12Dec2019 Consolidated CRM.pdf

Comment# Document Name, Page #, and Paragraph #

Critical, Substantive, Admin

Comment Government Response

1 Section L, paragraph 6.4 Critical Section L, paragraph 6.4 Cost Elements and Supporting Details for all CPFF CLINS provides instructions regarding the Cost Element Summary. It states in part “The format should be base times rates equals dollars, by Offeror’s accounting year, and consistent with the Offeror’s rate structure. Offeror’s accounting year is the 12-month period in which the company’s rates are defined…”.

Question: Will the Gov’t accept Cost Element Summaries that contain composite rates that are based on the Offeror’s accounting period and contract period of performance?

If so, we recommend a modification to the language contained within Section L, paragraph 6.4 as follows:

The Offeror shall provide a Cost Element Summary for each CPFF CLIN. The Cost Element Summary must show at least the following information, as applicable: labor hours and dollars, indirect labor costs (e.g. fringe, overhead, G&A), Subcontractor/Interdivision costs, Other Direct Costs (excluding travel which is captured in its own CR CLINs), Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCOM), and profit/fee. The format should be base times rates equals dollars, by Offeror’s accounting year, and consistent with the Offeror’s rate structure. Offeror’s accounting year is the 12-month period in which the company’s rates are defined (e.g., Oct-Sep, Jul-Jun, or Jan-Dec). It is acceptable to composite rates and factors based on the Offeror’s accounting year and the proposed contract PoP. For instance, if the Offeror’s accounting period is January 1, 2020 – December 31, 2020 and the initial contract PoP is October 1, 2020 – September 30, 2021, the Offeror’s rates and factors would be a calculated as follows:

FY20: 1/1/2020 to 12/31/2020: 25% FY 21: 1/1/2021 to 12/31/2021: 75%

The Offeror shall define the time period for the company’s account year. Provide adequate explanation for each proposed cost element. The base upon which the rate is applied should be clearly traceable and explained. Submit the Cost Element Summaries, in MS Excel, with working formulas. Printed copies shall be submitted to the Cost/Price Volume. Each CLIN will be on a separate worksheet in the Excel file.

If the Government requires the cost element summary pricing by CLIN and the Offeror’s accounting year, should th Off ’ d t il d i i fil t i di id l CLIN i i thl b i f h f th t (10)

Yes, the government will accept it if provided with ratiale and the numbers/rates that build up the composite rates. The Government will not change the language in the ITO. The ITO does not permit the offeror from using composite rates as currently written.

2 Section L, paragraph 6.5.1 and 6.5.2

Critical Prior Question: Section L 6.5.1 as written could result in our company providing the Government with over 300 pages of information. Please clarify if a formal BOE is required. We recommend using the rationale and justification in the staffing matrix as the source of estimating and evaluation of the realism and reasonableness of pricing.

Gov't Response: The Government's intent is to not generate a proposal of 300+ pages of information for this section.

No formal BOE is required. The Government does want a narrative that correlates to the staffing matrix.

Issue: Section L (6 Dec) , paragraphs 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 Labor Hour Estimating Rationale and Historical Experience still contain specific instructions that require submission of BOE supporting data. From the Prior question and government response, we understand that BOEs are not required in the Cost Volume, however, section L still requires this type of undefined information.

Recommend the government either, 1) remove paragraphs 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 entirely; or 2) clarify what specific information is required and the submission format in Sections 6.5.1 and 6.5.2

The Government is not requesting or expecting the Offeror’s detailed pricing file to capture individual CLIN pricing on a monthly basis for each year of the ten (10) year PoP. The Offeror should demonstrate how the hours proposed to in the cost volume tie back to the staffing matric in a logical manner. If using a similar program to estimate labor hours, state the program(s) in 6.5.1 and use 6.5.2 to show how the execution experience led to the proposed hours. If the Offeror is using FTE calculations to estimate labor hours, the Offeror should explain how the calculation for the hours of an FTE are calculated and are consistent with fringe benefits. For example purposes only, an Offeror states an FTE is calculated as 1880 because the Offeror provides 20 days of PTO and 5 days of sick leave per year (2080 – 25*8 = 1880).

3 Past Performance Questionnaire

Critical Questionnaire Ratings Categories (E, F and G) include topics that are no longer aligned with Section L/M (Past Performance, Subfactor 1.1, and 1.2). Reference Sections E, F, G of the questionnaire (Launch Process and Operations Experience, Small/ Medium/Heavy Rockets, Mission Integration).

Recommend removing the current E, F, and G categories and replacing with categories related to the current evaluation criteria in Subfactor 1.1 and 1.2 (Launch Staffing and Launch Experience).

Remove the words "light, medium, heavy" and keep the performance language

Comment Resolution Matrix

Critical, Substantive, Admin

Comment Government Response

4 PWS - Transition, Section 3.2.2.4

Critical The PWS mandates requirements for transition of key and minimum staffing personnel early in transition. In our extensive experience with large transitions, we have found that in the vast majority of cases the Government desires to hold the incumbent accountable for contract performance through the remainder of their period of performance (Transition out), with incumbent staff transitioning to the new contractor near the end of the transition period.

The current PWS requires a significant number of minimum manning staff and key personnel to transition at the start or mid-way through transition. In some cases this will likely involve outgoing incumbent personnel, particularly at launch bases, as well as our team’s current staff on the current SE&I contract. This mandated approach would result in, 1) significant impact to the ability of the outgoing incumbent to continue to perform ECL execution duties through the POP; and 2) significant execution risk from ill-defined dual responsibility for performance through the transition period.

We agree with early start requirements for non-incumbent key and minimum staff. However, we strongly recommend that the government allow the ECL SE&I-2 contractor to define our approach to roll on any captured incumbent staff during transition and how we would mitigate the associated risks.

Changed PWS, section L, and Sectiom M to address just the non-incumbent personnel.

Change made in PWS, Section 3.2 Transition

5 PWS, Sections 3.3.10 and 3.3.12

Critical The Government moved the old PWS Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 requirements into updated PWS Section 3.3.12.

These old Section 4 requirements pertained to NRDV Certification activities, and some of these requirements are similar to Section 3.3.10 Quality and Production which has been used for Program of Record activities. Please clarify the Government’s rationale in merging requirements for Quality Engineering and Manufacturing and Quality with requirements for Launch and Risk Management. We recommend the government merge paragraphs 3.3.12.3 to

3.3.12.38 into paragraph 3.3.10, and eliminate any overlapping requirements. We request the Government distinguish the requirements applicable to NRDV Certification from the requirements applicable to Program of Record.

Acknowledge. Quality and Manufacturing Engineering are now their own 3-level requirements.

6 PWS, Section 3.3.12 Critical The Government moved the old PWS Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 requirements into the updated PWS Section 3.3.12.

There are several inconsistencies apparent in the new section 3.3.12. We recommend the government eliminate

3.3.12.25 to 3.3.12.28 which duplicate 3.3.12.3 to 3.3.12.5

Correction has been made.

7 PWS, Section 3.1.8 Admin PWS paragraph numbering restarts at 3.1.1 after paragraph 3.1.8. Small Business Utilization Report should be paragraph 3.1.9, Government Data Rights should be 3.1.10, etc.

Correction has been made.

8 PW, Section 3.3.7 Admin The requirement (top paragraph) as stated appears to be better aligned under section 3.3.6 (Mission Integration vs System Safety Engineering). Recommend changing the requirement 3.3.7 to 3.3.6.11 for proper alignment.

Reject. 3.3.6 is funded using RDT&E and 3.3.7 is funded using O&M funds

9 Gov't Staffing Estimate;

PWS Labor Category Description

Admin The staffing profile and the labor category descriptions have a couple remaining clearance requirements. Please clarify if this was the intent? Recommend removing items: Configuration Manager II (Secret); Training Specialist III - Range (Secret), and LEE 37 (Only 2/5 need TS/SCI)

Correction has been made.

10 PWS Labor Category Description

Admin The new Risk Management labor category description is written with a safety focus and safety certification requirement. Please clarify if this was the intent?

Correction has been made.

Critical, Substantive, Admin

Comment Government Response

11 Gov't Staffing Estimate Admin Several position IDs in the 6 Dec update are not unique (same ID used for different labor categories). Please clarify:

• CCAFS

o 44 OG 5: Project/Integration Engineer III - Engineering Launch Support System o 45 OG 5: Project/Integration Engineer III - Engineering Launch Support System

• LA

o LEA 10: Systems Engineer III- Ground Systems o LEA 10: Systems Engineering Manager III

• LA

o LEA 8: Systems Engineer II - Launch Site o LEA 8: Systems Engineer IV

• VAFB/CCAFS

o LEM 8 Project/Integration Manager II VAFB o LEM 8 Project/Integration Manager II - Launch Site Engineering CCAFS - One with no ID listed:

o Software Engineer III VAFB

Clearances have been removed from the PWS Appendix E and added to each specific positions.

12 Gov't Staffing Estimate Admin (Continuation of prior comment):

• LA/VAFB

o LEE 34: Security Specialist II VAFB o LEE 34: Systems Engineer IV LA AFB o LEE 35: Subject Matter Specialist II - Environmental VAFB o LEE 35: Systems Engineer III LA AFB o LEE 36: Subject Matter Specialist II - Cyber VAFB o LEE 36: Systems Engineer III LA AFB o LEE 37: Document Management Specialist LA AFB o LEE 37: Systems Engineer III - Launch Site VAFB o LEE 38: Project/Integration Engineer III LA AFB o LEE 38: Systems Engineer II - Launch Site VAFB o LEE 39: Project/Integration Engineer III LA AFB o LEE 39: Systems Engineer IV - Launch Site VAFB o LEE 40: Project/Integration Engineer III LA AFB o LEE 40: Systems Engineer III - Remote Launch Control Center VAFB o LEE 41: Project/Integration Engineer III LA AFB o LEE 41: Software Engineer III VAFB

All positions have been identified with unique positions IDs based on labor category, and location

13 Gov't Staffing Estimate Admin In the 6 Dec staffing profile update, there are 5 FTE in Year 1 that are removed in Year 2. Please clarify if this was the intent. Position IDs are:

o LEE 6 o LEE 10 o LEE 36 o LEA 8

14 Gov't Staffing Estimate Admin Staffing position LEF 2 has 4.0 FTE indicated as "Key" and "Minimum Staffing Level". Please clarify if this was intended, or if the LEF 1 position was intended to be the Key/Minimum Staffing position (Systems Engineering Manager III).

Yes, four key positions oversee four teams with unique responsibilities

Critical, Substantive, Admin

Comment Government Response

15 Section L, paragraph 8.3 Admin The paragraph numbering after 8.3.2 appears to be incorrect. The numbering currently goes from 8.3.2 to 8.3.10. Accept, the government has updated Section L accordingly.

16 6_Dec_2019_PWS

pp. 32 - 33

3.3.12.3 through 3.3.12.5

C Recommend removing 3.3.12.3 through 3.3.12.5. Accept - PWS Updated

17 6_Dec_2019_PWS

pp. 33 - 35

3.3.12.6 through 3.3.12.24

C Does Manufacturing Engineering belong as sub-section under 3.3.12 Launch Risk Management or its own section?

Are 3.3.12.6 through 3.3.12.24 sub-sections of “Manufacturing Engineering”?

Acknowledged - Formatting updated

18 6_Dec_2019_PWS

pp. 35 - 36

3.3.12.26 through 3.3.12.38

C Does Quality Engineering belong under 3.3.12 Launch Risk Management or its own section? It appears 3.3.12.26 through 3.3.12.38 are sub-sections to 3.3.12.25 Quality Engineering.

Acknowledged - Formatting updated

19 6_Dec_2019_PWS 3.3.12.26

C Specifies revision to AS9100 in 3.3.12.26, should specify "latest revision". Accepted - Updated

20 6_Dec_2019_PWS Sections 3.3.12.3 -

3.3.12.38 would be better aligned under 3.3.10 "Quality and Production," with New Entrant certification portions also referenced in 3.3.13 "3.3.13. LSP and New Entrant Certification."

C These manufacturing and quality tasks are better aligned under Quality and Production (PWS 3.3.10) than under Risk Management. Can the government please clarify why Manufacturing and Quality tasks fall under Risk Management and not as its own separate task? Recommend that Manufacturing and Quality are a separate section in the PWS and Staffing estimate.

Acknowledged - Formatting updated

21 6_Dec_2019_PWS Page 74 Section 4.7.1

C Recommend to change "At a minimum requires a Tier-3 investigation for those who access sensitive information," to "at a minimum requires a Tier-3 investigation for those who access information classified secret, and a Tier-1 investigation for access to controlled unclassified information (CUI).

Reject - due to the nature of the performance required on this PWS, and DD254 requirement a minimum of secret clearance is required

22 6_Dec_2019_PWS Page 75 Section 4.8.1

C Recommend to change "the Contractor is required to submit a VAL/VAR for those individuals who require access to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and classified information during performance on this contract," to "…VAL/VAR for those individuals who require access to classified information..."

Reject - due to the nature of the performance required on this PWS, and DD254 requirement a minimum of secret clearance is required

23 Appendix E – Labor Category Requirements

C Please clarify the education requirements when you state “Master/Professional/Engineering Degree majoring in xxxxx engineering or STEM field?” Is it a Bachelor’s, Master’s or PhD in the specified field? This statement is used in multiple and various labor categories and in some cases seems to contradict the remaining labor category description of “entry level position.” For example, Project Integration Engineer II – Systems Partnerships.

Minimum education required is Master/Professional/Engineering Degree majoring in Mechanical, Aerospace engineering or STEM field, yet the position description states this position is considered an entry level engineering position. What is the minimum education requirements for this and other similarly written labor categories?

Accepted - Updated to reflect single degree

24 Attachment L-3, Government Staffing Estimate, “CCAFS 45th SW O&M Funds” Tab

C 45 OG 5, Project Integration Engineer III-Engineering Launch Support System appears to be mapped to incorrect PWS Paragraph. All Cape ELSS support is contained solely in “CCAFS 45th SW Procurement Funds” Tab and at PWS Para 3.4.1.2. If this correction is made, then there is no FTE estimate for PWS para 3.4.3.4 (i.e., SV Integration Support, Scheduling, Strategic Communication, customer liaison, etc).

Acknowledged - PWS reference paragraph updated

Critical, Substantive, Admin

Comment Government Response

25 Attachment L-3, Government Staffing Estimate, “CCAFS 45th SW Procurement Funds” Tab

C No launch site CCAFS or VAFB FTEs have been identified for PWS sections 3.3.13 and 3.7. Please clarify why no positions are identified at the launch sites for these PWS requirements.

Acknowledged - PWS reference paragraph updated

26 Attachment L-3, Government Staffing Estimate

C There are CCAFS PWS paragraphs mapped to VAFB staffing in the VAFB Procurement Tab. Recommend the Government map to the correct VAFB PWS requirements.

Acknowledged - PWS reference paragraph updated

27 06 DEC Gov't Staffing Estimate (Attachment L- 3); VAFB 30th SW Procurement Funds Tab, Row 10

Critical Row 10 does not provide a Position ID or PWS Section in columns A and B respectively. Will the Gov please update with the missing information.

Acknowledged -position ID LEE 53 and PWS paragraph 3.4.1.4 updated

28 06 DEC Gov't Staffing Estimate (Attachment L- 3); VAFB 30th SW Procurement Funds Tab, Row 6

Critical Row 6 has a margin comment that states "2/5 needs TS/SCI". The 22 NOV updated LCAT definition for a Systems Engineer III - Launch Site requires a SECRET Clearance. Will the Gov please reconcile the direction with the Gov't Staffing Estimate and the LCAT definition document.

Staffing matrix updated to reflect 2 rows one with 2 FTE for TS/SCI, and another with 3 FTE for Secret

29 06 DEC Section L Instructions to Offers; page 13; paragraph 4.1.2 (sub-paragraph Contractor proposed staffing matrix)

Critical The provided instructions for completing the Staffing Matrix do not discuss the intent of Column J (titled "Est FTE"), an entered FTE value that appears redundant to the FTE estimates provided in Columns M through V (FTE estimates for each FY). Will the government please clarify the direction for Column J or delete it as a requirement.

Column J not referenced in staffing matrix instructions

30 06 DEC Section L Instructions to Offers; page 13; paragraph 4.1.2 (sub-paragraph Contractor proposed staffing matrix)

Critical Will the Gov't please provide clarification / direction that a proposed staff member will be contained within a single row, or if a single proposed staff member may be in two or more rows if the estimated FTE span multiple Position IDs.

The Government does not restrict any offeror from spreading their FTE across multiple rows if the competencies required for perfromance are very similar.

31 06 DEC Section L Instructions to Offers; page 13; paragraph 4.1.2 (sub-paragraph Contractor proposed staffing matrix)

Critical The Staffing Matrix completion instructions in para 4.1.2 are not complete as multiple required column entries are not addressed to ensure desired content / format is received. Recommend the Gov't revise Section L with complete instructions for each Staffing Matrix column entry, both in content and in desired format (as applicable).

The Government has revised Section L to include instructions for all columns

32 06 DEC Section L Instructions to Offers; page 13; paragraph 4.1.2 (sub-paragraph Contractor proposed staffing matrix), Column C

Critical The Column C instructions permit the Offerors to propose additional LCATs if deemed required to support the proposal (and justify in the Staffing plan). Any additional LCATs would NOT have a corresponding Position ID (Column A), provided in the Gov't Staffing Estimate for Gov't assumed LCATs (by location). That Position ID seemingly has value in Gov't analysis of received proposals and the absence of a valid Position ID may cause review confusion when additional Submitter defined LCATs are in use. Recommend the Gov't provide direction for how to address the absence of a Gov't provided Position ID should an additional LCAT(s) be proposed.

Instructions will be added to the Instructions to Offerors to identify the additional position IDs as NEW01 proceeding numerically.

33 06 DEC Section L Instructions to Offers; page 13; paragraph 4.1.2 (sub-paragraph Contractor proposed staffing matrix)

Critical No instructions are provided for Column W (CLINs) in the Staffing Matrix template. It is assumed that each CLIN (from Table 6.3.1) applicable to a given Position ID (Column A) should be listed in Column W; CLINs separated by semi-colons where multiple CLINs are aligned to a single Position ID. Recommend the Gov't provide instructions for completing Column W.

Column W is not to be filled by the Offeror, the staffing matrix proposal stops at Option Year (OY)-09

Critical, Substantive, Admin

Comment Government Response

34 06 DEC Gov't Staffing Estimate (Attachment L- 3); LAAFB Procurement Funds

Critical When the government uses FY 20 through FY 29, you intend for the Offerors to use the FY 20 staffing estimate for the Base Period estimate? For example FY 20 would be the Base Period from Start date March 23, 2020 to March 22, 2021. Will the Gov please clarify POP for each period.

Acknowledged - Government will treat 365 days after ATP as base year, the next 365 days as Option year 1 and so on, staffing matrix will be updated to reflect the same timeline.

35 Critical A review of the BLS labor rates provided by the government in Table 6.6.3-1 has been completed and the BLS rates for the positions, years of experience, certs, and security clearances for qualified NSSL personnel are a fraction of salaries paid in the NSSL industry and when mapped to industry salary survey data. It is recommend the government remove or significantly increase the minimums in order to estimate realistic staffing for PSW requirements.

The table provides the minimums, the offeror is not restricted from proposing their realistic estimates

36 'General instructions page 16 line 519

Critical Will the government please clarify that a Man-Year Equivalent calculations for all positions should be based on a 2080 hour work year as defined in AFI 38-201.

Accepted - Updated

37 6 Dec 2019 Performance- Based_Work_Statement, para 3.3.8.10, line 865

Substantive Revise 3.3.8.10 as follows:

EITHER: add new sections:

3.3.7.15 The Contractor shall perform and coordinate verification and validation of items for the NE launch vehicle configurations for system, range, orbital safety, and launch site safety, and shall deliver the associated documentation, as directed by the Government. The Contractor shall support space safety investigation boards and single investigating officers for mishap investigations to determine root cause, findings and to create implementable recommendations before return to flight. The Contractor shall enter their observations, evaluation, analysis, and assessment recommendations in the report formats requested by the Government. If audits are required or otherwise directed, the Contractor shall draft and execute the audit plans. The Contractor shall conduct system safety reviews for launch service providers' indemnification requests.

3.3.8.10. The Contractor shall perform and coordinate verification and validation of items for the NE launch vehicle configurations for systems environmental engineering and shall deliver the associated documentation, as directed by the Government.

OR

Add 3.3.8.10. as a new paragraphs under 3.3.13.4 and 3.3.13.5.

Accepts. 3.3.8.10 has been moved to 3.3.14.4, which is a new paragraph number for "LSP/New Entrant Systems Safety Engineering" based off another CRM comment

38 6 Dec 2019 Performance- Based_Work_Statement, para 3.3.7, lines 740-745

Substantive The first paragraph under 3.3.7 should be in the previous section under Mission Integration Management, recommend renumbering as follows:

3.3.6.11 The Contractor shall collect, evaluate and document operational "Lessons Learned" from launch rehearsals and day of launch activities. The Contractor shall provide an out brief of lessons learned following each activity (e.g., hotwash, postflight review, etc.) and incorporate lessons learned into the next launch activity. Products include but are not limited to documented lessons learned and briefing materials (e.g. database, postflight review, etc.).

Reject. 3.3.6 and 3.3.7 arte funded by RDT&E and O&M funds respectively, and that is why they are separated by different paragraph numbers

39 6 Dec 2019 Performance- Based_Work_Statement, para 3.3.12.3 -3.3.12.38 lines 1121-1254

Substantive Recommend breaking out these sections into their own X.X sections of the PWS, for Quality Engineering and Manufacturing Engineering, this would provide consistency with the functional breakout in section 1.1 Scope (i.e.

Acknowledged - Formatting updated

40 6 Dec 2019 Performance- Based_Work_Statement, para 3.3.5.10-3.3.5.21 lines 649 - 680

Substantive These paragraphs refer to tasks for project engineering related to New Entrant certification, while 3.3.13.3 also contains requirements for project engineering for LSPs and New Entrants for certification. Please provide clarification for the duplication.

An opening paragraph explaining the section 3.3.13 requirements and how they differ from previous sections related to NE certification would be helpful.

Accepted - Duplications is removed

41 6 Dec 2019 Performance- Based_Work_Statement, para 3.5.1.11, lines 2140

Administrative This subsection is a part of 3.5, requirements for VAFB, but refers to 45 OG. Should it be corrected to 30 OG? Accepted . Corrected

Critical, Substantive, Admin

Comment Government Response

42 L-3 VAFB 30th SW Procurement Funds Tab, Row 10

Critical Will the Government please provide the ID and PWS Section for the Software Engineer III Labor Category listed on row 10?

Accepted. Updated

43 L-3 LAAF Procurement Funds Tab

Critical Is the Chief Engineer IV considered the Chief Engineer as described in the PWS Appendix E - Labor Category Requirements?

Acknowledged. Changed to Chief Engineer (deleted "IV")

44 L-3 LAAF Procurement Funds Tab Row 42

Critical Does the Government consider the Document Management Specialist on row 42 (supporting LEE 37) a level I or level II?

Acknowleged - Staffing matrix is updated

45 PWS and DD254 Critical DD254 defines hardware storage up to SECRET. We are uncertain what hardware might require storage. Are only documents up to the level of SECRET required to be stored and handled in the El Segundo area offsite office?

No, all classified documentation is handled and stored in government facilities.

46 PWS and DD254 Critical Will generation of SECRET, TS, or TS/SCI documents be performed in the offsite facility? If so, what will the IT requirements be? Also, DD254 does not mention SIPRNET access outside government facilities. Will that access be required in the offsite facility?

No, the Contractor's facility does not need to have a SCIF.

47 Section L, 5. Volume III - Past Performance, 5.1, General

Critical The first sentence in this section states, “Each Offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing no more than four (4) past performance contracts in accordance with the format contained in Attachments L-4, L-5, L-6, and L-7.”

Question 1: Are offerors allowed to recreate the form in our own format?

Question 2: Are offerors allowed to remove any instructional content from Attachment L-4 such as the instructions at the top, header (SECTION L ATTACHMENT L-4 PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION), or the NOTES in parenthesis?

Question 3: Are Offerors allowed to add our own company headers and footers to the form?

#1 and #2 Offerors should not modify the format with the exception of removing instructions or adding or removing lines.

#3 Offerors are authorized to place their proprietary headers and footers.

48 L-4 Past Performance Information, Section H;

Section M Evaluation Criteria, Section 2.3.

Critical Attachment L-4, Section H. states, “For each of the applicable sub-factors under the Technical factor in Section M (Section 2.3), illustrate how your experience on this program applies to that sub-factor.” Question: Would the Government please define “applicable subfactors”?

The Government has revised the language to specify subfactor 1.2.

49 Objective Performance Incentive Plan, Section 2.0, number 4

Critical Recommend revising section 2.0, number 4. language to read, "Ensure program and proprietary data is protected and security incidents are eliminated or properly mitigated to result in no degradation to SMC/ECL Mission Success, Mission Assurance and Assured Access to Space."

Reject. Government will keep the language as written in the plan

50 Objective Performance Incentive Plan, Section 7.1

Critical Recommend revising key personnel retention criteria as follows: "A. Zero (0) compromised information incidents that were not identified and reported to the Government within 24 hours of discovery by the SE&I-2 Contractor and not mitigated and resulted in either degradation of SMC/ECL mission assurance or actual damages to SMC/ECL – 100% of the potential performance incentive is available for 7.2 – 7.3 criteria.

B. One (1) compromised information incident that was not identified and reported to the Government within 24 hours of discovery by the SE&I-2 Contractor and not mitigated and resulted in either degradation of SMC/ECL mission assurance or actual damages to SMC/ECL – 80% of the potential performance incentive is available for 7.2

– 7.3 criteria C. Two (2) compromised information incident that were not identified and reported to the Government within 24 hours of discovery by the SE&I-2 Contractor and not mitigated and resulted in either degradation of SMC/ECL mission assurance or actual damages to SMC/ECL – 50% of the potential performance incentive is available for 7.2

– 7.3 criteria D. More than two (2) compromised information incident that were not identified and reported to the Government within 24 hours of discovery by the SE&I-2 Contractor and not mitigated and resulted in either degradation of SMC/ECL mission assurance or actual damages to SMC/ECL – 0% of the potential performance incentive is available for 7.2 – 7.3 criteria"

Reject. The Government emphasis is on avoiding compromised information incidents is very high. The criteria reflects the intent.

Critical, Substantive, Admin

Comment Government Response

51 Objective Performance Incentive Plan, Section 7.1

Critical Delete the following paragraph: "Per the SE& 2 PWS, Section 2, Applicable Documents, Compliance, the SE&I 2 Contractor shall comply with all security requirements as described in the DD Form 254. Any security violations will result in Corrective Action Report (CAR)."

Reject - DD254 compliance is of very high priority to the Government. The language reflects that intent.

52 Objective Performance Incentive Plan, Section 7.1

Critical Revise last paragraph of section 7.1 as follows: "If a compromised information incident occurs that was not identified and reported to the Government within 24 hours of discovery by the SE&I-2 Contractor and not mitigated and resulted in either degradation of SMC/ECL mission assurance or actual damages to SMC/ECL, the SE&I-2 Contractor can provide evidence that the incident is not due to SE&I-2 Contractor negligence, faulty processes, or other factors within the SE&I-2 Contractor’s control. The Government will consider the SE&I-2 Contractor’s written justification and determine if the .incident is or is not counted against the Performance Incentive criteria"

Reject. The Government emphasis is on avoiding compromised information incidents is very high. The criteria reflects the intent.

53 Objective Performance Incentive Plan, Section 7.2

Critical Revise Section 7.2, #2 - Key Personnel Retention criteria to read as follows: "Note. During the calculation for retention of key personnel, the following will be excluded and not counted against the Contractor’s retention rates:

1. Disability or death;

2. Key personnel changes communicated to the Government by the Contractor at least 14 calendar days in advance, and an equivalent (to the required labor category qualifications) replacement is provided 5 business days prior to the outgoing individual departing to allow for transition."

Reject. 14 days is not sufficient notice; 5 business day's is insufficient to transition key personnel.

54 Objective Performance Incentive Plan, Section 7.2

Critical Revise Section 7.2, last paragraph - Key Personnel Retention criteria to read as follows: "Note. During the calculation for retention of non-key personnel, disability or death, and timely replacements that are provided within less than 20 business days of attrition will not be counted against the Contractor’s performance"

Reject - Government has emphasis on key personnel retention, and reduce key personnel transition risks. The language is in alignment with Goivernment's intent

55 Objective Performance Incentive Plan, Section 7.3, number 1

Critical Revise Section 7.3, paragraph 1 - Validated formal complaints, to read as follows: "..... The PCO will have unilateral authority to determine if a Government complaint is valid. All Government complaints shall be reported to a COR by the Government representatives with minimum rank of O-5 or GS-14 equivalent. PCO determination of the validity of complaint will be final.

To determine whether a complaint is valid, the PCO will assess:

A. The veracity of the facts surrounding the complaint B. Whether the matter degraded mission effectiveness C. Whether the matter was relevant to the scope of the SE&I 2 contract D. Whether the complaining party may have had motives for filing the complaint other than mission effectiveness E. Whether the matter is of sufficient impact to warrant Government resource attention F. All mitigating factors

In the event where a complaint stems from a difference of opinion, conflict of personalities, immaterial matter, factors outside the control of the SE&I 2 Contractor, or any similar circumstances as determined by the PCO, such a complaint shall be deemed invalid. PCO determination of the validity of complaint will be final."

Reject. The Government has determined to develop a flexible validation process. The launguage reflects Government intent.

56 Objective Performance Incentive Plan, Section 7.3, number 2

Critical Revise second sentence of the #2 Innovative Solutions paragraph to read as follows: "The Government will require that the Contractor provide a list of all action(s) that they have accomplished during the period of performance that they perceived to be innovations within 2 weeks from the last day of each contract option year."

Reject. The incentive structure will be sufficient for the contractor to voluntarily provide the list of all their innovations with in the 2 weeks.

57 OPIP, Pg. 10, Sect. 7.1 Critical Recommend 1) Eliminate incentive fee from the contract - or - 2) Exempt from penalty information spills that are disclosed by an employee / contractor

Reject - The Government emphasis is on avoiding compromised information incidents is very high. The criteria reflects the intent.

58 OPIP, Pg. 10, Para 2, Para

Critical Recommend 1) Eliminate incentive fee from the contract - or - 2) Eliminate the personnel retention criteria and reallocate the fee to other criteria

Reject - The Government emphasis on staffing stability is very high. The criteria reflects the intent.

Critical, Substantive, Admin

Comment Government Response

59 Incentive Plan - General Substantive The incentive plan evaluation and fee payment is completed on an annual basis; there doesn't appear to be any provision for interim ratings (i.e. quarterly or semi-annually). In the answers to questions received on the 26 of Nov it mentioned "The Government has updated the PWS to require the contractor to present findings at the quarterly PMRs". We recommend that this also include interim ratings/evaluation to help us understand our overall performance/assessment WRT the incentive fee award (giving us an opportunity to improve/correct performance prior to the end of the 12 month evaluation period).

Reject. The Government has structured the entire contract administration plan around an annual assessment.

60 22Nov2019_Objective_Per formance_Incentive_Plan, Page 10, Paragraph 3

Substantive Will the Government permit Retirement as an exempted category regarding retention rate calculation for Key Personnel?

Reject. This is already covered within the planned employee development and rotations

61 Attachment 1 PWS, page 6, Section 3.2.2.4;

Attachment L3 Staffing Government Estimate;

Solicitation Section H, SMC-H001 Key Personnel

Critical I do not believe it is the Government's intention to prevent or reduce the chances of incumbent staff being hired to fill key positions on SE&I-2. Therefore, would the Government consider reducing the number of Key Personnel required to be listed in Section H and on staff by Day 1 following ATP per PWS Section 3.2.2.4 to only include the offeror's top 1-5 proposed leadership positions (e.g., Program/General Manager, Business Manager). All other positions currently listed in the Government's estimate as "key" would be changed to be "critical hires" who would need to be hired by Day 15 ATP.

Reject. The Government structed the requirement to have all the Key support contractors in place on the first day of performance in order to facilitate the intergration of the remaining support contractors over the transition period.

62 12c_L- 3_Staffing_Govt_Estimate _Final.xlsx

Substantive In the Attachment L-3 staffing estimates, was it the Government's intention to not staff the following PWS areas:

PWS 3.3.4; 3.3.10; 3.3.11; 3.5.1.1; 3.5.1.3; 3.5.1.4; 3.5.1.7; 3.5.1.8; 3.5.1.9; 3.5.1.10; 3.5.2.1 (except 3.5.2.1.a); and

3.5.2.2 (except 3.5.2.2.b)? Please clarify.

The requirements are mapped to level 3 PWS and sometimes Level 1 PWS when appropriate. All lower levels shall apply to higher level PWS areas. For example level 3 shall include 3.1, 3.12. 3.3. 3.4. 3.4.1, 3.4.2 and all other sub levels included with in section 3.

63 Revised Appendix E Labor Category Description, Table of Contents and

Critical The document Table of Contents (TOC) lists a "Project Integration Engineer III – Engineering Launch Support System" LCAT on page 26, but that title doesn't appear elsewhere in the document.

The Government will update all Table of Contents in the final RFP.

64 Revised Appendix E Labor Category Description

Critical In the Consolidated Industry Day Comments (page 12, row 5). the Government indicated it would provide a Labor Category for "Subject Matter Specialist II - Risk Management"; that labor category was not included in the revised Appendix E. Will the Government please clarify whether this labor category will be added?

This labor category will be added

65 Appendix E; page 1 Critical There is no clearance requirement listed for the Administrative Assistant. Will the Government please confirm this position does not require a clearance?

The Staffing Government Estimate will be updated to reflect a requirement for a Secret clearance for the Administrative Assistant.

66 Appendix E Critical Program Managers changed to Industrial Engineers and Industrial Production Managers Reject - The Government does not dictate on how the contractor shall manage their program management functions. The offerors can include their plan to manage the functions in the most optimal way. The government will evaluate each proposal

67 Appendix E Critical Systems Engineer III - Emerging Capabilities seems to have a very specific description, in multiple disciplines, but only asks for 5-8 years of experience, instead of the previous 10.

The years of experience will be updated to 10 years.

68 Appendix E Critical Systems Engineer III descriptions seem to have a very specific description, in multiple disciplines, but only asks for 5-8 years of experience, instead of the previous 10.

The years of experience will be updated to 10 years.

69 Appendix E Critical Reduced number of years required for Systems Engineering Manager III from 15 to 8…. Cutting it in half. The original experience requirement was incorrectly identified as 15 years.

The actual requirement is 10 years and Appendix E has been updated accordingly.

Critical, Substantive, Admin

Comment Government Response

70 PWS/Staffing Matrix Critical Recommend number of Key Personnel remain at current draft RFP levels (not reduced down to 10%) Reject - The key personnel required in Givernment estimate are minimum with out which the proposal will not be further evaluated. Each offeror can propose key personnel above and beyone government's minimum requirement

71 PWS/Staffing Matrix Critical Please clarify that the Gov’t’s response below to a previous industry day comment (comment #6 on page 13 of the Consolidated Industry Comment Responses) means that there is no minimum level or minimum labor category requirement for non-key personnel positions that are required in order to be awardable?

"Industry comment: Clarification: If offerors do not bid the minimum and Key Personnel with the minimum defined Labor Category Qualifications, does that make the offeror's bid unawardable

Government response: If a position is identified as Key, the offeror will not be evaluated further if the proposal has lower number of positions or does not meet at the minimum the qualifications and experience as required by the labor category. For non-key positions, the offeror has trade space to propose alternate plan."

Yes, for Key Personnel the minimum staffing, qualifications and education are needed. Minimum stated security clearance is required for all identified staffing.

72 L-3 Staffing Govt Estimate L-2 Staffing Matrix

Critical The government cited several responses to indicate that the government is procuring services and not specific personnel. As such, no resumes or proof are required wrt transition and execution staffing. With staffing being a significant source selection criteria, we are seriously concerned that the government approach provides the government no basis of proof or reality of staffing planning in the Source Selection strategy. This could result in contractors "gaming" their approach to score well in Factor 1; SF 1.1 and then absorbing any impact in execution. A hit in one year’s incentive fee is easily justified by a company who wants to “buy into” a ten year contract opportunity. The result would be a significant impact in mission execution risk based on SE&I performance. The relatively light and reactive impact of incentive fee does not adequately nor proactively provide a mitigation to a high likelihood/high impact mission risk.

We believe that the importance of Factor 1; SF 1.1 is appropriate and we highly recommend the government reconsider the acquisition strategy to require some form of evidence of staffing maturity and execution risk. Proof could include VP signed verification of numbers of existing employees/contingent or new personnel, inclusion of maturity evidence in the staffing matrix, supported by required resumes for key personnel, and provision of supporting information for any commitment of the remaining staffing.

If the government is concerned about inclusion of named resumes and supporting documentation of proof of commitment, this information could be provided directly to the PCO as sealed information and separated from the technical evaluation. This strategy enables evaluation of transition risk and subsequent staffing execution.

Reject. The Government is evaluating Past Performance and will include contractor's ability to staff and retain personnel. The skill set that is proposed will need to be met during contract execution or cure notices may be issued.

73 PWS Appendix E Labor Category Description

Critical Revised document indicates "10 Developmental Positions" are allowed. Historically, SMC requires that all personnel working on SE&I contracts require a minimum of a Secret clearance to perform their tasks at SMC. The model contract does not specify any minimum. We assume that the Staffing Govt Estimate (L-3) is used to define minimum clearances by position. If that is the case, what clearance requirements are applied to these developmental positions, as most personnel with no experience do not have a security clearance. Please clarify the requirements for these positions, and the intent for these personnel on the ECL SE&I-2.

The Developmental Position only impacts the experience level required for performance. All other requirements still apply, specifically the security requirements and education requirements.

74 PWS Appendix E Labor Category Description

Critical Security clearance requirements in the Labor Categories Descriptions are sometimes inconsistent with "12c_L- 3_Staffing_Govt_Estimate". Recommend clearance levels are tied to the individual positions in "12c_L- 3_Staffing_Govt_Estimate" only and are removed from the Labor Category Description to avoid inconsistency.

Accept

Critical, Substantive, Admin

Comment Government Response

75 12c_L-3 Staffing Govt Estimate

Critical The Staffing Govt estimate (L-3) includes multiple FTE by position category. It is unclear if the minimum security clearance applies to all FTE cited in rows containing more than 1 FTE. We recommend separating rows by position category to clearly indicate which positions by labor category require the same clearance levels

The minimum security clearance applies to all FTE cited in the rows. Staffing matrix is updated to reflect clarity in security clearances.

76 PWS Appendix E Labor Category Description

Critical Recommend the Gov't ensure minimum education entries in Appendix E indicate a singular clear "minimum" degree level and field. Please clarify one specific degree and field and not a range - for example, the current documents states, "Master/Professional/Engineering Degree" instead of a singular minimum requirement. We recommend simple clear statements such as, "A Master's Degree in STEM" or "any Bachelor's degree".

Accept

77 PWS Appendix E Labor Category Description

Substantive Please provide the revised "12c_L-3_Staffing_Govt_Estimate" that adjusts labor categories based on adjustments/deletions in the 22 Nov updated documents.

Deleted: Project Integration Engineer III - Engineering Launch Support System; Training Specialist III – Range;

Duplicate: Project Integration Engineer III

Accept

78 PWS Appendix E Labor Category Description

Substantive Labor categories for "Systems Engineer IV" and "Systems Engineer V" have the same education/experience requirements. Please clarify if that is correct.

The Government will update this inconsistancy

79 PWS Appendix E Labor Category Description

Substantive Labor category for "Project Integration Manager III" lists conflicting minimum clearance requirements. Please clarify.

The Government will update this inconsistancy

80 PWS Appendix E_ Labor Category Description_Pg 4_Paragraph 1.0

Critical Relevant areas of experience for all technical positions requiring Launch expertise align with the Section M Past Performance criteria. Will experience in any of the 3 areas listed be treated equally or will the experience be prioritized the same as the Past Performance criteria? If they are prioritized, will the prioritization scheme be used in the Objective Performance Incentive Plan?

There is no prioritization at each position level. A holistic evaluation of the staffing matrix will be accomplished.

81 PWS Appendix E_ Labor Category Description_Pg 4_Paragraph 1.0

Admin Two of the Project Integration Manager LCATs use the name "Project/Integration Manager" and one uses the name "Project Integration Manager". Could the Government use "Project Integration Manager" for consistency?

The PWS Appendix E and Staffing Government Estimate has been updated to reflect the positions as "Project Integration Manager" for consistency.

SAIC CRM for ECL SE&I-2, Dec 2