Industry Day QAs 24 Jul 2024.xlsx

Q&As

Finally, we would like to request a one-on-one meeting with the government in conjunction with Industry Day, but the event is scheduled for a Friday (July 26, 2024). Do you plan to hold in-person one-on-ones at a later date? With interested companies like ours traveling to Albuquerque for Industry Day, usually time is blocked out in an industry day agenda for that, or at least the day after because of the interested attendees all being there (but that would be a Saturday in this case).

Also, can you clarify the number of company personnel allowed to attend? SAM.gov states “…no more than two (2) personnel per company will be allowed to attend the site visit”, but does that include only the tour in the afternoon or all events on July 26? Multiple original postings were deleted due to security markings and replaced after revising.

Attachment 2 & 3 are required to be filled out.

One-on-One sessions are Virtual Only; Details on Amended Industry Day Notice.

Company personnel are limited to two (2) individuals for all Industry Day events on 26 Jul 2024.

4 1. What MBSE is used today at AFRL/RV? Can the government provide examples or a published style guide that has the preferred schema? Can the government also provide what MBSE tools are currently in use at AFRL/RV? Are bidders responsible for pricing and procurement of MBSE tools?

2. Does the government intend to procure hardware through SSHINE (e.g., spacecraft buses or other hardware)? Will any procurement associated with a sample TO be provided as a “plug” number in the RFP?

3. Will all TOs in-work on RISE transition to SSHINE? For any that do transition will AFRL/RV provide the timeframes and point in the mission lifecycle for those TOs?

4. For the sample TOs to be bid on SSHINE, will AFRL/RV provide workload indicators (WLI) such that reasonable/realistic estimates can be generated by non-incumbents?

5. Will the government provide example SEMPs (Basic and each TO)? If not, will the AFRL/RV systems engineering process documentation be made available to bidders?

6. Will AFRL/RV make clear all the organizational responsibilities for government, the Aerospace Corporation, SSHINE contractor, and any other organizations involved in the mission (e.g., payload customers)? For example, does the Aerospace Corporation or a payload customer share responsibility for mission assurance/quality assurance?

7. Does a bidder require any current RISE directed subcontractor on their SSHINE team? Such that teaming agreements be in place and documented in the SSHINE proposal.

8. Does a bidder require any directed university on their SSHINE team? For example, a University Nanosatellite Program (UNP) participant.

9. Will AFRL/RV change their draft SOW that prescribes the key position/personnel requirements for SSHINE? Our recommendation is to let bidders propose their own key positions/personnel and provide rationale why those positions/personnel were bid.

10. Will AFRL/RV provide “plug” ODC and material costs that require procurement on SSHINE?

11. Will transition costs be included in the Total Evaluated Price? We suggest that transition costs not be included, as this gives a direct advantage to an incumbent bidder.

12. Currently the SSHINE Basic SOW numbering scheme is reused for Task Order (TO) SOWs (0001-0004), which causes confusion in the mapping between them. Will the government please use “Reserved” for TO SOW sections not used from the Basic SOW, such that they align with the Basic SOW numbering scheme? Or at least use a different numbering scheme for TOs than is used for the Basic SOW. For example, TO 0001 uses 4.1.10 for technology transfer planning, while the Basic SOW 4.1.10 is for procurement assistance (which is not used in TO 0001).

13. Will AFRL/RV provide a phase-out plan from the incumbent RISE contract? 1. Unanswered at this time.

2. Hardware procurement costs are not expected to vary significantly between offerors.

3. We expect work to transition off of RISE and onto SSHINE.

4. The government intends to provide workload indicators in the form of a matrix indicating the number of space technology programs RVE expects to concurrently work during the award period and the approximate scale of those programs.

5. No. Offerors should reasonably expect a potential to be evaluated on their systems engineering processes.

6. Organizational roles and resonsibilities for specific flight experiments and programs will be made clear within the associated program task order.

7. No.

8. No.

9. This suggestion is being considered by the government team.

10. ODC and material costs are not expected to vary significantly between offerors, and are unlikely to be evaluation criteria in the proposal.

11. Transition costs are not anticipated to be included in the Total Evaluated Price.

12. This suggestion is being considered by the government team.

13. Not anticipated at this time.

5 1. Current DD-254 states this effort is a follow-on contract. Is Research and Development Integrated Space Experiments (RISE) the follow-on contract this DD-254 is referring to? If so, do you anticipate any contractual clause changes for SSHINE not currently covered on RISE? If so, may you please share what those may be?

2. Can you please provide the current FTE level of support provided on the existing contract?

3. From the related RFI, the Government asked industry to provide a ROM cost estimate and FTEs to help best assess the contract ceiling. As a result of your industry research can you please provide what the intended ceiling may be for this effort if it changed from the original $499M originally considered?

4. For the RFI, the Gov’t as a result from industry questions provided a “flight experiment volume” profile for the five-year PoP. Is this still a viable planning model or has this changed since the RFI and will this be addressed during the Industry Day?

5. Given you previous RFI release and industry feedback, is there a NTE FTE level being initially considered for SSHINE?

6. If the period of performance being considered still 5 years?

7. Do you still anticipate releasing Sections L & M only with the final solicitation or will industry be able to see and comment on the drafts prior to the final RFP?

8. What is the final RFP date?

9. What is the intended award date?

10. What is the intended start date?

11. Will a document library be established for this solicitation to include information related to existing flight experiments/missions? 1. SSHINE requirements have evolved from RISE, though similiar, SSHINE will include some clauses consistent with the current RISE contract, however will include any additional clauses or required clauses as applicable.

2. No.

3. The current anticipated ceiling for SSHINE is $499M.

4. The government intends to provide workload indicators in the form of a matrix indicating the number of space technology programs RVE expects to concurrently work during the award period and the approximate scale of those programs.

5. Please adhere to the key personnel referenced in the Base SOW and TOs

6. The current anticipated ceiling for SSHINE is a 5-year base, 5-year option period.

7. A draft RFP is anticipated to be released with draft sections L&M.

8. Final RFP is anticipated for 3rd Qtr 2024 Calendar Year (CY).

9. Award is anticipated for 4th Qtr 2025 CY.

10. Start date is anticipated for 4th Qtr 2025 CY.

11. No.

2. SOW: Is AFRL planning to provide access to a Technical Library? If technical library materials are relevant to a response, we strongly recommend identifying which specific documents should be referenced or addressed. This prevents conflicts between source materials and reduces any potential incumbent advantage in knowing which documents are applicable to which situation.

3. SOW 1.1.5 Surge Capability: Given that AFRL is providing office space to the current contractor, will you please provide either the current square footage allotted or a projected square footage to be used for proposal and evaluation purposes, to include surge expectations? This information is crucial for effective planning and resource management to accommodate potential increases in project activity.

4. SOW 1.1.7.1: Is it correct that all TDY/travel expenses will be directly reimbursed and do not need to be included in a bidder’s proposal?

5. SOW 4.1.2.3 Government Reference Designs (GRD): What specific documentation (e.g., Interface Control Documents, Preliminary Interface Design Specifications, System/Subsystem Specifications, Technical Data Packages) is required for systems engineering activities related to space technology programs and individual flight experiments with respect to GRD for each Task Order?

6. SOW 4.4 Ground System Development: What is the current architecture of the "common" ground system? Is it cloud-based, unclassified, or classified? Each mission will have unique software builds, but is the aim to support multiple missions on one ground system or use multiple ground systems? It would be beneficial to understand the architecture, including whether it is a local or distributed cloud-based environment. Will a Government Reference Architecture be provided for assessment and development for current and future missions? What is the vision for this system? Is there collaboration with SpRCO and SSC/SZI?

7. RVEP SOW, TO 0001: The SOW Mission includes "upkeep, upgrade, maintenance, and facility management" support. However, the specific requirements for this effort are difficult to determine, and only appear in SOW 4.2.4 under assembly and integration support and the SOW 5.1 Key Personnel requirements. Can you clarify which aspects of facility support are included in the scope and to what degree the contractor is responsible for them? In particular, we recommend providing offerors with a detailed list of all equipment and facilities that your contractor would be responsible for. We also recommend including facility planning support requirements in the SOW (e.g., baseline plans, 5 year plan, asset management, asset procurement, cybersecurity, sustainment, etc.).

8. RVES SOW, TO 0003, 4.1.5: The section states that the "contractor will provide Systems Engineering, including mechanical, thermal, electrical, structural, and other specialized engineering to support mission development for space technology, spacecraft, and high-altitude balloon experiment designs." Data management and distribution are crucial for efficient experiment setup and analysis. Suggest adding Data Management/Trending to this list of specialized skill sets. Additionally, there is an opportunity to include autonomous/automated operations to enhance overall efficiency. 1. The government will provide any classified networks required for contract performance within government facilities.

2. Unanswered at this time.

3. RVE has not exercised surge support to date on prior contracts, but this is still a capability required of SSHINE. Activities where the government anticipates a possible need for surge capacity include, but are not limited to: launch integration and concurrent AI&T campaigns.

4. This item is currently under contemplation by the Government team.

5. Specific documents will be identified in program task orders.

6. Ground System is currently both physical systems and cloud based (Ref 4.4.3.1 in DRAFT_SSHINE_SOW). Support is requested under the SSHINE effort for the government managed operations environment (Ref 4.4.2 in DRAFT_SSHINE_SOW). A gov-referenced architecture will be available to the successful offeror. Successful offerers will need to support programs across various classification levels. (Ref 4.4.4 in DRAFT_SSHINE_SOW).

7. A listing of GFE will accompany the RFP.

8. This suggestion is being considered by the government team.

9 1. What awardable TOs will be proposed with the IDIQ contract bid and when will the Government release those instructions and evaluation criteria?

2. Do you anticipate including any further compliance and reference documents into Attachment N of the IDIQ SOW?

3. The DD254 does not include safeguarding of any classified materials at contractor facilities but the IDIQ SOW (section 7.2) identifies classified work that may be performed at the Contractor’s facility. Can you clarify this requirement and if contractor’s site is required and what level of security classification may be required?

4. Does the Government anticipate directing offerors to add subcontractors for the performance of the SSHINE requirements? If so, will the Government provide this information prior to proposals being due?

5. Can the Government identify the foreign nations that will need to have Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) in place with the Department of State or if the Government would support exemption clauses of the ITAR?

6. RVEN Draft SOW: What Key Personnel are meant to be identified in Section 2.0? 1. It is anticipated TO 0001 - TO 0004 scope will be awarded with the Base award.

2. This is possible.

3. This is a draft DD 254. It will not have contractor requirements as we have not awarded the conract. Maximum level of classified processing at a contractor facility will be TS.

4. The government expects, on occaision, to require or encourage additional subcontractors on SSHINE specific to a certain space technology mission or payload.

5. Unanswered at this time.

6. Unanswered at this time.

2. What are the current skillsets that are missing on-site in support of RVE?

3. What are the historical core funding and staffing levels for this scope of work?

4. What are the estimated surge levels and/or historical surges?

5. What are the external facilities/equipment required to support RVE that are not currently present on base?

6. Recommend the government provide draft Section L and M.

7. Transition of prototypes/experiments seems to be a constant theme in the draft SOWs. Recommend the government include specific technical evaluation criteria on transition planning as well as past performance supporting the rapid development, test, and transition of capabilities/solutions.

8. Strong space-focused technical leadership and support is at a premium, especially in Albuquerque. Recommend the government utilize a Highest Technically Rated Offering (HTRO), in accordance with FAR part 16, to have access to and to retain the best possible technical talent while still keeping costs competitive and reasonable. If the government does not leverage HTRO, what will be the strategy for evaluation criteria and weighting? 1. The expected increase in work volume over the award period is on the order of 50%.

2. At this point in time, all requirements are being fulfilled via on-site support contract for RVE. There are no specific skillsets currently missing.

3. Average FTE across all ongoing efforts, according to CY 2023 data is between 25-30 FTE per month. Recently expended approximately $10M in labor, materials, travel, and ODCs.

4. RVE has not exercised surge support to date on prior contracts, but this is still a capability required of SSHINE. Activities where the government anticipates a possible need for surge capacity include, but are not limited to: launch integration and concurrent AI&T campaigns.

5. RVE does not expect non-government facilities to be required for the execution of SSHINE.

6. A draft RFP is anticipated to be released with draft sections L&M.

7. This suggestion is being considered by the government team.

8. This suggestion is being considered by the government team.

20 1. Would the Government be willing accept, review, and provided feedback on an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) mitigation plan in advance of the solicitation to ensure it is adequate prior to submitting a proposal? (Ref: Attachment 6 - DRAFT_SSHINE_SOW.docx – Section 16.0 Organizational Conflict of Interest)

2. Should the Lead Software engineer have years systems engineering or software engineering experience? The current requirement states “systems engineering” experience. (Ref: Attachment 6 - DRAFT_SSHINE_SOW.docx - 5.3 Key Personnel)

3. Does AFRL/RVE intend to give developed technology to Space Systems Command (SCC) or other acquisition entities for a separate follow-on procurement? (Ref: Attachment 6 - DRAFT_SSHINE_SOW.docx - General Question - Technology Transfer)

4. Is the Government’s acquisition strategy to award a Single or Multiple Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract? (Ref: Attachment 6 - DRAFT_SSHINE_SOW.docx - General Question - Acquisition Strategy) 1. This suggestion is being considered by the government team.

2. This is an error in the document, software engineering is the correct inference.

3. Yes.

4. Contract structure is currently under consideration for SSHINE

21 1. The draft SOW and various Task Order SOWs discuss using MS&A for concept development. Is this going to be used to tease out and "compete" internal concepts for flight experiment candidates prior to selection, or more for paring down requirements and developing CONOPS once an experiment is already selected? Will this include evaluation of military utility, or primarily evaluating performance based on ranges of design or engineering parameters? (References 2.1, 4.1.2.2.)

2. The draft SOW and TO attachments reference MBSE being required throughout the lifecycle of the flight experiment (Sections 4.1.3 in all SOW docs). Are there any specific Style Guides that are expected to be used, modeling languages expected (if other than SysML), or specific MBSE tools expected to be used (e.g. Cameo, Enterprise Architect, Rhapsody)? No Style Guides are listed in Attachment N.

3. Is there a desire to be able to integrate AFSIM into MBSE efforts? (References 4.1.3)

4. Regarding "4.1.4.1 Development of modeling capabilities to simulate, emulate and evaluate technology options identified by RVE." What is meant by "emulate" here? Physically? Optically? Electromagnetically?

5. Regarding "4.3.3.2 Spacecraft on-orbit operations and experimentation and 4.3.3.3 Anomaly resolution and reporting," does RVE anticipate using the National Space Test and Training Complex--Orbital Range for conduct of any on-orbit experiments? If not, is RVE considering capabilities to provide dedicated monitoring of on-orbit experiments and analysis of the spacecraft's on-orbit behaviors (to include detection of anomalous behaviors)?

6. TO 3 is written to support the RVES Simulation and Tech Assessment branch. That branch has traditionally done a wide range of MS&A not necessarily associated with specific flight experiments but looking at the technology from RVS or RVB. That said, the MSE&A infrastructure for conducting tech assessments have generally been similar to that used to evaluated flight experiment concepts, requirements, designs, etc. Will this contract vehicle be limited to MS&A of flight experiments only? Will other MSE&A be handled via other contract vehicles? 1. Yes and both.

2. Unanswered at this time.

3. Yes

4. This section is aimed at digital models of system capabilites. However, RVE also produces prototypes, demonstatrations, and models that can also be accurately described as an emulator. Requirements for development and construction of a physcial emulator would be covered under 4.2 is the draft Basic SOW.

5. Both are possible.

6. SSHINE will address Modeling, Simulation, and Anaylsis for a variety of Space Technology programs.