Consolidated SAFS-2.1 CRM Responses (Final for Release - 16 Apr 2024).pdf

ID # Source Document

Type A/S/C

Page

Para / Section #

Comment For any proposed changes include WAS/IS text.

If you need clarification or have a question, please contact the document author; do not pose questions as comments.

Rationale Provide concise, objective explanation of the rationale for the comment. Include requirement justification (e.g. "This requirement needed to meet SPRD360").

Gov't Decision

A/R/M Suggested Response

Exhibit A - Contract Data Requirements

List

C N/A N/A Exhibit A - Contract Data Requirements List was posted to SAM.gov on 14 Mar 2024 as a controlled document that cannot be downloaded.

How can we get access to this document.

Need access to document posted.

N/A Please send an e-mail directly to the PCO, Mr Kevin Hobbs, at kevin.hobbs.3@spaceforce.mil identifying your company POC and e-mail address requesting a copy of Exhibit A, and the PCO will e-mail a copy to your company POC. At this time, the Government is not seeking any feedback from industry on this document which will be released as part of the final FOPR.

Attachment 4- 7 Cost-Price

Matrix

C Attachment 4-7 Cost-

Price Matrix

Attachment 4-7 Cost-

Price Matrix

Cost-Price Matrix does not include line item for Contract Access Fee (CAF). Recommend Cost-Price Matrix be modified to CLIN for CAF

Current Cost-Price Matrix does not include CAF in the projected totals.

A The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 4-7 - Cost Pricing Matrix.

The Government is incorporating a more streamlined Cost-Price Matrix that does include a CLIN for Contractor Access Fee (CAF) that will be updated via pre-established formula.

Attachment 4- 7 Cost-Price Matrix and

Attachment 1 - Model Task Order (Draft Posted 4-4-

2024)

C Attachment 4-7 Cost-

Price Matrix and

Attachment 1 - Model

Task Order (Draft

Posted 4-4- 2024)

Summary Proposal pricing AT 1

Attachment 4-7 Cost-Price Matrix includes a tab to price AT 1 Option 1 contract year 5; there is not corresponding CLIN in Attachment 1 - Model Task Order (Draft Posted 4-4-2024), Section B - Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs. Recommend removal of pricing tab for AT 1 Option 1 contract year 5 or add same to Section B - Supplies or Services& Prices or Costs.

Disconnect between Cost-Price matrix and Model Task Order Section B

A The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 4-7 - Cost Pricing Matrix

The Government is incorporating a more streamlined Cost-Price Matrix that is consistent with Section B of the Model Task Order.

Attachment 1 - Model Task

Order

C 3 of 27 Section B Labor CLINs are identified at Firm Fixed Price. We cannot find specific workload metrics in the Draft RFP that would enable us to propose a firm fixed price. PWS Paragraph 1.4 defines work scope in terms of tasks that the contractor is to perform and the locations at which this performance takes place. However, there is no indication of the volume of activity for any of the tasks within work scope. We recommend the government provide specific information on anticipated workload volume.

Information on anticipated workload volume for each required task is necessary for us to provide an accurate estimate of labor and other resources necessary to execute contract requirements.

For example, PWS paragraph 3.2 requires the contractor to "provide support for the development, maintenance, and updating of cost estimates for Major Defense Acquisition Programs . . ." Our staffing estimate is likely to be different if the requirement is to provide monthly cost estimate updates for six MDAPs than it would be if the requirement is to provide quarterly updates for three MDAPs.

This information is especially important to help us decide whether it is necessary to propose staffing that exceeds the minimum requirement.

R The Government expectation is that the contractor proposes staffing to support performance of the PWS tasks for AATS and the identified programs at the locations identified. The specific volume of performance for each task may vary from day to day so the Government has identified the tasks, programs, locations and the minimum staffing the Government believes is required to perform the effort. The contractor must propose up to the minimum staffing required to be acceptable and may propose additional staffing beyond the minimum to support the PWS tasks, programs and locations identified. The Government also identified the fact that the NSSL program is a high-visibility program with significant Congressional and media interest. The Governement believes this is sufficient detail for an offeror to propose a Firm-Fixed Price.

Document Title:

Document Date:

Types of Comments:

A - Administrative: addresses what appears to be typographical, format, grammar, punctuation, and style errors S - Substantive: addresses factually incorrect material C - Critical: addresses contentious issue that will cause non-concurrence with the publication

Attachment 1 - Model Task

Order

A 3 of 27 Section B The CLINs for Other Direct Costs are identified as "Cost No Fee."

Please clarify whether it is permissible to apply a handling fee in accordance with our disclosed accounting practices.

This information is necessary to enable us to price our proposal accurately and in compliance with requirements.

M The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 4-7 - Cost Pricing Matrix and Attachment 1 - Model Task Order

The Government is setting ODC CLIN values at $25K per year for travel costs on a cost reimbursable bases in the Model Task Order and Cost/Pricing Matrix for calculation of the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). This $25K will be used for evaluation and contract CLIN execution purposes.

Contractors may charge travel costs that are allowable, allocable and reasonable consistent with their approved accounting practices. All other non-travel costs need to be proposed into the labor CLINs.

Attachment 1 - Model Task Order (Draft Posted 4-4-

2024)

A 3-5 Section B - Supplies or Services & Prices of

Costs

Each CLIN description references "Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Item Number: GS00F052AC". This should be removed.

FSS corresponds to GSA Schedules not GSA OASIS, this procurement is anticipated to be issued under as stated in SAM.gov (i.e. OASIS SB Pool 5b).

A The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 1 - Model Task Order that will be posted to SAM.gov with final FOPR.

Attachment 1 - Model Task Order (Draft Posted 4-4-

2024)

C 3-5 Section B - Supplies or Services & Prices of

Costs

Update CLINs to align with 4-7 - Cost-Price Matrix (Draft Posted 4-4- 2024)

4-7 - Cost-Price Matrix (Draft Posted 4-4-2024) has different CLIN sequence and multiple labor CLINs per contract period.

A The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 4-7 - Cost Pricing Matrix

Government is incorporating a more streamlined Cost-Price Matrix that is consistent with Section B of the Model Task Order.

Attachment 1 - Model Task Order (Draft Posted 4-4-

2024)

C Section B - Supplies or Services & Prices or

Costs

CLINs x003 (ODCs) and x004 (CAF)

Section B - Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs includes Quantity

(12) and Unit (Months) for ODCs and CAF. Recommend Quantity be changed to 1 and Unit to Lot

ODC and CAF expenses will vary each month M The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 4-7 - Cost Pricing Matrix

The Government is incorporating a more streamlined Cost-Price Matrix that is consistent with Section B of the Model Task Order. The Government is setting ODC CLIN values at $25K per year for travel costs on a cost reimbursable bases in the Model Task Order and Cost/Pricing Matrix for calculation of the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). This $25K will be used for evaluation and contract CLIN execution purposes.

The Government will update CAF so it is a Service CLIN with a single amount for a one-year Period of Performance that will be based on the established formula in the Cost/Price Matrix.

Attachment 2 -

PWS

A Lines 1330-

4.1.3 This paragraph requires the contractor to schedule a Project Kick-Off Meeting at a location approved by the government. Attendance at this meeting includes, at a minimum, key contractor personnel. Based on previously identified key personnel requirements, this would require 23 contractor personnel to attend the kick-off meeting. We recommend limiting attendance to the Program Manager and alternate, and other personnel as required.

Having 23 contractor personnel in a meeting is not only unwieldy;

it also diverts valuable resources from more productive mission activities.

M The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 2 - PWS

Added: The Government may approve a hybrid meeting that includes an approved location with virtual capabilities.

Attachment 2 -

PWS

Attachment

4.2 - Staffing

Matrix

C Lines 1633- 1636 and others

9.6.1.3 and others

Column S

The Staffing Matrix identifies 23 key positions (27% of total minimum staffing requirement). Section L requires us to provide a resume and letter of commitment for each of these personnel. Additionally, PWS paragraph 9.6.1.2 implies that government approval is necessary for replacement of any key personnel on the task order.

During the Industry Day, Mr. Hobbs indicated that all key personnel are expected to be on board and ready to perform on the first day of the Phase-In period (the first day of the contract). We strongly recommend the government revise its requirement for key personnel to include only the Program Manager and alternate as key positions, and that the remainder of the key positions be identified as critical skills requiring specific attention in the offeror's staffing and retention plans, but not requiring resumes, letters of commitment, or prior government approval for replacement so long as the replacement candidate meets the qualifications identified in the Staffing Matrix.

The requirement for such a large number of key personnel is likely to diminish or eliminate competition mainly because the incumbent is the only entity with the ability to provide a full complement of 23 key personnel ready to begin work on the first day of the contract. Any other offeror would, in the best case, have contingent hires who would have to give current employers notice before they could be ready to perform - likely a minimum of two weeks after the start of the phase-in period.

In our experience, Key personnel the successful offeror brings to the contract are limited to those charged with bringing the offeror's management approach, philosophy, and corporate culture to the contract. This is usually limited to two or three personnel whose resumes and letters of commitment are provided in the proposal and who are available at the start of the phase-in period. The remainder of the positions identified as key in the staffing matrix are certainly critical skills. However, it is probable that the overwhelming majority of these personnel will transition from the incumbent contractor to the successful offeror following contract award. Based on the importance placed on employee retention in the Draft RFP, we suspect the government would also prefer to retain these personnel. We have a lengthy track record of retaining more than 95% of incumbent personnel on contracts similar to this task order, as do all of the other competitors. The probability is very high that the government will continue to have access to the critical skilled personnel they have come to know and trust regardless of who the successful offeror is.

Requiring each offeror to identify and provide documentation for 23 key personnel serves no practical purpose related to contract performance, and has a negative effect on competition. We urge the government to eliminate or greatly reduce this requirement.

M Attachment 5 - Section M, Attachment 2 PWS, and Attachment 4-2 Contractor Proposed Staffing Matrix will be updated with the following language:

Section M has been updated:

Was: The extent to which the offerors Personnel Management Plan demonstrates efficient on-ramp of personnel so that all Key Personnel are in place on the first day task order performance start and all other personnel are in place NLT 30 calendar days after performance start; and

Is: The extent to which the offerors Personnel Management Plan demonstrates efficient on-ramp of personnel so that all Key Personnel are in place NLT 15 calendar days after task order performance start and all other personnel are in place NLT 30 calendar days after performance start;

and

Added in PWS sec. 3.1.12.1:

Details of the Transition-In requirements are described below:

The Contractor shall staff all positions as identified in the Personnel Management Plan as follows: The contractor shall identify a Program Manager (PM) and alternate, by name, at start of contract performance, as required by PWS Section 4.1.3.; all Key Personnel are in place NLT 15 calendar days after task order performance start; all other personnel are in place NLT 30 calendar days after performance start.

Attachment 4 - Section L

A 7 of 11 5.5 With respect to the Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan, are there any activities or conflicts within AATS or SSC where there is an inherent OCI that would preclude an offeror from participating on this task order?

We would like to know before committing to pursue this contract whether our participation in any other specific activity or contract would render us ineligible as a subcontractor for this task order

M One example of an inherent OCI would be if a SAFS contractor has established business ties with both the Government and a Launch Service Provider. Whether an actual or potential OCI exists will depend on the contracts or other business arrangements an offeror currently has or establishes in the future. Therefore, the Government is requesting the offerors to assess their current business ties and planned future business ties to identify any actual or potential OCI as well as any mitigations the contractor plans to implement.

Attachment 4 - Section L

A 5 of 11 4 We recommend the government eliminate the requirement for hardcopy and CD/DVD copies of the proposal, and request only electronic copies of all required documents.

Apart from environmental considerations associated with requiring physical media, preparing, delivering, and verifying receipt of hardcopy materials adds at least three days to our proposal preparation process to account for printing, proofreading, shipping, and re-shipping if the proposal is lost or damaged in transit. Electronic submittals have become the standard for government proposals, and have been demonstrated to be safe, secure, and efficient.

M The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 4 - Section L

The Government will require hard copies as part of the proposal requirements. Required copies has been changed from four to two.

Was: The Offeror shall provide four hard copies of the proposal and two electronic copies of the proposal on CDs or DVDs (unclassified only).

Is: The Offeror shall provide two hard copies of the proposal and two electronic copies of the proposal on CDs or DVDs (unclassified only).

Attachment 4 - Section L

A 6 of 11 4.2.h We recommend the government specify that electronic proposals be submitted in the versions of Microsoft and Adobe products currently in commercial use - e.g., Word 2019, Excel 2019, PowerPoint 2019, Acrobat 2020.

Specifying the older versions of these products requires offers who commonly use more current versions to "save down" proposal documents into the older formats. This can result in unintended errors, especially in formatting. One not infrequent consequence is that a document that is 15 pages in Word 2019 may become 16 pages in Word 2016. Hopefully the government's volume licensing arrangements with Microsoft and Adobe enable them to use the more current application versions without incurring additional cost.

M Language will be updated to MS Suite 2019.

Attachment 4 - Section L

A 10 of 11 7.1.f This paragraph refers to FAR 52.219-14, which requires small business prime contractors to perform at least 50% of the proposed labor charges on this task order. Paragraph H.10 of the OASIS-SB master contract indicates that the 50% requirement applies to the total of all task orders, not to each individual task order; however, the OASIS-SB contract authorizes the OCO to tailor this section at the task order level.

Please clarify whether the Limitations on Subcontracting requirement will apply at the AATS task order level or at the OASIS-SB master contract level

This clarification is necessary to ensure all contractors have a common and correct understanding of the Limitations on Subcontracting requirements

N/A Since this task order is a small business set-aside, the Government will evaluate compliance with 52.219-14 at the task order level. The Government will update the Model Task Order to ensure 52.219-4 is included and the Evaluation Criteria is clear that limitations on subcontracting will be evaluated at the task order level. In addition, Attachment 4-7 Cost Price Matrix will be updated in the final FOPR to clearly identify that the requirements in 52.219-14 apply at the task order level.

Attachment 4 - Section L

(Draft Posted 4-4-2024)

A 4 1.0 Correct long name for OASIS from "Occupancy Agreement Space Inventory System" to "One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services"

Current long name used in Draft RFP for OASIS is not correct. A The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 4 - Section L

The Government has reviewed and made the changes as appropriate.

Was: Occupancy Agreement Space Inventory System

Is: One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services

Attachment 4 - Section L

(Draft Posted 4-4-2024)

C 7 5.4 Include DD254 with final solicitation Page 7 of Section L - ITO indicates "offerors shall complete the following sections of the DD Form 254 attached to the model task order".

N/A DD254 was posted to SAM.gov on 14 Mar 2024. At this time, the Government is not seeking any feedback from industry on this document which will be released as part of the final FOPR.

Attachment 4 - Section L

(Draft Posted 4-4-2024)

C 7.1 10 Update Attachment 4-7 - Cost-Price Matrix (Draft Posted 4-4-2024) to add pre-populated values for all ODC CLINs.

Page 10 of Section L - ITO indicates "c. Note that the cells for the ODC CLINs are pre-populated with Government amounts. Do not alter these amounts." Attachment 4-7 - Cost-Price Matrix (Draft Posted 4-4-2024) does not have the pre-populated ODC amounts.

A The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 4-7 - Cost Pricing Matrix.

The Government is incorporating a more streamlined Cost-Price Matrix whereby the Government is setting ODC CLIN values at $25K per year for travel costs on a cost reimbursable bases in the Model Task Order and Cost/Pricing Matrix for calculation of the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). This $25K will be used for evaluation and contract CLIN execution purposes.

Attachment 4, Section L

Instructions to Offerors and

Attachment 4- 7 Cost-Price

Matrix

C Attachment 4, section

7.1 and

Attachment 4-7

Summary Sheets

Attachment 4, section

7.1 and

Attachment 4-7

Summary Sheets

Attachment 4, section 7.1 instructs offers to, when filling out the Cost- Price Matrix, to "Complete the yellow-highlighted cells as instructed…";

whereas Attachment 4-7 summary sheets contains statement that the sheet is "Sample Format for Submission of Proposed Price" and "(example - Offerors to use their estimating system"). Recommend the instructions in Attachment 4, section 7.1 be revised to "Complete the yellow-highlighted cells as instructed, which may be modified to fit Bidder's estimating system…"

Change clarifies that Bidders can modify Cost-Price Matrix to fit their estimating system.

A The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 4-7 - Cost Pricing Matrix.

The Government is incorporating a more streamlined Cost-Price Matrix that is consistent with the ITO and the Model Task Order.

Attachment 4- 2 Staffing Matrix and

Attachment 4- 7 - Cost-Price

Matrix

C Attachment 4-2 and 4-7

Staffing Matrix -

Proposed Staffing

Matrix and Cost-Price Workbook, labor pricing sheets

The Cost-Price workbook groups staffing by CLIN and site, whereas the Staffing Matrix does not group by CLIN, and provides location but not site. Recommend the Government provide direct alignment of staffing by CLIN and site in both documents.

For consistency among bidders, the allocation of staff by CLIN and site should be provided by the Government.

A The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 4-7 - Cost Pricing Matrix.

The updated Cost Pricing Matrix will be consistent with the Staffing Matrix.

Attachment 4- 3 - Problem

Statement #1

C 1 All The problem statement appears to be missing information that is important to providing an accurate estimate. For example, the problem statement mentions an 8,000 lb. payload, but there is no indication whether the estimate needs to include integration of the payload with the launch vehicle and, if it does, whether there are any power, environmental, security, or other considerations associated with the payload that need to be factored into the estimate.

Also, the problem statement says the estimate is for "a launch vehicle" as opposed to "the launch of a vehicle." Are we to estimate the availability of a vehicle only, or the full cycle of delivery, integration and launch?

Understanding the full scope of requirements we are to estimate is necessary to ensure the accurate calculations, insightful analysis, and adequate documentation the problem statement requires. If it is not possible to provide specific information, please verify the latitude we have to make assumptions in our estimate.

M The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 4-3 - Problem Statement #1

Added: Your estimate needs to include integration, standard power, environmental security, and any other associated requirements typical with this type of effort. Your estimate will represent the cost to procure launch services and integration, with the government executing launch operations.

CRM C CRM Column D Will column "D" of the CRM be removed if questions and answers are published to Industry.

Recommend removing column "D" if CRM responses will be published to industry.

Rationale: Keeping Column D in the release could adversely impact some offerors and benefit others in the development of their proposal strategy. Best practice is to sanitize contractor identification from the published CRM.

M The Government will remove Column C, which is the company/organizations name, when the non-proprietary CRM is released on SAM.gov. Column D, which is the source document being commented on, will not be removed.

Eval Criteria C 4 & 5 4.0 / Table 4-1 & 4-3

The current Technical Ratings are: Outstanding, Good, Acceptable and Unacceptable.

Recommend adding "Marginal" & "Very Good" to the rating scale.

Rationale: The additional ratings will improve the ability to differentiate between offers. Having one significant strength is a low bar to earn a rating of Outstanding. The suggested order is:

Outstanding Very Good Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable This delineation would provide a clear distinction between bidders for a best value type award where Technical is significantly more important than cost.

M The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 5 - Section M.

The Government updated the ratings.

Was: Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, and Unacceptable.

Is: Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal and Unacceptable.

FOPR S 8 7.1 It is proposed that the government establish a common annual number of hours per FTE (i.e. 1880).

This would provide a common start point for FTE costs and provide a standard for fair evaluation of FTE costs between offerors.

R Since companies have different fringe benefit packages, the Government does not feel it is appropriate to dictate the number of hours per FTE.

Therefore, the Government will request offerors to clearly identify the number of hours in their proposal that constitutes a Full Time Equivalent.

The FTE hours will ultimately depend on the amount of paid leave the company provides their employees each year.

General S Multiple Why keep the SPACE SYSTEMS COMMAND (SSC) ASSURED

ACCESS TO SPACE (AATS) ACQUISITION AND FINANCIAL

SUPPORT SERVICES (SAFS) title. Most offerors have signed agreements pertaining to exclusivity on partnering on SAFS proposals

By changing the title of the A&AS RFP, it would allow sub-contractors to "refresh" partnerships and possibly provide better value to the government. Under the current status quo, all established partnerships favor the incumbent and reduce competitive solutions by limiting innovative solutions.

R This task order is being issued under the authority of the approved SAFS Acquisition Strategy Document (ASD) and the naming convention of this Task Order (TO) should be consistent with the naming convention used in the ASD which provides the acquisition authority for issuing this TO solicitation.

ITO (Section L)

C Section L , Section 4.0

Section L

4.0 text, Table 4-1, Section

4.2g, 4.2h, Attachment

4-3, and Attachment

4-4

The current ITO includes the requirement to include Hard Copies and DVDs.

Recommend removing this language from all Section L 4.0 text, Table 4- 1, Section 4.2g, 4.2h, Attachment 4-3, and Attachment 4-4.

Recommend proposals be submitted via e-mail or through a Government portal (e.g., E-Buy).

Rationale: Generating Hardcopies and DVDs put an unnecessary cost burden on the Government and Contractor. The most recent SAFS best practice has been to submit proposals electronically.

M The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 4 - Section L

The Government will require hard copies as part of the proposal requirements. Required copies has been changed from four to two.

Was: The Offeror shall provide four hard copies of the proposal and two electronic copies of the proposal on CDs or DVDs (unclassified only).

Is: The Offeror shall provide two hard copies of the proposal and two electronic copies of the proposal on CDs or DVDs (unclassified only).

ITO (Section L)

A Section L.

Pg. 6

Para 4.2 b. Recommend allowing 10 point font in Tables Rationale: 10 point font in tables is clearly legible and maximizes space within the proposal for technical write ups.

A The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 4 - Section L

The Government will accept 10 point font in tables.

Was: MS Excel submission shall use Calibri font and be no less than 11 pt except for the Pricing Matrix included in Volume III.

Is: MS Excel submission shall use Calibri font and be no less than 10 pt except for the Pricing Matrix included in Volume III.

ITO (Section L) & Eval Criteria

(Section M)

C Section L

pg. 9

Section M

pg. 8

Para 7 / Section L Para 7 /

Section M

The current ITO and Evaluation Criteria does not include a Target Price or Price Range.

Recommend adding a Target Price or Price Range.

Rationale: This would allow industry to build a proposal targeted to provide the best value Technical Solution within a Target Price or Range. This would prevent a wide range in bids that could make it more difficult for the Government to derive a Best Value decision even though "Factor 2 is significantly more important than Factor 3"

R The Government is conducting a best value tradeoff between Factor 2 - Technical and Factor 3 - Cost/Price where Factor 2 - Technical is significantly more important than Factor 3 - Cost/Price. The Government does not want to establish a Target Price or Price Range that may limit potential offerors from proposing a superior technical solution or even a technical solution that meets our minimum requirements.

PWS C 29-34 3.1.17 /

Personnel

Min Qualification Requiremen ts

The minimum years of experience identified in the PWS is low (especially in the SME/Level 5 category) based on our experience supporting other SSC contracts.

Recommend increasing the minimum years of experience for Level 5 staff to 15 Years.

Rationale: The level 5 candidate should be a Subject Matter Expert in their field of endeavor. 10 years of experience is too low for a SME.

M The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 2 - PWS

The Government will modify requirements for experience commensurate with Level of Labor Category it deems necessary.

PWS S 9 1.4/Scope Does this scope include SLD 30/45 work currently supporting LISC, DTAMM, and WMN ACAT III programs

Provide clarity as to which organizations are included R Please refer to PWS Section 1.4 where we specify "AATS portfolio: the Acquisition Category (ACAT) I NSSL, the non-ACAT Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP), and the Launch and Test Range Systems (LTRS)." and Table 1 and Slide 19 of the Industry Day brief. Please refer to Contractor Staffing Matrix to see where government projects FTEs may be aligned.

PWS A 11 3.1.2/Tools It states all Government approved software tools will be procured at the contractor's cost, isn't ACEIT provided by the government and only government provided software allowed to be installed on government computers?

We typically only purchase software that is installed on contractor computers

A The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 2 - PWS

Was: All Government approved software tools will be procured at the Contractors' cost.

Is: All Government approved software tools required on Contractor IT systems will be at the contractor's expense.

PWS S 12 3.1.6/Trainin g

It states that training on CCaR shall be conducted in accordance with curricula established by SSC/FMA, in section 3.9.2 CCaRS Administration it is marked as Reserved and finally in the Proposed Staffing it is listed as 1 FTE. Will CCaRS administration be included in this contract?

The duties of the CCaR analyst should be defined in the PWS section 3.9.2

M The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 2 - PWS

Removed: "Reserved" from PWS 3.9.2 title

Subsections under 3.9.2 CCaR Administration addresses this.

PWS & ITO C Not Identified

Added para/section

The current PWS and ITO does not include a placeholder for Surge Support.

Recommend adding a Surge CLIN for up to 25% of Contract Value that will not be priced into the funded Contract Value, but available as an option if needed.

Rationale: With the rapidly evolving technical and dynamic program requirements associated with AATS, a Surge CLIN would allow the Government and Contractor to quickly add additional support if needed with minimal contractual action (e.g.

On Orbit Servicing, On Orbit Refueling). This a best practice used across the majority of SAFS FOPRs.

R The Government expectation is that the contractor proposes staffing at or above the minimum staffing and minimum quality requirements to support performance of all PWS tasks, even during temporary surges in workload, in support of AATS and identified programs at specified locations. Only if the Government changes its requirements by modifying tasks/outcomes, deleting tasks/outcomes, or adding new tasks/outcomes or existing tasks/outcomes at new locations, will the Government entertain adding or removing FTEs, and adjust associated fees, in support of the contract.

Adding such CLINs without an associated PWS change in requirements essentially turns this contract into a cost plus percentage of cost contract, which is not an allowed contract type.

PWS/Staffing Matrix

S 33 3.27.3 There is responsibility called out for Unit Deployment/Readiness Management, but none in the proposed Staffing Matrix

Will this be staffed by military personnel, or as an additional duty M The final FOPR will contain a revised Attachment 4-2 - Proposed Contractor Staffing Matrix

The Government has updated the staffing matrix for 3.27.3 to include this responsibility.

Staffing Matrix C Attachment 4-2

Column "Min

Requiremen t"

The current Staffing Matrix includes a column labeled "Min Requirement" for FTE. The column FTE has a different total number identified.

Recommend removing the "min requirement" column P from the Staffing Matrix.

Rationale: Leaving in a minimum FTE requirement could result in drastically different priced bids making it harder for the Government to do a best value trade-off. Column O (FTE 109)

vs. Column O sorted by "min requirement" (83.5 FTE). Offerors may bid completely different FTE levels. This lack of clarity of the minimal requirement could lead to a post-award protest.

M The Government's staffing matrix will only include what the Government considers as minimum FTE and Minimum Experience & Expertise requirements and that if an offeror proposes less than these minimums, they will be found as "Unacceptable" and unawardable.

Staffing Matrix C Attachment 4-2

Column "Min

Experience & Expertise to Accomplish

PWS

Requiremen ts

The current Staffing Matrix includes a column labeled "Min Experience & Expertise to Accomplish PWS Requirements." The column has a general "Space Programs" experience discriminator.

Recommend changing "Space" to "Launch" or at least adding "Launch" as a discriminator.

Rationale: The government recognized at the Industry Day that Launch experience is more nuanced and unique within Space efforts. The staffing matrix and corresponding ITO and Eval Criteria should be updated to recognize this discriminator.

R The Government believes that "Space Program" experience is sufficient for the minimum requirement in order to maximize competition.

Staffing Matrix S 1 ID 63 Requires Bachelor's degree for ordering supplies and space management This seems excessive for work outlined R The Government believes this requirement is the minimum

CRM