This information is for the Military Space Plan Integrated Technology Testbed (ITT), Solicitation Number F29601-97-R-0012, Phillips Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, NM. Notice is given to participants of the Briefing For Industry (BFI) that the deadline for clearances is 12 noon MST on 10 March 1997. If clearances are not received by this time we cannot guarantee that they will be processed in time for the BFI. Visitors are asked to check in at the Truman Gate for entrance to the Base. If you wish to participate in a one-on-one session please notify Pamela Hood at (505) 853-3359. The following documents are provided on this website: Agenda, Questions, Maps, Phone numbers and locations for hotels, Draft SOO and Draft Section M. Draft Section L is not available at this time it will be provided at the BFI.
AGENDA FOR MSP ITT BFI
11 & 12 MAR 97
0800 - 1600
11 MAR 97:
WELCOME 30 min
COL HEIL - Commander, Phillips Lab
LT COL SPONABLE - Director, MSP Technology Program
LINDA RAE JOHNSON - Contracting Officer (CO)
ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS - Rhonda Peyton 10 min
BREAK AREAS, REST ROOMS, PHONES, QUESTIONS TO RESPOND TO, SIGN UP FOR 2ND DAY, ETC.
OUTLINE OF MEETING GROUND RULES (CO) 10 min
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF MEETING AGENDA (VT-X) 10 min
CLASSIFIED SESSION (MSP OVERVIEW BRIEFING - VT-X) 60 min
BREAK (10 min)
SPACE COMMAND INFORMATIONAL BRIEFING 20 min GOVERNMENT LAB/FACILITIES (short 10 min pitch from each lab/facility, 10 min Q&A)
PL/VT 20 min
PL/RK 20 min
WL 20 min
AL 20 min
NASA CENTERS 20 min
LUNCH (90 min)
ITT PROCUREMENT 120 min
ITT TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW (VT-X)
EXPLORE CONTRACTING IDEAS/STRUCTURE (PCO)
ANTICIPATED FUNDING (PCO)
SCHEDULE/ANTICIPATED AWARD DATE (PCO and/or VT-X)
BREAK (10 min)
QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD
REVIEW OF ONE-ON ONE SESSIONS (SECOND DAY) 10 min
LOCATION: CONF CENTER ROOM 9
REVIEW SIGN UP
REVIEW GROUND RULES
12 MAR 97:
ONE -ON -ONE SESSIONS WITH CONTRACTORS
REVIEW GROUND RULES
Hotels Near the Albuquerque Airport
1. Best Western Airport Inn
2400 Yale Blvd. SE
2. Best Western Fred Harvey
2910 Yale Blvd SE
3. Budgetel Inn
1511 Gibson, SE
4. Comfort Inn
2300 Yale Blvd SE
5. Hampton Inn
2231 Yale Blvd SE
6. Holiday Inn Express
2331 Centre Ave. SE
7. La Quinta 505-243-5500
2116 Yale Blvd. SE
8. Marriott Courtyard 505-843-6600
1920 Yale Blvd SE
9. Radisson Inn 505-247-0512
1901 University Blvd SE
10. Sleep Inn 505-244-3325
11. Ramada Limited 505-242-0036
12. Fairfield Inn 505-247-1621
2300 Centre Ave.
Near Kirtland AFB
NAME Address Phone Applebee's Gibson & Yale, 244-0123 Blake's LotaBurger 6301 Gibson, SE 262-2438 Burger King 5401 Gibson, SE 262-0600 Christy's 2301 Yale, SE 243-8444 Goody's 2120 Yale, SE 242-9442 IHOP 5455 Gibson, SE 255-5753 Kentucky Fried Chicken 5305 Gibson, SE 268-8724 McDonald's 5001 Gibson, SE 256-0450 Marco's Ristorante 5901 Gibson, SE 256-7901 Miguel's Mexican Gibson&San 255-9711 Pizza Hut Mateo,SE 256-3400 Salad Express 5803 Gibson, SE Schlotzsky's 266-0966 Taco Alley 5303 Gibson, SE 247-9359 Taco Bell 2300 Buena Vista, 268-1425 TNT Deli SE 255-1117 Village Inn 4901 Gibson, SE 243-5476 5309 Gibson, SE 2340 Yale, SE American NAME Address Phone Bennigan's 2105-B 883-1665 Chili's Grill & Bar Louisiana,NE 883-4321 High Finance 6909 Menaul, NE 243-9742 Marie Callender's Top of Sandia 292-1463 Paul's Monterey Inn Peak 294-1461 66 Diner 5220 Eubank, NE 247-1421 Stephen's 1000 Juan Tabo, 842-1773 TGI Friday's NE 837-1100 YesterDave's Grill 1405 Central 293-0033 Avenue 14th & Central 203 Winrock Ctr, NE 10601 Montgomery Chinese NAME Address Phone Fortune Cookie 5701 Gibson, SE 260-0991 Hunan 1218 San Pedro, 266-3300 Ko Palace SE 884-2293 4208 Menaul Blvd
Japanese NAME Address Phone Japanese Kitchen 6521 Americas 884-8937 Minato of Japan Pkwy 293-2929 10721 Montgomery Blvd, Italian NAME Address Phone Macaroni Grill 2100 Louisiana 881-2400 Paisano's Blvd 298-7541 Olive Garden 1935 Eubank, NE 275-9948 Olive Garden 601 Juan Tabo, NE 881-8425 Scalo N. Italian Grill 6301 San Mateo, 255-8781 Tomato Cafe NE 821-9300 3500 Central, SE 5901 Wyoming Blvd Mexican NAME Address Phone Cervantes 5801 Gibson, SE 262-2253 El Patio 142 Harvard, SE 268-4245 El Pinto 10500 4th, NW 898-1771 Garduno's 2100 Louisiana, 880-0055 K&I Diner (lunch) NE 243-1881 Los Cuates 2500 Broadway, SE 255-5079 Los Cuates 4901 Lomas, NE 268-0974 Mi Casita 5016-B Lomas, NE 256-0771 Papa Felipe's 8302 Zuni, SE 292-8877 Ron's Camino Real 9800 Menaul, NE 255-0973 416 Yale, SE Sea Food NAME Address Phone Cafe Oceana 1414 Central 247-2233 Rio Grande Yacht Club Avenue 243-6111 Seagull Street 2500 Yale, SE 821-0020 5410 Academy, NE Barbecue NAME Address Phone J.R.'s 6501 Gibson, SE 268-1676 Quarters 905 Yale, SE 843-7505 Quarters 4516 Wyoming, NE 299-9864
Military Spaceplane Integrated Technology Testbed (ITT)
Briefing for Industry (BFI)
11 - 12 March 1997
USAF Phillips Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, NM
The following questions apply to areas the Air Force intends to explore during the BFI with potential offerors. Please answer these questions with your thoughts and ideas and bring them to the BFI for discussion.
1. Given the Air Force's limited funding and current program maturity should the AF proceed on a single or multiple award basis for the ITT procurement? What do you see are the benefits for either approach?
2. Does the level of understanding of the overall requirements support a definitive statement of objectives (i.e. priced options) on a completion basis or should the work be defined on a task order basis?
3. Based on the understanding of requirements should the procurement be CPFF or CPAF, or is industry willing to support cost sharing?
4. Given the requirements of the ITT procurement what level of design maturity could be expected at the end of the basic effort and at the end of the full effort?
5. Has the Air Force identified the critical technology areas and can you provide a priority rank?
Statement of Objectives (SOO)
Military Spaceplane Integrated Technology Testbed (ITT)
The Integrated Technology Testbed (ITT) procurement seeks integrated technological solutions to specific Military Spaceplane (MSP) system requirements as defined in the MSP SRD (xx-xxx-xxx). The program is intended to proceed with an integrated design approach to specific technological challenges faced in developing an overall MSP System. Development of prototype hardware for all the major components of the MSP system (reusable boost vehicle, reusable low cost upper stage, etc.) will be considered.
2.0 Compliance Documents
In the interest of acquisition streamlining no compliance documents are required. However, the contractor is expected to use standard commercial practice or the contractor's standard operating procedures during the performance of this procurement, and to utilize the thresholds and goals se forth in the SRD as a guide.
3.0 Technical Objective
The primary objective of the ITT is to develop the MSP Mark I concept design and hardware with direct scaleability: directly scaleable weights, margins, loads, design, fabrication methods and testing approaches; and traceability: technology and general design similarity, to a full-scale Mark II-IV system. The ITT is intended to demonstrate the technologies necessary to achieve systems integration within the mass fraction constraints of Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) vehicles. In addition, the ITT will meet the military operational requirements outlined in the MSP SRD. The MSP SRD is not a compliance document but shall guide the development and testing of the Ground Test Articles (GTA). Contractor's are not expected to meet all of the MSP SRD requirements to the demonstrator and the full scale system. However, contractors are expected to develop and demonstrate a clear risk reduction path.
4. 0 SPECIFIC TASKS
4.1 TECHNICAL BASELINE
The contractor will define a technical baseline to include representative parameters such as follow:
a. Physical design, layout, materials, dimensions, and volumes;
b. Flight vehicle mass properties including gross liftoff weight, empty weight, unit weights, and mass fractions;
c. Flight performance, aerodynamic characteristics, and optimized ascent and descent trajectories;
d. Payload capacity versus maximum velocity, orbital inclination, and altitude capability achieved;
e. Identify total lift margin including both payload, design weight margins and any performance weight margin above the minimum necessary to achieve a once around the earth mission for the orbital vehicle;
f. Propulsion subsystem characteristics including engine type, chamber pressure, turbopump pressures, propellant, propellant mixture ratio, specific impulse, throttling capability, burn time per flight, number of restarts per flight, nozzle type and expansion ratio, engine weight and size;
g. Cross range maneuver capability;
h. Crosswind takeoff and landing limitations;
i. Weather constraints;
j. Fleet size and flight rate required to accomplish the Design Reference Missions (Paragraph 184.108.40.206b, System Requirements Document; Appendix A);
k. Manpower, skill types and levels;
l. Estimated vehicle turnaround, mean time between failure, mean time to repair, reliability, and other critical maintenance parameters;
m. Operations and maintenance cost estimates to accomplish the flight requirements;
n. Standardized payload handling concept;
o. Main operating base concept including payload support, flight vehicle support, and propellant storage, and range facilities and services;
p. Manufacturing, assembly, checkout, and transportation concept.
The technical baseline will be reflected in the ITT model and GTAs.
4.2 MILITARY SPACEPLANE COMPUTER ITT (Basic)
The contractor shall develop an ITT which is focused on developing and demonstrating the test and technical objectives of the Mark I vehicle(s) via ground component/subsystem and system GTAs of Mark I components. The testbed itself shall be a computer sizing model of the Military Spaceplane. Input parameters include mission requirements and all of the critical component, subsystem and system technical criteria. Output are the critical design features, size, physical layout, and performance of the resulting vehicle. The computer model shall be capable of modeling the technology component/subsystem/system demonstrated characteristics and the resulting effect(s) on the Military Spaceplane vehicle concept design. Although the ITT is required to show analytical component and subsystem scaleability to SSTO, the contractor may also show scaleability and traceability to alternative MSP configurations. Those alternatives may include two stage to orbit (TSTO) configurations.
4.3 ITT GROUND TEST ARTICLE (GTA) OPTIONS
The contractor shall provide a series of GTA options for the following critical technologies:
Ground and Flight Operations and Control System
Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability and Availability
Aerodynamics, Stability and Control
Avionics/Flight Control Hardware and Software
Thermal Protection System
Propulsion and Propellant Feed System
Ground Vehicle Integration and Test
4.3.1 GTA DESIGN
Upon direction of the Government through exercise of the option(s) the contractor shall design, fabricate, analyze, and test GTAs, and provide a risk reduction program for all critical technology components, subsystems and subsystems assembly.
The contractor will prepare options for an ITT GTA designs which satisfy the technical objectives of this SOO, including both scaleability and traceability to the Mark I and Mark II-IV vehicles. These design shall be presented to the Government at a System Requirements Review (SRR). The contractor shall use available technologies and innovative concepts in the designs, manufacturing processes, assembly and integration process, and ground test. Designs shall focus on operational simplicity and minimizing vehicle processing requirements. The contractor shall provide the detailed layout and systems engineering analysis required to demonstrate the feasibility and performance of the Mark I vehicle as well as scaleability and traceability to the Mark II-IV vehicles. The contractor will implement a comprehensive mass management program to satisfy the objectives of the nominal SRD.
4.3.2 FABRICATION, ANALYSIS AND TEST
The contractor shall demonstrate by design analyses, by design similarity, or by fabrication and testing that the GTA Ground Demonstrator components, structures and support equipment are adequate to perform their intended purpose. The contractor shall utilize system engineering practices to define the test requirements, procedures, facilities, test data requirements, and schedules that make up the contractor's test program for the components, software and structures and make this data available to the Government upon request. Test reports documenting the results of all such tests shall also be made available to the Government.
In order to maintain a system level focus for the ITT, the design effort shall focus on an integrated Mark I vehicle available for a rigorous ground test program. The goal of this test program will be to demonstrate the viability of the chosen design solutions under operational conditions. Of equal importance for the test program will be to demonstrate the ability of military personnel to operate and maintain the system in a similar fashion to present day military aircraft. The specific reliability, maintainability, supportability and availability (RMS&A) requirements for the MSP system are identified in the SRD
4.3.3 ITT RISK REDUCTION PROGRAM
The contractor shall use the ITT to implement the initial risk reduction program that mitigates risks critical to developing both the Mark I and Mark II-IV MSP configurations. The ITT shall mitigate risks critical to engineering, operability, technology, reliability, safety, or schedule and any subsequent risk reduction program deemed necessary. The program may include early component fabrication, detailed vehicle integration planning or prudent factory and ground/flight testing to reduce risks. The contractor should evaluate the use of the Integrated Powerhead Demonstration (IPD) XLR-13X engine as a risk reduction step being done in parallel and as a baseline engine for MSP. The contractor shall identify the status of technical performance measurements for program critical elements, maintain the applicable milestones on the Program Master Schedule, and report the status at each Program Management Review (PMR).
SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD
1.0 FAR CLAUSES INCLUDED BY REFERENCE:
( ) 52.217-3 EVALUATION EXCLUSIVE OF OPTIONS APR 1984
( ) 52.217-4 EVALUATION OF OPTION EXERCISED AT JUN 1988
TIME OF CONTRACT AWARD
( ) 52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS JUL 1990
This section outlines those areas which comprise the criteria the Government will consider in evaluating offerors' proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. The evaluation criteria listed in paragraph 4 of this section are intended to show the scope of the evaluation to be performed. Evaluation will be conducted by comparing indiviudal offerors' proposals to the requirements of the solicitation. Section L of this RFP defines the proposal elements and data required form each offeror.
3.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:
a. This source selection will be conducted in accordance with AFFARS Appendix BB, AFMCFARS Appendix BB, Section F.
b. The government intends to award either "a single contract" or "multiple contracts" as a result of this solicitation, but reserves the right to award no contract, depending upon the quality of proposals received and subject to the availability of funds.
c. The government reserves the right to award without discussions. Offerors are therefore advised to submit their best proposal initially. Offers which merely reiterate or reformulate the Statement of Work/Statement of Objective contained in this solicitation, may not be considered for award. Additionally, any one of the following conditions may result in elimination of an offer from the competition:
i) Failure to provide all information prescribed in Section L of this solicitation in sufficient detail to demonstrate complete understanding of the Government's requirements/objectives AND the completeness, realism and reasonableness of proposed costs;
ii) Failure to provide evidential documentation to support all claims of required qualifications, experience or capability;
iii) Failure of the cost or price proposal to reconcile with the technical and management proposal(s);
iv) Inclusion of unrealistically low proposed costs or prices;
v) An unacceptable rating in any one factor in any Area, regardless of the ratings in any other factor; or
vi) Failure to adhere to the terms and conditions of the solicitation.
d. Award of any contract(s) as a result of this solicitation will be made to the offeror(s) whose proposal(s) conform(s) to the solicitation and represent(s) the best value to the government. Best value will be determined via an integrated assessment of each offeror's proposal and evaluated cost and fee. Cost/benefit tradeoffs may be considered in selecting the proposal(s) representing the best value to the Government.
4.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA:
Each offerors' proposal will be evaluated under the following areas: Technical (Area A), Management (Area B) and Cost (Area C). The areas are listed in descending order of importance, although Cost will be considered a substantial factor in the source selection. Within each Area, the factors are in descending order of importance. An unacceptable rating assigned at any level (area or factor) of the evaluation criteria will result in elimination of the proposal from further consideration.
a. AREA A - Technical
FACTOR 1: SOUNDNESS OF APPROACH
The evaluation will include an assessment of how well the Spaceplane computer model concept and options for GTAs meets the objectives of the SOO and draft SRD. An overall assessment will be made of the offeror's design and plan for prediction and validation of the subsystem and system mass properties. An assessment of whether the offeror's Mark I design will directly scale-up to a Mark II-IV capability will be performed.
FACTOR 2: UNDERSTANDING THE REQUIREMENT
The evaluation will include the vehicle system and subsystem design and performance margins and interfaces for both the model and GTA options. The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to perform systems analyses and trade-off studies to arrive at a logic al solution of overall system requirements. The offeror's understanding of integration requirements and the definition of those requirerments will be evaluated. The offeror's overall test program will be evaluated for completeness, i.e., the use of assets and test facilities in the development, checkout, test and assembly of the Mark I demonstrator.
b. AREA B: MANAGEMENT
FACTOR 1: UNDERSTANDING THE REQUIREMENTS
The offeror's approach to systems engineering will be evaluated to determine the methodology for identifying, analyzing, selecting, and implementing the alternatives available for reducing the risk factors. Evaluation will include critical technologies and their ranking.
FACTOR 2: SOUNDNESS OF APPROACH
The evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror's approach to program management and communication requirements associated with the ITT program. Consideration will be given to the offeror's approach that demonstrates a highly effective, efficient and responsive organization.
c. COST PROPOSAL
FACTOR 1: COMPLETENESS
The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it includes:
i) cost estimates, as prescribed in Section L of this solicitation, for all products and/or services to be provided in fulfillment of all contract requirements; and
ii) sufficient data, documentation and supporting rationale, as prescribed in Section L of this solicitation, to substantiate each cost estimate.
FACTOR 2: REALISM
The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which proposed costs are consistent with:
i) the types, quantities, qualities and performance/delivery schedules of all products and/or services being proposed in all volumes of the proposal; and
ii) the offeror's established and/or generally accepted estimating and accounting policies, practices and procedures; and
iii) the offeror's current and anticipated business, economic and demographic circumstances.
FACTOR 3: REASONABLENESS
The proposal will be evaluated using appropriate price/cost
analysis techniques to determine if the offeror's proposed costs
are consistent in nature and amount with what a prudent person
would be willing to recognize for the same or similar products
and/or services under comparable acquisition circumstances. Reasonableness
may be established by adequate price competition (APC), if determined