Questions_and_Answers.docx

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

1. Contractor proposals must address the basic program and four separate options. While the options are listed in priority order, there is no guarantee which, if any, may be selected for award. It is highly likely that if multiple options are awarded in addition to the basic program, the contract value will exceed the $20M threshold for formal EVMS reporting, yet there is no contract proviso for EVMS and no CDRL. Aerojet intends to add an assumption to its proposal that EVMS costs are not included in the pricing, and that if the award including selected option(s) exceeds the statutory EVMS reporting requirement, we will submit a delta proposal to incorporate EVMS contract terms and CDRL provisions. We assume such a condition would not make our proposal submittal non-responsive, and request your concurrence.

If the proposal exceeds $20M, EVMS should be included.

2. Can you please clarify on whether government facilities costs need to be included in the proposal?

a. BAA, page 11 section B, states that the offeror shall propose only the cost of their effort required to support their specific activity at the identified government facility.

b. SOO, page 6 section 2aii, states that the contractor shall be responsible for motor shipment and all other costs associated with planning and test conduct.

c. It seems that these two statements could contradict each other. For example, if the motor is shipped for test, who pays for the personnel conducting the test and any tooling that is needed?

The contractor proposal should include all costs as if they were responsible for the testing. If later it is determined that a direct funds transfer from the program office to a Government facility would be in the best interest of the Government in terms of cost savings and/or expediency, those modifications would be made at that time. Offerors should have a good indication of facility costs.

3. Option 1 (Altitude Static Test) the SOO specifically states that facility power may be assumed for static fire operations, no battery will be required for this test. The question is: “Can we make the same assumption relative to the other static tests; baseline and options 2 and 4?

The main focus of the effort is maturing technology, if the offeror proposes use of existing mature battery technologies than it would be appropriate to use facility power especially in the earlier tests. If the battery technology being proposed needs additional validation and testing then using a battery during the static fires would be appropriate.

4. Model contract calls out CLIN 0001 as a deliverable motor, not a study. This would add costs for hardware acceptance review, hardware build review etc and we believe this to be an error.

No hardware is to be delivered under this contract, CLIN 0001 in the model contract should refer to the completion of the baseline program (SOO PARA E.1 and associated efforts).

5. Model contract calls out Travel on CLIN 0003 as cost only line item, not fee bearing. As a cost reimbursable line item this would be assigned its own work order, rather than just a WBS entry. Aerojet would like this line to be changed to be included in the fee bearing cost of the contract.

Travel costs are not considered for inclusion in the fee bearing portion of the contract.

6. CLINs 0002 (Data) and 0003 (Travel) are not High Value items subject to the Limitation of Liability.

High Value item statement will be removed from award document.

7. CLINs 0004 – 0007 are tests, not motor deliveries, but again are listed as High Value items.

High Value item statement will be removed from award document.

8. In Section E, there is no specification as to which inspection clauses apply to which CLINs. Services vs. R&D, can you please clarify?

FAR Clause 52.246-9 -- Inspection of Research and Development (Short Form) will be incorporated into the award document.

9. FAR 52.232-25 Prompt Payment, since this is a CPFF contract FAR 52.232-25 Alt 1, needs to be referenced The prompt payment clause will be included in award document.

10. Is the Small Business Plan part of the page count for either the Tech/Mgmt Volume or the Business/Price Volume and if so which one?

No.

A) - In Attachment #1 (pg. 18 of 22) of the BAA Announcement FD2020-13-51276 there is item 4 which is stated below (B). Section A is the award information and includes Anticipated Award Date of TBD, Contract Type of TBD and Number of awards anticipated; none, one or more than one. This does not make sense to us and are wondering if there is a typo or inadvertent inclusion of something that was intended to be omitted. Could you please clarify and or correct?

(B) - The offeror shall reference/acknowledge in the PWS all specified data items that were included in Section A of this announcement, and/or any others not identified but considered necessary by the contractor. Each data item should be identified in parentheses at the end of the paragraph(s) that it refers to.

“Section A of this announcement” in this case refers to “Section A” of the Statement of Objectives (SOO) for this effort.

11. SOO paragraph II.K references a final report IAW CDRL A009 (page 7 of 11). Exhibit A of the SOO (page 8 of 11) provides a reference for CDRL A009 to paragraph II.P; there is no II.P paragraph. We believe Exhibit A should be corrected to reference paragraph II.K instead of II.P.

Agree with correction; change "II.P" to "II.K"

12. The CDRL package includes CDRL A009. The DD Form 1423 for CDRL A009 includes in Block 5 a reference to SOO Paragraph II.P, which does not exist. We believe this should be corrected to reference SOO Paragraph II.K. Also, in Block 16, the narrative requires the Contract Summary Report be submitted “ … NLT 30 days after award of the contract.” We believe this should be revised to read, “ … NLT 30 days after completion of technical effort authorized under the contract, including any exercised option(s).”

Agree with correction to "Block 5" and to the changes to wording in "Block 16"

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

1. The SOO Hardware Fabrication and Test Support (para I.E) description of the Baseline Program along with Options 1 through 4 appears to form the logic for overall motor qualification, with each subsequent option based on the results and/or success of the prior effort. In the solicitation/contract, para. 52.217-9-(c), the total duration for the contract including exercising all options is limited to 36 months, which appears inconsistent with this objective.

Recommendation: Please explain the rationale for the 36 month duration limitation in Model Contract FAR Clause 52.217-9 (c).

Based on discussion between the program office and others, as well as historical data we made an assessment that a third stage motor could be developed and tested within a 24 month window. A similar assessment is being made for the further testing of the third stage motor. If any of the options are exercised and a period of performance modification is required the government will evaluate.

1. On page 10 of the BAA (para III.A.1), it refers to “Attachment 3 to this announcement, Guidelines for Information Other than Cost or Pricing Data”. Should this be Attachment 2?

No it should be “Attachment 3 to this announcement, Guidelines for Cost or Pricing Data.” Also in paragraph III.A.3 last line Attachment 3 should be changed to Attachment 2.

1. DD 254 dated 11 Sep 2012 is a listed attachment. Was one provided?

Will be attached

1. In the Model Contract Section B CLIN structure, the CLIN 0001 Basic award is a Medium Class Stage III demonstration Motor. The SOO, Section A Subparagraph E provides that this basic effort is a “Sea level Static test with Thrust Termination System”. Options 1 through 4 provide additional alternate test options:

Opt 1 - Altitude Static Test with Thrust Termination Opt 2 – Early TT Test Opt 3 – Flight Weight Chamber Structural Load Test Opt 4 – Sea Level Static Test of a Flight Weight Designed Motor

Is award of the Basic CLIN 0001 effort a pre-requisite to award of any of the Options?

Or could an Option be awarded in lieu of the Basic CLIN 0001 award?

Is award of any Option a pre-requisite to award of a different Option?

BAA process allows flexibility to select any portion of the Offeror’s proposal.

1. The BAA proposal instructions limit the Business/Price Proposal to 50 pages. In the BAA Proposal Preparation Instructions, I.A… (page 6 of 22) … it’s stated that the Business/Price proposal will include “the Model Contract Section A, Schedule of Line Item Numbers (CLINS), representations and certifications, a signed offer sheet, any exceptions to the Government’s terms and conditions, and price information.” The Model Contract including Section K Representations and Certifications alone are 26 pages.

Recommendation: Exclude the Model Contract, Section K Reps and Certs, any required GFP listings and cross utilization requests, and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan from the 50 page limitation.

Agree. These should not be included in the 50 page count.

1. Will Indemnification under P.L. 85-904 FAR 52.250-1 or equivalent be provided?

This will be decided at time of award.

1. How will commonality with other strategic systems be considered in award of any contract?

Evaluation criteria are noted in section C paragraph IV of the BAA.

1. Is life cycle cost important and if so how will it be considered in award of any contract?

This is a demonstration and validation program of the medium class third stage motor. Future solid rocket motor programs could leverage this technology where life cycle cost will be important. Evaluation criteria is noted in section C paragraph IV of the BAA.

1. Since this is intended to be a “direct replacement” will this motor need to fit within the existing envelop and not require any changes to interstage and/or guidance? Reference “no minimum length requirements” stated in the SOO?

This motor is intended to be a form, fit replacement of the existing SR-73 motor and conform to the interfacing ICDs listed in SDL-63-2013-01 Rev 1 Section 3.2.8 (and subsections) and be capable of meeting all specified mission requirements. Any impacts to existing interfaces are to be minimized and need to be justified for consideration.

1. Will the Thrust termination project results currently funded thru AFRL be provided to all contractors for evaluation and use in the proposal?

The thrust termination solicitation is currently underway at AFRL utilizing the MCAT contract. It is not anticipated that a contract will be in place prior to stated contract proposal deadlines. Similar to all MCAT tasks, the government will look to secure government purpose rights for all government funded efforts.

1. Does “high strength domestic fiber materials” requirements in para. I.C.2.b include a new glass fiber?

The government is not specifying a specific case material for this effort other than as stated in I.C.2.b.

1. Will the government specify the envelope and locations for the “accommodations for accessibility (access panels) for maintenance and inspection”?

No, this is to be proposed/designed by the offeror in association with the Interface Control Working Group.

1. SDL-63-2013-01 Rev 1 specifies a proof factor of 1.2 with an ultimate S.F. of 1.25 for the motor case. These seem incompatible.

Recommendation: Redefine the proof factor to 1.1 The proof factor of 1.2 is required due to the fact that the TRD is written with the goal of a demonstration flight test. The Operational MCS III Motor TRD will specify a proof factor of 1.1 as long as there are a minimum of three burst tests (same design) prior to the first flight test. If there are less than three burst tests prior to the first flight, a proof factor of 1.2 will be required.

The design safety factor requirement for the MCS III Motor will be 1.25 whether there are three or more burst tests or not. This is due to the fact that the MCS III Motor includes TT. Requiring a higher design safety factor could introduce risk with TT environments. However, the MCS I Motor and the MCS II Motor will require a design safety factor of 1.25 as long as there are a minimum of three burst tests (same design) prior to the first flight test. If there are less than three burst tests prior to the first flight test, a design safety factor of 1.4 will be required for the MCS I and MCS II Motors.

1. The SOO specifies Thrust Vector Actuation not Thrust Vector Control and no specification is provided for TVC power or communication protocol. Does that mean that MCS demonstration motors are to have open loop control of the Thrust Vector System?

Recommendation: Clarify that the contractor should provide loop closure and specify the communication protocol applicable to MCS.

For static test(s) the contractor shall provide power supply and closed loop actuation signal to facilitate function of the TVA system.

1. For the deliverable data item A001, IPMR – DI-MGMT-81861, which IPMR format is required?

Stated in Exhibit A of the SOO.

1. SDL-63-2013-01 Rev 1 includes an applicable document AFBU-12-LMD-607 but the document was not provided and does not appear to be in the public domain.

Recommendation: Provide a copy of AFBU-12-LMD-607.

I don’t think you’ll need it, a flight test is planned but unfunded, and all requirements are included in TRD.

1. Regarding BAA FD2020-13-51276, Attachment 2, Guidelines for Information Other than Cost or Pricing Data, Item 4 Materials, (page 20 of 22) subparagraphs b and c require significant detail and backup, particularly if proposed material costs exceed 20% of the proposed contract cost. The requested detail is available, but given the complexity and volume of the manufacturing effort and the Manufacturing Bills of Materials, (MBOMs) and given that MBOMs for a Baseline program and four (4) Options must be provided, the fifty (50) page limit on the Business / Price proposal is a severe restriction. It is requested that MBOM’s be included as an Attachment to the Business / Price Volume, and be excluded from the 50 page limitation.

Agree.

1. Regarding the Labor Mix Schedule by WBS (BAA page 10 of 22), the instructions currently require a breakout of Subcontractor hours. Instructions also require that the hours must agree with those reflected in the cost summary required in Attachment 3, (2?) Guidelines for Information Other than Cost or Pricing Data. Subcontractor estimated hours are generally not provided, particularly for “off the shelf” type items. In addition, under the Contractor’s current pricing system, (Pro Pricer) Subcontractor hours are not input as a separate cost element in the total calculated cost or price, and are not reflected separately on cost and pricing summaries. (Subcontractor costs are typically included under “Direct Material Dollars or “Non Labor” dollars, for example.) For consistency with cost/pricing summaries, it is requested that Subcontractor hours be excluded from the Labor Mix Schedule by WBS.

Agree.

1. Given the level of justifications requested in the Business / Price Proposal, (detailed labor, materials and other direct cost BOE’s), the overall complexity of the proposed effort, and given that five separate and distinct efforts are to be proposed, (Baseline plus 4 Options) the fifty (50) page limitation is severe. An unlimited page count is requested.

Disagree. Options should outline additional costs for each solution. It is not necessary to repeat baseline costs that are common.

1. Please provide additional detail of the Staging Side Impulse requirement 3.3.8.1.4 of the TRD (SDL-63-2013-01). Based on our interpretation of the requirement it appears that the actuator load is significantly greater (an order of magnitude) than other loads from similar sized systems in similar applications. A sketch or additional description of the load application and its derivation would be beneficial.

Recommendation: Validate the magnitude of the load.

The requirement shall be revised to:

The MCS III Motor shall be capable of withstanding a II-III staging nozzle side load impulse of 3,600 lb, with a half-sine shape in the 9-12 Hz frequency range, starting at the staging discrete command plus 0.01 seconds, applied as an internal azimuthal cosine pressure distribution over a 180 degrees arc, of constant pressure along the aft one third of the nozzle length.