LSMA_Industry_QA_4_v2Final27Aug13.pdf

LSMA Draft RFP

Industry Questions – 27 August 2013

Location Question PWS 3.3.1 and CDRL A004

Question 285.

PWS paragraph states (CDRL A004). Is this the output requirement for this paragraph? If so, should PWS 3.3.1 be added in Block 16 of the CDRL A004?

Answer: Yes, PWS 3.3.1 has been added to CDRL A004.

PWS page 16, Section 3.2.1.7.1

Question 286.

“3.2.1.7.1 SD Equipment Interfaces. Provide input to develop and/or revise integration of SD equipment with equipment available from other agencies or host areas.”

Question: To what type of SD Equipment does this requirement refer? Does this refer to Launch Vehicles (LVs) that are being procured under development contracts from Launch Services Contractors (LSC) or is there some other meaning? We could not find any other references to “SD Equipment” in the DRFP. In all other cases, the terminology LV (Launch Vehicle) and Space Vehicle (SV) are used.

Answer: SD Equipment includes the several thousand items of handling equipment, and miscellaneous motor-related hardware items that may be requested as GFE by the Launch Service Contractor (LSC) to support handling, test, and transportation for XBM launch missions.

Sample Missions Question 287.

“Have there been any changes in the number of sample missions and/or special studies that will be required?”

Answer: Yes, there are now only 7 sample missions that offerors will be required to propose:

Sample Mission 2.1 PAP MCS Launch System IV&V

Sample Mission 2.2 MRBM-T1/T2 Launch System IV&V

Sample Mission 3.1 ORS-2 Launch System IV&V

Sample Mission 3.2 STP-3 Launch System IV&V

Sample Mission 3.3 Navsat Launch System IV&V

Sample Mission 3.4 Navsat2 Launch System IV&V

Sample Mission 3.5 eMRBM Launch System IV&V

Also, there are no sample special studies; however, the special study limit of 20,000 hours per year will be included in the Total Evaluated Price.

Sample Mission 3.6 MID, par 5.1

Question 288.

“The MAC shall provide Cat1 MA (PWS Section 3.2.2) for this mission.” Do you mean to reference PWS Section 3.2.1 to correspond with Cat 1 MA?

Answer: 3.2.1 would have been the correct citation for that draft MID;

however in the final RFP the Navsat/Navsat2 mission sequence (now numbered MIDs 3.3 and 3.4 respectively due to a decrease in the number of sample missions required) have been changed from a Cat2/Cat1 sequence to a Cat3/Cat2 sequence, respectively.

Sample Mission 3.7 MID, par 5.1

Question 289.

PWS 3.3.7 is referenced, but the CLIN 2006 does not state this PWS, nor is there a 3.3.7. Was 3.2.4 supposed to be referenced instead, as well as 3.2.5 and 3.2.6? Please clarify MID PWS requirements.

Answer: Yes, the MA PWS reference for eMRBM (now numbered MID 3.5) has been corrected to 3.2.4.

Sample Mission 3.5 and

3.6 MIDs, par 1.1 & 2.0

Question 290.

For both MID missions each par 1.1 describes this as the “launch of a pair of Navigation Satellites”, and “The LSC is responsible for the integration of one space vehicle…” In addition, par 2.0 states “…is to launch an 1100kg SVs with navigational payloads…” Please clarify if both MIDs are multi SV missions or single SV.

Answer: (Note – in the final RFP the Navsat missions are now designated 3.3 and 3.4). Both MIDs are for a dual SV launch, so the LSC will be responsible for the integration of two 1100 kg satellites per mission. The MIDs have been clarified to reflect this mission definition.

Sample Mission 3.3 &

3.5 MID, Section 5.1, 3rd sentence

Question 291.

Please verify availability of the LSC provided software integration lab for MAC Software IV&V. In addition, this availability is not specified in sample mission 3.6. Please clarify.

Answer: The AFSPC-X mission in the prior MID 3.3 has been deleted from the sample mission set. The LSC-provided software integration lab is no longer available, so none of the MIDs will cite this availability.

Special Study 4.2, MID par 4.0; & CLIN 3001PoP

Question 292.

The SSRD requires a 15 Mar 2014 Kickoff (Saturday), but the CLIN states the PoP does not start until 17 Mar 2014, two days after the Kickoff milestone.

Please clarify correct PoP start and Kickoff dates.

Answer: This requirement is no longer applicable, the SSRDs have been deleted from the solicitation.

DD254, Block 8 continuation

Question 293.

It is not expected to need an Air Force Pentagon or USSTRATCOM operating location to perform the PWS requirements. Please clarify why these are listed.

Answer: Those citations are carry-over from a prior contract special study type effort that included work at those locations. The citations for Pentagon and USSTRATCOM sites is N/A if no contracted work is required at those locations.

Base Support Agreement

Question 294.

If contractor personnel are at other government facilities, will there be base support clauses implemented? For pricing, should we assume a support clause will be added?

Answer: If the offeror proposes the use of other government facilities, then compliance with that facility’s terms of use would be required. The support clause for the current identified facility is included in the solicitation. For pricing, if the offeror proposes significant government-provided items (such as government facilities) in addition to what is listed in the RFP, then the offeror should be prepared to identify the fair rental price for such items.

Section L Question 295.

The last draft RFP was posted over two months ago, should offerors expect any significant changes to the proposal structure or evaluation criteria?

Answer: In addition to the reduction in sample missions and the elimination of the sample special studies, a new Technical Appendix has been added which requires offerors to complete a Cross Reference Matrix. In addition, the final RFP will reflect a change to (DoD Source Selection Procedure) “Methodology 2”, which provides for separate ratings of Technical and Technical Risk for each of the Technical Subfactors, so offerors will receive a Low/Moderate/High risk rating in each of these subfactors, and the definitions of the color ratings are also changed under Methodology 2 vice the definitions briefed at Industry Day.

Section L, 4.2.14 Question 296.

Tab 5d requires schedules for XBM sustainment CLINs. Does the Gov’t require a unique schedule for each of the Sustainment Levels(0-7) or should the schedules reflect an assumed Sustainment level?

Answer: The RFP will be updated to reflect an XBM Sustainment effort schedule required only for CLIN 0001, at Sustainment Level 6.

Section L -4.2.13 Basis of Estimate

Question 297.

Do you want to see the BOE organized by CLIN or by CWBS element? This revolves around the definition of "effort" as highlighted above. We understand the pricing needs to be presented rolled up to the individual CLIN, but we're not sure if "effort" means CLIN (i.e., one year of XBM Sustainment, individual mission) or if "effort" means CWBS element. Please advise as to your preference since we can do it either way.

Answer: The intent of the word "effort" aligns with the proposed CLINs (with the obvious exception of the ODC and Data CLINs), so the BoE should generally reflect the CLIN structure of the proposal.

Section L, Section 2.9 Question 298.

It states the electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2007, MS Office Excel 2007, MS Office Project 2007, or MS Office Power Point 2007, as applicable. Can some of the Tab 5 Technical Appendices be delivered in Adobe PDF format?

Example: (5l) Copy of each document referred to in the CWBS dictionary or (5m) MAC-Tailored Reference Documents.

Answer: Yes, Section 2.9 has been updated to reflect that PDF format is acceptable for artifact copies of previously existing documents.

Section L, Section 2.8.2.1

Question 299.

Does the font size apply to Tab 5 Technical Appendices for files delivered in this section?

Answer: No, these limits only apply to page-count-limited sections.

Section M, paragraph

2.3.1.4 WBS

Question 300.

Previous question #122 answer stated that the AF draft WBS would be included with Bidder’s Library 2.0. No WBS was included. Does the AF still plan to provide a WBS?

Answer: The Program WBS has been posted on FBO.

Section M, paragraph

2.3.3 Key Personnel

Question 301.

RFP Section M paragraph 2.3.3 is the only area under subfactor 2.3 that lacks beneficial enhancement evaluation criteria. Suggest paragraph 2.3.3 include a key personnel beneficial enhancement, for example: “The Government may consider beneficial enhancements that exceed the threshold performance requirements if they are evaluated to be strengths in accordance with AFFARS

5315.305. In particular, the Government will consider how the Offeror’s key personnel approach presents enhanced program success and could improve our ability to execute in a cost-constrained and volatile environment.”

Answer: The government has not identified any specific opportunities to demonstrate a strength under the criterion described in 2.3.3. This does not totally preclude the earning of a strength relative to this criterion, but the government does not anticipate assessing a strength in this area due to the anticipated difficulty in identifying the tangible benefit to the government.

Program WBS Question 302.

It appears the government-provided RSLP WBS is the WBS for the entire RSLP program, not just the LSMA contract. Please confirm.

Answer: That is correct, the Program WBS covers the entire program.

Program WBS Question 303.

Will the government be providing their version of the LSMA WBS?

Answer: No, the government does not develop a WBS for the contracted effort.

Program WBS Question 304.

Will offerors be required to "map" to the government-provided WBS? For example, are we required to use the RSLP WBS as provided and to "extend" certain WBS elements that are applicable to the LSMA tasks? Do we have the latitude to create the CWBS "from scratch" based on our interpretation of the work?

Answer: There is no requirement for the offeror to use the RSLP WBS, it is provided as background information in response to a specific industry request (Q&A #122) that it be provided.