Questions_Answers_Step2_28June24v2.pdf

Date Received Question Government Response

24 May 2024 How much is CLIN pricing considered in evaluation?

None. There is no pricing on the IDIQ. The primary evaluation will occur on the Gateway and Prior Customer Questionnaires submitted with the proposal.

24 May 2024 So, pricing happens on the task orders? Yes. Pricing is conducted when evaluating the task order proposals.

24 May 2024 So, all the payload pricing happens down at the Task Order level as well? That is correct. Pricing will occur at the Task Order level..

30 May 2024

SRD Quote: 4.2.1…SC on-orbit operations of less than 365 days, with a launch date within the last five years may be acceptable for the following situations when one or more of the following conditions are true: The SC is currently on-orbit and will reach the 365 days of on-orbit operation within 30 days following release of IDIQ Request for Proposal (RFP) solicitation. Can you confirm that the last sentence refers to a future specific IDIQ RFP not this overall STEP 2.0 RFP? Meaning that we could submit to the STEP 2.0 RFP as a space vehicle provider but wouldn’t be able to submit for a specific IDIQ RFP until after November 2024 (date our vehicle will hit 365 days in

LEO).

This statement refers specifically to this IDIQ response due date. So, given the provided submission deadline of 12 July 2024, the 365-day orbit achieved in November 2024 would not qualify your solution for consideration for this RFP. As stated in the solicitation, on-ramping opportunities exists for contractors throughout the base five-year period. The solution proposed could be eligible for consideration during an on-ramping period that extends flight time through November 2024.

30 May 2024

I also see a SF328, which we are familiar with. {Removed for privacy} It was unclear the high-level requirements and if we can submit as a prime or if we need to submit as a subcontractor to STEP 2.0. Can you clarify eligibility?

Submissions to this IDIQ are for prime contractors. If partnering or teaming with another contractor who will act as the prime contractor, the prime contractor’s proposal must acknowledge a teaming effort with your company.

30 May 2024

Do offerors need to just notify you of intent to submit classified information by May 31, or are there different questionnaire templates you can only provide on the high side?

The notification of intent to submit classification is to provide the contractor a POC to which it would submit that classified information. There are no specialized templates associated with a classified submission, simply a change in the point of submission.

31 May 2024

I am reaching out today to express interest in receiving the classified Gateway Questionnaire and Prior Customer Questionnaire submissions documents for the STEP

2.0 IDIQ as noted in Attachment 9 Section L Instructions for Offerors RFP: FA8809- 24-R-B001

The notification of intent to submit classification is to provide the contractor a POC to which it would submit that classified information. There are no specialized templates associated with a classified submission, simply a change in the point of submission.

31 May 2024

Is your team looking for capabilities that are TRL 6-7 or open to less mature satellite buses?

The Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) 6-7 are associated with a simulated world test. Per paragraph M.2.1.1.3 of Section M, Section IIC of the Prior Customer Questionnaire must reflect no less than 365 days on-orbit upon the time of proposal submission. Additionally, the launch date must be within the last five (5) years.

The on-orbit here presumes real world flight time.

As defined above, a TRL level 6-7 would not qualify for consideration.

31 May 2024

Can you please confirm if these requirements were in fact dropped? Payload power (previously it had specified a 60 W minimum for 12U); Attitude knowledge and control (previously there had been very tight constraints); Data storage requirements (previously there was a 48 hour data storage minimum)

The three (3) quantitative requirements were removed from the IDIQ but not dropped entirely. All of the requirements will be communicated via Order RFPs as each mission is more clearly defined.

3 Jun 2024 The DPAS rating block in the RFP is blank. What is the DPAS rating, if any, or confirm a DPAS rating will be assigned at the DO level?

There is no DPAS rating.

3 Jun 2024 The IDIQ POP is stated but not the assumed IDIQ award date. What is the assumed award date?

The anticipated IDIQ award date is no later than 30 Sept 2024.

3 Jun 2024

The MOR indicates data and reports will not be separately priced (NSP); however, Section B does not indicate "NSP" for line items relating to data and reports. Confirm the resultant awarded contract will include "NSP" for data and report CLINS

All data and reports CLINs should be listed as NSP.

3 Jun 2024

The RFP is missing attachments 11, 14, 16 and 18. Please clarify if these are missing attachments and will be released via a subsequent amendment or if the RFP Attachments were misnumbered.

Those attachments are reserved for use at the IDIQ level. As of now, those attachments were intentionally omitted from this RFP.

3 Jun 2024

The SBPCD is required to be at the STEP 2.0 IDIQ ceiling, which must be 2% or higher based on the total STEP 2.0 IDIQ ceiling value of $237.6M. Is it the intent of the USG to have the Contractor submit a Plan based on a goal of able to meet 2% of TCV which is $4,752,000 when it is unlikely all Delivery Orders will be awarded to a single participant nor are awards up to the ceiling guaranteed? Further, confirm the submission of a Small Business Plan IAW 52.219-9 is NOT required for Small Businesses. For those Offerors who are small businesses and have never had to provide the USG a SBP, what is the basis for submission of the Small Business Participation Program?

The Small Business Participation Program should focus on meeting 2% on an individual task order. While the cap is $237M, there is no guarantee one offeror can attempt to meet 2% of the SBPCD for an entire IDIQ. In accordance with FAR 19.703(b)(1), Subcontracting plans are not required from small business concerns

3 Jun 2024 The RFP states the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required before award of the IDIQ. Please clarify this only applies to large businesses.

In accordance with FAR 19.703(b)(1), Subcontracting plans are not required from small business concerns.

3 Jun 2024

Table 1 of the DoDI 5000.73 establishes the cost reporting requirements for DoD programs in an amount greater than $100 million, then-year dollars for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) and Major Automated Information Systems (MAIS) programs. Does the STEP 2.0 meet the reporting requirements defined in the DoDI standard? If so, does the requirement for submission and approval of a CSDR only apply when the combined awarded delivery orders are expected to exceed the reporting thresholds defined in the DoDI standard or is submission and approval of the CSDR required prior to or after the first Delivery Order regardless of value? MDAP? This will result in a significant cost impact to Non-Traditional Defense Contractors, and Small Businesses who historically strictly sell commercial services and products as defined in FAR 2.101.

Yes this ID/IQ meets CSDR requirements. CSDR reporting is based on the ID/IQ contract ceiling amount.

There will be a CSDR readiness review where this requirement can be tailored at each DO.

3 Jun 2024

FAR part 31 does not apply to FFP contracts which do not rely on negotiated costs or when cost realism is performed. Given awarded delivery orders will be the result of adequate price competition and not based on cost realism, confirm FFP Delivery Orders will not be subject to FAR Part 31.

FAR 31 Contract Cost Principles and Procedures are applicable to cost-reimbursement type contracts. That said, many requirements listed on this effort grants the offeror an opportunity to propose either a Firm Fixed- Price or Cost-Reimbursable CLIN type. For those cost-reimbursable CLINs, FAR 31 does apply.

Questions and Answers

STEP 2.0 FA8809-24-R-B001

28 June 2024

Questions and Answers

STEP 2.0 FA8809-24-R-B001

28 June 2024

3 Jun 2024

Confirm this clause (FAR 52.216-7 Allowable Costs) does not apply when FFP CLINS are proposed and only FFP CLINS are included in the awarded DO.

As prescribed in FAR 16.307(a)(1), this clause is used in cost-reimbursement or time-and-materials contracts.

As such, the clause is not prescribed for Firm Fixed-Price efforts and would not be applicable to Firm Fixed- Price CLINs.

3 Jun 2024 Confirm this clause (FAR 52.242-4 Certificate of Final Indirect Costs) does not apply to DOs where only FFP CLINS are proposed and included in the awarded DO.

As stated FAR 42.702(a)(3), the purpose of the Indirect Cost Rates Subpart provides for timely settlement under cost-reimbursement contracts. Therefore, this clause does not apply to FFP CLINs.

3 Jun 2024 What is the NAICc Code Associated with this solicitation?

The NAICS code associated with this effort is 336414 (Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing).

Please see the solicitation for more details.

3 Jun 2024

Confirm this clause (FAR 52.222-2 Payment for Overtime, does not apply to Dos where only FFP CLINs are proposed and included in the awarded DO.

As prescribed in FAR 22.103-5, this clause, 52.222-2, Payment for Overtime Premiums, is used in solicitations and contracts when a cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated. As such, this clause does not apply to FFP CLINs.

3 Jun 2024

When this clause is included in a fixed-price type contract, consent to subcontract is required only on unpriced contract actions (including unpriced modifications or unpriced delivery orders), and only if required in accordance with paragraph (c) or (d) of this clause (FAR 52.244-2(b) Subcontracts). Confirm this clause does not apply when only FFP CLINs are proposed on and included in the resultant DO.

As prescribed in FAR 44.204(a)(1), this clause is used in cost-reimbursement and fixed-price contracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold when unpriced contract actions (including unpriced modifications or unpriced delivery orders) are anticipated. This effort meets that scrutiny. As such, the clause is applicable for Firm Fixed-Price efforts.

3 Jun 2024 The solicitation indicates the USG intends to award without discussion. Why is this clause (252.217-7027) included in the model contract? Will this apply at the DO level?

DFARS 252.217-7027 is included in this solicitation as the government may award this IDIQ without discussions. Yes. The clause will apply at the order level.

3 Jun 2024

The model contract includes 52.212-5 and 52.212-2 but does not include 52.212-4. Is it the intent of the USG to issue the resultant IDIQ under a FAR Part 12 or FAR Part 15 procurement?

This is a FAR part 15 procurement. The FAR Part 12 clauses do not apply. Amendment 002 has been updated to delete the clauses (FAR Part 12).

3 Jun 2024

(FAR 52.212-2) Given the model contract includes the evaluation criteria based on the procurement of commercial products and services, please clarify it is the USG's intent to issue a FAR Part 12 procurement.

This is a FAR part 15 procurement. The FAR Part 12 clauses do not apply. Amendment 002 has been updated to delete the clause (FAR Part 12).

3 Jun 2024

What other networks other than SIPRnet and JWICS are acceptable replacements?

What is the issuing authority for SIPR tokens and RSA tokens for JWICS if there is not an acceptable replacement? Will be addressed for each DO as applicable.

3 Jun 2024 How will the SSC and SSC program office critical information list (CIL) be distributed for OPSEC planning? Will be addressed for each DO as applicable.

3 Jun 2024 When will the PPP be made available and will there be individual PPPs for each DO? Will be addressed for each DO as applicable.

3 Jun 2024 What is the assumed first DO RFP Date? At this time, the date has not been finalized.

3 Jun 2024 Is there a limitation to the tailoring of the compliance requirements on individual Delivery Orders?

There is no limitation. The tailoring will be addressed for DO as applicable.

3 Jun 2024 Are solutions using Commercial Ground Networks acceptable? Yes. As long as it meets the DO mission specific requirements.

3 Jun 2024 Where Reference documents have been super seceded by newer releases, which versions should be used?

Superseded documents will be specified at each DO as applicable.

3 Jun 2024

What is meant by the term commercial aerospace practices? As currently drafted the SOW does not reference compliance with commercial practices but rather requires compliance to several USG standards, specifications, etc.

As long as a "commercial best practices" aligns with the outlined compliance documents, the compliance documents can be tailored at the DO as applicable.

3 Jun 2024

This statement, SOW Sec 7.2.4.1, indicates the USG understands commercial SVs may be used in the performance of Delivery orders. Please clarify if compliance documents are strictly required or if the USG will accept the commercial equivalent standard

The Government will accept the commercial equivalent standard as long as it can be demonstrated that it is equivalent to USG standards.

3 Jun 2024

This statement, SOW 8.3 SC Integration, indicates the USG understands commercial SVs may be used in the performance of Delivery Orders. Please clarify if compliance documents are strictly required or if the USG will accept the commercial equivalent standards.

The Government will accept the commercial equivalent standard as long as it can be demonstrated that it is equivalent to USG standards.

3 Jun 2024

Does this requirement, SOW 8.3.1 Component Testing, apply to components other than COTS items? SV manufacturing relies on COTS component parts that are not necessarily compliant with SMC-S-016 but still provide space rated, reliable components with flight pedigree.

Please refer to paragraph 7.2.5 Parts, Materials and Processes of the SOW.

3 Jun 2024 At what point in time does the 365-day requirement start? As of DO proposal submission, as of DO award date, other?

Please refer to Attachment 10 Section M Evaluation Factors, M.2.1.1.2 Gateway Questionnaire Evaluation Criteria, Question 6 part a.

3 Jun 2024

At what point in time is the SFW Certification (Appendix A) required? Prior to DO award or during DO award? Will the USG start the process of SFW Certification only after a DO has been awarded?

SFW certification will require input from the vendor to provide the information need for SFW certification

3 Jun 2024

At what point in time does this requirement (SOW 15.1 Facilities and Security) go into effect? How much lead time do we have to complete approvals for TSCIFs and/or SAPWAs?

This will be addressed for each DO as applicable and must be able to meet the DO delivery timeline.

3 Jun 2024

SOW 6.3.2 Cost & Software Data Reporting - Is this required for FFP work packages?

Is this required of Non-Traditional Defense Contractors?

In accordance with DFARS 234.7101(b),Cost and Software Data Reporting is required in solicitations that include major defense acquisition programs when expected to exceed $50M. This effort qualifies for that requirement. No exceptions cited within the regulations for Non-Traditional Defense contractors.

3 Jun 2024

SOW 6.5 Contractor Integrated Performance Management - Is this required for FFP work packages? Is this required of Non-Traditional Defense Contractors?

The Integrated Performance Management portion includes critical elements such as the Integrated Master Schedule and a part of the Program Management Plan requirement outlined in SOW para 6.4. This requirement is inconsiderate of contract type or status as a non-traditional contractor

3 Jun 2024

In our previous engagements over the past year with the Space Test Program, we were told that offerors for STEP 2.0 had to demonstrate 1-year of on-orbit satellite operations before being considered for onboarding to this IDIQ. Is this still a requirement or has it been removed from this solicitation?

The 365 days of on-orbit operations remains a requirement. Please refer to Attachment 10 Section M Evaluation Factors, M.2.1.1.2 Gateway Questionnaire Evaluation Criteria, Question 6 part a.

4 Jun 2024

My team is inquiring about the availability of the Multi-Manifest Design Specification (MMDS) Rev 1.0a. Kindly, are you able to provide a copy of this? The link in the questionnaire is not working

I cannot provide the document but this new link, provided below, will get you to the page containing the MMDS link.

https://www sprsa org/mmds-project/mmds-ver-10a

STEP 2.0 FA8809-24-R-B001

28 June 2024

4 Jun 2024

Are we able to submit proposals after we have met the 365-day on-orbit operations requirement {Removed for privacy} given that the RFP becomes inactive on Jul 27, 2024?

The submission deadline for the initial IDIQ proposals is 12 July 2024. The archive date mentioned is specific to the site hosting the solicitation. That date (27 July) bears no relevance to the submission deadline.

That said, any offeror's proposal submitted after the 12 July 2024 deadline will not be considered for IDIQ award. As stated in the solicitation, on-ramping opportunities exist for contractors throughout the base five-year period. Any solution proposed during an on-ramping period must complete the 365 day on-orbit requirement by the on-ramp proposal submission due date to be considered for addition to the IDIQ vendor pool.

6 Jun 2024

If an Offeror elects to propose more than one spacecraft solution and therefore submits separate Gateway Questionaries for each spacecraft solution, will the USG evaluate each spacecraft solution separately? Further, if one spacecraft solution is rated acceptable and the other spacecraft solution is rated unacceptable will that render the Offerors entire technical proposal (for all spacecraft solutions) ineligible for award? Or will the Offeror be considered eligible for award if at least one of its spacecraft solutions is rated acceptable?

Each solution proposed is evaluated independently. So, in the example provided, the unacceptable solution would bear no impact to the acceptable solution proposed by the same offeror.

7 Jun 2024

Both of these forms are unusable due to PDF formatting errors and the additional issues as described below therefore making it impossible to use this form to properly answer the questions without altering/modifying the form, which offerors are prohibited from doing. How should offerors proceed? More specifically when we tested the forms we found: Att 12 - For all questions, checking "Yes", "No", or "N/A" for any individual box on any one question erroneously causes all of the "Yes", "No", or "N/A" boxes on all of the questions to check/uncheck at the same time.

• Att 12 - For Question 3, whatever is typed in either text field is erroneously duplicated in the other text field, overwriting what was there before.

• Att 12 - For the final text field of Question 4 and the text field of Question 5, whatever is typed in either text field is erroneously duplicated in the other text field, overwriting what was there before.

• Att 12 - For the text fields in Question 5-1 and Table 1 Narrative, whatever is typed in either text field is erroneously duplicated in the other text field, overwriting what was there before.

• Att 12- For the text fields in Question 5-2 and Question 5-3, whatever is typed in either text field is erroneously duplicated in the other text field, overwriting what was there before.

• Att 12 - For the date ranges in Question 6 and Table 1, whatever is typed in either From/To field is erroneously duplicated in the other From/To field, overwriting what was there before.

• Att 12 - For Table 1, if any one checkbox is selected/unselected, it causes all the checkboxes to select/unselect.

• Att 12 - For Tables 1, 2, and 3, changes in any one Table causes changes to the other Tables.

• Att 13 - For Section III Contractor Verification, if any one checkbox is selected/unselected, it causes all the checkboxes to select/unselect.

The amendment containing this Q&A also attached corrected forms to this solicitation. All issues described should be alleviated.

10 Jun 2024

My POC for filling out the document has indicated he is having difficulty with the formatting of the check boxes. All of the Yes, No, and N/A check boxes are linked (check one and they all get checked). Same issue on Q6-1 Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 in that you check any box in the Prime/Subcontractor columns and they all get checked.

For the Prior Customer Questionnaire, Section III Table has similar issue to tables above.

The amendment containing this Q&A also attached corrected forms to this solicitation. All issues described should be alleviated.

11 Jun 2024 Will any exceptions be made available to organizations without a TS (Top Secret) FCL (Facility Security Clearance)?

A TS FCL is not required for IDIQ award. However, contractors who do not hold a TS FCL would be ineligible for any missions requiring TS FCL

11 Jun 2024 Could you please confirm your official response to our original DD 254 inquiry? If it does not relate to the TS FCL issues, please restate your DD 254 inquiry.

11 Jun 2024

There is also an asterisk in the table of required documents that states we were required to contact you by 5/31 for the PCQ submission. Given we’re now past 5/31 does that make us ineligible to submit a proposal?

The deadline of 5/31 was indicative an offeror's intention of providing classified information in their Prior Customer Questionnaire. However, an offeror will not be removed from award consideration if they notify the government later. The 5/31 deadline was a preference, not a requirement.

11 Jun 2024

While we’re a US company registered in SAM, we are a wholly owned subsidiary of a (foreign-owned company). I haven’t found anything that would prevent our ability of a foreign owned company to bid. Can you confirm this understanding?

Yes. As laid out in Question 5 of the GWQ and its subsections, and as outlined in Section M, if the offeror is a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign entity, it is not removed from competition.

12 Jun 2024

I'd like to ensure we can share certificates for encryption.

Regarding certificate sharing for encrypted files, if it is for submission of the proposal, all submissions must be submitted through the Solicitation module of the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE). If the contemplated encrypted submission relates to the Prior Customer Questionnaires containing classifed information only, there is a different workflow email address to accommodate those submissions.

12 Jun 2024

My POC for filling out the document has indicated he is having difficulty with the formatting of the check boxes. All of the Yes, No, and N/A check boxes are linked (check one and they all get checked). Same issue on Q6-1 Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 in that you check any box in the Prime/Subcontractor columns and they all get checked.

For the Prior Customer Questionnaire, Section III Table has similar issue to tables above.

The amendment containing this Q&A also attached corrected forms to this solicitation. All issues described should be alleviated.

STEP 2.0 FA8809-24-R-B001

28 June 2024

13 Jun 2024

There are no instructions for margin and font requirements. The Draft RFP contained these instructions and they were removed in the Final RFP. Please provide applicable instructions.

The margin and font requirements have been removed as the primary evaluation subfactors are forms generated by the Government. As the submission is standardized by the form, the government removed the instructions.

13 Jun 2024

Table L-2 Proposal Organization references SF 328 Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interest. (Attachment 18) but the attachment is unable to be found in the Final RFP. Please provide the attachment.

The attachment must be downloaded before it can be viewed. Clicking on the download normally opens the document in a browser. Doing so causes this process to fail. If, however, the file is downloaded, and opened in your .pdf reader of choice, it functions as intended.