13Jan2020_09_FA8811-20-R-0003_SEI-2_CRM.pdf

Comment# Document Name, Page #, and Paragraph #

Critical, Substantive, Admin

Comment Rationale A = Accepts R = Rejects

M = Modification PO Response

1 Attachment L‐3, Government Staffing Estimate, “CCAFS 45th

SW O&M Funds” Tab

Critical 45 OG 4 & 45 OG 5, Project Integration Engineer III‐ Engineering Launch Support System appears to remain 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.).

This comment previously provided. In government 12Dec2019 Consolidated CRM response this comment was adjudicated with the Government Response "Acknowledged ‐ PWS reference paragraph updated." Referenced PWS paragraph was never updated.

N/A All of 45 OG support falls into two sections 3.4.1 for procurement funding, and 3.4.2 for O&M funding. SV integration management falls under 3.4.2 (3.4.2.4) which is the referenced PWS paragraph for position ID 45 OG 4 and 45 OG 5.

2 Attachment L‐3, Government Staffing Estimate, “CCAFS 45th

SW O&M Funds” Tab

Critical Will the Government please confirm it intends to fund PWS 3.7, “New Entrant work” with O&M funds?

New Entrant Certification work typically is not funded with O&M funds by the Airforce and may be a violation of funding guidelines

A PWS 3.7 reference has been assigned to RDT&E Funds.

3 Gov't Staffing Estimate Critical Position ID "LEE 3" is used twice (LAAFB Procurement Tab, Rows 13 and 14) without any obvious distinction between the two spreadsheet rows (unlike other duplicate Position ID uses that have differences in their "Minimum Staffing Level" detail which indicate unique requirements. Please confirm the two LEE 3 entries are correct (and duplicative ‐ total of 2 FTE across the PoP) or correct if one LEE 3 is intended to be designated as a Minimum Staffing Level position.

The inconsistent, duplicate Position ID entries is confusing. A One of the two rows is supposed to be minimum staffing. Row 13 has now been changed to reflect this.

4 12Dec2019_16_L‐ 3_Staffing_Govt_Estimate

Critical Missing staffing estimates for LEF Section 3.3.10 Quality and Production

Discrepancy may have been created by changes and document reformatting.

N/A The Offeror may assign PWS sections to any position if they perceive it as optimal solution

5 12Dec2019_16_L‐ 3_Staffing_Govt_Estimate

Critical Missing staffing estimates for LEF Section 3.3.13 Manufacturing Engineering

Discrepancy may have been created by changes and document reformatting.

R The Offeror may assign PWS sections to any position if they perceive it as optimal solution

6 12Dec2019_16_L‐ 3_Staffing_Govt_Estimate

Critical Missing staffing estimates for LEF Section 3.3.14 Quality Engineering

Discrepancy may have been created by changes and document reformatting.

R The Offeror may assign PWS sections to any position if they perceive it as optimal solution

7 12Dec2019_16_L‐ 3_Staffing_Govt_Estimate

Critical Missing staffing estimates for LEF Section 3.3.15.7 LSP/New Entrant Quality and Production

Missing phase‐out strategy that encompasses Reuse and Refurbish requirements.

R The Offeror may assign PWS sections to any position if they perceive it as optimal solution

8 12Dec2019_16_L‐ 3_Staffing_Govt_Estimate

Critical Missing staffing estimates for LEA Section 3.3.13 Manufacturing Engineering

Discrepancy may have been created by changes and document reformatting.

R The Offeror may assign PWS sections to any position if they perceive it as optimal solution

9 12Dec2019_16_L‐ 3_Staffing_Govt_Estimate

Critical Missing staffing estimates for LEA Section 3.3.14 Quality Engineering

Discrepancy may have been created by changes and document reformatting.

R The Offeror may assign PWS sections to any position if they perceive it as optimal solution

10 12Dec2019_16_L‐ 3_Staffing_Govt_Estimate

Critical Missing staffing estimates for LEA Section 3.3.15.7 LSP/New Entrant Quality and Production

Discrepancy may have been created by changes and document reformatting.

R The Offeror may assign PWS sections to any position if they perceive it as optimal solution

11 12Dec2019_16_L‐ 3_Staffing_Govt_Estimate

Critical Missing staffing estimates for LEF Section 3.3.15 There will still be NRDV work to complete for reuse/refurbishment R The Offeror may assign PWS sections to any position if they perceive it as optimal solution

12 PWS Critical There is a listing for "Document Management Specialist" in L‐ 3, but no labor category description for Document Management Specialist in Appendix E.

A The PWS amendment will include a labor category description for the Document Management Specialist

II.

Additionally, the L‐3 Staffing Govt Estimate has been updated to show the Document Management Specialist II position under the LA AFB Procurement Funds tab.

13 PWS Appendix E (Labor Category Requirements), unnumbered page 121

Critical The Gov't Staffing Estimate includes an LCAT (three instances) for "Subject Matter Specialist II ‐ Safety". That LCAT's defining requirements are NOT provided in Appendix E to the PWS. Recommend the Gov't define the LCAT requirements.

Proposing non‐name position fills and properly pricing them without defined minimum requirements presents submitter issues/Gov't acceptance that would be resolved with an LCAT definition update.

A A labor category description for Subject Matter Specialist II ‐ Safety position was added to the PWS and will be published with the RFP Amendment 0001.

Critical, Substantive, Admin

Comment Rationale A = Accepts R = Rejects

M = Modification PO Response

14 PWS Appendix E (Labor Category Requirements), unnumbered page 121

Critical The Gov't Staffing Estimate (Position ID 45 OG 8) includes an LCAT for "Project Integration Engineer II ‐ Launch Site Engineering". That LCAT's defining requirements are NOT provided in Appendix E to the PWS, though there is a defined LCAT for "Project Integration Engineer I ‐ Launch Site", which may or may not be different LCATs in the Gov'ts estimation.

Recommend the Gov't either define a separate "Project Integration Engineer II ‐ Launch Site Engineering" LCAT, or correct the Gov't Staffing Estimate for 45 OG 8 LCAT to reflect "Project Integration Engineer II ‐ Launch Site" if that is the intent.

Proposing non‐name position fills and properly pricing them without defined minimum requirements presents submitter issues/Gov't acceptance that would be resolved with an LCAT definition update.

A The word "engineering" has been removed from the referenced position in the staffing government estimate.

15 PWS Appendix E (Labor Category Requirements), unnumbered page 121

Critical The Gov't Staffing Estimate includes an LCAT for "Document Management Specialist" within the LAAFB Procurement Tab.

The Appendix E LCAT definition set includes a "Document Management Specialist I". It is assumed that the two titles are the same. However, the position could be a "Document Management Specialist II", also defined within Appendix E.

Recommend the Gov't clarify the LCAT titles used in the two documents.

Proposing non‐name position fills and properly pricing them without defined minimum requirements presents submitter issues/Gov't acceptance that would be resolved with an LCAT definition update.

A A labor category description for the Document Management Specialist II position was added to the PWS and will be published with the RFP Amendment 0001.

16 Att 1 PWS, Page 23 Para 3.3.7 Critical It appears this text should be added as new section 3.3.6.11 in the Mission Integration Management Section and is not part of 3.3.7 Systems Safety Engineering.

Proper alignment of tasks R The PWS is written to reflect the Government's requirements and paragraph 3.3.7 is intended to be within System Safety Engineering.

17 Section L, Page 13, para 4.1.2, lines 466‐473

Critical The instructions for completing the Contractor Proposed Staffing Matrix are seemingly incomplete. The provided Column H and I instructions do not seemingly allow for entries associated with proposed positions that are not intended for fill in the Base Year. For example, the following Govt Staffing Estimate provided LCATs: LEA 3, LEA 4, and LEA 5, among others, are not expected to start support until an Option Year following the Base Year and therefore should NOT be filled from Day 1 ATP (Column H) or within the first 30 days ATP (Column I). Request the Govt clarify instructions for Column H and I to support such "follow on" proposed fill positions.

Submission compliance with existing Column H and I instructions is confusing for a non‐Base Year position.

A ITO has been changed to state "Position IDs that do not start in the initial base period should be identified as "N/A" within Column H."

18 Section L, Page 38, para 8.3.1 Critical This section states the SF33 should be provided under separate cover. Will the Government please confirm the signed original SF33 should be submitted as part of Volume VI Contract Documentation?

Compliance with Instructions N/A The signed SF 33 should be submitted within Volume VI Contract Document.

Critical, Substantive, Admin

Comment Rationale A = Accepts R = Rejects

M = Modification PO Response

19 Section L, page 11, para 4.1.2;

PWS Appendix E; and PWS, unnumbered page 7, para 3.1.2

Critical The final LCAT labor categories provided in PWS Appendix E contain respective minimum education requirements for a given LCAT without offering the Submitter the option of justified substitution of accumulated program relevant experience for the absence of a required academic degree.

Additionally, PWS para 3.1.2 requires the Contractor proposed staffing position fills to "meet all qualifications, experience, and certifications (or equivalency)" without providing any equivalency guidance. The Gov't is requested to modify PWS para 3.1.2 and Section L, para 4.1.2 to allow appropriate justified substitution of relevant work experience in lieu of formal academic degree. For example:

permitting 6 years' relevant work experience may substitute for a missing Bachelor's Degree; a Bachelor's Degree and 4 years relevant work experience may substitute for a required Master's Degree, etc. ‐ an experience substitution option frequently permitted in other RFPs.

A sizeable pool of an extremely capable and SMC/ECL experienced workforce (from all potential Submitters) is apparently disqualified for positions that they are absolutely qualified to fill ‐ an experience loss that may prove impacting to the success of the LE SE&I 2 effort.

Allowing the Submitter to individually justify respective experience for the absence of a formal education requirement will permit highly experienced and otherwise qualified work force members to support the program.

R The government estimate provides the education and qualifications estimated to be necessary for successful performance on this contract. Additionally, with the exception of key personnel, the offeror can propose optimal solution including proposing additional LCATs above and beyond the government provided LCATs.

20 Section L, Pages 9 and 11, Para

2.2.4 and 4.1.1

Critical Section 2.2.4 requires a cover sheet in each volume; section

4.4.1 does not have the cover sheet listed. Will the Government please confirm that each volume shall contain a cover sheet that identifies the volume number, copy number, solicitation ID and offeror's name?

Allows offerors to submit a compliant proposal N/A Section 2.2.4 Binding and Labeling provides instructions for all volumes and is in addition to individual volume instructions.

21 Section L ‐ Att 12, Pages 8 and 15, Table 1 and Para 4.1.3

Critical Table 1 indicates the title of sub‐factor 1.2, Element 4 is "Quality and Risk Assessment." Section 4.1.3 states the title of Element 4 is "Quality Management System (QMS) and Risk Management." Will the Government please provide the correct Element title?

Allows offerors to submit a compliant proposal A The correct Element title is Quality and Risk Assessment and will be updated in the RFP Amendment 0001.

22 Section L ‐ Att 12, Pages 7 and 9, Para 2.2 and 2.3

Critical Section 2.2 states all proposal volumes will be on a single DVD; Section 2.3 states that each volume will be on a separate DVD. Will the Government please clarify the electronic submittal requirements?

Allows offerors to submit a compliant proposal A Section L has been updated to state that all volumes may be on a single DVD

23 Section L ‐ Att 12, Page 10, Para 2.3

Critical This section states that the offeror "shall not submit any documents in PDF format that are copied as "images". To allow offerors to meet this requirement, will the Government please provide all solicitation documents as word files?

Allows offerors to submit a compliant proposal R The Government will not be providing word documents. The solicitation has been modified to state that all proposal documents shall be searchable.

24 Section L ‐ Att 12, Page 10, Para 3

Critical This section states the title of Volume I as "Executive Summary and Cross‐Reference Matrix." The instructions do not include a requirement for a cross‐reference matrix, only for a proposal "master table of contents". Will the Government please confirm the master table of contents serves as the cross‐reference matrix? If a cross‐reference matrix is required, will the Government please confirm it is excluded from the page count?

Allows offerors to submit a compliant proposal A The Government has deleted all references to the cross reference matrix and master table of contents.

The Government does not require either for proposal.

Critical, Substantive, Admin

Comment Rationale A = Accepts R = Rejects

M = Modification PO Response

25 Section L, Page 10, Para 3.2 Critical This section requires an "organization chart of the proposed team . . .' Will the Government please confirm that (i) offerors are to identify all teaming arrangements (e.g., subcontractors) and not just their key personnel, (ii) that all explanatory text (re participating divisions) is excluded from the 5‐page limit, and (iii) that offerors can submit multiple organization charts?

A i) The language has been changed to the following:

“The Executive Summary shall also include an Organization chart of the proposed team (Offeror, major subcontractors, joint venture partners, and teaming arrangements) showing all key personnel positions only and a list of participating divisions and locations.”

ii) Table 1 section 2.2 specifies that the organization chart is not included in the 5 page limit

iii) The offeror should submit one organization chart.

26 Model Contract, Section B Critical Within the Travel CLINs included in the B‐Tables, the Government states the following: No profit, fee or indirect costs are associated with this CLIN. Given that these CLINs are established as Cost Reimbursable based, both direct cost associated with travel and indirect costs (e.g. G&A) should be allowable per FAR Part 31. There are true costs associated with the processing of employee travel expense reimbursements (e.g. employee payable personnel compensation and accounting system software maintenance). As such, we respectfully request that the Government allow recovery of these indirect costs in contract performance, by allowing the successful awardee to apply reasonable and allocable indirect cost consistent with their DCMA approved accounting system disclosure statement when invoicing Travel costs.

Equitably allows the contract awardee to be reimbursed for supporting business/finance administration cost incurred in support of contract execution (e.g. processing of employee expense reports) that are allowable indirect cost per FAR Part 31.

N/A For this contract, these indirect costs are not allowed to be billable to the Travel CLINs. If during the execution of the contract the Offeror incurs indirect costs in relation to travel, they could be billed to the labor CLINs (per JTR).

27 Att L‐4 Past Performance Information

Critical The Note to Section A of this form states: If the company or division performing this effort is different than the offeror or the relevance of this effort to the instant acquisition is impacted by any company/corporate organizational change, note those changes. Refer to the "Organizational Structure Change History" you provided as part of your Past Performance Volume". Section L does not require this as part of Volume III. Will the Government please confirm offerors are not required to include an Organizational Structure Change History in Volume III?

Impacts compliance and page count. L‐4 Note to Section A, the last sentence of the referenced parenthetical has been deleted

28 Att L‐4 Past Performance Information

Critical Section H of this form states 'For sub‐factor 1.2 in Section M, illustrate how your experience on this program applies to that sub‐factor." It is the followed by "Staffing Approach." In Section M, sub‐factor 1.2 is Launch Experience, and Staffing Approach is sub‐factor 1.1. Will the Government please confirm offerors are to address both Staffing Approach and Launch Experience in response to Section H?

Allows offerors to submit a compliant proposal N/A Section H requires details on technical expertise.

Section I requires FTE.

Critical, Substantive, Admin

Comment Rationale A = Accepts R = Rejects

M = Modification PO Response

29 12Dec2019_16_L‐ 3_Staffing_Govt_Estimate

Substantive A labor category description is not provided for Subject Matter Specialist II ‐ Safety

Missing information A A labor category description for the Subject Matter Specialist II ‐ Safety has been added to the PWS and will be posted with the RFP Amendment.

30 12Dec2019_16_L‐ 3_Staffing_Govt_Estimate

12Dec2019_13_Section L Instructions to Offerors, Pages

28‐32, Table 6.6.3.1

12Dec2019_03_Performance‐ Based_Work_Statement, Appendix E

Substantive A number of labor category names do not match between the referenced documents:

‐ Chief Engineer vs Chief Engineer IV

‐ "Document Management Specialist" vs "Document Management Specialist I"

‐ Network Administrator vs Network Administrator I

‐ Systems Engineer II ‐ Tech Partnerships/Implementation & Transition vs Systems Engineer II ‐ Tech Partnerships

‐ Project Integration Engineer II – Launch Site vs Project Integration Engineer II – Launch Site Engineering

‐ Systems Engineer III ‐ Prop/Stage Prop/Structures/Avionics vs Systems Engineer III ‐ Propulsion/Stage Prop/Structures/Avionics

Please clarify

Clarification of labor category names A The PWS, Section L, and Staffing Government Estimate have been updated as follows:

‐ Chief Engineer is the correct reference ‐ Document Management Specialist II has been added to the PWS ‐ Network Administrator I has been added to Section L table 6.6.3.1 ‐ Systems Engineer II ‐ Tech Partnerships/Implementation and Transition is the correct reference ‐ Project Integration Engineer II ‐ Launch Site is the correct reference ‐ Systems Engineer III ‐ Propulsion/Stage Prop/Structures/Avionics is the correct reference

31 12Dec2019_16_L‐ 3_Staffing_Govt_Estimate

Substantive Will the Government please identify in the Government provided staffing estimate those positions, labor categories, and FTE that execute new entrant certification outlined in

PWS 3.3.15?

Clarification of the Government providing staffing estimate. N/A This PWS section is reserved for future needs and does not have any FTE currently assigned within the Staffing Government Estimate.

32 12Dec2019_16_L‐ 3_Staffing_Govt_Estimate

Substantive Task IDs LEA3 through LEA7 reference PWS section 3.3.13 ‐ Manufacturing Engineering. In the previous version of the staffing estimate these tasks referenced the PWS section for New Entrant Certification. Please clarify.

Clarification of the Government providing staffing estimate. N/A This is not new entrant work. This is program engineering with focus on manufacturing engineering for current requirements under PWS 3.3.13

33 12Dec2019_13_Section L Instructions to Offerors, Pages

28‐32, Table 6.6.3.1

Substantive Program Integration Manager III and Subject Matter Specialist II ‐ Safety do not include minimum rates for LAAFB.

Please clarify.

Clarification of Government provided minimum rates. A The table has been updated to reflect LAAFB rates.

34 12Dec2019_13_Section L Instructions to Offerors, Pages

28‐32,Table 6.6.3.1

Substantive Subject Matter Specialist II ‐ Risk Management does not include a minimum rate for VAFB. Please clarify.

Clarification of Government provided minimum rates. A The table has been updated to reflect VAFB rates.

35 Section L ‐ Att 12, Page 16, Para 5.1

Substantive This section states 'Offerors must demonstrate positive control over business units that performed on such submitted contracts." Will the Government please clarify this requirement? The PPI form does not appear to seek this information.

Allows offerors to submit a compliant proposal M This sentence has been removed.

36 Section L ‐ Att 12, Page 37, Para 8.1.2

Substantive Will the Government please confirm that subcontractors are allowed to provide their Professional Compensation Plans directly to the Government as they may contain proprietary information?

Allows subcontractors to maintain confidentiality on compensation matters

N/A Subcontractors, teaming partners, joint venture partners who will be providing a meaningful number of total professional employees shall submit their total compensation plan directly to the PCO.

37 12DEC2019_13_Section_L Instructions to Offerors, page 19, 6.2.1 Time‐Phased, Person‐

Loading Graph

Substantive The instructions for the Time‐Phased, Person‐Loading Graph states that any non‐prime with at least 20% of the proposed total effort (ex hours), the next line says 'All subcontractors below 20% of total proposed dollars. Please confirm it is 20% of total hours.

Clarification will enable the best proposal response. N/A The effort on a contract is measured based on dollar value.

Critical, Substantive, Admin

Comment Rationale A = Accepts R = Rejects

M = Modification PO Response

38 Section L, SECTION 2.3, Pages 9 ‐ 10, Substantive This section states that “The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format that can be read and edited by MS Office 2013…and/or Adobe Acrobat. The Offeror shall not submit any documents in PDF format that are copied as "images."

To allow offerors to meet this requirement, will the Government please provide all solicitation documents as word files?

There are several required documents that Offerors will need to scan prior to inserting into their proposal submissions, rendering the documents readable but uneditable. At a minimum, these include fully executed (signed) documents, such as Letters of Intent and Teaming agreements, and other required contractual documents (Conformed Model Contract, Sections A through K, and the SF 33). Can the Government please confirm that supporting documentation such as the examples provided above can be provided as PDF “images” within an Offeror’s MS Word file submission?

R The Government will not be providing word documents. The solicitation has been modified to state that all proposal documents shall be searchable.

39 12DEC2019_13_Section_L Instructions to Offerors, page

19, 6.3.1

Substantive Will the Government please confirm the Option to Extend Services CLINs shall be estimated by calculating 50% of the Option Year 9 values?

Clarification will enable the best proposal response. N/A The Offeror should price the 6 month Extension CLINs just as any other CLIN. For some Offerors, the same rates and skill mix might exist for Option Year 9 and the Extension period, but for others they might propose a different skill mix or rates.

40 12Dec2019_13_Section L Instructions to Offerors, Pages 35&36, Para 7 ‐ 7.2 and Pages

39&40, Paras 8.3.3.3 and 8.3.3.12

Substantive Currently offerors are requested to submit the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, Small Business Participation Commitment Document, and Attachment L‐1 Small Business Percentage Calculation in Volume V Small Business Participation and Volume VI Contract Documentation.

Is it the Government’s intent to have offerors submit these items in both Volumes or only in Volume V Small Business Participation?

Clarification of document submissions N/A The Government is aware of the duplication and still requires both submissions.

41 Attachment 12, Section L, page 9, para 2.2.7, Substantive Will the Government please confirm the staffing matrix can be printed on 11x17 paper?

The required information to be contained within the Staffing Matrix will likely present a review challenge in an 8.5 x 11 inch format and making each page an 11 x 17 "fold out" presents its own challenges.

Recommend permitting the Staffing Matrix in a 11 x 17 inch binder.

N/A Per Section L, paragraph 2.2.7, bidder's are allowed to submit excel files no larger than 11 x 17.

42 Model Contract, Section B Substantive Within the Model Contract the ODC and DATA NSP CLINS are using an April Start date as opposed to the August start date.

Will the government update the CLINs to all have matching August start dates?

Clarification will enable the best proposal response. A Model contract has been updated to reflect the August start dates.

43 Attachment L‐2 Small Business Percentage

Substantive Therefore, it appears to us that, based on the preponderance of the language in Section L, Attachment L‐1, and Section M, that Small Business Participation should be calculated on Prime Total Labor CLIN price, and not Total Contract Value. Please confirm or assist us in understanding the basis for the Small Business requirement.

Clarification A Attachment L‐2 Small Business Percentage has been updated to be consistent with other referenced solicitation documents.

44 12Dec2019_16_L‐ 3_Staffing_Govt_Estimate

Rows 4 through 8

Administrative PWS Section 3.3.13 should be 3.3.15 Discrepancy may have been created by changes and document reformatting.

N/A This is not new entrant work. This is program engineering with focus on manufacturing engineering for current requirements under PWS 3.3.13

45 12Dec2019_16_L‐ 3_Staffing_Govt_Estimate

Row 52

Administrative PWS Section 3.3.14 should be 3.3.16 Discrepancy may have been created by changes and document reformatting.

M 3.3.16 has been added to the staffing matrix.

46 Gov't Staffing Estimate, CCAFS 45th O&M Funds tab, row 5

Administrative The Position ID for row 5 is labeled "44 OG 4". It is assumed that it should be "45 OG 4" to be consistent with the rest of the Position IDs on that spreadsheet tab. Recommend the Gov't correct the typo if the Gov't Staffing Estimate is re‐ issued.

Correctness A Row 5 will be corrected in the RFP Amendment 0001.

Critical, Substantive, Admin

Comment Rationale A = Accepts R = Rejects

M = Modification PO Response

47 PWS Appendix E (Labor Category Requirements), unnumbered page 121, AND Gov't Staffing Estimate

Administrative The LCAT titles used between PWS Appendix E and Gov't Staffing Matrix frequently do NOT exactly match (e.g.

different abbreviations used (e.g. PROP vice PROPULSION), extra "blank spaces", different hyphen use, etc.) The administrative "non‐matches" seem intuitive, but the Gov't should consider reissuing both subject documents and ensuring the LCAT cross‐references exactly match.

The LCAT mis‐matches places a burden on the Submitter to interpret and correct apparent administrative errors for correct LCAT analysis and potentially places a burden on the Gov't's post submission analysis in resolving/accepting Submitter administrative interpretations in the submitted Staffing Approach and supporting Staffing Matrix.

M The RFP documents have been updated for consistency, if there was an ambiguity.

48 12Dec2019_13_Section L Instructions to Offerors, Pages

28‐32, Table 6.6.3.1

Administrative Project Integration Manager II is listed twice A Duplication has been removed in RFP Amendment 0001.

49 12Dec2019_13_Section L Instructions to Offerors, Page 9, Section 2.2.7, 2nd Paragraph

12Dec2019_14_L‐1_Small Business_Percentage.xlsx

12Dec2019_15_L‐2 Contractor Staffing Plan and Matrix.xlsx

Administrative Instructions are not clear as to font size allowed on Excel Spreadsheets. Spreadsheets are included in the 11x17 guidance, but in the same paragraph, the Excel Spreadsheets are not included in the list of instances where 8 point font is allowed.

Will the Government include Excel Spreadsheets as items permitted to use 8 point font Arial or Times New Roman.

Most of the data in the Excel Spreadsheets is presented in table format and the smaller font will allow greater flexibility in formatting logical page breaks, cell sizes, and reduces the number of pages produced. The spreadsheets are also either exempted from page count or are included in volumes that are not page limited, so there is no intent to obtain an advantage in page count/limits.

M The Government has updated the ITO to indicate that all proposal documents shall be at a minimum of 11 point font.

50 12DEC2019_13_Section_L Instructions to Offerors, page

19, 6.4

Administrative Will the Government please consider removing the requirement to print the Cost Element Summaries for CPFF CLINs with the printed cost/price volume, and have them submitted as electronic only in excel? The printed page volume will likely be hundreds of pages.

Ease of readability for reviewers of the excel printed cost/price volume. This type of data is more conducive to being reviewed in its native file format as a spreadsheet.

R The Government requires one hard copy delivered as part of the offeror's proposal, referenced section L updated to reflect this.

51 12DEC2019_13_Section_L Instructions to Offerors, page

19, 6.4

Administrative If the Government does not want to remove the print requirement for the Cost element summaries for CPFF CLINs, will the Government accept a printed version of the Cost Element summaries that do not require a breakout to the labor category level (Per table 6.4.2) and only requires total values by cost element? (i.e., total direct labor dollars, total fringe, total subcontract dollars, etc...)

Ease of readability for reviewers of the excel printed cost/price volume.

R The Government requires one hard copy delivered as part of the offeror's proposal, referenced section L updated to reflect this.

52 Information Request Substantive Will the Government please provide the responsibilities of the 4‐letter organizations within LEE, LEA, LEF, LEG, LEM?

Clarification of requirements and taskings N/A Due to the evolving nature of the referenced four letter organizations, the responsibilities of the four‐ letter organizations are not value added. The PWS captures all contractor responsibilities regardless of the sub‐organizations that they support within the Space Force Launch Enterprise.