Transport Tranche 0 Draft RFP Q and As (Round 3).pdf

SDA-SN-20-0008 –

Transport Tranche 0 Q&A Round 3

Q38. What is SDA’s definition of a “commoditized bus”?

A38. A commoditized bus is an existing bus design that can be easily manufactured and reused across multiple space vehicles. A commoditized bus can be produced at economies of scale.

Q39. Would it be possible to get more information on the planned simulation and testing environment (based on comment that you are looking at a test-bed developed at NRL)?

A39. ICDs for the NRL testbed will be provided with the final RFP.

Q40. Who is providing the SEIT role across the two to three vendors for Tranche 0? I.e. to integrate across the multiple space segment vendors, ground, and user segments.

A40. Mission integration is critical to ensuring that a space acquisition is run effectively and that the resulting system functions properly and meets its intended purpose. In many acquisitions, the mission integration function is provided by the spacecraft vendor. As SDA intends to acquire a heterogeneous constellation, with at least two providers for the Transport Tranche 0 and, potentially, others for Tracking Tranche 0, this approach will not work. If each spacecraft vendor provides a complete solution, the result is a number of self-consistent but unintegrated ground and space segments. If one spacecraft vendor is selected as the overall integrator, that vendor is inherently biased toward their own spacecraft solutions.

SDA has elected to follow a different approach. Multiple SV vendors will be selected. SDA will employ an entity to be responsible for both the mission integration and the ground segment.

With multiple SV vendors, the ground segment inherently has a mission integration role, as it must account for the different capabilities and legacy interfaces and software that each provider brings to their design. SDA is in the process of defining its approach for instantiating or procuring this prime integrator.

Q41. What is SDAs expected level of Oversight vs. Insight on this FFP contract? E.g. does SDA intend to have approval rights on PDR/CDR etc. deliverables? What are expected CDRLs?

A41. SDA well understands that extensive oversight of a firm fixed price contract can be detrimental to both the Government and the performer. As requested in the RFP, SDA expects deliverables to be provided per the included DD1423 Contract Data Requirements List and will approve/accept those deliverables when deemed complete and acceptable. In addition, SDA has requested that offerors identify assumptions made during price and schedule development to include time allotted to Government approval of deliverables and other elements not under the offeror’s direct control. SDA plans to work with the selected performers continuously to ensure successful completion of Tranche 0 requirements per the final negotiated price and schedule and will exercise appropriate insight and oversight as needed to accomplish the instantiation of the Tranche 0 transport layer.

Q42. Are there reliability requirements for the desired BMC3 payload lifetime (2 yr threshold/4 yr objective)?

A42. Similar to SV reliability, SDA does not intend to define a quantified reliability requirement for the BMC3 payload. The BMC3 payload is less critical to the Tranche 0 experimentation, and the parts required to achieve the desired processing capability at a relevant processing point may well not be suitable at this stage for long lifetimes on-orbit. SDA wanted to communicate that it understands the risks of using parts that have not been fully qualified for space use and is willing to accept additional risk here to have an opportunity to perform experimentation that will reduce the risks to future tranches.

Q43. Does V-band ISL have to meet Optical ISL data rates, or can bidders match SWaP of OISL in order to minimize NRE?

A43. SDA was anticipating that the V-band backup would match SWaP of the OISL rather than attempting to match data rates.

Q44. Is it safe to assume the Support Layer and BPTF will accept contractor-formats for the list below. If its not, what should we use?

- ICDs

- SV Ops Procedures

- Training

- OOH

- MROC documentation

A44. SDA will, in general, accept contractor formats but reserves to review the content and identify additional information to capture.

Q45. When will the OISL Gold Standard terminal be provided? What is SDAs intent regarding how contractors will use this Gold Standard terminal, either hardware or relevant ICDs?

A45. The OISL Gold Standard will not be provided to bidders. It is an element of the government HITL facility and will be used as part of the interoperability testing.

Q46. Please confirm the government intends to acquire SV provider operations and maintenance (O&M) to maintain SV health post launch.

A46. SDA is procuring mission operations separately from this opportunity. Proposers should expect to provide engineering support to this team.

Q47. OSIL #4: "OISLs shall demonstrate terminal to terminal ranging, bearing, and time transfer measurements." Taking accurate bearing measurements will require highly accurate calibration of gimbals and platform pointing, and drive system cost. We assume that bearing measurements are not required so long as the A-PNT solution provides sufficient accuracy.

A47. The bearing measurements are certainly less critical for the A-PNT experimentation than the ranging and timing measurements. Where precise altitude and gimbal position information is available, it should be made available.

Q48. What is the source for the absolute time measurement to support A-PNT?

A48. Offerors are required to include GPS, and it is expected that some sort of local oscillator or equivalent provides a master clock for the SV. The absolute time reference is determined through post-processing from these data sources.

Q49. Volume II Section 2 B 1) f) asks for price broken down by major risk/activity. Please clarify how SDA is defining major risk and activity in this context. For example, how does activity differ from a breakout by WBS?

A49. SDA does not intend to define major risk activities; that is the responsibility of the offeror based on their particular solution. SDA assumes that each proposal may have different risk areas based on designs, maturity of components, offeror experience, etc. SDA has identified areas of risk that we believe are inherent in the program but by no means is this list considered all encompassing. We look forward to each offeror’s identification of risks in their solution(s) and discussions of their approach(es) to mitigation of those risks.

Q50. Requirements (Attachment 2) include a Small Business Utilization Plan as part of the Cost Volume but the requirements do not mention the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (Attachment 4). Attachment 4 requires submitting an SBPCD. Please clarify whether the SBPCD meets the requirements of Attachment 2 or is in addition to a Small Business Utilization Plan as part of the Cost Volume. If these are separate requirements, please clarify where in the proposal the SBPCD should be included.

A50. SDA will clarify the final RFP to make the Small Business Utilization Plan and Small Business Participation Commitment Document one and the same.

Q51. Does SDA plan to fly GPS receivers on all Transport Layer tranches to calibrate the onboard PNT solutions for use by the A-PNT, or is NRL responsible for ground-based maintenance of the Transport Layer ephemeris and clock solutions?

A51. As stated in the RFP, all transport layer satellites shall carry GPS receivers.

Q52. The structure of the RFP favors vertically integrated solutions that may not lead to integration of “best of breed” technology, e.g. BMC3 flight software; would the SDA consider allowing proposals for “point solutions” that could be carried along in parallel with the vendors’ solutions at least through CDR?

A52. Offerors are free to design their overall technical solutions as they see fit to ensure satisfaction of SDA requirements. SDA will then evaluate those designs based on the Evaluation Criteria stated in Section M of the RFP.

Q53. The BMC3 Module plays a key role in managing communications within the Transport Layer as well as between other future layers. Does SDA intend to include the BMC3 Module in the evaluation criteria?

A53. SDA has identified that technical approach is a core element of evaluation to be considered as part of Factor 2: Technical. As stated, “The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical approach and technical risks …, The offeror will be evaluated on technical performance, system pedigree, technology readiness, and test, evaluation, and risk reduction and mitigation plans … Each technical Subfactor will receive a combined Technical/Risk rating. The combined Technical/Risk rating will include consideration of the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies”.

As such, SDA considers that all elements addressed in Attachment 1 – SOW fall within the Technical factor of the Evaluation Criteria and does not plan to list those elements individually in Attachment 3.

Q54. In Attachment 1, SOW, page 7: “The Contractor has a continuing obligation to inform the Government of known problems and issues and make disclosure of known risks associated with any of the activities to be conducted under this task.” This is an unbounded and broadly stated requirement. What is the minimum level of obligation the contractor is required to meet in regards to problem, issue, and risk reporting?

A54. SDA well understands that extensive oversight of a firm fixed price contract can be detrimental to both the Government and the performer. As requested in the RFP, SDA expects deliverables to be provided per the included DD1423 Contract Data Requirements List and will approve/accept those deliverables when deemed complete and acceptable. In addition, SDA expects regular technical interactions and exchanges with performers during which accomplishments, challenges and risks will be discussed. SDA plans to work with the selected performers continuously to ensure successful completion of Tranche 0 requirements per the final negotiated price and schedule and will exercise appropriate insight and oversight as needed to accomplish the instantiation of the Tranche 0 transport layer.

Q55. In reference to Attachment 1, SOW, page 28-29, BMC3: are there any processing requirements for the BMC3 on-board processor (processing speeds, DRAM, etc.)? Other than providing for a Software Development Kit and 3rd party upload and execution capability, are there any massless payload requirements for the prime vendor to provide?

A55. Processing capabilities are not specified. SDA intends for the vendor to provide the maximum capability that it can while staying within the SWaP limitations

Q56. Are the “Transport Tranche 0 Overview” Industry Day Slides, dated 2 April 2020, part of the RFP? These slides represent requirements and potential conflicting requirements with respect to the requirements identified in Attachment 1 SOW, and Attachment 2 Proposal Instructions. This could impact our acquisition schedule since it may make an Offeror’s technical compliance subject to claims of defective or flawed RFP. Recommend the requirements be clarified in a System Requirements Specification.

A56. The Industry Day slides are not part of the RFP. As stated during the Industry Day briefing, if conflicts exist between the Industry Day slides and the RFP, the RFP takes precedence.

Q57. Industry Day Slides, dated 2 April 2020, slide 41, and attachment 1, SOW, please clarify the Transport layer orbit requirement. The documents refer to 750km, 1000km, and the same orbit as the other vendor.

A57. The Transport Layer T0 will be in a 1000 km orbit.

Q58. Would SDA consider selection of 2x OISL suppliers and direct a selected Prime to use that? That would by default provide preference to Primes’ internal OISL solutions?

A58. SDA will not recommend, direct or otherwise endorse any preferred vendor component, subsystem or system to enable any potential prime offeror’s proposal. Offeror’s should design their solutions to ensure satisfaction of all RFP cost, schedule and technical requirements and submit their solution to SDA for evaluation as published in Section M of the final RFP.

Q59. Contractor shall comply with the provisions for SV/LV interface, giver/receiver and other requirements as outlined in the RSLP Small Launch Performance Requirements Document (SLPRD). Will these documents be provided with the final RFP:

RSLP Small Launch Performance Requirements Document;

RSLP Small Launch Interface Specification

A59. These documents will be provided in the bidder's library.

Q60. When will the DD254 and the security classification guide be provided? Please provide DD254 and SCG with Final RFP.

A60. DD254 and SCG will be provided with final RFP

Q61. SOW GFE/GFI: Timing for all GFE/GFI will be appreciated. Mention of OSI Model ICDs sometime between PDR and HWIL

A61. As noted, the expectation is that SDA and those organizations supporting it will work with the selected proposers to develop ICDs for the physical and network layers, with at least draft versions completed on or around the mission PDRs. GFE/GFI deliveries will be determined in concert with the selected proposers after kickoff. Proposers should identify need dates for GFE/GFI that drive critical path or near-critical path development. SDA will incorporate the feasibility of the schedule into the evaluation based on the criteria in Section M.

Q62. Regarding sentence on page 9 of SOW: “While SDA leaves this trade space open, the minimum acceptability will be deterministic routing.” What do you mean by “deterministic routing?” And as a follow up, what kind of routing does SDA prefer beyond just “deterministic routing”?

A62. Deterministic routing in this context means that the network topology and control are defined by the ground with relatively simple rulesets implemented on-board the SVs. SDA would like an industry standard for ad-hoc networking to be developed by T1 but does not wish to limit the approaches under consideration at this time.

Q63. Allow vendors to propose alternative architectures for primary mission operations of the Tranche 0 Transport Layer that still meet the intent of Government control of the network versus specifying the solution.

A63. Offerors are free to design their overall technical solutions as they see fit to ensure satisfaction of SDA requirements. SDA will then evaluate those designs based on the Evaluation Criteria stated in Section M of the RFP.

Q64. In place of the Small Business Participation Commitment Document, may offerors submit their company’s Small Business Commercial Plan approved by a warranted Contracting Officer?

A64. No.

Q65. The pricing can vary on FFP based upon both risk exposure and Government oversight/insight. If risks manifest outside of the contractor’s control and/or due to Government actions, will ECPs or other consideration(s) be possible?

A65. The contractor is required to perform all work described in the contract SOW for a fixed price. Any changes will be made in accordance with the procedures outlined in 52.243-1 - "Changes-Fixed-Price"

Q66. In Attachment 1 – BMC3, SDA outlines the technical requirements related to SWaP for the BMC3 payload. BMC3 power consumption is a key challenge, in terms of finding a COTS SV bus that can support the current requirement. Will SDA accept alternative BMC3 architectures that reduce power consumption, but provide a comparable compute capability?

A66. SDA will evaluate any and all proposals received against the Evaluation Criteria published in Section M of the final RFP. Offerors are encouraged to provide their best solutions that satisfy all RFP technical requirements and adhere to the proposal instructions as published.

Q67. The SOW states: "A minimum lifetime of four years in LEO shall be required of each Tranche 0 offering." Will Government specify Probability of Success for the minimum four-year lifetime?

A67. SDA will not specify the probability of success for the four year lifetime. The intent is not to impose analysis on the contractor to demonstrate the predict reliability but that the contractor will deliver a spacecraft that will last through the Capstone demonstration