LSMA_Industry_QA_v7_PKTN_FBO_Post_25Apr13.pdf

LSMA Draft RFP

FA8818-13-R-0021

Frequently Asked Questions – 12 April 2013

# Location Question

1 Section L, Table

2.8 vs. MID titles

Proposal outline shows 4 New LV IV&V Sample Missions and 8 Existing LV IV&V Sample Missions while the MID titles for 3.7 and 3.8 state “New Launch System”. Which is correct?

A: The MID titles are incorrect, Draft v6 of MID 3.7 and 3.8 will show corrected titles.

2 Section L 2.8, Table 2.8, 4.2, Tab 3c, and Schedule B

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.

3 Section L 2.8, Table

2.8 and 4.2, Tab 3d

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.

4 Section L 7.3.4.4 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 stated. In addition, AFFARS Provision 5352.209- 9001 will be added to Section L.

5 Section L 4.2.14 Section 4.2.14 for Integrated Schedules that the offeror shall provide Integrated Schedules for each CLIN proposed. Is it the government intent to have offeror submit a schedule for Option V CLIN 0006 Transition Out?

A: Yes.

6 Multiple CLINs Are references to Section H, Clause SD/PKT – H005, as “Technical Services” intended to be contract clause H003?

A: Yes. Each applicable CLIN will be corrected to reference SD PKT “H003”

7 1000 Series CLINs Contract type varies between FPIF and CPIF, but the descriptive data states “CPIF, IV&V Mission Services will be ordered…” please resolve the conflict.

A: The 1000 series CLINs will all be CPIF.

8 2000 Series CLINs Contract type varies between FPIF and CPIF, but the descriptive data states “FPIF, IV&V Mission Services will be ordered…” please resolve the conflict.

A: The 2000 series CLINs will all be FPIF.

9 CLIN 2006 The CLIN PoP does not agree with the MID PoP.

Which is correct?

A: The Sample Contract CLIN PoP will be adjusted to match the MID PoP.

10 CLIN 2007 The CLIN PoP does not agree with the MID PoP.

Which is correct?

A: The Sample Contract CLIN PoP will be adjusted to match the MID PoP.

11 PWS 3.1.7 CDRL reference is missing

A: Added CDRL A004 citation.

12 PWS 3.1.8.1 How does this Para differ from the requirements identified in Para 3.1.5? If tasks are similar, we recommend combining paragraphs.

A: Agreed – 3.1.8.1 deleted.

13 PWS 3.2.2.14.3 Does this refer to just launch vehicle GN&C models? If this also intends to include payloads, contractors typically do not provide design details and insight needed to validate their models.

A: Wording modified to clarify that this is only applicable to LSC models.

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

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.

15 PWS 3.2.2.24 In most cases, commercial rocket motors are developed before selection for a launch program so design and development will have already taken place. Should the proposal assume hours for commercial rocket motor development, qual, and test?

A: The MAC will be required to analyze the engine design and the development activity, whether these activities are historical events, concurrent activities, or as in most cases some combination of the two.

16 PWS 3.2.5 & 3.2.6 Should paragraphs 3.2.5 and 3.2.6 be combined, as the work is basically the same with some omissions for GTM effort?

A: While there is some commonality, the MAC activity required to support refurbishment of a flight motor is sufficiently different in scope from the activity required to convert a motor to a GTM configuration that the government elected to capture these as two different scopes of work.

17 PWS 4.2 PWS 4.2 is not sequential with paragraph 4.6 above - - needs to be renumbered.

A: That heading got disconnected somehow – thank you! Fixed in PWS v13.

18 PWS 4.2.12 This paragraph number is listed twice

A: That paragraph got disconnected somehow – thank you! Fixed in PWS v13.

19 PWS 4.8.1 CDRL A007 reference appears to be wrong. Is CDRL A002 or CDRL A008 the intended one?

A: That paragraph (now numbered 4.9.1) should reference CDRL A008, fixed in PWS v13.

20 PWS table 5-1, SS#1

“No more than one (2) sets…”, needs correction

A: Corrected to “one (1)” in PWS v13.

21 PWS 6.1, 1st sentence

The Government “may” or “will” furnish?

Depending on the wording, proposal costs will be different. How should GFP/Base Support be proposed?

A: This paragraph will be removed from the PWS, it is covered by the base support agreement.

However the base support agreement needs to show the available space as a function of time.

22 PWS 6.1, next to last sentence

Should “DO” actually be “contract/CLINs”?

A: Yes, changed to “contract”.

23 Section L Table 2.8, page 6, factor 2

What is the total number of past performance contract submittals allowed? That is, are the two per partner in addition to the max five for prime?

A: Yes, the two per partner is in addition to the max five for prime, “(additional)” added to that line for clarity.

24 Section L, 4.2, (5m) & 4.2.23

These paragraphs refer to 8.3.4.3, which we cannot locate. What is the correct reference?

A: Correct reference is 7.3.4.3, fixed in Section L v9.

25 Section L, 4.2.16 “The offeror shall provide a sample IV&V Kickoff Presentation….” Do you mean “…sample IV&V Midterm Presentation….”?

A: Yes, fixed in Section L v9.

26 Section L, 4.2.15 - .23

Are the sample presentations and requested documents part of the appendices, and therefore have no page count limit?

A: That is correct; per Table 2.8 the Technical volume appendices described in 4.2.11 thru

4.2.23 have no associated page limit.

27 CDRL A001 Are the draft AS Program Management Plan and Draft IV&V Mission Management Plan due with proposal, or only per CDRL 30DAC?

A: No CDRLs are due with the proposal, all contract deliverables are due per the CDRL, 30DAC.

28 CDRL A001 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.

29 CDRL A002 “IPMRs not required for FFP CLINs”. Is this true for the special study 3000 series?

A: Correct, IPMR is not required for special studies.

30 CDRL A004 Some of the listed document releases are dependent on launch vehicle requirements, not “Annual” as listed in block 10. Recommend block 10 be “see block 16” with more definitive requirements, or “ASREQ”.

A: Changed to “Block 16” with more definitive requirements.

31 CDRL A004 Block 16 par PWS 3.2.2.11 doesn’t match PWS paragraph requirement

A: Changed to 3.2.5.4.

32 CDRL A004 Block 8. Not all documents listed in the CDRL typically require government approval [e.g. Test Quick Look Reports, GTM Performance Assessment, etc.]. Recommend this CDRL be tailored as to which ones require government approval, or “ASREQ”.

A: Agreed; we scrubbed the CDRL A004 (requires approval) CDRL and moved several to CDRL A006 (no approval).

33 CDRL A007 “Submit 30 days before PDR or equivalent for government review”. Is the mission assurance contractor being tasked to hold a PDR of some nature in addition to the launch vehicle contractor PDR? If not, recommend “PDR” be changed to another XBM sustainment milestone event, or “As Requested”. In addition, PWS 3.2.1.5.4, (CDRL A007) requirement doesn’t seem to match the words of the CDRL

A: This CDRL for the GFE motor Safety Assessment Report is required per mission when the mission includes the use of GFE motors.

Delivery of the GFE motor SAR is required to support the launch contractor’s system safety design effort and CONOPs development, thus keying the MAC-provided report to the launch contractor’s PDR is required.

34 SM 3.4 The launch vehicle is not identified. Since the LV type determines extent of mission assurance, will the LV be identified in the final RFP? This is especially critical to accomplish a Cat 2 priced option.

A: The requirement to price MA options (for all sample missions) will be deleted from the final RFP. The assumption in this MID is that the STP- 3 mission will be flown on an existing OSP-3 Lane 2 launch vehicle. The offeror should scope the FPIF MA effort within that assumption space.

35 Section B, CLIN 2000 and Sample Mission 3.1

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.

36 Section B, CLIN 2001 and Sample Mission 3.2 Mission Information Document (MID).

In Section 5.1 of the MID, it is stated the MAC will be required to fulfill 3.2.1 and 3.2.5. However, CLIN 2001 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 2001, the references to PWS 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 should be removed.

A: Confirmed, the MID is correct.

37 Sample Mission 3.6 Mission Information Document (MID).

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 one, fixed in v6 of the 3.6 MID.

38 Section B, CLIN 2006 and Sample Mission 3.7 Mission Information Document (MID).

In Section 5.1 of the MID, it is stated the MAC will be required to fulfill 3.3.7, 3.2.5, and 3.2.6. CLIN 2006 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

3.3.7 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.

39 Section B, CLIN 2007 and Sample Mission 3.8 Mission Information Document (MID).

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.

40 Section B. Will offerors be required to have ACAs in place before/by proposal due date, or as the CLINs are activated?

A: No, the cited ACA’s are only required once the relevant CLINs are activated.

41 RFP Section H, Clause H003.

The number of authorized missions (5 missions) for each CY associated with CLIN Series 1000 and 2000 do not appear to reflect the number of missions in CLIN Series 1000 and 2000, how do the numbers of missions match up with reference CLINs? For example, is the Authorized 5 missions for each of the 1000 and 2000 series CLINS, some combination of those CLINS, or specifically defined by CLIN?

A: The authorized 5 missions per CY is a combination of Series 1000 and Series 2000, according to actual missions procured in that CY.

All CLINs that offerors are required to propose to will not be placed on contract. Also some of the CLIN 1000/2000 PoPs are in future CYs.

42 Clause L102, Information to Offerors and Instructions for Proposal Preparation, Table 2.8, Entry 4.2.6 and Section 4.2.9 (Key Personnel).

Instructions direct offerors to identify 3-5 Key Personnel. Even if offerors choose to propose the maximum number of Key Personnel, The 30-page Key Personnel limit would drive (or at least allow for) resumes and position descriptions to average six pages per Key Person. Typically in similar solicitations, the Government chooses to limit resumes/position descriptions to 2-3 pages per key personnel. We can certainly provide 6 pages of detail for our Key Personnel, but want to make sure that is your intent.

A: Agreed, 3 pages should be sufficient to capture roles and responsibilities plus minimum qualifications for each position, plus the qualifications of key personnel proposed. Limit will be reduced to 15 pages in the next draft RFP.

43 Clause L102, Information to Offerors and Instructions for Proposal Preparation, Section

5.3 9 (Relevant Contracts).

It is stated that “The Government will not consider performance on a newly awarded contract without a performance history …” Please provide more guidance regarding “performance history.” If the first six-month award fee period of an award fee contract (or the first period’s midterm evaluation has been completed), would that contract qualify for this solicitation? Note in Section M, it is stated that “To be recent, an effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation.”

A: For the purpose of this solicitation, relevant past or present performance may be a part of any Federal, State and Local Government or their agencies’ contract, or a commercial contract or subcontract having a performance period completion within(5) years of the RFP release date.

44 Clause M101 “Source Selection” and Clause M102 “Evaluation Factors,” Section 3 (Past Performance Factor).

How are relevancy and quality of PP for the offeror weighted/considered relative to the relevancy and quality of PP for our subcontractor? Is the PP Factor rating significantly more weighted/driven by the prime contractor’s performance record, vice the record of the subcontractor?

A: Because of the large range of potential combinations of teaming arrangements, it is difficult to give a precise answer as to how a specific combination of prime and subcontractor efforts will affect the overall past performance assessment, but the primary influence of the teaming arrangement is in the relevancy determination. To quote section 3.3 of Section M

- “In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.”

Following the relevancy determination, equally relevant efforts would then be “weighted” equally in terms of performance quality, whether performed by the prime or the subcontractor.

45 General: CLIN descriptions do not always correlate with the Sample Mission MIDs and PWS in terms of the PWS requirements referenced.

A: Acknowledged, CLINs and MIDs will be cross-checked in the next draft.

46 Page 2, CLIN 0001

How is the data for sustainment on existing contracts going to be handed off for bidders and at contract transition?

A: A bidders library will be made available in 3 releases – the first release 60 days prior to the planned RFP date with all currently available data and planned data identified, for industry review and comment; a revised release 30 days prior to the final RFP, containing more data and an updated list of planned data per Industry comment; and a final release concurrent with the RFP. The government seeks Industry input on planned content.

47 Page 2, CLIN 0001

Are there residual static fires on existing contracts after contract award for this effort?

A: No.

48 Page 8, CLIN 009

Contract Type says Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPIF).

Please clarify.

A: Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) is the correct type, there are no CPFF CLINs on this contract.

49 Page 8, CLIN 1000

How will the government handle incentive portion of new mission CPIF CLINs for later requirements changes and date changes for ILC?

A: The MAC’s scope of effort is expected to be relatively insensitive to moderate changes in requirements and ILC dates. For significant changes to MAC performance requirements (e.g.

changing an MA Cat 1 mission to a Cat 2 effort) or ILC dates (multiple months), a CLIN change mod may be negotiated.

50 Page 8, CLIN 1000

How long does the government expect the IF portion of the contract to be valid after the announced ILC?

A: See Question 49.

51 Page 9, CLIN 1001

Is the government going to award CLIN 1001 at initial award or later given work start date is Jul 18 with an ILC of Jun 20? Potential for delays is considerable.

A: Any or all CLINs proposed may be awarded at contract award at the government’s discretion.

52 Page 10, CLIN 1002

Please confirm this CLIN is meant to be CPIF.

Is the government looking for a single bid for all 3 launches on this CLIN or bids on each individual launch support?

A: Confirmed, this CLIN is CPIF. In general, the MIDs may include multiple missions. However for this particular MID, In the next draft RFP the MIDs will exhibit one CPIF CLIN for the first mission, with all subsequent missions required under a single FPIF CLIN.

53 Page11, CLIN 1003

Is the government looking for a single bid for all 3 launches on this CLIN or bids on each individual launch support?

A: Same answer as Question 52.

54 Page 12, CLIN 2000

How do OSP-3 options fit into IV&V planning? Do you assume a baseline launch vehicle for estimating, then add additional IV&V if the customer selects options for the rocket?

A: The MAC’s scope of effort is expected to be relatively insensitive to launch vehicle options, or even launch vehicle type (except for the distinction between “new” and “existing” LVs). For significant changes to the mission performance requirements (e.g. adding a rideshare effort post-award, a CLIN change mod may be negotiated.

55 Page 15, CLIN

2003, STP-3

mission

Why is the completion date 15 months after ILC?

A: Will be corrected in next draft of the RFP – PoP should generally end 3 months after ILC.

56 Page 16, CLIN

2004, NAVSAT

CLIN Series should be 2000, not 22000.

A: Will be corrected in next draft of the RFP.

57 Page 17, CLIN

2005, NAVSAT 2

Why is the ILC before start date of this CLIN?

58 Page 18: CLIN

2006, EMRBM

Mission

Why is the end date before ILC?

59 Pages 17, 18, & 19, CLINs 2005, 2006, & 2007

Are these CLINs intended to be FPIF? Please confirm.

A: Confirmed, these are FPIF CLINs.

60 Pages 8 - 19, 1000 & 2000 CLIN Series

It is understood the services under the 1000 CLIN series and 2000 CLIN series will be ordered based on the proposed Attachment 4 Labor Rate Schedule.

Please confirm reimbursement under the CPIF CLINs will be on a cost basis and not based on the labor rates.

A: Correct, reimbursement on CPIF CLINs is based on actual costs as invoiced. The labor rate schedule will be the labor rates negotiated for the five year PoP of the contract. The pre-negotiated labor rates shall be proposed for future CLINs being executed within the 1000 and 2000 CLIN series.

61 Pages 8 - 19, 1000 & 2000 CLIN Series

How will costs under the FPIF CLINs be reimbursed? Will it be based on the labor rates (rates x hours worked)?

A: Same as previous question.

62 Page 20, CLIN 3000s

Open ended special studies are more suited for CPFF rather than FFP. Is the government’s desire to just bid a certain number of hours as opposed to the work required?

A: No, the number of hours proposed will be based on each offerors approach and based on that approach, the amount of hours it will take to provide the requirements in the SSRD.

63 Page 20, CLIN 3000s

Does the government have a certain skill mix they believe is appropriate for the studies?

A: No. The skill mix is based on each offerors technical approach.

64 Page 21, Section B & Pages 49, List of Attachments

CLIN Series should be 2000, not 3000.

A: Page 21, Section B FFP, FPIF and CPIF definitions have been corrected to reference the correct CLINs.

65 Page 21, Section B & Pages 49, List of Attachments

There is no Incentive Fee Plan referenced in the model contract or listed in Section J. Is the only incentive for CPIF cost-related?

A: Yes, by definition incentive fee determination is purely cost-related.

66 Page 33, SD/PKT- H003, para a.

Are the 150% surge numbers a total increase or an increment. That is, does the IV&V missions increase from 5 to 7 as opposed to 5 + 7?

A: It is an increase, i.e. from 5 to 7.

67 Page 33, SD/PKT-

Is the Special Studies hour requirements 20,000 hours total per calendar year no matter whether surge is exercised?

A: The special studies limit is 20,000 hrs/year, independent of whether the surge is exercised.

The surge only applies to CLIN types 1000 and 2000.

68 Page 33, SD/PKT-

Since this is FFP, is the government going to pay for special studies each year even if they don’t end up doing the study?

A: No, each special study CLIN will be individually FFP, but there is no minimum number/amount of special study CLINs.

69 Page 33, SD/PKT- H003, para b.

This paragraph implies that we would propose against the 1000, 2000, and 3000 series CLINs later when appropriate? What is being proposed against today?

A: Offerors must propose to all of the efforts as prescribed in Section L. Which of these efforts will be added as CLINs at contract award will be determined at the time of award. Additional efforts may be solicited later as mission needs evolve, in accordance with the H003 clause.

70 Pages 37, FAR 52.216-16 Incentive Price Revision

The share ratios referenced in this FAR do not appear to be consistent with what is referenced in Section B and Section H, paragraph 3. The FPIF overrun percent decrease is 40% according to those sections. Please clarify.

A: The clause requires correction, fill in as follows:

Number of days – “30” Overrun percent – “60” Underrun percent – “40”

71 Page 43, Organizational Conflict of Interest

Given the scope of the current TASC Mission Assurance Bridge Contract (signed 11 Dec 12) – as well as other bridge contracts TASC is performing under – significantly overlaps the requirements in this solicitation, does the government perceive or foresee any OCI issues based on unequal access to information?

Specifically, how is the government going to handle LSMA proposal efforts overlapping with work being performed under the MA Bridge? For example, MA Bridge Missions 3 and 4 would seem to be the same as (or very similar to) Sample Missions 2.3, 2.4, 3.7, and 3.8.

A: The government is not aware of any duplication of effort between the current scope of work contracted to TASC and the LSMA RFP. There is a certainly time overlap of efforts under the TASC MA Bridge and LSMA due to the nature of the individual missions supported under each contract, but the government does not foresee any OCI issue specific to the fact that TASC is providing MA support for one mission at the same time another mission is getting MA support from the successful LSMA offeror. Practically all LSMA efforts with the possible exception of “new systems” are by definition very similar or identical to work performed by TASC under current and prior contracts. The nature of any OCI that must be addressed by LSMA proposals is totally dependant upon the nature of proposals received.

The government is open to industry suggestion for practical steps to mitigate any unequal access to information.

72 Page K-33, DFAR 252.234-7001 Notice of Earned Value Management System

Are the EVM thresholds ($20M and $50M) for Offeror and subcontractors applicable to the sum of FPIF effort values, as well as CPIF effort values?

A: EVM requirements have been waived for this acquisition – clause will be deleted.

73 Page K-33, DFAR 252.234-7001 Notice of Earned Value Management System

Please confirm FFP effort values do not apply.

A: EVM requirements have been waived for this acquisition – clause will be deleted

74 General

Request that RSLP provide the definition of Mission Assurance that they are applying to this effort. Many organizations cover Systems Engineering, IV&V, Quality Assurance and other engineering tasks under the umbrella of Mission Assurance. This is somewhat described in the beginning of the PWS but a more specific definition would be useful, such as the one provided in the Aerospace Mission Assurance

TOR.

A: The Mission Assurance Support services being solicited are defined in the PWS. Offerors are discouraged from inferring any scope outside the PWS based upon debate about what activities are and are not included in the broader scope of mission assurance. For reference, the Air Force definitions of Mission Assurance are found in AFI 63-1201 and AFI 21-202V3.

75 General

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).

76 Page 8, PWS 3.1.1, XBM Sustainment Engineering Tasks

“Develop a comprehensive plan for RSLP Aging Surveillance activities required to maintain a technical data foundation sufficient to support refurbishment of GFP motors to flightworthy status. The plan shall be updated annually to reflect changes to the scheduled testing for the out years based on the results from previous calendar year testing. (CDRL A001)"

Since Aging Surveillance (AS) is an on-going program, why does the government want a new comprehensive plan as opposed to maintaining the existing program while offering ideas for improvement?

A: The contractor is expected to develop a comprehensive plan, utilizing the current MM and PK plans as a foundation to build upon, but implementing the contracted XBM sustainment approach.

77 Page 8, PWS 3.1.1, XBM Sustainment Engineering Tasks

Will the Government be providing the current AS plan as part of the Bidder’s Library?

A: Yes.

78 Page 8, PWS 3.1.3

Will the Government provide a list of the GFP currently available? Request that the Government provide data as to the current status of that equipment. For example, what has current certifications and when those expire.

A: Yes, the government will provide a list of GFP that will be made available to LSMA contractor.

The government will provide the available status information.

79 Page 8, PWS 3.1.7

Will the Government provide current documentation and procedures for the equipment that is in use at this time?

A: No; the Government will provide a list of equipment in use at this time for inclusion in the Bidder’s Library.

Each Bidder will be required to request TOs individually as part of the RFP process.

TOs are not releasable documents therefore can’t be posted on the FebBizOps. TOs will be stamped “For Training Purposes only”.

80 Page 8, PWS 3.1.8

Will the Government provide a list of the current inventory at Camp Navajo?

A: Yes, the current inventory listing will be provided in the Bidder’s Library.

81 Page 10, PWS 3.1.19

“Conduct aging surveillance trend analysis and update useful lift estimates for MM and PK annually,…”

We assume “lift” should be “life”. Please confirm.

A: Confirmed.

82 Page 11, PWS 3.2, Independent Verification and Validation

“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 as identified in para 3.2.2.25 (note:

changed to 3.2.2.24 in PWS rev 13)

83 Page 12, PWS 3.2.1.5.3

Is the expectation that the MAC will provide information to other organizations such as HQ AFSPC in support of treaty compliance or be directly involved in compliance approvals?

A: The MAC will only provide information.

84 Page 14, PWS 3.2.2.7

How is this paragraph deconflicted from the RAMS contract requirements for acquisition support?

A: Both the MAC and the RAMS contractor (and other support contractors) support the Mission Manager and IPT execution. Conflicts between MAC technical support to schedule analysis and RAMS programmatic support is resolved by the Mission Manager.

85 Page 14, PWS 3.2.2.9

Does the government have an estimate of facilities and GSE changes required for the new missions as compared to existing systems?

A: No.

86 Page 15, PWS 3.2.2.13

Is the government going to provide a list of expected changes to baseline launch vehicle components for the new missions (e.g. avionics, structures, software)?

A: No. For sample missions designated as a “new launch system” type, the offeror should assume that changes with respect to a baseline have been deemed sufficiently significant to merit the cost-plus approach.

87 Page 15, PWS

Should safety critical systems be added to the list of areas/disciplines?

A: No, for launch systems experience and ongoing debate have shown that practically all systems are safety critical so the distinction is not effective as a separate area/discipline.

88 Page 15, PWS

What existing data, components and documents are provided for the bidder’s library and at start of the contract?

A: The government is developing the bidder’s library, and seeks industry input as to what data and documents are required for offerors to develop an effective proposal.

89 Page 15, PWS 3.2.2.16.1

“…conduct a full verification,… ”.

Can you provide clarification on the difference intended between a “full” verification and the use of just “verification” in other tasks?

A: “Full” is deleted, no distinction intended.

90 Page 16, PWS

3.2.2.18.1 & 3.2.2.19.1

The term “…new vehicles and/or configurations…” is used in reference to required aerodynamic and structural dynamic models that will be developed.

Is an approximate number of “new vehicles or new configurations” to be provided, so that a more accurate cost/resource/schedule proposal may be developed?

A: These paragraphs were worded poorly given the “New” nomenclature distinct to the MIDs.

Both paragraphs cited are now worded “… develop and/or update independent … models for the launch vehicle configuration to be flown.”

91 Page 5, PWS 1.1, and Page 26, PWS 4.9.1

“…the design or build of one-of-a-kind hardware, such as radar cross section stinger mounts, adaptations to government-owned handling equipment and flight hardware, and other test-unique items.” and “…procure items not available from the Standard Base Supply System to support refurbishment activities.”

This is a services contract but, these two items suggest procurement and fabrication of equipment or hardware. Please clarify.

A: That is correct. This is permitted as long as the equipment or hardware is incidental to the service procured.

92 Page 26, PWS 4.9.2

“The contractor shall digitize records and documentation at the request of the program office.”

Is an approximate number of “records and documentation” provided, so that a more accurate cost/resource/schedule proposal may be developed?

A: Agreed; wording revised to limit digitization to 500 pages per CLIN.

93 Section L

Page 12, Section 4.2.10

The Basis of Estimate for 12 Sample Missions and 2 Special Studies could be extensive depending on the level of detail (i.e. hours per PWS or CWBS level). We recommend the BOE be excluded from page count. If that is not the intent of the BOE, please clarify what is required.

A: Agreed; Instructions to Offerors revised to remove the BOE from 4.2.10 and include the BOE as a Technical Appendix instead.

94 Section L

Pages 14 and 15, Sections 4.2.15, 4.2.16, 4.2.17, 4.2.20, and 4.2.21

Request the government provide samples/examples of the Presentations/Products as part of the Bidder’s Library. While formats and contents can be adjusted based on our own approach and experience, it would be beneficial to see what the customer is used to in order to tailor our approach. Furthermore, since the government is most likely accustomed to a particular format, this may provide a competitive advantage to the incumbent contractor.

A: The sample documents required under 4.2.15, 4.2.16, 4.2.17, and 4.2.21 are/were not deliverables under the current/prior MA contracts, so the government does not have non-proprietary examples to include in the Bidder’s Library. A sample of 4.2.20 will be included in the Bidder’s Library.

95 Section 5.0 – Volume II Past Performance

Page 16, Section 5.3

The total page limitation for teaming partners is 48 pages. Can more than 6 (total) recent contracts be cited for teaming partners if the 48 page limitation is still met? For example, could 8 contracts be cited at 6 pages each?

A: Yes.

96 Section 6.0 – Volume III Price

General

Will the government provide an estimated budget or government estimate to bound the Total Evaluated Price?

A: Yes, the government will provide a budgetary estimate for the XBM sustainment effort.

97 Section 6.0 –

Will the government provide an estimated workload based on historical data?

A: No. The offeror should be prepared to provide support up to the full scope of the contract.

98 Section 6.0 –

Are sealed packages (to include cost narratives) required from subcontractors? If so, are they required for effort of all contract types?

A: The cost volume requirements have been clarified to include submission of subcontractor cost data.

99 Section 6.0 –

Section L 4.2.8 and Section M 2.3.2 require an Incoming Transition plan with a threshold of 90 days and objective of 45 days for XBM Sustainment Engineering, as well as demonstrating PWS readiness. However, in the Pricing Tables, there is only a Tab for the Optional Transition CLIN for the Outgoing Transition.

Please clarify how Incoming Transition should be priced (i.e. as part of CLIN 0001 or otherwise).

A: Incoming transition is part of CLIN 0001.

100 Appendix D – Pricing Tables

Tab “Fully Burdened Labor Rates”

The contract requires personnel at government site and contractor site, however, the table does not provide for this. Please clarify.

A: Two tables are required, one for on-site personnel and one for off-site personnel.

101 Appendix D – Pricing Tables

Tab “Fully Burdened Labor Rates”

Are all teammate labor rates meant to be included in the prime Offeror’s labor rates list?

A: The cost volume requirements have been clarified to include submission of subcontractor cost data.

102 Appendix D – Pricing Tables

Tab “Fully Burdened Labor Rates”

If so, should those rates be burdened with applicable G&A on this tab?

A: The cost volume requirements have been clarified to include submission of subcontractor cost data.

103 Appendix D – Pricing Tables

Tab “Launch System IV&V Prices”

For CPIF pricing, should the minimum and incentive fees be totaled for Target Fee or separated in some way?

A: Not quite. To clarify, IAW FAR 16.405-1 “The cost-plus-incentive-fee contract is a cost-reimbursement contract that provides for the initially negotiated fee to be adjusted later by a formula based on the relationship of total allowable costs to total target costs. This contract type specifies a target cost, a target fee, minimum and maximum fees, and a fee adjustment formula.” The Government has identified the desired profit adjustment formula in the sample contract, and will use the weighted guidelines method to determine a fair and reasonable profit rate to be negotiated.

104 Appendix D – Pricing Tables

Pricing Support

Is supporting data for the prices proposed required by the proposed CWBS for the XBM Sustainment and IV&V efforts?

If so, to what level of the CWBS?

A: The BoE for each proposed price is required, to the CWBS level at which the offeror developed their price estimate.

105 Section M

Page 10, Section 2.3.2.2

Is there a threshold and objective time limit for demonstrating PWS Readiness?

A: No, this criterion evaluate the offeror’s readiness to execute the PWS in accordance with the offeror’s proposed schedule.

106 Sample Missions

Is there any possibility that Sample Missions or any other future missions envisioned for this contract could be placed on the existing TASC MA Bridge Contract or some other vehicle?

A: The government plans to execute this source selection on a schedule which supports procuring MA for all projected missions via the LSMA.

However delays in the LSMA procurement schedule and/or changes in projected missions could drive alternative sourcing for MA support.

107 Sample Mission 2.1:

Page 4, para 3.5: Is TASC firewalled from working on this mission due to OCI concerns in accordance with definitions in the draft RFP?

A: No, TASC is currently providing pre-solicitation support to this mission on the MA Bridge contract.

108 Sample Mission 2.1:

Page 4, para 3.6: Should TASC be included on the list of ACAs required?

A: Yes, they will be added.

109 Sample Mission 3.1 (and others):

Para 4.0: For those sample missions that start 1 Jan 14, assuming some of these are real missions, if the contract award is delayed will the sample mission start dates slide accordingly or will they be awarded on the bridge contract to

TASC?

A: That will be a risk-based decision by the government to be made on a mission-by-mission basis.

110 XBM Sustainment CLINs 0001-0006 are FPIF and include travel costs. Typically travel is cost-reimbursable and incentive/fee cannot be assesses against it. Is it the intent of SMC to allow incentive fee on travel?

A: No. ODC’s are considered non-fee bearing for this effort. Section L, contract volume has been revised to provide supporting documentation for the discreet travel required for CLIN 0001.

111 PWS & Section M The transition PoP is stated as ~60 days in CLIN 0007 with a 90 day attainment threshold and a 45 day objective. Given the scope of effort described in the PWS for transition, a more reasonable PoP would be 6 months with a 270 day threshold and a 135 day objective.

A: You are mingling the “in” transition requirement of the RFP with the “out” transition requirement of the PWS. CLIN 0007 is strictly associated with the “out” transition effort outlined in the PWS. The 90 day attainment threshold and 45 day objective are associated with the proposal transition plan defined in Section L.

112 Sample contract Since this program is identified as an SBSA, in accordance with 19.508(e), it appears that clause 52.219-14 should be listed in Section I.

A: Yes, it’s been added.

113 PWS 3.1.22 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.

114 PWS 3.1.19 Should “useful life estimates” in the context of MM and PK be changed to “life estimates?”

Answer: No, RSLP uses the term Useful Life Estimate (ULE) for XBMs.

115 PWS 3.2 This section talks about a Construct 2, but not a Construct 1. Will a construct 1 be added to the final PWS?

A: No, “Construct 1” missions will require one of the other IV&V types (MA Cat 1, 2, or 3) described in the PWS.

116 PWS 4.4 Paragraph states “the contractor shall NOT review, unless instructed otherwise, the software and firmware found in proprietary or third party components.” Does the restriction make sense, since the contractor is required to establish proprietary information agreements/non-disclosure agreements with the LSCs?

A: Intent was to not require review of non-LSC s/w, clarifying language added to the PWS.

117 Section K, 52.234-

How will the pre-award IBR be conducted and considered in the source selection process and decision? Consider deleting this clause as a requirement in the final RFP.

A: There is no pre-award IBR, this contract does not require EVM.

118 Section K, 52.234-

In the final RFP will further detail in the schedule and conduct of the pre-IBR be included in the

PWS?

A: There is no pre-award IBR, this contract does not require EVM.

119 Section K, 52.234-

Will the offerors be directly compensated for the costs of participating in a pre-award IBR?

A: There is no pre-award IBR, this contract does not require EVM.

120 Section L, Table 2.8 Recommend deleting the per-mission page count limits, and retain only the overall page-count limit.

A: Declined, no rationale provided.

121 Section L, Table 2.8 Recommend making the per-mission page limit the same for both New and Existing missions (15 pages).

A: Declined, no rationale provided.

122 Section L, Para 4.2.12

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.

123 Section L, Table 2.8 The proposal due date after RFP release is given as 45 days for volumes I, III, and IV. This appears aggressive for the size and complexity of the proposal, recommend increasing the proposal due date to 60 days.

A: The government needs to maintain the current schedule to have this contract awarded in time for the completion of the TASC MA Bridge. The government solicits Industry input as to how the proposal size and complexity could be reduced without sacrificing value.

124 Section L, Para 2.9 This paragraph is a little confusing with regard to “hard copies”. Suggest deletion of first sentence and replace with last sentence with “electronic and hard copy submittals of the proposal should be identical; in the event any discrepancy exists the hard copy will be used for evaluation.

A: This paragraph has been reorganized in L Rev 9 to make it less confusing.

125 Section L, Para 2.8.2

Are the page constraints in 2.8.2.1 and 2.8.2.2 applicable to the non-page-count-limited appendices?

A: No, these restrictions apply only to the page-count limited sections. A parenthetical qualification has been added to the 2.8.2 header to clarify.

126 Section M, para 7 Will the pre-award survey be separate from the

IBR?

A: There is no pre-award IBR, this contract does not require EVM.

127 Section M, para 2.3.1.x

How are samples listed in Section L 4.2.14-4.2.17 and 4.2.20-4.2.21 assessed? It would make sense for SMC to include these samples for assessment as possible strengths.

A: The Technical Appendices provide evidence and artifacts of the offeror’s proposed approach which reduce proposal risk. The offeror should specifically identify any service enhancements inherent to the proposed solution which exceed threshold performance requirements, which are demonstrated in the samples.

128 Sample Mission 3.6, para 5.1

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.

129 Sample Mission 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 para 5.1

States that MAC will be given access to LSC’s SIL for S/W IV&V. Will the offerors be given description, procedures, available equipment, and workspace, ICDs, restriction on MAC equipment and other data needed to perform S/W IV&V in LSC’s SIL?

A: The LV contractor is contractually bound to support the LSMA contractor. This information will not be made available to offerors.

130 One-on-One What assurance can the Government provide that a team that has never provided this type of services to your organization will be considered?

A: The Government can provide assurance that all rules are being followed to ensure a level playing field for all offerors. The LSMA requirements have evolved and the requirements written with the expectation for qualified competitive offerors to be considered and expected to provide the best value to the Government.

131 One-on-One Are you planning on providing workload indicators?

A: No.

132 One-on-One CLIN structure is initially hard to understand, what is the plan for going forward, a new CLIN for each new mission??

A: Yes, CPIF New launch service IV&V, FPIF existing launch service IV&V and Special Studies FFP CLINs will be added IAW Section H, Clause SD/PKT -H003 “Technical Services Applicable to CLIN Series 1000, 2000 and 3000

133 One-on-One Does the Government have a concern with this process, adding CLIN(s)?

A: There was an initial concern with the mechanics of adding mission-specific support. At this time is there is a high level of confidence that the method of adding mission CLIN(s) will provide a both the Contractor and the Government a method to award the requirements in a timely and efficient manner.

134 One-on-One What level of motor models and simulations data will be available to offerors?

A: Raw test data will be available during contract execution, and the motor handbooks (which include the current motor models) will be provided in the bidder’s library. Controls, gains and timelines are in the motor handbooks but the government does not own the proprietary methods by which the incumbent derived the motor performance models from the raw data.

135 General The STS task order recently awarded to MCR for SE support to the program includes configuration management, risk management, and system safety functions – how does that procurement interface with the requirements included for this effort? (i.e, MCR Contract scope include PM System Engineer, Safety Support, Sys safety working group which focused Mil Std 882 – does RSLP have system safety program, three sides of safety, system safety, entry/exit criteria on red team, oversight on ground systems safety on mission assurance?)

A: The MCR contract scope focuses on SE functions as the system level, providing limited support to the mission IPTs for continuity across missions in specific critical functions – risk management, lessons learned, system safety, command media, red teams, and training. The LSMA scope of IV&V work is more mission-centric and verification/validation focused. Care has been taken to ensure there is no overlap of requirements, but industry input is solicited in this regard to ensure that both no duplication exists and the efforts are complementary with no gaps;

the Bidder’s Library will include a copy of the STS Task Order PWS.

136 Section L - Transition

What amount of incumbent intellectual data will be provided during the bridge transition?

A: None. The transition requirement does not provide for delivery of intellectual data.

137 PWS – XBM

Sustainment

Does the Government have unlimited rights to motor aging surveillance data?

A: We own the raw test data and the handbook models.

138 PWS – XBM

Sustainment

What is the government’s perception of the risk due to the performance time lag associated with the development of new motor test data analysis tools?

A: The youngest GFE motor design in our inventory is 19 years old, so the handbook models are considered fairly robust and only anticipated to require minor adjustment going forward, therefore the risk associated with the loss of the incumbent’s tool set, while significant, is not severe.

139 PWS With regards to scope and resources, for risk mitigation purposes, please confirm the engineering resources don’t have to be in any one central location.

A: Hill AFB is the only location where on call engineers are needed. Specific language has been added to the PWS (para 3.1.11.4 and 3.2.5.9) to identify the on-call engineer requirement.

140 One-on-One Will significant weaknesses be assessed by the Government? And, will the Government be able to communicate whether or not the weakness is at a level that may affect the overall color rating?

A: Yes, significant weaknesses may be assessed. The Industry Day slides posted to FBO on 17 April reflect “significant weakness” as an assessment type in the slide presented at Industry Day. The Government will issue evaluation notices which will communicate the evaluator’s assessment and need for information/clarification.

141 Section L, Cost/Price Facotr

Will the Government establish a most probable cost?

A: The Government evaluation of cost realism will include development of a most probable cost estimates for the CPIF CLINs.

142 One-on-One Is the Government encouraged to keep the LSMA acquisition a SBSA? If so, why the admonishment in section M stating if an adequate proposal is not received?

A: The Government team has determined the requirements of the LSMA acquisition may be provided by a Small Business entity. The statement is included in section M is not an admonishment, rather it is included for completeness to establish the government’s recourse in case no adequate proposal is received.

143 One-on-One What is the anticipated mix of work under this contract, in terms of IV&V versus XBM Sustainment?

A: The Government estimates a mix of approximately 20% Sustainment, 80% IV&V;

however this is very dependent upon the number of missions executed.

144 One-on-One The SD re-organization, integration with XR, will this change/affect this contract?

A: It will change the program’s operating environment, but is not anticipated to…