PSSC_Questions_and_Answers_1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 17 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Propulsion Subsystem Support Contract Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8214-14-R-0003
About this file
PSSC Questions and Answers 1
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Propulsion Subsystem Support Contract has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Offeror Questions 5 Sep 14
| Doc. | Page | Para. | Background/Issue | Suggested Resolution | Government Response |
| Section L | 8 of 29 | 2.4.2 | Electronic and paper copies must be received within 45 calendar days of release of the RFP. The 14-0ct-2014 due date shown on page one of solicitation is 48 days after the 27-Aug-2014 release date. | Please confirm proposal submittal date is 14 October, 2014. | In relation to this item no changes to documentation are required. The proposal submittal date is 14 October 2014. Based on the 27 August 2014 release date, 45 days fell on a weekend and per common business practice, the Government chose to request the proposals the next business day which is 14 October 2014. |
| Section L | 8 of 29 | 2.4.1 | The proposal shall be addressed to the PCO and mailed to: .... | ||
| Suggested change: "Hand delivery of the proposal is also acceptable. Offerors to coordinate a delivery time with the PCO." | Added "Hand delivery of the proposal is also acceptable." to Section L paragraph 2.4.2. |
Change will be reflected in Amendment 2 to the solicitation.
| Section L, Attachment 7, Cross Reference Matrix | 4 of 6 | 1.6.6.2.6.2, Liquid Propulsion AS | Work Requirement column no longer references 1.6.6.2.6.2.1.3 and 1.6.6.2.6.2.1.4 as March RFP did, but PWS column still references both. | Please ensure PWS and Work Requirements columns are consistent. |
| Performance Work Statement references, 1.6.6.2.6.2.1.3 and 1.6.6.2.6.2.1.4, have been added to the cross reference matrix, Subfactor 1, Liquid Propulsion AS. |
Also, Performance Work Statement references of 1.6.5.6.1.2 and 1.6.5.6.1.3 were removed from Subfactor 2, 1.6.5.6.1, Team Structure.
Change will be reflected in Amendment 2 to the solicitation.
| Section J - Attachment 1 (Performance Work Statement) | 48, 49 | 1.6.6.2.6.3.2, 1.6.6.2.6.3.7 | The PSSC contractor shall conduct component-level test data analysis…including RS/RV ordnance. The PSSC contractor shall deliver individual AS reports........including RS/RV ordnance. | Clarify scope to eliminate data analysis and reporting requirements for RS/RV ordnance elements | |
| In relation to this item no changes to documentation are required. The Government is requiring the Propulsion Subsystem Support Contractor to meet the requirements of the Performance Work Statement as written. Integration efforts will need to be performed by both the RS/RV Subsystem Contractor and the Propulsion Subsystem Contractor. Division of efforts will be further defined within the Integrated Product Team for ordnance. The MMIII Ordnance Aging Surveillance Plan identifies Government's expectation of who will perform tasks, but the Government still has the requirement for the PSSC to have the capabilities of performing those requirements. | |||||
| Section J, Attachment 8 (GFP) | N/A | N/A | Attachment 8 is assumed to include all GFP currently in use in support of Propulsion Elements of MMIII Sustainment Contract. | ||
| If a proposal is based on additional Special Tooling or Test Equipment not listed in RFP Section J, Attachment 8, | |||||
| will the proposal be adjusted by applying a rental equivalency evaluation factor? If so, is the offeror required to include the equivalency calculation in its proposal, or will the calculation be performed by the Government? | In relation to this item no changes to documentation are required. Reference Section L, paragraph 7.3.4.2, GFP and/or Base Support Requirements: If the offeror requires the use of Government-furnished items other than those specified, the offeror shall provide a listing including quantity, federal stock number, nomenclature, date needed and duration of availability per FAR 45.1, Government Property - General and 45.2, Government Property - Solicitation and Evaluation Procedures. |
In addition, the Government has no expectation for the application of the rental equivalency factors.
| Section J - Attachment 1 (Performance Work Statement) | 43 and 44 | 1.6.6.2.6.1.1.1 | Is the PSSC contractor responsible for carrying out all of the non-government identified tasks specified in the test plans prepared by the contractor under 1.6.6.2.6.1.1.1 of the PWS? For example: | ||
| a. The test plan that covers static test of a stage 3 motor (e.g. PRIME-104187) calls for post-test processing of the motor under section 10.3 of the test plan. In this example, would the PSSC contractor, and associated subcontractors, be responsible for carrying out those activities? | In relation to this item no changes to documentation are required. For clarification, the answer is yes. The Government expectation is the Propulsion Subsystem Support Contract contractor is responsible for carrying out all of the non-government identified tasks specified in the test plans prepared by the contractor under 1.6.6.2.6.1.1.1 of the Performance Work Statement. | ||||
| Section J - Attachment 1 (Performance Work Statement) | 43 and 44 | 1.6.6.2.6.1.1 and 1.6.6.2.6.1.1.2 | Paragraphs indicate that the PSSC contractor “shall conduct AS testing and analysis…” including “propellant, liner, insulator materials, case, and stage subsystems and components.” Is part of this type of testing, for example, directed under motor dissection test plans such as Prime document 120131-0001 “TEST PLAN FOR DISSECTION AND TESTING OF STAGE 1 MOTORS, MINUTEMAN SUSTAINMENT AGING ASSESSMENT PROGRAM”? Specifically, is the PSSC contractor, and associated subcontractors, responsible for carrying out the tests identified in similar motor dissection test plans? | In relation to this item no changes to documentation are required. For clarification, the answer is yes. The Government expectation is the Propulsion Subsystem Support Contract contractor will conduct AS testing and analysis… "including propellant, liner, insulator materials, case, and stage subsystems and components." |
Test Plans are specific to the tests being performed under the Prime construct and it is expected that these plans will be updated for the Propulsion Subsystem Support Contract to continue accomplishing materials and components analysis to meet the requirements or the Performance Work Statement.
To assist potential offerors, the "Solid Propulsion Aging Assessment Long Range Plan" has been posted in the Bidder's Library.
Section J - Attachment 1 (Performance Work Statement) 45 1.6.6.2.6.1.2.4 Paragraph states that the PSSC contractor “shall conduct AS testing of the components identified in 1.6.6.2.6.1.2”, which are as follows: a. S1,S2,S3 nozzles
b. S2,S3 RC systems
c. S2 and S3 ordnance cables
d. LITVC assembly
e. Igniters
f. Raceway cables Is it expected that these tests will be performed at the PSSC contractor’s, or subcontractor’s, test facility (i.e. not a government test facility)? In relation to this item no changes to documentation are required. For clarification, the answer is yes.
Although not required, the Propulsion Subsystem Support Contract contractor is anticipated to perform these requirements at their facility. This does not preclude the offeror from presenting alternate methods, to include facilities, to meet the requirements of the Performance Work Statement.
To assist potential offerors the "Solid Propulsion Aging Assessment Long Range Plan" has been posted in the Bidder's Library.
Section J, Attach 4, 5, 6 and Section H Section J, Attachment 4, 5 & 6 reference a "Chief Engineer". Section H, Clause 9952.736-H736, Identification of Key Positions, lists a "Lead Engineer". Clarify whether or not the Lead Engineer and Chief Engineer categories are to be used interchangeably OR clarify the Experience, Academic Equivalent, etc. for the Lead Engineer The following documentation now contains "Lead Engineer": Section H, Clause 9952.736-H736, Identification of Key Positions; Section J Attachment 4, Labor Rate Matrix; Section J Attachment 5, Labor Categories; and Section J Attachment 6, Mapping Worksheet.
Change will be reflected in Amendment 2 to the solicitation.
CDRL A030 1/1 Blocks 10/11/12/13. Unclear as to the Government's definition of Operational Performance Period. Provide definition/clarification for "Operational Performance Period". Deleted "Operational Performance Period" and replaced it with "no later than 30 days after contract post-award conference".
Change will be reflected in Amendment 2 to the solicitation.
CDRL A030 1/1 Blocks 10/11/12/13. CDRL states "Contractor shall submit the initial Quality Assurance Program Plan before the start of the first operational performance period." Does not state how many days before the start of the first operational performance period the QAPP is to be delivered. Recommend the QAPP initial delivery be 30 days after Contract ATP. Deleted "Operational Performance Period" and replaced it with "no later than 30 days after contract post-award conference".
Change will be reflected in Amendment 2 to the solicitation.
Section L, Att 11 1/1 All PSSC transition matrix is an excel file. Does government want this converted to word file and included inside the Technical volume, or do they want an excel file included as an attachment to the Technical Volume? Direct offeror's to provide the PSSC transition matrix as an Attachment to the Tech Volume in Word format. In relation to this item no changes to documentation are required.
Provide Propulsion Subsystem Support Contract Transition Matrix in accordance with Section L, paragraph 2.3, Electronic Offers.
Performance Work Statement 49, 52, 43 1.6.6.2.6.3.4 1.6.6.2.6.5.4 1.6.6.2.5.7 1.6.6.2.5.7.1 DI-MISC-80508/B/T, Technical Report/Study Services – is a generic technical report, not specific to an FAA. We are not familiar with the term FAA We are assuming from the context of 1.6.6.2.5.7 that FAA is interchangeable with FMECA (failure modes and effect is criticality analysis) Is this assumption correct? In relation to this item no changes to documentation are required.
The assumption that the FAA is directly interchangeable with FMECA is incorrect.
Section J Section J, Att. 4 and 6 Section J, Attachment 4 and 5 reference Program Support Manager. Attachment 6 references Product Support Manager, but not a Program Support Manager. Clarify if the reference in Attachment 6 should be for a Program Support Manager so that it is consistent with the other attachments The following documents list "Program Support Manager": Section J Attachment 4, Labor Rate Matrix; Section J Attachment 5, Labor Categories; and Section J Attachment 6, Mapping Worksheet.
Change will be reflected in Amendment 2 to the solicitation.
Section J - Attachment 1 (Performance Work Statement) 7 1.4.6.4 Section 1.4.6.4 identifies raceway cables as part of the flight controls components. Raceway cables are also identified in the Flight Control Equipment Assessment Plan.
Raceway cables are not specifically identified in the flight control assessment paragraphs, Para. 1.6.6.2.6.4 and following, however Section 1.6.6.2.6.1.2 lists Raceway cables as part of the components involved in Solid Propulsion AS.
Clarify if the AF expects raceway cable assessment as part of Solids AS, or Flight Controls Assessment. Our recommendation is that it will be FC, since that is where it is being done now. In relation to this item no changes to documentation are required.
For clarification purposes, the current expectation of the Government is raceway cable assessment will be conducted in accordance with aging surveillance plans provided in the Bidder's Library and those plans may be updated in the future to reflect any updates in efficiencies.
Section J - Attachment 1 (Performance Work Statement) 32 1.6.6.1.8.1.2 Clarification needed. PWS paragraph 1.6.6.1.8.1.2 ACPIN preparation. What is meant by "problem resolution" relative to ACPIN preparation? Clarify what the Government means by "problem resolution" as it relates to ACPIN. Performance Work Statement paragraph 1.6.6.1.8.1.2 has been changed to read "1.6.6.1.8.1.2 Prepare/initiate software Automated Computer Program Identification Number (ACPIN) changes, updates, and problem resolution to include identifying and tracking required software versions in support of test equipment maintenance."
Section L Attachment 7 Cross Reference Matrix Work Requirement 1.6.6.1.8.1.2 changed to "1.6.6.1.8.1.2 Prepare/initiate software Automated Computer Program Identification Number (ACPIN) changes, updates, and problem resolution to include identifying and tracking required software versions in support of test equipment maintenance."
Change will be reflected in Amendment 2 to the solicitation.
Section J - Attachment 1 (Performance Work Statement) 32 1.6.6.1.8.4 PWS paragraph 1.6.6.1.8.4 discusses generation of CSCI requirement specifications and supporting software documentation. Only the SVD is called out. There are no CDRLs in the PWS for Requirements, Design, or Product specifications. Test documentation is also called out in this paragraph as well as in paragraph 1.6.6.1.8.3 which is specific to test. Include in paragraph 1.6.6.1.8.4 CDRLs for an Software Requirements Specification (SRS)(DI-IPSC-81433A); Software Design Description (SDD) (DI-IPSC-81435A); , Software Product Specification (SPS) (DI-IPSC-81441A). If added, these CDRLs/DIDs will need to be added to Section J, Attachment 2 and Attachment 3. In relation to this item no changes to documentation are required.
It's not anticipated that these Contract Data Requirements List will be delivered as part of the Propulsion Subsystem Support Contract sustainment effort. If future efforts and programs have requirements identifying these deliverables, they will be included in the respective contract action.
Section J - Attachment 1 (Performance Work Statement) 32, 40 1.6.6.1.8.3, 1.6.6.1.21.7.2 and 1.6.6.1.21.7.3 PWS paragraph 1.6.6.1.8.3 states that the PSSC contractor shall prepare STPs, STDs and STRs to support software…. Paragraph 1.6.6.1.21.7.2 and 7.3 leads one to believe the PSSC contractor supports the Government in the Governments development of test plans. Please clarify if the contractor is to prepare these documents or assist the Government. In relation to this item no changes to documentation are required.
Performance Work Statement paragraphs 1.6.6.1.21.7.2 and 1.6.6.1.21.7.3 address requirements specific to Test and Evaluation. This is a requirement to support the Government in its Test and Evaluation efforts to include those integration efforts with other contractors supporting the Government. Performance Work Statement paragraph 1.6.6.1.8.3 addresses the identified requirements supporting the propulsion subsystem and requirements will involve preparations of those documents when required.
Section J - Attachment 1 (Performance Work Statement) 32, 40 1.6.6.1.8.3 and 1.6.6.1.17.2 PWS paragraph 1.6.6.1.8.3 states that the PSSC contractor shall generate requirements specification and supporting software documentation. Paragraph 1.6.6.1.17.2 states the PSSC contractor shall assist the Government in developing and maintaining subsystem- and component -level specifications. Please clarify if the contractor is to prepare these documents or assist the Government. In relation to this item no changes to documentation are required.
Propulsion Subsystem Support Contract Performance Work Statement Subsystem and End-Item Specifications requirements include assisting the Government developing and maintaining subsystem- and component-level specifications. Propulsion Subsystem Support Contract Performance Work Statement Software requirements include the Propulsion Subsystem Support Contract contractor preparing the identified documents to support software test and evaluation on existing test equipment.
Section J - Attachment 1 (Performance Work Statement) 32 1.6.6.1.8.2 Assume this means the contractor has a system to track deficiencies (aka anomalies) . We further assume this does not require delivered software to contain internal software deficiency tracking within the software code. Recommend the PSSC contractor shall provide the capability to track software deficiencies. This capability will include contractor developed software or COTS software deficiencies. In relation to this item no changes to documentation are required.
The Government is not requiring that the Propulsion Subsystem Support Contract contractor develop a Propulsion Subsystem Support Contract software sufficiency tracking system; however, if contractor-supplied software is required by the Government, the Government has a requirement to ensure that deficiency tracking is accomplished as per Performance Work Statement paragraph 1.6.6.1.8.2.
| Section L | 16/29 | 6.1.2 | Section L, para. 6.1.2, Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Pricing Matrix references Section J Attachment 4 Labor Rate Matrix 4. Appears the correct reference should be Section J Attachment 10, CLIN Pricing Matrix. |
| Clarify reference to Attachment 4 in Section L, para 6.1.2 | In relation to this item no changes to documentation are required. |
To clarify, it is the Government's requirement for the offeror to fill in the labor rates in the Labor Rate matrix (Section J, Attachment 4).
Section L Attachment 10, CLIN Pricing Matrix, is still required IAW Section L, paragraph 7.1.2.
Section M, Sub 2 2.1.1.2.1 c Section M states offerors will be evaluated on their "written or planned partnerships/contractual agreements in place, sufficient to meet the requirements of the PWS." Appears to be a contradiction between "planned partnerships" and "contractual agreements in place" Request the Government revise the wording to say: "written agreements or planned partnerships." Furthermore, will they be evaluated equally? In relation to this item no changes to documentation are required.
For clarification, it is written or planned "partnerships" and/or written or planned "contractual agreements".
"The Government will determine if the proposed approach is sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrates the applicability to MMIII Propulsion Subsystem."
Offeror Questions Solicitation No.: FA8214-14-R-0004
&P
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .