LSMA_Industry_QA_3_v1_13Jun13.pdf

LSMA Draft RFP

FA8818-13-R-0021

Industry Questions – 12 Jun 13

Questions Deferred from Q&A #2

General Question 188 (Answer deferred in Q&A #2) – 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: The Government is considering all possible options on how to provide an editable file. The ConWrite program used to generate the Draft and Final RFPs is very limited in terms of output format; however for the final RFP, the original files are planned to be converted to editable Adobe pdf files and posted in a pdf portfolio file alongside the official RFP posting on FedBizOpps.

PWS Para 3.1.5.12 Question 198 (Answer deferred in Q&A #2) – 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: To directly contract with vendors and fund proof load efforts.

PWS Para 3.1.5.13 Question 199 (Answer deferred in Q&A #2) – Not sure what COTS DSE software is being referred to in this requirement. Please clarify.

Answer: RSLP purchased a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) cable test set that is used at the 309th Missile Maintenance Group for testing Minuteman rocket motor raceway cables, replacing the legacy Minuteman cable test set. The incumbent took the test executive commands that came with the test set and developed customized scripts to test this specific set of cables. The LSMA contractor will be required to update the test set scripts as required to ensure the accuracy of cable test results. Additional material will be provided in Bidder’s Library

3.0 to clarify the scope of script maintenance to potential offerors.

Section L, page 5 of 28 Question 225 (Answer deferred in Q&A #2) – 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: Due to the wide range of potential innovations and enhancements to be proposed, it is difficult to give a precise answer to that question. But generally speaking the innovation should be described in detail in the Volume/Section where it is most relevant. So innovations and enhancements which result in “general” cost savings through effective performance management would normally be expected to be described in Tab 4a, while specific innovations and enhancements designed to reduce the price target from one effort to the next would normally be expected to be described in Tab 4d.

Section L, Volume V – Contract Documentation Question 243: (Answer deferred in Q&A #2) 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: No. Section K Representations and Certifications are to be submitted by the Prime contractor and shall be submitted in the Contract Documentation Volume.

Company POC, company identification information, cognizant DCAA/DCMA etc. is also Prime Contractor information to be submitted in the contract volume.

Industry Questions No. 3

Performance Work Statement

CDRL A006 Technical Reports – Study/Services CDRL A006 indicates at the bottom of block 16 that it continues…“(cont’d)”, but there is no continuation page.

Question 257 – Will a continuation page be provided in the final RFP?

Answer: Yes. The continuation page was inadvertently omitted in compiling the RFP; it should have read as follows:

PWS 3.2.3.1 / Augmented Independent Validation Report PWS 3.2.3.24 / Augmented Flight Worthiness Assessment PWS 3.2.4.8 / SMC Motor Certification and Lessons Learned Review PWS 3.2.6.8 / GTM Performance Assessment PWS 3.4.4.1 / Transition Review

Block 4: Contractor format is acceptable as approved by the COR or deliverable shall use the current SD format and/or guidance available from the COR.

Sample Contract, Section B – Supplies and Services and Prices/Costs Question 258 – Will there be a separate CLIN for ODCs related to the IV&V work?

Answer: One ODC CLIN will be used for all LSMA travel and material requirements. A shared Not-to-Exceed amount will be determined by the Government for the base year and each option year (if exercised). The CLIN will be incrementally funded.

Sample Contract, Section I – Contract Clauses Question 259 – It does not appear the FAR clause 52.222-41 Service Contract Act of 1965 is included, nor the attachments (or links) to the DOL information. Will this contract be subject to

SCA?

Answer: FAR Clause 52.222-41 is not included in this solicitation as it does not typically apply to these types of services.

Section L

Question 260 – There is a change in Section M from Draft RFP #2 to Daft RFP #3. New evaluation criteria requirements were added to 2.2.2 and 2.2.3: XBM Motor Utilization (2.2.2.9 and 2.2.3.9). There are no corresponding requirements defined in Section L. Will XBM Utilization requirements be added to Section L in the next release of the DRFP or RFP?

Answer: An L vs M cross reference matrix will be added as Appendix B to Section L.

Section L-2.8, Table 2.8 Proposal Organization Question 261– 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.

Answer: Confirmed.

Section L-5.3 Relevant Contracts “…Also include information on up to two (2) recent contracts performed by each of the Offeror’s teaming partners and significant subcontractors…” Question 262 – Section L-5.3 still says an offeror can provide up to two contracts per subcontractor. Please confirm the number of allowable contracts per subcontractor is three, as stated in Table 2.8 “8 (additional) for each partner contract, up to 3 contracts per partner…” and the most recent Q&As.

Answer: Confirmed.

Section L-4.2 Question 263 - There is very little correlation between the IV&V requirements in Section L (4.2.4, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.5, 4.2.5.1 and 4.2.6) and the IV&V evaluation criteria in Section M (2.2.1,

2.2.2.1 - 2.2.2.9, 2.2.3, 2.2.3.1 – 2.2.3.9, 2.2.4 and 2.2.4.1 – 2.2.4.4). This creates a dilemma for the offeror’s, relative to how best to outline the proposal - should it be based on Section L or Section M? It is suggested that the requirements in Section L be redefined to exactly correlate to the selection criteria in Section M.

Answer: Correlation Table added as Appendix B to L.

Section L-4.2.4, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.5, and 4.2.5.1 Question 264 – Recommend the government modify Section L as follows:

• L-4.2.4 – Launch System IV&V – General

• L-4.2.4.1 – Sample Missions for New Launch Systems

• L-4.2.4.2 – Sample Missions for Existing Launch Systems

Recommend both new and existing launch system IV&V approaches be discussed in 4.2.4, which will reduce redundancy and help flow. As already prescribed, 4.2.4.1 and 4.2.4.2 will emphasize the unique challenges, issues, and risks for each sample mission. The page allocations could remain as they are in total (170 pages for 4.2.4 and subsections) or they could be reallocated specifically for each based on the governments objectives and desire. This approach allows for a more cohesive flow on the general approach, while still enabling sufficient detail to discuss differences in the approach for new versus existing launch systems, as well as the details for each sample mission.

Answer: Recommendation accepted.

Section L-4.2.7 Management Approach and Section M-2.3.1 Management Approach Question 265 – Draft RFP #3 added the statement “comply with Information Assurance requirements” in Section L-4.2.7; however, Draft RFP #3 deleted the Section M reference to Information Assurance from Draft RFP #2 (M-2.3.1.6 Information Assurance (IA). The offeror’s IA plan must demonstrate an effective timeline and execution scope to meet IA requirements in the execution of all contract efforts.). Please clarify whether Information Assurance needs to be addressed as part of the Management Approach.

Answer: Section L will be corrected to delete the reference. Information Assurance will not need to be addressed.

Section L-4.2.8 Transition Plan Section L-4.2.8 states…”Describe the incoming Transition Plan for attaining XBM sustainment and proposed IV&V effort full execution capacity, including a milestone timeline which demonstrates the significant transition interchanges with the incumbent (See Incumbent Transition PWS Excerpt at Appendix E) and when full capability is attained for each effort.”

Question 266 - Does the Incumbent Transition PWS Excerpt at Appendix E include interchanges for both XBM Sustainment Engineering and IV&V or is it only for XBM Sustainment Engineering?

Answer: The Incumbent Transition PWS scope includes transition support to “all on-going work”.

Section L 6.2.5, Tab 4 – Accounting System Question 267 - If a subcontractor’s accounting system has not been approved by DCAA for cost type billing, would a T&M or FFP subcontract type be appropriate?

Answer: Yes. The Government has no privity between a Prime and Subcontract team.

Section L 6.2.5, Tab 5 – Subcontracts, IOTs, Consultants Question 268 - Is it necessary to provide evaluation for cost reasonableness and realism for rates that are not used in CLIN pricing but are proposed for future pricing purposes?

Answer: The Government will not require the prime contractor to submit a price reasonableness analysis for each subcontract proposed.

Section L, Para. 6.2.6 and 6.2.7.1 Question 269 – What are the specific requirements for subcontractor proposals? In the usual case that the subcontractor does not wish to submit detailed indirect rate information to the prime contractor for evaluation, the prime can only perform price analysis on the subcontractor’s proposed burdened labor rates and/or costs. Do those proposed burdened rates/costs alone constitute a compliant subcontractor proposal?

Answer: Yes.

Section L 6.2.6, Tab 6 Cost/Price and Supporting Information: “Ensure that all direct labor rates and indirect expenses rates and estimating factors used in the proposal have been submitted for review by the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency…” Question 270 - If an organization does not have an FPRA and does not obtain approval on direct rates per the approved procedures for the company, please explain under which action the offeror is to provide direct rates used in the proposal to DCAA.

Answer: No longer relevant.

Section L-6.2.7.2 “CLIN 0001 Sustainment levels 0 - 7 correspond to current workload requirements….”

Question 271 – This sentence is confusing. CLIN 0001 is for the Base Year of the contract.

What does it mean that Sustainment levels 0 – 7 correspond to current workload requirements?

That implies the current workload varies between 0 and 7 static fires per year. Please confirm or state what the current workload actually is.

Answer: That statement will be rewritten “Sustainment Levels 0-7 correspond to the number of static fires to be designated by the PCO for the Period of Performance.”

Section L-6.2.7.2 “…, the estimated Government budget for the Sustainment Level 0 is $3.1M.”

Question 272 – Is $3.1M the estimated Government budget for the Base Year (corresponding to CLIN 0001), or is the estimated Government budget for Sustainment Level 0 (i.e. no static fires) $3.1M total for all five years of the contract?

Answer: $3.1M is the estimated Government budget for Sustainment Level 0 in the Base Year.

Section L – Appendix A (Mission Information Documents)

MID 2.3 – MRBM-T1/T2; MID 3.8 – MRBM-T3; MID 3.9 – MRBM-T1/T2

Question 273 – 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?

Answer: 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.

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 Question 274 – The referenced sample missions and special 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?

Answer: 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.

Question 275 – Four of the Sample Mission MIDs (2.3, 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9) contain Mission Milestone Schedules that require MAC support for SDL Motor Buyoff and SMC Motor Certification. There is a brief discussion and Entry and Exit Criteria for the SDL Motor Buyoff milestone in SDL-10-2011-08, System Reviews Plan; however, we could not find similar material for the SMC Motor Certification milestone requirement, other than a reference in PWS paragraph 3.2.5.8 with a requirement to “compile motor certification letter”. Is it possible to add motor certification reference material to the Bidder’s Library, which will support the development of Entry and Exit Criteria to support this Milestone?

Answer: As “Construct 2” is a relatively new support activity, no such SMC Motor Certification has been completed to date. However, the initial eMRBM #1 SMC Motor Certification brief is in development now, and the current draft of that briefing will be provided with Bidder’s Library 3.0.

Attachment 4 – Labor Rate Schedule Question 276 - When pricing the CLINs, is it allowable to propose ceiling rates for future pricing but apply discounts specific to certain tasks?

Answer: With respect to the fully burdened labor rates for each labor category proposed for each year of the contract, these shall be the rates used in all future CLIN proposals for CPIF and FPIF IV&V requirements. These rates cannot fluctuate based on application of discounts.

Section M Question 277 - It is also suggested that the Section M criteria be slightly modified to better match the elements of the USAF/DOD Systems Engineering process, as defined in AFI 63- 101/20-101, which supersedes AFI 63-1201. It does not seem necessary to apply all of these processes - only those that have the most relevance to the Launch Systems IV&V requirements.

Our recommended changes are as follows:

Current Section M Recommendations

2.2.2.1 Analysis 2.2.2.1 Decision Analysis

2.2.2.2 Reporting 2.2.2.2 Technical Assessment

2.2.2.3 Risk Assessment 2.2.2.3 Risk Management

2.2.2.4 IV&V Tools 2.2.2.4 Design (include tools as part of the requirement)

2.2.2.5 Requirements IV&V 2.2.2.5 Requirements Management

2.2.2.6 Payload Integration Verification 2.2.2.6 Interface Management

2.2.2.7 Range Integration Verification

2.2.2.8 Interface Integration

2.2.2.7 Implementation (manufacturing or

modification and/or software coding)

2.2.2.8 Verification and Validation

2.2.2.9 IV&V Enhancements No change

Answer: The government non-concurs with this recommendation, as many of these changes would significantly change the implied content of the work requirement being evaluated under the cited criteria. As an example re: 2.2.2.3, the MAC is not being placed on contract to conduct risk management, and only provides limited technical support (see PWS 3.2.1.2) to the program’s risk management effort (described in reference document SDL-62-2011-01 “Risk and Opportunity Management”). The Risk Assessment effort that is the subject of criterion 2.2.2.3 is cited in PWS 3.2.2.22 (for Cat 2) and PWS 3.2.3.22 (for Cat 3). Similarly, the MAC is not placed on contract to manage requirements, interfaces, etc. as would be implied by the recommended re-naming.

Section 1.0 Basis for Contract Award, paragraph 4 “If there is not at least one Small Business offeror determined in the competitive range (or awardable without discussions), the SSA may terminate the source selection after the Initial Evaluation and direct the RFP to be re-issued as a full and open competition without the SBSA restriction.”

Question 278 – Is the highlighted phrase “or awardable without discussions” what the Government intended to say? Does that mean if at least one Small Business offeror is not awardable without discussions, the SSA may terminate the source selection or was the phrase added for completeness to complement the phrase “determined in the competitive range”?

Please clarify.

Answer: The phrase was added for completeness. If the SSA determines that there is at least one Small Business offeror in the competitive range then the source selection would not be terminated. If the SSA determines that a Small Business is awardable without discussions then the source selection would not be terminated. If neither of these conditions are met, the source selection may be terminated.

Section M-2.3.2.3 Transition Plan – Incumbent Interchange The Offeror must demonstrate an incoming transition plan which supports execution of the incumbent’s outgoing transition (L102 Appendix A) by providing adequate information and process capture planning to effectively support the transition interchange meetings.

Question 279 - We assume the reference in Section M-2.3.2.3 L102 Appendix A should be Appendix E. Please confirm.

Answer: Confirmed.

Section M-2.3.3.4 Key Personnel – Transition Team The offeror must demonstrate a transition team which supports execution of the incumbent’s transition (see L102 Appendix A), providing adequate personnel with the proper expertise to effectively support the transition interchanges within the transition time period.

Question 280 - We assume the reference in Section M-2.3.3.4 to L102 Appendix A should be Appendix E. Please confirm.

Answer: Confirmed.

M-4.4.3 Launch System IV&V Price Question 281 – Section M-4.4.3 says the proposed Target Price for these sample missions will be evaluated… However, the Appendix D Pricing Tables list all sample missions. Do all sample missions need to be priced or only those listed in Section M-4.3.3? If all sample missions must be priced, why are only certain missions being evaluated as part of the Total Evaluated Price?

Also, the MA Categories described in the MIDs do not all correlate with what is shown in Section M-4.4.3. Furthermore, the MA categories shown in Appendix D for each sample mission do not all correlate with the MIDs or Section M-4.4.3. Please clarify.

Answer: All sample missions must be priced, and all of those prices will be included in the TEP.

The mismatches cited are the result of multiple rounds of edits to missions with the same information captured in multiple locations; these will be reconciled in the solicitation.

Bidder’s Library

Question 282 - There are a number of reference documents in the Systems Engineering Plan (SDL-10-2011-01) that appear to be relevant to the IV&V requirements (PWS 3.2) and the responses to those requirements. It is requested that the following documents be added to the Bidder’s Library:

Answer: The SE Plan was the first of several planned “Command Media” documents generated by the program, and contained citations of several planned documents that have either not yet been completed or have been deleted from the planned effort. The specific answers for each recommended document are captured below.

SDL-10-2011-05, Mission Management Plan – Not yet completed SDL-10-2011-10, LVC Support to Mission Assurance – Deleted (See OSP-3 PWS instead) SDL-10-2011-14, Measurement Plan - Deleted SDL-10-2011-17, Self-Inspection Program - Deleted SDL-10-2011- 19, Program Plan (“Mission Template”) – Not yet completed SDL-10-2011- 21, Decision Analysis and Resolution – Not yet completed SDL-10-2011- 22, Requirements Management – Not yet completed SDL-62-2011- 01, Risk and Opportunity Management – Added to Bidder’s Library 3.0 SDL-62-2011- 02, Risk and Opportunity Candidate Form Template – Deleted as a separate document, incorporated in SDL-62-2011-01 SMC-G-1204, SMC Readiness Review Process - Added to Bidder’s Library 3.0

Question 283 - During internet searches for relevant material, we discovered references to the following three SMC documents that may be related: 1) SMCI 63-1202 Space Flight Worthiness, 2004; SMCI 63-1203, Independent Readiness Review Team, 2004; and 3) SMCI 63-1204, SMC Readiness Review Process, 2004. Is it also possible to add these references to the Bidder’s Library?

Answer: These SMCI’s were replaced by SMC-G’s with the same numbering circa 2009, which are or will be included in the Bidder’s Library.

Question 284 - The Systems Engineering Plan (SDL-10-2011-01) references the PMD 09-003

(1) PMD for “Rocket System Launch Program” document. It appears to be relevant to the IV&V requirements (PWS 3.2) and the responses to those requirements. Will this document be added to the Bidder’s Library?

Answer: The PMD is a bit dated (2009), is non-compliant with the new AFI 63-101 in terms of program type, and is of minimal value to offerors; but the government has no objection to including it and will add to Bidder’s Library 3.0.