06_FA880723R0005_Attachment 06 - Govt Responses.pdf

Item No. Source (Name) Page Para/Section Line/Subsection Comment Rationale Response

1 00_FA880723R0005_Solicitation 2, 3, Section B

Section F Items Column

Within the Solicitation, we understand the intended period of performance for CLIN 0001 is 25 Sep 2023 to 24 Sep 2024 and the period of performance for CLIN 1001 is 25 Sep 2024 to 16 Mar 2025. Please confirm or clarify.

It appears the completion dates for both the Base period CLIN 0001 (24 March 2023) and Option CLIN 1001 (16 March 2023) are incorrect.

The period of performance has been updated in Section B and Section F.

1) A_FA880723R0005_Exhibit+A+‐+CDRL.pdf

2) CSDR PLAN_20220920_MUOS_SLE Risk Reduction & Early Design_AF‐22‐D‐C2.cplan.xlsx

12, 13

CDRL A006

DD Form 2794

Remarks

Events

Are CDRL A006 “Cost & Software Data Reporting” and "SRDR Development” the same?

CDRL A006 “Cost & Software Data Reporting” Blocks 10‐14 states “To be submitted at frequencies specified in the DDCA‐ approved contract CSDR Plan (DD Form 2794), provided in the Bidder s Library.”

In the Bidder s library in file “CSDR PLAN_20220920_MUOS_SLE Risk Reduction & Early Design_AF‐22‐D‐C2.cplan.xlsx”, Worksheet “DD Form 2794, (EVENTS)” the name “Cost & Software Data Reporting” is not listed but the name “SRDR Development” is listed.

As provided, the subtitle of CDRL A006 is Software Resources Data Report (SRDR) ‐ Development. Refer to the Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Plan for the applicable submission events.

3 00_FA880723R0005_Solicitation 18

PART II ‐

CONTRACT

CLAUSES

Section 1 Assumes this section means: the total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed 18 months.

Under paragraph (c) FAR Clause 52.217‐09 it states that The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed 18. The 18 does not clarify "months."

Contract clause 52.217‐09 has been updated.

1) A_FA880723R0005_Exhibit+A+‐+CDRL.pdf

2) CSDR PLAN_20220920_MUOS_SLE Risk Reduction & Early Design_AF‐22‐D‐C2.cplan.xlsx

1) a. CDRL A006

b. CDRL A007

c. CDRL A008

d. CDRL A009

2) DD Form 2794

Remarks

Events

In CDRLS ‐ in REMARKS ‐ Blocks 10‐14 states “To be submitted at frequencies specified in the DDCA‐approved contract CSDR Plan (DD Form 2794), provided in the Bidder s Library.”

In the Bidder s library in file “CSDR PLAN_20220920_MUOS_SLE Risk Reduction & Early Design_AF‐22‐D‐C2.cplan.xlsx”, Worksheet “DD Form 2794, (EVENTS)” submission event names are listed for PDR for Phase 1

Should submissions be at EDR rather than PDR?

Given that submittals are for Phase 1, submission should be for EDR as opposed to PDR (Phase 2). Yes.

5 Section L 27, 30 5.1.3, & 6.2.12 Table 5‐3 Paragraph 1

Please confirm CDRLs are not separately priced (NSP).

Section 5.1.3 and Table 5‐3, lists CDRLs as NSP, while the instructions in Section 6.2.12 requests "...provide the estimated price for the administrative preparation and delivery of each data requirement in Block 18 of the associated DD Form 1423."

Exhibits A & B have been updated to include aditional instructions. Pricing for Block 18 is required.

6 Section L 35 Attachment I CRM Table

The Attachment 1 Cross Reference Matrix Table of Section L does not include 4.1.3 [Offerors shall demonstrate their ability to leverage digital technologies to streamline early design/development and future production (e.g., digital workflows, reviews, tools, and processes)] of the ITO.

This is required in SOW Section 3.3.2.1 (pg,10) and covered in CDRL A107 (pg 28) but not included in the Section L, Attachment 1 Cross Reference Matrix Table

Yes. The Cross Reference Matrix has been updated.

7 Section L 19 4.1.3 Paragraph 1 Small Business Plan ‐ Can we defer this form to Phase 2? If not, can preliminary list of Phase 2 suppliers be identified for Phase 1 submission?

At this stage of the program, we are have not down selected the suppliers. Phase 2 planning will determine path forward.

The requirement of 4.1.3 is a Small Business Participation Commitment Document for Phase 1, not a Small Business Plan. In accordance with 52.219‐9 offerors should be prepared to submit their Small Business Subcontracting Plan upon request.

8 SOW 11 3.3.3 c. Please provide the compliance document for the STS‐SCN.

"Determine the functional and physical interfaces necessary to create draft SLE ICDs: SLE STS‐SCS, STS‐SCN and SLE STS‐ GTS." ‐ But there is no ICD for the STS‐SCN in the final RFP CDRL Exhibit A (there was one in the draft RFP)

There is no required deliverable for the (MUOS SLE) STS‐SCN ICD in Phase 1. The intent is to determine the functional and physical interfaces for interoperation with the SCN as defined by the reference documents cited in the SLE Satellite Specification. Direct work with the SCN Organization will occur in Phase 2, and those efforts will produce a unique ICD for SLE.

9 SOW 7 3.2 Paragraph 1 "In support of the Systems Engineering Technical Review (SETR) events and deliverables described in 3.3.6,..." The reference should refer to Section 3.3.5

Typo ‐ change from 3.3.6 ‐ to 3.3.5 Numbering has been updated.

10 SOW 34

Section 10.

Appendix B

CDRL A013

Please clarify when CDRL A103 is due. Is it due at SRR/SFR and at EDR or only at EDR?

The Deliverables table in SOW Appendix B shows CDRL A103 Software Requirements Specification due at SRR/SFR and at EDR. But in Exhibit A, (pg 25), CDRL A103 show it as only due at EDR.

A103 is due at EDR. SOW Appendix B has been updated.

FA8807‐23‐R‐0005 ATTACHMENT 06 GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO SUBMITTED QUESTIONS Page 1 of 5

11 SOW 3 1.2 Paragraph 2 When is the second SLE need date forecasted?

The MUOS SLE SOW States, "Once launched, each new MUOS SLE satellite will replace an existing Baseline MUOS satellite in the operational WCDMA constellation, thus retaining the same 4‐ball WCDMA constellation. The first SLE replenishment satellite has a forecast operational need date prior to the end of FY2030. If still operational when replaced, Baseline MUOS satellites may continue operating their Legacy payloads."

For purposes of responding to this solicitation, assume SV7 forecasted operational need date will be 12 months following

SV6.

12 SOW 19‐21 7 Paragraph 1 Please confirm we will be authorized to perform tech maturation activities during the Option timeframe.

As written SOW Section 7 FIXED PRICE OPTION does not accommodate further HW/SW/FW risk reduction via development and test.

Yes.

13 SOW

6, 50, 3.1.4

Appendix D

3.3.5.1

Paragraph 1

Section 12

Paragraph 1

Please confirm SRR stands for: “System Requirements Review.”

In section 3.1.4 of the SOW, SRR is referred to as “System Readiness Review”.

In the acronym list of the SOW (Appendix D), SRR is referred to as “System Requirements Review”.

SOW Section 3.3.5.1 says that IEEE 15288.2‐2014 shall be used as a guide for the technical reviews. IEEE 15288.2‐2014 has a section for a “System Requirements Review” (section 5.3) but not for a “System Readiness Review”. The CDRL in Attachment A (file A_FA880723R0005_Exhibit+A+‐+CDRL.pdf ) for A109 also refers to IEEE 15288.2‐2014

Yes.

14 SOW 34, 35

Section 10.

Appendix B

CDRLs A003, A102, A103, A106, and A202

In comparison to the SOW, Appendix B against Phase 1 Exhibit A, submission dates for CDRLs A003, A102, A103, A106, and A202 in Exhibit A (pgs. 7, 24‐27, 34) are correct in all cases.

SOW Appendix B and CDRL do not agree on first submission dates:

‐ A003 SOW: K/O. CDRL : 15WD after close of 1st Acctg Month ‐ A102 SOW: SRR/SFR & EDR. CDRL: Prelim 15 d prior EDR ‐ A103 SOW: SRR/SFR & EDR. CDRL: Prelim 15 d prior EDR ‐ A106 SOW: As/Req. CDRL: Draft 15 d prior EDR ‐ A202 SOW: EDR. CDRL: 30 D after SRR

Exhibit A dates are correct. SOW Appendix B has been updated.

SSC CGN‐D‐23‐0025 MUOS SLE Satellite Specification v1.0 signed

23 3.2.1.2.3.1 SSLE1865

Requirement SSLE1865 states, "The satellite design shall be future‐configurable, in the B2U direction, to pass up to a continuous 10 MHz (TBR) per beam per RAF." What mission capability or future capability is this requirement intended to support?

Not clear what mission capability this requirement is intended to support.

The future capability is not defined beyond the detail provided.

03_FA880723R0005_Attachment+03+‐ +Intellectual+Property+Rights

5‐Apr N/A N/A To the extent that Attachment 3 conflicts with DFARS does DFARS take precedence?

Multiple CDRLs listed within Table 1 do not classify as Technical Data and should therefore not be listed

The Government believes the 1423s in Exhibits A and B are consistent with Attachment 3 and the DFARS. Note that paragraph 3(b) of Attachment 3 addresses situations where multiple types of data may be present in a particular delivery of data.

17 Section B 2

CLIN 0001 start date: 25 SEP 2023, completion date: 24 MAR 2023.

Completion date is incorrect. Does USG intend CLIN 0001 to be a 12 month period of performance as noted in the CLIN 0002 and 0003 completion dates (24 SEP 2024)?

Similarly, CLIN 1001 completion date is 16 MAR 2023

Completion dates for CLIN 0001 and 1001 appear to be incorrect

The period of performance has been updated in Section B and Section F.

18 Mission Assurance Standards Tailoring Guide 39 ‐ 44

Several rows of the SMC‐S‐005 tailoring instructions contain "Error! Reference source not found."

Correct links to ensure contractors have full set of tailoring instructions

Linking error in tailoring table The document has been updated.

FA8807‐23‐R‐0005 ATTACHMENT 06 GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO SUBMITTED QUESTIONS Page 2 of 5

19 Satellite Specification 4 SLE1002

SLE1002 specifies an eccentricity value only, with no tolerance, for orbit control. MUOS requirements specify an eccentricity control tolerance, as well as an argument of perigee tolerance. Those are: Eccentricity Magnitude = 0.0055 +/‐ 0.0005, Argument of Perigee = 0 or 180 deg, +/‐ 5.2 deg.

Requirement should specify an eccentricity control tolerance and also, to match MUOS requirements an argument of perigee and control tolerance requirement.

Specifying an orbit control parameter without a tolerance drives unrealistic station‐keeping performance

Offerors should state any assumptions in proposal.

20 Mission Assurance Applicable Documents, Appendix A to SOW 28

Please provide unclassified reference materials for the following documents:

[+] 03‐TSRD‐MUOS‐ 01

This document is FOUO and needed to flow to subcontractors for study scoping purposes. Softcopy provided via standard unclassified CMS would be preferable.

The document is unavailable on an unclassified medium at this time.

21 Mission Assurance Applicable Documents, Appendix A to SOW 28

Please provide classified reference materials via classified CD for the following documents:

[+] 03‐FSDA‐MUOS‐ SLE

[+] SSR Rev 2

[+] Fail‐Safe Design & Analysis Record: Revised (C‐TR 00‐00), dated 27 January 2000

These documents are classified and needed to flow to subcontractors for scoping purposes. Classified CDs preferred at all sites in standard document formatting.

The documents will only be provided via email at this time.

22 SOW 7 3.1.8

Paragraph 3 references a Resource Distribution Table. Did not see the RDT included in the RFP.

Required to align with CDSR plan.

Refer to the Resource Distribution Table requirement in Block 15 of the CSDR Plan (CSDR PLAN_20220920_MUOS_SLE Risk Reduction & Early Design_AF‐22‐D‐C2.cplan.xlsx).

23 SOW 14 3.3.6.1 bullet m) Is there a single milestone or multiple milestones expected for this activity in Phase 1? Also want to understand if the government or contractor will drive the schedule for this.

Clarification of meeting frequency is needed for study planning purposes.

SOW Paragraph 3.3.6.1 m) specifies one of the objectives for the monthly working group and is not in and of itself a meeting requirement.

24 Section L 18 4.1.1

First paragraph under 4.1.1 speaks to an offeror's capability to execute the SOW requirements for section 3.2.1 Space Vehicle Design.

The draft RFP referred more wholly to SOW Section 3.2 Space Vehicle Design.

Section 3.2.1 of the SOW only concerns the requirement to provide the SSDD that describe the satellite and subsystem design.

The second paragraph under 4.1.1 seems to address SOW

3.2.2. SF2 seems to address SOW 3.2.3 and 3.2.4.

SOW paragraph 3.2.5 does not appear to be addressed by the current Section L language. Is this the USG's intent?

Yes.

FA8807‐23‐R‐0005 ATTACHMENT 06 GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO SUBMITTED QUESTIONS Page 3 of 5

25 Section L 20 5.1.1

Currently the RFP states that the Cost/Price volume will follow the following guidelines for electronic copies ‐ "The official copy of the offeror's Cost/Price Volume shall be submitted in the following electronic formats as applicable: PDF Acrobat

8.0 (with "Select", "Print", and "Copy" enabled to allow for text and graphics transfer), Microsoft (MS) Word 2010, MS Excel 2010, MS Project 2010, and MS PowerPoint 2010. All electronic files shall be compatible with Microsoft Windows 7" ‐ we strongly recommend removing this requirement and allowing the Cost/Price volume be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office 2016, MS Word 2016, MS Office Excel 2016, MS Office Project 2016, and MS Office Power Point 2016, Adobe Acrobat XI Pro.

We request this change because Microsoft Windows 7 and Microsoft Office 2010 are no longer supported by Microsoft and Adobe no longer supports Acrobat 8.0. This means this software is no longer accessible for use by responders.

Section 5.1.1 of Section L has been updated.

26 TRD Spec 53 Table A‐3

The satellite specification has a pdf image of an excel spreadsheet: Table A‐3 Worst‐Case Ka Downlink Link Budget.

Is it possible for the government to add the native spreadsheet to the bidders library?

Several of the comments (lines, 24,33,34,37,53) may need to be updated.

The EVM line 24 does not seem to be used in the calculation of excess link margin. Was this term meant to be added to the line 49 computation?

Ensure contractors are correctly calculating link budgets to accurately forecast performance

The Excel file will be provided at award.

27 Solicitation 2 B CLIN 0001 CLIN 0001, Complete Date reads 24 Mar 2023; Did the Government intend this to read 24 Sep 2024, based upon the 1‐year PoP, with a start date 25 Sep 2023?

Yes. Section B has been updated accordingly.

28 Solicitation 3 B CLIN 1001 CLIN 1001, Start Date reads ASREQ; Did the Government intend this to read 25 Sept 2024 based upon the completion date of CLIN 0001, 24 Sep 2024?

No. The period of performance is 6 months AOE. Section B has been updated accordingly.

29 Solicitation 3 B CLIN 0001 CLIN 1001, Completion Date reads 16 Mar 2023; Did the Government intend this to read 24 Mar 2025, based upon a 6‐ month Option period, or in the alternative ASREQ?

No. The completion date will be 6 months AOE. Section B has been updated accordingly.

30 Solicitation 8 F 1 The date provided is 24 Mar 2023. Did the Government intend the delivery date for 0001 to read 24 Sep 2024?

Yes. Section F has been updated accordingly.

31 Solicitation 8 F 1001 The date provided is 16 Mar 2023. Did the Government intend the delivery date for 0001 to read 24 Mar 2025?

No. The completion date will be 6 months AOE. Section F has been updated accordingly.

32 Solicitation 14 I FAR 52.219‐16

52.219‐16 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ‐‐ SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

(SEP 2021); Could the Government clarify if 52.219‐16 applies to this solicitation seen as 52.219‐9 was not included in the

RFP.

Yes, FAR 52.219‐16 is applicable. Section I has been updated to include FAR 52.219‐9.

33 Solicitation 18 I FAR 52.211‐15

52.211‐15 DEFENSE PRIORITY AND ALLOCATION

REQUIREMENTS (APR 2008) was included, but the Solicitation does not provide a DPAS rating. Does the Government intend to provide a DPAS as part of this RFP?

Yes, the DPAS rating is DO‐A7 and the solicitation has been updated accoringly.

34 Solicitation 18 I FAR 52.217‐09 (a)

52.217‐09 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT

(MAR 2000), in section (a), first sentence, the language reads, “...Contractor within one (1);...” Could the Government specify the unit period of time intended.

Contract clause 52.217‐09 has been updated.

35 Solicitation 18 I FAR 52.217‐09 (c)

52.217‐09 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT

(MAR 2000), in section (c), the statement reads, “...clause, shall not exceed 18.” Could the Government specify the unit period of time intended.

Contract clause 52.217‐09 has been updated.

36 Section L 67 L, page 16 2.4

Will the Government consider changing the proposal due date from 45 calendar days to 60 calendar days to account for substantiative changes in acquisition documents from the dRFP to fRFP.

The Government is extending the proposal due date to 1500 PDT on 15 May 2023.

FA8807‐23‐R‐0005 ATTACHMENT 06 GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO SUBMITTED QUESTIONS Page 4 of 5

37 Section L 69 L, page 18 4.1.1 This section references SOW section 3.2.1 for Space Vehicle Design. Was that the governments intention as the SOW calls out the Space Vehicle design as section 3.2.

Yes, reference is correct as 3.2.1.

38 Section L 77‐78 L, page 26‐27 5.1.5 Will the Government be providing the Fiscal Funding caps in order to support Contractors completion of the Table 5‐4:

Conformance to Budget Limitation?

Yes. Section L has been updated.

39 Section L 77‐78 L, page 26‐27 5.1.5

Based upon the period of performance should Table 5‐4:

Conformance to Budget Limitation identify Government Fiscal Year 2023/ 2024 or 2024/2025? Please clarify instructions or provided additional information in order to complete this table.

The current table is correct.

40 Section M 96 M, page 10 4.2.1 This section references SOW section 3.2.1 for Space Vehicle Design. Was that the governments intention as the SOW calls out the Space Vehicle design as section 3.2.

Yes, reference is correct as 3.2.1.

41 SBPCD N/A Att 04 SBPCD Does Attachment, 04_FA880723R0005_Attachment 04 ‐ SBPCD , satisfy the requirement for a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (FAR 52.219‐9)?

No. In accordance with 52.219‐9 offerors should be prepared to submit plans upon request. Note that a plan is not being requested in proposals and would only be applicable if the SBPCD specifies such a commitment.

42 SOW N/A SOW, page 7 3.2 Section 3.2 Space Vehicle Design (Space Transport Segment), first sentence, states "...(SETR) events and deliverables described in 3.3.6, the Contractor…", this should be 3.3.5.

Numbering has been updated.

43 SOW N/A

SOW, page 9, 10, 17, and 18

3.3.1.2 3.3.1.3 3.3.7.1.4 4.1.2

Does the Government intend to lead the effort to obtain a co‐ use or joint‐use agreement when necessary to complete any classified efforts based upon the SOW requirements?

Yes.

44 Solicitation ‐ Attachment 03 4 Table 1

Table 1 reflects USG Assertions of GPR for all items identified in Table 3 (shown below). I believe this is in error as the desired USG Assertions would follow the “Special License Rights Category A (“SLRC‐A”): Rights in contract administration information”.

As stated in paragraph 4(b), since some CDRLs require the delivery of both technical data and contract administration information, different license rights will apply to those portions of those CDRLs that require the delivery of technical data than those portions that require the delivery of contract administration information. Table 1 references the technical data rights.

45 Section L 67 L, page 16 2.4 With the understanding that there are other outstanding questions/clarifications, is SSC considering granting an extension for the submittal date?

The Government is extending the proposal due date to 1500 PDT on 15 May 2023.

FA8807‐23‐R‐0005 ATTACHMENT 06 GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO SUBMITTED QUESTIONS Page 5 of 5