NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

CRITERIA TO BE EMPLOYED 

By the MOL Evaluation Group for Evaluation of MOL 

Preliminary Design Studies 

1. Introduction - Evaluating Areas of Capability. Evaluating a space 

system requires the input of the most highly qualified people available. 

Many of the factors to be evaluated are of major concern, and require the 

simultaneous and integrated application of specialized and technical knowledge. For greater ease in managing this evaluation, the factors to be 

evaluated are organized into these three areas of capability: 

a. Technical Area (Paragraph 3). 

b. Management Area (Paragraph 4). 

c. Cost Area (Paragraph 5). 

2. General Consideration - Contractor's Correction Potential. Throughout the evaluation, the Air Force must consider correction potential - the 

contractor's present competence and the probability of his successfully 

overcoming outstanding problems in meeting his proposed time schedule. 

An item in one study that is deficient, but which can be easily and 

readily rectified, shall lower the contractor's over-all rating less than an 

item in another study with a similar deficiency, that would require a 

major reorientation of the proposed design or concept. 

3. Technical Area - The following criteria are to be used in assessing 

the contractor's study. These criteria fit the requirements given in the 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Statement of Work forwarded to the contractor by Request for Proposal 

(RFP) No. RFP SSD-04-695-65-151, 25 Jan 65. The study is the basic 

and primary source of data for evaluation purposes, but not the exclusive 

source; other pertinent data will be considered as appropriate 

a. Systems Analysis. Evaluate the validity and extent to which the 

contractor has provided quantitative evidence and analysis underlying 

his approach towards making the compromises that lead to an optimised 

total configuration meeting the technical requirements for this system. 

The flexibility and growth potential inherent in the design approach will 

be assessed. Where alternate approaches are described, the technical 

"pro-con" factors expected to be involved in making a final selection will be 

evaluated. This area of evaluation will include all aspects of the interfaces 

of the basic MOL vehicle with the Gemini, the transtage, and the Titan III. 

Moreover, it will cover the integration within the laboratory vehicle 

between and among the other technical areas. For instance, the evaluation of a technical compromise between the "Experiment Accommodation" 

and "Crew Provisions and Human Factors" areas would be a function of 

"System Analysis." 

b. Major Laboratory Vehicle Elements. Evaluate the technical approach 

associated with but not limited to the laboratory vehicle, its structural 

integrity and dynamics, and the subsystems involving secondary power, 

stabilization and control, communications, navigation, data transmission, and data retrieval, environmental control, test and checkout, and 

2 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

AVE, etc. Interfaces and trade-offs between and among these elements 

will be a prime function of this area. Interfaces external to this area 

will be evaluated under "Orbiting Vehicle Analysis and Definition." 

c. Crew Provisions and Human Factors. Evaluate the adequacy 

of the analysis for the sustenance and maintenance of the crew; the design 

approach planned for integrating the crew into the orbiting vehicle and 

experimental operation; the approach to measure and assure the status of 

the crew health; the vehicle design approach to provide safe transfer of the 

crew and provide for servicing of large structures; the orbiting vehicle 

design approach to insure safe emergency escape during all phases of 

the flight operation including prelaunch through recovery. 

d. Experiment Accommodation. Evaluate the offeror's approach 

for achieving maximum efficiency in accommodating the "experiments" 

described in inclosure of the RFP to include the logic employed in 

arriving at this payload grouping. 

e. Large Structures. Evaluate the technical approach associated 

with, but not limited to, large structures proposed, their structural integrity 

and dynamics, test and checkout, servicing, etc. Interfaces and tradeoffs between these elements and the MOL vehicle will be a :prime factor to 

be considered. 

4. Management Area. In evaluating the items described below, general 

consideration is to be given to the realism of data in contractor's 

proposal, and confidence in his proposed performance. However, in 

3 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

addition to the proposal, any other pertinent facts needed to reach a 

sound conclusion should be considered in the evaluation process. 

The specific items are: 

a. Organization and Resources. Evaluate the specific management 

organization proposed for the program by the offeror. Analyze the 

proposed organization's relationship to the present management structure 

to determine if alignment is functional or project oriented. Examine 

existing or proposed statements of functional responsibility and authority. 

Examine the experience the offeror has in similar or related work. 

Determine other work offeror is now performing or negotiating for 

similar or related effort with other Government organizations or 

Government contractors. Analyze both the industrial background and 

R&D background of the offeror. Examine available evidence of quality 

of products. 

b. Program Planning. Evaluate the planning and time phasing of 

the proposed effort as distributed among the major tasks. Analyze the 

time distribution (monthly for Phase I, quarterly for Phase II) of the 

phased buildup of manpower for each task specified in each statement of 

work in the following categories: 

(1) Scientific 

(2) Engineering 

(3) Engineering Support 

(4) Management and Administrative 

4 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

(5) Shop and Production 

(6) Other 

c. Program Control. Evaluate the contractor's system of management 

control for the development, production and support of this system. 

This includes both schedule and fiscal control. 

5. Cost Area. Evaluate the total program cost by Phase and task by 

the BSD/SSD Cost and Price Analysis Form 23 submitted by the 

offeror. Analyze both commitments and expenditures by fiscal year 

as well as profit pattern proposed by the offeror. Evaluate the completeness of coverage, realism, and validity of the cost estimates for all 

segments of the offeror's program, including the effectiveness and 

applicability of the techniques and the methods by which they were 

derived; this includes: 

a. The identification and description of major cost deficiencies 

and their causes. 

b. Planned expenditure rates for separate program segments to 

be related time-wise and cost-wise, to determine efficient dollar 

utilization. 

Identify and evaluate adequacy of contractor-owned and leased facilities 

offeror plans to use in support of this effort, or any additional facilities 

contractor plans to provide/modify for this program. Identify Government 

facilities in possession of offeror that are proposed to be used in this 

program, including any modifications or updating required for this work. 

5 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Analyze any need projected by the offeror for additional Government 

fadlities and reasons why it is inappropriate to be provided with 

corporate funds. Analyze adequacy of machine tools, production and 

processing equipment, laboratory and test equipment, portable 

tools, material handling, automotive equipment, etc., proposed to be 

used by the offeror. Examine need for acquisition of land, if proposed. 

6. How to Assign a Score in an Evaluation: 

a. In evaluating scoring, a numerical rating is assigned to each 

item in the "Criteria To Be Employed." These are: 

10 - Excellent 

8 - Very Good 

6 - Good 

4 - Fair 

2 - Poor 

0 - Unacceptable 

b. Each item to be rated will cover a broad area; to arrive at the 

numerical rating, consider all factors that should influence the rating of 

that item. First, you must identify all the factors that affect the 

numerical rating for an item; each of these factors is, in turn, evaluate 

as follows: 

4_ Above Normal 

/ Normal 

Below Normal 

O Unacceptable 

N Insufficient information for evaluation 

6 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Note: Normal is defined as "that quality of design, approach to the 

problem, planning, contractor capability or economy that meets the 

minimum USAF requirements." 

c. Some of the factors rated on an item are more important than 

others and, therefore, deserve more weight. In such circumstances, a 

simple arithmetic calculation, adding up the number of / , 0, and 

N ratings, will not suffice; each must be weighed in accordance with its 

importance. 

7