LSMA_Final_RFP_Q As.pdf

LSMA RFP

Industry Questions – 26 Sep 2013

Location Question Sample Mission 2.1 Question 1: The Milestone Schedule on page 5 of the MID shows the last two milestones as: SMC FRR – 1 Jun 2016; and ILC – 15 Aug 2017. The Period of Performance for the MA requirements in this sample mission is Apr 2014 thru Oct 2017. According to SDL-10-2011- 08, System Reviews Plan (page 8), the FRR is supposed to occur one to two weeks before launch.

Answer: This is an error, ILC should be 15 Aug 2016 and the PoP should end Oct 2016. An RFP change page will be issued.

Sample Mission 2.2 Question 2: In para 4.0, the SMC Motor Certification #1 date is after the ILC date. Is this correct?

Answer: That is not correct, the ILC should be “July 2016”, an RFP change page will be issued.

Section B Page 2-6

Question 3: Section B, CLINS 0001, 0003, 005, 007, & 009 are fixed price incentive firm contract types. Ceiling price and profit adjustment formulas were not included.

• Please add ceiling price (115%, per Section H0001).

• There is no profit adjustment formula provided in the RFP for over/underruns for the XBM Sustainment CLINs. Is there none?

Answer: The FPIF ceiling rate of 115% will be added as well as the following:

Govt/Ktr 60/40 Underrun 40/60 Overrun

Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs

Page 6, CLIN 0010, Option IV ODC (3 Year Option)

Question 4: The final XBM Sustainment labor CLIN ends on 3 April 2019, and the ODC CLIN 0010 runs through 2 April 2021. Please clarify the rationale for the 3 year ODC CLIN.

Answer: The 3 year period of performance on the ODC CLIN provides ODC usage for two additional years of execution on executed IV&V Mission CLIN(s)

Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs Pages 15-16, Special Studies CLINs

Question 5: Please confirm the Special Studies Wrap Rates are to include both labor and ODC costs.

Answer: Confirmed, the Special Studies Wrap Rate is to be proposed as one rate for each year, the wrap rate includes ALL direct labor, ALL indirect costs, ALL ODC’s and IS inclusive of ALL/ANY fee.

Section B, 17 of 45 Question 6: It appears that the phrase “New Launch Service IV&V” in B030 has been misused instead of the phrase “Existing Launch Service IV&V” in B039, and vice-versa. Should these phrases be reversed?

Answer: Yes, reference to the correct CLIN types for B030 and B039 are included in Amendment 02.

CDRLs Question 7: There are detailed documents listed for specific CDRLs that do not appear to correlate with the CLIN type. For example, for FFP CLINs, CDRL A004 lists a number of documents that are deliverables under XBM Sustainment Engineering FPIF CLINs. This appears to be a copy-paste; please clarify.

Answer: If the CLIN effort does not invoke the PWS paragraph associated with the CDRL document, that document is not required for that CLIN.

Section L Question 8:

Page 8 of 38, Section 2.8.6 Indexing

Each volume shall contain a table of contents to delineate the sections within that volume. Tabs/dividers are not required.

Page 10 of 38, Section 4.2 Format and Specific Content

The Technical volume shall be organized according to the following tab outline, in accordance with the content instructions which follow:…

Are tab/dividers not required for TOCs or for entire proposal?

Answer: Physical tab/dividers are not required.

Section L-4.2.4.10 Sample Mission Proposals

Question 9: There is no Section M Evaluation Criteria corresponding to the Sample Missions. How will the Sample Missions be evaluated?

Answer: Offerors should review the Cross-Reference Matrix at Section L Appendix B, which identifies which proposal elements are relevant to each evaluation criteria. For example, per that Appendix, the sample mission proposals at Tab 3b-10 will be evaluated for Section M criteria

2.2.2.1 thru 2.2.2.10 (all).

Section L, Appx B L/M Cross Reference Matrix, page 2, 3b-3

Question 10: Construct 2 cross reference is not referenced (even if N/A). Is Construct 2 N/A for 3b-3?

Answer: Yes, corrected to read “N/A”, a replacement page will be included in Amendment 02

Section L Page 20 of 38, Section 4.2.21 Tailored Compliance Documents (refer to 7.3.4.3)

Question 11: If the offeror proposes any tailoring of compliance documents, a copy of the tailored document and rationale for sufficiency must be provided. Should reference be 7.3.4.2 or is 7.3.4.2 missing?

Answer: The reference should be 7.3.4.2. An RFP change page will be issued.

Section L – Information to Offerors and Instructions for Proposal Preparation Page 22 of 38, 5.0 Volume II – (Factor 2) Past Performance Section 5.1 General

Question 12: This section states that past performance information will be submitted “…in accordance with the format contained in Appendix C.”

Can the offeror alter the format provided in Section L102 Appendix C Past Performance Information Form (PPIF), without changing the integrity of the document, to better utilize the available space?

Specifically, can the offeror provide the contract information in a table?

Answer: The offeror may insert a table into the existing format, as long as the page count and other format restrictions are not violated; but offerors are cautioned to preserve the integrity of the information format in doing so, as the government is looking for the specific information requested in order to appropriately assess recency and relevancy of the identified effort.

Section L – Information to Offerors and Instructions for Proposal Preparation Page 22 of 38, 5.0 Volume II – (Factor 2) Past Performance

Question 13: Can the offeror delete the PPIF instructions after each Section letter and provide solely the response to the instruction? If not delete, can the offeror shorten the instruction to a representative statement of instruction?

Answer: No, offerors must insert their information within the format provided so that the PPIF is a standalone document with consistent content across identified efforts.

Section L – Instructions to Offerors and Instructions for Proposal Preparation Page 25, Section 6.0 Volume III – (Factor

3) – Cost/Price

Question 14: Please clarify whether subcontractors are required to submit sealed bids to include the supporting data for the subcontractors’ proposed rates and/or cost narrative as outlined for Tabs 1, 2 & 3.

Answer: Fully disclosed proposals are not required to be submitted directly to the Government by subcontractors.

Section L – Instructions to Offerors and Instructions for Proposal Preparation

Question 15: Page 26, Section 6.2.1 Cost/Pricing Volume Content, Estimating System/Methodology – “…Requirements for detailed bases of estimate narratives are included above in paragraph 4.2.12.”

Please confirm the reference included in this sentence should be paragraph 4.2.11.

Answer: The reference should be 4.2.11. An RFP change page will be issued.

Sect L, par 6.1.4 Question 16: 1st sentence: “Do not propose ODC costs.”

2nd sentence: “The government shall include the amount estimated for travel and material in each ODC CLIN…” For the latter, does the contractor still identify travel and material to provide a basis for this estimate, but not propose it? Or does this mean the government will estimate travel/material?

Answer: Do not propose travel. CLIN(s) 0002, 0004, 0006, 0008, and 0010 allow all ODC(s) to be proposed post award. The Government has clarified Section L paragraph 6.1.4, a replacement page will be included in Amendment 02.

Section L – Instructions to Offerors and Instructions for Proposal Preparation

Page 28-29, Section

6.2.1 Cost/Pricing

Volume Content, Tab 3 and Tab 4

Question 17: The CLINs for Special Studies are not consistent with the CLINs in Section B. Please confirm which CLIN structure is correct for Special Studies.

Answer: Amendment 01 to the RFP provides corrected replacement pages. The CLIN structure in reflected in RFP Section B is correct.

Section L-6.2, Tab 4:

TEP (page 29 of 38) and Appendix D;

Section M-4.4.1: XBM Sustainment Total Price (page 14 of 15)

Question 18: Section L lists the Sustainment Levels for TEP for XBM Sustainment Engineering for the base year and four options as 6, 4, 0, 2, and 7, respectively. Section M lists the SL for TEP for the base and option years as 6, 4, 1, 3, and 7, respectively. Please clarify which are the correct SLs for computing TEP.

Answer: The correct levels are 6, 4, 0, 2, and 7. Amendment 01 to the RFP provides a corrected replacement page with this level stated.

Section L Page 30 of 38, Section 7.1 Representations and Certifications

Question 19: The purpose of this volume is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. The Offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the contract form, and Sections A through K.

Request – We respectfully request a non-password protect file of the RFP in order to complete the model contract in the original format.

Answer: A word version of Sections A-K will be posted to FBO

Section L, Appendix A: Sample Mission

3.1 MID

Question 20: The MID says the launch location is Wallops, whereas CLIN 2001 says Kodiak. Please clarify.

Answer: The correct launch location is Wallops. An RFP change page will be issued.

Section L, Appendix A: Sample Mission

3.1 MID

Question 21: The MID (para 5.1) references PWS 3.2.5, however, it says GFE Motor Refurbishment in conjunction with the PWS reference.

Please clarify whether it is all of PWS 3.2.5, XBM Flight Motor Processing, or whether there are specific subparagraphs (e.g., 3.2.5.4) to do specifically with motor refurbishment.

Answer: The correct terminology is “XBM Flight Motor Processing (PWS 3.2.5)”, there was no intent to indicate a subset of requirements with the terminology “GFE Motor Refurbishment”. An RFP change page will be issued.

RFP Section L, Attachment D – Pricing Tables

Question 22: On the Labor Category Requirements tab, there is reference to IV&V Support. Please confirm the labor category descriptions provided on this tab apply to all CLINs.

Answer: There is no intent to constrain the labor categories, offerors should add as many lines as needed to encompass all labor categories proposed to support all CLINs.

RFP Section L, Attachment D – Pricing Tables

Question 23: On the XBM Sustainment Prices tab, the formulas in the Ceiling Price columns are the sum of the Target Cost and Target Profit values. Is it correct to assume and change the template such that the Target Price is the sum of Target Cost, Target Profit and NMGRT, and the Ceiling Price is 115% of that Target Price value?

Answer: Yes, that is correct.

RFP Section L, Attachment D – Pricing Tables

Question 24: On the XBM Sustainment Prices tab, it appears the offeror is to provide Transition pricing for all 5 years.

If Transition is awarded in the middle of the 5 year period, will that award be made under CLIN 0011 and the POP referenced in Section B will be modified?

Answer: The Transition period of performance will be subsequent to the completion of the Base Year or subsequent to the completion of an Option Year. There is no intent to execute Transition in the middle of a Base Year or Option Year Period.

RFP Section L, Attachment D – Pricing Tables

Question 25: On the XBM Sustainment Prices tab, it appears the offeror is to provide Transition pricing for all 5 years.

For pricing Transition in the Base – Option Year 3, is it acceptable to assume 3 February – 3 April of each year?

Answer: Yes.

Attachment D – Pricing Tables

Question 26: The Ceiling Prices for the FPIF CLINs are included in the Total Evaluated Price, and Target Prices for the CPIF CLINs are included in the TEP. Please confirm this is intentional (i.e. it was not intended to evaluate the Target Price for every applicable CLIN).

Answer: Yes, it is intentional. Since the CPIF CLINs have no ceiling, the Target Price is the only price point available for evaluation. This necessitates the inclusion of a Cost Realism evaluation for those CLINs.

RFP Section L, Attachment D – Pricing Tables

Question 27: On the XBM Sustainment and IV&V mission tabs, is it acceptable to insert a column to separately present Management costs? We believe presenting Management costs separately provides value for evaluation purposes. Moreover, for those missions where the effort is priced for multiple categories (Construct 2, Motor Processing, etc), Management effort would apply to all categories. Having one separate column for the Management costs that apply to all categories would allow for efficiency in writing the BOE narratives, as well as pricing.

Answer: No, for consistency between offers this is not acceptable.

Management costs should either be included explicitly as a separate labor category, or indirectly included in accordance with each offeror’s accounting practices.

Attachment D – Pricing Tables

Question 28: It is noted the formulas on the Special Study Prices sheet for the option years are not correct.

Answer: The government agrees there is an index problem in that computation (row vice column) for the option years.

PWS 5.1.2/Table5-1 Question 29: There seems to a QA criteria missing after #6 Performance Objective, as the Performance Threshold column starts over with “E”…

Answer: There is an error in that the thresholds were duplicated incorrectly. Table 5-1 has been corrected and a replacement page included in Amendment 02.

L102 Instructions, par 5.4

Question 30: Past Performance Questionnaire references “An Initial PPQ Tracking Record provided in Past Performance Volume III. Do you mean Volume II?

Answer: Correct.

Section H001, page

Question 31: Please provide overrun and underrun share ratios for CLINS 0001, 0003, 0005, 0007, and 0009

Answer: Included in Amendment 02

Section H, 32 of 45, SD/PKT-H004

Question 32: In paragraph b, Section J Attachment 5 is referenced to Special Study wrap rate. Should this be Attachment 6?

Answer: Yes