Request for Information - Enterprise Payload Processing Management Facility Support Services (21 Nov 2025).pdf

Assured Access to Space

Enterprise Payload Processing Management Facility Support Services

Request for Information

The United States Space Force (USSF) Assured Access to Space (AATS) team seeks U.S. industry feedback on current and projected commercial Payload Processing Facility (PPF) support services for USSF missions. AATS is pursuing an Enterprise Payload Processing Management (EPPM) effort to more efficiently manage USSF Space Vehicle (SV) processing on the Eastern and Western Launch Ranges, as well as other U.S. launch bases.

I. Background

SV processing is an integral part of the launch segment for all space missions. National Security Space (NSS), civil, and commercial missions all utilize the same commercial facilities for payload processing needs. The Government forecasts demand for these PPFs to greatly increase over the next five years with growing SV requirements for proliferated architectures. Currently, USSF SV program offices secure their own PPF services via individual contracts with commercial PFF providers. As demand increases for these commercial PPFs, NSS faces challenges in availability to meet critical space mission requirements.

AATS is transitioning to a centralized management model to optimize the use of limited payload processing capacity, and increased schedule insight for the PPFs across NSS, civil, and commercial missions. This effort, EPPM, will transition from the ad hoc approach where individual System Program Offices (SPOs) and their SV contractors procure PPF services to a centralized approach where AATS will schedule and procure PPF services for the USSF SV SPOs. The responses from this RFI will help inform the Governments acquisition strategy to support a planned award of the EPPM effort in Calendar Year 2026.

II. Requested Information

AATS is seeking the following information from industry to inform the EPPM effort:

1. Location of your PPF (e.g., Cape Canaveral, Vandenberg, Wallops, etc.)

2. Provide current capabilities and services regarding your payload processing facility(ies).

a. Annotate quantity or type of facility capabilities provided as annotated in i. – xiv. below:

i. number of processing and encapsulation bays,

ii. control rooms,

iii. conditioned storage,

iv. office/admin space,

v. cleanroom environments,

vi. conditioned power,

vii. overhead crane and/or other lifting/maneuvering systems,

viii. propellant and commodity handling systems,

ix. safety equipment,

x. security systems,

xi. video & communications systems

xii. timing systems

xiii. data transport systems

xiv. other

b. Annotate current services provided for your payload processing facility as annotated in i.

– xi. below

i. cleaning support

ii. transportation support

iii. cleanroom garments and supplies

iv. propellant handling and loading

v. handling equipment

vi. fluid, gases, and chemical commodities

vii. analysis & sampling

viii. hazardous waste disposal

ix. safety compliance

x. security support

xi. Other

c. What limitations exist for your capability or services?

i. Is your PPF subject to hazard/clear impacts due to hazardous operations in proximity?

d. Are you currently expanding, or do you plan to expand your PPF capabilities over the next five years?

e. Are there any payload processing capabilities or services you provide that are unique?

f. Is your PPF capable of processing nuclear-fueled payloads? E.g., RTGs, nuclear-propulsion rockets, etc.?

3. For the current PPF services described above (para 2.a. and 2.b.), provide your recommendations for “standard PPF services” (or common PPF services) vs. “non-standard PPF services” (or mission-unique PPF services).

a. What unique Government requirements have you had to accommodate outside of the services referenced above, and how often are each of these unique requirements requested?

b. For your recommended standard services, is there a standard timeline associated?

4. Provide your recommendations for preferred contract type, structure, and period of performance.

Would you prefer individually negotiated Task Orders, or pre-priced unilateral options of services (i.e., menu of services)?

5. Priority Access

a. Please provide any existing customer (commercial or Government) agreements that entail priority use or first right of refusal and how that affects the scheduling of your facility.

b. Please provide your assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the following

“Priority Right to Use” language for inclusion in contract terms & conditions. If you have any recommended alternatives to this language, please provide your recommendations as well.

Priority Right to Use

(a) In consideration of the Government's most favored customer status (and sustainment CLIN, if applicable), PPF provider ("Contractor") agrees to provide the Government with Priority Right to Use, starting on the date in which the Government enters into an agreement/contract with the PPF provider for the length of the period of performance.

(b) Priority Right to Use Definition: Priority Right to Use shall mean the Contractor shall not in any way encumber the availability of the PPF for Government use for the purpose of payload processing and encapsulation to any other entity, whether commercial or government. The Government understands and agrees that they will work with the Contractor to allow any necessary ingress/egress between the PPF bays if required.

6. What Launch Service Providers (LSPs) launch systems have performed encapsulation within your facility?

7. What LSPs launch systems are you aware of that you cannot support encapsulation processing services for?

8. Are there times when your PPF capacity is underutilized? If so, what are the causes of underutilization?

9. How much time does your company need to process a request for PPF services? In addition, how early before the services are needed is the ideal time to begin the scheduling process?

10. Do you have a standard/preferred requirements format to receive SV processing and encapsulation requirements?

11. Are there any changes or recommendations you would like to make in regard to how the Government utilizes your facility and services?

12. What are recommendations to reduce costs and/or increase efficiencies for PPF procurement while maintaining manifest schedule flexibility?

13. If you believe a different NAICS code is more appropriate for this effort, please provide it with your response.

III. Submission Instructions

All responses shall be sent via email to the Government points of contact identified below. Any responses submitted through different channels or to a different email address will not be considered. Responses to this notice shall include Vendor's Company Name, Address, and Point of Contact Information including name, position, telephone number, and email address. There is no page limit to your submittal, but no more than 25 pages would be an appropriate level of response for the RFI (exclusive of lists of tables, figures, acronyms, etc.) and should use a minimum of 12-point font, single line spacing and 1-inch margins. When submitting a response, please use the subject PPF Services RFI [-Vendor Name]".

All responses to this RFI are requested no later than 5:00 PM Pacific Standard Time on 12 December 2025. Responses received after this time might not be considered in the Government’s analyses. The Government may subsequently contact respondents for clarification on the information submitted. The Government plans to conduct 1-on-1 discussions virtually, or potentially at the vendor’s site, with respondents to this RFI. If interested, please provide date/times availability for 1-on-1 discussions to occur 5 through 16 January 2026.

POINTS OF CONTACT:

Primary: Secondary:

Isabel Shvartsman Irma Seferi Contracting Officer Contracts Specialist isabel.shvartsman@spaceforce.mil irma.seferi@spaceforce.mil

IV. Response Classification

All material provided in response to this RFI shall be submitted in Microsoft Word or Adobe format and shall be kept UNCLASSIFIED, non-confidential, and non-proprietary to the maximum extent possible. If proprietary information is submitted, it must be appropriately and specifically marked. It is the submitter's responsibility to clearly define to the Government what is considered confidential/proprietary data. Firms providing confidential/proprietary information shall be separately and clearly identified and mark all confidential/proprietary information with appropriate labels (i.e. “Proprietary”). The Government will take all necessary steps to protect/safeguard any confidential/proprietary information provided. The Government will NOT be held responsible for any proprietary information that is not clearly marked.

V. Small Business Consideration

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and size standard are 336414 and 1,300 employees, respectively. Response from small business is encouraged. Questions relating to small business should be addressed to the Office of Small Business Programs at smallbus@spaceforce.mil.

VI. Disclaimer

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ONLY. This is an RFI issued solely for information and planning purposes; it does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP), Request for Quotation (RFQ), or a promise to issue a solicitation in the futures. In accordance with FAR 15.201(e), responses to this RFI are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. The RFI does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Furthermore, the Government is not seeking proposals at this time. Furthermore, the Government will NOT pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI. All costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the responding party’s expense. AATS will acknowledge receipt of all submissions but is under no obligation to provide feedback.

Submissions may be reviewed by Government personnel and support contractors bound by appropriate non-disclosure agreements. Intellectual or other privileged or proprietary information contained in responses to this RFI will not be distributed outside of the Department of Defense or United States Government employees from other Government agencies who are working with AATS on this RFI. SYD 80 has entered into contracts with: The Aerospace Corporation; Alpha Omega Group LLC; Axient LLC;

Boecore, Inc.; Figueroa & Associates, LLC; Integrated Data Services, LLC; KBR Wyle Services, LLC;

Liona Enterprises Inc; ManTech International Corporation; Nynth Company California LLC; OMNI Consulting Solutions LLC; Quantum Space LLC; SAVI, LLC; Stellar Solutions; Tecolote Research, Inc.;

and Wallender & Associates. These companies support the program office by performing technical reviews, systems engineering and integration analyses, cost estimation, and other advisory services. Participation in the one-on-one discussions constitutes consent to disclosure of information to these companies, which are required to provide equal protection to non-public information as the Government.