Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP) Innovative Delivery of Effects (RIDE) Request for Information:

1. RIDE Overview: The Space Systems Command (SSC), Assured Access to Space (AATS), Small Launch and Targets Division (SSC/AAMX) manages the Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP).  RSLP plans to execute its suborbital and orbital launch services under the new RSLP Innovative Delivery of Effects (RIDE) strategy.  RIDE acquisitions will serve as the next generation of RSLP launch service contracts, succeeding the Orbital Services Program-4 (OSP-4), Small Rocket Program-Orbital (SRP-O), and Sounding Rocket Program-4 (SRP-4).  RSLP provides responsive space, experimental, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), and small operational launch vehicle support to DoD and other government agencies using commercial services and excess ballistic missile assets.  RIDE acquisitions are intended to support a wide variety of customer-driven requirements that may not traditionally fall within the scope of NSSL requirements, from integration and launch of payloads intended for LEO and beyond, to suborbital vehicle development, and more.  Given the variety of launch missions with varying degrees of complexity that RSLP anticipates supporting, the RIDE acquisition strategy may result in one or more contracts.  Attachment 1 of this RFI contains the high-level requirements of the RIDE acquisition strategy.

2. Background: RSLP has historically launched one-off launch systems for RDT&E type payloads, from unguided lofted trajectories to cis-lunar orbit.  In the past, industry offered limited launch service options capable of meeting the wide range of mission performance required.  This led to RSLP managing many first-flight vehicles, or vehicles with first-flight items, to meet our customers’ needs.  The management of those first-flight vehicles and items shaped the mission assurance practices that RSLP implemented and continues to use today.  Our customers, mainly from the RDT&E community with limited budgets, drive mission assurance requirements based on their risk tolerance.  A higher level of risk is more often deemed acceptable for the payloads than for the launch vehicles.

RSLP recognizes that industry’s capability and capacity have changed greatly over the last 10 years. RSLP is therefore assessing those changes and determining how to best meet the launch service needs of our U.S. Government customers.  There is a wide variance in the experience, vehicle heritage, and production and manufacturing processes observed across the commercial launch industry today.  This variance offers opportunities to ensure fair competition while providing varying levels of mission assurance across different customer requirement driven missions.     

3. RFI Goals and Objectives: The goal of this RFI is to collect detailed data on available solutions, technologies, and vendor capabilities to aid in defining the RIDE acquisition strategy.  The feedback received will help RSLP understand how industry capabilities align with the RIDE requirements and the mission types to which vendors plan to propose.  Additionally, RSLP seeks feedback regarding business practices (e.g. contract types, payment schedules, program schedules, contract deliverable items, etc.) that will lead to the most cost-effective and technically viable low-risk solutions for RSLP customers.  As part of this feedback, RSLP is interested in ideas for developing a mission assurance approach that aligns with both industry capabilities and customer needs.  Please engage with us by providing ideas to address this complex issue from competition through execution.

The Government is also seeking ideas and solutions to conduct rapid launch.  We understand that “rapid” is a relative term, and different timelines could be termed “rapid.”  We are requesting industry feedback to include relevant timelines, assumptions on payload readiness, processes and procedures, the appropriate mix of government operations/contract operations, government facilities versus contractor facilities, and general business practices that will enable the launch industry to rapidly respond to various timelines needed by DoD and other Government customers.

Finally, we are interested in learning about your capabilities related to the development and manufacturing of payloads.  This might entail spacecraft buses to support a payload, or a re-entry vehicle that is either ballistic or non-ballistic in nature.  Please provide information related to your experience and capabilities in this field.

4. Questions: The following questions are intended for RSLP to gain an understanding of the launch community’s capability and experience, as well as obtain answers to questions that will inform us of our acquisition strategy and new contracts.  Please provide detailed responses and feel free to add comments that provide insights we may not have considered or asked for.  If your response is based on assumptions, please identify those assumptions in your submittal.

Technical:

1. Provide details on your company’s vehicle types, capability of vehicles and number of launches to date.  This may be a link to a web page(s).
2. Briefly define your launch capability within the bounds of unguided lofted trajectories through cis-lunar.  This again may entail links to web pages and/or user’s guides as appropriate.  For both this question and question 1, it is important for RSLP to understand what capabilities are flight proven, and what are developmental efforts.
3. Provide launch site and facility information. Again, this may be through a web page or user’s guide which details your facility capability provided to payloads/users.  In addition to current launch sites and facilities, do you plan future growth either at those sites, or other sites RSLP should be aware of? If so, what are those timelines?
4. Based on the mission assurance background information provided above and contained in Attachment 2, provide mission assurance recommendations you believe RSLP should consider best align with your business and technical practices. Are there any specific mission assurance deliverables that would prevent you from bidding on and/or completing a launch services mission?
5. Based on Attachment 1, what limitations do you foresee that will lead to an inability to propose? What is incongruent with your technical or business practices, leading to incompatibilities and unneeded cost/schedule/technical additions?
6. What solutions do you have to address instances where the launch vehicle mission timelines do not align with payload development timelines? (Reference image in Attachment 3)
7. What are solutions for reducing the number of contractual changes when requests for additional trajectories, coupled loads analysis, and other such analyses arise during the launch services execution?
8. Similarly, launch date changes will occur.  What suggestions might you have to allow for launch date changes that avoid lengthy contract negotiations?
9. In reference to section 3, paragraph 3 above, what capabilities do you provide and what relevant experience do you have in the development and manufacturing of payloads?

Business:

1. Does your company intend on proposing future RIDE Requests for Proposal (RFPs) based on the requirements included in Attachment 1? (RIDE RFPs will also encompass missions like those currently performed on the OSP-4 and SRP-4 contracts.)
2. What would preclude you from bidding on the RIDE contract(s) based on the information provided at this time? What would you change that would lead you to consider bidding on the RIDE contract(s)?
3. Is your interest as a prime, or as a sub-contractor to a prime?
4. What contract structures do you recommend RSLP consider? Why? Please also consider and state any mutual benefit to the Government regarding the proposed contract structures.  
5. Does your company have a cost accounting system that is Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) compliant? If not, would you consider implementing one? If not, why not? (This question should not be taken as an indication that RIDE acquisitions will necessarily be CAS-covered).
6. Considering there may be a requirement to provide more than the launch services, for example a payload bus, re-entry vehicle, or other front-end solution to meet mission requirements, what contract structure might you recommend? This may be a separate contract, multiple CLINs, or other solutions. Please identify any associated pros, cons, or risks that you believe RSLP should consider.

Rapid Launch Capabilities:

While RSLP has been and expects to continue supporting orbital Tactically Responsive Space efforts, the need to provide rapid launch capability extends to our sub-orbital re-entry and experiment testing as well.  RSLP and industry recently demonstrated an 8-month to launch call up, and RSLP has achieved a faster launch timeline in the past due to a customer’s need.  In addition to answering the questions below, RSLP is requesting your recommendations on how the U.S. Government should approach these rapid launch missions that are not yet part of a standalone program of record.  As a non-program of record, those missions will be demonstrations and/or one-offs that are procured individually and not established as a baselined program with a continuing launch service.

RSLP also understands that a rapid launch capability is much greater than solely how fast a launch vehicle can be assembled, integrated, and launched.  It is a larger system solution and needs regulatory approvals, launch range scheduling, facilities, dedicated infrastructure, government operations/contractor operations defined, payload compatibility and operator readiness, and so on.  In your answers to the questions and any other comments and details provided, please highlight where assumptions are made that must be addressed but are outside of your control.  Finally, the rapid requirement is ambiguous across the Government and may mean accelerated acquisition and/or mission timelines (e.g. contract award, rocket buildup, on standby, call up, etc.).  Please consider these various meanings of rapid launch and be specific in your answers and assumptions.

1. What is your standard mission timeline from contract award to launch?  What would a “rapid” timeline look like for your company, and how would you achieve this?
2. How would you define mission assurance in the context of rapid launch services?  Explain what ‘mission assurance’ your company provides based on your processes etc. and where the Government might apply their mission assurance to gain value.
3. Are there technical, regulatory, or other external dependencies for rapid launch not within your control that need to be addressed either through the contract or through RSLP and other Government agencies?  If so, what are these?  Please also consider in your response any development in technologies or processes that the Government should undertake which are outside your company’s span of control.
4. What are key contract requirements and processes that slow the execution of a rapid launch mission?  These may include technical and business deliverables, reviews, and other requirements or processes you might view as burdensome, unnecessary, or hinderances to rapid launch.
5. What facilities or other logistical considerations are needed to support rapid launch missions?  Should these be contractor financed/owned, or should these be Government owned and maintained?
6. Is your launch system capable of providing an unwarned air-launch capability? If so, describe the capability, CONOPS, your assumptions, advantages/disadvantages, and identify Government required activities for tactically responsive space missions from an air-launched platform. If not, do you intend to add that capability at some point in the near future?
7. What do you want RSLP to know about rapid launch capabilities?  Are there any other important factors that we may not be considering?

Attachment 1: RIDE Requirements

Attachment 2: Legacy RSLP Mission Assurance Requirements

Attachment 3: Technical Question 6 Reference

*Please note, answers will be shared with RSLP support contractors with non-disclosure agreements to aid in the acquisition strategy process. They will have no vested authorities in the process. Any information submitted by respondents to this synopsis is strictly voluntary. The Government will not pay for any information that is submitted by respondents to this request for information. 

Responses should be sent electroniclaly to the follwing individuals: 

Robert Robson, [email protected]

Tristan Perales, [email protected]

Emily Parks-Garcia, [email protected]