RFI LDPE Follow-On_06DEC2019.pdf

Description (item 13 above):

SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS:

The Innovation & Prototyping Directorate (SMC/DCI) is soliciting information about potential sources to produce the follow-on to the Long Duration Propulsive Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) (LDPE). EELV is now known as National Security Space Launch (NSSL). This RFI serves as an addendum to Solicitation Number LDPE_RFI posted December 12, 2018, specifically LDPE 4 and beyond. SMC/DCI seeks additional information on desired capabilities, acquisition structure, cost and feasibility.

CAPABILITY REQUIREMENT:

To advance Air Force Space Command rideshare objectives, SMC/DCI seeks a flexible and modular LDPE platform that will support space prototype rideshare missions for both separable and non-separable space demonstrations in a GEO orbit. This capability will be launched on an NSSL rideshare mission as part of an Integrated Payload Stack (IPS) that is expected to include other spacecraft or payload adapters.

As part of the launch manifest, the integrated LDPE must meet all launch safety requirements including coupled loads analysis, thermal analysis, and testing to actual or forecast launch environments. The Government’s LDPE concept is a six-port standard ESPA ring, or equivalent, as the primary structure.

Payloads will be mounted to the available ESPA ports. Functional testing of the integrated LDPE in a simulated space environment is also expected. Support for workarounds, such as testing with payload mass simulators, is expected in order to accommodate payloads that will not arrive until processing at the launch site. The LDPE structure is intended for attachment and separation from the launch vehicle Payload Attachment Fitting (PAF) or another payload adapter of the same size, however, designs need not be limited to an ESPA structure. Once separated from the launch vehicle, the LDPE must support separable payloads until inserted into their intended orbits and continue to support non-separable payloads for mission duration. Reference Solicitation Number LDPE_RFI for additional information.

INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDERS:

A. Capability Concepts:

SMC/DCI is seeking capability statements from interested developers who are capable of providing a system solution to the Government’s capability requirements. In particular, the Government is interested in industry concepts for a flexible and evolvable design in terms of inherent capabilities and payload integration. Multiple late payload arrivals, late changes in the payload manifest and/or port allocations are anticipated. Therefore concepts that accommodate payload integration as close as possible to the launch date are of interest. In addition to enhancing the LDPE platform as an on-orbit demonstration and test range asset, the Government also seeks to develop an LDPE core with residual capability beyond the minimally 18-month mission life. The Government would like to understand the responder’s LDPE concepts for the following technology areas:

1. In addition to improving upon the existing capabilities of the LDPE bus (propulsion, communications, attitude control, etc.), the Government is also seeking to evolve and expand the core capabilities of the LDPE platform, sans payloads, beyond a simple bus/rideshare. The primary goal of this effort is to deliver a platform that will provide on-orbit test range and mission support capabilities for the primary demonstration missions. An additional goal is to provide residual, or leave-behind, capabilities beyond the primary minimally 18-month demonstration mission life to benefit the larger Department of Defense (DoD) enterprise space architecture. Two categories of capabilities are sought: (a) those that may be integrated into the bus without impacting payload capacity, and (b) those that occupy one or more ports and therefore may limit payload capacity. Example capabilities include: local space situational awareness (SSA) sensors (passive, active, 1- or 2-way), cross-link communications, strap-on fuel-tanks, etc. Category (a) capabilities are preferred, but category (b) capabilities provide a means of maximizing port utilization should the payload manifest allow it. For example, a category (b) capability added late in the process flow due to an unexpected removal of an originally planned payload.

2. A longer-term goal for the LDPE program is to become an enduring experimental test platform in space, building on the vision that LDPE’s capabilities may be equally leveraged by space assets launched together with or separately from LDPE. As such, the Government is interested in future capabilities to support this vision. These capabilities may take the form of, for example:

a. Local test range capabilities as described in Section A1, e.g. satellites maneuver within proximity of LDPE and leverage LDPE’s on-board range sensors

b. On-orbit servicing and/or docking with operational or prototype satellites launched separately from LDPE or otherwise already in orbit, and thereby leverage host capabilities (propulsion, comms, etc.), e.g. filling a port vacated by separable payload(s)

c. While such capabilities in full may be beyond the scope of this acquisition, the Government seeks information regarding the ability to demonstrate aspects of such capabilities in the interim (i.e. the current acquisition). For example, demonstrate a single dockable port.

3. The Government seeks information on alternatives to the Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN) with emphasis on higher data rates (>2Mbps, up to 50 Mbps), higher availability ground communications (> 99% availability, 24/7 coverage), and associated costs for telemetry and command data in addition to LDPE (platform) support for hosted payload mission data.

Consider the pros and cons of different (a) ground antennas and (b) communications networks such as:

a. NOAA and/or NOAA NWAVE

b. AWS Ground Station (Amazon)

c. Atlas Space Operations

d. Swedish Space Corporation

e. Others

Consider different modulations and codings to increase mission data rates, such as LDPC coding.

4. While the focus for LDPE continues to be GEO demonstration missions flown on NSSL, flexible launch manifest options are desired by the Government within these constraints. The Government seeks options to maximize the number of available launches/rideshare opportunities per year. For example, not requiring a direct-inject to GEO and instead performing transfer to GEO once separated. Such options likely drive more delta-v via larger/more fuel tanks, lighter-weight structures, electric propulsion, or combinations thereof. Include estimated costs and transfer durations.

5. Payload Integration. As a platform for prototypes at various levels of maturity, multiple changes in payload manifest should be expected to include late (de)manifests and (re)allocation of ports/payloads with the goal of accommodating payloads at launch site. Therefore, the Government seeks to standardize and streamline payload integration as much as possible with the vision of “plug-and-play” to include software and hardware efforts.

a. State ability to support late manifest and port allocation decisions, along with late payload integration. How close to launch can you support? Separable vs. hosted timelines? What are the limiting factors? Launch vehicle (LV) coupled loads analysis (CLA) and cybersecurity authorizations, for example, typically have long-lead times (> L-12 months) and limit the ability for late integration, the Government is interested in concepts to overcome these challenges.

b. The Government seeks to use a non-proprietary payload interface standard for prospective prototype payloads to build to. As such the Government seeks information regarding interface standardization in this domain, leveraging existing standards such as for CubeSats and ongoing government efforts like CONFERS and CoPaIS.

i. Standardization of both hardware and software interfaces is sought

ii. Standardized multi-payload per-port adapters/mounts are sought

iii. The Government expects to have unlimited data rights to any standardization products developed, does this create any issues?

c. State ability to support payloads at various classification levels, to include personnel, facilities, processes, etc.

6. Space and Missile Systems Center/Innovation & Prototyping Directorate (SMC/DCI) is complying with the OSD Digital Engineering Strategy by implementing a program digital engineering approach. This approach includes contracting for digital models, provide contractor model data access to the government and associate contractors (to ensure mission integration), a contractor digital engineering environment that permits government access and analysis as well as gov’t-contractor IPT collaboration, use the concept of digital twin to support the program office activities of manifest planning and management, product line development and management (e.g., configuration management), and initial and residual operations. The model and digital twin will be used to conduct analysis for safety, loads analysis, thermal analysis, launch environments, space environment, with overall goals of interface standardization. The government seeks information on the contractor ability to meet the SMC/DCI digital engineering approach.

B. Budget and Contracting Structure Limiting cost is a continuing priority for the Government in this acquisition. The estimated cost per space vehicle is approximately $60M, to include all efforts listed in Table 1. This estimate is provided for planning purposes only. Designs should be limited to this cost profile.

Table 1: Work Breakdown

# Efforts 1 LDPE Platform/Bus 2 Payload Integration 3 Launch Vehicle Integration 4 Ground, Operations, & Sustainment

1. The Government is seeking industry feedback on a proposed multiple award acquisition wherein each of the two primary efforts: (A) LDPE platform/bus production, and (B) payload integration (to include functional testing of the integrated LDPE in a simulated space environment, mass simulators where applicable), may be awarded to different prime contractors. Note that Contract B will require the ability to perform work with payloads at a classified level.

a. Which effort(s) would you propose to? If proposing to both efforts, what difference (if any) would exist between a combined proposal and two separate proposals (one for each effort), e.g. cost savings?

b. Using the efforts indicated in Table 1, state preferred contract breakout. For example:

i. Contract A (1); Contract B (2, 3, 4)

ii. Contract A (1, 4); Contract B (2, 3)

iii. Contract A (1); Contract B (2, 3); Contract C (4)

iv. Other combinations and/or division of efforts

c. If selected only for effort A (bus), would sufficient data rights be made available to contractor B for payload integration?

d. If selected for only one of the efforts, does this affect your ability to support the tempo/schedule outlined in Figure 1, e.g. potential gaps in performance periods?

e. State any perceived advantages and/or disadvantages to this approach. For example:

i. Minimal requisite security experience required for classified payload integration

ii. Significant integration experience, but minimal satellite experience

iii. Separate integrator would increase costs and performance risk

Figure 1: Notional Timeline

2. Figure 1 provides a revised schedule and number of space vehicles (SV) being considered by the Government. The proposed timeline comprises 1 basic and 2 options for SV’s each with a 2-yr Authority to Proceed (ATP) to Initial Launch Capable (ILC) on 1-yr centers. Each launch is followed by at least 1-yr of on-orbit support. Additionally, the Government is seeking feedback on additional SV float option(s) to accommodate SMC/DCI or other Government customers to acquire additional SV’s beyond the annual requirement. These float options would have flexible activation dates and the potential for flexible periods of performance (PoP). In the event of another Government customer activating a float option, not all subsequent CLIN’s (e.g. payload integration, operations, etc.) may be activated and will remain the purview of the customer.

a. What is the required lead-time to activate a float option? How does lead-time affect cost?

b. How does the cost of the float options (SV F1, F2) compare to the baseline SV’s 1-3?

c. What is your capacity for simultaneous production, both in terms of personnel and facilities? Do you possess the ability to store multiple rings if significant overlap occurs?

d. What, if any, cost-savings may be seen from using a 3 SV basic contract versus the 1 basic and 2 options as presented?

e. Is a different initial SV ATP-ILC desired (i.e. greater than 24 months)? Please provide preferences for milestone payment plans.

f. As discussed in Section A1 and A2, the Government seeks to evolve the core bus capabilities of each successive SV and maintain the flexibility to select capabilities per SV as mission needs dictate, e.g. local SSA on SV-1, extra fuel tanks on SV-2, and cross-link communications on SV-3. Please indicate ability to support this “menu of capabilities”, selection lead-time(s) and estimated costs.

3. Contract Types and Breakout

a. The Government is considering multiple contract types for this acquisition and requests industry feedback. The intention is to divide contracted activities into two major categories/contract line items numbers (CLIN): 1) LDPE platform/bus production to include LDPE functional test (article ready for payload integration), and 2) payload

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

SV 1 Ctr Award CDR P/L I&T ILC Basic X X X X

SV 2 Ctr Activate Δ CDR P/L I&T ILC Option X X X X

SV 3 Ctr Activate Δ CDR P/L I&T ILC Option X X X X

SV F1 Ctr Activate Δ CDR P/L I&T ILC Float Option X X X X

SV F2 Ctr Activate Δ CDR P/L I&T ILC Float Option X X X X

FY26FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25

integration & test along with other services. The first category/CLIN for LDPE production, responders should discuss their preferences for contract type ranging from a fixed price to cost type. The second category/CLIN is for integration of payloads.

Although the manifested payloads may be known at Contract Award, the manifest is likely to change. Please provide your recommended contract type for each category above and the benefits for using that contract type.

b. When providing a preferred contract structure, the following should be considered:

i. As this effort is a follow-on to an existing program, the Government desires to minimize costs. What, if any, incentives are preferred? Other mechanisms to minimize cost to the Government are welcome, for example developing capabilities that benefit additional Government and/or commercial customers.

ii. In line with the goal of flexibility, the Government seeks to structure at least a portion of the capabilities discussed in Section A1 as contract options. Some questions regarding this item include: (1) what are the activation timelines for various optional capabilities, (2) how do the cost of these capabilities compare as options versus base, and (3) how do these options impact the overall cost of the system design necessary to accommodate this level of flexibility?

4. Other Transaction Authorities (OTA)

a. Although the Government currently intends to continue with the existing tailored FAR-based acquisition approach, industry preferences for OTA’s continue to be sought.

b. What is your preferred acquisition mechanism (FAR-based, OTA, Mid-Tier Acquisition

(MTA), etc.)? Please include perceived advantages to preferred approach. If an OTA is preferred please provide a description of the prototype to be delivered.

i. With respect to Section B1, what is your preferred contract mechanism for each effort (bus, integration, etc.)?

c. Are you a member of the Space Enterprise Consortium (SpEC)? State your ability to meet SpEC OT or other preferred OTA requirements.

C. Source Selection Evaluation Criteria:

The Government requests input regarding recommended source selection criteria. Please address areas that may be used as discriminators amongst proposals, highlighting the underlying risk the discriminators address, and criteria that may be used to determine technical acceptability, to include supporting rationale.

D. Small Business Opportunities:

The Government would like to encourage small business participation in the performance of this effort and request insight into how your company would incentivize Small Business participation.

a) Provide an assessment of potential subcontracting opportunities.

b) Do you have any recommendations to increase small business participation under the LDPE effort?

c) Is there a more appropriate NAICS code to advertise the LDPE effort in order to obtain maximum visibility to industry?

FORMAT FOR RESPONSE:

All replies to this RFI must reference RFI LDPE Follow-On. Submit only unclassified information.

Any information submitted by respondents to this RFI is strictly voluntary. Please provide your response on company letterhead to the Points of Contact (POC) identified below in this RFI. A response to the RFI is requested via email no later than, Friday, 20 December 2019, 3:00p.m. (Los Angeles, CA local area time).

Responses to the questions shall include a cover page with the following:

• Submitter's Name and Parent Company, if applicable

• Mailing Address: Street Address, City, State, NINE-Digit zip code

• Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code

• Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Identification Number

• Point of Contact (POC)

• POC Telephone number and email address

Interested offerors/vendors are asked to keep responses to this RFI to a reasonable length and provide information specific to this request—do not provide generic marketing information. It is not sufficient to provide only general brochures or generic information. No engineering or technical drawings will be welcomed or reviewed if submitted. Packaged information, such as set of briefing charts, should be included as appendices in the response.

In your response please follow the same naming convention used in the RFI; for example, if responding to a question under paragraph B., please preface your response with ‘B’. Please note all material provided in response to this notice shall be unclassified. Any proprietary information shall be clearly identified.

The Government will take all necessary steps to protect and safeguard any confidential/proprietary information provided. The Government will NOT be held responsible for any proprietary information not clearly marked.

SMALL BUSINESS CONSIDERATION

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this effort is 336414 – Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing or 541712 – Research and Development in Guided Missile and Space Vehicles. The small business size standard is 1250 employees for each code. Participation from small and small disadvantaged businesses is encouraged. SMC's Small Business points of contact are Mr.

Willard Strozier and Ms. Audrey Campbell. They can be reached at smallbus@us.af.mil or by phone at (310)-653-1108.

DISCLAIMERS AND NOTES

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ONLY. This Request for Information (RFI) is issued solely for information and planning purposes. It does not constitute a solicitation (Request for Proposal or Request for Quotations) or a promise to issue a solicitation in the future. This RFI does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Furthermore, the Government is not, at this time, seeking proposals. Responders are advised that 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.

All information received in response to this RFI that is marked PROPRIETARY will be handled accordingly. The Government shall not be liable for or suffer any consequential damages for any proprietary information not properly identified. Proprietary information will be safeguarded in accordance with the applicable Government regulations.

The Air Force will not be obligated to pursue any particular acquisition alternative as a result of this RFI.

Responses to the RFI will not be returned. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future solicitation, if one is issued.

SMC/DCI has entered into contracts with The Aerospace Corporation, LinQuest, SCITOR as SAIC Company, SAIC, Tecolote Research, Integrity Applications Incorporated, and Jackson & Tull. These companies support the Air Force program office by performing technical reviews, systems engineering mailto:smallbus@us.af.mil and integration analyses, cost estimation, and other advisory services. Respondents are hereby notified that all responses will be provided to our support contractors for their services to the U.S. Air Force. If respondent disagrees with the release of its RFI response to any of the aforementioned firms, respondent must clearly state this restriction in the cover letter accompanying the RFI response.

Foreign firms are advised that they will not be allowed to participate in this acquisition at the prime contractor level. The research and test data produced under a resultant contract may contain Military Critical Technology List (MCTL) information whose export is restricted by Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S. Sec 2751, et seq.) or the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (Title 50, U.S.C., App.

2401, et seq.). Request certification and registration from the Defense Logistics Services Center (DLSC), Federal Center, 74 north Washington, Battle Creek, MI 49016-3412 as soon as possible.

POINTS OF CONTACT

Direct all inquiries to the points of contact below:

Primary:

Capt Cole George LDPE Follow-on Acquisition Lead brandon.george.10@us.af.mil

Secondary:

Ms. Shana Plummer LDPE Follow-on Acquisition Support shana.plummer@us.af.mil mailto:brandon.george.10@us.af.mil mailto:shana.plummer@us.af.mil