Q_&_A_Responses.pdf

Safety Hazard Analysis and Risk Processing (SHARP) II

FA2521-19-R-A004 QUESTION AND ANSWER TEMPLATE

RFP Section __________________ Paragraph _________________ PWS Paragraph CDRL A100, A108 Other (Specify) _______________________________ Question:

The PWS lists CDRLs A100 Contractor Work Breakdown Structure and A108 Quality Assurance Program Plan request a draft at proposal submission. Please confirm that draft documents need to be included in the proposal submission. If so, please identify where they should be in the volume organization

Answer:

Yes, the draft documents need to be included in the proposal submission. Please place in Administrative Documents Volume III.

RFP Section L-2.3.1.4-5; page 8 Paragraph _________________ PWS Paragraph _______________ Other (Specify) _______________________________ Question:

Please advise if Section L-2.3.1.5 is asked in the context of our response to Section L-2.3.1.4 or it is standalone.

If it is intended to be standalone, please clarify if we are expected to propose a solution that includes on console support during launch countdown operations, which is different from the current support expectation.

Answer:

No on console support is required. Please see below for further clarification.

RFP Section L-2.3.1.7; page 8-9 Paragraph _________________ PWS Paragraph _______________ Other (Specify) _______________________________ Question:

Please clarify the following statement, as it states to "discuss the evaluation of the evaluate":

2.3.1.7. Discuss the evaluation of the evaluate and develop prototype systems (hardware/software) and conduct analyses and tests simulating an operational environment in order to validate adequacy of performance specifications and design requirements or to characterize hazard(s) or determine risks.

Answer:

Should read as follows: 2.3.1.7 discuss the evaluation and development of prototype systems (hardware/software) and discuss analyses and tests simulating an operational environment needed to validate adequacy of performance specifications and design requirements needed to characterize hazard(s) or determine risks.

RFP Section L-2.3.2.2 Paragraph _________________ PWS Paragraph _______________ Other (Specify) Sample Problem Data CD

Question:

No information is provided in the Sample Problem CD to specify launch area population structures with window types needed to support DFO window breakage predictions. For DFO two types of supporting data are needed: 1) for point receptors the number of windows and types of windows in the structure, 2) for region receptors the number of different structure types allocated to the region and a generic listing of the number of windows by type found in each generic structure. Please advise on how to obtain this data.

Answer:

See Structure-Window-Air Change Addendum (L-04). This addendum provides requested data that complements previously provided mission specific population data. If window data cannot be found for a previously identified population location assume the facility is outside or has no windows.

RFP Section L-2.3.2.2 Paragraph _________________ PWS Paragraph _______________ Other (Specify) Sample Problem Data CD Question:

No information is provided in the Sample Problem CD to specify the types of structures and percentages of indoor versus outdoor population and the classification of air exchange rates for structures in the launch area subject to possible toxic exposures. Please advise on how to obtain this data.

Answer:

See Structure-Window-AirChange Addendum. This addendum provides requested data that complements previously provided mission specific population data. If air change data cannot be found for a previously identified building assume an air change rate of 3 for facilities.

RFP Section L-2.3.2.2 Paragraph _________________ PWS Paragraph _______________ Other (Specify) Sample Problem Data CD Question:

See Structure-Window-Air Change Addendum. This addendum provides requested data that complements previously provided mission specific population data. If structure data cannot be found for a previously identified population location assume the location is outside, no structure present.

Answer:

45 SW/SEL personnel can provide the requested data in formats commonly used here on the Eastern Range for ingest into current models used by 45 SW/SEL personnel to assess the hazards associated with space launch missions here on the Eastern Range.

RFP Section L-2.3.2.2 Paragraph _________________ PWS Paragraph _______________ Other (Specify) Sample Problem Data CD Question:

For the sample problem, no Impact Limit Lines (ILL) were provided. Our understanding of the current process, and the process we intend to use, is a set of preexisting ILLs is used as a base from a new missions ILL. We are requesting this set of Eastern Range ILLs in order to evaluate for the nearest fit to our problem and modify as needed to meet risk and containment criteria. We further understand that these may be provided as part of the standard Joint Advanced Range Safety System (JARSS) install database. That set of ILLs would be adequate for our intended use.

Answer:

ILLs are at the edge of federal property here on the Eastern Range and are no longer via analysis.

RFP Section Sec B and Sec L 3.1 (page 19) Paragraph _________________ PWS Paragraph _______________ Other (Specify) _______________________________ Question:

While both are required to be completed, the pricing in Sec B of the model contract and the table provided for TEP details in Sec L 3.1 (page 19) do not directly correlate. CLINs X001 and X002 use a unit measure of one month; however CLIN X003 states 40 each. Please confirm that the total cost of CLIN X003 each year (presented in the TEP details in Volume II) should be divided by 40 to obtain a unit price that will be entered in Section B. If this is not correct, please provide additional guidance.

Answer:

The Government has estimated 40 task orders per year and established an estimated value of “TBD at the time of award.” This CLIN description will be updated by the Government to include a value at the time of award.

RFP Section Sec L 3.1 (page 19) Paragraph _________________ PWS Paragraph _______________ Other (Specify) _______________________________ Question:

The table provided for TEP details in Sec L 3.1, page 19, begins with CLINs 1001, 1002, and 1003.

It does not include the base year CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003. Please confirm we can add additional rows to accommodate Base Year CLIN costs and an associated subtotal.

Answer:

The additional years have been added in Sec L 3.1 page 19.

RFP Section Section L 2.3.2.2 (item 3) Paragraph _________________ PWS Paragraph _______________ Other (Specify) Sample Problem Data CD Question:

Section L 2.3.2.2 (item 3) of the RFP says that the data CD will include simulation input files for modeling 6-DOF malfunction turns. We did not find these on the provided CD. The only simulation input files were for the capsule abort. We expect these to be provided for the full stack of the Falcon

Heavy, the Falcon Heavy Upper Stage, the flyback boosters, and the barge landing booster. Will these data files be provided?

Answer:

6-DOF modeling will not be provided for the full stack of the Falcon Heavy, the Falcon Heavy Upper Stage, the flyback boosters, and the barge landing boosters. 6-DOF modeling was only provided Dragon 2 capsule aborts.

Used provided FFDP data for all other listed segments/phases of flight with the exception of Dragon 2 capsule aborts. Use provided 6-DOF modeling for Dragon 2 capsule aborts.

RFP Section Section L 2.3.2.2 Paragraph _________________ PWS Paragraph _______________ Other (Specify) Sample Problem Data CD Question:

The flyback failure mode “Engine 9 fails to start resulting in degraded thrust capability with control logic” requires modeling of the guidance and control system. No information about the control system logic for the vehicle was included on the CD the Government provide direction regarding modeling of this failure mode, or should this failure mode be ignored?

Answer:

Ignore this failure mode.

RFP Section Section L 2.3.2.2 Paragraph _________________ PWS Paragraph _______________ Other (Specify) _______________________________ Question: Sample Problem Data CD There is insufficient mass properties data provided to perform more than a three degree-of-freedom simulation for conditions where the vehicle flies intact, but unpowered (especially important for a loss-of-thrust failure). In particular, the following data would be required, as a function of propellant remaining: the location of the center of gravity (c.g,) with the propellant sloshed all the way forward and the pitch moment of inertia with the fuel evenly distributed in the tanks and sloshed all the way forward. Can the Government provide this data, or should a three degree-of-freedom model be used?

Answer:

3-DOF modeling will be sufficient

RFP Section L.2.3.1.5 Paragraph _________________ PWS Paragraph _______________ Other (Specify) _______________________________ Question:

We would like to provide further clarification of ACTA's previously submitted question related to section L. 2.3.1.5. Approximately 15 years ago under the flight safety contract, the contractor provided trained staff that manned a console and generated day of launch risk analysis products, especially for DFO and toxic release hazards that are very dependent on changes in weather conditions and were run for each weather balloon during the launch countdown. Day of launch activities entailed careful review in input meteorological data and development of very specific report products to be briefed to the launch team and wing commander for the launch commit decision. These functions have been deemed to be "government only" tasks at the Eastern Range since approximately 2003 and contractor support during launch countdown is no longer requested or desired in accordance with Wing policy. Please clarify what type of support is requested by the terminology "support for launch countdown operations" in paragraph L 2.3.1.5 since the contractor is specifically excluded from providing direct support during launch countdown operations.

Answer:

No launch day on console support or support of launch countdown operations is required per this contract. Any/all per-launch and/or launch day analysis will be completed by 45 SW/SEL government employees. Perhaps paragraph L 2.3.1.5 could have been worded better but the intent is to have the offerer provide/develop flight/risk analysis tools that are used by 45 SW/SEL government employees in support of launch countdown operations that technically start upon the delivery of a FFDP from a range user. FFDP's can be delivered anywhere from L-90 to L-30 days here on the Eastern Range.