SRP-4_DRFP_CRM.pdf

Response to Industry Comments on SRP-4 Draft Request for Proposal posted on 13 April 2017

Industry CRM for SRP-4 DRAFT Request for Proposal UNCLASSIFIED

ITEM # TYPE PAGE PARA LINE COMMENT RATIONALE DECISION

(A/R/M)

1 C 16 6.4.3.7 Recommend that the government delete the requirement to develop and submit a Total Compensation Plan (paragraphs 6.4.3.7-6.4.3.10).

The requirement for prime and major subcontracts to develop and submit a total compensation plan is a significant expense and a disincentive to industry participation in the program. The cost of research, surveys, and integration is an onerous burden for the ID/IQ proposal, where there is no assurance of a subsequent task order award to recover the overhead cost of these efforts.

Accepted. The requirement of providing a Compensation Plan has been removed from RFP.

2 M 20 Sec.

L, App B

The DRFP states that “The fair market value of deactivated ICBM motors is currently being assessed by the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget. Should those update values become avaialbe to the Government during this source selection, those values may be used for evaluation if a solicitation amendment is issued.” We recommend that this language be deleted from the RFP and any changes in evaluated cost for use of ICBM motors be incorporated via contract modifications after award.

The evaluated cost of ICBM motors is a key factor in developing affordable solutions for sample task orders. Significant changes in the evaluated cost during the proposal phase may impact offeror solutions and cause rework and additional proposal costs.

Accepted. FMV language deleted.

3 A 20 Sec.

L, App B

In title of table, change “Minutemen” to “Minuteman”. Typo Accepted

4 C 20 Sec L, App B

The table does not specify the number of operational SR19M motors available. Please clarify if there is any limit in the number of SR19M motors and associated flexseal kits available.

Information needed to evaluate solutions to sample task orders.

Accepted. A note will be added to the GFE list that SR19M motors will made available.

5 M 30 Sampl e

Missio n 1-1, para.

2.2

The DRFP states “The RV mission is scheduled for fourth quarter, Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18).” Please confirm that this is the correct date to use in developing solutions for the sample mission. We recommend that time expected Task Order award to mission be no less than 18 months to allow for a cost effective, low risk launch solution.

Given the current acquisition timeline and likely contract award date, the stated mission date will leave less than 12 months from award to mission, which will add risk and cost. The PWS specifies a TO duration of 18-24 months.

Accepted. ILC for missions will be no less than 18 months from contract award.

6 M 32 Sampl e

Missio n 1-1, para.

2.10

Para 2.10 specifies weather proofing requierments based on “up to 2 hours unsheltered and exposed to the normal/average weather conditions for WSMR..” We recommend that the requirement be deleted or changed to accommodate launch CONOPS that do not require prolonged exposure prior to launch.

“The launch vehicle is required to remain in a launch ready state for up to 2 hours, during which time it will be capable of executing the launch within 10 minutes after receiving go-ahead from the mission director.”

Provides flexibility to offer the most cost effective launch solution.

Rejected. Potential prolonged exposure to weather prior to launch is required.

Industry CRM for SRP-4 DRAFT Request for Proposal UNCLASSIFIED

7 M 28 Sampl e

Missio n 1-1, para.

1.1

The DRFP states “The goals of the SM 1-1 mission are to lauch a suborbital demonstration mission to deliver a Re-entry Vehicle (RV) to a specific target location on White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). Please include the sample mission description does not specify the location of the RV delivery point on WSMR.

The delivery point is an important consideration in evaluating the most cost effective launch location and launch vehicle solution.

Accepted. Sample mission updated to include RV impact point lat and long.

8 M 38 Sampl e

Missio n 1-2, para 1.3

Recommend that the following requirement be added to the Payload Program Office (PPO) list of responsibilities:

“Providing integration support, payload interface documentation, and support equipment needed for integration of the payload with the LV.”

Data and support equipment will be required by the Launch System Contractor to design the payload to LV interface and successfully complete payload integration with the LV.

Rejected. These requirements are specified in the PWS including an ICD with the payload contractor.

9 M 38 Sampl e

Missio n 1-2, para 1.3

Recommend that the PPO list of responsibilities be modified to change “Shipping the RV to the launch site” to “Shipping the RV to the integration site”.

Depending on the proposed launch solution, integration and test activities may be conducted at a location other than the launch site.

Accepted. Will update language to state “either the launch site or integration site as requested by LSC.”

10 M 40 Sampl e

Missio n 1-2, para 2.2

The DRFP states “The RV mission is scheduled for first quarter, Fiscal Year 2019 (FY19).” Please confirm that this is the correct date to use in developing solutions for the sample mission. We recommend that time expected Task Order award to mission be no less than 18 months to allow for a cost effective, low risk launch solution.

Given the current acquisition timeline and likely contract award date, the stated mission date will leave less than 12 months from award to mission, which will add risk and cost. The PWS specifies a TO duration of 18-24 months.

Accepted. ILC for awarded mission will be no less than 18 months from contract award.

11 M 40 Sampl e

Missio n 1-2, para 2.3

The DRFP states “The preliminary aimp point is latitude TBD degrees North, longitude TBD degrees West.” Please specify an approximate location, including aimpoint altitude.

Additional information on aimpoint location is needed to verify delivery accuracy of the proposed solution.

Rejected. The purpose of the sample mission is to review contractor prosposed launch site and aimpoint.

12 M 40 Sampl e

Missio n 1-2, para 2.3

The DRFP states “Relevant flight path angle of RV release shall be 0-15 degrees.” Please clarify is RV release is to occur pre-apogee or post-apogee. .

Additional information on is needed to verify delivery accuracy of the proposed solution.

Rejected. LSC decision based on their solution for meeting requirements.

13 M 43 Sampl e

Missio n 1-2, para 2.17

The Option for Pathfinder at CP Launch Site appears to assume a rail launch solution. Recommend that “…to include launch rail, Launch Control Center, telemetry, flight termination system, transporter erector, and processing” be replaced with “…to include verification of the CP launch support equipment, integration procedures, and pre-launch CONOPS.”

Additional information on is needed to verify delivery accuracy of the proposed solution.

Accepted.

Government is not assuming a rail launch. LSC makes this determination based on their CONOPS and the value for a pathfinder.

Industry CRM for SRP-4 DRAFT Request for Proposal UNCLASSIFIED

14 M 3 Sec.

M, Para.

1.3

The DRFP states that “The fair market value of deactivated ICBM motors is currently being assessed by the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget. These updated values will be used for evaluation once they become available.” We recommend that this language be deleted from the RFP and any changes in evaluated cost for use of ICBM motors be incorporated via contract modifications after award for use on future competitive TO evaluations.

The evaluated cost of ICBM motors is a key factor in developing affordable solutions for sample task orders. Significant changes in the evaluated cost during the proposal phase may impact offeror solutions and cause rework and additional proposal costs.

Accepted. Language deleted.

15 C 8 Sec.

M, Para.

4.1.2, TEP

table

The table specifies a FFP contract type for sample mission 1-2.

We recommend that the contract type be changed to CPIF.

Sample Mission 1-2 requires significant new development and engineering related to integration of a new payload, which is not defned in the DRFP. The ID/IQ RFP does not provide sufficient information for full evaluation of program risks and required mitigation activities. This will make approval of a FFP proposal for this effort (which could be awarded without discussion) difficult or impossible.

Rejected.

Government determined that this mission was not complicated enough to require CPIF.

16 C FBO

notice

The FBO notice included a requirement to request access to the Bidder’s Library. Access was requested via e-mail dated 12-15- 2016, but has not been received.

Please provide access to the Bidder’s Library.

Accepted.

Confirming address to send bidder’s library cd to.

17 multip le

N/A N/A The fee percentages defined for target, min and max fee may not be appropriate for all task orders and may not adequately incentivize contractor performance. Cost type CLINs for design and development are not subject to the statutory 10 % fee limit.

The resources required to perform this effort are the same resources that will be used for commercial launch activities, for which there are no fee limits .

Either increase the fee percentages or delete the fee percentages, allowing the contractors to propose fee percentages.

Range has been removed. Min and Max remain the same.

18 N/A N/A N/A The draft RFP does not include DFARS 252.235-7000/7001 Indemnification Under 10 U.S.C. 2354. Another DOD agency has already determined that “Certain research and development activities associated with manufacturing, integration, testing, transportation, storage, launch preparation and launch are intrinsically and unusually hazardous.“

Incorporate DFARS 252.235-7000 and-7001.

Contracting will provide disposition prior to posting on

FBO

19 A007 Delete the requirement for delivery of software source code. Pre-existing software was developed at Company expense, and has commonality with commercial computer software. Source code is not delivered for proprietary and commercial computer software.

Delete the requirement to deliver software source code.

Rejected. Required for independent government mission assurance.

Industry CRM for SRP-4 DRAFT Request for Proposal UNCLASSIFIED

20 A015 The supporting models/tools in some cases are commercial computer software and/or were developed at private expense, and cannot be delivered to other parties without a software license.

We have experience supporting government software V&V activities without delivery of all models and tools.

In CDRL A015 change “LSC must provide supporting models, tools and other data…” to “LSC must provide information related to models and tools…”.

Rejected. Required for independent government mission assurance.

21 A Sectio n B, of 35

0001 All Would the Air Force consider removing the range for target fee listed under CPIF CLINs?

FAR 16.405-1 states: “The fee adjustment formula should provide an incentive that will be effective over the full range of reasonably foreseeable variations from target cost”. A limitation on the range for target fee seems to also limit the effectiveness of the fee incentive.

Accepted. The range has been removed.

22 A Sectio n B, of 35

0007 3 Will the scope of work awarded under CLIN 0007 include definite functional or detailed specifications? If not, would CLIN 0007 better fit the definition of a cost type CLIN? The scope, per PWS paragraph 1.8.4, includes “feasibility studies, perform configuration trades, conduct debris/loads/contamination analyses, and/or perform general engineering analyses”.

FAR 16.202-2 states: “A firm-fixed-price contract is suitable for acquiring commercial items (see Parts 2 and 12) or for acquiring other supplies or services on the basis of reasonably definite functional or detailed specifications (see Part 11) when the contracting officer can establish fair and reasonable prices at the outset”.

On the other hand, FAR 16.301-2 states: “The contracting officer shall use cost-reimbursement contracts only when circumstances do not allow the agency to define its requirements sufficiently to allow for a fixed-price type contract (see 7.105); or uncertainties involved in contract performance do not permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy to use any type of fixed-price contract.”

Accepted. The CLIN is now CPFF.

23 S L – 4 of 46

2.5 3 This section appears to have conflicting validity date requirements. It states: “Valid Proposal Dates - The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the model contract/solicitation. The Offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid for nine months from the date of submission.”

Section A of the model contract states the validity shall be 180 days, or approximately 6 months.

Paragraph 2.5 of Section L requires the proposal be valid for 9 months

Accepted. Section A has been updated to match 9 months.

Industry CRM for SRP-4 DRAFT Request for Proposal UNCLASSIFIED

24 S L – 13 of 46

5.2(3) 2 This paragraph refers to Attachment 7 as “SRP-4 Ordering Clause”. Can the Air Force clarify what the SRP-4 Ordering Clause is?

Attachment 7 in model contract Section J is titled “Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS)” not “SRP-4 Ordering Clause”

Accepted. The ordering guide will be provided with

RFP.

25 S L – 13 of 46

5.2(5) All This paragraph states: “Other applicable information, such as GFE, long lead costs, termination costs, development/production schedule, inflation rate summary and explanation, and special tooling/test equipment.” Is this a list of required information?

It is unclear if these are examples of information that may be included if desired, or information that shall be included to be compliant with the RFP

Accepted. Any cost data that affects the price of the sample and optional missoion should be included if it is applicable in order to be compliant

26 S L – 14 of 46

6.3 3 This paragraph states that the Contract Documentation Volume shall consist of four items, including “Section B”. What information is to be included in Section B?

Page L – 6 of 46 states: “Pricing information will not be included in Section B”

Accepted. Updated Sec L to remove Section B.

27 A L – 16 of 46

6.4.3.7 and

6.4.3.8 and

6.4.3.9

All Does the completion of Model Contract Attachment 6 “Task Order Rates” satisfy the requirements of FAR 52.222-46, and therefore satisfy Section L Paragraphs 6.4.3.7 – 6.4.3.9?

FAR 22.1103 states: “This provision requires that offerors submit for evaluation a total compensation plan setting forth proposed salaries and fringe benefits for professional employees working on the contract.” The data contained in Attachment 6 will include direct rates and indirect rates (including fringe) listed by labor category. This appears to satisfy the intent of the clause, which allows the government to evaluate the fairness of compensation.

Accepted. The requirement of providing a Compensation Plan has been removed from RFP.