Comment Resolution Matrix.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 88 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Rocket Systems Launch Program Mission Assurance (RSLP MA) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8818-18-R-0003_UPDATE
About this file
This is an updated draft request for proposal (DRFP) for Rocket Systems Launch Program Mission Assurance (RSLP MA) services. The Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center is seeking mission assurance support for launch vehicles and payloads across multiple launches.
The updated DRFP includes revised documents based on industry comments, such as an updated draft performance work statement, sections L and M of the RFP, and a contract security classification specification. The Air Force responded to comments provided on the original DRFP and incorporated changes where appropriate. Potential offerors are provided an additional opportunity to submit comments on the updated DRFP documents by March 17, 2020. Final RFP release is expected within one week.
The effort will consist of core mission assurance support as well as task orders for specific services such as Delta IV Heavy launch processing, Minuteman III aging surveillance, and hypersonic test vehicle mission assurance. Facility security clearance, personnel security clearances up to Secret/NOFORN, and secure storage may be required depending on the task order. Pricing will be cost-plus-fixed-fee. The period of performance for core support is five years with four optional extension years.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Draft RSLP MA Section M.docx | DOCX document | |
| Draft RSLP MA PWS.docx | DOCX document | |
| Draft RSLP MA Section L.docx | DOCX document | |
| DRAFT RSLP MA DD254.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Comment Resolution Matrix
| Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM) | |
| Instructions: |
1. Review the Rocket Systems Launch Program Mission Assurance (RSLP MA) draft RFP.
2. Complete CRM columns (B - G only) to provide feedback and recommended edits.
Comment Type (Column C):
A - Administrative: Comments that address minor items such as typographical, format, and/or grammatical errors.
S - Substantive: Comments of a less serious nature that have noticeable impact on the document’s quality or content. The document appears to be incorrect, misleading, confusing, or inconsistent with other sections.
C - Critical: Comments that address contentious issue(s) that will cause non-concurrence with the publication.
Gov't Decision (Column H):
A - Accept: Agree with comment.
R - Reject: Disagree with comment; rationale required for rejection.
M - Accept with modification: Partially agree with comment; rationale required for modification.
| Item # | Source Document | Comment Type | |
| A/S/C | Page | ||
| # | Para / Section # | Comment |
Provide original language and proposed change
| Rationale | |||||||||
| Provide concise, objective explanation of the rationale for the comment | Decision | ||||||||
| A/R/M | Notes | ||||||||
| 1 | Section L | S | 27, 30, 33, 34, 36, 39, 40 | 3.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.2, 3.2 | TOID 0002 - TOID 0006 refers to the identification of a Program Manager for each TOID and then there is a placeholder for a TO Manager. Please clarify if the Program Manager and TO Manager are the same person. | Clarity of expectations. | A | The Program Manager and TO Manager were used synonymously - TOIDs have been changed to use one term consistently in each TOID. Paragraph 3.1 of TOIDS 0002-0003, has been changed. In TOIDS 0002 and 0003, this person is referred to as the TO Manager. Paragraph 3.2 of TOIDS 0004-0006 has been changed. In TOIDS 0004-0006, this person is referred to as the Mission Manager. | |
| 2 | Section L | S | 33 | 3.1 | Original: The payload for this Task Order will be multiple 3U and 6U cubesats and 2-3 ESPA-class smallsats, all totaling less than 1,000 kg. Please clarify if 1,000 kg represents each launch or all launches together. | Better understanding of TOID 0004. | A | The sum of all payload masses for TOID 0004 is 1000kg. TOID 0004 paragraph 3.1 has been revised for clarity. | |
| 3 | Section L | S | 28, 35, 38, 41 | 5.3, 5.4, 5.4, 5.4 | TOID 0002 refers to mission reviews to SMC leadership at VAFB. Please confirm the location of SMC leadership at VAFB. | Better understanding of TOID 0002. | N/A | No, Language in TOID 0002, paragraph 5.4 revised to change location from Vandenberg to West Coast | |
| 4 | Section L | A | 26 | 4 | Original: The following is provided for proposal and planning purposes: POP: 1 Jun 2020 through 30 May 2025. | ||||
| Revised: 31 May 2025 is missing from the schedule | Update ensures the RFP is error free. | A | TOID 0001, paragraph 4.0, PoP ending changed to 31 May 2025 | ||||||
| 5 | Section L | A | 26 | 5 | Original: The MAC shall support the transition from the incumbent contractor IAW PWS paragraph 3.2.8. | ||||
| Revised: Should 3.2.8 be 3.2.18 Incoming Transition? | Update ensures the RFP is error free. | A | PWS reference in TOID 0001, paragraph 5.1, second bullet, updated to 3.2.18 | ||||||
| 6 | Section L | S | 26 | 5 | Original: Clarifications: Data Archive Location: V:// path name here. | ||||
| Revised: Please clarify where this data archive exists. | Update ensures the RFP is error free. | M | TOID 0001, paragraph 5.1, third bullet text modified for clarity. Now reads: "Clarifications: Data Archive Location: V:// (Location on local RSLP Shared drive, to be provided after task order award). " | ||||||
| 7 | Section L | S | 25 | TOID 0001 | 5.0 Task Order Requirements | ||||
| TOID 0001 doesn't provide a requirement for ODCs while TOIDs 0003-0006 all specify ODCs in Section 5.0. Please confirm that ODC's should not be proposed for TOID 0001. | Better understanding of TO 0001. | A | The offeror shall propose any applicable ODCs for each TOID, with the following exceptions/clarifications. For TOID 0001, propose your applicable ODCs, including travel. For TOIDs 0002-0006, propose your applicable ODCs, excluding travel. Travel has been removed as a requirement in TOIDs 0002-0006 in order to normalize the cost evaluation for all offerors. If TOIDs 0002-0006 are awarded within 6 months of the basic contract award, the task orders will be amended to include travel. | ||||||
| 8 | Section L | A | 28 | 5.1 | Original: The MAC shall provide support for DXBM Sustainment IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.1 Exclusions: None. Clarifications: For sub-paragraph 3.4.1.1 , the MAC shall coordinate with the TO manager prior to performing work under this sub-paragraph. For sub-paragraph 3.4.1.2.3, assume 1 FTE for proposal purposes. | ||||
| Revised: For the 3.4.1.2.3, should this reference be 3.4.1.23? What is the correct reference? | Update ensures the RFP is error free. | A | PWS Reference in TOID 0002, paragraph 5.1, first bullet, changed to 3.4.1.23 | ||||||
| 9 | Section L | S | 28 | 5.1 | Original: The MAC shall provide support for DXBM Sustainment IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.1 Exclusions: None. Clarifications: For sub-paragraph 3.4.1.1 , the MAC shall coordinate with the TO manager prior to performing work under this sub-paragraph. For sub-paragraph 3.4.1.2.3, assume 1 FTE for proposal purposes. | ||||
| Revised: Please clarify the work location of the 1 FTE. | Better understanding of TO 0002 requirements. | M | The correct reference is para 3.4.1.23 (see above). The location may vary as required to support interactions with the cognizant Range Safety organization. | ||||||
| 10 | Section L | S | 28, 32, 35, 38, 41 | 5.3. 5.4, 5.4, 5.4, 5.4 | Original: Expected travel requirements are as follows… | ||||
| Revised: For TOIDs 0002, 0003, 0004, 0005, and 0006, could the Government please provide the actual travel locations as opposed to the vicinity? | Enables more accurate pricing for all Offerors. | R | Travel has been removed as a requirement in TOIDs 0002-0006 in order to normalize the cost evaluation for all offerors. Therefore, actual travel locations are unnecessary at this time. If TOIDs 0002-0006 are awarded within 6 months of the basic contract award, the task orders will be amended to include travel. | ||||||
| 11 | Section L | A | 42 | Paragraph 1 | Original: Appendix B consists of the requirements for responding to paragraph 4.2.3.3. | ||||
| Revised: Did the Government intend for paragraph 4.2.3.3 to be paragraph 4.2.3.2? | Update ensures the RFP is error free. | A | Paragraph reference in section L, page 42, Appendix B, corrected to 4.2.3.2. | ||||||
| 12 | Section L | S | 42, 44 | Paragraph a, Table B-1 |
Original: In addition, ensure all proposed AS testing meets the proposed RSLP future funding budget of $750K per year.
Revised: Within Appendix B, Aging Surveillance Scenario, the text leading up to Table B-1 references $750K but the B-1 table costs on page 44 references $500K displaying an inconsistency. Is there is an error in one of these numbers? Could the Government provide which is the correct number for planning purposes?
Update ensures the RFP is error free. A The correct amount is $750k in all years. Section L, page 44, Table B-1 has been updated to show $750k in each year.
Sect L Table B-1 Title revised for clarity (table is previous plan not as executed).
| 13 | Section L | S | 45 | Table B-2 | Within Table B-2 of Appendix B, Aging Surveillance Scenario, the "Latest Demonstrated/Tested date" column is not in a date format. Please provide dates in this column. | Update ensures the RFP is error free. | M | The data in this column is either the last tested date OR the age of the component in months. The table headings in Section L, page 45, Table B-2 have been updated for clarity. | |
| 14 | Section L | A | 42 | Paragraph C | Original: Provide estimated ULEs for motors and components at ILC based on your proposed AS test plan and provide the updated ULEs on the Aging Surveillance Data Sheet at Table B-1. | ||||
| Revised: Did the Government intend to reference Table B-2 instead of Table B-1? | Update ensures the RFP is error free. | A | Referenced paragraph is now Section L, page 42, paragraph b. Table reference in that paragraph corrected from Table B-1 to Table B-2. | ||||||
| 15 | Section L | S | 45 | Table B-2 | In order to provide an appropriate response, please clarify the date of the last test on each of the components. | Better understanding of Appendix B requirements. | M | The data in this column is either the last tested date OR the age of the component in months. The table headings in Section L, page 45, Table B-2 have been updated for clarity. The Government believes this information is adequate for the Offeror to prepare their response. |
| 16 | Section L | A | 6, 7 | Table 2 | Original: The Section L Paragraph reference numbers do not align with the sections (i.e., 4.2.3.2 is skipped). | |
| Revision: Please provide the correct references to each of the Section L paragraphs. | Update ensures the RFP is error free. | A | Paragraph numbers in Section L, Table 2 have been corrected to match. | |||
| 17 | Section L | A | 37 | 5.1 | Original: The MAC shall provide Category 1 MA (IAW PWS paragraph 3.3.1) for this activity. Exclusions: None. Clarifications: For sub-paragraph 3.3.1, 3.3.2.13 and 3.3.1.14, the MAC shall coordinate with the TO Manager prior to performing work under this sub-paragraph. | |
| Revised: Paragraph 3.3.2.13 does not seem like the correct paragraph reference. Please confirm the paragraph reference. | Update ensures the RFP is error free. | M | TOID 0005, paragraph 5.1, first bullet has been corrected to only cite paragraph 3.3.1. | |||
| 18 | Section J Attachment 5 - Base Support Agreement | C | 3 | 4.1 | Original: “4.1 The government will provide limited facilities (24 spaces) to satisfy the property requirements of the contractor in direct support of this contract, with availability phased according to the following schedule: |
At contract award - 5 spaces 1 month after contract award - 10 spaces 2 months after contract award - 12 spaces 3 months after contract award - 14 spaces 4 months after contract award - 16 spaces 5 months after contract award - 18 spaces 6 months after contract award - 20 spaces 8 months after contract award - 22 spaces 10 months after contract award - 24 spaces”
Revised: Please explain the rationale for the phased availability of facility space. Also, please confirm that all Offerors must propose their full complement of proposed personnel to perform TOIDs 0001-0006 according to the schedules specified in the TOIDs and this phased availability of on-site space. Ensures a level playing field for all Offerors and eliminates competitive advantage of sharing on-site facility space between ongoing LSMA task orders and awarded RSLP-MA task orders using lower on-site fully burdened rates versus higher off-site fully burdened rates. A The Base Support Agreement paragraph 4.1, has been revised as follows:
"The government will provide limited facilities (20 spaces) to satisfy the property requirements of the contractor in direct support of this contract."
| 19 | Section L | S | 12, 13 | 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.5 | Original: STP-XS1 Kickoff Presentation: The Offeror shall provide a sample launch IV&V Kickoff Presentation for the STP-XS1 Mission described in TOID 0004, Appendix A. The Offeror shall provide a sample launch IV&V Final Review for the mission described in TOID 0006. Please provide a recent sample kickoff presentation and final presentation in the Bidders Library for all Offerors to better understand the Government's expectations. | Better understanding of Section L requirements and levels the playing field for all Offerors since incumbent has access to previous examples and templates. | R | The Government will not provide kickoff or final presentation samples, as each offeror’s approach to IV&V is company specific. The Government's evaluation will be based on content and not format of the charts. | |
| 20 | Section L | S | 4 | 1.4, Table 1 | Original: "Table 1 - Project Number of Launch mission awards by Program/MA Category" | ||||
| Revised: Please clarify if Table 1 is specifying the number of anticipated launches in each FY or the number of launch missions awarded in each FY whereby the launch may occur in a subsequent FY. Also, please explain how a mission such as STP-XS1 which includes four launches would be accounted for in Table 1 (e.g., represented as a single mission in the awarded FY or as four launches in the scheduled launch FY). | Clarity of projected launches requiring MAC support. | M | Table 1 reflects number of missions awarded and accounts for multi-launch missions where known. The number of launches may vary depending on how the launch contractors propose to meet future mission requirements (i.e. single vs multiple launches). A note stating this has been added beneath Section L, Table 1. | ||||||
| 21 | Section J - Attachment 6 | S | N/A | N/A | Original: Section J - Attachment 6, Government Furnished Property (GFP) List | ||||
| Revised: There are several references to models in the PWS, but there are no models identified in the Government Furnished Property list. Please specify if the IV&V models for previous missions (e.g., Minotaur, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Juno, etc.) are Government owned and provided to the MAC. | Clarity of Government Furnished Property. | N/A | No, specific launch vehicles models are the property of the launch vehicle contractor. |
PWS requirements have been modified to clarify that modeling is not a required analysis methodology. For example, PWS Para 3.3.2.19.1 has been changed. From: "Develop and/or update independent aerodynamic models for the launch vehicle configuration to be flown. Use these this models to verify the aerodynamic analysis done by the LSC." To: "Develop independent aerodynamic analysis for the launch vehicle configuration to be flown. Use this analysis to verify the aerodynamic analysis done by the LSC."
The MAC may propose the analysis technique to be used for this purpose.
If the MAC chooses to perform modeling, the Government has provided propulsion, structures and other modeling information related to Peacekeeper and Minuteman motors (SR118, 119, 120, M55, M57, SR19, and SR 73) in their respective user manuals (see Bidder’s library).
| 22 | DD 254 and PWS | C | N/A | N/A | Since TO 0006 is classified, the others are unclassified, the DD254 is not TO specific, and the PWS references SCI, TS, SAP, etc., please provide more clarification on the security requirements. What specific levels of classification is required (personnel access, storage, etc.) for each Task Order (TO)? Is TS/SCI/SAP data accessed only at government locations, or also contractor locations? Since the DD254 shows Secret Storage in block 1b, how much classified data storage is anticipated and will the contractor be responsible for the storage? Are classified computer systems and/or areas anticipated/needed to support TO 0003 and 0004 work or this contract? |
| Better understanding of security requirements. | M | PWS Para 3.1.5 updated for clarity as follows, "Facility security clearance in accordance with the classification levels identified in the DD254 is required prior to performing work required by this contract. The MAC may be required to provide secure storage for some SECRET/NOFORN materials (i.e., Flight computer components and up to 500 pages of documents). Access to TS/SCI/SAF data, if required, will occur only at Government locations. Technical support for DXBM and launch missions as well as IV&V on Launch Vehicles and Launch Vehicle to Payload integration and encapsulation shall be performed by MAC personnel who are cleared at the proper level....Specific Security requirement for individual Task Orders shall be specified in the TOID." PWS Paragraph 5.0 also updated to add "Specific Security requirement for individual Task Orders will be specified in the TOID." |
TOID 0002 and TOID 0003 Para 5.2 both updated for clarity as follows, "No contractor facility clearance or classified communication or storage capability is required on this TO. However, a SECRET clearance is required for Government facility access."
TOID 0006 updated for clarity as follows, "The HVTI payload is visually classified at the SECRET level. Personnel and relevant facilities cleared to the SECRET/NOFORN level are required to perform IV&V activities related to the vehicle’s trajectory, the interface between the vehicle and the payload, and payload integration. Depending on the MAC approach to IV&V, the MAC may be required to provide storage facilities for components and data at the SECRET/NOFORN level."
23 Section L S 28 5.3 Original: TO 0002 refers to, "5 trips to SW US for ordnance disposition." For clarity of task description and to support proposal and BOE development, please provide the PWS paragraph this activity applies to? Better understanding of TOID 0002 requirements. M PWS paragraph 3.4.1.10 added to TOID 0002, paragraph 5.4, bullet 1. PWS Paragraph 3.4.1.10 also revised to clarify the scope of work as follows:
"Assess RSLP-owned ordnance for serviceability, required packaging, adequate storage, and serviceability of handling equipment at Camp Navajo to identify concerns and opportunities related to potential disposal, obsolescence, vanishing vendors, and requirements forecast."
24 Section L S 15 & 16 5.3.4 & 5.3.4.2 Original: 5.3.4.1 The format should be base times rates equals dollars, by Offeror’s accounting year, and consistent with the Offeror’s rate structure.
5.3.4.2 Please ensure the hours in the Basis of Estimate (BOE) are fully and clearly traceable to the hours in the cost element summary, and provide visibility in how the bases for these cost elements were developed. The BOE shall clearly identify the types, quantities, skill mix of proposed labor hours, and detailed rationale and justification for the estimates used. The labor hours must be separated out by the different types of labor, and time-phased by Contract Year (CY).
| Revised: Please clarify how Offeror's should meet the requirements to provide the Cost Summaries by Offeror Fiscal Year while providing the BoEs based on the Contract Year, assuming that the Offeror Fiscal Year does not correspond to the Contract Year. | Requesting clarification regarding apparently conflicting direction. | A | The Government has deconflicted this information and has revised Section L, paragraph 5.3.4.1 to now state, "The format should be base times rates equals dollars, by contract year, and consistent with the Offeror’s rate structure." | ||||||
| 25 | Section L | A | 17 | 5.4.4 | Original: All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest dollar | ||||
| Revised: All final cost element amounts shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. Intermediate cost element amounts and labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny. | Typically, labor rates and intermediate calculations can be rounded to the penny while the final cost amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar to avoiding rounding variances. | A | Section L, paragraph 5.4.4 now states, "All final cost element amounts shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. Intermediate cost element amounts and labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny." | ||||||
| 26 | Section L | S | 13-17 | 5 | Please clarify what, if any, proprietary cost information should be included for proposed subcontractors. If the government desires fully disclosed subcontractor pricing, please indicate the threshold for which subcontractors will need to submit a sealed package. For example, all subcontractors with over $5M combined over all task orders will need to submit a sealed package. | Requesting clarification regarding subcontractor cost/price information. | A | Include pricing for companies that represent a significant portion of the effort or are intended to be regularly included as labor for task orders. Also, please see response to comment #27 below. | |
| 27 | Section L | S | 15 | 5.3.3 | Original: Provide direct and indirect costs to support fully burdened labor rates, for each labor category, for each year of the initial five-year ordering period (CY1-CY5) and each of the four option years, plus an additional two years to complete execution of all issued task orders, CY6, CY7, CY8, CY9, CY10, and CY11 using the format specified in Table D-1 in Appendix D, for the Prime Contractor as well as any teaming partners or applicable subcontractors. | ||||
| Please provide the definition of "teaming partners or applicable subcontractors" and the distinction between the two entities for the purpose of complying with these requirements. | Seeking clarification to ensure compliance with requirements. | A | The Government makes no distinction between teaming partners and major subcontractors. The Government requires the prime to include pricing for those companies that represent a significant portion of the effort or are intended to be regularly included as labor for task orders. Inclusion of these companies' rate tables in Attachment 3 makes for easier verification by the cost team and speeds up award. | ||||||
| 28 | Section L | A | 16 | 5.3.3 | Original: Provide direct and indirect costs to support fully burdened labor rates, for each labor category, for each year of the initial five-year ordering period (CY1-CY5) and each of the four option years, plus an additional two years to complete execution of all issued task orders, CY6, CY7, CY8, CY9, CY10, and CY11 using the format specified in Table D-1 in Appendix D, for the Prime Contractor as well as any teaming partners or applicable subcontractors. | ||||
| Revised: Provide direct and indirect costs to support fully burdened labor rates, for each labor category, for each year of the initial five-year ordering period (CY1-CY5) and each of the four option years, plus an additional two years to complete execution of all issued task orders, CY6, CY7, CY8, CY9, CY10, and CY11 using the format specified in Table D-3 in Appendix D, for the Prime Contractor as well as any teaming partners or applicable subcontractors. | Table D-1 shows a summary of the proposed labor rates but does not provide any detail regarding indirect costs associated with direct labor. Table D-3 shows a standard labor rate buildup with all applicable indirect burdens. We believe the table reference needs to be corrected. |
Note: If the government changes the reference from Table D-1 to Table D-3, please consider adding a separate requirement in Section L to include Table D-1 in the Cost Volume as it appears to be a required table for contract award as Attachment 4. R Table D-3 has been removed as a requirement, as the PCO determined the information provided would be a duplicate of table D-2. Table D-3 has been removed, and Table D-4 has been renumbered as Table D-3
A statement was placed below Table D-1 that states, "Rates proposed will be incorporated as Attachment 3 in the Awarded Contract."
| 29 | Section L | S | 32 | 5.3 | Original: "5.3 Other Direct Costs (ODC’s): The MAC shall also provide all required ODC costs for accomplishing this service, including travel costs. See below and paragraph 4.0 above for additional details." | |
| Revised: Please consider providing plug numbers for ODCs and travel to normalize the evaluation of the cost elements in the best value selection (i.e., ODCs and travel should not be a discriminator in a competitive procurement for a cost reimbursable contract). | Revision ensures a level playing field for all Offerors and allows the Government to base their selection on true technical, management, and cost discriminators. | A | The offeror shall propose applicable ODCs for each TOID. For TOID 0001, propose your applicable ODCs, including travel. For TOIDs 0002-0006, propose your applicable ODCs, excluding travel. Travel has been removed as a requirement in TOIDs 0002-0006 in order to normalize the cost evaluation for all offerors. If TOIDs 0002-0006 are awarded within 6 months of the basic contract award, the task orders will be amended to include travel. | |||
| 30 | Section L | C | 12 | 4.2.4.1 | Original: "4.2.4.1 STP-XS1 Kickoff Presentation: The Offeror shall provide a sample launch IV&V Kickoff Presentation for the STP-XS1 Mission described in TOID 0004, Appendix A." | |
| Revised: Consider an oral presentation of the STP-XS1 Kickoff Presentation (as well as HVTI Final Presentation and DXBM scenario) by each Offeror to better explain their methodology and expedite the Government's evaluation of proposals. | Oral proposals are an effective means for streamlining the Government's evaluation of proposals as demonstrated on several SMC SE&I procurements and allows the Government to expedite their best value selection particularly since presentation slides are already an integral part (and majority) of the Technical Volume requirements. | R | The Government believes that the current structure of the RFP provides sufficient opportunity for the Offeror to explain their methodology and provides the Government with the information required to perform their evaluation. The Government has structured the evaluation criteria such that face-to-face presentation will not provide additional information beyond what is in the written presentation. | |||
| 31 | Section L | S | 19 | 6.3 | Original: "The total compensation plan submitted in the proposal will not become part of the awarded contract." | |
| Revised: Please consider emphasizing correlation of the information provided in the PECP and the Appendix D - Cost Tables to ensure traceability of the PECP to the proposed rates. Also, consider including the PECP as an evaluated item within the Core Effort Key Positions and Program/Cost Management Approach element (Factor 1, Subfactor 1) to ensure the hiring and retention of fully qualified personnel for the RSLP-MA effort. | Revision ensures consistency between compensation for professional employees (not part of subsequent contract) and fully burdened labor rates (Table D-3) which becomes part of the resulting contract (Section J, Attachment 4). Also, ensures the Government can assess strengths and weaknesses based on each Offeror's plan to hire and retain qualified staff. | A | Section L, para 5.3.3 now states," Ensure this information is consistent with Section L, Paragraph 6.3, Professional Employee Compensation Plan." | |||
| 32 | Draft Model Contract | S | 2 | Core Effort (CY1-5) | Original: "Share Ratio: ____/____ Underrun |
____/____ Overrun Target Fee: ____% Established on each Task Order Min Fee: ____% Max Fee: ____%"
| Revised: Please indicate which of the Incentive Fee components the Government plans on specifying and which are Offeror fill-ins. | Revision ensures Offerors can determine incentive fee strategy accordingly. | R | The Final RFP will have this information filled in by the Government. The offeror will be responsible for filling in the proposed Target Fee only. | |||
| 33 | Draft Section J Attachments | S | N/A | Section J, Attachment 6 | Original: "1. Launch Service Contractor Flight Computers – These items were procured by the program office to support GNC algorithm analysis and software verification and validation activities. They are |
currently in use by Arctic Slope Research Corporation (ASRC), Inc. on current mission assurance activities, but will be made available to the MA contractor as relevant ASRC MA activities are completed, in order to meet MA execution requirements."
| Revision: Please indicate if the GFP flight computers will be made available to meet nominal RSLP-MA mission schedules or does the RSLP-MA contractor need to develop an alternative approach. Also, please provide the current task orders performed by the incumbent contractor in the Bidders Library so all Offerors can plan the availability of Launch Service Contractor Flight Computers. | Revision ensures a level playing field for all Offerors. | M | Offerors should assume that these (or similar) flight computers will be available to support their nominal proposed IV&V activity schedule. No deconfliction with the incumbent's use of these assets is required. The GFE list has been modified to remove specific serial numbers. | |||
| 34 | Section M | C | 7 | 2.4.1.1 | Original: "Core Effort: The Offeror demonstrates an adequate approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirements for the Core Effort described in TOID 0001. (Note: This Core Effort applies to the entire contracted effort as described in PWS paragraph 3.2 and is not limited to the DXBM portions.)" | |
| Revised: Section M evaluation criteria are not consistent with the Section L instructions. Section L is focused on Key Positions and staffing related topics, while Section M implies a comprehensive response to PWS 3.2 as directed by TOID 0001, Section 5.0. Please clarify the expectation for Offeror responses to the Core Effort evaluation criteria. | Clarifies Government's expectation for all Offerors response by syncing Sections L and M for the Core Effort. | M | The expectation for offeror responses related to the Core Effort should include both the overall effort as well as the Key Positions. Section L, Para 4.2.3.1 has been modified for clarity as follows: |
"The Offeror shall provide a narrative describing their overarching program management approach, and identifying the positions that are key to fulfilling the Core Effort requirements. Within this narrative, the Offeror must specifically address the following:
- The Title, Location and Minimum Qualifications/Expertise of each key position proposed and explanation of why these roles are key to managing the entire effort. The Title, Location and Minimum Qualifications/Expertise of each key position will be incorporated into the resultant contract upon award.
- Define the role of each Key Position in Program and Cost Management.
- The Offeror's approach to ensuring availability of personnel at contract start and throughout contract performance.
- The Offeror's approach to staffing Mission Assurance for multiple launches concurrently (reference Table 1 for RSLP’s projected launch schedule), with varying degrees of complexity and performance schedule fluctuations.
- PWS paragraphs 3.2.4, 3.2.13.2, and 3.2.18."
| 35 | Draft Section L | A | 8 | 2.2.2.1 | The RFP states that "Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 point font." Revised: Can headers and footers be size 9 font? | Update ensures easier readability of the document | R | For standardization, all text must be no less than 12 point | |
| 36 | Draft Section L | A | 8 | 2.2.2.1 | The RFP states that "Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 point font." Revised: Can tables and graphics be size 10 font? If not, Can the Basis of Estimate in Cost Volume be size 10 font? | Update ensures easier readability of the document | R | For standardization, all text must be no less than 12 point | |
| 37 | Draft Section L | A | 37 | 5.1 | For Appendix A, TOID 0005, Section 5.1, first bullet in Clarifications. It States "For sub-paragraph 3.3.1, 3.3.2.13 and 3.3.1.14" Should it be 3.3.1.13 instead of the 3.3.2.13? | Update ensures correct Cross Reference Matrix | M | TOID 0005, Paragraph 5.1, first bullet updated to state only 3.3.1 | |
| 38 | Draft Section L | A | 19 and 8 | 6.1, 2.2.3 | Section 6.1 states to include a signed copy of contract form and "Section A through K". Is it Government's intent to include all of Sections A through K? If so, where does the Government want the bidder to include Sections B-J? Or should this be changed to just "Section A and K" as provided in 6.1.1 and 6.1.2? If Section B is included per 6.1 instruction, this will have cost data in it. This contradicts the instruction in Section 2.2.3 that states only cost information is only in Cost Volume. | Clarification of instructions | A | The Government's intent is to have the offeror include Sections A through K. Sections B-J are not specifically called out in para 6.1, however, there may be fill-in clauses that the offeror needs to provide, as well as attachments, such as Task Order Rates and CWBS. This is now more clear with the addition of 6.1.2 Section I and 6.1.3 Section J, within 6.1. Additionally, Section L, paragraph 2.2.3 reads "Cost information should be included in the Cost/Price and Contract Documentation Volumes only." | |
| 39 | Draft Section J Attachments, Attachment 1 | A | 39 | 3.4.1.18.3 | PWS paragraph References CDRL 006. This is not a valid CDRL in Section J Exhibits (CDRLs). What is the correct CDRL number that needs to be referenced? Revised: Is it supposed to be C0006? | Update ensures the RFP is error free. | A | Reference in PWS Paragraph 3.4.1.18.3 has been changed to CDRL C006 | |
| 40 | Draft Model Contract | C | 2 through 11 | Section B | CLINs have PWS sections in each CLIN, except for PWS Paragraph 3.1 (Pages 7 through 10) in Section J Attachments, Attachment 1. This PWS section has "Shalls" in them for Offeror to do a basis of estimate on these requirements, but do not have CLIN or CLINs assigned to this PWS paragraph in Section B to price. Each TOID 0001, 2, 4, 5, and 6 in Section L, Attachment A lists PWS 3.1, but PWS 3.1 is not listed in Section B for pricing under their CLINs. | Update ensures all requirements in PWS are priced. | A | PWS paragraph 3.1 has been added to the applicable CLINs (i.e. all CLINs except the Data and Reports CLINs). | |
| 41 | Draft Model Contract | S | 3 through 7 | Section B | CLINs (1 [and the Option CLINs], 3, 7 and 9) for TOIDs 1, 4, 5 and 6 list in Section B, PWS reference 4 and 5, but the TOIDs 1, 4, 5 and 6 in Section J Attachments, Attachment 1 do not list PWS 4 and 5. Revised: Should PWS 4 and 5 be added to TOIDs 1, 4, 5, and 6? Or should PWS 4 and 5 be removed from Section B CLINs 1 (and the option CLINs), 3, 7 and 9? | Clarifies requirement. | A | All TOIDs should include PWS para 1, 2, 3.1, 4, and 5. Paragraph 5.1 in each TOID has been updated to ensure consistency. | |
| 42 | Section L, Appendix A | S | 31 | TOID 0003, 5.1 | For TOID 0003, it does not list the PWS references like the other TOIDs (PWS 1.0, 2.0, 3.1) and PWS 4 and 5 if Government adds to other TOIDs, with question # 7 above. Revise: Should TOID 0003 have these additions also? | Clarifies requirement. | A | All TOIDs should include PWS para 1, 2, 3.1, 4, and 5. Paragraph 5.1 in each TOID has been updated to ensure consistency. | |
| 43 | Draft Section L, Appendix A | A | 26 | TOID 0001, 5.0 | Bullet 2 states: “The MAC shall support the transition from the incumbent contractor IAW PWS paragraph 3.2.8”. Question – should the PWS reference be revised to 3.2.18 instead? | Update ensures the RFP is error free. | A | TOID 0001, paragraph 5.1, PWS reference updated to 3.2.18 | |
| 44 | Draft Section L, Appendix B | A | 42 | First sentence | The first sentence references Section L 4.2.3.3. Question - should the Section L reference be 4.2.3.2? | Update ensures the RFP is error free. | A | Paragraph reference in section L, page 42, Appendix B, corrected to 4.2.3.2. | |
| 45 | Draft Section L | S | 14 | 5.2 | Section 5.2 defines the volume organization into 6 tabs. Question – Under which tab should the bidders place their response to Section L 5.3.5 Cost Tables? | Clarifies requirement. | N/A | Section L, Paragraph 5.2 has been revised to include all of the contents of 5.3, Cost Detail. 5.3.5, Cost Tables, has been removed and table D-3 has been deleted (Subsequently, table D-4, Total Proposed Price, is now D-3) as the cost team determined this to be a duplicate of Table D-2. The Cost Team no longer requires "tabs." The offeror should organize the volume into sections in accordance with 5.2. | |
| 46 | Draft Section L | A | 13 | Section 5.1 | Original, "Offerors shall submit the electronic copy of this volume in an unprotected .XLS file format with working formulas". | ||||
| Will the government accept the cost narrative in word or PDF, while the pricing spread sheet will be in .XLS format with working formulas? | We want to make sure that narrative surrounding the pricing itself is acceptable in word or PDF and the pages of details that is being requested is not forced into Excel. Clarifies instructions | A | Modified Section L, paragraph 5.1 to allow use of MS Word for the narrative. | ||||||
| 47 | Draft Section L | A | 17 | Section 5.4.3 | "Other Direct Costs (ODC(s)): The Government shall include the amount estimated for travel and material in each TO." | ||||
| Please confirm that the MAC will provide the ODC costs for each TOID, not a plug number given in Final RFP by Government? | Clarification of instructions | A | The offeror shall propose any applicable ODCs for each TOID, with the following exceptions/clarifications. For TOID 0001, propose your applicable ODCs, including travel. For TOIDs 0002-0006, propose your applicable ODCs, excluding travel. Travel has been removed as a requirement in TOIDs 0002-0006 in order to normalize the cost evaluation for all offerors. If TOIDs 0002-0006 are awarded within 6 months of the basic contract award, the task orders will be amended to include travel. |
Any labor hours associated with travel should be included with the applicable TOID.
| 48 | Draft Section J Attachments, Attachment 1 | S | 3 | 1.2 & 3.2.16 | Original: Contractual direction is provided by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)… | ||||
| Revised: Contractual direction is provided by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)…The PCO will define a Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) to… The COR is not defined until 3.2.16 for the purpose of adding subcontractors and in 3.3 for submittal of data delivery. Suggest definition of the COR in section 1.2 or 1.3 with primary functions, similar to definition of TO Manager | Easier requirements flow | A | PWS Para 1.2 revised to include, "The PCO will name a Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) who will act as the primary interface with the MAC for day-to-day interactions and conduct Quality Assurance Surveillance on behalf of the PCO." | ||||||
| 49 | Draft Section L, Appendix A, TOID 0003 | S | 31 | 4.0 | The Schedule in the RFP does not seem realistic for aging surveillance of ICBM components | Update to a more realistic schedule | M | TOID 0003, paragraph 4.0 static fire testing schedule has been updated as follows: |
"Motor Testing:
• SR118 Static Fire Sep 2020
• SR120 Static Fire 10 Dec 2020
• SR119 Static Fire 10 March 2021
• SR19 Static Fire Feb 2022
• M55 Static Fire Apr 2022
• M57 Static Fire Jun 2022
• SR118 Static Fire Jan 2023
| 50 | Draft Section J Attachments, Attachment 1 | A | 17 | 3.3.1.14 | Original: …RSLP Mission manager on risk and risk mitigations | ||||
| Revised: …RSLP Mission manager on risk and risk mitigations. | Update ensures the RFP is error free. | A | PWS Paragraph 3.3.1.14, a period has been added to the sentence. | ||||||
| 51 | Draft Section J Attachments, Attachment 1 | A | 24 | 3.3.2.21.4 | Original: Evaluate consumable for adequate… | ||||
| Revised: Evaluate consumables for adequate… | Update ensures the RFP is error free. | A | Content currently in PWS Paragraph 3.3.2.21.11, changed from "consumable" to "consumables" | ||||||
| 52 | Draft Section J Attachments, Attachment 1 | A | 27 | 3.3.2.25.1.2 | Original: …Avionics, and Environments Field/Launch Operations, Post Flight Analysis | ||||
| Revised: …Avionics, Environments, Field/Launch Operations, and Post Flight Analysis | Update ensures the RFP is error free. | A | PWS Paragraph 3.3.2.25.1.2 changed as recommended for clarity | ||||||
| 53 | Draft Section J Exhibits (CDRLs), Exhibit C, CDRL C0006 | A | 1 | Block 5 | Original: PWS 3.4.1.6 only. Should Government also revise to add PWS 3.4.1.18.3? If CDRL C0006 is the reference that is in PWS 3.4.1.18.3 | Update ensures the RFP is error free. | A | CDRL C006, Block 5 has been updated to include PWS para 3.4.1.18.3. | |
| 54 | Section L, Appendix A, TOID 0002 | A | 28 | 5.1, Bullet 1 | Subparagraph 3.4.1.2.3 does not exist in the PWS. Please clarify reference | Update ensures the RFP is error free. | A | PWS Reference in TOID 0002, paragraph 5.1, first bullet, changed to 3.4.1.23 | |
| 55 | Section L, Appendix A, TOID 0005 | A | 37 | 5.1 | Paragraph 5.1 Clarifications: For sub-paragraph 3.3.1, 3.3.2.13 and 3.3.1.14, the MAC shall coordinate with the TO Manager prior to performing work under this sub-paragraph. Is 3.3.1 (CAT 1) level the correct paragraph to call out? | Clarify which paragraphs are being referenced with the clarification note. | A | TOID 0005, paragraph 5.1, first bullet has been corrected to include only paragraph 3.3.1 | |
| 56 | Section L, Appendix A, TOID 0006 | S | 39 | 2.0 c | Paragraph 2.0 b states: Support Flight Motor Refurbishment and Processing for one M55, one SR19, and one SR73 and c) Support Ground Test Motor processing for one M55 and one SR73. Is there a need for a SR19 GTM to be processed along with the other two Minuteman motors? | Clarify GTM requirements. | A | A GTM for the SR19 is required. TOID 0006, Para 2.0b was updated to read "c) Support Ground Test Motor processing for one M55, one SR19 and one SR73." TOID 0006, Paragraph 5.1, bullet 4 has been updated to read "The MAC shall provide DXBM Ground Test Motor Processing (IAW PWS paragraph 3.3.6, and all sub-paragraphs) for one M55, one SR19, and one SR73 for this activity." | |
| 57 | Draft Section L, Appendix A, TOID 0006 | S | 41 | 5.2 | Can the Government provide any clarification the to statement "The HVTI launch is classified Secret/NOFORN"? Does this mean payloads are visually classified? Are payload integration activities classified? Is the LV trajectory and flight software classified? Will all data & documentation be classified? | A clarification ensures the RFP is concise on MAC support requirements. | A | TOID 0006 para 5.2 modified to state, "The HVTI payload is visually classified at the SECRET level. Personnel and relevant facilities cleared to the SECRET/NOFORN level are required to perform IV&V activities related to the vehicle’s trajectory, the interface between the vehicle and the payload, and payload integration. Depending on the MAC approach to IV&V, the MAC may be required to provide storage and facilities for components and data at the SECRET/NOFORN level." | |
| 58 | Draft Section J Attachments, Attachment 2, DD254 | A | 4 | Block 13 | NG recently had an update of their address from 3350 S. Price Road to 1575 S. Price Road, Chandler AZ 85286 | Administrative update to Places of Performance | A | This information will be incorporated into the DD-254 revision. | |
| 59 | Draft Section J Attachments, Attachment 2, DD254 | A | 6 | Block 13 Ref 10.f | The Defense Security Service (DSS) which is now Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA). | Administrative update to the name of the referenced agency. | A | This information will be incorporated into the DD-254 revision. | |
| 60 | Draft Section J Attachments, Attachment 1 | S | 8 | 3.1.5 | Original: Facility security clearance at the minimum classification level identified in the DD254 is required prior to perform work required by this contract. | ||||
| Recommendation: Facility security clearance in accordance with the classification levels identified in the DD254 is required prior to perform work required by this contract. | The DD254 does not specify a minimum classification level, instead it only captures the maximum classification level required. Recommend clarification to PWS 3.1.5 to avoid the assumption that all work must be accomplished at the Top Secret level, if this is not the Government intent. | A | PWS Para 3.1.5 updated for clarity as follows, "Facility security clearance in accordance with the classification levels identified in the DD254 is required prior to performing work required by this contract. The MAC may be required to provide secure storage for some SECRET/NOFORN materials (i.e., Flight computer components and up to 500 pages of documents). Access to TS/SCI/SAF data, if required, will occur only at Government locations. Technical support for DXBM and launch missions as well as IV&V on Launch Vehicles and Launch Vehicle to Payload integration and encapsulation shall be performed by MAC personnel who are cleared at the proper level....Specific Security requirement for individual Task Orders shall be specified in the TOID." PWS Paragraph 5.0 also updated to add "Specific Security requirement for individual Task Orders will be specified in the TOID." | ||||||
| 61 | Draft Section J Attachments, Attachment 1 | S | 21 | 3.3.2.15 | Could the Government clarify what the intent of providing "on-site IV&V" is with respect to system level testing. | IV&V could require performing our own testing on the launch vehicle or delivery of all test scripts and test data from the LSC, which it's unclear if the LSC would allow. | A | Clarified PWS Paragraph 3.3.2.15 to "Same as CAT 1, and also perform on-site observations during launch vehicle processing and integration activities at the LSC’s facility during system-level integration and test and at the launch site. Review and evaluate completed test/activity procedures, non-conformances and issue resolution." | |
| 62 | Draft Section J Attachments, Attachment 1 | S | 25 | 3.3.2.21.8 | Original: Perform independent failure hazard analysis. | ||||
| Revised: Perform independent failure hazard assessment. | The title of this PWS section implies that independent analysis is required for LV reliability, debris models and patterns. But the content of the paragraph states that assessment is required, rather than a full independent analysis. If the Govt intends the MAC to perform full independent analysis, then additional data from the LV contractor will be required over what is currently in the SRP-4 and OSP-4 PWS. |
Please clarify the Govt intent.
| A | Content currently in PWS Paragraph 3.3.2.21.15, changed to read: "Perform independent assessment of failure hazard analyses performed by others" | |||||||
| 63 | Draft Section J Attachments, Attachment 1 | S | 28 | 3.3.2.25.3 | PWS: Recommend replacing "MRR" with "FRR" | The MRR is held near the pre-ship review and requiring the IV&V Final Review no later than 4 weeks prior to this would be before many LSC data gets delivered. | A | In PWS Paragraph 3.3.2.25.3, changed "MRR" to "FRR" |
| 64 | Draft Section J Attachments, Attachment 1 | S | 28 | 3.3.2.26 | PWS Recommend replacing "MRR" with "FRR" | The FRR is presented to the SMC/CC, not the MRR | A | In PWS Paragraph 3.3.2.26, Changed "MRR" to "FRR" |
| 65 | Draft Section J Attachments, Attachment 1 | A | 43 | 3.6.5 | Recommend replacing "logistics support task order" with "knowledge development support task order" | Reference the appropriate PWS section 3.6 | A | In PWS Paragraph 3.6.5, changed "logistics support" to "knowledge development" |
| 66 | Draft Section J Exhibits (CDRLs), Exhibit C, CDRL B0005 | S | 14 | B005 Block 16 | Recommend replacing "MRR" with "FRR" | The FRR is presented to the SMC/CC, not the MRR | A | In CDRL B005, Block 16, Changed "MRR" to "FRR" |
| 67 | Draft Section L | S | 28/29 (TOID 2), 32(TOID 3), 35 (TOID 4), 38 (TOID 5), 41 (TOID 6) | Travel, Hardware/Software paragraphs (5.3, 5.4, 5.5) | Do the TOID ODC requirements in paragraphs 5.3 (Travel), 5.4 (HW), and 5.5 (SW) represent the total ODCs to be estimated by the offeror, or can the offeror propose additional Travel, Hardware, and Software ODCs as derived from applicable PWS and TOID requirements? | Clarification of instructions | A | The offeror shall propose applicable ODCs for each TOID. For TOID 0001, propose your applicable ODCs, including travel. For TOIDs 0002-0006, propose your applicable ODCs, excluding travel. Travel has been removed as a requirement in TOIDs 0002-0006 in order to normalize the cost evaluation for all offerors. If TOIDs 0002-0006 are awarded within 6 months of the basic contract award, the task orders will be amended to include travel. |
Any labor hours associated with travel should be included with the applicable TOID.
| 68 | Draft Section L | S | 25 | TOID 0001 Section 5 | No ODCs are identified as required by the government for TOID 0001. Can the offeror propose Travel, Hardware, and Software ODCs as derived from applicable PWS and TOID requirements for TOID 0001? | Clarification of instructions | A | The offeror shall propose any applicable ODCs for each TOID, with the following exceptions/clarifications. For TOID 0001, propose your applicable ODCs, including travel. For TOIDs 0002-0006, propose your applicable ODCs, excluding travel. Travel has been removed as a requirement in TOIDs 0002-0006 in order to normalize the cost evaluation for all offerors. If TOIDs 0002-0006 are awarded within 6 months of the basic contract award, the task orders will be amended to include travel. |
| 69 | Draft Section L, Appendix A | A | 26 | TOID 0001, Paragraph 4.0 | RFP states: POP 1 Jun 2020 through 30 May 2025 |
Revise: … POP 1 Jun 2020 through 31 May 2025
| Update ensures the RFP is error free. | A | TOID 0001, paragraph 4.0, PoP ending changed to 31 May 2025 | ||||||
| 70 | Draft Section L | A | 15 | 5.3.3 | The RFP states that "Labor Category Requirements and Task Order Rates Table: Identify each labor category to be used in the execution of the contract, and identify any education and experience requirements for the labor category. Provide direct and indirect costs to support fully burdened labor rates, for each labor category, for each year of the initial five-year ordering period (CY1-CY5) and each of the four option years, plus an additional two years to complete execution of all issued task orders, CY6, CY7, CY8, CY9, CY10, and CY11 using the format specified in Table D-1 in Appendix D, for the Prime Contractor as well as any teaming partners or applicable subcontractors." | The DRFP currently makes no reference to this rate table in Section B, will this rate table be incorporated in to the model contract for future task orders? | N/A | A footer to Table D-1 within Section L, page 47 currently states" Rates proposed will be incorporated as Attachment 3 in the Awarded Contract." The CLIN descriptions for each CLIN now states, "Task Orders will be issued in accordance with Section H Clause, Ordering Procedures." The Ordering Procedures clause has been incorporated in lieu of the Ordering Guide attachment. The Ordering Procedures clause stipulates that costs proposed shall utilize the rates in Attachment 3 of the Basic Contract. |
| 71 | Draft Section L, Appendix A | S | 28 and 31 | TOID 0002, and 0003, paragraph 5.2 | It states, “The effort is unclassified” |
This appears to be incorrect as we have classified hardware and a requirement to have a SECRET clearance for facility access. Can Government Clarify requirement?
| Personnel need to be cleared to appropriate levels to work on/with the hardware | A | Paragraph 5.2 in TOIDs 0002 & 0003 changed to read "No contractor facility clearance or classified communication or storage capability is required on this TO. However, a SECRET clearance is required for Government facility access." |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .