SRMM_RFIs_Consolidated_30Sep2013.pdf

1. FBO Solicitation Number FA8219-13-R-7002, issued on 19 August 2013 is identified as “Combined Synopsis/Solicitation Type: Other (Draft RFPs/RFIs, Responses to Questions, etc.)”. And the BAA indicates TBD for “Proposal Due Date and Time”. Is this a draft solicitation? When does the AF expect to issue the formal BAA and solicitation?

The combined synopsis/solicitation issued on 19 August 2013 serves as the formal solicitation.

2. BAA Number FD2020-13-51330 is referenced on the cover page of the BAA but FD2020- 12-50036 is referenced on page 3. Which is correct?

This is a typo. The correct BAA Number is FD2020-13-51330.

3. BAA SOO page 6 paragraph D states “Trade study data will be incorporated into Concept Characterization and Technical Descriptions (CCTDs) for each booster stack fielding option and updated Technical Requirements Document (TRD) shall be reported in Technical Report-Study/Services IAW CDRL A009, DID # DI-MISC-80508B/T.” Page 6 paragraph H.3. states: “Inputs to Acquisition Documentation”. Please clarify whether or not the study outputs are to include direct updating of the TRD and CCTD by the study contractor. If these study outputs are to be used only as input to the AF in conjunction with other government and industry inputs, and the AF then updates the TRD and CCTD outside this study contract, does that avoid potential OCI ramifications to the study contractor? If not, has the AF considered making multiple awards and then selecting from the breadth of study findings to preclude OCI concerns?

The study does not include direct updating of the TRD and CCTD by the contractor.

See ‘MEMORANDUM FOR POTENTIAL OFFERORS ON SOLICITATION FA8219-13- R-7002’ attached to Amendment 0001.

4. BAA SOO page 6 paragraph H.4. states: “Inputs to SEP”. Please define “SEP”.

Systems Engineering Plan

5. BAA Section B Award Information paragraph III. Number of awards anticipated states:

“one”. Is there a potential for multiple awards? Note that BAA Exhibit A paragraph III.

Program Period of Performance also includes a reference to the number of awards: “This BAA will have one (1) award, with a period of performance not to exceed eighteen (18) calendar months.”

According to BAA guidance, the Government reserves the right to award all, some, or none.

The BAA has been updated to reflect a possibility of multiple awards.

6. Are the outputs from this study contract intended to be used as inputs to the GBSD AoA? If yes, why does the stated 18 month period of performance extend beyond the anticipated GBSD AoA period of performance?

The SRMM BAA is evaluating modernization and replacement options for the existing MMIII motors. Any studies conducted under this effort may be used for completion of the GBSD AoA or any other government purpose.

7. The contractor study scope defined on page 6 is almost entirely propulsion-specific. Will the AF accept proposals from industry partners outside the propulsion industry to perform the identified propulsion studies? And if yes, will non-propulsion industry partner inputs be evaluated as less credible than propulsion industry inputs under the Section D Basis for Award paragraph IV Proposal Evaluation Criteria for both Technical/Management and Price categories?

Yes. All proposals will be evaluated against the criteria outlined in the solicitation.

8. Exhibit A paragraph IV.F Associate Contractor Agreements states “1. The Contractor shall enter into Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA) for any portion of the contract requiring joint participation in the accomplishment of the Government’s requirement.” Please confirm these agreements are not to be established until after contract award.

Any non-disclosure or associate contractor agreements are the responsibility of the offeror.

9. Will the AF provide the study contractor with historical MMIII stage and component reuse and reuse risk data for use in evaluating component replacement costs and risks?

The Government intends to answer this question as soon as possible.

10. Does the AF have a list of known issues associated with another round of PRP-like efforts (e.g., materials availability, aging characteristics of components, etc.) that would directly influence the trades and be made available to the study contractor?

11. Will the AF provide the study contractor with historical PRP aging and surveillance data for use in evaluating life cycle costs and risks?

12. Will the AF provide the study contractor with historical data on the logistics costs associated with the current Minuteman missile? This would include data on the cost to emplace the booster, booster failure rates, and refurbishment/repair costs for stages and components.

13. Will the AF provide the study contractor with historical PRP data for use in evaluating another PRP-like effort (e.g., the baseline against which other options are measured)?

14. Will the AF provide the study contractor with NS50 guidance data for evaluating roll control requirements and GEMS/thrust termination requirements & impacts with modernization?

15. The CDRL listing references Contract Number: FA8214-12-X-XXX on each page, and in paragraph 2., General Guidelines, refers to the Solid Rocket Motor Modernization Stage III program. In addition, each CDRL (DD Form 1423) refers in Block D to that same program.

Is this study effort intended to be a Stage III only evaluation, or is this intended to cover all three solid rocket motor stages?

Paragraph 2., General Guidelines, as well as each DD Form 1423 have been amended to remove any Stage III language.

16. Organizational Conflict of Interest Clauses are not included in the subject solicitation. Since the solicitation scope involves development and analysis of options for replacement or modernization of the Minuteman III fielded force, would award of this solicitation compromise, preclude, or disqualify the winning Contractor or a Subcontractor from eligibility for future awards related to the resulting system manufacture or refurbishment effort?

See question 3 above.

17. It is assumed that performance requirements will be the same as the current Minuteman III propulsion requirements. Is that assumption accurate?

Yes.

18. In regard to paragraph 1 C, paragraph 5 of the SOO, it states that "All physical and functional interfaces will be maintained for the individual stages." This implies that the same fit and form of the current Minuteman III solid rocket motors will be maintained. Is that accurate?

19. (SOO) Page 5 (B). This paragraph refers to the “acquisition program plan” that defines the MM III propulsion sustainment beyond 2030 but is not included in the package. Please provide if available.

The acquisition program plan for beyond 2030 does not currently exist. The information generated by this effort will support the creation of that plan.

20. In POM, 3600 funding (BA4 ACD&P), Project 644209, long range planning, there is a consolidated long range plan report completed FY12 and a feasibility life extension report in FY12. If these reports provide the “acquisition program plan” please provide if appropriate.

The acquisition program plan for beyond 2030 does not currently exist. The information generated by this effort will support the creation of that plan.

21. SOO, Page 7 (I.2). Regarding the Program Management Plan, Is this the “study plan” or the

“future program plan”? The referenced “component development testing, demonstration motor components fabrication and assembly, test readiness review, demonstration motor testing,” would not be in the study plan”

The Program Management Plan refers to the study plan. Paragraph I.2 will be revised to state: “Prepare a Program Management Plan, IAW CDRL A005, DID # DI-MGMT-81797, defining scheduled major milestones including program reviews, technical interchange meetings, etc.”

22. Section C, Page 15 (B). There are two schedules referenced on p.15. The “schedule” (B.1) and the “program schedule” (B.2). Does this “Program Schedule” refer to the study effort or the future program schedule? e.g. Long Lead (2a) and design reviews (2) and hardware milestones (2b) seem to be tied to a program schedule, not a study schedule.

The “Program Schedule” in B.2 applies to the study schedule. Calling for the schedule in B.1 and B.2 is redundant and will be removed from B.1. The future program schedule is called for on page 6, paragraph F.

23. Page 6 (D). Regarding the CCTD, we are assuming this is one CCTD which addresses all options and that the CDRL A009 does not apply to the CCTD. Please confirm

The CCTD and TRD are to be written later by the Government from the data provided on

CDRL A009.

24. Page 6 (D). The CDRL A009/DID is tied to the TRD, however it does not seem to apply as the outline includes an Introduction, Summary, Conclusions, and Description of the Analytic Results. Please clarify.

The Contractor is not responsible for updating the TRD. The TRD will be updated by the Government in part by utilizing information from the trade study report deliverable.

25. CDRL A008 states that the final report is due CA30CD. Should this be XCDEOC?

The DD1423 for CDRL A008 will be changed to reflect a due date of 30 days after contract completion.

26. The BAA appears to be oriented to booster options as opposed to stage options even though the term “stage option” is used. Is the intent to provide a trade on the booster options or for stage options? Can you provide clarification?

Both. Options for different individual stages combined into different booster options are to be studied and traded.

27. Does the Option to be Priced Separately "Level 3 System/Program/Operations WBS" refer to the study or the future SRMM program?

Paragraph B.1 on page 14 states that the Government requires a WBS for the SRMM study contract. The “Level 3 System/Program/Operations WBS” refers to a notional one for the future SRMM program.

28. SOO page 7 Sections I.I.3 and I.I.4 state that: “A Record of Meeting Minutes Report IAW A004, DID # DI-ADMN-81505, shall be provided 14 CD after the meeting.” SOO page 9 EXHIBIT A states that: “Meeting minutes due 15 CD after meeting.” The CDRL Instructions and Master Listing, p 11, CDRL states due date is NLT 15 CD after meeting.

Please clarify if meeting minutes are due 14 CD after the meeting or due 15 CD after meeting.

The SOO will be revised to reflect a due date of 15 CD after meeting for CDRL A004.

29. SOO page 7 Sections I.I.3 and I.I.4 state that: “Provide a Meeting Agenda IAW CDRL A002, Conference Agenda (Meeting Agenda) DID # DI-ADMN 81249A, 7 CD prior to the meeting.” CDRL Instructions & Master Listing, page 11, states that: “Contractor shall submit Conference Agenda (Meeting Agenda) NLT 5 days prior to scheduled meeting or meetings deemed necessary by the Government.” Please clarify if meeting agenda is due 7 CD prior to the meeting or 5 CD prior to the meeting.

The SOO will be changed to reflect a due date of 5 CD prior to the meeting for CDRL A002.

30. CDRL Instructions & Master Listing for Data Item No. A008 for the Contract Summary Report, page 17, states that: “Contractor shall submit Contract Summary Report NLT 30 days after award of contract.” The SOO, page 7, states that this is the “final report” that “summarizes contracted performance and includes recommendations.” Please clarify due date of Contract Summary Report.

Since this is a final report, the CDRL should be due NLT 30 days after contract completion, not NLT 30 days after award of contract. However, the Government is reviewing the necessity of this CDRL and intends to respond to this matter as soon as possible.

31. CDRL Instructions & Master Listing for Data Item No. A009, page 18, states that:

“Contractor shall submit Technical Report – Study/Services NLT 30 days after requested by the Government”, and in Block 10 the Frequency is indicated as ASREQ. Please specify the approximate number and relative timing of the Technical Report – Study/Services that the contractor is required to submit.

The requirement is for a “final report” at the conclusion of a given study. We do not know how many studies will end up being done nor how long they will take; therefore, we cannot provide an approximate number or it timing. The offeror will have 30 days after the final report is requested.

32. CDRL Instructions & Master Listing for Data Item No. A010, page 19, states that:

“Contractor shall submit Technical Report – Study/Services (Trade Studies) NLT 30 days after requested by the Government”, and in Block 10 the Frequency is indicated as ASREQ.

Please specify the approximate number and relative timing of the Technical Report – Study/Services (Trade Studies) that the contractor is required to submit.

All awarded trade studies will adhere to the 30 day request noted in CDRL A010.

33. Please provide clarification on Air Force intent for the content of the Program Management Plan described on page 7 of the SOO (Section A, paragraph I.2).

The intent is for the offeror to provide a PMP specific to the SRMM program IAW CDRL A005.

34. Are the separately priced options to be included in the 50 page limit for the Technical and Management volume?

Yes, the options should be included in the 50 pg. technical proposal.

35. Is it acceptable to hand-deliver the response to the contracting POC

36. It is not immediately clear what is being requested by some of the “options to be priced separately” listed in paragraph H in the introduction of Section A. In order for us to provide a response that addresses all of the SOO items, it is important for us to understand:

• What inputs are requested for what acquisition documentation?

In anticipation of a formal SRM modernization or replacement program, the program office will be required to adhere to established statutory and federal requirements as specified in the DoD guidebook and the FAR. Those milestones require documentation that the program office will be required to complete. As part of this SRMM program, any information obtained from the effort and associated studies will be evaluated for inclusion in the SRMM documentation.

• Is the option for “life cycle management” a request for a management plan?

The SOO has been updated to reflect “Inputs to Life Cycle Management Plan”

37. Should the “separately priced options” be included in the main body of the PWS and Technical and Management Work Plan or in a separate PWS and Work Plan section?

PWS and Work Plan sections can be consolidated or separate as long as the data is clearly articulated.

38. If not answered above: What level of WBS is requested in paragraph II B of Section C? Is this answered above also? Is a WBS dictionary required? Is a top level WBS available?

A level 3 WBS is requested in paragraph IIB of Section C. If task definitions are not included in the WBS, a WBS dictionary will be required. A top level WBS is not available.

39. In paragraph C in the introduction of Section A, are we to interpret the phrase “all physical and functional interfaces will be maintained for the individual stages” to mean that any replacement motor/stack concept must be dimensionally the same as current MMIII (i.e.

motor diameters and lengths, # of stages in the stack, etc) even if the stack is replaced all at once?

Potential offerors will trade incremental fielding with fielding an entire booster or stack. This should prompt a trade that will identify all functional and physical interfaces.

40. It is our understanding that the BAA scope does not include any work on hardware, but there are a few references (pg 7, pg 15, pg 19) to testing, test engineer, fabrication, long lead items, and hardware deliveries. These appear to be part of a template and not applicable to this particular BAA. Is that correct?

This is correct. Page 7 paragraph I.2. has been modified to remove the following wording:

“component development testing, demonstration motor components fabrication and assembly, test readiness review, demonstration motor testing.” Additionally, Page 15 paragraph II.B.2.b has been modified to remove the following wording: tests, and hardware/software deliveries. There are not any references to hardware on page 19.

41. On Page 15, Section B.1, a “deliverables list” is requested as part of the Technical and Management Work Plan. Then on page 16, Section E, a “list of CDRL items” is requested.

Is the intent to include a CDRL list in both the “Work Plan” and “Data Items” sections of the proposal?

No, the BAA will be revised to state that a CDRL list will only be required in the Data Items section of the proposal.