Author Topic: RFP For Five Air Force Launches : GPS x 3, AFSPC-8, AFSPC-12 (FA8811-17-R-0004)  (Read 2673 times)

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • US
  • Liked: 1657
  • Likes Given: 1162
EELV Phase 1A Request for Proposal (RFP) 1A-4

Discussion thread for the draft of the RFP here:
Draft RFP for six AF launches (FA8811-17-R-0004)

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Phase 1A Competitive Acquisition for GPS III, AFSPC-8, and AFSPC-12 Launch Services.  One of the payloads from the draft RFP didn't make it into the final version.
« Last Edit: 07/01/2017 08:18 PM by gongora »

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 567
  • Liked: 273
  • Likes Given: 267
The one that didn't make it to the final RFP was AFSPC-52, for which they required the bidder to have demonstrated 6,350 kg to GTO.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • US
  • Liked: 1657
  • Likes Given: 1162
[SpaceflightNow] Air Force selects Atlas 5 to launch multipurpose satellite to high orbit
Quote
Proposals are due back to the Air Force no later than August 14. The contracts for the launches are expected to be awarded within about six months.

Further competitions are planned for a batch of five missions — NROL-85, L-87 and L-107, a SBIRS GEO satellite and AFSPC 44 — a standalone fight for AFSPC 52 and one for GPS 3-07.

That represents all Air Force missions needing to purchase rockets through 2020, except for the launches of three large-class NRO payloads that SpaceX has chosen not to contest. Those will be sole-sourced to Delta 4-Heavy rockets to carry in the early 2020s.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • US
  • Liked: 1657
  • Likes Given: 1162
The one that didn't make it to the final RFP was AFSPC-52, for which they required the bidder to have demonstrated 6,350 kg to GTO.

Found this quote on the Air Force Magazine site:
Quote
That mission was not included in the final RFP because SMC decided that it required “a different set of evaluation criteria,” Claire Leon, director of SMC launch enterprise, told reporters in a conference call on June 30. She expects SMC to release a stand-alone RFP for AFSPC-52 by the end of 2017

Also this from Air Force Magazine:
Quote
They also plan to release two more RFPs for a total of seven additional stand-alone launches by the end of the year.

This is from the New York Times:
Quote
The new booster [Falcon Heavy] would need to fly successfully at least once before the Air Force would award SpaceX a Falcon Heavy launch contract, three times before any high-priority military satellites would fly on it, Claire Leon, the launch enterprise director for the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, told reporters during a conference call.

And this from Florida Today:
Quote
"It will be very important for the Falcon Heavy to actually fly," said Claire Leon, Launch Enterprise director at the Air Force's Space and Missile Systems Center, which buys rockets for national security launches.
« Last Edit: 07/04/2017 10:37 PM by gongora »

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 3
SpaceX will have demonstrated 6700kg to GTO if they can get this darn booster to actually take off. That would mean just a regular F9 could be bid for AFSPC-52, yes?

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • US
  • Liked: 1657
  • Likes Given: 1162
SpaceX will have demonstrated 6700kg to GTO if they can get this darn booster to actually take off. That would mean just a regular F9 could be bid for AFSPC-52, yes?

Intelsat 35e isn't targeting a specific orbit, so doesn't quite fit those AFSPC-52 draft requirements.  We'll see if the requirements are the same whenever the new RFP comes out.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • US
  • Liked: 1657
  • Likes Given: 1162
Good article on both the current RFP and the ones coming up later this year, has a few more quotes that aren't in the other articles.

[SpaceNews] Air Force ask SpaceX, ULA to bid on a five-launch contract
Quote
Leon said the service would put out an RFP for AFSPC-52 in August, and another batch of five launches grouped together sometime before the end of the year.

That next group of five launches would include three missions for the National Reconnaissance Office — NROL-85, -87, and -107 — one satellite for the Space Based Infrared Systems missile-warning constellation, and AFSPC-44. Leon said it’s possible that another GPS 3 launch might be added to the group as well.
...
SpaceX, however, would need a heavy-lift vehicle to successfully win some of the upcoming launch bids, Leon said. The company’s Falcon Heavy is not yet certified for military launches.

“It would need to be certified by the time that we awarded the contract,” Leon said. “We want to see one flight, and before we would actually fly a mission we would want to see three flights.”
...
For the first part of the Pentagon’s competitive space launch contracts — dubbed Phase 1A — the Air Force has decided not to allow previously flown boosters for any missions.

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 3
SpaceX will have demonstrated 6700kg to GTO if they can get this darn booster to actually take off. That would mean just a regular F9 could be bid for AFSPC-52, yes?

Intelsat 35e isn't targeting a specific orbit, so doesn't quite fit those AFSPC-52 draft requirements.  We'll see if the requirements are the same whenever the new RFP comes out.
Does the result of the launch today to an orbit of 43k km apogee for a 6700 kg bird suffice or does it not count because it was a MRS launch?

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22346
  • Liked: 631
  • Likes Given: 252
I wonder if a bidder can submit a dual launch proposal to satisfy the lift requirements for two spacecraft, ULA was working on an Atlas V Dual Launch Capability awhile ago:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32308.0

"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline Targeteer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3650
  • near hangar 18
  • Liked: 815
  • Likes Given: 411
http://www.losangeles.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1328975/final-rfp-released-for-afspc-52-launch-services-contract/#.Wc2JJNwG0Ks.facebook

Final RFP Released for AFSPC-52 Launch Services Contract

SMC Public Affairs / Published September 28, 2017
0
PRINT | E-MAIL
LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. --

The Air Force released a final Request for Proposal for an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Launch Service supporting the Air Force Space Command (AFSPC)-52 mission.  After extensive industry engagements and government reviews, the final RFP was released on Sept. 28 with proposals due back to the Air Force no later than Oct. 30 in accordance with the solicitation instructions. The contract for this mission is expected to be awarded in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018.

The Air Force will award one firm-fixed price contract that will provide the government with a total launch solution for the AFSPC-52 mission. The award includes launch vehicle production, mission integration and launch operations. The Air Force’s acquisition strategy for this solicitation achieves a balance between mission success/operational needs, and lowering launch costs, through reintroducing competition for National Security Space missions.

“This solicitation marks another opportunity to foster competition on the EELV program in an effort to reduce launch costs while maintaining assured access to space with two or more launch providers,” said Lt. Gen. John Thompson, Space and Missile Systems Center commander.

The Air Force is procuring AFSPC-52, which is a classified mission.  AFSPC-52 is projected to launch in the 4th quarter of FY 2020.
 
This is the fifth competitive launch service solicitation under the current Phase 1A procurement strategy.  The Phase 1A procurement strategy reintroduces competition for National Security Space launch services.

The Air Force Space Command's Space and Missile Systems Center, located at the Los Angeles Air Force Base, California, is the U.S. Air Force's center of excellence for acquiring and developing military space systems. Its portfolio includes the Global Positioning System, military satellite communications, defense meteorological satellites, space launch and range systems, satellite control networks, space based infrared systems, and space situational awareness capabilities.
Best quote heard during an inspection, "I was unaware that I was the only one who was aware."

Offline Targeteer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3650
  • near hangar 18
  • Liked: 815
  • Likes Given: 411
https://govtribe.com/person/dzung-dom-at-us-af-mil/activity

Way too many attachments to attach...

But this one seems most pertinent although I don't see any performance specifics

 The Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), Launch Systems Enterprise (LE), Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA is releasing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for EELV Phase 1A-5 launch services for the AFSPC-52 mission. The RFP, FA8811-17-R-0005, is included as an attachment to this announcement. All additional sensitive RFP documents and any amendments to the RFP will be posted to the Phase 1A Bidder's Library. Interested contractors may request access to the Bidder's Library by emailing the points of contact listed above in sections 11 and 12 and signing a non-disclosure agreement prior to being granted access. All information in the Bidder's Library is at the unclassified level. Classified documents will not be posted. Interested contractors will contact the Contacting Officer to receive classified documents via the appropriate security measures.

Proposals must be submitted to this office no later than 30 October 2017 in accordance with instructions outlined in the subject RFP. Questions in reference to this RFP must only be addressed to the Contracting Officers, Captain Ashley Cunningham, and Ms. Dzung Dom, at the emails addressed above in sections 11 and 12; the questions and responses may be posted and shared with other Offerors. Classified questions should be vetted through the proper security channels. This is not a small business set-aside; however, responses from small and small disadvantage businesses are highly encouraged. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this effort is 481212. The small business size standard is 1500 employees.

The proposed period of performance for this effort is from Authority to Proceed to Initial Launch Capability as detailed in the attached RFP.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2017 12:17 AM by Targeteer »
Best quote heard during an inspection, "I was unaware that I was the only one who was aware."

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • US
  • Liked: 1657
  • Likes Given: 1162
http://www.losangeles.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1328975/final-rfp-released-for-afspc-52-launch-services-contract/#.Wc2JJNwG0Ks.facebook

Final RFP Released for AFSPC-52 Launch Services Contract
...

The solicitation is at:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?id=ebeab2f34b4317ea323de2b39a33c29b

The mission requirements appear to be classified.  Quickly skimmed a couple of the documents, the only interesting information I saw so far is:
Quote
For unclassified proposal responses, the Offeror shall reference the payload as the “AFSPC-52 Payload” and the aft end shall be referred to as the “aft end of the Payload” if referencing is required.
...
If an Offeror is unable to perform calculations utilizing the requirements contained in the Interface Requirements Document (IRD) Table 3.2.2-1, the Offeror may utilize the reference orbit for calculations (27°, 6,350kg to a GTO of at least 35,188km X 185km). If an Offeror chooses this reference orbit, sufficient supporting data to include engineering analysis, technical justification and rationale must be provided to demonstrate the ability to meet the actual orbital accuracy requirement (Ref IRD Table 3.2.2-1).
« Last Edit: 11/09/2017 03:28 AM by gongora »

Tags: