Www.nasa.gov June 16, 2015 Industry Day Briefing Master Plan Implementation.

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

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




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



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.


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.


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


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.


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


♦ 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


♦ 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


♦ 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

Www.nasa.gov June 16, 2015 Industry Day Briefing Master Plan Implementation.

Documents

Transcript of Www.nasa.gov June 16, 2015 Industry Day Briefing Master Plan Implementation.