www.nasa.gov
June 16, 2015
Industry Day Briefing
Master Plan Implementation
Agenda
♦ Welcome - KSC Center Planning and Development Director
♦ AFP and NOA Overview
♦ Announcement for Proposals (AFP) Evaluation Process
♦ Notice of Availability (NOA) Assessment Process
♦ Master Plan Vision
♦ Environmental Compliance
♦ Lunch Break (12:00 – 1:00)
♦ Tour (1:00 Pick up at OSB II Front)
♦ Wrap-up
6/16/2015 2Industry Day - Master Planning Implementation
KSC Partnership Development
3
♦ EMBEDDED VIDEO DELETED
KSC from Space
4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etn8xzF3iz0&feature=youtu.be
N
5
Master Plan – Future Development
http://masterplan.ksc.nasa.gov/Intro/Future-Development-Plan/Land-Use-Plan/Future-Land-Use
AFP/NOA Background
♦ KSC Master Plan approved – May 2014
♦ RFI issued in July 2014 – Open for all land uses and ideas Multiple responses indicated a desire to make near-term business
decisions on locations for launch related activity
♦ AFP appropriate for competitive proposals to select commercial vertical launch site development partner(s) Competitive due to limited site availability Allows for other land uses within proposal responses
♦ NOA appropriate for launch support activity Smaller facility footprint More sites available
6
Northern Launch Area
7
Launch Area 49
Notional
Eagle 4Tower
Southern Launch Area
8
Launch Area 48Notional
LC39 ObservationGantry
AFP and NOA Features
Announcement For Proposals
♦ Vertical Launch - Primary Land Use, plus ancillary uses to support end-to-end proposal Capacity limited
♦ Competitive Proposals, due July 16, 2015
♦ Formal evaluation process tailored to AFP
♦ Selection Authority delegated to KSC Center Director
♦ Sites limited by Master Plan: one, two or zero partnerships possible
Notice Of Availability
♦ Land Uses - Vertical Landing; Launch Operations and Support; Assembly Test and Processing Capacity available
♦ One-year open period for responses, closes June 1, 2016
♦ Simplified assessment process; compatibility and capability
♦ Permitted uses under Master Plan
♦ Several partnerships possible
9
AFP and NOA are separate but related activities
AFP Objectives
♦ The Government objectives for this AFP are:
Increase commercial access to space; Enhance U.S. commercial competitiveness in the space launch
industry; Diversify the user base and launch capabilities at KSC; and Promote public-private partnerships to build, expand, modernize,
or operate space launch and reentry infrastructure, through launch complex development at KSC.
♦ The primary resource being offered for commercial purposes is undeveloped land for Vertical Launch, as described in the KSC Master Plan.
♦ Proposals must include Vertical Launch requirements.
10
AFP Summary of Proposal Evaluation Factors
♦ Describe a technical approach for the development of KSC real property for vertical launch operations, including the planned development, end-to-end concept of operations, and hazard mitigation approach;
♦ Describe the overall financial capability to design, build, and activate the intended ground system architecture, as well as operate and maintain the property over the term of an agreement;
♦ Describe corporate experience related to the proposed effort; and
♦ Describe how proposed use furthers the Government objectives for this AFP.
11
Technical Approach – General Instruction
Technical Approach Factor – Proposers will describe the activities that would occur on KSC property. The description should include details about the commercial vertical launch requirements, including the approach to design, build, operate, and maintain facilities on KSC for the duration of the proposed partnership agreement.
12
Technical Approach Subfactor 1
Section III. Instructionsa) Subfactor 1 – Planned Development for KSC Real Property
i. Describe planned vertical launch complex development that will take place on KSC. Identify any secondary land uses that are necessary to create a total end-to-end proposal as a spaceport user. Provide and discuss facility design concepts and requirements, including:
Size of facility, footprint, and safety buffer zones;
Electical power, water, sewer, and commodity requirements; and
Approach to sustainable design and construction.
ii. Provide a schedule for vertical launch complex construction, secondary land uses, and overall integration of development activities. Describe the following, as applicable:
Milestone schedule and phasing; and Critical path elements
iii. Describe how the proposed activities further the government objectives and align with KSC’s strategy of evolving to a multi-user spaceport, as discussed in the Master Plan section, “Market Opportunities” at the following link:
http://masterplan.ksc.nasa.gov/Intro/Future-Development-Plan/Development-Program/Market-Opportunities
Section IV. Evaluationa. Subfactor 1: Assessment of Planned
Development for KSC Real Property
i. NASA will evaluate the Proposer’s planned vertical launch complex development of KSC Real Property including facility design concepts and requirements for compatibility with infrastructure and operational capacity. NASA will also evaluate any proposed secondary land uses necessary to create a total end-to-end concept.
ii. NASA will evaluate the reasonableness of the Proposer’s schedule for vertical launch complex construction, secondary land uses, and overall integration of development activities.
iii. NASA will evaluate the degree to which the proposal furthers the government objectives and the Proposer’s alignment with the Market Opportunities section of the KSC Master Plan.
13
Technical Approach Subfactor 2
Section III. Instructions
b) Subfactor 2 – Concept of Operations
i. Describe the implementation plan for operations such as:
Vertical launch operations;
Manufacturing processes or concepts;
Testing activities;
Number of activities for a given period of time (e.g., yearly); and
Diagram of operations/workflow.
ii. Describe the approach for overall integration, planning, and scheduling of operations and activities with NASA and other KSC tenants.
iii. Describe how the proposed Concept of Operations furthers the government objectives.
Section IV. Evaluation
b. Subfactor 2: Assessment of Proposed Concept of Operations
i. NASA will evaluate the feasibility of Proposer’s implementation plan for vertical launch operations and secondary land uses.
ii. NASA will evaluate the Proposer’s approach for overall integration
iii. NASA will evaluate the degree to which the proposed concept of operations furthers the government objectives.
14
Technical Approach Subfactor 3
Section III. Instructions
c) Subfactor 3 – Mitigation of Potential Adverse Effects
i. Describe your approach to risk management. Address the following, as applicable:
Risk identification and mitigation; and
Identification of standards and processes.
ii. Describe your mitigation approach to safety, environmental, and health hazards. Address the following subjects, as applicable:
Protecting employees, other KSC personnel, and the public;
Hazardous commodities used on site and hazard communications;
Identification of key safety and environmental practices; and
Previous safety performance, ratings, or surveys.
Section IV. Evaluation
c. Subfactor 3: Assessment of Mitigation for Potential Adverse Effects
i. NASA will evaluate the Proposer’s approach to identify, communicate, and manage risk.
ii. NASA will evaluate the Proposer’s approach to mitigate safety, environmental and health hazards, and commitment to ensure the safety of personnel and property
15
Financial Capability Factor
Section III. Instructions2. Financial Capability Factor -- Proposers will demonstrate the financial capability to
implement their proposal strategy, including the development of vacant or undeveloped land, design, construction, activation, and operation of facilities on KSC. Proposers will provide the following business plan information, as applicable:
a) Reference the plans and operations described in the Technical Approach Factor above. Discuss the financial considerations and requirements necessary to implement the proposed plans covering facility development through activation;
b) Term of agreement (duration in years) and break-even analysis;c) Marketing goals and launch manifest for vertical launch capability, with current and
projected customers;d) Financial statements for the two most recent corporate fiscal years;e) Planned budget for developing vertical launch capability at KSC, dedicated working
capital, cash reserves, revenue streams, and corporate lines of credit; andf) End of operations/reserve capital for demolition/restoration of the premises.
Proposers may submit any additional supporting financial documentation (e.g., annual reports, balance sheets, income statements, statements of retained earnings, statements of cash flows, audit reports) demonstrating the overall financial capabilities and health of the company.
Proposers shall reference Attachment A to this AFP (Land Use Terms and Conditions) and provide an acknowledgement of those terms and conditions as part of its proposal. NASA expects proposers to agree to the Land Lease Terms and Conditions. If proposing changes, additions, or deletions to the terms and conditions, Proposers shall include sufficient rationale for those changes, additions, or deletions, and shall state whether the proposal is contingent upon NASA accepting the proposed revisions to the Terms and Conditions.
The proposer’s budget will be provided as a rough order of magnitude (ROM), phased by year, rounded to the nearest million dollars. The budget must include all planned or expected costs to develop land to the point of vertical launch facility activation and occupancy. The proposer will group the budgeted costs into logical phases and describe the rationale for the phases.
NASA may consider and evaluate any other financial data obtained from other sources and use the obtained information in the evaluation of the Proposer’s financial capability.
Section IV. Evaluation
2. Factor 2: Financial Capability -- Assessment of Financial Capability:
NASA will evaluate the Proposer’s Financial Capability to successfully implement its proposed Business Plan, including the proposed start date and term for a partnership agreement.
NASA will evaluate the Proposer’s acceptance of the Land Use Terms and Conditions (Attachment A) and the rationale for any exceptions taken.
16
Experience Factor
Section III. Instructions
3. Experience Factor -- Proposers will describe their related experience in the design and development of land, as well as planned operations. Proposers may include experience from team members for contracted services. Discuss the following subjects, as applicable:
a) Launch operations;b) Site selection, planning, National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, and environmental permitting;
c) Design and engineering expertise;d) Site work, infrastructure, and utilities connections;e) Construction management and project control;f) Activation;g) Aerospace development, manufacturing, testing,
and operations; and h) End of project deactivation and demolition of
facilities.
NASA may consider and evaluate any other data regarding Proposers’ experience obtained from other sources, and use the obtained information in the evaluation of the Proposers’ experience.
Section IV. Evaluation
3. Factor 3: Experience -- Assessment of Experience:
NASA will evaluate the proposer's experience and assess the likelihood that such experience will have a positive impact and contribute to the successful implementation of the proposal.
17
Announcement for Proposals (AFP)Evaluation Process
18
AFP ProcessEvaluation of Proposals
19
1Proposals
3 - Due Diligence (if needed)• Potential down-selection to most
highly rated proposals• Disclosure of Findings• Discuss Weaknesses and
Clarifications• Face-to-face forum; followed by
written proposal revisions• Final evaluation and ratings
Partner Selected
4 – Selection Decision• Selection Statement with
Rationale for Decision
Signed Agreement
EP
SA
N
Y
Initial
N
Y
5 - Finalize Agreement• Terms and Conditions
5
1 - Acceptability Screening• Compliance w/AFP Instructions• Proposal contains sufficient
information to evaluate against the stated evaluation factors
2 4Level of
Confidence and
Effectiveness Ratings
3
2 - Initial Evaluation• Technical Approach• Financial Capability• Experience
= Selecting Authority= Evaluation Panel
Level of Confidence
and Effectiveness
Ratings
Final
AFP ProcessEvaluation of Proposals
20
♦ Evaluation Panel assesses each proposal and determine findings (strengths and weaknesses)
♦ Technical Approach factor rated for level of effectiveness, from very low (red) to very high (blue)
♦ Financial Capability and Experience factors rated for confidence level, from low to high
♦ Evaluation Panel results briefed to Selection Authority for decision
Notice of Availability (NOA)Evaluation Process
21
Notice of Availability – Assessment
♦ NASA has sufficient land resources available to accommodate multiple requests
♦ Less formal than AFP process
♦ Responses assessed for capabilities, compliance with KSC Master Plan, and compatibility with other KSC operations
♦ No vertical launch requirements
22
Ombudsman
A KSC ombudsman has been appointed to hear and facilitate the resolution of concerns from Proposers, potential Proposers, and Partners during the pre-selection and post-selection phases of this activity. When requested, the ombudsman will maintain strict confidentiality as to the source of the concern. The existence of the ombudsman is not to diminish the authority of the Agreement Officer, the Proposal Evaluation Panel, or the Selection Authority. Further, the ombudsman does not participate in the evaluation of proposals, the selection process, or the adjudication of formal disputes. Therefore, before consulting with the ombudsman, interested parties must first address their concerns, issues, disagreements, and/or recommendations to the Agreement Officer for resolution.
23
24
Schedule Milestones
Master Plan Approved – May 2014 Request for Information responses received – July 2014 Draft AFP Released – May 4, 2015 Final AFP Released – June 2, 2015 NOA Released – June 2, 2015 Industry Day – June 16, 2015
Question and Comment cutoff date – June 22, 2015 AFP Proposals Due – July 16, 2015 Proposal evaluations begin – July 17, 2015
NOA is open for one year – through June 1, 2016
Master Plan Vision
25
EMBEDDED VIDEO DELETED
Environmental Compliance
26
Environmental Compliance
♦ Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (PEISs) may be prepared for broad Federal actions such as the development of a Master Plan.
♦ When preparing statements on broad actions, agencies may find it useful to evaluate proposals in one of the following ways: Geographically; actions occurring in the same general location� Generically; actions that have relevant similarities By stage of technological development
♦ PEISs are generally: Used for broad geographic areas Assess impacts across a span of conditions (facilities, geographic regions
or multi-project programs) Emphasize cumulative impacts Emphasize policy level alternatives Emphasize program level mitigation measures and BMPs
27
Environmental Compliance
♦ PEISs Do not define facilities or specific sites Tend to be more generic and conceptual than project-specific EISs
♦ PEIS Tiered Analysis: In cases where a broad policy, plan, program or project will later be translated into site-specific projects, subsequent analyses are referred to as “tiered” analyses.
“Tiering” refers to the coverage of general matters in a broader EIS with subsequent narrower EISs or EAs incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared.
Focus on issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review.
Opportunity to evaluate potential cumulative impacts of the reasonably foreseeable actions under a program.
Opportunity to prepare EA/FONSI for individual actions when there are no new significant impacts.
28
Environmental Compliance
♦ KSC Center-wide PEIS – Project Schedule
Task or Milestone Date
Publish Notice of Intent in Federal Register May 20, 2014
Public and agency scoping meetings June 4-5, 2014
Close of public scoping comment period July 7, 2014
Submit scoping summary August 2014
Submit full Preliminary Draft PEIS May 2015
Publish Notice of Availability in Federal Register August 2015
Release Draft PEIS to public August 2015
Public review of Draft PEIS August-September 2015
Issue Final PEIS October 2015
Publish Record of Decision October 2015
Submit Administrative Record October 2015
WE ARE HERE
FDEP Tier II September 2014
Questions/Comments
30