LSMA_Industry_Q A_No.2_FBO_Post_20May13.pdf

LSMA Industry Q&A #2

General

Question 188 – The security features set on the DRFP files prevent potential bidders from manipulating the files for proposal preparation activities such as compare files, export to MS Word, OCR, etc. This creates significant work to generate compliance matrix, analyze RFP documents, etc. Will the Government consider removing some of the security features (specifically, compare files, export, OCR and delete pages) on the RFP files to assist bidders in analyzing the RFP documents?

Answer – Deferred

Section B – Supplies and Services and Prices/Costs CLINs 0001 – 0006, pages 2 – 17 of 62 Question 189 – How will price changes for the XBM Sustainment CLINs be managed? Will the FPIF rates on Attachment 4 Labor Rate Schedule be used?

Answer – No price changes are anticipated, but yes in general the FPIF rates in the Labor Rate Schedule are applicable to the XBM Sustainment CLINs.

B030 and B039, page 34 of 62 Question 190 – 2000 series CLIN shown as FPIF - New Launch Service IV&V; 1000 series CLIN shown as CPIF Existing Launch System IV&V. New and Existing appear to be reversed.

Answer – CLIN titles will be corrected in the next release.

Section H H101 Associate Contractor Agreements, page 44 of 62 Question 191 - Associate Contractor List appears to be incomplete (missing Aerospace Corp, MCR, TASC).

Answer – Aerospace interaction is governed by the SMC Enabling Clause, ACA is not required. MCR and TASC will be added in the next release.

Performance Work Statement

Reference: PWS paragraph 1.4 Definition of Mission Assurance (MA).

Question 192 - This definition references AFI 63-1201, which has been superseded by AFI 63-101/20-

101. There is not a similar definition of MA in AFI 63-101/20-101.

Answer – The Government has changed the PWS reference to AFI 21-202V3, which contains the same definition.

Para 3.1 Question 193 – The Sustainment Level is defined as being equal to the number of static fires planned per year, but also states to be established by the Contracting Officer. It is suggested that the Sustainment level be defined independent of the number of static fires, thus allowing for the possibility of significant sustainment activity even if the number of static fires is low for any given year.

Answer – The sustainment level is defined as equal to the number of static fires planned for the year, which will be designated by the contracting officer when the contract/option is signed.

Para 3.1.1 Question 194 – Should the last sentence include “plan” after the word “updated”?

Answer – Yes, corrected.

Para. 3.1.3 Question 195 – Appears to be redundant with previous paragraphs. A/S refurbishment is in 3.1.11, T&H is thoroughly defined in 3.1.5, and the NC and ER database upkeep is in 3.1.13.

Answer – Agreed, reduced scope of 3.1.3 to address providing ER input only.

Para 3.1.4 Question 196 – It appears that this is more of an IV&V requirement belonging in Para 3.2.X.

Answer – This scope is related to the development of new (or alteration of existing) procedures in order to meet potential new requirements. It could probably be placed in either section but since it specifically addresses procedures for program hardware vice LSC items, it was deemed more appropriate to include in the sustainment area of the PWS.

Para 3.1.5.9 Question 197 – Does the government want a WRD or TRD for paragraph efforts?

Answer – WRD is the correct term for this effort, ,since it defines the work activities to be performed vice the performance requirements for the hardware.

Para 3.1.5.12 Question 198 – Is the intent of this requirement for contractor to support lifting beam proof loads or directly contract with vendors and fund the proof load efforts?

Answer – Deferred.

Para 3.1.5.13 Question 199 – Not sure what COTS DSE software is being referred to in this requirement. Please clarify.

Answer – Deferred.

Para. 3.1.9 Question 200 – It appears that this is more of an IV&V requirement belonging in Para 3.2.X.

Answer – Changed “mission” to “logistics”, to clarify that this effort is for planning of general activities to support readiness of government equipment.

Para 3.1.10 Question 201 – Is the requirement to develop an AS test program plan and execute that test program?

That is, what is the scope of work included in “test program?” The proposal cost depends on scope definition.

Answer – No, the MAC is not expected to execute the test program, execution requires additional program office contract/agreement activities to execute. However, MAC technical support of execution is needed, so the phrase “…, and provide technical support and advice during execution of the test program” will be added to the end of the last sentence to clarify that MAC support is required.

Para 3.1.11.2 Question 202 – Does the phrase “maintain GFP motor handling equipment” belong with a paragraph that is predominantly concerned with documentation update? If so, what is meant by “maintain” in regards to the GFP?

Answer – Effort was poorly worded with the run-on sentence, which is not split into two sentences to read “Recommend updates to the procedures and/or technical orders (T.O.s) used by the government to refurbish motors for static fire. Recommend updates to the procedures and/or technical orders (T.O.s) used by the government to maintain GFP motor handling equipment.”

Para 3.1.11.5 Question 203 – It appears that two paragraphs merged into one. One is variable (logbooks), and one is fixed (test plans). Is this intended?

Answer – Correct; that was a formatting error, effort should be split into two paragraphs.

Para. 3.1.12 and 3.1.12.1 Question 204 – Recommend combining these paragraphs for ease of proposing and evaluation.

Answer – Agreed, will be merged into one paragraph 3.1.12.

Para 3.1.19 Question 205 – Requirement appears to be a restatement of Para 3.1.18.

Answer – Para 3.1.18 re-worded to clarify that it only applies to the MM and PK ordnance systems, while 3.1.19 covers the motors and other components.

Para 3.1.20 Question 206 – This requirement is listed as a [Fixed] bid item though it has no direct requirement. Is this just a header for the following 4 sub-paragraphs or should it be assumed it represents on-call support of this effort?

Answer – This is just a header – “[Fixed]” will be removed.

Para 3.1.20.2 Question 207 – What is the scope of this requirement? Is it to write requirements for potential use of a new vendor for future SR19 motor modification, or is it for component or system level modification of components associated with the existing SR19 program?

Answer – The government buys (generally) two additional flexseal modifications each year, the scope of this effort is to support the continued update of requirements (due to obsolescence, identified updates, increased environments, etc.) for that annual procurement activity.

Para 3.1.23 Question 208 – Requirement seems ambiguous. Is there a specific task, or ordnance component (s) that the offeror will be supporting? As written the range could be all motor ordnance components.

Answer – The requirement is to provide technical support to government efforts in the areas identified to keep all motor ordnance items flightworthy.

Para. 3.1.28 Question 209 – Appears to be redundant with Para. 3.1.5 requirements. Recommend combining with 3.1.5, and deleting 3.1.28 Answer – 3.1.5 covers a broad range of activities specific to sustainment of equipment but does not include development of work procedures, while 3.1.28 covers the full range of support required to develop validated and verified work procedures not unique to equipment sustainment. No redundancy is evident.

Para 3.1.30

Question 210 – Is this requirement a part of the motor design information for mishap response referenced in Para 3.1.21? If so, recommend combining to reduce duplication of responses.

Answer – No, 3.1.30 provides for support to development of the cited guides “pre-event”, while 3.1.21 provides for on-call support “post-event”.

Para 3.1.40 Question 211 – The discrete travel table lists trips required for Sustainment only. It does not include any travel associated with A/S or the other functions listed in Para 3.1.X. Is this table meant to be inclusive of all travel to bid to under Para 3.1, or just an example/ minimum expected?

Answer – This table is now deleted, travel for all efforts will be funded by a separate cost-based CLIN.

Para 3.2 Question 212 – Overview of Cat1 specifically excludes Space Flight Worthiness Criteria. But on ORS-3 this is a document that IS required. Is this an intentional change?

Answer – As ORS-3 is the trailblazer mission for Cat1, the approach has recently evolved; while SMC does not certify the LV and SFWC is not required for the LV, SFWC completion and certification is now required for the GFE XBM motors. Para 3.2.1.20.6 will be edited to state “Assist the MM/PM in SFWC checklist completion for XBM motors in support of SMC certification” to reflect that SFWC checklist must be completed for the GFE motors for Cat1 missions.

Para 3.2.1.21 Question 213 – Para 3.2.1.21 and Para 3.2.1.22 (Risk identification and risk assessment) are both “no requirement However in 3.2.1.2 it says “provide technical advice to the IPT’s risk management activity”.

This is confusing and inconsistent - - please clarify.

Answer – From start to finish throughout each mission, the IPT runs a monthly/continual risk management activity regardless of MA Category, and the MAC is required to provide technical advice to this government-led two-year long risk management activity regardless of MA Category. This IPT risk management activity is very distinct from the 3.2.2.21 risk identification effort executed by the MAC based on the results of IV&V in the named disciplines, and is also distinct from the 3.2.2.22 residual mission risk assessment that is provided NLT two weeks prior to the FRR, both of which are provided by the MAC only once very near the end of the effort.

Paragraph 3.2.2.23.1 IV&V Kickoff Review Question 214: The PWS requirements state that “The kickoff should be provided prior to the launch contractor CDR or equivalent.” This infers that the kickoff presentation should be held at some time between PDR and CDR, which is also where it appears on Slide 28 of the Industry Day briefing. In support of Cat 2 and 3 missions, there are PWS requirements that begin prior to SRR and some prior to LSC award. For example, PWS paragraph 3.2.1.1 Mission Development requires that the MA contractor “Assess and provide input to mission requirements development with the launch service and payload stakeholders prior to award.” There are also PWS requirements related to MAC support of SRR, weekly IPT meetings, monthly TIMs and other pre-PDR activities. Recommend require the MAC to provide the Kickoff Review presentation prior to SRR for Cat 2 and 3 missions. This review should present details on all proposed MA support activities through CDR or equivalent.

Answer – The objective of the IV&V Kickoff is to two-fold, to inform the government of MAC concerns with the LSC’s design going into the CDR, and to provide the MM/PM with insight into the MAC’s plan for executing the IV&V “campaign” in earnest. Prior to SRR, the initial MM/PM will already be familiar with the MAC’s initial IV&V planning via technical evaluation of the MAC’s proposal to provide IV&V support. However by the time of CDR (generally one year later), the original MM/PM will have been replaced 99% of the time, so the IV&V Kickoff prior to CDR provides the new MM/PM with valuable MAC perspectives and plans immediately prior to the CDR major review.

Paragraph 7.1.1, page 37 Question 215 – “Possess a facility security clearance at minimum classification level identified in DD254.” Does this refer to the Corporate facility security clearance level or is this required for a local facility in ABQ?

Answer – It refers to the Corporate facility security clearance level.

DD254

Block 13. Security Guidance Question 216 – Access to SIPRNET is required. Is this access required at the contractor site or is use at the government site acceptable? If access is required at the contractor site, what role will the government play in assisting the contractor in obtaining access?

Answer – SIPRNet access will not be required; the DD254 will be amended.

Base Support Agreement Question 217 – The original Draft RFP stated in PWS 6.1 (Government Furnished Property - Base Support) that the government expects to provide up to 24 spaces at KAFB and up to 9 spaces at VAFB for this work. The second Draft RFP removed this language and Q&A #185 states GFP will be taken out of the PWS and included in the BSA. BSA paragraph 4.1 says the Government will provide limited facilities.

Can the government quantify what it will be able to provide in terms of facilities, including office space?

Will space be available and/or provided at LSC facilities? Will the government provide any space for the IV&V Mission Assurance personnel supporting Launch Rehearsals and Day of Launch that will be performed at CCAFS, FL; Wallops Island, VA; and Kodiak, AK?

Answer – The BSA is being amended to reflect a phased availability level. For OSP-3 missions, the LSC provides space for up to two government representatives at the LSC facilities, and one of these will normally be for the MAC. The government will provide temporary facilities for MAC use at launch sites via the UDS process.

Section L Section L-2.8, Table 2.8 and L-2.8.6 Indexing Question 218 – Table 2.8 specifically refers to tabs (e.g. Tab 3a: Subfactor 1 – TA…), but paragraph 2.8.6 says that tabs/dividers are not required. Please clarify if tabs are required.

Answer – “Tab” in this context simply indicates a specified section of the proposal, but the government recognizes that inserting physical dividers into the proposal volumes creates an expense and lead time for minimal value to the government, so physical tabs/separators between the designated sections are not required.

Section L-2.8, Table 2.8 Question 219 – Table 2.8 references paragraph 7.1.9 for the OCI Identification and Mitigation Plan in Volume II, yet paragraph 7.1.9 refers to the list of compliance documents that the Offerors should attached to the Contracts Documentation volume. Please clarify the paragraph number reference.

Answer – Reference will be corrected to 7.3.13 which addresses the OCI Plan.

Section L-2.8, Table 2.8, L102 Paragraphs 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 and Industry Day slide 46 Question 220 – Please confirm the intent of changes to Section L 4.2.4, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.5, and 4.2.5.1 that there is no prescribed page limitation/allocation per Sample Mission (i.e. the total page limitation of 60 and 110 pages, respectively, is for the general approach plus unique differences for each Sample Mission).

Answer – That is correct, this change was made to allow offeror’s flexibility to use the 60 and 110 page limits to address the general and unique elements as desired.

Section L-2.8, Table 2.8 – Tab 4c: Subfactor 2 – SPM; Key Personnel page limit – “30” Question 42 – “Answer: Agreed, 3 pages should be sufficient to capture roles and responsibilities plus minimum qualifications of each position…limit will be reduced to 15 pages in the next draft RFP.

Question 221 – Table 2.8 says Tab 4c is limited to 30 pages, but the answer to question 42 from 12 April 2013 says that the key personnel section will be limited to 15 pages. Please clarify the correct page limitation, and update Table 2.8 accordingly.

Answer – Corrected to 15 page limit.

Section L-4.2.3 XBM Sustainment Engineering Question 222 – The instructions reference an “annual execution plan…”. Is this just another way of referring to our proposed solution to meeting the PWS requirements or is there some sort of actual annual execution plan that must be delivered? If the latter, will the Government provide an example of such a plan?

Answer – The offeror’s proposed solution to meet the XBM Sustainment Engineering requirement is distinct from the annual execution plan which is a deliverable under contract execution.

Section L-4.2.12 CWBS and 4.2.13 BoE Question 223 – The CWBS instructions state “develop a CWBS for XBM Sustainment and each IV&V effort…” The BoE instructions state “provide the BoE for each CLIN proposed, broken out to the CWBS level at which the BoE was developed.” From the instructions, it appears that a CWBS is not required for the Sample Special Studies; however it would need to be developed in order to provide the BoE for the Special Studies CLIN. Please clarify.

Answer – Point taken, a sentence will be added to identify that Special Study BoEs are not expected to reflect the CWBS.

Section L-5.3 Relevant Contracts “Each task or delivery order of an IDIQ contract may be considered as a separate contract.”

Question 224 – Section L says that task or delivery orders “may” be considered as a separate contract.

Can an IDIQ contract be submitted as a single past performance while referencing the relevant task or delivery orders within the write-up (to avoid duplication of contract-specific data such as Contract Specifics, Contracting Officer POC, etc.)?

Answer – Yes.

Section L, page 5 of 28 Question 225 – Should innovations and beneficial enhancements which result in cost savings be described in 1) tab 3a, 3b, 3c, tech volume, etc., where they will occur according to the WBS, 2) tab 4a, the Service Performance Management approach, 3) tab 4d, Service Performance Management approach; Cost Control/Target Price Reduction Plan, or 4) in each of these locations?

Answer – Deffered

Section L, Table 2.8, Para 4.2.6 Question 226 – Paragraph states total 14-page limit for both special studies, but Q&A #3 states limit of 5 per study. Which is correct?

Answer – 14 pages total for both. The limit was increased from 5 to 7 pages per Q&A #161, and the “per study” limits were combined into one total for that Tab to allow offerors flexibility and reduce confusion over the page allocations.

Section L – Appendix A (Mission Information Documents)

Question 227 – In the Roles and Responsibilities (3.0), all of the MIDs require the Launch System Contractor (LSC) to provide LV design, integration, interface, mission planning, and launch of one or more systems. In executing these responsibilities, are the LSCs required or expected to follow DOD approved Systems Engineering (SE) processes, such as those defined in AFI 63-101/20-101 (supersedes

AFI 63-1201)?

Answer – Generally yes, but due to variances in mission and contract requirements each system development effort has some flexibility in approach. The next iteration of the bidder's library will include the work statements from the SRP-3 and OSP-3 contracts so offerors can see how SE requirements are levied.

MID 2.1 – Para 3.6 “Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs) are required for: Tecolote Research, Inc.;

Aero Thermo Technology, Inc; and MCR Federal, LLC. “ Question 228 : There are no Roles and Responsibilities defined in the MID for these contractors. What are the roles and responsibilities of these companies relative to this and other Sample Missions?

Answer – The Government will provide copies of the contract PWS for Aero Thermo Technology, Inc.

and MCR Federal, LLC in the Bidder’s Library 2.0. Tecolote Research, Inc provides financial support to SDL operations through the SMC SFS contract.

MID 3.1 – NASA Suborbital

LSMA PWS 3.2.5

Question 229: MID 3.1 paragraph 5.1 LSMA PWS MA Requirements refers to PWS Section 3.2.5 GFE motor refurbishment, yet 3.2.5 is actually XBM Flight Motor Processing. Please clarify the PWS paragraph and title.

Answer – MID corrected, “XBM Flight Motor Processing” is the correct title.

MID 3.6 – NAVSAT2

CLIN 2005

Question 230: MID 3.6 paragraph 1.1 Overview states the baseline launch location will be Cape Canaveral. CLIN 2005 states baseline launch location will be Kodiak. Please clarify.

Answer – The baseline launch location is Cape Canaveral, CLIN citation will be corrected.

MID 3.9 – MRBM-T1/T2

LSMA PWS 3.2.4

Question 231: MID 3.9 paragraph 5.1 LSMA PWS MA Requirements refers to PWS Section 3.3.8 Construct 2, yet 3.3.8 does not exist. Rather, 3.2.4 is Construct 2. Please clarify the PWS paragraph and title.

Answer – The MID will be corrected, 3.2.4 is the correct citation.

MID 3.10 – Juno #5

LSMA PWS 3.2.1/3.2.2

Question 232: MID 3.10 paragraph 5.1 LSMA PWS MA Requirements refers to PWS Section 3.2.2 Cat 1 MA, yet 3.2.2 is Cat 2 MA. Please clarify if PWS 3.2.2 is the correct PWS reference or if it should be 3.2.1 Cat 1 MA.

Answer – It should be 3.2.1 Cat 1 MA, thank you for the correction. The same correction applies to MID 3.11.

MID 3.10, Para 3.2 Question 233 – Para 1.1 states this mission is a SRP-3 contract, but Para 3.2 states OSP-3 contract.

Which is correct?

Answer – SRP-3 is the correct contract.

MID 3.10, Para 5.1 Question 234 – The Cat 1 MA requirement doesn’t match the “(PWS 3.2.2)” reference, same sentence.

Answer – PWS citation changed to 3.2.1.

MID 3.10 & MID 3.11

Question 235 – Since the only difference in the two MID’s are the PoP, does the government want an essentially duplicate description of MA efforts? Recommend combining, but keep two cost estimate requirement.

Answer – The government wants to see the offeror’s planned approach for each mission. The government would expect to see a duplicate description if the offeror anticipates doing things exactly the same for both missions.

Section L, Appendix B – Sample Special Studies

Sample Special Study 4.1 Question 236: Page 5, paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5 refer to the MAC and SSC, respectively. Assuming the SSC is the LSMA contractor in this case, please clarify the relationship between the MAC and SSC and verify they are not one in the same.

Answer – The MAC and the SSC are expected to be the same contractor, but the nomenclature is preserved to distinguish between MAC and SSC because they are different roles, and could conceptually be two different contractors if one or the other effort were not awarded on the LSMA contract.

Sample Special Study 4.2 Question 237: Sample Special Study 4.2 ends of page 6 of 9. Are there pages missing?

Answer – No, the page counter just required updating.

Special Study 4.2 Question 238: Para 1.2, first sentence What does the acronym CMDS stand for?

Answer – That was an erroneous acronym, changed to “CSM Basing”.

Special Study 4.2 Question 239: Para 2.1.3 - Are all munitions assumed to be non-nuclear/depleted uranium?

Answer – All munitions are non-nuclear, and may include depleted uranium.

Section L, Appendix C

Appendix C, Past Performance Information Form – “Limit the number of citations submitted … to the limitations set forth at paragraphs 2.8” Section L-2.8, Table 2.8 – Factor 2: Past Performance page limits – “8 for each contract up to 5 contracts.

Not to exceed a total of 40 pages.” “8 (additional) for each partner contract … not to exceed a total of 48 pages for all partners.”

Q&A #1 - Question 95 – “…can more than 6 (total) (or 8 now based on the most recent draft RFP) recent contracts be cited for teaming partners if the 48-page limitation is still met? Answer: Yes” Question 240: The guidance regarding the number of contracts allowed within the specified page count for past performance is still a little unclear based on the Q&As from 12 April. If more than eight contracts are allowed to be cited as long as the page limitations are not exceeded, please update Table

2.8 and Appendix C accordingly. Otherwise, please specify exactly how many can be cited.

Answer – Detail has been added to clarify that up to 3 contracts per partner may be nominated; up to 8 pages may be provided per contract; up to 48 pages total for all partner contracts.

Appendix C, Past Performance Information Form – E. Completion Date Question 241: Please clarify what is expected under section E. Completion Date for “3. Estimate at Completion.” We assume you want to know the estimated dollar value at the completion date (to include all expected exercised options), but we want to confirm this is true.

Answer – That is correct.

Section L-2.8 – OCI Identification and Mitigation Plan Section L-5.0 Volume II – (Factor 2) – Past Performance, L-5.5 Contents Section L-7.1.16 – “…Submission of the OCI identification and mitigation plan is requested to be submitted with Volume II – Past Performance” Question 242: Table 2.8 and L-7.1.16 says to include the OCI Identification and Mitigation Plan in Volume II, but L-5.5 Contents does not identify where to include this plan within Volume II. Please clarify where you would like this included.

Answer – Added at 5.5(4)e.

Section L-7.0 Volume V – Contract Documentation Question 243: Is subcontractor information required to be included in the prime’s Contract Documentation volume (e.g. Section K [7.1.3], company POCs [7.1.5], DCAA/DCMA POCs [7.1.6], company identifying information [7.1.7], etc.)? If so, please clarify what information is required by subcontractors versus what information is only required by the prime.

Answer – Deferred.

Section L-7.1.8 GFP and/or Base/Range Support Requirements Question 244: This section states the Government plans to provide the items listed in the PWS as GFP.

However, the GPS section has been removed from the PWS. Please clarify.

Answer – The GFP will be identified in a separate “GFE List” attachment to the solicitation, and Section L will be updated to reflect that location.

Attachment 4 – Labor Rate Schedule Tab “Labor Category Requirements” Question 245: The note at the bottom of this worksheet states, “* Additional Labor Categories under the IV&V Support are to be added as needed.” Is it not the intent for these labor categories and descriptions to apply to all CLINs? If not, how does the Government intend to evaluate the BOE for XBM Sustainment Engineering?

Answer – Yes, these apply to all CLINs, the note simply means that if the offeror utilizes more labor rates than shown, more rows can be added as needed, i.e. the government is not intending to constrain the number of labor rates that can be proposed.

Tab “Fully Burdened Labor Rates” Question 246: Please confirm the labor categories and rates apply to all CLINs by applicable contract type.

Answer – That is correct.

Section M Question 247: There are no section M evaluation criteria for PWS 1) XBM flight motor processing, 2) XBM GTM processing, 3) Launch site ops and pathfinder support, and 4) Post flight support. How does the government intend to evaluate these PWS requirements?

Answer – Section M paras 2.2.2.9 and 2.2.3.9 will be added to address both flight motor and GTM processing. Section M paras 2.2.2.7 and 2.2.3.7 will be revised to specifically include launch campaign support. Post-flight support is covered by Section M paras 2.2.2.2 and 2.2.3.2.

Question 248: Para 2.2.1 XBM Sustainment Engineering technical evaluation factors only include XBM Refurbishment (2.2.1.1), XBM AS Activities (2.2.1.2-6), and XBM Enhancements (2.2.1.7). Does this mean the XBM non-Refurbishment and AS tasks will not be considered in the technical evaluation of a proposal? If not the intent, would an XBM Sustainment “catch all” statement be warranted?

Answer – The intent of Section M criteria is to focus on anticipated discriminators between proposals based upon the government’s risk assessment for the procurement, not to require 100% evaluation of every element of the PWS. The Government anticipates the XBM refurbishment and AS activities cited will provide the required discrimination between proposals.

Question 249: Q&A #143 estimates a mix of 20% Sustainment, 80% IV&V on this contract. Given that ratio, combined with the expansion of the IV&V mission to include new MA Categories, new launch vehicles, and liquid and hybrid rocket engines , why is XBM Sustainment Engineering weighted equally to

IV&V?

Answer – The offeror is making an inaccurate assessment – there is no weighting between elements below the subfactor level. The government’s rating at the subfactor level will be based upon the totality of the assessments (strengths, weaknesses, etc.) made against the elements of the subfactor in accordance with Section M Table 1, but there is no rating or assessment of XBM Sustainment vice IV&V.

The Government would also note that there are 6 elements under SBM sustainment and 18 elements under IV&V.

Section M-3.3 – Relevancy Assessment; LSMA Past Performance Subfactor Relevancy Ratings Question 250: With respect to Technical Approach, recommend including satellite vehicles (SV), to include the bus and payload, to the IV&V, V&V, and analysis Relevancy Criteria definitions. Many of the activities required for performing IV&V,V&V, and/or analysis of satellite vehicles (e.g., development contractor oversight; pedigree review; QA; test; MS&A of GNC, avionics, structures, propulsion, etc.;

flight software; interface controls; risk assessments; reviews; etc) are similar in nature and technical complexity to the activities required for IV&V, V&V, and/or analysis of launch vehicles, systems, and services.

Answer – The commonality between IV&V, V&V, and analysis of satellite vehicles and launch vehicles is minimal – the scale of propulsive and structural forces, GNC principles, avionics operating times, etc is very different and the disciplines are applied in significantly differently scales and time periods. The government declines this proposed change in the relevancy criteria for Technical Approach.

Question 251: With respect to Service Performance Management, recommend adding systems engineering and integration (SE&I) and operations services to the Relevancy Criteria. Management, transition, staffing, and/or cost control for contracts involving SE&I and/or operations services for space vehicles utilize similar processes and tools as those used for sustainment engineering or mission assurance services. Furthermore, the sustainment engineering and mission assurance services aspects of the LSMA contract are well covered under the Technical Approach Relevancy Criteria; the Service Performance Management Relevancy Criteria should focus more on the management, transition, staffing, and cost control aspects of the contracts being cited.

Answer – Agreed; the Government accepts this proposed change in the relevancy criteria for Service Performance Management.

Question 252: With respect to Service Performance Management, recommend changing the “and” to “and/or” in the Relevancy Criteria definitions as shown below (in BLUE). Either of the metrics, number of missions or dollar value, should be sufficient to demonstrate the magnitude required for relevancy for Service Performance Management.

Answer – The Government’s concern in this relevancy criteria lies in both the quantity of services managed and the aggregate scale in terms of dollars executed. Managing a single service over $10M or multiple services at a lower dollar amount does not require the same level of management as multiple services that aggregate to this scale. Over the past two decades, the level of MA services executed has never been less than 4 concurrent missions or less than $10M/yr, and in most years it has been at least double and sometimes triple that level in both. The government declines this proposed change in the relevancy criteria for Service Performance Management.

Section M, page 15 of 15, Para 4.4.3 Question 253: Does the government plan to only evaluate the price of the sample missions listed: SM

2.1 (Cat 3), SM 2.2 (Cat 1), SM 2.3 (Cat 2), SM 3.1 (Cat 3), SM 3.2 (Cat 1), SM 3.3 (Cat 2), SM 3.4 (Cat 2), SM 3.5 (Cat 3), or will the government evaluate the price of all the sample missions listed as CLINs in Section B of the RFP?

Answer – The government will evaluate the price of all sample missions issued with the solicitation;

4.4.3 changed to reflect this.

Q&A#1 Question 141 re Most Probable Cost:

Question 254: Why only probable cost estimates for the CPIF CLINs (New Launch System IV&V)? The government should also be able to develop probable cost estimates for the FPIF CLINs; otherwise, how will the government evaluate cost reasonableness and realism for XBM Sustainment Engineering and the Existing Launch System IV&V?

Answer – The government TEP will evaluate the FPIF efforts at ceiling price, which eliminates the need to evaluate an MPC for the FPIF efforts.

Q&A#1 Question #177 states the government cannot be sure which missions will be awarded due to fiscal constraints. Q&A #123 states the government solicits Industry input as to how the proposal size and complexity could be reduced without sacrificing value.

Question 255: Given the uncertainty in the mission manifest and the fact that there is a high potential that the Sample Missions bid in this proposal may need to be modified and re-bid post award (particularly with regard to future missions which are not currently well-defined), the purpose for including all of these Sample Missions for bid is unclear. Furthermore, the government has revised Section L to include proposing a general IV&V approach for new and existing missions. Recommend the government consider reducing the number of Sample Missions to include a combination of those missions the government has substantial confidence will be awarded and that exercise various combinations of solid versus liquid, new versus existing, mission assurance category, and OSP-3 lane.

This should still enable the government to accomplish its objective of evaluating the proposed IV&V approaches, while reducing the number of Sample Missions that require a full proposal response, including technical approach, schedule, BOE, and pricing.

Answer – The Government understands the concern, and plans to delete Sample Mission 2.4 from the final RFP, and two of the Existing System MIDs (which two is still to be determined).

Bidder’s Library

Question 256: The MIDs provide general guidelines for each mission however more detailed documents are needed to develop an accurate BOE and price. From the Universal Documentation System (UDS) each mission should have: Program Introduction (PI), Program Support Plan (PSP), Program Requirements Document (PRD), Operations Requirements (OR), Operations Directive (OD), Mission Requirements Document (MRD), Interface Control Document (ICD), and the ICE/MDR Rehearsal Plan/CONOP. We understand some of these documents may not be fully completed yet for some of the missions, however please provide drafts if the finals have not been released.

Answer – For most missions all of the UDS is generated significantly after the MA support is placed on contact. However the government will evaluate the availability of this and similar relevant information available for each sample mission to provide additional data in Bidder’s Library 3.0.