HALO Program Solicitation Amendment 1.docx

Program Solicitation Hybrid Acquisition for proliferated Low-earth Orbit SDA-PS-24-03 Amendment 1 June 25, 2024 Program Solicitation Number SDA-PS-24-03

1. Overview The Space Development Agency (SDA) is announcing a novel opportunity for non-traditional defense contractors to work directly with SDA for rapid on-orbit mission feasibility prototypes: Hybrid Acquisition for proliferated Low-earth Orbit (HALO). HALO consists of other transaction (OT) for prototype agreements but is novel in that it is a staged acquisition consisting of a competition to establish a pool of offerors who could then compete for specific demonstration efforts, or “Prototype Orders (PO).” SDA intends to compete the Tranche 2 Demonstration and Experimentation System (T2DES) variants via specific POs under HALO, and may compete non-T2DES efforts under HALO as well.

Prototype orders solicited under HALO will focus on rapid, end-to-end mission demonstrations designed to launch two (2) identical satellites 12-18 months after award. The demonstrations must be accomplished by a Non-traditional Defense Contractor1 performing as the prime who can build a team to acquire any capabilities it may not possess itself. However, the prime performer must at least provide (not procure) the space vehicle bus.

Respondents to the HALO solicitation will submit Firm Fixed Price offers to conduct one of the Representative Prototype Orders (RPOs) attached to this solicitation. The offeror’s approach to carrying out the selected RPO will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria shown in Section 2. Proposal instructions and format are provided in Section 3. SDA will select offerors to receive HALO agreements and be included in the pool of offerors eligible to compete for future HALO demonstration Prototype Orders. SDA may, at its discretion, pursue prototype orders based on responses to the RPOs without issuing a separate call for prototype orders.

HALO OT agreements (see sample agreement attached to the solicitation) will be valued at $20,000 and will have standardized terms, conditions, and attachments, to include a DD 254. The period of performance will be three (3) years, during which performers will be eligible to compete for prototype orders. PO OTs will have different agreement values and periods of performance based on, and as specified in, the PO.

In addition to the prototype orders, HALO will encourage networking and teaming through periodic meetings open to all HALO awardees. Also, the HALO OT agreements would allow SDA to put in place necessary security measures that will enable HALO members to bid on future, classified opportunities.

Aspiring HALO entrants that are not awarded an OT agreement may request informal feedback. SDA anticipates providing future opportunities for HALO awards.

Minimum compliance requirements for future HALO missions will include (see sample agreement Attachment 1 Statement of Work for the full list of compliance and reference documents):

1. CNSSP-12 (information assurance)

2. NIST 800-171 (Protection of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in nonfederal IT)

1 Non-traditional Defense Contractor is defined in 10 U.S.C. Section 3014 as an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by the DoD for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the DoD that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to 41 U.S.C. Section 1502 and the regulations implementing such section. This includes all small business concerns under the criteria and size standards in 15 U.S.C. Section 632 and 13 C.F.R. Part 121

3. Rideshare Payload Users Guide (RPUG) suitable for release to current or anticipated team members.

4. Orbital Debris Mitigation Standards of Practice (ODMSP)

5. NTIA Redbook

6. Ability to meet Cyber Security requirements, and

7. Other Department of Defense and regulatory compliance (to be identified in follow on prototype orders).

2. Evaluation Criteria:

Conforming proposals will be evaluated using the following criteria: Overall Operational and Technical Merit (Non-Price), and Price. These factors are approximately equal in relative importance. Evaluators will base their conclusions only on information contained in the proposal. It cannot be assumed that evaluators are acquainted with the firm or key individuals or any referenced experiments therefore sufficient detail to support claims must be included in the proposal. SDA reserves the right to not evaluate non-conforming proposals, to include but not be limited to, proposals from ineligible respondents.

Overall Operational and Technical Merit The proposed technical solution and approach is feasible, achievable, and complete. The proposed technical team shall reflect the expertise and experience to accomplish the proposed tasks. Task descriptions and associated technical elements provided are complete and in a logical sequence with all proposed deliverables clearly defined such that a final outcome that achieves the goal can be expected as a result of award. The proposal identifies major risks and planned mitigation efforts are clearly defined and feasible. All Government-furnished items and technical data rights shall be clearly asserted. The proposed schedule aggressively pursues performance metrics in an efficient time frame that accurately accounts for the anticipated workload. The proposer has experience with successful ESPA-class, or larger, missions or has firm plans to perform such a mission in a timeframe relevant to the HALO period of performance. Credible solutions with credible schedules that result in earlier successful demonstrations will be evaluated more favorably.

Price The Government will evaluate the offeror’s pricing for reasonableness, completeness, and overall price. Elements of the proposed price that may be used in the evaluation include comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation; comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates; and analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data provided by the offeror. The Government may use data external to the Offeror’s proposal such as, but not limited to, field pricing reports, industry information, Government estimates, same or similar DoD contracts, and commercial data when evaluating price reasonableness.

3. Proposal Instructions

In addition to addressing one of the RPOs, the proposal shall discuss, if possible, one successful mission of ESPA-class or greater size. Provide the name, mission description, definition of success, orbit, operating time on orbit, launch method, launch date, and a discussion of follow-on missions, if applicable. If you have not launched a successful mission, please provide the above information (estimates if necessary) for your next upcoming mission. Include a summary table of Demonstrated Performance as shown below in your proposal. Also provide a narrative summary of the mission along with an example, if applicable, of how your company helped a subcontractor overcome a problem to make the project successful.

Mission name

Mission description

Vendor role on program (Prime, payload provider, bus provider, merchant supplier, integrator, etc.)

Vehicle size and class (e.g. ESPA, cake topper, etc.)

Mission customer

Customer contact information

Definition of success

Orbit

Time from program kickoff to launch (in months)

Operating time on orbit (in months)

Launch method (e.g. rideshare, dedicated launch, etc.)

Launch provider (e.g. SpaceX, ULA, Rocket Lab, etc.)

Launch date

Discussion of follow-on missions

3.1 Proposal Submission Instructions

SDA requires that Offerors submit only electronic proposals. Unless otherwise stated in these instructions, all Volumes along with any appendices and/or attachments shall be submitted only in .pdf format and must be submitted independently by file as SDA will not accept .zip files. Offerors shall submit their responses via DoD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE): https://safe.apps.mil. Offerors shall submit one (1) original copy of each Volume and appendices and/or attachments NO LATER THAN 1200 EDT 11 July 2024. Offerors shall submit each proposal via DoD SAFE and all files should be included in a single DoD SAFE submission. Each file submitted must be clearly labeled with the SDA solicitation number, Prime performer organization name, Prime performer proposal title (short title recommended), and Volume number and appendix or attachment number (as appropriate). The size limit for each DoD SAFE file transmission is 8192 MB.

Offerors shall request a DoD SAFE Drop-off Request, via an email to ussf.pentagon.sda.mbx.SDA-PS-24-03@mail.mil NO LATER THAN 1200 EDT 8 July 2024. The Offeror shall request a DoD SAFE Drop-off Request regardless of whether or not they have access to DoD SAFE already. The subject line shall be: HALO Program Solicitation Submission DoD SAFE Request (m of n) and the Offeror’s organization name, where m is the request number and n is the total number of requests that will be made by the Offeror. If the Offeror’s submission will exceed the DoD size limit, then they shall make the required number of requests to complete their submission. Within the body of the email, the Offeror shall clearly state the email address to which the Drop-off Request will be sent. The Offeror is free to request read receipts for each Drop-off request email sent. The Offeror will receive an email with their DoD SAFE Drop-Off Request NLT 8 July 2024. Note that this email will not come from the email address listed above. If proposal contains CUI content, the Offeror shall check both the “Encrypt every file” check box and the “Send me an email when each recipient picks up the files” check box. The password shall be sent under separate email to the email address above with the subject line: HALO Program Solicitation Submission DoD SAFE Password and the Offeror’s organization name. The “Short note to the Recipients” field shall clearly identify the Offeror’s organization name, the proposal name, and the number of the submission.

Proposals received after 1200 EDT 11 July 2024 may be considered late and not evaluated. Offerors whose proposals are considered late will be so informed by the SDA Agreements Officer (AO) and their proposals will be deleted without any files being opened or read.

4. T2DES-Europa RPO The Europa mission, as part of T2DES, will rapidly procure demonstration and experimentation satellites to prove the feasibility and scalability of more capable S-band waveforms. In this RPO, SDA is seeking prime performers that can build a team to quickly execute a full end-to-end testbed satellite system as described below.

The program objectives for Europa are:

1. Demonstrate an ability to rapidly build and execute an end-to-end LEO satellite mission. Demonstrate a range of similar waveforms on a LEO-based software-defined radio.

2. Demonstrate the viability of using these waveforms coupled with an S-band antenna array on an SDA-sized LEO satellite.

3. Execute a thorough on-orbit test program that validates an expanded S-band waveform capability and demonstrates warfighter utility of such a capability.

The prime contractor shall provide, (1) Spacecraft Bus, and shall provide or procure (2) Integration of Software Defined Radio (SDR), RF and antenna payloads onto the spacecraft bus, (3) Ground infrastructure necessary to fly the Europa spacecraft as well as execute a test program, (4) Operations and maintenance, (5) Design of an S-band Test Program, (6) Launch services and (7) user terminals that can be used in the test program in static and moving environments.

Overview of the T2DES-Europa Representative Prototype Order

higher

(2) >= 1Mbps throughput required for offloading mission data and TTC functions; no crosslinks between satellites required

(3) Information assurance: All systems, including SV and ground, shall be capable of operating at CUI level.

Ground Infrastructure Contractor procured GEPs, processing and control

costs)

with ODMSP

(2) The SDR is software reprogrammable and updateable over the air; ability to store multiple images in non-volatile memory on-orbit.

(3) The SDR must be able to process a minimum of 10 MHz of instantaneous bandwidth for both transmitting and receiving.

(4) The SDR must possess sufficient processing and memory capability to handle complex, modern waveforms with a variety of modulation, spreading and forward error correction modes.

(5) The SDR shall be capable of challenging low signal-to-noise ratio, spread spectrum and burst detections.

(6) The SDR shall be capable of searching for user terminal uplink transmissions across Doppler and timing offsets emanating from any antenna beam.

(7) The SDR must be capable of transmitting two (2) or more simultaneous, independent carriers.

(8) The SDR shall be capable of compensating for Doppler and motion effects for any downlink antenna beam.

(9) Key parameters like frequency, spreading code (if applicable), and bit rate must be run-time configurable on orbit.

(10) The contractor shall provide and release all information required to host additional waveforms.

(11) The S-band receive antenna shall be capable of the following:

a. Tunable from 2-3 GHz

b. Ability to form multiple beams that allow communications with multiple terrestrial users.

c. Ability to steer nulls in specific directions to mitigate interference sources.

d. Mounted on the space vehicle in a manner that results in minimal blockages and interference.

e. Ability to steer to signals without impacting the satellite bus attitude or imposing additional constraints for other payloads.

f. Ability to point to terrestrial locations within milliseconds.

g. Adaptive beam forming.

(12) The S-band transmit antenna shall be capable of the following:

a. Tunable from 2-3 GHz

(2) A key component of the test program will characterize an on-orbit frequency and beam agile S-band antenna.

(3) The performer shall design and execute a contractor-led test program that will characterize the performance of two waveforms using the on-orbit Europa mission payload.

(4) The performer shall also support on-orbit operations, led by the Government, to demonstrate over the air capabilities.

SDA would like to evaluate the Europa program where all program components are sourced commercially and where program objectives are completed as quickly as possible. In your response, please provide the following:

1. Executive Summary:

a. How quickly could such a system be developed, built, launched, and tested?

b. What team would you assemble to build Europa? What are the contributions and strengths of each team member?

c. What are the technical discriminators to your approach?

d. Other information that the Offeror would like to convey.

2. Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). Please provide an IMS with a period-of-performance that achieves the technical and programmatic objectives. The IMS will not count against the page limit, submit as pdf export

3. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and WBS dictionary down to at least the second level. WBS and WBS dictionary will not count against the page limit, submit as pdf export

4. Program Management Approach:

a. Show how your team could quickly and efficiently complete the Europa objectives.

b. Describe the approach, duration and overall plan of a test program that identifies and sufficiently burns down risks for more resilient S-band capability.

c. What are the largest risks and how could they be mitigated?

d. Provide evidence that the Offeror has in retaining or obtaining appropriately skilled cleared staff and facilities to support this mission.

e. Provide a methodology for subcontractor and supply chain management. What are the primary risks and their mitigations?

f. What facilities will be used to execute the Europa mission?

g. The Offeror shall clearly delineate all limitations on data, hardware, and computer software rights for technical data, hardware, or computer software provided by the Offeror and all of its teammates.

5. Technology Baseline:

a. CONOP and system architecture diagrams.

b. Satellite, Mission Payload, ground element, and full system architecture and approach

c. Outline of a test program along with how it would be executed.

d. Evidence of the Offeror’s SV bus design. Evidence includes, but is not limited to:

i. Description of SV bus design

ii. Description of SV bus interfaces

iii. Description of SV bus telemetry, tracking, and command capabilities

iv. Description of prior or ongoing SV bus integration and testing

v. Description of SV bus on-orbit performance

vi. No minimum technology readiness level (TRL) is required for eligibility; however, Offerors should provide evidence of the current and future TRL level of their SV bus.

e. SDA is very interested in teams that can provide a high-TRL SDR with the ability to test multiple waveforms. In your response, please provide evidence of SDR capability and maturity. For example, you may provide some of the following: (1) SDR SWaP and architecture, (2) computational and memory capability (FLOPS, etc..), (3) Information assurance features and protections (4) TRL and evidence of maturity such as operational use or technology demonstrations.

f. SDA is very interested in teams that can provide a high-TRL S-band antenna with a high degree of flexibility. In your response, please provide evidence of antenna capability and maturity. For example, you may provide some of the following: (1) antenna architecture, (2) beam and frequency span/agility, (3) SWaP and (4) TRL and evidence of maturity such as operational use or technology demonstrations.

6. Price:

a. What is the price of the Europa mission broken down by the following functions:

i. Spacecraft Bus through AI&T

ii. Europa Payload development through AI&T and integration onto the spacecraft bus

iii. Ground infrastructure necessary to fly the Europa spacecraft as well as execute a test program.

iv. Flight operations and maintenance

v. Europa Payload Flight Test and Analysis Program

vi. Launch services

vii. User terminal that can be used in the test program in static and moving environments.

7. Mission Solution Process

a. Describe the Systems Engineering approach your company took to decompose the RPO requirements.

b. Describe the approach your company took to determine which requirements could not be met internally and the identification and selection process you used to select major teammates, subcontractors and/or vendors to complete your overall solution.

c. Describe how you will track and sell off requirements through the execution of the RPO, such as a Requirements Verification Traceability Matrix (RVTM).

4. T2DES-Titan RPO The Titan mission, as part of T2DES, will rapidly procure demonstration and experimentation satellites to prove the feasibility and scalability of optical communication translation satellites (mission name: Titan). In this RPO, SDA is seeking prime contractors that can build a team to quickly execute a full end-to-end testbed satellite system as described below.

The program objectives for Titan are:

1. Demonstrate an ability to rapidly build and execute an end-to-end LEO satellite mission.

2. Demonstrate concepts that will enable future SDA connectivity with other satellite constellations.

3. Demonstrate the viability of using long-range optical links to connect with satellites in higher orbital regimes.

4. Execute a thorough on-orbit test program that validates orchestration and connection of multiple independent satellite networks. The test program should show a robust, enduring capability that is fully characterized and achieves high reliability through test opportunities.

The prime contractor shall provide, (1) Spacecraft Bus, and shall provide or procure (2) Integration of optical payloads onto the spacecraft bus, (3) Ground infrastructure necessary to fly the Titan spacecraft as well as execute a test program, (4) Operations and maintenance, (5) Design of a robust test program, (6) Launch services, and (7) user terminals that can be used in the test program in static and moving environments.

Overview of the T2DES-Titan Representative Prototype Order

higher

(2) >= 1Mbps throughput required for offloading mission data and TTC functions; no crosslinks between satellites required

(3) Information assurance: All systems, including SV and ground, shall be capable of operating at CUI level.

Ground Infrastructure Contractor procured GEPs, processing and control

with ODMSP

a. OCT (SDA optical standard v4.0) with an upward field-of-view (FOV)

b. OCT (SDA optical standard v3.1.0) with a downward FOV

c. OCT (high data rate (>10 Gbps) coherent technique) with an in- plane/cross-plane FOV

(2) The OCTs must be software reprogrammable and updateable over the air.

(3) The OCTs on Titan shall be able to connect simultaneously and act as a bridge between MEO to the ground or from MEO to other non-SDA LEO-based satellites .

(2) A key component of the test program builds a ground-based orchestration / coordination system that enables two or more different constellations to coordinate the necessary information such that they can schedule connection times between their respective optical terminals.

(3) The contractor shall design and execute a contractor-led test program that will characterize the performance of the OCTs as well as an automated ground system that orchestrates and schedules connectivity opportunities.

SDA would like to evaluate the Titan program where all program components are sourced commercially and where program objectives are completed as quickly as possible. In your response, please provide the following:

1. Executive Summary:

a. How quickly could such a system be developed, built, launched, and tested?

b. What team would you assemble to build Titan? What are the contributions and strengths of each team member?

c. What are the technical discriminators to your approach?

d. Other information that the Offeror would like to convey.

2. Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). Please provide an IMS with a period-of-performance that achieves the technical and programmatic objectives. The IMS will not count against the page limit, submit as pdf export

3. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and WBS dictionary down to at least the second level. WBS and WBS dictionary will not count against the page limit, submit as pdf export

4. Program Management Approach:

a. Show how your team could quickly and effectively complete the Titan objectives.

b. Please describe the approach, duration and overall plan of a test program that identifies and sufficiently burns down risks for spaceborne optical connectivity.

c. What are the largest risks and how could they be mitigated?

d. Provide evidence that the Offeror has in retaining or obtaining appropriately skilled cleared staff and facilities to support this mission.

e. Provide a methodology for subcontractor and supply chain management. What are the primary risks and their mitigations?

f. What facilities will be used to execute the Titan mission?

g. The Offeror shall clearly delineate all limitations on data, hardware, and computer software rights for technical data, hardware, or computer software provided by the Offeror and all its teammates.

5. Technology Baseline:

a. CONOP and system architecture diagrams.

b. Satellite, Mission Payload, ground element, and full system architecture and approach

b. Outline of a test program along with how it would be executed.

c. Evidence of the Offeror’s SV bus design. Evidence includes, but is not limited to:

i. Description of SV bus design

ii. Description of SV bus interfaces

iii. Description of SV bus telemetry, tracking, and command capabilities

iv. Description of prior or ongoing SV bus integration and testing

v. Description of SV bus on-orbit performance

vi. No minimum technology readiness level (TRL) is required for eligibility; however, Offerors should provide evidence of the current and future TRL level of their SV bus.

c. SDA is very interested in teams that can provide a ground-based coordination capability that enables optical connections between different space vehicles that are not part of the same network. Please provide architectural and technical information on how this would be accomplished.

6. Price:

a. What is the price of the Titan mission broken down by the following functions:

i. Spacecraft Bus through AI&T

ii. Titan Payload development through AI&T and integration onto the spacecraft bus

iii. Ground infrastructure necessary to fly the Titan spacecraft as well as execute a test program.

iv. Flight operations and maintenance

v. Titan Mission Payload Test Program

vi. Launch services

7. Mission Solution Process

a. Describe the Systems Engineering approach your company took to decompose the RPO requirements.

b. Describe the approach your company took to determine which requirements could not be met internally and the identification and selection process you used to select major teammates, subcontractors and/or vendors to complete your overall solution.

c. Describe how you will track and sell off requirements through the execution of the RPO, such as a Requirements Verification Traceability Matrix (RVTM).

5. Deimos RPO The Deimos mission is a Missile Warning, Missile Tracking, Missile Defense (MWTD) Flight Demo that proves the feasibility and scalability of a mission payload that can simultaneously conduct Missile Warning (MW), Missile Tracking (MT) and Missile Defense (MD) missions, to include detection and tracking of traditional and advanced missiles, including hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs). In this RPO, SDA is seeking prime performers that can build a team to quickly execute a full end-to-end testbed satellite system as described below. In addition, the prime performer should be, or team with, a payload provider which can deliver an instrument that is capable of providing MWTD Flight Demo mission capabilities.

The program objectives for MWTD Flight Demo are:

1. Demonstrate the ability to rapidly build and execute an end-to-end LEO satellite mission.

2. Demonstrate and validate on-orbit performance of a payload system that supports MW, MT, and MD missions with at least 120-deg diameter field-of-view (FOV) coverage from a single space vehicle platform. The payload system may comprise single or multiple telescopes and detector units. The intent is to provide near-persistent MWTD surveillance of the viewable Earth disk from an approximately a 1000-km orbital altitude for a future operational system; therefore, rapidly revisiting payload concepts, e.g., scanners or step-starers that cover at least a 120-deg field of regard (FOR), may be considered.

3. Mature a currently low TRL MWTD payload design and enabling advanced component technologies. *

* Candidate MWTD-enabling advanced technologies include, but are not limited to, new high- capacity space processors, computationally advanced algorithms, advanced focal plane arrays, alternative spectral bands (to the shortwave infrared region), alternative sensing modalities, resiliency enhancements against current and emerging directed energy threats, etc.

MWTD Flight Demo Description

(2) >= 100 Mbps throughput required for offloading mission data and TTC functions; no crosslinks between satellites required

(3) Information assurance: All systems, including SV and ground, shall be capable of operating at least at CUI level.

Ground Infrastructure Contractor procured GEPs, processing and control

Launch date selected by prime contractor Compliance with ODMSP

including HGVs

Bus includes an electronics and communications architecture that can store and transport raw unprocessed payload data, processed track data, and payload state of health (SOH) and telemetry to bus for transmission to ground

2. Maturation pathway of advanced component technologies, either within MWTD Flight Demo or future MWTD Flight Demos.

The MWTD Flight Demo provider, shall provide: (1) Spacecraft bus, and shall provide or procure (2) MWTD Flight Demo payload and integration onto the spacecraft bus, (3) Ground testing at appropriate payload, bus, and/or integrated space vehicle (SV) levels to characterize MWTD payload mission performance and qualify the SVs for launch/orbit, (4) Ground infrastructure necessary to fly the MWTD Flight Demo spacecraft as well as execute an on-orbit test program, (5) Operations and maintenance, (6) MWTD Flight Demo Test and Analysis Program, and (7) Launch services.

SDA would like to evaluate MWTD Flight Demo and technology maturation programs in which as many program components as possible are sourced commercially, and where program objectives are completed as quickly as possible. In your response, please provide information on the following:

1. Executive Summary:

a. How quickly could such a system be developed, built, ground-tested, launched, and flight-tested?

b. What team would you assemble to build the MWTD Flight Demo? What are the contributions and strengths of each team member?

c. What are the technical discriminators to your approach?

d. Other information that the Offeror would like to convey.

2. Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). Please provide an IMS with a period-of-performance that achieves the technical and programmatic objectives. The IMS will not count against the page limit, submit as pdf export.

3. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and WBS dictionary down to at least the second level. WBS and WBS dictionary will not count against the page limit, submit as pdf export

4. Program Management Approach:

a. Show how your team could quickly and effectively complete the MWTD Flight Demo objectives.

b. Please describe the approach, duration and overall plan of a test program that identifies and sufficiently burns down risks for more resilient MWTD capability.

c. What are the largest risks and how could they be mitigated?

d. Provide evidence that the Offeror has in retaining or obtaining appropriately skilled cleared staff and facilities to support this mission.

e. Provide a methodology for subcontractor and supply chain management. What are the primary risks and their mitigations?

f. What facilities will be used to execute the MWTD Flight Demo mission?

g. The Offeror shall clearly delineate all limitations on data, hardware, and computer software rights for technical data, hardware, or computer software provided by the Offeror and all of its teammates.

5. Technology Baseline:

a. CONOP and system architecture diagrams

b. Payload architecture and approach

c. Outline of flight test program along with how it would be executed, with estimates of number of collects and data volume expected to be collected during demo mission.

d. Evidence of the Offeror’s SV bus design. Evidence includes, but is not limited to:

i. Description of SV bus design

ii. Description of SV bus interfaces

iii. Description of SV bus telemetry, tracking, and command capabilities

iv. Description of prior or ongoing SV bus integration and testing

v. Description of SV bus on-orbit performance

vi. No minimum technology readiness level (TRL) is required for eligibility; however, Offerors should provide evidence of the current and future TRL level of their SV bus.

e. SDA is very interested in teams that can mature to high TRL unproven MWTD payloads and components with the ability to make multiple data collects and enhance future MWTD system mission utility. In your response, please provide evidence of MWTD Flight Demo payload mission capability and maturity. For example, you may provide some of the following: (1) MWTD Flight Demo payload performance analysis and mission value proposition, (2) advanced algorithm description, processing architecture, and on-board memory capability, (3) minimum viable demo criteria, and (4) evidence of maturity such as operational use or technology demonstrations.

f. SDA is very interested in teams that can provide a MWTD Flight Demo payloads with a pathway for maturing and integrating new advanced component technologies with a high degree of flexibility. In your response, please provide evidence of advanced component technology capability and maturity. For example, you may provide some of the following: (1) A high-capacity processor’s ability to conduct onboard processing and reduce processing latencies, (2) Computationally advanced algorithms that efficiently process MW, MT and/or MD data collections, (3) MWTD Flight Demo payload design extensibility for integrating larger format focal plane arrays, (4) Methods for enhancing resiliency against current and emerging directed energy threats, and (5) TRL and evidence of maturity such as operational use or technology demonstrations.

6. Price:

a. What is the price of the MWTD Flight Demo mission broken down by the following functions:

i. Spacecraft Bus through AI&T

ii. MWTD Payload development through AI&T and integration onto the spacecraft bus

iii. Space Vehicle environmental test campaign

iv. Ground infrastructure necessary to fly the MWTD Flight Demo spacecraft as well as execute a test program.

v. Flight operations and maintenance

vi. MWTD Payload Flight Test and Analysis Program

vii. Launch services

7. Mission Solution Process

a. Describe the Systems Engineering approach your company took to decompose the RPO requirements.

b. Describe the approach your company took to determine which requirements could not be met internally and the identification and selection process you used to select major teammates, subcontractors and/or vendors to complete your overall solution.

c. Describe how you will track and sell off requirements through the execution of the RPO, such as a Requirements Verification Traceability Matrix (RVTM).

image1.png