Copy of 2nd DRFP Posting CRM Government Responses.xlsx

Comment Resolution Matrix

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.

Provide original language and proposed change

"NOTE: The Government will be evaluating travel related to TOID 001 in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP); however, the Government will NOT be evaluating travel related to TOIDs 0002-0006 in the TEP."

FROM: ""Combined Technical/Risk Subfactors - Each subfactor (Core/DXBM and Launch IV&V) will receive a Combined Technical/Risk rating as described in Table 2A below. This rating uses the risk descriptions defined in Table 2B below. If, after the Government’s consideration of correction potential (as discussed in paragraph 1.7), a proposal is rated Unacceptable in either subfactor, that proposal will not be evaluated further for the Cost Factor. Such a proposal may result in the Offeror not being considered for the Competitive Range."

TO: "Combined Technical/Risk Subfactors - Each subfactor (Core/DXBM and Launch IV&V) will receive a Combined Technical/Risk rating as described in Table 2A below. This rating uses the risk descriptions defined in Table 2B below. If a proposal is rated Unacceptable in either subfactor, that proposal will not be evaluated further for the Cost Factor. Such a proposal may result in the Offeror not being considered for the Competitive Range."

FROM: "Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems, layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 12 point. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals."

TO: "Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems, layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size and are counted as 2 pages towards the page limitations. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 12 point. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals."

Payload Customer: The payload for this Task Order will be multiple 3U and 6U CubeSat’s and 2-3 ESPA-class smallsats, all totaling less than 1,000 kg.

This conflicts with the STP-XS1 Mission Requirements Document, which lists the four SV Complements that are baseline on the four launches. Each of those has one ESPA-class SV in addition to cubesats, making a total of four ESPA-class smallsats to be launched under this TOID. Please clarify.

Clarification required M For clarity, TOID 004 paragraph 3.1 has been revised FROM: "Payload Customer: The payload for this Task Order will be multiple 3U and 6U CubeSat’s and 2-3 ESPA-class smallsats, all totaling less than 1,000 kg."

TO: " Payload Customer: The payload for this Task Order will be multiple 3U and 6U CubeSats and 4 ESPA-class smallsats. The total mass of this entire group of payloads is less than 1,000 kg."

7 Draft Section L S 34 TOID 0005 The initial draft RFP included a requirement to “The MAC shall provide Concept Analysis (IAW PWS paragraph 3.5) for this activity to identify lessons learned in the execution of the RSCD mission, with specific application to the mission assurance function for future rapid launch activities” under Tsk Order 0005 5.1.

We suggest keeping this requirement.

FROM: "Ground Test Motor processing for the M55 and SR73 motors as described in PWS paragraphs 3.3.5.1, 3.3.5.14, 3.3.5.15, 3.3.5.18, 3.3.6.1, and 3.3.6.6."

TO: "Ground Test Motor processing for the M55, SR19, and SR73 motors as described in PWS paragraphs 3.3.5.5, 3.3.5.13, 3.3.5.14, 3.3.5.15, 3.3.6.5, and 3.3.6.6."

FROM: "Test Asset Current Age (months), ULE (months), ULE (years), Estimated ULE in FY25" TO: "Test Asset Age (months since manufacture) (as of 1 Nov 19), ULE (months since manufactuer), ULE (years since manufacture), ULE at ILC" 17 Section L S 16 5.3.3 This question pertains to the Question 28 previously submitted and considered by the government and is provided below.

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.

In response to this question, the government removed the requirement for Table D-3 as it was determined to be duplicative of Table D-2. This question was not intended to remove Table D-3, we were only suggesting that the reference to table D-1 in Section 5.3.3 should be to Table D-3 rather than Table D-1. If the original table D-3 is removed, it will be much more difficult for the Government to trace the direct and indirect costs that support the fully burdened labor rates provided in Table D-1. Table D-2 shows the aggregate indirect costs, not by labor category and may only reflect those categories being priced in the particular TOID, rather than the full range of labor categories proposed by the Offeror. We respectfully suggest leaving the original Table D-3 showing the labor rate buildup in the final RFP to allow the government to easily evaluate the full range of labor rates proposed. A “The government has reviewed the tables to be provided in Section L. After further review, Table D-3 has been added back into Appendix D and Total Proposed Price becomes Table D-4, as originally released in the DRFP. The reference to Table D-1 in 5.3.3 has been changed to Table D-3. Finally, the following language has been added to the end of 5.3.3 to account for Table D-1: "In addition, using Table D-1 in Appendix D (Table for Prime/Teaming Partners/Major Subcontractors Task Order Rates), please provide the total labor rate for each labor category provided in Table D-3, 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. These rates will be incorporated into the resultant contract as Attachment 3."

It is also important to note that the rates should be provided for each Contract Year (CY). This has now been changed for Tables D-1 & D-3.”

FROM: "For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 12 point.”

TO: "For tables, charts, graphs and figures, (in both pages and slides) the text shall be no smaller than 12 point.”

22 Bidders Library: Mission Managers Handbook S N/A General The Mission Managers Handbook (MMH), lays out generic mission flow, various reviews, IPTs, WG, etc. Is significant MAC involvement is in FRR required (since not mentioned in RFP)? Also, how important is IRR to the government? Requirements clarification N/A The MAC's involvement with FRR is discussed in PWS paragraph 3.3.2.16 Space Flight Worthiness Certification, which states, "Review the LSC's SFWC assessment (when applicable) and assist the Mission Manager in SFWC checklist completion in preparation for the FRR. At the FRR, the MAC will present an independent assessment of residual mission risks. The MAC will also provide a letter to the SMC/CC certifying their performance of independent verification and validation efforts to the SMC/CC in support of the FRR. (CDRLs B002, B005)"

An Internal Readiness Review (IRR) is not a requirement under this RFP.

MRD development would be part of support to RSLP planning activities.

Contractor participation in LSC task order competitions would be required only if the Gov't could not otherwise obtain specific subject matter expertise and if approved by SMC.

26 Section L A 6 2.2 The Offeror shall submit all volumes in hard copy (physical printed paper) as well as electronic format. Only one hard copy of the proposal shall be submitted. Does the Government anticipate the requirements changing to just electronic format requirement in Final RFP because of COVID-19? Possible requirement change A In light of Kirtland AFB being mandated that all non-mission-essential personnel telework, the Government is not requiring hard copies of the proposal at this time, as those copies may not be received. A hard copy may be requested at a later date. If a hard copy is requested, the request will only be made prior to the proposal submission date and will be made to offerors at least 10 calendar days in advance of the required delivery date. If the proposal due date has passed, the government will not be requiring a hard copy submittal. As a result, changes have been made to paragraphs 2.2, 2.2.8, and 2.3 of Section L to reflect that, at this time, only electronic proposal submissions shall be made by the proposal due date.

&D &F Page &P of &N image1.png