the performance to do the mission required.

Plane 1 will include All Transport Vendor 1 SVs, two Tracking Vendor 1 SVs, and two Tracking Vendor 2 SVs. Plane 2 will include All Transport Vendor 2 SVs, two Tracking Vendor 1 SVs, and two Tracking Vendor 2 SVs. There are no additional sequencing or position requirements for the SVs in each plane. Updated in Attachment 1 SOW, Sec 2.5.

Attachment 1 and

Attachment 2

Statement of Work and Proposal Instructions

Given the inability determine integration requirements until the questions on which SVs are going to each orbit/plane, SV attachment location, and SV geometry are answered, request a proposal extension to 30 days from posting of USG answers.

No extension is planned at this time.

Attachment 4 All tables SV Planning Info

Please provide a frame of reference for the SV coordinate systems.

We recommend specifying how the SV X, Y and Z axes correspond to launch vehicle radial, tangential and axial directions. This information is needed to determine the configuration of the payload stack (which is required per Section 4 of the Instructions).

Updated Attachment 4 to be provided with future amendment.

Attachment 4 Tracking Vendor 1 data table SV Planning Info

The SV stowed dimensions are listed as: 430cm x 300 cm x 1100 cm. We assume 1100 cm is a typo ‐ please provide an update with the correct SV dimensions. This information is needed to determine the configuration of the payload stack (which is required per Section 4 of the Instructions).

Updated Attachment 4 to be provided with future amendment.

Attachment 4 Tracking Vendor 1 SV Planning Info For the reference to ESPA interface, we assume this means ESPA‐compatible, which can include stacking on top of an ESPA ring using an adapter plate. Can you please confirm this is an accurate assumption?

Updated Attachment 4 to be provided with future amendment.

Attachment 4 Tracking Vendor 1 SV Planning Info The height is listed at 1.1 m. Is that the maximum height, with an understanding that there may be a shorter nesting?

Updated Attachment 4 to be provided with future amendment.

Attachment 1 Section 2.5 Statement of Work 3

SOW paragraph 2.5 states The LSC shall also provide Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) rings. This assumes the launch solution includes ESPA rings and not an alternate contractor‐provided payload adapter that still can provide the required SV interface and envelope. Offeror suggested resolution: Clarify whether an alternate contractor‐ provided payload adapter system that meets the required SV interface and envelope is acceptable in place of ESPA rings.

SVs are designed for compatibility with ESPA rings.

Attachment 1 and

Attachment 4

Statement of Work and SV Planning Info

Attachment 4 specifies the total complement of 28 SVs. Neither Attachment 4 nor the SOW specify which SVs are to be delivered into common orbital planes. For instance, because there are an uneven number of Transport Vendor 1 and Transport Vendor 2 SVs in each group, it is unclear how many of each type are to be delivered to each of the two orbital planes. Offeror suggested resolution: Specify how many of each group and each type of SVs are to be delivered to each of the two orbital planes.

Plane 1 will include All Transport Vendor 1 SVs, two Tracking Vendor 1 SVs, and two Tracking Vendor 2 SVs. Plane 2 will include All Transport Vendor 2 SVs, two Tracking Vendor 1 SVs, and two Tracking Vendor 2 SVs. There are no additional sequencing or position requirements for the SVs in each plane. Updated in Attachment 1 SOW, Sec 2.5.

Attachment 4 SV Planning Info

Using only the dimensions provided one must assume the SV envelope volumes are rectangular prism envelopes. For tracking vendor 1, this envelope is larger than a 5 meter fairing envelope.

Also, at 11m length per SV, the rectangular prism results in a very long envelope. Offeror suggested resolution: Please confirm the dimensions shown in Attachment 4 are applicable to each SV, not the group of SVs. If it is available, please provide CAD model of each of the SVs so it is clear how they fit into standard fairing envelopes. If a CAD model is not available, please provide more information for the envelopes of each of the SVs, especially for Tracking Vendor 1.

Updated Attachment 4 to be provided in future amendment.

Attachment 4 SV Planning Info Attachment 4 tables specify x, y, and z dimensions, but do not specify the orientation of these axes relative to the separation plane for each SV. Offeror suggested resolution: Clarify whether z dimension is normal to separation plane in each case.

Updated Attachment 4 to be provided in future amendment.

Attachment 4 SV Planning Info

The entry in Attachment 4, Tracking Vendor 1, LV Adapter column only states "ESPA Interface".

The specific interface is not clear. Offeror suggested resolution: Please confirm for the Tracking Vendor 1 SVs, the LV Adapter, the “ESPA Interface” is synonymous with the standard EELV 1.575 m bolt circle, or clarify if otherwise.

Updated Attachment 4 to be provided in future amendment.

Attachment 4 SV Planning Info The entry in Attachment 4, Tracking Vendor 2, LV Adapter column states "ESPA and 19.848" Motorized Lightband". The specific interface is not clear. Offeror suggested resolution:

Clarify whether z dimension is normal to separation plane in each case.

Updated Attachment 4 to be provided in future amendment.

Attachment 1 and

Attachment 4 SOW para 2.5

Statement of Work and SV Planning Info

There is a conflict in Tracking Vendor 2 SV mass. Statement of Work Section 2.5 lists the four Tracking Vendor 2 SVs of 308kg, while attachment 4 lists them at 249 kg. Offeror suggested resolution: Please clarify which mass is correct for Tracking Vendor 2.

Updated Attachment 4 to be provided in future amendment.

Attachment 2 Proposal Instructions

The RFP is not specific regarding whether or not the Launch Service Provider is required to launch the full complement of 28 SVs, or whether launching a subset of the SVs, with a different Launch Service Provider launching the remainder of the SVs, is acceptable. Offeror suggested resolution: Clarify whether submittal of this proposal for a partial solution (launching a subset of the 28 SVs with another Launch Service Provider launching the remainder) is acceptable for a compliant proposal.

Proposal must provide a solution which will deliver the full complement of 28 SVs to the specified orbits.

Attachment 2 Proposal Instructions The RFP does not include instructions regarding the model contract. Are there any submission requirements for the model contract? Offeror suggested resolution: Request clarification on model contract.

Please submit your proposal in accordance with the instructions in Attachment 2. Any required reps and certs may be submitted with Volumes 1 ‐3. There are no page limits for these.

General

The model contract appears to be missing several sections (e.g. there is no Section H). In addition, clauses such as 52.212‐4 are typically tailored to make it more suited for launch services.

For example, 52.212‐4 (a) requires reperformance of non‐conforming services which is not practical in a launch service contract. Additionally, paragraph (o) is typically tailored to state that the contractor provides no warranty, express or implied.

Will the model contract be updated prior to requesting signature from the offerors?

With the exception of an updated Attachment 4, SDA does not plan further updates to the modal contract beyond those contained in this amendment.

General Will SDA consider extending the RFP submission date to 20 Nov 20? No extension is planned at this time.

Attachment 1 SOW para 2.5 Statement of Work 3

The inclination specified in the RFP provides a wide range, between 80 ‐ 100 degrees, with a tolerance of +/‐ 0.05 degrees. It appears that any inclination within that range is acceptable, provided the delivered inclination matches the targeted inclination to within 0.05 degrees.

However, another interpretation of the requirement could be that the Launch Service Provider will need to meet any inclination specified by SDA within that range to within +/‐ 0.05 degrees.

Offeror suggested resolution: Please clarify whether the Launch Service Provider can target any inclination within the range of 80‐100 degrees inclination, or rather if the Launch Service Provider is required to be able to achieve all inclinations within that range, as specified later by SDA.

Inclination between 80 degrees (threshold) and 89.5 degrees (objective)+/‐ 0.05deg

Attachment 1 Section 4.0 Statement of Work

The Statement of Work states that

4.0 Development and ProductionThe LSC shall be responsible for manufacture, assembly, test and transport of the launch vehicle and all mission hardware to the launch site; the LSC shall provide all materials and equipment necessary for these tasks.

We procure the launch capacity from the Launch Vehicle Providers and provide and end‐to‐end integration, test, management, launch, and post launch activities. Our agreements ensure that

4.0 in this SOW is included in the services. We can provide insight into the development schedule etc and includes everything in 4.0.

Is this acceptable with respect to what is included in 4.0 of your SOW?

Offeror (prime contractor) shall assume all responsibilities as outlined by the SOW.

The RFP does not denote which SVs are going to which orbital planes. Nor does it denote any separation release sequence requirements. Request USG provide definition of any SV separation release sequence requirements.

Plane 1 will include All Transport Vendor 1 SVs, two Tracking Vendor 1 SVs, and two Tracking Vendor 2 SVs. Plane 2 will include All Transport Vendor 2 SVs, two Tracking Vendor 1 SVs, and two Tracking Vendor 2 SVs. There are no additional sequencing or position requirements for the SVs in each plane. Updated in Attachment 1 SOW, Sec 2.5.

Attachment 4 states the mass of the Tracking Vendor 1 SVs to be 1,068 kg +/‐ 50kg. Is this correct? 1,068 kg exceeds the mass limit of an ESPA port, but an ESPA Interface is specified.

Updated Attachment 4 to be provided with future amendment.

What is the separation system for the Tracking Vendor 1 SVs? Attachment 4 only indicates “ESPA interface” but does not specify a required separation system.

Updated Attachment 4 to be provided with future amendment.

What is the mass & mass tolerance of the Tracking Vendor 2 SV? The mass stated in Attachment 4 is 249+/‐15 kg each, which is different than the mass stated in Attachment 1 as 308kg +/‐ 15 kg each.

Updated Attachment 4 to be provided with future amendment.

How is the coordinate system for each SV vendor defined? Please also include any requirements for SV orientation during launch.

Updated Attachment 4 to be provided with future amendment.

Attachment 2 Proposal Instructions Section 4 Launch Vehicle Overview states, “A Master Equipment List (not to exceed five (5) pages) with LV Technical Readiness Level, Manufacturing Readiness Level, or other flight heritage shall be included as an appendix and will not count against the page limit.” A Master Equipment List is not a standard launch term nor does it define what is to be listed. A standard launch term is Flight Critical Item List. Is it the USG’s intent to provide an FCIL? Please provide additional detail on what is required for a Master Equipment List.

Attachment 2, Sec 4, pg 5 edited: Offeror shall provide LV Technical Readiness Level, Manufacturing Readiness Level, or other flight heritage information as an appendix (not to exceed five (5) pages) and will not count against the page limit.

Attachment 4 lists a couple of the many spacecraft parameters required to develop a suitable dispenser and separation concept and system and determine the scope of the integration and (IRD); most launch proposals contain at least a draft IRD in order to determine an appropriate dispenser/separation system as well as determine the scope of the integration effort. While Proposal Instructions Section 5 states, “As the Government understands that the SV designs are not yet completely known, the Offeror shall present its plan for engaging with the SV providers to gather the SV design interface data and how that data will be used to select the appropriate separation systems,” the LSC cannot bid a firm‐fixed price launch service without this data.

Request the USG provide the following information for each of the 4 SVs so that we can bid an appropriate scope of work: SEE Sheet 2

Ref Updated Attachment 4 and Attachment 2, Sec 2, pg 4 for Early Integration Studies

Sheet1