22R0001 LOSC RFP QandA Consolidated.pdf

Pa ge

, S ec tio n

P ar ag ra ph

C ri tic al

, S ub st an tiv e, A dm in Was (Original Language) ACTION (Suggested Change) Rationale A = PO Accepts R = PO Rejects

M = PO accepts with Modification

PO Comments

1 Qas LOSC dRFP Consolidated 20210921 Q n A #68

Critical Question:

PWS 6.8 identifies a contractor provided CMMS. Is there a contractor provided CMMS currently in use at LOSC? Will this CMMS be transferred to the incoming contractor? If not, how will the historical data repository captured in the contractor provided CMMS be transitioned to the incoming contractor?

Answer:

Yes there is currently a contractor provided CMMS on LOSC. The current contractor CMMS was developed by the contractor and can be purchased. The system itself will not be transferred to the incoming contractor however the historical data will be provided from the current contractor.

Will the Government provide the purchase price to all bidders to level the playing field? Would the Government add a CLIN that is not part of the evaluation to level the playing field with the incumbent?

The transition of the historical data will happen during the phase-in period. There is a separate CLIN for the phase-in (CLIN X009). The current contractor has developed their own CMMS in addition to the Government systems. There will not be a separate CLIN for the contractors to develop their internal CMMS. The Government does not have insight into how much it would be to purchase the current contractors CMMS that; it is the offerors responsibility to obtain that type of information.

2 Qas LOSC dRFP Consolidated 20210921 Q n A #68

Critical Question:

PWS 6.8 identifies a contractor provided CMMS. Is there a contractor provided CMMS currently in use at LOSC? Will this CMMS be transferred to the incoming contractor? If not, how will the historical data repository captured in the contractor provided CMMS be transitioned to the incoming contractor?

Answer:

Yes there is currently a contractor provided CMMS on LOSC. The current contractor CMMS was developed by the contractor and can be purchased. The system itself will not be transferred to the incoming contractor however the historical data will be provided from the current contractor.

The first part of this answers says we can purchase the system but next sentence starts saying it will not be transferred to us. How can we purchase something without it being transferred to us? Will the Governemt clarify their answer to this part for all bidders.

The offerors have the ability to purchase the current contractors CMMS, and if it is purchased, then the program would be transferred to the incoming contractor.

If the incoming contractor does not purchase the program, then the program will be not transferred.

3 Qas LOSC dRFP Consolidated 20210921 Q n A #68

Critical Question:

PWS 6.8 identifies a contractor provided CMMS. Is there a contractor provided CMMS currently in use at LOSC? Will this CMMS be transferred to the incoming contractor? If not, how will the historical data repository captured in the contractor provided CMMS be transitioned to the incoming contractor?

Answer:

Yes there is currently a contractor provided CMMS on LOSC. The current contractor CMMS was developed by the contractor and can be purchased. The system itself will not be transferred to the incoming contractor however the historical data will be provided from the current contractor.

What format will the data be transferred (e.g. CSV, XML) in to make sure we can import into our CMMS system?

All data can and will be provided in one of the following formats - Excel, .csv (comma delimited), or printed text, depending on which format is needed for the contractors CMMS system’s needs.

4 Attch 1 PWS LOSC Para 6.8 and 6.8.2

Critical 6.8 Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS). The contractor shall coordinate with 30 SCS via the CCB for use of the CMMS on the NIPRnet.

6.8.2 The contractor shall ensure all software utilized is approved for use on the NIPRnet.

Does the Goverement expect the incoming contractor to have everything approved by the end of a 30 day phase in thru the CCB and ATO to have the CMMS approved for use on the NIPRnet by contract start? Based our our experence with CCB and ATO processes we are concerned that this may not be possible in a 30-day period.

The contractor will be expected to be able to get their program up and running to track and facilitate the work orders and maintenance work orders internally through Internet Explorer, HTML, or Chrome. The expected approval is not expected to be more than 30 days. In the event it is, then the answers to contractual responsibilities related to maintenance actions the contractor is taking should be available and capable of being tracked with answers available when requested by the Government.

5 Attch 1 PWS LOSC Para 6.8 and 6.8.2

Critical 6.8 Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS). The contractor shall coordinate with 30 SCS via the CCB for use of the CMMS on the NIPRnet.

6.8.2 The contractor shall ensure all software utilized is approved for use on the NIPRnet.

Is it the the Governments intention to have all imcoming bidders to have their CMMS up and running on the NIPRnet by end of phase in? Or does the government only want to see it is approved for use on the NIPRnet, which is huge difference?

The Government understands that there may be issues in bringing the contractor's CMMS online. Once the contract is awarded, the Government expects the CMMS to be on the NIPR Net and working within 6 months, or as agreed upon with the Government. However, until the CMMS is online, the Government reserves the right to request data regarding all equipment, maintenance and actions related to the administration and is required to be readily available when requested by the Government.

Comment Resolution Matrix Document: Request For Proposal, FA4610-22-R-0001, LOSC ge

, S ec tio n

P ar ag ra ph

C ri tic al

, S ub st an tiv e, A dm in Was (Original Language) ACTION (Suggested Change) Rationale A = PO Accepts R = PO Rejects

M = PO accepts with Modification

PO Comments

6 Attch 1 PWS LOSC Para 6.8 and 6.8.2

Critical 6.8 Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS). The contractor shall coordinate with 30 SCS via the CCB for use of the CMMS on the NIPRnet.

6.8.2 The contractor shall ensure all software utilized is approved for use on the NIPRnet.

The Government does not state clearly when they want to see the Contractors CMMS up and running. Will the Goverenment spell out the time line as usually contractors have up to year to get everything changed over to a new system? That is not spelled out anywhere and gives the incumbent a huge advantage

The Government understands that there may be issues in bringing the contractor's CMMS online. Once the contract is awarded, the Government expects the CMMS to be on the NIPR Net and working within 6 months, or as agreed upon with the Government. However, until the CMMS is online, the Government reserves the right to request data regarding all equipment, maintenance and actions related to the administration and is required to be readily available when requested by the Government.

7 Attch 1 PWS LOSC Para 6.8

Critical 6.8 Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS). The contractor shall coordinate with 30 SCS via the CCB for use of the CMMS on the NIPRnet.

Can the Government clarify that the CMMS will be hosted on the NIPRnet and provide the timeframe for that to occur? For example, its been our expereince it could be extrremely challenging to: 1) obtain CCB approval, and 2) obtain Authority to Operate (ATO) for a new system to be hosted on the NIPRnet in a 30-day transition in period.

The Government understands that there may be issues in bringing the contractor's CMMS online. Once the contract is awarded, the Government expects the CMMS to be on the NIPR Net and working within 6 months, or as agreed upon with the Government. However, until the CMMS is online, the Government reserves the right to request data regarding all equipment, maintenance and actions related to the administration and is required to be readily available when requested by the Government.

8 Atch 2 Appendix A Property and Equipment Responsibility

Tab Masters Building List, Line 112 Budiling TP01 does not have a CLIN assigned.

Will the Government assign a CLIN number to TP01 like all the others?

Appendix A updated to reflect CLIN X004 Assured Access to Space. Reference revised Atch 2_Appendix A document dated 6Jan2022.

9 Attch 1 PWS LOSC Para 4.22 and 4.22.1

No workload provided for Engineering Support Will the Government provide historical data in order to staff and price the FFP CLINs x001, x002, x003 and x004 for the past 3 yrs or give up a number of hours utilized for the past 3 yrs on yearly basis?

The Government provided workload hours for Option Year (OY) 2 for CLINs 1-4. The Government also provided Task Assignment workload data for OY2

10 Final RFP, Section B

CLIN x008 is missing Please confirm that there is NO CLIN x008. If there is will the RFP be updated and provide gudiance on what is to be staffed and priced in CLIN x008?

There is not a CLIN x008. There are CLINs x001-x007 and the phase-in CLIN X009

11 Attch 1 PWS LOSC Para 4.14

Please confirm that there are only 3 pressure vessels we are responsible for this contract

Appendix D "Pressure Vessels" provides the number of PVs the contractor is responsible for. Section 4.14 does not list the PVs; it outlines the requirements.

12 Tech Library 1 SVPP documents ( Total of 17 files)

How many of each item is the contractor responsible for maintaining?

The contractor is responsible for the entire South Vandenberg Power Plant. The documents provided in the tech library are for reference in assisting offerors in developing their proposals.

13 Tech Library 8 LOSC Service Calls

Can the Service call be broked out by type i.e. P3B, P4B, P1 and P3A?

The service roll up document is provided to give offerors details about the number of calls and support required.

14 Tech Library 8 LOSC Service Calls

Will the Government provide service call broken out by CLINs x001, x002, x003 x004 so they can be staffed and priced as only incumbet has that knowledge currently?

The facility number is provided on the service call document which can be referenced back to Appendix A.

15 Tech Library 10 Fences Gates

Will the Goverement add a column with CLIN they are associated with (CLIN x001, 2, 3 & 4) so they can be staffed and priced as only incumbet has that knowledge currently?

The facility number on the Fences and Gates document can be referenced back to Appendix A. The CLIN # is identified in the Appendix ge

, S ec tio n

P ar ag ra ph

C ri tic al

, S ub st an tiv e, A dm in Was (Original Language) ACTION (Suggested Change) Rationale A = PO Accepts R = PO Rejects

M = PO accepts with Modification

PO Comments

16 Tech Library 10 Fences Gates

Does Tech Library 11 cover the work for fences or is the above what is caputred in Tech Library 11?

Tech Library 11 breaks out the efforts by CLIN and type of work completed to include fences and gates.

17 Tech Library 12 Pillar Point Outfall Storm Drain Inspection Check list

How many Outfalls and Storm Drains are inspected by CLIN x001, 2, 3 and 4 so they can be staffed and priced as only incumbet has that knowledge currently?

Pillar Point falls under CLIN x001

18 Tech Library 12 Pillar Point Outfall Storm Drain Inspection Check list

When is the dry and rainy seasons for inspection purposes? Historically, the raining season is Aug-Feb and the dry season is Mar-Jul

19 Tech Library 13

CDRL A012

Backflows

Please confirm this is complete list of Backflow preventors?

Will the Government add a column for CLINs x001, 2, 3 and 4 so they can be staffed and priced as only incumbet has that knowledge currently?

Backflow Prevention Systems Report is CDRL A013, which is a complete listing. The facility number listed on the sample can be referenced back to Appendix A to determine CLIN.

20 Tech Library 13

CDRL A025

Generator Testing

Please confirm this is complete list of Generators? Will the Government add a column for CLINs x001, 2, 3 and 4 so they can be staffed and priced as only incumbet has that knowledge currently?

This is not a complete listing of all the generators that can be found in Appendix A under the facilities. The facility number listed on the sample can be referenced back to Appendix A to determine CLIN.

21 Atch 2 Appendix C D E F Final;

Appendix D Pressure Vessels

Will CLIN numbers be added to each line like that was provided for Appendic C, E, and F in this file?

The facility numbers listed can be referenced back to Appendix A for the CLIN

22 Atch 2 Appendix B Antenna Tower

Will CLIN numbers be added to each line like that was provided for Appendic C, E, and F in this file?

Appendix B Antenna Tower falls under CLIN x001

23 L-2.2.4.3, PWS 6.8

and PWS 6.13.

L-2.2.4.3 requests the bidder provide an effective strategy to maintain a Work Order Management System. PWS 6.13 specifies that the contractor will be provide two computers for IWMS or Tririga. Is it the Governments intent that the contractor also provide a duplicate Work Order Management system?

The Government requires that the contractor input data into the Government systems which will be either IWIMS or Tririga. It is at the contractors' discretion as to what type of system they utilize internally in meeting the requirements.

24 PWS Section 3 Will the government provide the historical workload for past 3 years for each of the following types of work:

Priority 1, 2A, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A and 4B o they can be staffed and priced as only incumbet has that knowledge currently?

The Government provided the best representation of workload data which is Option Year 2 (01 Jul 2019 - 30 Jun 2020).

25 PWS 7.5 thru 7.5.3 Where do the VPMS/DDC personnel work? At an MDA facility located at Vandenberg Space Force Base.

26 L-1 Contractor Staffing Plan and Matrix , Column D

Will the Government provide the job descriptions for the CBA positoins so we can match up certifications and expereience to the CBA? Or will the Government exempt the CBA postions from this requirement?

Atch 11 Appendix D, which is a listing of CBA job descriptions, will be provided in Amendment 1 ge

, S ec tio n

P ar ag ra ph

C ri tic al

, S ub st an tiv e, A dm in Was (Original Language) ACTION (Suggested Change) Rationale A = PO Accepts R = PO Rejects

M = PO accepts with Modification

PO Comments

27 L-1 Contractor Staffing Plan and Matrix , Column F

Are you looking for the actual Building or if on North Vanderburg or South Vanderburg or something else?

The Government is not looking for the facility, but rather Vandenberg Space Force Base or Pillar Point Air Force Station.

28 Attachment L-5 Section 1.2.2

Admin 1.2.2Cross Referencing. Cross-Referencing: The offeror shall provide a Solicitation Cross Reference Matrix indicating specific PWS paragraph number, and the corresponding proposal paragraph in that section which addresses the referenced item. The Cross Reference Matrix will not count against the page count requirements.

Please clarify - should the Solicitation Cross Reference Matrix be comprehensive and include all four volumes?

Clarification needed to verify submission compliance is consistent across all bidders.

The offerors shall provide a solicitation cross reference matrix indicating specific PWS para number, and the corresponding proposal paragraph for Technical Volume only

29 Final RFP Attachment L-3, Section 3.4 Past Performance Volume Organization and Section 3.5 Specific Volume Requirements, Pages 9–10, Requirements f., g., and h.

Substantive 3.4 Past Performance Volume Organization "f. Resource Summary

g. Relevancy to Technical Capability/Risk and Cost/Price Factors

h. Contract Performance"

3.5 Specific Volume Requirements

"f. A description of the relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance with respect to the areas in each evaluation factor as defined in section M, Table 4.1.

g. Contract Performance. Describe contract performance in terms of documented LOSC PWS requirements."

Item f. Resource Summary in Section 3.4 is missing from Section 3.5. Please provide instruction in Section 3.5 on how to respond to Section 3.4's Item f. Resource Summary.

Please clarify how Section 3.5's current f. and g.

requirements should align to Section 3.4's organization.

We suggest adding instruction/requirements for Item f.

Resource Summary into Section 3.5 to align with Section 3.4's organization. The draft RFP listed this requirement as:

"A description of the differences between the resources the Offeror used to perform the past effort and the resources the Offeror proposes to use for LOSC."

The organization required in Section

3.4 Past Performance Volume

Organization does not match the requirements listed in Section 3.5 Specific Volume Requirements.

Sections 3.4's organizational requirements include:

"f. Resource Summary

g. Relevancy to Technical Capability/Risk and Cost/Price Factors

h. Contract Performance."

Requirements for Section 3.4's Item f.

Resource Summary are missing from Section 3.5. Section 3.5 does list requirements for an Item f., however they correlate to Section 3.4's Item g.

("description of relevancy") and Section 3.5's Item g. correlates to Section 3.4's Item h. ("Contract Performance").

Attachment L-4, Section 3.4 Past Performance Volume Organization, para f. Resource summary will be removed via Amendment 1; references will be re-alphabetized.

30 Section B, CLIN X006

Substantive Reimbursable Material and ODC Contractor to furnish all materials, equipment and other Reimbursable Items in support of CLIN X001, X002, X003, X004. See Para 6, General Requirements, in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Profit/fee does not apply; burden is reimbursable.

Government Plug Number: $1,626,000.

Delivery Period: 01 Oct 2022 - 30 Sep 2023

In order to determine purchasing needs, can the Government provide an estimate as to how much of the plug number is related to Materials/Equipment?

Estimate 80%-85% is Materials/Equipment. Examples of other costs are GSA vehicle lease, travel expenses, and Santa Barbara County possessory tax (which is estimated around $10K-$12K).

31 Section L, 4.4.1, Table 4.4.1.2, Breakdown of Rates

Admin Provide a breakdown of fully burdened hourly rates that includes direct hourly labor rates for each job code, indirect expense rates (e.g. fringe benefits, overheads and G&A) and fee for the basic and all option periods. These rates, if acceptable to the Contracting Officer, shall be considered to be contractually binding and will be incorporated into the contract as the maximum allowable rates for the purposes of negotiating Task Order against basic contract CPFF CLINs X005 and X007

Can the Government provide guidance on how to propose rates for Subcontractors/Teammates?

Offeror shall use standard business practices

32 Substantive The following DFARS 252.215-7009 Proposal Adequacy Checklist. Jan 2014 is present in the solicitation, however Certified Cost or Pricing Data is not required.

Can the Government confirm that the Proposal Adequacy Checklist is not required to be completed at this time?

This is not needed for the competition, but may be needed after award ge

, S ec tio n

P ar ag ra ph

C ri tic al

, S ub st an tiv e, A dm in Was (Original Language) ACTION (Suggested Change) Rationale A = PO Accepts R = PO Rejects

M = PO accepts with Modification

PO Comments

33 4.1.1 Cost/Price Volume Organization

Substantive 4.1.1 Cost/Price Volume Organization The Offeror shall provide a consolidated Cost/Price volume and proposal organized as follows: Section 1 – Introduction Section 2 – Estimating Techniques/Methods Section 3 – Cost/Price Section 4 – Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRAs) if applicable/Proposed Rates for CPFF CLINs X005 and X007 (Table 4.4.1.2) Section 5 – Discussion of Business Systems Section 6 – Prime’s Cost/Price Analysis of Sub/Team Information Section 7 – Other Information

Can the Government please provide what is required under Section 6– Prime’s Cost/Price Analysis of Sub/Team

IAW FAR 15.404-3 Subcontract pricing considerations, Prime offerors must submit with their cost proposals, all subcontractor proposals and analyses (see FAR Part 15.404- 3(b).)

Offerors should provide an analysis concerning the reasonableness, realism and completeness of each subcontractor's proposal, IAW FAR 15.402. Examples of what the analysis should include, but not limited to, are materials, labor, travel, other direct costs and proposed profit or fee rates

34 4.1.1 Cost/Price Volume Organization

Substantive 4.1.1 Cost/Price Volume Organization The Offeror shall provide a consolidated Cost/Price volume and proposal organized as follows: Section 1 – Introduction Section 2 – Estimating Techniques/Methods Section 3 – Cost/Price Section 4 – Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRAs) if applicable/Proposed Rates for CPFF CLINs X005 and X007 (Table 4.4.1.2) Section 5 – Discussion of Business Systems Section 6 – Prime’s Cost/Price Analysis of Sub/Team Information Section 7 – Other Information

Can the Government please provide what is required under Section 7 - Other Information?

If an offeror has any additional information regarding costs, Section 7 is the location for this information.

35 Attachment L-1 Contractor Staffing Plan and Matrix

Critical The three Attachment 11 files provide CBA information but do not include labor category descriptions such as education, seniority level, and expertise for the CBA positions

Please provide labor category descriptions such as education, seniority level, and expertise for the CBA positions data to populate Attachment L-1 Contractor Staffing Plan and Matrix.

Omitting the labor category descriptions such as education, seniority level, and expertise for the CBA positions provides an unfair advantage to the incumbent.

Appendix D, which is a listing of CBA job descriptions, wil be provided in Amendment 1

36 FRFP Section L, paragraphs 3.3 and

3.5 and Table 4.1 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Critical Section L

3.3 Recent/Relevant Contracts For the purpose of this source selection, recent present/past performance is defined as contracts performed within three (3) years from the issuance of this solicitation. This relevancy portion of the evaluation will consider the Offeror’s performance as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor. For Offerors proposing as a Joint Venture, the offeror must identify in their proposal which party to the Joint Venture will be responsible for the Program Management. The Government will not consider citations for the Program Management subfactor from any company other than the prime Offeror.

3.5 Specific Volume Requirements

The contractor shall submit citations to address each technical subfactor area:

Program Management, SVPP, Pressure Vessels, and Maintenance and Repair (minimum of 1 citation and a maximum of three citations per subfactor area). Offerors cannot provide a subcontractor’s citations in order to meet the Program Management subfactor relevancy rating. Subcontractor citations may be submitted for the remaining three subfactor relevancy areas but are included in the maximum of three citations per subfactor area

Questions: Would the government please amend the LOSC Solicitation #FA461022R0001 (FRFP Section L, paragraphs 3.3 and 3.5 and Table 4.1 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings) to permit an offeror to cite the past performance of its affiliated companies who have fully committed to contributing Program Management resources to LOSC contract performance?

Prohibiting an affiliate’s past performance is an undue limit on competition. The procurement rules permit crediting affiliate past performance (see, e.g., GM–Bulltrack, B- 414591.6, B- 414591.7 (Comp.

Gen. Oct. 30, 2018)). There is no meaningful difference between evaluating the performance of: (a) an offeror’s sister company, if it -- to your satisfaction -- committed its resources to contract performance;

and (b) a company that offers past performance from various parts of its company. The Government’s interests are at least (if not more) as well-served crediting the past performance of two partnering sister companies, fully committed in writing to offering Program management resources for LOSC performance, than past performance from disparate parts of one corporate entity.

The same principle applies to past performance in areas other than Program Management. As stated in a recent Government RFP we received, the Government will evaluate an

Refer to RFP Amendment 1 for revised criteria

37 Section L, 3.3 Recent/Relvant Contracts

Critical For Offerors proposing as a joint venture, the offeror must identify in their proposal which party to the Joint Venture will be responsible for the Program Management. The Government will not consider citations for the Program Management subfactor from any company other than the prime Offeror.

For Offerors proposing as a joint venture or a team of affiliated entities under a parent company, the offeror must identify in their proposal which party to the Joint Venture or affiliated team member will be responsible for the Program Management. The Government will not consider citations for the Program Management subfactor from any company other than the prime Offeror or an affiliated entity of the Prime Offeror

0 Refer to RFP Amendment 1 for revised criteria ge

, S ec tio n

P ar ag ra ph

C ri tic al

, S ub st an tiv e, A dm in Was (Original Language) ACTION (Suggested Change) Rationale A = PO Accepts R = PO Rejects

M = PO accepts with Modification

PO Comments

38 Attachment 2, Appendix J CDRL List

Several PWS references on the CDRL list are incorrect. For example: (1) CDRL A001-Referenced PWS 4.6 addresses coordination among contractor and government entities, not the Corrosion Prevention Plan: (2) CDRL A002-referenced PWS 2.18.2 does not exist-PWS 2 ends at 2.7.12; (3) CDRL A008-referenced PWS 4.5 cites CDRL A027, not A008; (4) CDRL A012 referenced PWS 2.3.10 should be 2.3.11; (5) CDRL A013 & A014 referenced PWS 4.16 should be 4.17-there are several more erroneous references.

Request the Government make corrections Corrections have been made; please refer to RFP Amendment 1

39 L-4, Section L, pages 9 & 10 of 16, Sub-section L-3, specifically paragraphs 3.4 & 3.5.

In para. 3.4 the Government lists 8 subjects (a. thru h.) for the offeror to use as a format for the Past Performance Volume. It appears that in para. 3.5 the Government is providing specific instructions for the content of the 8 subjects in para 3.4 (i.e., subjects a-h). The specific instruc-tions in para. 3.5 for Items a, b, c, d, e track to subjects a, b, c, d, e in para 3.4. However, in pa-ra. 3.4 subject f is entitled Resource Summary, but Subject f in para 3.5 is described as “A description of the relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance with respect to the areas in each evaluation factor as defined in Section M, Table 4.1.” This description does not seem to track to the title “Resource Summary” in para. 3.4 f. In fact, para 3.5 f. seems to describe the content for para. 3.4 subject g. Will the Government clarify the format as defined and explained in paragraphs 3.4 & 3.5, and if the topic of “Resource Summary” is to be required, please define what information the Government is looking for.

Attachment L-4, Section 3.4 Past Performance Volume Organization, para f. Resource summary will be removed via Amendment 1; references will be re-alphabetized.

40 Section L-2.2.1.2. The RFP asks the offeror to describe each labor category, position titles, qualifications and certification requirements. And requires the offer to submit Attachment L; however, attachment L does not have a column to describe each labor category - only columns for labor category, productive hours, PWS, education or certifications, expertise to accomplish requirements, location of performance, will this position be cross-utilized, cross-utilization to accomplish PWS, will this position be staffed on Day 1, identify if this position is subcontracted and then the proposed FTEs for the base period – the 5 1-year options and the 6-month extension.

May the offeror include the labor Category Descriptions in Attachment L?

Yes, the offerors may include the labor category descriptions in Attachment L-1

41 Attachment L. Will Attachment L be included in the page count? No, attachment L-1, Staffing Matrix, will not be included in the page count and will be updated in Amendment 1.

42 Section L-1.2, Organization/Numb er of Copies/Page Limits

Would the government consider reinstating the technical proposal page count back to 60 Pages? 40 pages is highly restrictive considering the solicitation is a best value. 40 pages severely limits many offerors the ability to demonstrate features and benefits they can provide to the Government.

Government has decided to increase the page count to 45 pages

43 page 7, Section L- 2.2.1.2#, Paragraph

Critical Describe each “Labor Category Description” identified to include position titles, qualifications, and certification requirements associated with LOSC PWS performance requirements. Offeror format is acceptable as long as it includes all information requested in the Staffing Matrix, Attachment L-1.

We recommend that given the limited page space for the Technical Volume (40 pages in the Final RFP) that the Labor Category Description that matches all the information in the RFP Staffing Matrix, Attachment L-1 be removed from page count limitations.

Completing all the required fields for all labor categories will consume a significant amount of space and will limit the available space for bidders to sufficiently describe their approaches in their responses to the Technical Volume Subfactors 1 through 4.

No, Attachment L-1, Staffing Matrix, will not be included in the page count and will be updated in Amendment 1.

44 Page 3, Section L- 1.2, Table 1

Critical The RFP limits the page count for Factor 1, Tehcnical We recommend that given the current page limit for the Technical Volume (40 pages in the Final RFP) and the amount of content required to respond to all related requirements, the Government increase the page count to 75 pages.

The current page limit of 40 pages limits the available space for bidders to sufficiently describe their approaches in their responses to the Technical Volume Subfactors 1 through 4.

Government has decided to increase the page count to 45 pages ge

, S ec tio n

P ar ag ra ph

C ri tic al

, S ub st an tiv e, A dm in Was (Original Language) ACTION (Suggested Change) Rationale A = PO Accepts R = PO Rejects

M = PO accepts with Modification

PO Comments

45 1. PWS for LOSC, 12/9/2021, Section 4.14.5

2. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section 1

3. National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors, NB-263

4. Air Force Instruction 32-1068

Question Regarding Inspector Qualifications Regarding PWS section 4.14.5. “Operate, maintain, and inspect boilers IAW the National Board Inspection Code (NBIC), ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, and AFI 32‐1068”. Boiler Inspector requirements differ between these documents.

ASME BPVC provides specific requirements for boiler inspectors during the “construction” of boilers and requires inspectors to be employed by an Authorized Inspection Agency (such as an Insurance Company).

NBIC NB‐263 defines requirements for the uniform qualification, examination, issuance, and renewal of National Board Commissions for In Service Commissions and new construction commissions.

AF 132‐1068 states that boiler Inspectors must hold a current National Board Commission

Please clarify the specific requirements for boiler inspector qualification under the LOSC contract.

The contractor is required to adhere to Air Force Instruction 32-1068.

46 Section L-4 Factor 3 Cost/Price.

Critical N/A Are major subcontracting partners required to submit separate cost volumes?

Major subcontractors are not required to submit separate cost volumes but may choose to do so.

47 Section L-1.2.6 page 5 of 16.

Admin Text in tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be no smaller than 8 point font Arial or Times New Roman.

Define which Arial Font to use. Please define which Arial font to use as there are more than one to choose from.

Regular Arial Font.

48 First Round of Answers from Government:

Question 115 found on page 21 of 29.

Substantive The Government currently does not maintain a CBM data base. The contractor is required to maintain a database.

Is the current RCM module entegrated with current contractors Capella? Is the Government RCM and current FCA data up to industry standards?

Information required to understand current configuration and entegration capabilities, and compliance standards.

Yes, the current contractor is up to the latest industry standards. The Government expects the contractor to integrate their CMMS platform within the latest industry standards and also facility condition assessment.

49 Section L-3.4 and 3.5 on page # 9 and 10 of 16.

Substantive Paragraph 3.4 Past Performance Volume Organization defines items a-h. Paragraph

3.5 only defines items a-g. which is correct?

Recommend both pargraphs match or remove paragraph 3.4. Both paragraphs need to match to ensure all information is submitted by offeror.

Attachment L-4, Section 3.4 Past Performance Volume Organization, para f. Resource summary will be removed via Amendment 1; references will be re-alphabetized.

50 Section L Past Performance

Substantive The requirement for Past Performance Questionnaires has been removed from the Final RFP.

Please confirm to ensure understanding/compliance.

Yes, that is correct.

51 Section M Table 4.1 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings (Program Management) page 9 of 14.

Critical Present/past performance effort involving similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Specifically, magnitude of at least $10M per Government Fiscal Year in facility M&R requirements supporting DoD requirements.

Recommend removal of the word '"DoD" requirements and align with Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings under Relevant definition which states: "Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires".

Some citations meet these requiremetns with similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires via commercial space exploration support.

Would such a citation be rated as relevant?

Government concurs and has removed the "supporting DoD requirements" reference from table 4.1 of Section M

52 PWS 4.7 RCM Page

Substantive General question What is the current RCM Database Platform? Information required for planning purposes.

The current RCM Database Platform is Machinery Health software.

53 RFP Section M ‐ Evaluation Factors for Award page 130 of 130

Admin Reference L-5 - LOSC Section M Should read (Reference L-4 LOSC Section M) Misleading Reference L-5 is correct; updated cover sheet to reflect L- 5.

54 Section M page 10 of 14 Paragraph 3.1.2.4

Admin (see Tabel 5 above) Should read (see Table 4 above) Misleading Correct as is.

55 Attachment L-1 Contractor Staffing Plan and Matrix

Substantive Expand Attachment with more columns for additional information.

Expansion needed for additional information.

The offerors have the ability to add additional information to Attachment L-1 as long as the Government requested information is provided.

56 Section L Paragraph

1.2 Table 1. Proposal

Organization

Critical Volume I, Factor 1 Technical, Page Limit , 40 pages. Expand to read: Volume I, Factor 1 Technical, Page Limit , 60 pages.

Required to adiquatly address all RFP requirements.

Government has decided to increase the page count to 45 pages ge

, S ec tio n

P ar ag ra ph

C ri tic al

, S ub st an tiv e, A dm in Was (Original Language) ACTION (Suggested Change) Rationale A = PO Accepts R = PO Rejects

M = PO accepts with Modification

PO Comments

57 PWS 6.7 on Page 23 of 37

Admin 6.7 Scheduling/Coordination and 6.7 Self-Identified Work Should read 6.7 Scheduling/Coordination and 6.8 Self-Identified Work. All subsequent PWS numbers would require change.

PWS identification accuracy. The Government has corrected and will be a part of Amendment 1

58 RFP Section L - Instructions,Conditio ns & Notices to Offerors or Qoters

Admin Reference L-4 - LOSC Section L Shuold read: Reference L-3 - LOSC Section L Misleading. Reference L-4 is correct; updated cover sheet to reflect L-4

59 Section L Paragraph

2.2.2.3. page 7 of 16.

Admin Last Sentence reads aspart Should read: "as part" Accuracy Verbiage corrected in Attachment L-4, Section L, paragraph 2.2.2.3.

60 Section L-4.1 Last sentence of page 10 of 16.

Admin last sentence reads allthe Should read: "all the" Accuracy Verbiage corrected in Attachment L-4, Section L, paragraph 4.1, last sentence.

61 Section M-4.1.3.1 Reasonableness page 12 of 14, 5th sentenace down

Admin 5th Line reads: aresonableness Should read : a resonableness Accuracy Verbiage corrected in Attachment L-5, Section M, paragraph 4.1.3.1.

62 CBA Appendix D page 2 of 50 Job Discriptions

Critical Will the Government please provide CBA Appendix D -Job Discriptions

Required to adiquatly address all RFP Cost/Price requirements.

Atch 11 Appendix D, which is a listing of CBA job descriptions, will be provided in Amendment 1

63 Section L Subfactor 1 Program Management para

2.2.1 Page 7 of 16

Critical Will the Government please clarify that Attachment L-1 "Staffing Matrix" is page counted. If so, please define what qualifies as a page due to the fact it is in excel.

Required to adiquatly address all RFP Subfactor 1 requirements.

No attachment L-1, Staffing Matrix, will not be included in the page count and will be updated in Amendment 1.

64 PWS, dated 9 Dec 2021 - Page 19 - Paragraph 4.30

Propane delivery to Pillar Point, Bldg 13.

What is the tank capacity at Pillar Point? There are other propane tanks listed in Attach D, page 5 of 10, are these tanks include in the delivery, if so what are their tank capacity?

The tank capacity at Pillar Point Air Force Station is 1000 Gallons. Appendix D refers to Pressure Vessels, which are located at Vandenberg Space Force Base, not Pillar Point Air Force Station.

65 PWS, dated 9 Dec 2021, Page 17, Paragraph 4.16

Elevator inspections. Cannot find manual AFSPCMAN 91-710, Volume 5, Chapter 4 which is referenced in the PWS.

Will the Government please provide the manual or where the manual may be obtained. The frequency of elevator inspections is not specified, i.e., monthly, semi-annual, etc.? Would the Government please provide the frequency.

The Government reference is correct. Frequency is provided in referenced document. Reference document can be located at the Department of the Air Force E-Publishing website.

66 5352.204-9000 Notification of Government Security Activity and Visitor Group Security Agreements Oct

Form DD254: It has been noted that the DD254 is passing a Safeguarding requirement of Secret in 1.b, but 11.b. states that we are performing services only. It is suggested that Block 11.a. be checked, Have access to classified information only at another contractor’s facility or a government activity; and that the Safeguarding requirement in 1.b. be changed to NONE.

The Government has made the updates and a revised DD254 will be a part of Amendment-1

67 CBA and QA

LOSC

IBEW, Appendix D job descriptions: The Government stated in response to RFIs regarding the draft RFP that IBEW CBA, Appendix D job descriptions will be provided as an attachment to the final RFP. We have not be able to locate the attachment. Please provide.

Atch 11 Appendix D, which is a listing of CBA job descriptions, will be provided in Amendment 1 ge

, S ec tio n

P ar ag ra ph

C ri tic al

, S ub st an tiv e, A dm in Was (Original Language) ACTION (Suggested Change) Rationale A = PO Accepts R = PO Rejects

M = PO accepts with Modification

PO Comments

68 PWS 2.4, Page 6 Safety Office: Section 2.4 refers to the SLD 30/Safety Office and the Space Launch Delta Safety Office (SLD 30/SEAL). Please clarify is these are actually two offices. If not, please advise of the correct name to use.

SLD 30 Safety Office is the overall unit and SLD 30/SEAL is within the Safety Office

69 PWS 6.10, Page 24 Normal Duty Hours/Holidays: PWS 6.10 Customer Service Desk is the only reference to normal duty hours (0730 - 1630 PT). Please confirm the time stated for Customer Service Desk is normal duty hours for the entire contract.

Please also provide a list of holidays.

Typical duty hours are between 0700-1700. Refer to OPM.gov for Federal Holiday schedule.

70 RFP Section M3.1.2.2 and Section M Table 4.1, Page 9

Program Management Relevancy: In the amendment relevancy required in Table 4.1, Program Management requires, "Specifically, magnitude of at least $10M per Government Fiscal Year in facility M&R requirements supporting DoD requirements" to be Relevant and "Specifically, magnitude of least $5M per Government Fiscal Year in facility M&R requirements supporting DoD requirements" to be Somewhat Relevant. Please clarify if the Government is referring to the dollar amount specifically for M&R activities on a DoD contract or referring to the annual dollar amount of a DoD facility M&R contract.

The Government is referring to the Fiscal Year (FY) dollar amount for the overall FY.

71 SF 33 Block 9 Proposal Due Date: Because of the significant changes to the past performance requirements as well as time lost due to the holidays, please consider extending the proposal due date by two weeks.

The Government is not considering extending proposal receipt dates.

72 RFP Section L, Table 1, Page 3

Proposal Organization: Many offerors offices are still closed and the staff is working remotely. Please consider electronic only submission.

The Government will require hardcopies in addition to an electronic copy, as required in the RFP.

73 RFP Section L, Table 1, Page 3

Proposal Organization: Even though the Government removed the requirement to address all M&R requirements, there are still several areas to address that require a detailed discussion to demonstrate the Offeror's understanding. Therefore, please consider increasing the page limit for the Technical Volume to 50 pages.

The Government has decided to increase the page count to 45 pages ge

, S ec tio n

P ar ag ra ph

C ri tic al

, S ub st an tiv e, A dm in Was (Original Language) ACTION (Suggested Change) Rationale A = PO Accepts R = PO Rejects

M = PO accepts with Modification

PO Comments

74 Section L5.2

Original Signatures: Many offerors offices are still closed and the staff is working remotely. Please consider removing the requirement for wet signatures.

Wet signatures are required.

75 RFP Section M.3.1.2.2 Table 4.1, Page 9

Power Plant Operations: The relevancy requirements for the Power Plant are "Experience operating the Experience operating the power plant in a time-sensitive, event-based environment in a dynamic, high-ops tempo environment on a 24/7 basis for a minimum of 30 days" or "Experience operating Power Plant in a time sensitive, event based environment in a dynamic, high ops tempo environment on a 24/7 basis for less than 30 days." Please confirm if these are consecutive days of operation.

Yes, consecutive days of operations.

76 RFP Section L.3.3, Page 9;

RFP Section M.3.1.2, Page 7;

RFP Section M.3.1.2.2, Page 8

Past Performance Relevancy and Evaluation: Based on a recent GAO decision ((Innovate Now, LLC, B-419546, April 26, 2021), in which the GAO sought SBA’s input to interpret the intent of its regulations, specifically regarding the application of 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e) which states:

"A procuring activity may not require the protégé firm to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract."

In its opinion, GAO agreed with SBA that the CFR prohibits an agency from applying the same experience requirements to protégés as other offerors generally and, to further the intent of the Mentor-Protégé program, protégés must be held to a different experience standard from mentors and other offerors. Taking the GAO and SBA’s opinions into consideration:

1) Will the Contracting Officer modify the stated requirement that, ‘only the party to the Joint Venture who will be responsible for the Program Management will have their past performance submission to be determined relevant for the Program Management subfactor’ to align with the language from 13 C.F.R. . § 125.8(e)? and

2) Similarly, will the Contracting Officer similarly modify the stated requirement that ‘Only the prime Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated for relevancy for the Program Management subfactor’ to align with the language from 13 C.F.R. . § 125.8(e)?

Refer to RFP Amendment 1 for revised criteria.

77 PWS, dated 9 Dec 2021, Page 17, Paragraph 4.16

Elevator Inspections: Will the Government provide information on the elevators whether they are hydraulic, cable, passenger, traction, etc.?

The Government will provide al required data upon award.

ge

, S ec tio n

P ar ag ra ph

C ri tic al

, S ub st an tiv e, A dm in Was (Original Language) ACTION (Suggested Change) Rationale A = PO Accepts R = PO Rejects

M = PO accepts with Modification

PO Comments

78 PWS, dated 9 Dec 2021, Section

4.14.5 (1) ASME

Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section 1.

(2)National Board of Boiler & Pressure Vessel Inspectors, NB-263

(3) Air Force Instruction 32-1068

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors: Inspector Qualifications - PWS Section

4.14.5. Operate, maintain, and inspect boilers IAW the National Board Inspection Code (NBIC), ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, and AFI 32 1068. Boiler Inspector requirements differ between these documents. ASME BPVC provides specific requirements for boiler inspectors during the "construction" of boilers and requires inspectors to be employed by an Authorized Inspection Agency (such as an Insurance Company). NBIC NB-23 defines requirements for the uniform qualification, examination, issuance and renewal of National Board Commissions for In-Service Commissions and new construction commissions. AFI 32-1068 states that boiler inspectors must hold a current National Board Commission. WIll the Government clarify the specific requirements for boiler inspector qualification under the LOSC contract?

AFI 32-1068, along with latest industry standards, apply.

The contractor is required to follow standards as documented in the referenced document, which meets contractual requirements.

79 PWS, dated 9 Dec 2021, Paragraph 4.14

Pressure Vessel Inspections: The equipment listed to be inspected shows 89 items, they are identified as UPV's. AFI 32-1068, A2.2.6. Compressed Air Receivers and othe UPV's, establishes the inspection frequency for UPV's as triennial and for LP tanks requiring inspections every 5 years. It appears that there are 44 UPV's needing triennial inspections and 45 requiring 5-year inspections. Will the Government identify which of these UPV's are due an inspection within the next fiscal year? Also after the contract is awarded and before any inspection, will the Government provide as-built drawings, calculations, inspection reports and operational and maintenance manuals for review

The Government will provide all data pertaining to UPV’s upon contract award to determine frequency/type of inspection to meet contractual requirements when they are due. From the data transferred to the contractor, this can be used to determine frequency of all maintenance action as well as preventative actions.

80 Technical Volume The initial draft showed the Technical Volume I portion of the requirements to have a 60 page limit. The Final RFP now indicates a 40 page limit.

Would the Government consider revising the Volume I back to its original 60 page limit?

It is very difficult to fit the entire technical write-up into 40 pages

The Government has decided to increase the page count to 45 pages

81 Attachment L-3, Section 5.2, Page 14

Admin Please confirm that bidders are required to submit 4 hardcopies of the SF33 form and the one must be marked “Original” and the others marked “Copy” production clarification requested Yes, that is correct.

82 Attachment L-3, Section 5.2, Page 14

Admin Please confirm that all four required hardcopies of the SF33 form should placed in the binder marked “Original” production clarification requested Submit hard copies in separate binders, by Volume.

83 Attachment L-3, Section 5.2, Page 14

Admin Please confirm that it is acceptable for bidders to put all signed copies of the SF33 forms in a clearly marked envelope within the binder marked “Original” production clarification requested Original, wet signed SF33 should be in the binder marked "Original". Copies of the signed SF33's should be in each binder marked "Copy".

84 Attachment L-3, Section 1.3, Page 5

Admin Please confirm that electronic submission for each volume should be submitted using separate files (ie. Subfactors, Appendices, etc.).

production clarification requested Each volume should be submitted separately. The Offeror shall use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including exhibits, supplements, and attachments, if any.

85 Attachment L-3, Section 1.3, Page 5

Admin Please confirm that it is acceptable to place the CD for each volume in their respective Original Binder.

production clarification requested Yes, that is acceptable.

86 1.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

Critical "The Volumes identified in Table 1 shall be separately bound in three ring, loose-leaf binders. Page separation tabs for each sub-factor shall be provided. The Offeror shall provide one original signature marked “Original” and three (3) hard copies marked “Copy” of the proposal and one electronic copy on one CD-ROM/DVD for each volume as listed below in Table 1."

Please consider updating the submission instructions to require electronic copies only.

Travel and shipping may be delayed. The Government requires hardcopies in addition to an electronic copy, as required in the RFP.

87 SF33 block 9 Critical 9. Sealed offers in original and 3 copies for furnishings the supplies…