Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP) Innovative Delivery of Effects (RIDE) Supplemental Request for Information (RFI) – Industry Statements of Capability (SOCs)

Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP) Innovative Delivery of Effects (RIDE) Supplemental Request for Information (RFI) – Industry Statements of Capability (SOCs):

1. RIDE Overview (Updated): The Space Systems Command (SSC), System Delta 80 (SYD 80), Small Launch and Targets Division (AMX) manages the Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP). Supplemental to the previous RFI posted on 25 April 2025 (https://sam.gov/opp/19f4b8b3647940b48fa14134d23249a9/view#contact), RSLP still plans to execute its suborbital and orbital launch services by employing its new RSLP Innovative Delivery of Effects (RIDE) acquisition 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) programs. RSLP will continue to provide responsive space, experimental, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), and small operational launch vehicles and targets support to the Department of War (DoW) 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 Low Earth Orbit (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 (1) or more contract vehicles [such as an indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, which is currently being considered].

In response to industry feedback captured by RSLP’s first RFI solicitation, Attachment 1 of this RFI contains updated high-level requirements of the RIDE acquisition strategy. These requirements are still subject to change.

2. Background (Unchanged): 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. RIDE Acquisition Background (Added): RIDE is intended to enable RSLP to provide an encompassing launch service acquisition solution in support of the United States Space Force (USSF), DoW, and other Government customers. In doing so, it is anticipated that RIDE will provide a means to support both Space Transportation Services [as defined in 51 U.S. Code § 50101(4); which are considered inherently commercial in accordance with 51 U.S. Code § 50132] and Space-Related Activity launch services [as defined in 51 U.S. Code § 50101(3); which are—for the purposes of this contemplated acquisition strategy—not assumed to be inherently commercial] required by various programs with various payloads.

Space Transportation Services involve the preparation as well as transportation of a launch vehicle and its payloads to, from, or within outer space, or in suborbital trajectory. Space-Related Activity launch services include research and development (R&D), which is more in-depth or complex than a traditional Space Transportation Service. Additionally, Space-Related Activity launch services may require new design, significant modifications, extensive supplemental qualification testing, and/or developmental concept of operations (CONOPs).

To support both Space Transportation and Space-Related Activity launches, the Government is contemplating the use of two (2) multiple-award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract vehicles; one (1) for Space Transportation Services and [commercial] Space-Related Activity launch services and one (1) for [non-commercial] Space-Related Activity launch services:

• Space Transportation Services will be procured as a commercial service, leveraging commercial practices on a fixed-price [e.g., Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), fixed-price incentive, fixed-price with award fee, etc.] basis. Additionally, certain Space-Related Activity services which are determined to be commercial by the cognizant Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) at the time of the contemplated effort shall also be acquired under the commercial IDIQ and will also utilize a fixed-price structure.
• Due to the developmental/non-commercial nature of many of the anticipated Space-Related Activity services, the Government anticipates issuing hybrid cost-reimbursement [e.g., Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF), Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF), cost-reimbursement incentive, cost-plus award fee, etc.] and FFP task orders under the non-commercial IDIQ, as appropriate for the specific requirement (again, to be decided by the cognizant PCO at the time of the contemplated effort).

Companies should consider whether they possess, or can obtain, the systems and capabilities necessary to perform cost-reimbursement contracts, including an improved accounting system IAW R-DFARS 242.7502 (implemented by 48 CFR 242.7502) and comply with the system criteria prescribed in R-DFARS 252.242-7998 (if applicable) and DFARS +1 (555) 000-0000 (Deviation 2026-O0050) (March 2026).

A company may compete for entry into the vendor pool of one (1) or both IDIQs, but must follow and satisfy the proposal requirements for each IDIQ if they wish to compete for both. 

4. RFI Goals and Objectives (Updated): The goal of this second RFI is to collect Statements of Capability (SOCs) from industry on available solutions, technologies, and capabilities to aid in further defining the RIDE acquisition requirements and future commerciality determinations. These SOCs will help RSLP understand how industry capabilities currently align with the anticipated Government requirements and the mission type(s) to which vendors plan to propose. Please engage with us by providing your company’s SOC(s) to address the attached tentative requirements.

5. Industry Day (Added): RSLP intends to host a forum with industry (i.e., “Industry Day”) on 22 September 2026 through 23 September 2026 (or possibly through 24 September 2026, depending on the number of RSVP’d attendees) to engage in open discussion and dialogue to answer questions interested parties may have regarding the Government’s contemplated RIDE acquisition strategy prior to SOC submittal. The objective of this two (2) to three (3)-day event is to receive industry’s feedback on RSLP’s intent of the RIDE acquisition and to provide industry with additional details about the RIDE acquisition prior to the SOC submittal date. Interested companies will have the option of participating virtually if they choose or may attend in-person on Kirtland AFB, located in Albuquerque, NM.

Additionally, if there are any topics you recommend RSLP to specifically address at our industry day, please let us know by 15 September 2026. Finally, if your company would like to discuss any topic(s) individually with RSLP, please indicate this. Immediately following Industry Day, RSLP will offer thirty (30)-minute timeslots for one-on-ones with each interested party. Timing of these one-on-ones are tentative and will depend on the number of RSVPs received, timing of the Industry Day, etc.

Those who wish to attend (either in-person or virtually) are encouraged to RSVP as soon as possible, but no later than (NLT) 15 September 2026. If you wish to attend in person, please email each planned attendee’s (1) full legal name, (2) position title, (3) email address, (4) cell phone number, (5) date of birth, (6) driver’s license state/number (or other form of state/Government-issued picture ID), and (7) full social security number to the individuals listed below. Additionally, attendees driving on Kirtland AFB must possess (1) a valid driver’s license, (2) vehicle registration, and (3) proof of insurance available for verification upon arrival on Kirtland AFB. Failure to provide/possess this information will result in your organization not being able to attend in-person. Further details for in-person attendees will be issued after all RSVPs are received.

6. SOC Guidelines (Added): Following Industry Day, the Government requests that interested companies respond by submitting their SOC(s) summarizing their current capabilities to meet the high-level RIDE requirements detailed in the updated Attachment 1 by the due date of the SOC (see section 6E). The Government’s objective is to assess launch providers and their interest in and capability to participate in RIDE. Respondents to this supplemental RFI are—as applicable—encouraged to describe in their SOC; (1) current launch vehicle production process(es), (2) flight-proven capabilities, (3) plans to develop future capabilities in support of the Government, (4) ideas and solutions to conduct what your company defines as “rapid launch,” and (5) capabilities related to the manufacturing of payloads.

Your SOC must be submitted within seven (7) calendar days of the Government posting answers to questions posed during Industry Day (2 October 2026, tentatively). Your SOC is limited to fifteen (15) pages, size 11 Times New Roman font with 1” margins. All replies to this RFI must reference “RIDE.” Please submit only unclassified and non-proprietary information if possible. If proprietary information is deemed essential to include within your response, all proprietary information should be clearly marked and associated with restrictions on Government use identified.

In addition to the above, your SOC should include, at a minimum, your company’s posture on the following areas (for the purpose of this RFI, the Government defines “liftoff” as follows: the initial, non-reversable, propulsive/acceleration event of the spacelift system, regardless of means or medium):

(A) Commercial missions. Please describe your company’s current involvement in commercial launch services. Do you intend to propose to the tentative RIDE commercial IDIQ based on the information contained in this and the previous RFI? If so, state whether your company has a launch vehicle design that has had a successful liftoff in the past and what vehicle was used, when the liftoff took place, and where it occurred. If you have a launch vehicle design planned for a liftoff in the next twelve (12) months—which you think can be used to meet the Government’s tentative commercial requirements—please state what vehicle will be used, when, and where this launch is planned to occur.

(B) Non-commercial missions. Please describe your company’s current involvement in non-commercial launch services. As applicable, please describe how your existing launch vehicle design and/or concept of operations have been significantly modified from its commercial design to meet a Government need, to include activities of unproven or military-unique launch capabilities with the purpose of meeting complex Government requirements, if any. Significant modifications may be changes unique to Government requirements and unplanned for the commercial market. These often exceed commercial flight proven qualification testing and/or require modification, development, or integration activities that require additional qualification testing of the launch system and/or major systems. Do you intend to propose to the RIDE non-commercial IDIQ based on the information contained in this and the previous RFI? If so, please describe your company’s readiness to perform non-commercial work. Examples may include your experience performing cost-reimbursement contracts, the status of your accounting system [e.g. adequacy for cost-reimbursement contracts and/or contractor material management and accounting system(s) (MMAS)], your approach to managing evolving requirements, and/or any anticipated changes to your business systems, processes, or organizational structure needed to support this type of non-commercial work. If you have a launch vehicle design planned for a liftoff in the next twelve (12) months—which you think can be used to meet the Government’s tentative non-commercial requirements—please state what vehicle will be used, when, and where this launch is planned to occur.

(C) Flight heritage. Please provide a brief description of your proven flight heritage for your current rocket system and how that flight heritage proves that your rocket design is mature. If your company does not have a rocket with flight heritage, how can you prove to the Government that your rocket design is mature enough to meet the Government’s future RIDE launch service needs?

(D) Mission Assurance. The government recognizes the level of administrative effort related to preparing, reviewing, and submitting traditional Mission Assurance CDRLs. The government desires to create a flexible MA paradigm that can be applied to launch vehicles at various levels of maturity, and which leverages the internal processes and data that contractors already have in place. To this end, the Government is interested in your views on the following:

• Please describe your company’s current viewpoint of Government-acquired Mission Assurance (MA). RSLP customers drive mission assurance requirements based on their mission risk tolerance. If the Government were to require its own independent Mission Assurance for a RIDE mission—regardless of commerciality—are you still willing to propose to these mission(s)?
• Have you historically attempted to meet Government MA requirements and what did that look like? 
• In reference to the MA Attachment to this RFI, what type of data and/or analyses is your company unwilling to provide to the Government for the mission assurance process and why?
• Which historical deliverables have barriers that may prevent you from providing them to the Government and why?
• Please provide details of how your company could reduce launch risk, even without MA, or even a “low-level” MA. Describe any additional ideas of how the Government could streamline its MA approach or make it more aligned with your internal MA practices.  

(E) Feedback on IDIQ Minimum Guarantee:

Background & Objective

The Government is seeking industry feedback regarding high-value deliverables for the minimum award for the upcoming contemplated RIDE IDIQs. To ensure maximum effectiveness and responsible stewardship of Government funds, the Government would like to avoid duplicating services/deliverables which have already been acquired under existing Government contracts. These deliverables have historically included items such as commercial documentation, technical studies, and/or reports associated with proposed launch vehicles. To aid us with this goal, please provide feedback and answers to the questions below:

Questions for Industry Feedback

1. Non-Duplicative Deliverables: What specific services/deliverables would your organization recommend as a minimum award guarantee task order that would benefit the Government without duplicating previous Government acquisitions (e.g., Launch Service User Guides), if any?
2. Technical Studies/Analyses: What specific study/analysis topics (e.g., specialized integration studies, tech-refresh roadmaps, system-compatibility analyses, etc.) does your organization believe could provide immediate benefit to this program, if any?
3. Alternate High-Value Efforts: Beyond studies and documentation, what other options (e.g., specialized technical training) would your organization recommend as an effective minimum award guarantee, if any?
4. Other Considerations: What other considerations does your organization suggest the Government consider when structuring its minimum award guarantee, if any?

(F) Feedback. Submit any additional feedback your company has regarding the RIDE acquisition strategy.

All responses shall include company size status under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 336414 (Guided Missiles and Space Vehicle Manufacturing), and 481212 (Nonscheduled Chartered Freight Air Transportation, Space Transportation, Freight, Nonscheduled). Please note that a company's size status under these specific NAICS codes will not restrict or preclude their eligibility to compete under any future solicitation. Should your organization utilize different NAICS code(s), please state your NAICS code(s) along with your company size status under the NAICS code you think is best applicable.

Attachment 1: RIDE Requirements (Updated)

Attachment 2: Legacy RSLP Mission Assurance Requirements (Unchanged)

Attachment 3: (Removed)

*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. All information contained herein is based on the best information available at the time of publication, is subject to revision, and is not binding on the Government. This notice is for informational purposes only and is not to be construed as a commitment by the Government. This is not a solicitation announcement.

Responses should be sent electronically to the following individuals: 

Robert Robson, contact@example.gov

Tristan Perales, contact@example.gov