LMX Implementation DRFP QA Responses.pdf

LMX Implementation DRFP QSheet1 Resposnes

# Document Reference Section Question/Comment Government Response

DRFP cover letter We request a 15-day extension for delivery of the proposal

(45 day turn instead of 30 day turn).

The government agrees with the request. The final

RFP will allow for a minimum 45 day response date.

DRFP B.1, F.3, L.13.A.5 Attachment G was not included in the DRFP supporting documents. Please provide Attachment G.

The Government will provide Attachment G in the final RFP.

DRFP Section F F.2 The DRFP states that the Period of Performance for the contract is from the effective date of the contract plus fifteen years beyond launch of Flight Model 1. Recommend this be revised to reflect that the POP is from the effective date of the contract plus fifteen years beyond launch of

Flight Model 2.

This was in typo and the correction will be reflcted in the final RFP.

DRFP section L L.13.A.2 To aid in the generation of accurate compliance matrices, we request that NASA provide DOORS modules for at least the SOW, PORD and IMAR, and preferably all other Phase B requirement documents maintained in DOORS.

DOORS modules will be provided to the contractor, upon contract award.

DRFP section L L.13.A.4 In the detector section, "The Offeror shall describe the detector (…), any on-board processing and the SNR." In this sentence about the detector, please confirm that on-board processing in this section refers narrowly to such processing being done in the focal plane itself.

The Government confirms that that on-board processing includes the FPA and associated electronics and will be updated in the final RFP.

LMXUIID LMXUIID54 To allow for design optimization of the Electronics Unit, we recommend providing up to 15% flexibility in any linear dimension (LMXUIID54) while keeping the total volume constant at 93,750 cm^3.

The Government will consider making any necessary changes to the final RFP

LMXPORD LMXPORD120 As written, LMXPORD120 prohibits inoperable pixels because an inoperable pixel has effectively infinite

Minimum Detectable Event Energy Density (MDEED), which will cause the averaged quantity to be infinite and thus fail the requirement. We recommend allowing for inoperable pixels by performing averaging on Percent Lightning

Detected instead of MDEED.

The Government will consider making any necessary changes to the final RFP

LMXPORD LMXPORD37 Updated LMXPORD37 definition of navigation ("latitude and longitude information appended to the L1b product") conflicts with LMXPORD36 ("navigated to the fixed grid").

We recommend clarifying the distinction between navigation and geolocation by adjusting the respective definitions, and adding an explicit requirement for geolocation to the PORD if that is what was intended.

The Government will consider making any necessary changes to the final RFP

DRFP L.13, A.5 The instructions request that "The Offeror shall describe the LMX Instrument and key subsystem manufacturing approach including Manufacturing Readiness Level." Please provide NASA-specific definitions for Manufacturing

Readiness Levels.

Please use DOD Manufacturing Readiness Level definitions

DRFP H.13 Clause I.11 is incorrectly referenced, we recommend it be changed to I.12.

The Government will address updates in the Final RFP

DRFP L.15(d)-(h) Please confirm that it is acceptable to provide the information as attachments or appendices to the Past

Performance volume to allow ease of evaluation of page count compliance within the volume.

Please refer to section L.10 b-1, L.15 does not include a (d)-(h)

DRFP L.15 We recommend an allowance for a classified addendum, outside of the volume page count, to the Past Performance volume to comply with the provision of "all similar efforts."

The Government has decided this effort will not require classified data.

DRFP I.8 We recommend removal of FAR Clause 52.223-99 on

Ensuring Adequate Covid-19 Safety Protocols for Federal

Contractors.

The Government will address updates in the Final RFP

DRFP 80GSFC23R0013 L.13 Section L.10 (b) (a) states that the IMS is to be delivered as an appendix within the Volume II pdf. Would additional file formats included with the delivery be desired or preferred to support increased readibility (e.g. Microsoft Project, Excel)?

Please see Section L.10 (3) for requested file format instructions. The final RFP will be updated to include;

Schedules can be provided in Excel and/or Microsoft project (mpp) that allows conversion.

DRFP 80GSFC23R0013 L.15 b Past Performance Does NASA want the prime contractor to collect and consolidate the past performance questionaires and include them in the past performance volume? Or would

NASA like that each subcontractor contact the Contracting

Officer directly to submit their past performance questionaire?

Please see Section L.15(b); The offeror and any proposed significant subcontractor(s) [as defined in paragraph (a)] shall provide the questionnaires provided as Exhibit 8 to each of the above references to establish a record of past performance. The

Offeror shall instruct each of its references to return the questionnaire directly to the Government

Contracting Officer via email.

DRFP 80GSFC23R0013 L.13 (Subfactor A.5) Attachment G is referenced but was not provided in the delivery. It is unclear what Attachment G is and was not included with the draft RFP. When will Attachment G be made available?

The Government will provide Attachment G in the final RFP.

DRFP 80GSFC23R0013 N/A The specification title pages state "Generated from DOORS

9.7.2.4" - is it possible to get the DOORS modules/.dma files of the four primary specifications (PORD, UIID, IMAR, GIRD)?

DOORS modules will be provided to the contractor, upon contract award.

DRFP 80GSFC23R0013 L.15 Past Performance If a contract's period of performance ended within the last

7 years of the draft RFP release date (June 2016), but not the expected RFP release date, can we still include this contract for past performance consideration since we have already started proposal efforts?

See Section L.15 (a) The Offeror shall provide the information requested below for any significant subcontractor(s) for those similar efforts within the last 7 years of the RFP release date with a total cost/fee incurred of at least 25% of the total estimated dollar value of the proposed significant subcontract.

DRFP 80GSFC23R0013 L.13 Subfactor A.5, page

Are the development activities required related only to building and testing development units as defined in

Attachment G only?

The Offeror will define what engineering development activities are to be accomplished as well as any products, analyses, tests, or reports that will be produced, including activities described in

Attachment G.

DRFP 80GSFC23R0013 L.16 1852.239-73 Where would you like us to provide an answer for the

Review of the Offeror's Information Technology Systems

Supply Chain Clause? Should we include it as part of the

Offer Volume?

Yes, please identify in the Offer Volume the clause reference and your response to the provision.

DRFP 80GSFC23R0013 L13. Subfactor C Section

A(2)

With respect to SBU allocation, can 'total Contract dollar' apply to the value being preformed by the legal US entity?

Request that L.13, Subfactor C, Section A (2) which reads

"The Contracting Officer’s assessment of appropriate subcontracting goals for this acquisition, expressed as a percent of the TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE (basic and all options combined) is as follows..." be revised to the following: "The Contracting Officer’s assessment of appropriate subcontracting goals for this acquisition, expressed as a percent of the TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE

(basic and all options combined) for all work being performed by legal US entities as follows..."

Total Contract Value includes all government funds allocated for the effort.