SHARP_Draft_Solicitation_Questions_and_Answers_-_16_Sep_16.pdf

Number Questions RFP Section/ Exhibit/Attachment Paragraph Number Answers

Section L. limits Volume I to 25 pages but also requires the technical proposal to address each of the sub-factors in sufficient detail to describe the Offeror’s proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the PWS and CDRLs. Sub-factor 2, the sample problem, encompasses a broad range of technical factors associated with launch safety and the use of flight analysis and risk analysis models. Contractor request the page count exempt the sample problem template (17 slides/pages) from the page limit and increase the page limit so that bidders can address in detail all technical facets of the sample problem.

Section L. Page 53 Table L.1.10

PCO changed page count to read: Original and 1 copy - 50 pages maximum (inclusive of the Sample Problem 17 slide/pages)

2 VOLUME IV is called out, but it appears the deliverables only include Volume I-III.

Please clarify if there will be an additional volume. Page 55, Page 60 L.1-10 (o.), L-5 Corrected. Changed Volume IV to Volume III on pages

54 and 60.

This Solicitation for the Government is very highly specialized and requires highly capable and Subject Matter Expertise. An LPTA evaluation strategy may create a risk to the Government and Public due to the nature of this requirement and the associated software development that is supporting human spaceflight safety, would the government consider “Best Value”?

Section M 1.1 1 LPTA will be retained as the Source Selection method.

Regarding the following: Restrictions: The Contractor shall perform systems engineering and/or technical direction, but will not have overall contractual responsibility for the system's development, integration, assembly and checkout, or production. The parties recognize that the Contractor shall occupy a highly influential and responsible position in determining the system's basic concepts and supervising their execution by other Contractors. The Contractor's judgment and recommendations must be objective, impartial, and independent. To avoid the prospect of the Contractor's judgment or recommendations being influenced by its own products or capabilities, it is agreed that the Contractor is precluded for the life of the system from award of a DoD contract to supply the system or any of its major components, and from acting as a subcontractor or consultant to a DoD supplier for the system or any of its major components.

a. As the scope of work in the SHARP solicitation involves software engineering vs.

System Engineering to develop (production) and maintain software tools, is this applicable to the core effort?

b. Additionally, would this restriction apply to efforts acquired under the IDIQ portion of this effort? If not applicable, would the government consider removing this clause?

c. Can the government provide more clarification on what is meant by “systems” within the OCI restriction?

Draft RFP/Section I

5352.209-9000 Organizational Conflict of

Interest Alternate III (OCT 2010) (a) (2)

1. The answer to question "a" is "Yes".

2. The answer to question "b" is "Yes".

3. The answer to question "c" is "Systems" is further defined in FAR 9.505-1(b)

Has the government considered levying a CMMI Level 3 Requirement on this solicitation?

CMMI Level 3 would ensure safe measures and concrete processes as Spaceflight migrates back into Human Space Flight.

General N/A CMMI Level 3 has been incorporated into the PWS.

SOLICIATION: FA2521-15-R-0039 - SAFETY HAZARD ANALYSIS AND RISK PROCESSING (SHARP) SYSTEM - As of 16 Sep 16

Number Questions RFP Section/ Exhibit/Attachment Paragraph Number Answers

SOLICIATION: FA2521-15-R-0039 - SAFETY HAZARD ANALYSIS AND RISK PROCESSING (SHARP) SYSTEM - As of 16 Sep 16

Recommend a revision to the “Unlimited Data Rights” and PWS Data Rights clause based on previous discussions and the need for future software development from the 45th SW Safety Office. As opposed to writing "unlimited data rights", it is recommended utilizing a threefold need;

a. The government shall have the right to share software developed under government funds, for the government, with other government agencies without additional charge to the government.

b. The government shall have the right to provide the software to a third party commercial entity for Independent Validation and Verification (IV&V) with provisions that an NDA is established with the commercial entity preforming the IV&V to protect software under evaluation.

c. The government shall maintain the right to "rollover" software from contract to contract to maintain mission effectiveness, i.e. CSR to RG Next for range ops.

It is recommended to allow these clauses to enhance public safety and show cost reductions to both government and commercial entities alike, effectively collaborating to make a safer mission and sharing lessons learned.

Section I, Clause 252.227-7013 of Draft RFP and Section 1.6.15 on PWS

Pages 27-36 of Draft RFP and Page 4 of PWS.

Review of the data rights requirement in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and governing provisions/clauses listed within the RFP were reviewed. The Government has changed the requirement to read "Government Purpose Rights" within the PWS

7 Does a company involved in the Launch and Test Range Integrated Support Contract – (LTRS) (LISC) contract have an inherent conflict of interest?

Section L, Clause 5352.209-9001 of Draft RFP, Page 48 N/A

The SHARP contract has no evaluation responsibilities for any other contractor. Additionally, the SHARP contractor does not perform any actual RISK or FLIGHT analysis.

They provide the tools and the sustainment of the system for the government analysis to perform these analysis's.

If it is possible for the holder of SHARP to have a potential OCI with a launch provider, as outlines in Paragraph 5352.209-9001 (a) could LTRS LISC be consider a launch provider because of their responsibilities for the Range Safety Equipment.

Section L, Clause 5352.209-9001 of Draft RFP, Page 48 N/A

The SHARP contract has no evaluation responsibilities for any other contractor. Additionally, the SHARP contractor does not perform any actual RISK or FLIGHT analysis.

They provide the tools and the sustainment of the system for the government analysis to perform these analysis's.

If an OCI is identified is a OCI mitigation plan even possible if a company is associated with the LTRS LISC contract?

5352.209-9000 Organizational Conflict of Interest Alternate III (OCT 2010) Section M of Draft RFP, Page 66 M 3-6

The SHARP contract has no evaluation responsibilities for any other contractor. Additionally, the SHARP contractor does not perform any actual RISK or FLIGHT analysis.

They provide the tools and the sustainment of the system for the government analysis to perform these analysis'.