Industry Day Draft RFP Questions20 apr.xls
XLS spreadsheet 60 KB Posted
- Attached to
- LRSW Systems Engineering & Integration
- Solicitation number
- FA8811-R-09-0002
About this file
Industry Day Questions and Responses
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
50 files listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question # | Response | |
| 1 | Do you perceive an OCI issue between the LISC and the LRSW SE&I contracts? If a contractor were contemplating competing on both, are there known OCI issues? | The focus of this LRSW SE&I contract will be with LRSW launch systems. The Launch and Test Range System (LTRS) Integrated Support Contract (LISC) supports the Eastern and Western Ranges. A second LTRS SE&I RFP was formally released 10 Mar 09 (FA8811-09-R-0001) to support the Wing and its range requirements architecture development. At this time we see no OCI between the LRSW SE&I and LISC. In all proposal submittals each offeror must address its own OCI situation relevant to each specific contract |
| 2 | In the D-RFP, Section L, Para (b) page 6 of 16, the page limit for the Part II Technical Proposal is limited to 25 pages. In subfactor 1(b), mid-paragraph, it states, “…addresses all of the work scope in the eight PWS SE&I functional task areas”. Twenty-five pages may be too few to adequately respond to this requirement (the PWS is fifty pages). Please consider expanding the page limitation. | The requirement has been updated to request a matrix to address the prime and subcontractor areas of responsibilites. Matrix is not part of the page count. The page count limitation will remain the same as several subfactor documents are also excluded from the existing page count limitation. |
| 3 | The PWS contains large sections that also appear to be covered in the 45 LCG, 30 LCG, and LRSW STS DOs. What is the transition or relationship between these separate contracting actions? | The SE&I effort is a new requirement for LRSW. |
The STS BPAs are for commercial services under GSA for Advisory and Assistance tasks. This instant acquisition is for SE&I not A&AS.
| 4 | PWS 1.4.1.3 calls for a transition of VAFB Software Development work in Apr 2010. Can you clarify why this work does not begin until 2010 when the corresponding work at the Cape (PWS 1.3.1.3) begins immediately? | •PWS 1.4.1.3 will be updated to remove the delayed start of the work. |
| 5 | Will the Gov’t hold an Industry Day at the Launch sites? | –Since this effort is for systems engineering and integration oversight responsibilities, and the 30th and 45th Wings are briefing their requirements today, it was determined that Industry Days at the Launch sites would not be necessary. |
| 6 | –Where should the OCI plan be included in the proposal? When should it be delivered? Confirm it is outside page count. | –Submit as a separate document. In the Final RFP it may be requested early. Not included in page count |
| 7 | –How will the 30th SE requirements interface with the LTRS SE&I modernization requirements? | –These are two different efforts, however these contractors may have to interface with each other. |
| 8 | –Are the LRSW, CCAFS, and VAFB SE&I needs to be treated as three separate activities or is the intent to have common processes and teams across the enterprise? | There are common processes across the enterprise with separate taskings at each of the locations |
| 9 | –What are the current acquisition schedules for LTRS SE&I and LISC, and are they impacted by this acquisition? | –Not impacted by this acquisition, please contact the appropriate PCOs for schedules |
| 10 | How does the government intend to assess quality of technical performance under the evaluation of past contracts? The only criteria cited is “relevance” not quality of performance and the only POC requested is the CO, no technical people. | –We will be requesting two POCs, the PM and CO Survey questions will address quality and performance |
| 11 | –Please explain what the government expects related to associate contractor agreements in the proposals? | –These would generally pertain to Non Disclosure Agreements |
| 12 | Please provide a ROM estimate of the total FTE for planning purposes and anticipated value of the contract over 10 years. | –To be addressed in the Final RFP |
| 13 | Is the mission integration management focused on launch only or both launch and range? Same question for systems security and information assurance | Mission integration management is launch only. Systems security and information assurance will provide (1) detailed plans and implementation for launch only with (2) overarching policy and review for both launch and range. |
| 14 | M002.G states an integrated best value award decision will be made of the lowest price offeror has a performance confidence assessment of “satisfactory confidence.” How will this be done if the only technical ratings are acceptable or not acceptable? | See response to question 37 |
| 15 | Given the time required to coordinate a common plan among team members, is there any estimate of when early delivery of the OCI Plan might be required? | About two weeks before the final proposal is due. |
| 16 | Industry Day Charts Chart 138 Is the OCI Plan the only part of the proposal currently being considered for early delivery? | Yes at this time. |
| 17 | Industry Day Charts Chart 138 If the approval process for release of the RFP takes longer than planned, would the Government consider releasing another update to the DRFP to provide offerors insight into the latest revisions? | It will be considered. |
| 18 | Industry Day Charts Chart 132 Will revised Sections L and/or M of the RFP describe more specifically how OCI issues will be weighed in the proposal evaluation with respect to their impacts on performance and cost so that pertinent information can be included in the OCI Plan? | See response to question 28 |
| 19 | Industry Day Q&A Question 1 Given the response to this question, does the Government perceive any inherent OCI issues between this LRSW SE&I contract and the second LTRS SE&I RFP formally released 10 Mar 09 (FA8811-09-R-0001) to support the Wing and its range requirements architecture development? | We don't anticipate OCI issues between the two SE&I contracts. The launch SE&I contractor will not be writing specifications or requirements for the range SE&I contractor. |
| 20 | Industry Day Q&A Question 10 Will industry be permitted to see the PP survey questions to be evaluated before they are distributed to the contract POCs? | Yes, we intend to provide the past performance survey questions. |
| 21 | DRFP Section M M002A Subfactor 2 The wording of this paragraph is a little confusing. Can you clarify the technical criteria to be used in evaluating resumes of people proposed for Key positions? | The government expects the offeror to provide the criteria and rationale that define the key positions. The government will review the resumes to determine if these meet the criteria and rationale for these positions as defined. |
| 22 | DRFP Section M M002A Subfactor 2 Must the people whose resumes are submitted for Key Positions be current employees? | No and see response to question 23 |
| 23 | DRFP Section L L-IV(f) This paragraph requires that the successful offeror identify the Key Personnel to be assigned for the first contract year in a letter to the PCO 15 days prior to contract award, and to certify they meet the qualifications for the position as specified in the proposal. This does not ensure that the person whose resume was evaluated is actually assigned to the Key Position at contract award. Suggest requiring certification in the proposal that the individuals to be assigned to Key Positions are those whose resumes are submitted for evaluation and that the Offeror has confirmed their availability for assignment. | Equivalent substitute is acceptable. Section L has been updated to require the successful offeror to provide resumes for any new key personnel whose resumes were not previously identified in their proposal for evaluation/approval. |
| 24 | DRFP Section M M002D This paragraph first states that “relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving experience in major space launch programs…”. It goes on to list several discipline areas within which experience “will be considered relevant”. Does this mean the experience within those discipline areas must have been on major space launch programs? Is ICBM launch experience considered “space launch”? | Ideally, relevant experience would be space launch; however, all past performance will be evaluated as to its relevancy to the SE&I eight taskings and the scenario(s) under which they were performed. |
| 25 | DRFP Section H SMC H002 The Offeror is required to complete cost and fee per hour for Government to unilaterally add additional hours under CLINs 0110-0341. Is there any specific method the Government requires for the creation of those costs/fees (i.e. should this amount just be the total cost divided by the total LOE for the specific CLIN –average cost/fee per hour)? | Either FPRA composite labor rates or average composite rate determined by skill mix with fee separate. |
| 26 | DRFP Section L L-IV(c) In addition to the exceptions already identified, please confirm that the items typically excluded from page count are also excluded. E.g. Table of Contents, List of Figures, Tabs (having no content other than the section heading), Glossary DRFP Section L L-IV(g) 3) Did the Government intend to specify 12 point instead of 12 pitch? | We concur that these items are excluded from the page count. Yes, it should be 12 point instead of 12 pitch. |
| 27 | DRFP Section L L-III(b) Subfactor 1(a) Would the Government consider allowing 10 point font in the Organization Chart? | Yes, we will accept 10 point font for the org chart only. |
| 28 | DRFP Section M M002B. Will the Government develop a most probable cost for the LRSW SE&I CPFF proposals? If so, will it be used in ranking the proposals by price? If not, how will the cost and risks of the following be assessed / considered in the evaluation of price: |
1) OCI mitigation.
2) Development/replacement and integration of corporate owned tools, data repositories, and documentation currently used by contractors providing support to LRSW, 45LCG, and 30LCG that is analogous to PWS tasks. If these costs should be included in the pricing spreadsheet, where should they be provided?
3) Costs of transition or impacts to mission continuity associated with becoming familiar and proficient in use of existing government processes and software tools currently in use on support tasks analogous to the PWS with which the offeror may not be currently involved MPC adjustments will be made as necessary to address offeror pricing differences from DCMA FPRAs and/or DCMA recommended rates.
The Gov't will provide a Matrix of PWS tasks wherein it believes there is a potential for OCI. The offerors however, are ultimately responsible for their own OCI evaluations and thoroughly addressing the OCI mitigation checklist.
Sec M will include a burdened Gov't FTE rate for purposes of MPC adjustments which will be used to determine the cost of all additional effort necessary for the Government to effectively mitigate bias.
| 29 | DRFP Section M M002B. From this paragraph and examination of the pricing spreadsheet we conclude that the ranking of proposals according to price will be done based on the core performance period (Base Year + 3 Option Years). Is this correct? | NO, the evaluation by price will be for the total ten-year period. The pricing spreadsheet will be updated for the final RFP. |
| 30 | PWS 3.0 Please clarify references to Section J, Attachment C | Reference was removed. |
| 31 | DD254 3.1.1 8., 10, 11, 13 Do the DD254 requirements in Blocks 10.K, 11.L, and 13.5) apply to the contractor’s LA facility required in PWS 3.1.1? Are there any additional requirements which apply to that facility (e.g. conference rooms for hosting Government meetings or reviews, remote access to Government networks, etc.)? Where should any costs associated with these requirements be reflected in the Price Proposal? | Contractors will need electronic access to SMC software applications and programs to include SMC Livelink and OSL Livelink. The Government will provide this access through Citrix Metaframe and/or VPN in conjunction with Government provided CAC cards and CAC card readers. Livelink access will need to be from behind the contractor's corporate firewall. At this time, there is no anticipated requirement for Conference rooms. |
| 32 | PWS 4.2 “The contractor shall possess and maintain a Secret facility clearance at all times during the term of the contract….” Does this facility requirement apply at all three support locations? | No external contractor facilities required for VAFB or CCAFS SE&I tasks. |
| 33 | DRFP Section L L-III(a)4) “For proposal purposes, assume an estimated XX FTEs for SMC; XX FTEs for VAFB; and XX FTEs for CCAF for each of the 10 contract years.” Does this mean the Government wants the specified level of FTEs to be used in pricing the proposal at each location for each of 10 years regardless of the staffing proposed in Part II, Subfactor 5? If so, how will innovation that reduces labor hour requirements be assessed? | The Government estimated FTE numbers furnished are for proposal purposes only. Offerors may propose higher or lower FTE numbers but shall provide rationale. Also see question 37 response. |
| 34 | PWS All What are the expected interfaces between STS DO tasks performed to support LRSW, 45 LCG and 30 LCG, and the LRSW SE&I support tasks? | There are no interfaces. The contracts do not overlap. The SE&I represents a new way of doing business and is a new requirement. |
| 35 | DRFP Section M M002A. SubFactor 3 Is the methodology for workload fluctuation only evaluated for PWS 1.4? | Sec M will be updated to reflect the same methodology for PWS 1.2 and 1.3. |
| 36 | DRFP Section M M002B. If the government is developing a MPC, what techniques or tools will be used when developing and evaluating the MPC? | See response to question 37 |
| 37 | DRFP Section M M002A. Subfactor 1. (b) M002B. How will proposed innovations that create savings or efficiencies for the government be included in the evaluation? Will the price evaluation have a method for the government to make adjustments to the evaluated price for savings achieved through innovations proposed? Will the government make adjustments to the price due to its determination of reasonableness and realism? | This is a PPT and any innovations, etc should be reflected in the offeror's pricing. The proposals will be evaluated as to technical acceptability on a pass or fail basis, on relevant Past Performance and on the proposed price against verifed DCAA/DCMA rates. The technically acceptable offeror with the best relevant Past Performance and the lowest price (with MPC adjustments if required) wins. |
| 38 | PWS 1.3.1.3.1 “The contractor shall maintain and manage mission assurance and launch verification software applications (e.g. the LVDB, Critical Data Management Applications (CDMAs), Change Problem Request (CPR) databases, and launch checklists).” Does this also include the software currently hosted on the NRO OSL servers. Example – EELV Portal, Lessons Learned Database (LLDB), Launch Verification Matrix (LVM)? | No. |
| 39 | PWS 1.3.1.3.4 “The contractor shall host and maintain a fully integrated data environment for mission assurance and launch verification software applications on a government provided server. The server shall be accessible to all authorized users, to include remote users. The contractor shall verify configuration requirements of all computers supporting the above listed mission assurance and launch verification software.” Certain software like LVM, LLDB and the EELV Portal are currently hosted at a government facility and managed by contractors. Under SE&I can this software continue to be hosted at a government facility and managed by the SE&I contractor or will the systems & software need to be moved into the contractor’s computer facility and hosted there? | LVM, LLDB, and EELV portal will continue to be hosted on existing servers by the existing contractor. The SE&I contractor will only require access to these databases. The LVDB, CPR, and CDMA sustainment will be the SE&I contractor's responsibility. These systems will be hosted on the government server. |
| 40 | PWS 1.3.1.3.6 & 1.4.1.3.6 “The contractor shall provide system-level management of mission assurance and launch verification software to include oversight of: structure and use, training development, and system maintenance and upgrades.” Is oversight/support of structure and use of the integrated data environment to include the Livelink application hosted by the OSL (MyMissionLink) and/or SMC Livelink instance? | No. This work statement applies only to the mission assurance software hosted at the launch sites. It does not apply to any mission assurance software and databases hosted on networks and servers located in Los Angeles or to Livelink administration. |
| 41 | PWS 1.4.1.3.2 “The contractor shall develop and maintain all software documentation (e.g. commenting in the code, user’s manuals, training guides, explanation of the software coding, and audit/change logs) and make available for government use.” What software will be developed and maintained? Will the software be maintained at government or contractor facilities? | The S/W piece to be maintained is the SQL database maintained on Govt servers on Govt property. The task is to develop and maintain the documentation of the S/W. |
| 42 | PWS 1.4.1.3.4 “The contractor shall host and maintain a fully integrated data environment for mission assurance and launch verification software applications on a government provided server. The server shall be accessible to all authorized users, to include remote users located at CCAFS and LAAFB. The contractor shall maintain all administrative computers supporting the above listed mission assurance and launch verification software.” Will software be hosted at contractor facilities? | the S/W (database) will reside at VAFB |
| 43 | In Part II Technical Proposal instructions, the type of information requested seems more aligned towards a Management Volume as opposed to a Technical Volume. No technical approaches are required. Do you anticipate asking for specific technical responses? | No additional technical responses. Address in the narrative section of Subfactor 1, within the matrix. See question 2 response. |
&CLRSW SE&I INDUSTRY DAY QUESTIONS
&LSTATUS of &D&R&P of &N
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .