DRAFT_RFP_Master CRM_Completed.pdf

SOW

# Page #; Paragraph # Original Language ACTION (Suggested Change) Rationale

A = Accepted R = Rejected M = Modified

C = Clarify

Government Response

1 1.2STEP 2.0 Scope The SC to be procured within each DO will range in size from 12U CubeSats to EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) class, and any size in between.

The SC to be procured within each DO will range in size from 12U CubeSats to EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) grande class, and any size in between.

Increasing the range of selected vendors to include ESPA grande class SC will allow for more diversity with S&T payloads among the awarded bidders within the awarded STEP 2.0 program.

R

ESPA grande are not currently in the scope for the STEP 2.0 contract due to the available launch vehicles.

Scope has changed to 6U to Multi-Manifest Design Specification (MMDS) Rev 1.0a Class 2 SV.

2 1.2STEP 2.0 Scope The SC to be procured within each DO will range in size from 12U CubeSats to EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) class, and any size in between.

Please confirm that IDIQ bidders can submit proposals utilizing a single SC class within the bounds of the scope of the contract

A Yes, that is correct. Scope has changed to 6U to Multi- Manifest Design Specification (MMDS) Rev 1.0a Class

2 SV.

3 1.2STEP 2.0 Scope The SC will serve as the platform to integrate S&T PLs to operate in either Low Earth Orbit (LEO) or Geosynchronous Equatorial Orbit (GEO), as a class D system.

The SC will serve as the platform to integrate S&T PLs to operate in either Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Geosynchronous Equatorial Orbit (GEO), or xGEO (orbits beyond GEO) as a class D system.

Leveraging xGEO Orbits for Cislunar Space Domain Awareness is a national security priority.

R This is currently out of scope for STEP 2.0 contract because there isn't enough demand or budget to support cislunar missions.

4 1.2.1Flight Proven Spacecraft

Each SC shall be flight proven. A flight proven SC shall have a flight history of 365 consecutive days of on orbit operations within the last 5 years.

Each SC shall be flight proven. A flight proven SC shall have a flight history of 365 consecutive days of on orbit operations within the last 5 years, or comprehensively utilize core flight systems and subsystems that have a flight history of 365 consecutive days of on orbit operations within the last 5 years

Broadening the definition of "flight proven" will enable the Government to evaluate a wider range of capable SC Vendors (SCVs) who bring cutting edge, high TRL flight programs that can demonstrably advance the emerging technologies DoD seeks to fly via STEP 2.0.

R

Based on market research, there is a competitive market that will meet the current definition of "flight proven." Morever, this definition was crafted to meet the STEP 2.0 goals of having a demonstrated solution to mitigate mission risk. This section has been updated and clarified.

5 Pg 9, SOW, Section 3 SVs procured and integrated under the STEP 2.0 IDIQ contract will fly on a Government furnished launch on approximate 2 year cycles.

Does the government anticipate purchasing launches under this Step 2.0 Procurement, or some other contract vehicle (or both)?

Clarification requested M Launch services procurement are currently out of scope for STEP 2.0 contract. This section was clarified to avoid confusion.

6 18, 6.7 System Saftey Air Force Space Command Manual (AFSPCMAN) 91-710 V3. Recommend changing reference to SSCMAN In Dec 2022 "AFSPCMAN" has been superceeded by "SSCMAN" A STEP 2.0 agrees and has updated AFSPCMAN to SSCMAN witin the SOW.

7 23, 7.2.3 PMP

The SVC shall design and implement a Level 2 parts program per GSFC-EEE-

INST-002

Would Level 3 parts be allowed if the overall SV can be shown to meet reliabiliy/availability/DO requirements?

Level 2 conflicts with SRD Section 4.2 (Pg 10) that the SC could be Class C/D Hybrid or Class D. In addition SRD Section 4.3.1 (Pg 11) specifies Level 3 parts are allowed.

R Level 2 is to ensure mission assurance of the SC, the Class C/D Hybrid is the over all mission risk.

8 14, 6.2 TABLE 2 MEETINGS AND REVIEWS

Recommend addition of SC-PL accomodation working group by Government SI to ensure parallel efforts build up to final integration

A The STEP 2.0 has added an additional working group of the SC to PL team.

9 15, 6.2, Table 2 As required Change 'As required' to 'per Government direction' Align with the paragraph preceding the table: 'The SVC shall be required to participate and/or organize working groups and meetings as coordinated directed by the government team.'

M Modified Section 4.2 Table 2 Opening paragraph.

10 15, 6.2.3 Is DFARS 252.234-7002 (e) a requirement? It's is important for SVC to be aware of compliance expectation. R

In accordance with DFARS 234.201(1)(iv), the application of earned value management (EVMS) for firm-fixed price contracts is discouraged. DFARS 234.201(1)(ii) & (iii) states that a compliant/cognizant earned value management system (EMVS) is required for cost or incentive efforts exceeding $20M and $50M, respectively. At this time, the Government does not anticipate any Delivery Order exceeding $20M on cost-reimbursable CLINs. Resultantly, EVMS is not required.

11 15, 6.2.5 GSD shall include:

Recommend GSD be tied to a Customer milestone or reference whether DO will capture delivery details..

SVC would be able to think through an incremental delivery plan for the GSD artifacts listed.

A Accepted change.

12 18, Table 3 Item J Critical review of proposed SV ground segment changes, Request clarification whether GSRR is a detla (changes) review of one of the other items listed. If so, which one?

M Changes should already be reviewed and regression tested prior to GSRR.

13 19, 7.1 Does Customer expect any artifacts describing the ground segment besides the GSD?

R Please review section 15.4 for security requirements.

14 19, 7.1 Develop a validated system requirements baseline Request clarification as to what constitutes 'validated' in the context. M Removed Validated.

15 20, 7.1 Conduct internal peer, design, and readiness reviews prior to and… R STP, Unknown

16 22, 7.1.5 Verbage indicates MBSE is optional, but 2nd paragraph indicates "if required". Is there a possibility that while MBSE is not required, that a delivery order may stipulate MBSE?

M Requirements determined at the DO. MSBE language was changed to "may".

17 23, 7.1.5 The SVC may develop, maintain, and provide to the Government descriptive SysML-compliant models…

If SVC opts to deliver a model that addresses all listed items, would that be considerd artifact delivery that nominally precedes design reviews?

C Delivery timeline to be clarified at the DO.

18 24, 7.2.2 Will SVC derived reliability and resiliency approach be consideration criteria for IDIQ award, or will Customer requirements be provided per

DO?

C The criteria for IDIQ award are outlined in Section M, and the corresponding proposal information required for IDIQ award are outline in Section L.

19 24, 7.2.5 The SVC shall lead all Fedaral Communications Commission (FCC) licensing efforts…

Request clarification whether DoD S&T payloads requiring FCC license is included in the SVC scope.

C Not required for payloads that require their own FCC license.

20 25, 8 The SVC should deliver the SC for payload integration within 18 months following contract award.

Recommend formalizing SC-PL working group during these 18 mos. A The STEP 2.0 has added an additional working group of the SC to PL team.

21 27, 8.4 Is Command & Telemetry test between SV-Ground Segment with COMSEC in-the-loop be included in 8.4 integration effort, or should SVC plan that as part of 10.4.5?

A Language moved to 10.4.5.

22 28, 9.1.2 The SVC shall conduct a single Payload Accommodation Design Review (PADR) to define the SVC’s PL hosting solution.

Is expectation that changes to SC-PL interface post-PADR approval are to be managed by ECP?

C Changes managed by the CCB team.

23 28, 9.3 Will cross-domain solution support an OPSCON where an end-user operates in multiple domains, or is each end-user constrained to a domain?

C Any cross domain efforts will be addressed at each

DO.

24 29, 9.9 Review/comply with interfaces defined in the SC-to-PL ICD in coordination with the PL provider

Request clarification on order of precedence between comply statement and the ICD as approved at PADR.

M Language adjusted in 9.9 to provide clarification.

25 30, 9.10 Is it expected that Simulator/ Engineering Model include interfaces to ground system?

C To be determined at the DO level.

26 33, 10.4.5 Would it be acceptable for a SVC to leverage their mission/ operations center for compatibility end-to-end testing?

C Yes.

COMMENT RESOLUTION MATRIX (CRM)

A = Accepted R = Rejected M = Modified

C = Clarify

Government Response

COMMENT RESOLUTION MATRIX (CRM)

27 33, 10.4.5 Request clarification whether round-the-clock test-like-you-fly rehearsals will be performed?

C Dependent on the ground system selected for DO.

28 34, 10.5 Request clarifition on Customer notion of Ground Support Equipment, or whether each DO will specify.

C Specified at each DO.

29 38, 14.1.2 Request clarification whether referenced SV-to-Ground ICD and SV-to- Ground Operations ICD were inteded to be separate or whether there is a typo?

M Modified to provide clarification.

30 38, 14.1.4 Request clarification whether criteria for Ground Segment Readiness Review is defined in each DO, or is the SVC to adhere to TOR-2016-O1797

C Yes, the Ground Segment Reiew will be defined in each DO.

31 40, 14.2.3 Is it acceptable for SVC to leverage their own mission/ operations center during LEOP?

C Yes.

32 8,1 General Comment The Final RFP should include two stand-alone Statements of Work, one for FFP CLINS and one for CR CLINS.

Having a single SOW for both FFP and CR work is inconsistent with both FAR requirements (Part 16) and the Mil HDBK 245E requirements. A SOW under a FFP contract will include well defined requirements with well defined deliverables and acceptance criteria.

A SOW under a CR basis will have less specificity of requirements and allow for "best efforts". Stand alone SOWs will more appropriately define requirements aligned with the contract type and balance the risk, accordingly as prescribed in Federal Regulatory and Guidance Standards. In addition, this will reduce the ambiguity between SVC and USG as to the acceptance criteria which too varies greatly for FFP vs. CR work. Lastly, the amount and degree of Mission Assurance and IV&V related work described throughout the SOW fails to rely on or acknowledge readily available commercial space solutions that will be used in the performance of the STEP 2.0 program.

R Acknowledged, DO SOW will specify FFP or CR.

33 8,1 General Comment

All tasks that do not have a deliverable and/or do not have definitized performance requirements should be "will", and "shall" statements should apply to deliverables that shall conform to specific standards or criteria.

Every shall/will/may task statement should be a separately stated and discrete numbered item.

Separate and clearly numbered "shall" statements will greatly simplify tracking, compliance, monitoring and program management.

A The STEP 2.0 team has reavaluated the use of shall and will statements for the final RFP.

34 12.6,2 Table 2 Meeting Frequency Column For these that are "as required," and for DO bidders that may bid FFP DOs, it would be appropriate to allow the bidder to specify the frequency and number of these meetings in order to appropriately price the effort

Another reason to have two SOWs. The ambiguity of frequency will make this impossible to estimate with any accuracy.

R STEP 2.0 is not evaluating price at ID/IQ level.

35 13, 6.2.2 Management Integrated Product Team Meeting Recommend changing this to read, "IPT Meetings for Cost-type DOs shall emphasize budgeted vs. planned cost..." and add a sentence that states FFP DO's shall emphasize schedule and technical status only.

Another reason to have two SOWs. This task is not appropriate or applicable for FFP Dos

M Some of the language suggested has been incorporated. DO solicitiation and Section B of the model deliverly order will specify FFP or CR.

36 14,6.2.3 Quarterly Management Meeting As with above, only required for Cost-type DOs Another reason to have two SOWs. This task is not appropriate or applicable for FFP Dos

R

DO solicitiation and Section B of the model deliverly order will specify FFP or CR, and what working groups, review boards, and meetings will take place as required.

37 14, 6.2.4

System Level Engineering meetings shall provide a review of technical progress toward meeting the DO’s goals and objectives. The SVC Chief Engineer shall invite the government to internal engineering meetings

Delete in its entirety

As described, this meeting isn't sufficiently differentiated from the quarterly/monthly status reviews and/or TIMs. If there are additional objectives for this meeting, they should be stated more clearly in the RFP.

A Removed Section 6.2.4.

38 15, 6.2.7

The SVC shall hold Configuration Control Board (CCB) meetings that conform to the SVC’s longstanding configuration control system. CCB meetings may include the Contractor, Subcontractor(s), and the Government depending on the nature of the change(s) discussed.

The SVC shall notify the Government in advance of any CCB meeting scheduled. The Government's representative will chair each CCB.

The SVC shall hold Configuration Control Board (CCB) meetings relating to changes to mission-specific, non-recurring engineering efforts. For avoidance of doubt, the CCB shall not extend to SVC's commercially available designs and/or software. CCB meetings may include the Contractor, Subcontractor(s), and the Government depending on the nature of the change(s) discussed. The SVC shall notify the Government in advance of any CCB meeting scheduled. The Government's representative will chair each CCB.

USG does not have design cognizance over privately developed products, services, and software, including upgrades thereto, that will be used in support of the specific missions ordered.

M Language modified to a government representative shall be an approving member for the ECB and CCB.

39 15; 6.2.10

Payload On-Orbit Operations Working Groups shall define, facilitate and coordinate all mission operations regarding the PL(s) to develop and execute the SV concept of operations (CONOPS). The Government will organize and lead the Payload On-Orbit Operations Working Groups.

The SVC shall define, facilitate and coordinate all mission operations regarding the PL(s) to develop and execute the SV concept of operations (CONOPS). The Government will support the Payload On-Orbit Operations Working Groups and mediate any discrepancies.

For FFP DO's, the SVC should lead this with STP acting as mediator.

As currently drafted, STP and the PL provider could direct or define a CONOP that is out of scope for the awarded solution

M Language adjusted; the SVC made responsible for this working group.

40 15; 6.3.1 The SVC shall provide a monthly Funds and Labor Hour Report (FLHR).

For CR Dos, the SVC shall provide a monthly Funds and Labor Hour Report

(FLHR).

Not Required based on definitions IAW DODI 5000.73, and applicability standards in DODI 5000.04-M-1. Form 1921 and CWBS Index and Dictionary which are only required on all ACAT I, IA, and sustainment contracts and subcontracts that meet the reporting thresholds. Stated in DODI 5000.02. (table 7). Further, CSD reports are not required provided the DoD PM requests and obtains approval for a waiver from the OSD DDCA: procurement of commercial systems or for non-commercial systems bought under competitively awarded, firm fixed-price contracts, as long as competitive conditions continue to exist.

R The DO may have Cost Type CLINS . The CLIN structure will be identifed for each DO.

A = Accepted R = Rejected M = Modified

C = Clarify

Government Response

COMMENT RESOLUTION MATRIX (CRM)

41 16; 6.3.2

The SVC shall prepare and submit Cost and SW Data Reporting (CSDR) in accordance with DODI

5000.73 and DoD 5000.04-M-1. The SVC shall prepare and submit a Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS), Cost and Hour Report (Flexfile), and CSDR Technical Data Report.

Delete in its entirety

Not Required based on definitions IAW DODI 5000.73, and applicability standards in DODI 5000.04-M-1. Form 1921 and CWBS Index and Dictionary which are only required on all ACAT I, IA, and sustainment contracts and subcontracts that meet the reporting thresholds. Stated in DODI 5000.02. (table 7). Further, CSD reports are not required provided the DoD PM requests and obtains approval for a waiver from the OSD DDCA: procurement of commercial systems or for non-commercial systems bought under competitively awarded, firm fixed-price contracts, as long as competitive conditions continue to exist.

R

FM / CSDR reporting is required for the STEP 2.0 contract due to the contract value. CWBS will be tailored for each DO in collaboration with PMO, CWIPT and Contractor.

42 16; 6.3.3

The SVC shall establish and implement a subcontract management and controls system sufficient to provide timely, in-depth, and accurate visibility into the subcontractor’s technical, quality assurance, financial, and schedule performance. The SVC shall provide a Small Business Subcontractor Report

If required IAW FAR 19.702, the SVC will establish and implement a subcontract management and controls system sufficient to provide timely, in-depth, and accurate visibility into the subcontractor’s technical, quality assurance, financial, and schedule performance. The SVC shall provide a Small Business Subcontractor Report

IAW FAR 19.702, (b) this is N/A if the prime is a S/SDB; however, this is a "shall" statement so this needs to be restated

M Language modified to "If required, the SVC shall…"

43 16; 6.4.1 Significant accomplishments and criteria for each program key event descriptions are in STEP 2.0 Key Events and Milestones as show in Table 3.

Significant accomplishments and criteria for each program key event descriptions are in STEP 2.0 Key Events and Milestones as show in Table 3 and shall be used as a guideline for establishing the Milestone Events at the DO level.

The Milestones S/b defined at the DO level where mission specific objectives are defined and actual acceptance criteria can be included. "ensure" is not a definable term to be used for acceptance criteria in a FFP environment.

M Language modified for clarification.

44 17; 6.5

The SVC shall establish, maintain, and use integrated performance management in the performance of this contract. The SVC’s integrated performance management shall include the IMS, CWBS, change management, material management, procurement, cost estimating, and accounting.

Correlation and integration of these systems and processes will provide for early indication of cost, schedule, and technical performance.

Delete in its entirety

IAW FAR 534.201-70 IPM, (including CWBS is only required for Ks subject to EVMS. The threshold for compliance is for major acquisitions for development, in accordance with OMB Circular A-11 (typically $50M, or where cost/schedule visibility is required, such as for development work equal to or greater than $20M, the program manager must obtain a waiver for individual contracts from the Milestone Decision Authority). The application of EVM is discouraged on Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) (including FFP with economic price adjustment) contracts, subcontracts, intra-government work agreements, and other agreements, regardless of dollar value.

(References are FAR Section 34, ANSI 746).

R Cost reporting tailorable for each qualifiying DO that meets the EVMS threshold.

45 18; 6.7 Entire paragraph Recommend removing MIL-STD compliance for SSPP and allowing contractor format and content, and/or changing "shall" to "will";

Recommend removing requirement to report A/IR to Government.

OSHA and applicable State requirements cover safety management and reporting for contractors.

R Acknowledged; government discussed and decided to keep language as is.

46 18; 6.7 The SVC will provide inputs to STP’s Spaceflight Worthiness Certification(SFWC) in accordance with SSC GuideSpace Missile Command

(SMC)-G-1202

Requirement should be tailorable to contractor-proposed delivery/solution to leverage existing documentation and processes where applicable.

Requiring contractors to generate new documentation to meet specific government standards will drive cost/price and schedule

C tailoring may be proposed at DO and reviewed by the government for acceptance.

47 18; 6.8

The SVC may be requested to provide facilities and services necessary to support Government visiting personnel. Facilities will include telephones and computer network connections with access to the internet for the entire period of the visit. Visiting Government personnel will have unescorted access to all areas dedicated to this program and prearranged escorted access to the other areas used by this program. Government visiting personnel have no authority to direct any effort performed under this contract

The SVC may be requested to provide facilities and services necessary to support Government visiting personnel. Facilities will include computer network connections with access to the internet for the entire period of the visit which shall not exceed once per quarter. Visiting Government personnel may have unescorted access to all areas dedicated to this program and prearranged escorted access to the other areas used by this program. Government visiting personnel have no authority to direct any effort performed under this contract

Under a FFP DO, Contractors will need to define a limited number of visits and limited duration for estimating/pricing purposes. In addition, Contractor may have certain facility constraints and/or other customer requirements that would prohibit the automatic "unescorted" status.

R Potential for tailoring at the DO.

48 19; 7.1

• Ensure all systems engineering activities comply with Government and SVC practices and procedures.

• Systems engineering activities will comply with best commercial practices.

Under a FFP contract, USG required practices and procedures would need to be defined. In addition, this statement is incongruent with the USSF objectives to optimize commercial products and services to support the space ecosystem.

M Language adjusted.

A = Accepted R = Rejected M = Modified

C = Clarify

Government Response

COMMENT RESOLUTION MATRIX (CRM)

49 20; 7.1.4.1

The SVC shall deliver HW/system configuration identification consisting of engineering, manufacturing, and test documentation. Configuration identification completely defines the as-built, as-designed, as-qualified deliverable HW/system configuration and assures production of equivalent HW for flight, this includes all development units upon which qualification related testing is performed. The SVC shall provide HW/System Configuration Identification consisting of engineering, manufacturing, and test documentation. Procurement and/or product specifications should be in general conformance with MIL-STD- 961E. Drawings and associated lists should conform to ASME Y14.100 except electrical schematic drawings which may conform to commercial drawing practice.

Note: All other documentation (i.e., parts, materials and process standards, test procedures, test software, manufacturing procedures, etc.) shall conform to the SVC’s standard practices provided it is suitable for the purpose intended and complies with IDIQ SRD requirements (i.e., security, quality assurance, reliability). Non-deliverable drawings and data comprised of the deliverable hardware/system configuration identification documentation, which exist at the SVC’s facility prior to contract award, may be used in existing form for manufacturing, procurement, inspection, and test purposes and need not be upgraded as a condition of this

The SVC shall deliver HW/system configuration identification consisting of engineering, manufacturing, and test documentation consistent with data rights assertions in the contract and commercially available documentation for COTS HW. Configuration identification the defines the as-built, as-designed, as-qualified deliverable HW/system configuration and assures production of equivalent HW for flight, this includes all development units upon which qualification related testing is performed. Procurement and/or product specifications may be in general conformance with MIL-STD- 961E. Drawings and associated lists should conform to ASME Y14.100 except electrical schematic drawings which may conform to commercial drawing practice.

Note: All other documentation (i.e., parts, materials and process standards, test procedures, test software, manufacturing procedures, etc.) shall conform to the SVC’s standard practices provided it is suitable for the purpose intended (i.e., security, quality assurance, reliability). Non-deliverable drawings and data comprised of the deliverable hardware/system configuration identification documentation, which exist at the SVC’s facility prior to contract award, may be used in existing form for manufacturing, procurement, inspection, and test purposes and need not be upgraded as a condition of this paragraph.

Certain commercial HW providers will not make this data available, nor in some cases does it exist. Further, COTS will have data rights /restrictive rights assertions that prevent delivery of detailed engineering, manufacturing, and test documentation. Further "general conformance" is not a specified standard and ambiguous, nor specified in Table 1 Key Definitions. Revised language will alleviate ambiguity. Lastly "shall conform to SVC's standard practices...and complies with IDIQ SRD..." this statement is conflicted, updated language clarifies this requirement.

A Language adjusted

50 21; 7.1.4.2

The SVC shall provide a configuration control system for SW code and the documentation developed for application and operational use, or used to support qualification, acceptance of flight hardware and delivered GSE. The SVC shall document its configuration management process, to include flight SW, in a Contractor’s SW Management Plan (SMP) / SW Development Plan (SDP). Government IDIQ COR and SVC approval shall be required for all changes to standard interface code and/or documenting via recertification or review unless waived on an individual case basis by both the Government DO COR and the SVC.

The SVC shall provide a configuration control system for SW code and the documentation developed for application and operational use, or used to support qualification, acceptance of flight hardware and delivered GSE. The SVC shall document its configuration management process, to include flight SW, in a Contractor’s SW Management Plan (SMP) / SW Development Plan (SDP). Government IDIQ COR and SVC approval shall be required for all changes to standard interface code and/or documenting via recertification or review unless waived on an individual case basis by both the Government DO COR and the SVC. Such approval is not required for standard interface code that is part of a commercial products.

Government approval rights can not extend to standard interface code. Further, for commercial software, documentation (including standard configuration or operational use documentation) may not provided or available from the software supplier.

R

51 22; 71.4.4

The SVC shall maintain “as-built” configuration records, which will enable positive configuration verification and retrieval to the lowest level of manufacturing and test history necessary to prepare part pedigree reports. The SVC shall submit changes to “as-built” and pedigree reports for CCB review.

The SVC shall maintain “as-built” configuration records, which will enable positive configuration verification and retrieval to the lowest level of manufacturing and test history necessary to prepare part pedigree reports consistent with data rights assertion documented in final DO. This "as-built" will be limited to the commercial product level. The SVC shall submit changes to “as-built” and pedigree reports for CCB review. For COTS, this shall be limited to the commercial product level, as commercially procured items may not provide part pedigree supporting data to the lowest level of manufacturing and test history.

Commercially procured items may not provide part pedigree supporting data to the lowest level of manufacturing and test history.

A Language adjusted.

52 22; 7.2

The SVC shall use specialty engineering concepts throughout the entire contract period of performance to include throughout the system architecture definition, the design phase and test helps to minimize program risk and improve system effectiveness. Specialty engineering typically includes reliability, failure mode analysis, maintainability, dependability, logistics, fabrication/production, test, transportation, human factors, quality assurance and human and HW safety

The SVC will use specialty engineering concepts throughout the entire contract period of performance to include throughout the system architecture definition, the design phase and test helps to minimize program risk and improve system effectiveness. Specialty engineering typically includes reliability, failure mode analysis, maintainability, dependability, logistics, fabrication/production, test, transportation, human factors, quality assurance and human and HW safety

Since no standard or deliverable is specified or supplied here, change "shall" to "will"

A Language adjusted

53 23; 7.2.1

The SVC shall employ stringent quality and reliability standards to ensure STEP 2.0 requirements can be satisfied throughout a mission’s lifecycle. The SVC shall provide and implement bus level product assurance and document its methodology in a Product Assurance Plan. The SVC shall provide and implement a Quality Assurance Plan

The SVC will employ stringent quality and reliability standards to ensure STEP 2.0 requirements can be satisfied throughout a mission’s lifecycle. The SVC shall provide and implement bus level product assurance and document its methodology in a Product Assurance Plan. The SVC shall provide and implement a Quality Assurance Plan stringent is not a standard; change "shall" to "will" M Removed the word Stringent, rejected the change from "shall" to "will".

54 23; 7.2.2

The SVC shall implement a reliability program that describe how SVC systems comply with the IDIQ SRD and DO requirements to include Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA). The SVC shall provide a reliability prediction at 1 year following launch for the SC using the parts count method as defined in MIL-HDBK-217F as guidance

The SVC will implement a reliability program that describe how SVC systems comply with the IDIQ SRD and DO requirements to include Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA). The SVC will provide a reliability prediction at 1 year following launch for the SC using the parts count method as defined in MIL-HDBK-217F as guidance change "shall" to "will" in both statements - due to the likely extensive use of commercial parts and products, the government will not have acceptance authority over certain reliability ratings supplied at the commercial part/component level.

R The STEP 2.0 contract intent is to procure reliable flight proven SC

A = Accepted R = Rejected M = Modified

C = Clarify

Government Response

COMMENT RESOLUTION MATRIX (CRM)

55 23; 7.2.3

The SVC shall provide and implement a Parts, Materials and Process Control Plan describing parts/materials selection, screening, qualification, application, the approval process, parts obsolescence, and how it will implement hardware/SW quality assurance.

The SVC shall design and implement a Level 2 parts program per GSFC-EEE-INST-002. The SVC shall provide risk/issue management regarding the procurement of space hardware and reliability and parts engineering to include radiation analysis and testing. The SVC shall provide reliability and parts engineering for the SV to include radiation analysis and testing. The SVC shall generate failure notification reports, perform failure analysis, and provide such information to the Government starting at SC assembly. The SVC should conduct quality and site surveys of

The SVC will provide and implement a Parts, Materials and Process Control Plan describing parts/materials selection, screening, qualification, application, the approval process, parts obsolescence, and how it will implement hardware/SW quality assurance.

The SVC will provide risk/issue management regarding the procurement of space hardware and reliability and parts engineering to include radiation analysis and testing. Radiation analysis and testing shall not be required for COTS items unless made available from the vendor. The SVC shall generate failure notification reports, perform failure analysis, and provide such information to the Government starting at SV assembly. The SVC should conduct quality and site surveys of major suppliers.

Strike "The SVC shall design and implement a Level 2 parts program...." - This drives cost for little benefit over contractor parts management processes. In addition, COTS items and components do not have radiation testing, and if imposed, would significantly impact the available supply chain and costs. Changed, in part, "shalls" to "wills" beginning with "the SVC shall provide risk/issue management....," through the end of the paragraph.

R

The level 2 parts program requirement is necessary to minimize risk of the SC mission. Radiation testing may be tailorable for each DO depending on the mission operational environment.

56 23; 7.2.5 The Complete Section Assess statement of work requirements in conjunction with CDRL. SOW requirements and CDRLs are not clearly in agreement. M Adjusted language for clarity for historical spectrum compliance of SC and ground segment

57 24; 8

The SVC shall procure, manufacture, and deliver all SC HW to meet DO requirements. The SVC shall verify requirements are met through SV AI&T and LV AI&T activities.

The SVC shall conduct a Spacecraft Integration Readiness Review (SIRR) to verify the SVC’s readiness to assemble the SC.

The SVC shall conduct a Spacecraft Acceptance Review to ensure the SC assembly meets the SVC’s SC design requirements. The SVC should deliver the SC for payload integration with 18 months following contract award

The SVC may procure, manufacture, and deliver all SC HW to meet DO requirements. The SVC shall verify requirements are met through SV AI&T and LV AI&T activities.

The SVC shall conduct a Spacecraft Integration Readiness Review (SIRR) to verify the SVC’s readiness to assemble the SC.

The SVC shall conduct a Spacecraft Acceptance Review to ensure the SC assembly meets the SVC’s SC design requirements.

SVC cannot conduct a SIRR prior to SC assembly for a spacecraft bus offered as a completed, commercial end item from inventory.

Recommend amending this "shall" to "may". In addition, delivery schedules should be defined in Section F of the UCC, as well as defined at the DO level, not in the IDIQ SOW.

A Language adjusted

58 24: 8.2 The Complete Section

Under 8.2 section header "Spacecraft Subsystems" include the following statement: Commercially available SVC shall be designed, tested and fabricated in accordance with best commercial practices suitable for space flight.

For SC's provided as commercial end items from inventory, these subsystem tasks do not apply and for certain requirements conform only to best commercial practices.

R Acknowledged; government discussed and decided to keep language as is.

59 26; 8.3 The Complete Section Under 8.3 section header "SC Integration" include the following statement:

Commercially available SVC integration shall be completed in accordance with best commercial practices suitable for space flight.

For SC's provided as commercial end items from inventory, there is no SC integration to be performed on the DO. Recommend provisions to tailor or exempt SVC from providing these for commercial end items.

R Inserted language for commerical practices.

60 27; 9.1.2

PL requirements will be provided in each DO SVC accommodation designs will be documented during the payload accommodation design review as well as in the SC-to- PL ICD. The SVC shall conduct a single Payload Accommodation Design Review (PADR) to define the SVC’s PL hosting solution. This review shall be consistent with Critical Design Review (CDR) guidance as defined in Technical Operation Report (TOR)-2007(8546)-6018 Rev B. The SVC shall cover structural, mechanical, electrical, and data interfaces at PADR. The SVC shall provide meeting minutes for the review. Following the review, the SVC shall coordinate with PL team(s) to resolve all action items.

PL requirements will be provided in each DO SVC accommodation designs will be documented during the payload accommodation design review as well as in the SC-to- PL ICD. The SVC will conduct a single Payload Accommodation Design Review (PADR) to define the SVC’s PL hosting solution. This review will be consistent with Critical Design Review (CDR) guidance as defined in Technical Operation Report (TOR)-2007(8546)-6018 Rev B. The SVC will cover structural, mechanical, electrical, and data interfaces at PADR. The SVC shall provide meeting minutes for the review. Following the review, the SVC will coordinate with PL team(s) to resolve all action items.

shall be consistent with the cited TOR is unclear - "shall" indicates acceptance against a standard, but "consistent with" implies a guidance or reference document vs. a compliance document.

Recommend amending "shall" to "will" and ensuring the TOR is a reference document, not compliance.

M SMC-s-021 replaced the TOR guidance

61 29; 10.1.1

The SVC shall provide an integrated SV FEM. The SVC shall use these models to conduct finite element analysis of the SV and provide results to the Government (STP) and the launch vehicle provider. The SVC shall correlate the SV Finite Element Analysis (FEA) with test data to improve the accuracy of the SV FEM, as required. The SVC shall provide the Cross- Orthogonality Matrix used to correlate the model upon submission of the correlated model

The SVC will provide an integrated SV FEM, if required at the DO level. The SVC will use these models to conduct finite element analysis of the SV and provide results to the Government (STP) and the launch vehicle provider. The SVC will correlate the SV Finite Element Analysis (FEA) with test data to improve the accuracy of the SV FEM, as required. The SVC will provide the Cross- Orthogonality Matrix used to correlate the model upon submission of the correlated model.

Recommend changing "shall" to "will" as this will be provided in contractor format and content.

Recommend deciding on FEM requirement at the DO level.

M Added statement to address for each DO

62 29; 10.1.2

The SVC shall provide an SV level CAD Drawings including secondary structure and piece parts.

The SVC shall submit CAD drawings in 3D .stp and .pdf file formats. Note:

other formats may be deemed acceptable by the STP Chief Engineer should the SW change substantially over time

The SVC will provide an SV level CAD Drawings including secondary structure and piece parts.

The SVC will submit CAD drawings in 3D .stp and .pdf file formats via the DAL. Note: other formats may be deemed acceptable by the STP Chief Engineer should the SV change substantially over time.

Recommend this be a "Will" and provided on the DAL, with a caveat that content will be consistent . Appears reference to "...should the SW change substantially over time" - should be SV.

R

CAD drawings will help for early interface verification and may be a required deliverable to the LV provider.

2) The intent was for it to be "SW". Format of the software may change not with respect to the "format" of the SV.

63 22. 10.5

The SVC shall provide the resources for analysis, drawings, fabrication, and testing required to produce the SV GSE. This includes integration or adaptation of SC GSE into the system used to support SV testing. GSE includes all electrical and mechanical GSE, SC FlatSat / Simulator equipment, SC SW development environment, and mission operations training in accordance with IDIQ SRD Section 6 6

The SVC will provide the resources for analysis, drawings, fabrication, and testing required to produce the SV GSE. This includes integration or adaptation of SC GSE into the system used to support SV testing. GSE includes all electrical and mechanical GSE, SC FlatSat / Simulator equipment, SC SW development environment, and mission operations training in accordance with IDIQ SRD Section 6 6 change Shall to Will - There isn't an end item deliverable to the USG required so USG shouldn't approve SVC's design for its own GSE.

R STP requires GSE to support testing of the SC and PLs to ensure fuction testing prior to launch.

A = Accepted R = Rejected M = Modified

C = Clarify

Government Response

COMMENT RESOLUTION MATRIX (CRM)

64 33; 10.6

After completion of all verification testing, the SVC shall verify that the launch site is prepared to receive the SV for integration. The SVC shall provide an SV Pre-Ship Review (PSR) to ensure the completed SV meets requirements and is ready to ship to the launch integration site. The SVC shall ensure all required agreements are in place and the facility is prepared to receive the SV at the level of classification defined in the DO DD-254 and DO SCG. The PSR shall be considered complete when the Government authorizes shipment of the SV to the launch integration site

After completion of all verification testing, the SVC shall verify that the launch site is prepared to receive the SV for integration. The SVC shall provide an SV Pre-Ship Review (PSR) to ensure the completed SV meets requirements and is ready to ship to the launch integration site. The SVC shall ensure all required agreements are in place and the facility is prepared to receive the SV at the level of classification defined in the DO DD-254 and DO SCG. The PSR shall be considered complete when the Government provides its concurrence at the PSR to proceed with SV integration

The SVC is be responsible for shipment of the SV to the Launch integration site, this is not a USG function.

R SV integration is too early to approve or concure for the PSR. Approval from STEP 2.0 Government is required due to the presence of GFP.

65 34; 13.2 The SVC shall assure inclusion of each DO launch range requirements in any other submitted required launch base documentation

The SVC will include required launch base documentation required for each DO launch range requirements in accordance with the CDRL C002.

Change "shall" to "will" or change "assure" to some other verb tied to delivery the CDRL inputs

M Language adjusted.

66 35; 13.6

The SVC shall identify, procure, and certify any miscellaneous HW required in support of each DO mission. HW examples include but are not limited to isolation components or systems to support launch, and lift fixtures to support integration at the launch site.

The SVC will identify and procure miscellaneous HW required in support of each DO mission. HW examples include but are not limited to isolation components or systems to support launch, and lift fixtures to support integration at the launch site.

Change "shall" to "will", delete "certify" since certification requirements are not defined nor is this HW a deliverable to the

USG.

R The miscellaneous HW must be qualified / certified for use.

67 35; 13.7

The SVC shall identify, procure, and certify any miscellaneous support required to enable the implementation of each DO mission. Support examples include but are not limited to procuring shipping services, an integration facility, or fueling services to support final SV integration and checkout activities at the launch site.

The SVC will identify and procure any miscellaneous support required to enable the implementation of each DO mission. Support examples include but are not limited to procuring shipping services, an integration facility, or fueling services to support final SV integration and checkout activities at the launch site.

Change "shall" to "will", delete "certify" since certification requirements are not defined

M Removed certified.

68 35; 13.8

The SVC shall provide all necessary resources associated with preparation for SV-to-LV integration support, transportation to the launch site, delivery testing to confirm readiness for launch, integration, and post integration actions between the SV and the LV. This may include separation systems, the booster adapter, launch site processing, battery charging, and SV fueling.

The contractor shall support launch operations, including on-site launch rehearsals, readiness reviews, countdown activities, and launch as required.

The SVC will provide all necessary resources associated with preparation for SV-to-LV integration support, transportation to the launch site, delivery testing to confirm readiness for launch, integration, and post integration actions between the SV and the LV. This may include separation systems, the booster adapter, launch site processing, battery charging, and SV fueling.

The contractor will support launch operations, including on-site launch rehearsals, readiness reviews, countdown activities, and launch as defined in DOs.

Change "shall" to "will", delete "as required" which isn't appropriate for a FFP contract.

M Rejected the Shall to will, accepted the as defined in

DO.

69 36; 14.1

The SVC or the SVC’s subcontractor shall have demonstrated SV operations. The SVC or the SVC’s subcontractor shall have demonstrated PL data distribution from the SV to the PL teams.

The Government may provide a Government furnished ground segment solution, which will be specified in the applicable DO.

Delete the first two sentences in their entirety These first two sentences read like evaluation criteria that are best captured in Section L and M - unclear how these two tasks can be approved by the government as a task on the basic IDIQ.

M Modified language to align with the statements within the SOW.

70 36; 14.1 Acquire and integrate and test third party mission operations systems and tools for use in operations centers and enhanced satellite ground needs

Acquire and integrate and test third party mission operations systems and tools for use in operations centers and enhanced satellite ground needs, as required.

This may not be required for all missions. Recommend defining specific requirements for third party system integration at the DO level.

R Paragraph states to be addressed at each DO.

71 38; 14.2.2

The SVC shall provide Pre-Launch Training and Post-Launch Training Materials for mission operations, shall participate and support all mission dress rehearsals, and develop engineering data for dress rehearsals.

The SVC shall provide Pre-Launch Training and Post-Launch Training Materials, as required and specified in individual DOs, for mission operations, shall participate and support all mission dress rehearsals, and develop engineering data for dress rehearsals.

Individual missions may not require such stringent training requirements. Recommend defining requirement at the DO level where CONOP will be better understood.

M Added statement to address for each DO.

72 38; 14.2.2 The SVC shall develop, maintain, and publish the following handbooks If required and defined in individual Dos, the SVC shall develop, maintain, and publish the following handbooks

This data would only be provided for ground solutions and operations "owned" and/or conducted by the USG; where a SVC is providing operations as a service this will be N/A

R

Required due to presence of GFP and intent to have capability to transfer of SCA after 1 year of opperations.

73 39; 14.2.4

The SVC shall provide operational support to the mission for a minimum of 365 consecutive days following NORR as defined in each DO. Support shall include support to identification, troubleshooting and resolution of any anomalies that might be encountered.

The SVC shall provide operational support to the mission for a minimum of 365 consecutive days following NORR as defined in each DO. Support shall include support to identification, troubleshooting and resolution of any anomalies that might be encountered and compliance with required ODMS or End of Life Disposal.

Operational Support will also include compliance with Orbital Debris Mitigation and End of Life Disposal requirements

A Government agrees with suggested change.

74 47; Rideshare Service A service to insert multiple SVs into the specified orbit(s) within tolerance, and ensure that rideshare partner SVs do no harm to other SVs and the LV

A service to launch multiple SVs where the USG does not have primary selection of launch schedule, target orbit, and separation priority relative to any other spacecraft from other customers that may be part of the Launch.

As suggested by the Launch Vehicle definition, make clear that reference is to commercial rideshare services. Update definition to be consistent with the industry standard, also recommend this section add an additional definition for Primary Service which would read: ""Primary Service" defined as "A launch service wherein the USG has the primary selection of the launch schedule, target orbit and separation priority relative to any other spacecraft from other customers that may be part of the Launch."

R STEP 2.0 has decided to keep the language as is, due to rideshare not being exclusive to commercial rideshare options.

A = Accepted R = Rejected M = Modified

C = Clarify

Government Response

COMMENT RESOLUTION MATRIX (CRM)

75 50

Guidance DODI 5000.73 Cost Analysis Guidance and Procedures 13 Mar 20

Delete in its entirety

Not Required based on definitions IAW DODI 5000.73, and applicability standards in DODI 5000.04-M-1. Form 1921 and CWBS Index and Dictionary which are only required on all ACAT I, IA, and sustainment contracts and subcontracts that meet the reporting thresholds. Stated in DODI 5000.02. (table 7).