Multi-Mission Orbital Platforms BAA.pdf

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

MULTI-MISSION ORBITAL PLATFORMS

General Information:

Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Number: FA8814-20-R-0001

Posted Date: September 11, 2020

BAA Title: Multi-Mission Orbital Platforms

BAA Type: Two-Step

White Paper Response Due Date: October 9, 2020 by 1700 PDT

Requests for Proposals Release Date: November 6, 2020 (notional)

Proposals Submittal Due Date (if applicable): November 27, 2020 (notional)

NAICS Code(s): 336414, 541715

Contracting Office Address:

SMC/AC PKT, 483 N Aviation Blvd, El Segundo, CA 90245-2808

1.0 Purpose

1.1 The ROOSTER Program Management Office (PMO) within the Space and Missile

Systems Center (SMC) Rapid Development Division (SMC/DCIR) intends to solicit proposals through this Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) (see FAR 35.016) for innovative concepts in the area of multi-mission orbital platforms. The primary objective for this BAA is to conduct technical studies, perform analyses, develop designs, or for research or development up to and including prototyping, to advance the mission of the Government’s

ROOSTER effort as described below. Technical, organizational, and/or process solutions are sought. Although seeking concepts in support of the ROOSTER mission, this BAA is separate from the ROOSTER acquisition (system design and assembly) solicitation expected to be released in CY21. Award, or non-award, under this BAA effort does not in any way affect consideration for the ROOSTER acquisition phase.

1.1.1 The Government intends to make multiple awards resulting from this announcement and reserves the right to select for award any, all, part, or none of the proposals received. The overall anticipated funding amount is limited at this time. The number of awards depends upon the scope, quality of proposals received, and their collective affordability within available funding, currently $1.8M. The PMO may receive additional funding for this effort totaling $4.9M. If additional funding becomes available later, the Government may consider contract modification(s) to further mature the respective effort(s) with in-scope additional work, or may consider additional awards of submittals received in response to this announcement in accordance with FAR 6.102(d).

This may include:

(a) Extend, on a selective basis, contract(s) period of performance to further continue or mature the work within the scope of this announcement

(b) Award a proposal(s) that was received and evaluated in Step 2 to be of potential benefit, but was not originally awarded, due to funding limitations

(c) Request, at a later date, proposal(s) from offerors for white papers submitted in response to this announcement that were not initially selected for Step 2. White papers will be held for 180 days; if additional funds become available, the

Government may re-evaluate, in accordance with Section 3, these white papers and request proposal(s) for award consideration.

1.2 Background and Motivation

Continuing the vision of the LDPE series of missions, the ROOSTER program seeks to leverage flexible, multi-mission orbital platforms to evolve the National Security Space

(NSS) architecture through first-flight technology demonstrations, on-orbit test support, and risk reduction efforts offering prototype rideshare services. ROOSTER spacecraft will typically fly as a co-manifest on National Security Space Launch (NSSL) missions to maximize the utility of excess launch vehicle (LV) mass and volume capacity. As such, the program is typically constrained by the primary co-manifested space vehicle’s required trajectory and orbit. The ROOSTER program nominally launches annually with a 2-year

Authority to Proceed (ATP) to Initial Launch Capability (ILC) tempo, each with nominally 3 years of on-orbit operations. The ROOSTER program primarily operates near

Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO), but cislunar, Medium Earth Orbit (MEO), and to a lesser extent Low Earth Orbit (LEO) are also of interest.

Although historically an ESPA based structure has been used (i.e. LDPE) ROOSTER platforms need not be constrained to this. Platforms should however remain compatible with

NSSL SPRD Rev B and SIS Rev C, in addition to being appropriately sized to be co-manifested with another space vehicle for launch. The platform should accommodate multiple payloads—hosted (i.e. remain affixed to the platform throughout mission life) and separable (i.e. able to separate from the platform on orbit)—with a minimum mass capability of 300 kg per individual payload. The payloads may be classified at multiple levels. For all payloads while attached, the platform serves as a host, providing common bus services like power, communications, propulsion, attitude control, etc. While some payloads may be sponsored by the ROOSTER PMO, payloads typically originate from various Government partners and are manifested through a separate multi-organization review board process.

Payloads may be of a variety of size, weight, & power (SWaP), but are generally SmallSats, ESPA-class, or smaller. Flexibility in accommodating a diverse payload manifest with varying electrical, mechanical, and data interface requirements is one of the goals of this program. With the LDPE missions, the payload manifest is nominally finalized 2 years prior to ILC and payloads delivered for integration 1 year prior to launch. Due to the volatile nature of developing space prototypes however, manifests are constantly in flux and payloads often deliver late. As such, flexibility is a key goal of the ROOSTER program going forward, accommodating manifest changes and payload integration as close to launch as possible.

The LDPE and ROOSTER missions will be operated via the MMSOC (and eventually EGS) ground systems. As a host platform for space demonstrations, the ROOSTER program also seeks to incorporate capabilities into the core platform that go beyond traditional bus functions in order to enhance on-orbit experimentation (e.g. optical sensors to provide rendezvous & proximity operations (RPO) witness capabilities, cross-link communications, docking, etc.). Each Space Vehicle (SV) mission has unique platform requirements—given late changes to the manifest and thereby mission requirements, maximizing flexibility of these platform enhancements is another goal of the program. For example, support for the addition of an optical sensor to the baseline platform when a newly manifested payload requires it, or modifying the attitude control system when a newly manifested payload requires finer pointing than what the baseline platform provides—and accommodating this flexibility as close to launch as possible.

1.3 Focus Areas

Concepts solicited include but are not limited to the following:

(a) Platform: concepts for a modular bus architecture to enable mission-to-mission capability changes with minimal non-recurring engineering (NRE) e.g. add/remove fuel tanks, change thrusters, finer attitude control, sensors, etc.; larger and lighter-weight structures to accommodate more and larger mass/volume payloads; port utilization post payload separation; open onboard processing architecture to enable off-load of payload processing;

(b) Payload Manifest and Integration: concepts for technical and/or process improvements to enable maximum flexibility for accommodating rapid changes to the payload manifest and integration as close to launch as possible—consider launch vehicle verification load cycle (VLC), testing procedures for payloads versus the fully integrated SV, hardware and software interfaces; under- versus over-constraining interfaces (e.g. maximizing potential payload interfaces versus mandating uniform payload form factors, e.g. CubeSats); minimizing payload integration costs to accommodate sponsors with small budgets; multi-payload ports (each with different sponsors/missions/etc.); and solutions to security classification challenges (physical and data separation).

(c) Launch and Orbit Flexibility: concepts to address constraint(s) brought on by co-manifested SV’s with different desired mission orbits (e.g. GTO vs GEO); individual platform payloads on a given mission may also require different orbits; electric and chemical propulsion options; “strap-on” or expandable fuel tanks, kick-motors, etc.;

changes to launch trajectory to accommodate multiple “drop-off” points.

(d) Platform as more than a bus: concepts for adding capability to the platform—outside the Government-furnished payload manifest and beyond what is traditionally considered bus functionality—to enhance the effectiveness of the primary on-orbit experiments and to provide residual operational capability, e.g. sensors, cross-link communications, docking, on-orbit servicing, refueling, etc. These capabilities may either be inherent to the baseline platform design or modular as outlined in Section

1.3(a) above, e.g. a “menu of optional capabilities” for each mission with minimal

NRE. Trade space analysis of capabilities, e.g. cost, integration NRE, SWaP, contribution to primary payload experimentation missions, contribution as “leave-behind” capability to NSS architecture, etc.

(e) Any other innovative concepts that enable the ROOSTER mission to provide a flexible, rapid, multi-payload platform for on-orbit test, evaluation, and/or experimentation.

2.0 Proposal Selection Process and Contract Information

2.1 For this BAA, the Government will use a closed two-step proposal selection approach:

Step 1 – White Papers: Step 1 of the proposal selection process consists of the invitation herein to submit white papers describing technical approach and a not-to-exceed (NTE) price estimate in any of the focus areas listed in Section 1.3 above. White papers are initially sought to preclude unwarranted effort on the part of the offeror without an initial assessment of the technical and operational feasibility of the concept by the Government.

Offerors submitting white papers may be invited to submit a full technical and price proposal on all or part of their white paper submission in Step 2. However, any such invitation is in no way an obligation on the part of the Government to award a contract.

Decisions regarding the invitation to submit a full proposal will be based on the

Government’s evaluation as described in Section 3 below. The Government intends to review white papers without conducting negotiation/discussion during Step 1. Some, all, or none of the white papers may be selected to advance to Step 2.

ONLY WHITE PAPERS AND ACCOMPANYING NTE PRICE ESTIMATES ARE

BEING SOLICITED AT THIS TIME

Step 2 – Full Proposals: Step 2 will commence with a subsequent invitation from the

Government for any offeror(s) of a particular Step 1 submittal(s) identified for further consideration, to submit full technical and price proposal(s), as follow up to the respective Step 1 submittal, to include statement of work and contract data requirements list. An offeror can be considered for contract award only upon preparation and submittal of a fully compliant Step 2 proposal based on the Government’s Request for Proposal

(RFP).

2.2 Contracts

2.2.1 Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contracts may be awarded under Step 2 of this selection process. Contract base periods of performance (PoP) are not expected to exceed four (4) months. Each award is anticipated to be between 1 and 4 months, however PoP will be tailored to each award.

2.2.2 The Government funding profile is an estimate only and will not be a contractual obligation for funding as all funding is subject to change due to Government discretion and availability. Potential offerors should be aware that due to unanticipated budget fluctuations, funding in any or all areas may change with little or no notice.

2.2.3 If offerors are enhancing work performed under other DoD projects, they must clearly identify the point of departure, what existing work will be brought forward, and what new work will be performed under this BAA.

2.2.4 This is an unrestricted solicitation. Small and large businesses are encouraged to propose on all or any part of this solicitation. Industry, academia, Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses, educational institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and Minority Institutions are all encouraged to participate.

2.3 Notifications

(a) White Papers – All offerors submitting a white paper in response to this BAA will receive an email message upon Government receipt. If you do not receive a receipt e-mail within 3 business days, then your white paper may not have been received.

White Paper receipt after the due date and time— October 9, 2020 by 1700 PDT— shall be governed by the provisions of FAR 52.215-1(c)(3). Early white paper submission is encouraged. Submittal to all Government points of contact is required.

Upon completion of the Government evaluation of white papers, an e-mail will either inform the offeror that its white paper was selected for invitation to submit a full proposal or that its white paper was not selected.

(b) Full Proposals – Offerors invited to submit full proposals will receive an email that includes the Request for Proposal from the Contracting Officer providing instructions for the submission of a full proposal.

Note: Notification of white paper & proposal selection is not an authorization to begin work.

2.4 Debriefings White paper evaluation will not entitle the offeror to a debriefing as no award can result from a white paper. However, for full proposals, the Contracting Officer shall follow the procedures in FAR 35.008(d).

3.0 General Evaluation and Selection Information (see FAR 2.101 and 3.104)

3.1 The awards will be made based on the best proposals that are determined to be most beneficial to the Government with appropriate consideration given to the evaluation factors, and order of importance. Awards will be made to the offerors whose offer is determined to provide the “best value” to the Government based on the factors; this may not necessarily be the proposal offering the lowest price or receiving the highest evaluated rating. Any contract(s) awarded based on responses to this BAA are considered to be the result of full and open competition (see FAR 6.102(d)(2)(i)) and are in full compliance with the provisions of Public Law (PL) 98-369, “The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984.”

3.2 The selection of white papers submitted in response to this BAA will be based on a

Scientific Review Board process. The major focus of the evaluation will be to determine the relative merit of each white papers’ technical approach and then advancing the white papers with collectively varying technical/scientific approaches. Business and contractual aspects, including proposed NTE prices and budgetary constraints, will also be considered during evaluation. The Government may limit the quantity of submittals advancing to Step 2 for the purpose of an efficient evaluation. Do not submit a full proposal unless requested to do so, see Section 2.3(b). The white papers selected will be based on the potential benefits to the

Government weighed against the price estimates and the availability of funds. The

Government intends to select the overall most advantageous proposal or proposals.

3.3 Factors White papers and full proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

Factor #1 – Contribution to Focus Areas: The degree to which the proposed effort is relevant to the Focus Area(s) and of interest to the Government as new and creative solutions and/or advance knowledge, understanding, technology, or state-of-the-art.

Factor #2 – Technical Approach: Soundness of the technical approach and the potential for the Government to transition the concepts proposed in the deliverables to future

Government needs; to include careful consideration of any restrictions on data rights.

Factor #3 – Price: For White Papers, whether the proposed NTE price estimate is affordable. For Full Proposals, whether the price is affordable and reasonable for the proposed effort, while preserving the potential for multiple contract awards within funding limitations.

During evaluations, Factors #1 and #2 are equal and when combined are significantly more important than Factor #3.

3.4 The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation during its evaluation. The Government reserves the right to remove offerors from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on terms, conditions, and cost/price within a reasonable time, or the offeror fails to timely provide requested additional information.

3.5 Notional Timeline (subject to change and provided here for general planning):

BAA Release

White Papers Submitted (30 calendar days (CD) from BAA release)

White Paper Evaluations (30 CD from submittal)

Requests for Proposals (RFP)

Proposals Submitted (15 CD from RFP)

Proposal Evaluations/Negotiations (15 CD)

Contract Awarded Under BAA

3.6 Offerors are advised that only the Contracting Officer is legally authorized to bind the

Government. All contractual and technical questions regarding this BAA must be directed to both points of contact in Section 9.

4.0 White Paper and Full Proposal Preparation Costs

Offerors are hereby advised that the Government will not pay for any white paper or full proposal preparation costs resulting from this BAA. The cost of preparing white papers and full proposals is NOT an allowable direct charge to any resulting contract that may be awarded as a result of this BAA, or any other contract with the Government; however, it may be allowable expense to the normal bid and proposal indirect cost as specified in FAR

31.205-18.

5.0 Submission Information

5.1 If intending to submit a classified white paper, offerors should contact the POC’s listed in

Section 9 as soon as possible but no later than 10 CD after this BAA is posted. Classified white papers shall adhere to the page limitations stated in Section 5.2 and shall be electronically transmitted as one document at the highest classification of the information therein. If performing classified work, the offeror must be able to certify that they have an appropriate facility clearance to meet the security requirements of work proposed, and key personnel must be certified as holding an appropriate security clearance.

5.2 Step 1 – White Papers

White papers shall be no more than 5 pages not including Cover Page or Table of Contents.

There is no limit to the number of white papers an offeror may submit, however, separate white papers shall be submitted and separately NTE priced for each individual concept proposed; no grouping of white papers. Within a single white paper, offerors may elect to delineate different levels of effort (i.e. scope, PoP, and/or price) for the proposed concept.

Each white paper shall include the following information as a single-file submittal:

5.2.1 Cover page, including company name and address, business type, proposal title, BAA FA8814-20-R-0001, Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) number, Data

Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, technical and business points-of-contact, along with email address, and telephone.

5.2.2 Executive Overview of the proposed technology improvement area as well as a summary of any innovative claims in this area.

5.2.3 Technical Description, which should be sufficiently accurate and complete, and consist of discussions of the technology initiative(s) being proposed and the ingenuity associated with the concept, method, or approach. Provide a summary of the deliverables including data associated with the proposed technology improvement(s). A Statement of

Work is not required for the white paper and will be requested in Step 2.

5.2.4 Data rights section that should specifically address any intellectual property claims associated with the outcome of this effort. Specifically, the offeror shall justify the use of proprietary, vendor-unique, or closed components including but not limited to hardware, software and interfaces in current or future designs. The Government supports open systems architecture principles; asserted rights other than a minimum of

Government Purpose Rights may result in not receiving an invitation to submit full technical and price proposals. This section may be included as an appendix to the white paper and will not count towards the 5-page limit.

5.2.5 A high-level schedule for the proposed effort

5.2.6 An NTE price estimate. No detailed price or cost support information is requested at this time; only a bottom-line figure should be provided.

5.2.7 Electronic submittals only. Pages are to be 8.5 x 11 inches, with 1-inch margins.

Minimum font size is 12 point. Submittals should be clearly readable as a pdf (do not submit Word .doc/.docx documents) and preferably with the filename:

CompanyName_BAA_FA8814-20-R-0001_ WhitePaper.pdf

5.2.8 The page limitation includes all photographs, tables, charts, appendices, attachments, etc. The Government will not consider pages in excess of these limitations.

The cover page is not included in the page count.

5.2.9 Submit white papers to the following: steven.hedgepeth@us.af.mil and paola.navarro_gallegos@us.af.mil.

5.3 Step 2 – Full Technical and Price Proposals

If, and only if, solicited by the Contracting Officer, offerors shall submit their technical proposals and price proposals through e-mail by the time and date requested in the RFP. The

RFP will provide complete instructions for proposal submittals.

6.0 SAM Registration and Universal Identifier Requirements

Unless exempt from this requirement as per FAR 4.1102, all proposers must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) and have a valid DUNS number prior to receiving an award. All proposals must include the proposer’s DUNS number. Information on SAM registration is available at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/.

Note: new registrations can take an average of 7-10 business days to process in SAM.

7.0 Data Rights and Proprietary Data

7.1 Unlimited Rights and/or Government Purpose Rights for all non-commercial technical data is preferred and is the default for capabilities delivered under any contract resulting from the two-phased selection process described herein. The offeror may propose less than these rights by identifying the applicable non-commercial technical data and providing rationale

(see DFARS 252.227-7017). The Government will therefore carefully consider any restrictions on the use of technical data, NCS, and NCS documentation which could result in transition difficulty or less-than full and open competition for subsequent development of this technology.

7.2 The Government (along with selected scientific and engineering expert personnel as well as support contractor personnel as stated in Section 8) will treat white papers the same as bid and proposal information (see DFARS 252.227-7016). White papers or full proposals containing data that is not to be disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the

Government except for evaluation purposes shall include the following statement on the cover page:

“This document includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed, in whole or in part, for any purposes other than evaluation. If, however, a contract is awarded to this offeror as a result of, or in connection with, the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, and disclose this data to the extent provided in the resulting award document. This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets marked "Proprietary" or that contain the legend prescribed by FAR 52.215-1.”

mailto:steven.hedgepeth@us.af.mil mailto:paola.navarro_gallegos@us.af.mil https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/

8.0 Government Evaluation Team – Support Contractors

8.1 The Government intends to use Government personnel for the evaluation of white papers and proposals. The Government reserves the right to use Federally Funded Research and

Development Centers (FFRDC) and contractors who support SMC/DCIR to provide technical and acquisition advisory support for evaluations of white papers and proposals.

8.2 The current list of potential advisory organizations includes The Aerospace Corporation, the System Engineering and Integration (SE&I) contractor and the SMC Acquisition and

Financial Support (SAFS) contractor (Tecolote Research). In addition, the Government team will be supported by administrative or process advisors (who will not evaluate proposals) for the following contractors or subcontractors: Tecolote Research and SAVI LLC.

8.3 SMC has entered into a contract with The Aerospace Corporation, a California nonprofit corporation operating an FFRDC, for the services of a technical group that will support the

DoD/U.S. Government program office by performing General Systems Engineering and

Integration, Technical Review, and/or Technical Support including informing the commander or director of the various DoD organizations it supports and any U.S.

Government program office of product or process defects and other relevant information, which, if not disclosed to the U.S. Government, could have adverse effects on the reliability and mission success of a U.S. Government program.

8.4 The evaluators and support personnel will be bound by appropriate Non-Disclosure

Agreements to protect proprietary and sensitive information. Should the offeror have any objections to personnel from these organizations participating in the evaluation of white papers and proposals, written notification shall be provided to the Contracting Officer within ten (10) business days prior to your submission of white paper(s). If there is an objection, the specific reason(s) for the objection(s) shall be stated in the written notification, and the specific support contractor of concern shall be identified.

8.5 Additionally, the support organizations described above are prohibited from submitting white papers in response to this BAA. While any one of these companies may not have an actual conflict with regard to this BAA activity, it is burdensome to the Government to ensure that support contractors interested in competing for this effort are adequately firewalled from any information they might receive or inadvertently overhear during performance of their support contracts that might advantage them in the process. Further, additional conflicts of interest may arise in the future if the Government decides to transition some of the capabilities developed under the BAA activities into operations.

9.0 Points of Contact

Contracting Officer: Capt Chad Hedgepeth, SMC/AC PKT, steven.hedgepeth@us.af.mil

Contract Buyer: Paola Navarro-Gallegos, SMC/AC PKT, paola.navarro_gallegos@us.af.mil.

Project Manager: Capt Cole George, SMC/DCIR, brandon.george.10@us.af.mil mailto:steven.hedgepeth@us.af.mil mailto:paola.navarro_gallegos@us.af.mil mailto:brandon.george.10@us.af.mil

The Ombudsman clause, 5352.201-9101 Ombudsman (Nov 2012) will be contained in any contracts or agreements resulting from this Solicitation. The SMC Ombudsman is Lt Col

Michael Kennebrea, michael.kennebrea@us.af.mil mailto:michael.kennebrea@us.af.mil