# Presentation: 672669

## Rapid IIPre-Solicitation Conference

- August 2, 1999
- Goddard Space Flight Center
- Ron Miller
- Acquisition Team Lead
- Changes since conference denoted by *green*

## Agenda

- Meeting Logistics
- Concept/Philosophy of Rapid II
- Details of Solicitation
- Common Questions
- < Break>
- Proposal Expectations
- Working with Rapid II
- <Lunch>
- Showcase Mission Presentations
- Open Forum

- 8/2/99

## Logistics

- Restrooms are ...
- Coffee & donuts outside in lobby
- Lunchtime Restaurant list on table in back.
- Please sign attendance sheets
- Copies of these charts are available at back of room
- Charts will be posted on Web at http://rsdo.gsfc.nasa.gov

- 8/2/99

## Communications

- We are NOT in Blackout !!!
- Please ask questions at any time.
- For any differences between this presentation and the Final RFO, the Final RFO has precedence.
- This is last chance to get feedback to questions prior to RFO
- After RFO release, formal question procedure via CO.

- 8/2/99

## Concept/Philosophy of Rapid II

## Introduction to Rapid

- Rapid II is the follow-on to the original Rapid Spacecraft Acquisition
- Purpose of Rapid II is to place Previously Developed Spacecraft Busses on Contract for Quick Access by Customers
- Quick Access allows Payloads to mature prior to SC buy
- Goal is to minimize Cost and Risk by utilizing Proven Hardware where Applicable

- 8/2/99

## Rapid Customers

- Contracts are open and available to any US Government Agent!
- NASA
- DoD
- Any other agency (NOAA/FAA/NSF)
- PI’s working on NASA initiatives
- Space Science (Code S) AO’s
- Earth Science (Code Y) AO’s
- New Millenium Projects

- 8/2/99

## Core Contract

- _Baseline_ Core System Scope of Work Includes
- Satellite Build & Test
- Interface Integration + ICD’s,
- Instrument Integration to Bus & Test Support,
- Observatory Level Environmental Testing,
- Shipment to Launch Site,
- Launch Vehicle Integration,
- On Orbit Checkout
- GFE Instrument, LV, Flight Ops
- Basically unchanged from RSA

- 8/2/99

## Concept/Philosophy of Rapid II

- Build on Lessons Learned from RSA
- Utilize commercial practices, but ...
- We realize that we are not and cannot be a true commercial customer:
- FAR Restrictions
- GFE Payloads
- General Dailey Direction - ACCOUNTABILITY
- Washington Post Test
- However, we try to learn from commercial business practices and emulate where allowable.

- 8/2/99

## Two Competitions

- KEY POINT!!
- Requirements to get into catalog (Core Competition) are INDEPENDENT and DIFFERENT than Mission Specific Competitions
- Two Step Process
- Step 1: Core Competition is verifying heritage of SC and adequacy of implementation.
- Establish the Baseline
- Proposal to be based on industry provided assumptions

- 8/2/99

## Two Competitions (cont.)

- Step 2: Mission Specific Competitions are evaluated based on Mission Specific criteria.
- Generally Done by evaluation of Mission Specific Changes to Core system (how much NRE)
- Done by evaluation of Implementation Risk
- Each evaluation team is comprised of members from the Mission, with RSDO as facilitators.
- Will go over our “standard” way of doing business later.

- 8/2/99

## Major Changes from Rapid I

- FAR Part 12 vs.. Part 15
- Part 12 is “Acquisition of Commercial Items”
- On Ramps
- Technology Upgrades and Associated Price Updates
- Minimum Technical Standards
- Added / Modified Scope:
- Commercial Launch Services Option
- “Other Hardware” Option
- Studies for non-Catalog Busses

- 8/2/99

## On Ramps

- Contract Mechanism which allows new busses and options, from new and current vendors, to be added to catalog.
- On ramp opening will be in February and August of each year
- Proposals due last working day of month
- Proposals shall be valid for 120 days
- CO has discretion to open On Ramp at other times
- Ample notification prior to Opening
- Expect to use “sparingly”

- 8/2/99

## Technology Updates

- Technology Updates effect busses/options currently on contract.
- Can update details of bus and associated options not more than once per year
- Any price adjustment associated with technology updates will be evaluated for “reasonableness”.

- 8/2/99

## Maturity Bar

- “...demonstrate that the proposed Core Spacecraft design has successfully completed _***_ _*launch processing through **_ Mate and Interface Testing with a Launch Vehicle.”
- Intent is for flight SC and flight LV mate and testing ... not Engineering models and Simulators.
- Unambiguous for evaluation purposes.
- Shows design has met LV, Safety, and Range requirements and associated scrutiny.

- 8/2/99

## Maturity Bar (cont.)

- Other “bars” were considered:
- Demonstrated On-Orbit
- Didn’t want to penalize SC for LV failures
- Shipment to Launch Site
- Some SC ship not fully integrated
- Has not demonstrated LV integration and procedures
- Completion of Observatory Testing
- Hard to make unambiguous
- _Nominally_ only a few months prior to launch anyway

- 8/2/99

## Maturity Bar (cont.)

- Some things we couldn’t do ...
- Different criteria for different “classes”
- Accept anything but Flight HW for maturity evaluation
- Accept a criteria that was open for interpretation
- “Provisional Acceptance”
- Bottom line, Our Customers expect Busses to have flight heritage!

- 8/2/99

## Commercial Launch Services Option

- This option allows Vendor provided Commercial Launch Services for Delivery In Orbit.
- Mission Specific RFO will fully detail any requirements if Mission chooses this path.
- Before implementation of this option by the mission, considerable _internal_ coordination with NASA HQ Code M will be required (for NASA customer).
**No action is required** for the Core SC proposal.

- 8/2/99

## Other Hardware Option

- This option allows the government to procure hardware, at a level below a full SC, from Rapid II contract holders.
- The intent is to allow a “safety valve” for short notice access to industry stockpiles.
- Mission XYZ needs a Star Tracker to replace a unit failed in test.
**No action is required** for the Core SC proposal.

- 8/2/99

## Accommodation Assessments

- Accommodation Assessments (or studies) under RSA were open only to busses on catalog.
- Due to On Ramp, Vendors on contract will be able to perform fixed-price studies on busses which are not currently on contract.
**No action is required** for the Core SC proposal.

- 8/2/99

## Details of Solicitation

## Details of Solicitation

- Current Procurement Schedule
- Contract Format and Structure
- Substantive Changes from Draft
- A revised Draft RFO (showing change bars) will be posted on the RSDO web site upon release of the Final RFO (http:// rsdo.gsfc.nasa.gov)

- 8/2/99

## Current Schedule

- Contracts will start January 1, 2000
- (assuming no major Y2K catastrophes)

- 8/2/99

## Solicitation Format

- Part 12 Solicitation Format (IAW FAR 12.303)
- Standard Form 1449 “Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items”
- (Section I) Clause 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions - Commercial Items
- (Section I.A.x) Addendum to Clause 52.212-4 (modifies or supplements basic clause)
- (Section II) Clause 52.212-5 Contract Terms &Conditions Required to Implement Statutes and Executive Orders
- Contract Attachments
- (Section III) Clause 52.212-1  Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items
- (Section III.A.x) Addendum to Clause 52.212-1 (modifies or supplements basic clause)
- (Section IV) Evaluation - Commercial Items
- (Section V) Clause 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications
- (Section VI.A.x) Addendum to CL.52.212-3 (modifies or supplements basic clause)

- 8/2/99

## RFO Changes since Draft

## Substantive Changes from Draft RFO

- Remember the Final RFO has precedence
- The following are significant changes ...

- 8/2/99

## New Clause

- SC #1: Provision Added to Section I Addendum --The following paragraphs of Clause 52.212-4 will not be applicable to Rapid II
- (c) Changes (now explicitly stated)
- (h) Patent Indemnity
- (o) Warranty

- 8/2/99

## Anomaly Support

- SC #2: Anomaly Support
- SOW 4.3.5.4 implies lifetime contractor support to anomalies should be included in base proposal.
- Rapid II will include lifetime anomaly support in Mission Specific Non-Standard Scope
- Will be clarified in SOW
- Not to be priced in base contract

- 8/2/99

## Software Maintenance

- SC #3: SW Maintenance
- SW maintenance for the life of the mission will not be part of the proposal Baseline (Gvmt SW maintenance is the baseline)
- Certain information and Code will be requested to enable to government maintenance.
- SW Maintenance will likely be a popular option, and will be included in Mission Specific Non-Standard services scope.
- SOW will be clarified.
- Not to be priced in base contract

- 8/2/99

## Option Page Limit

- SC #4: Option Page Limit
- Page limit increased to 4 pages (from 2) for each Option.
- Required option information will be addressed later.

- 8/2/99

## New Evaluation Criteria

- SC #5: Added Evaluation Criteria:
- 	“The proposed Spacecraft Bus has the ability to meet or exceed the proposed performance.”
- Ensures that Offerors substantiate their performance claims.

- 8/2/99

## Common Questions

## Provisional Acceptance

- Q1: Can a bus be “provisionally” accepted prior to meeting the maturity bar?
- A1: No.  There is no mechanism for evaluating a proposal and then holding it in abeyance “awaiting” qualification. On-ramps exist and are available periodically to account for new busses.

- 8/2/99

## Fair Opportunity

- Q2: What is “Fair Opportunity to be Considered”?
- A2: IAW FAR 16.505(b) -- CO has Broad Discretion in Providing Offerors with a Fair Opportunity to be Considered
- Generally, Missions will be Competed Among All Contract Holders (Procedures detailed in I.A.7)
- The Government Reserves the Right to Examine Existing Contract Documents to Select a Contractor for Delivery Order Award (used sparingly, if at all)

- 8/2/99

## Do I Need Options?

- Q3: Do I need to have options?  Can options put my proposal at risk?
- A3:  Options are not required.  Your core submittal will be considered prior to any review of options.  If core is acceptable, then each option will be considered.  Options can be rejected individually without impacting Core acceptability or other options.
- More on options during proposal section

- 8/2/99

## Price Updates

- Q4: How often can I update the NTE Price?
- A4: Price Updates without technical updates are not allowed.  However, technical updates are allowed once per year.
- Note: I previously discussed with several groups that we were trying to get price updates yearly.  We were unable to implement this idea without linking it to a technical update.

- 8/2/99

## Acceptance

- Q5: Did you really mean Acceptance in orbit after 30 days?
- A5:  Yes.  This is the same as original Rapid.
- We also understand the implication for risk mitigation required by vendors.
- NASA management believes cost reduction realized by performance based contracts offsets risk mitigation cost.

- 8/2/99

## Protecting Contractor’s Data

- Q6:  During mini-competitions, how will the Government protect my company’s information from support contractors?
- A6:  If the Government uses support contractors, those contractors names and affiliation will be disclosed in the RFO.  All support contractors must sign appropriate Non-disclosure Agreements.  The Government will not use support contractors when there is a conflict of interest.

- 8/2/99

## Finance Payments

- Q7:  What flexibility do I have in finance payments?
- A7:  Contractor has option receiving contract specified finance payments or receiving total payment upon acceptance.
- Contractor provided security is required if a contractor elects Government provided finance payments.
- In practice, most missions will provide a funding profile (or yearly caps) defining availability of funds.

- 8/2/99

## Proposal Expectations

## General

- Need to comply with all Rules & Regulations ... Late is Late
- CD contains 1 copy of all documentation
- We Will Award Based on Initial Proposal,
- Unless ...
- Site Visits are required
- Baseline is to visit only those Vendors who are “new” to GSFC as SC providers.
- If needed, Site Visits would occur after initial evaluation

- 8/2/99

## Minimum Acceptable Standards

- Ability to Comply with the Statement Of Work
- Core Bus Design has Successfully Completed Mate and Interface Testing of the flight hardware with a Launch Vehicle
- Offeror is ISO-9000 Compliant
- Offeror Must Possess or Demonstrate the Ability to Obtain and Provide the Necessary Facilities to Build and Test the Core Bus
- Demonstrate the Ability to Obtain Adequate Security for Government Financing of Future Delivery Orders (FAR 32.202-4 Security for Government Financing)
- The proposed Core Bus has the ability to meet or exceed the offered performance.

- 8/2/99

## Minimum StandardComply with SOW

- Matrix should map your proposal documentation to the topics in the SOW and the Technical Minimums.
- Where applicable, justification for deviations from SOW should be given (i.e. Testing).

- 8/2/99

## Minimum Standard Maturity Bar

- Give us the information to verify the Proposed SC has been mated:
- launch date, mission name, LV type, launch site, mission status.
- Identify and Justify configuration changes from what was on pad.  “Reasonable” technology updates and removal of mission unique items may be allowed.

- 8/2/99

## Minimum Standard ISO 9000 Compliance

- Does not mean Certification is Required
- Being Certified or in the Certification Process is Good
- State the auditor, date of certification (or expected date)
- Any other information which would assist verification
- If not in Certification process, must show “Intent”of ISO is followed
- Control your processes and can repeat success!
- Show in the QA Plan

- 8/2/99

## Minimum Standard Facilities

- Demonstrate ability to access facilities
- if you own them, great
- if you have leased them before, great
- if you have standing agreements/contracts, great
- if you have not identified facilities, not so good.
- Does not lock you into these facilities for Mission Specific Competitions

- 8/2/99

## Minimum Standard Financial Security

- Only applicable if Government finances the payments
- Demonstrate **ability** to get security (collateral).
- Do not need security for the base contract
- Several types are allowed (individually or in combination)
- Irrevocable Letter of Credit
- Bond from a Surety
- Guarantee of repayment by individual or corporation with assets available.

- 8/2/99

## Minimum Standard Performance Realism

- Make sure performance claims in Specs match the bus description.
- Again ... Consistency is key

- 8/2/99

## Price Criteria

- Price Analysis -- Lowest Price
- In Context of Multiple Awards, the Lowest Price are Those Which are Evaluated to be Fair and Reasonable for Core System Offerings and Options
- Core Bus Analysis Considers Extent the Bus Exceeds Technical Acceptability in Areas of Test Procedures, Quality Standards, Demonstrated Launch Vehicle Compatibility, Successful Flight History, Flexibility and Program Management
- Adarand -- Offers Will be Evaluated by Adding a Factor of 10% to the Price of All Offers That Are Not Exempt by FAR 19.23

- 8/2/99

## Price Criteria (cont.)

- If you don’t make any technical updates for the duration of the contract, then price should be good for the whole time.
- Price will be evaluated as good for remainder of ordering period, understanding that technology updates can be made.
- Same goes for Options

- 8/2/99

## Responsibility Criteria

- Responsibility
- In Accordance With FAR 9.1
- Meets Business, Financial, and Technical Competence for Efforts of Similar Magnitude
- Special Standard of Responsibility
- Relevant Experience on Efforts of Similar Magnitude and Complexity and Appropriateness and Applicability of Previous Experience with the Requirements of this Effort
- Past Relevant Performance History on Previous Efforts and the Performance Achieved for Previously Delivered Satellite Systems

- 8/2/99

## Proposal Documentation

## Proposal Documentation

- Technical Volume
- System Performance Specification (SPS) (appendix A)
- enclosure to CDRL 18
- Integration and Operation Plans (IOP) (Appendix B)
- Option Descriptions (Appendix C)
- Price
- Business Volume
- Project Control Plans
- Subcontracting Plan
- (Note: Data Required is roughly same as Rapid I documentation, but in different format.)

- 8/2/99

## Proposal

- Matrix:
- Minimums and SOW to Proposal Documentation
- Outside of Page Count
- Capabilities and Performance Overview
- Address each Criteria
- Implementation Schedule
- Price

- 8/2/99

## Proposal (cont.)

- BASELINE Assumptions:
- You assume “appropriate” payload for your bus
- tell us what it is (weight, power, envelope, data rate, etc.)
- Can be a real, idealized, or fictional payload.
- You assume “baseline” mission
- Orbit, LV, Launch Site, etc.
- Schedule, Testing
- For documents, make consistent with your assumptions
- TBDs acceptable where appropriate

- 8/2/99

## Proposal (cont.)

- All data consistent for Baseline
- Technical (Proposal, Supporting Documentation)
- Schedule
- Price
- Goal/Philosophy is to have consistent set of Data!
- Value Added : Good baseline documents will assist in quick turnaround mini-proposals downstream.

- 8/2/99

## System Performance Specification

- Consists of CDRLs 18,  3, 5
- respectively: Core Spec, Instrument ICD, Ground ICD
- BASELINE DOCUMENTS
- We know there will be “holes” and TBD’s based on assumptions
- Be consistent with your assumptions
**Define your side of interface**
- * Note: CDRL 5, Ground ICD, has been deleted from the SPS and Proposal *
- Being specific does not limit downstream flexibility!

- 8/2/99

## CDRL 18 Enclosure 1

- This enclosure is new to Rapid II
- CDRL 18 Section 1 is Performance
- Correct Completion of Table is mandatory
- If a parameter is not listed - ADD IT!
- If a parameter is not applicable - SKIP IT!
- Text is allowable if needed
- CDRL 18 Section 2 is Description
- Describe system and subsystems
- Block diagrams
- Hardware list
- use of enclosure format _not mandatory_

- 8/2/99

## CDRL 18 encl. 1 Performance

- 8/2/99

## CDRL 18 encl. 1Details

- 8/2/99

## Integration and Operations Plans

- Consists of CDRLs 1, 6, 14, 11, 10
- These tell us YOUR Processes.
- Verification, I&T, Transport, Launch and Flight Ops
- Your Price should be based on following your processes
- Need to address applicable SOW sections/topics
- Again, information is based on your assumptions.
- We expect fewer TBDs in these ...

- 8/2/99

## Option Proposals

- OPTIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED !!!
- Mission Unique changes always available
- Four pages per Option (max)
- Describe the option
- Identify deltas in Hardware
- Identify deltas in Specs & other Documents (i.e. tests)
- Options do not have the heritage requirement, but you must sign up to an NTE price
- Options will be checked for Technical & Price reasonableness

- 8/2/99

## Options (cont.)

- Options should not be “packaged” or “bundled”
- Should be limited to single subsystems to extent possible
- Reasonable and minor exceptions could be made
- For Example: addition or modification of propulsion to a bus may require some structural/avionics changes.
- Options can be deletions of capability
- Options for “Services” acceptable, examples ...
- Operations (or any subset thereof)
- Anomaly support, FSW maintenance
- Testing

- 8/2/99

## Price Section

- Provide NTE for Core Bus
- Provide NTE for Each Option
- (add justification if needed)
- Payment Schedule (based on YOUR assumptions)
- Section III Enclosure 1
- Funding and Expenditure Profile
- Ability to secure Collateral

- 8/2/99

## Business Volume

- Relevant Experience and Past Performance
- Past Performance Questionnaire
- YOUR RESPONSIBILITY
- SF 1449
- Reps and Certs
- Model Contract

- 8/2/99

## Project Control Plans

- Consists of Project Management Plan, Systems Engineering Plan, and Quality Plan.
- Possible these are same across bus submissions within a company - just need once.
- Identical to original Rapid plans
- QA plan topics suspiciously like 20 ISO elements
- helps with Technical Acceptability - ISO compliance

- 8/2/99

## Subcontracting Plan

- Required of all non-Small Businesses
- Standard stuff
- SDB goals are Corporate, not individual mission orders.

- 8/2/99

## Working with Rapid II

## Working with Rapid II

- How RSDO operates
- Setting up contract
- Mission Competitions Process
- Ombudsman

- 8/2/99

## RSDO Operations

- Strive for Openness
- Open and frank “lessons learned” offered after each competition
- Get as much Info Out as Possible
- Protect Sensitive Information
- No Outside group has access to your Data
- Share Technical data with GSFC IMDC to facilitate mission designs
- Share with Customers as appropriate
- Price Data NEVER released for individual busses
- Winning Value of Delivery Order is Published

- 8/2/99

## After Contract Award

- Each Vendor will be given 3 contacts for Web Access
- Upload Proposal Privileges
- Identify main POC for outside contacts
- Initial DO: for each bus ...
- “Envelope” CAD model (PRO-E or xxx)
- fill in Excel Column for catalog foldout (public)
- 750 “2-pager” glossies (publicly releasable)
- Optional ~1:15 scale model

- 8/2/99

## Mission Competitions

- Each seem to be different, but ...
- Heads Up issued (email) to all vendors
- Your cue to contact Mission Lead if interested
- Generally a Study or Information exchange period
- Generally, Draft RFO released several weeks before final
- Final RFO released with 2-3 week response
- All vendors eligible to bid (downselects discouraged)
- Evaluation and notifications nominally 2 weeks after proposals due.

- 8/2/99

## Ombudsman

- If you have a problem or issue ...
- GSFC Ombudsman is Deputy Center Director
- Dr. Bill Townsend

- 8/2/99

## Showcase Mission Presentations

## Showcase Missions

- CNOFS 	(USAF/STP)
- NPP  	(NASA/IPO)
- GLAST 	(NASA Code S)
- Constellation-X (NASA Code S)
- MMS 	(NASA Code S)

- 8/2/99