LSMA_Industry_Q A'sUpdated_Answers.pdf

LSMA Draft RFP

FA8818-13-R-0021

Update to Industry Questions No. 1 – 3 – 29 Aug 2013

# Original Question & Answer Answer Update based on 27 Aug 2013 RFP (should be final RFP version) 2 Section L 2.8, Table 2.8, 4.2, Tab 3c, and

Schedule B Q: In Table 2.8 it states page limit for Tab 3c is 50 pages (10 pages per each mission with a total of five missions), but in Section 4.2 instructions for Tab 3c, it states there are eight missions and in Schedule B it lists 8 mission CLINs. If there are eight missions, is the page count going to be increased to 80 pages total? If there are only five missions, is Section 4.2 outline and Schedule B going to be changed to only show five missions?

A: Each mission proposal for existing systems will be allowed 10 pages.

The page limits have been modified per additional industry feedback; see RFP for final page count limits.

3 Section L 2.8, Table 2.8 and 4.2, Tab 3d Q: Table 2.8 states that the page limit for Tab 3d is 5 pages. In Section 4.2, instructions for Tab 3d there are two separate studies. Is this 5-page limit for each study totaling 10 pages for Tab 3d?

A: Each special study proposal will have a limit of 5 pages.

Sample Special Studies have been deleted.

4 Section L 7.3.4.4 Q: Section L 7.3.4.4 Other Attachments to the Contract states the following shall become attachments to the contract when awarded. Is there any requirement for these attachments for Proposal submission for Volume IV Contract Documentation? The first three items are already in the Technical Volume. Is the OCI Mitigation Plan required for Proposal Submission in Volume IV?

A: Yes, identification of any potential or actual Organizational Conflict of Interest (COI) and associated mitigation plan shall be provided in Volume IV. This requirement will be clearly

Identification of any potential or actual Organizational Conflict of Interest (COI) and associated mitigation plan shall be provided in Volume II.

stated. In addition, AFFARS Provision 5352.209-9001 will be added to Section L.

14 PWS 3.2.2.1; 3.2.2.23.1 - .3; 3.2.3.2 - .4;

3.2.4.6; 3.4.1.1 Q: CDRL A006 is the environmental, health and safety plan. This appears to be the wrong CDRL for risk assessment and certification of performance. Is CDRL A006 incorrectly referenced in these paragraphs?

A: The CDRL citation is correct, but an incorrect version of CDRL A006 was included in the draft RFP. The correct CDRL A006 is very similar to A004 but with no approvals required.

CDRL A006 corrected, CDRL citation dropped from PWS 3.2.2.1;

3.2.3.2-.4 since paragraph content changed and no longer required;

CDRL citation with PWS 3.2.2.23.1- .3 correct; CDRL A005 required for 3.2.4.6

20 PWS table 5-1, SS#1 Q: “No more than one (2) sets…”, needs correction A: Corrected to “one (1)” in PWS v13.

Q&A is N/A to latest RFP.

28 CDRL A001

Q: CDRL does not identify/match PWS references for paragraph 3.1.11, 3.1.12, 3.1.20 – 3.1.24, 3.2.1.15, and 3.2.2.22.

A: For 3.1.11 and 3.1.21-3.1.24 – the CDRL is deleted. For 3.1.12, 3.1.20, 3.2.1.15, and

3.2.2.22 (renumbered 3.2.2.21) changed CDRL cited to (the corrected) CDRL A006.

PWS 3.1.12 and 3.2.1.15 - CDRL is deleted; PWS 3.1.20 is broken out into sections, CDRL cited is CDRL A006 in 3.1.20.4; PWS 3.2.2.22 (not renumbered as stated in the original answer) changed CDRL cited to (the corrected) CDRL A006.

35 Section B, CLIN 2000 and Sample Mission 3.1 Q: In Section 5.1 of the MID, it is stated the MAC will be required to fulfill 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4. However, CLIN 2000 shows the PWS requirements to be 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.5, 3.2.6. Please confirm that in CLIN 2000, the references to PWS 3.2.5 and 3.2.6 should be removed and 3.2.4 should be added.

A: The requirement should have read actually 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.5 in both the CLIN and the MID, fixed in v6 of the MID.

Q&A is N/A to latest RFP. See Question 287 for updated list of Sample Missions.

37 Sample Mission 3.6 Mission Information Document (MID) Q: In Section 5.1 of the MID, it is stated, “The MAC shall provide Cat1 MA (PWS Section 3.2.2) for this mission.” Please confirm that the statement should be changed to “The MAC shall provide Cat1 MA (PWS Section 3.2.1) for this mission. “ A: Confirmed, the 3.2.1 citation is the correct

See Question 287 for updated list of Sample Missions.

one, fixed in v6 of the 3.6 MID.

39 Section B, CLIN 2007 and Sample Mission 3.8

Mission Information Document (MID) Q: In Section 5.1 of the MID, it is stated the MAC will be required to fulfill 3.3.8, 3.2.5, and

3.2.6. CLIN 2007 shows the PWS requirements

to be 3.2.4 and 3.2.5. Please confirm that in CLIN 2006, a references to PWS 3.2.6 needs to be added, and In Section 5.1 of the MID the reference to PWS 3.3.8 needs to be changed to 3.2.4.

A: Confirmed, the MID and CLIN should cite 3.2.4, 3.2.5, and 3.2.6, fixed in v6 of the MID.

Q&A is N/A to latest RFP. See Question 287 for updated list of

Sample Missions.

75 Q: Page 6, PWS 2.1, Compliance Documents There are several information assurance related references. Where are the IA requirements captured in the PWS? What are the CDRLs for

IA?

A: The incumbent contractor has developed an independent telemetry collection capability that will be required for Cat 3 missions. This system, known as “RTPS”, is currently IA approved, so the MAC will be required to maintain the IA certification when this system is turned over to the LSMA contractor after completion of current incumbent missions. We also recognize the possibility that some proposed approaches may involve IA elements (e.g. telemetry collection) and/or offeror-specific IT needs may involve IA elements (e.g.

Kirtland-based employees requiring access to contractor IT systems).

IA requirements have been removed from the PWS.

82 Page 11, PWS 3.2, IV&V Q: “The Contractor shall plan the execution of each mission assurance IV&V effort.”

How is safety being accomplished in accordance with the IV&V portion of the PWS?

The assumption is several documents are handed over to the range, regardless of Category of Mission Assurance, but accomplishment of these documents are nowhere listed in the PWS under 3.2. Is the LSMA contractor working in conjunction with another effort/contractor who supplies these to the range?

A: The LSMA contractor participates in the

Safety program is identified in PWS paragraph 3.2.2.5 now safety program as identified in para 3.2.2.25 (note: changed to 3.2.2.24 in PWS rev 13)

113 PWS 3.1.22

Q: Typically tech order CDRLs are handled under a separate CDRL, not a management planning CDRL. Recommend adding a separate CDRL per TO 00505-3 using DAD # TMCR 86-01N.

A: The Government will consider this recommendation.

The PWS has been revised to reflect that the MA contractor oversees publication of TOs, but does not actually publish TOs.

122 Section L, Para 4.2.12 Q: SMC should provide a top-level WBS down to level 3 of the WBS per MIL-STD-881C.

A: The RSLP WBS will be provided with the Bidder’s Library.

RSLP WBS posted on FedBizOps

128 Sample Mission 3.6, para 5.1 Q: MA requirements call for Cat1 MA and performance of S/W IV&V. Is SM-3.6 a Cat 2 mission, or is S/W IV&V the only additional work beyond the Cat1 MA?

A: SM-3.6 is a Cat 1 MA effort, the reference to S/W IV&V was inadvertent and will be deleted from v6 of the MID.

See question 287 for updated list of Sample Missions. This effort is a CAT 2 MA effort.

161 Section L Q: The sample special studies are ambiguous and need to be better defined. How does industry demonstrate assumptions?

A: The Government will continue to refine the special study requirements and has increase the special study page allotment from 5 pages to 7 pages each to allow for identification of offeror assumptions. Specific Industry suggestions identifying ambiguous areas are welcome.

Sample Special Studies have been deleted.

219 Section L-2.8, Table 2.8 Q: 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.

A: Reference will be corrected to 7.3.13 which addresses the OCI Plan.

OCI is in Sec L para 5.5 in latest

RFP

223 Section L-4.2.12 CWBS and 4.2.13 BoE Q: The CWBS instructions state “develop a CWBS for XBM Sustainment and each IV&V

Sample Special Studies have been deleted.

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.

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

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

A: 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.

Sample Special Studies have been deleted.

232 MID 3.10 – Juno #5 LSMA PWS 3.2.1/3.2.2 Q: 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.

A: It should be 3.2.1 Cat 1 MA, thank you for the correction. The same correction applies to

MID 3.11.

Q&A is N/A to latest RFP. See Question 287 for updated list of

Sample Missions.

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

Which is correct?

A: SRP-3 is the correct contract.

Q&A is N/A to latest RFP. See Question 287 for updated list of

Sample Missions.

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

A: PWS citation changed to 3.2.1

Q&A is N/A to latest RFP. See Question 287 for updated list of

Sample Missions.

235 MID 3.10 & MID 3.11

Q: 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.

A: The government wants to see the offeror’s planned approach for each mission. The

Q&A is N/A to latest RFP. See Question 287 for updated list of government would expect to see a duplicate description if the offeror anticipates doing things exactly the same for both missions.

236 Sample Special Study 4.1 Q: 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.

A: 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 Studies have been deleted.

237 Sample Special Study 4.2 Q: Sample Special Study 4.2 ends of page 6 of

9. Are there pages missing?

A: No, the page counter just required updating.

Sample Special Studies have been deleted.

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

A: That was an erroneous acronym, changed to “CSM Basing”.

Sample Special Studies have been deleted.

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

A: All munitions are non-nuclear, and may include depleted uranium.

Sample Special Studies have been deleted.

242 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” Q: 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.

A: Added at 5.5(4)e.

Paragraph 5.5(4)e is now 5.6(5)e

247 Section M Sec M paragraphs 2.2.2.9, 2.2.2.7, Q: 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?

A: 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.

and 2.2.2.2 are now the applicable paragraphs

261 Section L-2.8, Table 2.8 Proposal Organization Q: Draft RFP #3 changed the L102 paragraph reference for the OCI Identification and Mitigation Plan to 7.3.13. However, that paragraph does not exist in Section L. Please confirm the paragraph reference should be 7.3.9.

A: Confirmed.

OCI Identification and mitigation plan is in Sec L paragraph 5.5 now.

273 Section L – Appendix A (Mission Information Documents) MID 2.3 – MRBM-T1/T2; MID 3.8

– MRBM-T3; MID 3.9 – MRBM-T1/T2

Q: The MIDs referenced are nearly identical in their descriptions, with the difference being new versus existing missions and the number of missions supported in paragraph 5.1 of each MID. Without additional detailed information, it is difficult to differentiate these in a manner that would provide value to the Government in its evaluation. Can you please explain what the purpose is for including all of these as sample missions?

A: The purpose was to place these on contract at contract award. However, the program has reviewed the sample missions again with an objective of reducing the requested missions to the minimum required to meet proposal technical evaluation and mission needs, and has eliminated MIDs 3.8 and 3.9 from the solicitation.

See Question 287 for updated list of Sample Missions.

274 MID 2.1 – PAP MCS Demo; MID 2.3 – MRBM- T1/T2; MID 3.7 – eMRBM; MID 3.8 – MRBM-

T3; MID 3.9 – MRBM-T1/T2; SS 4.1 – PAP

MCS Demo Systems Engineering Q: The referenced sample missions and special

See Question 287 for updated list of study are very similar in nature and/or related to work that TASC is currently doing on several of their existing contracts, including the Mission Assurance Bridge. This would presumably provide TASC with access to information, specific requirements, scope, issues, etc. beyond what is available to other competitors.

Furthermore, for work in progress or previously completed, it would seem that TASC would have already developed proposal materials and pricing for those efforts. This would appear to provide a competitive advantage to whichever team TASC is on. If the sample missions are not actual missions in the manifest and are instead just samples for the sake of this proposal, would the government consider providing different missions, either real missions or samples which do not provide an advantage to the incumbent contractor?

A: The sample special studies have been deleted from the solicitation on the basis of limited technical value in the evaluation, with the full cost of all special studies that could be added to the contract priced into the Total Evaluated Price instead. Regarding the other MIDs, all of the cited missions are “real”; however MIDs 3.8 and 3.9 have been deleted from the solicitation to reduce the scope of effort required for offeror proposal preparation and the government’s technical evaluation to the minimum required to meet proposal technical evaluation and mission needs.