The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Q&A
| Question 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? |
| Response: |
| 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. |
| Question 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. |
| Answer: |
| The Technical Proposal page limit will be re-evaluated for the final RFP. |
| Question 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? |
| Answer: |
| 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.
| Question 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? |
| Answer: |
| PWS 1.4.1.3 will be updated to remove the delayed start of the work. |
| Question 5: |
| Will the Gov’t hold an Industry Day at the Launch sites? |
| Answer: |
| 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. |
| Question 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
| Question 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.
| Question 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
| Question 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
| Question 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 |
| Question 11 |
| Please explain what the government expects related to associate contractor agreements in the proposals? |
These would generally pertain to Non Disclosure Agreements
| Question 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
| Question 13 |
| Is the mission integration management focused on launch only or both launch and range? Same question for systems security and information assurance |
This question will be answered in FedBizopps
| Question 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? |
PPT allows for a trade-off between price and past performance. The contractors will first be evaluated for technical acceptability. Those contractors that are found technically acceptable move on in the competition. In general, the technically acceptable contractor with highest past performance rating and lowest price wins.
