The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Small Rocket Program Industry Day Question and Answer
All answers provided in this document are based on the best information available. These responses are for information only. Final requirements will be included in the RFP. Please see FBO posting for information on changes to acquisition strategy since Industry Day was held.
1. General Questions
| Q1. | When will the Sounding Rocket Program – 4 (SRP-4) Request for Proposal (RFP) be released? |
| A1. | SRP-4 RFP release is projected for June 2017. |
| Q2. | Will the Government accept a launch delivered in less time than the 18-24 month timeline? |
| A2. | A shorter development timeline is acceptable as long as it meets Performance-based Work Statement (PWS), Mission Requirements Document (MRD) and Initial Launch Capability (ILC) requirements. |
| Q3. | Is there a guaranteed number of minimum launches for each Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract awarded? |
| A3. | There is no minimum number of missions set aside for an IDIQ award. Each mission will be competed. |
| Q4. | Are Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN)s 0005 and 0007 redundant? |
| A4. | CLIN 0007 (Concept Analysis) is competed, whereas CLIN 0005 (Technical Analysis) is strictly associated with an awarded task order. |
| Q5. | SRP-3 identified study rates for seven years. Will SRP-4 use the same approach? |
| A5. | Study rates are TBD. There will be an attachment to the contract which contains rates used for task order competitions. The Government is evaluating the appropriate time period to be covered by the rates in this attachment. |
| Q6. | What Rocket System Launch Program (RSLP) tax will be applied? |
| A6. | RSLP adds program office support costs to Government customer funding requirements. This is not part of the SRP contract cost. |
| Q7. | How many awards are projected for SRP? |
| A7. | RSLP expects to have 16 potential (12 suborbital and four orbital) awards during the seven year SRP ordering period. |
| Q8. | For task orders competed on the IDIQ, does a contractor have to bid on every task order? |
| A8. | No |
| Q9. | What was meant by design and development funding? |
| A9. | Pricing should be based on the effort of the contractor to provide a launch service that meets RFP requirements. Depending on the contractor, proposals may require design and development costs in the bid. |
| Q10. | On the SRP-3 contract, fee was defined in the contract (min/max and target costs, and share ratios). Will fees be defined for SRP-4? |
| A10. | Yes. Fees and share ratios are TBD. |
| Q11. | Will RSLP pay range costs for SRP-4 missions proposed by the contractor? |
| A11. | Yes, if launch is from a Government range. |
| Q12. | What is the proposal timeline? |
| A12. | Proposal submittal timelines will be provided in Sec L. |
| Q13. | Could the actual launch date be 75 days later than the ILC? |
| A13. | Yes, the launch date could be 75 days from the ILC if the Government declares the official ILC as the last day of the 60 day window at T-60 days and a no fault delay occurs just prior to the ILC that extends the delay into the last day of the 15 day grace period. |
| Q14. | How does the SMC/ORS Super Strypi program fit with SRP-4? |
| A14. | Super Strypi is not associated with SRP-4, but could be a candidate solution if it meets technical requirements. |
| Q15. | Is the on-ramp of new entrants at two and four year points in addition to the initial IDIQ awards? |
| A15. | All on ramps will be in addition to the initial IDIQ awards. |
2. Government Furnish Property (GFP) Motors
| Q1. | The most recent Request for Information (RFI) sought companies with the capability of using GFP. Will the SRP-4 RFP be the same? |
| A1. | Any combination of GFP or commercial motors can be used to meet a mission requirement. Contractors are not required to have experience with GFP motors to get an award. There is no preference on the use of either Minuteman or Peacekeeper motors. |
| Q2. | If GFP from other agencies is needed as part of a proposal, must contractors request its use? |
| A2. | Yes, offerors will need to provide a letter from the cognizant Government program office stating that the GFP is available for use on SRP. For evaluation purposes, proposal costs will be adjusted to reflect fair rental value for the use of GFP not offered for use by all offerors on the SRP contracts. |
| Q3. | How do you determine cost offsets for the use of GFP? |
| A3. | GFP motors will be assigned a cost offset to provide the required motors to the identified integration site in certified flight worthy condition. These estimated costs will be defined in Sec L appendix B of the RFP to be added to the offeror's evaluated price for the award decision. |
| Q4. | Is GFP motor data available and will it be supplied? |
| A4. | GFP motor handbooks will be available in the bidder’s library. |
| Q5. | What is meant by “reusable design?” |
| A5. | Reusable design refers to launch vehicle design solutions that reuse or adapt existing designs, components, or software vice a design from scratch. Reusable design does not refer to the recovery and reuse of flight hardware. |
| Q6. | Does the GFP cost offset for use of the excess ICBM motors include Government shipment to the contractor-specified integration site? |
| A6. | The cost offset is TBD. |
| Q7. | Will the Government provide a list of procedures for maintaining GFP? |
| A7. | Available procedures will be placed in the bidder’s library. |
3. Mission Assurance (MA) – Category 1 & 2
| Q1. | What are the expected MA requirements of anticipated orbital and suborbital missions? |
| A1. | RSLP expects six of 12 suborbital and two of four orbital missions to be Cat 1. |
| Q2. | Can offeror’s bid on Cat 1 missions only for IDIQ award, then on Cat 2 missions in the future? |
| A2. | No. Offeror’s must bid on both Cat 1 and Cat 2 MA sample missions for initial IDIQ awards. Offerors awarded an IDIQ contract are free to bid (or not) on future Cat 1 and 2 task orders. |
| Q3. | What is the nominal mission timeline for a Cat 1 mission? |
| A3. | Nominal timelines for Cat 1 and 2 missions are 18-24 months from Authorization to Proceed (ATP), however, offerors can propose shorter timelines that meet PWS, MRD and ILC requirements. |
| Q4. | How is the MA category selected for a specific mission? |
| A4. | The MA category is determined by the Government prior to RFP release based on the customer's requirement and risk tolerance in conjunction with the selection criteria for the mission. The MA category is not determined by launch vehicle type, however the selection criteria is determined in conjunction with MA category. The selection criteria could preclude selection of an unproven vehicle for a Cat 1 MA mission. |
| Q5. | Does selection of Cat 1 MA imply the launch vehicle has flown before? |
| A5. | No. Based on the customer's requirement and risk tolerance, a first flight vehicle may or may not be awarded for a mission designated Cat 1 MA depending upon the mission selection criteria. As an example, SMC's ORS-5 launch service was designated a Cat 1 MA mission; however, one of the selection criteria was that the launch service be provided by a proven launch vehicle design due to the risk tolerance of the ORS-5 mission. |
| Q6. | For Cat 2 missions, should an offeror’s proposal include a price for the required documentation? |
| A6. | Yes. The proposed price must be all-inclusive for all the requirements of the launch service, including the deliverable documentation; however, the documentation is not to be separately priced. |
4. Small Business (SB)
| Q1. | Will an IDIQ contract award to SB be same scope as all other IDIQ contracts? |
| A1. | All IDIQ contracts have the same scope of effort. |
| Q2. | Will SRP-4 contract requirements flow down from the prime to a subcontractor? Must the prime ensure subcontractors meet FAR Part 15? |
| A2. | The prime is responsible for meeting all contract requirements and ensuring subcontractors do the same. Specific clauses that flow down to subcontractors will be specified in the final RFP. |
| Q3. | How will task orders be identified as SB set asides? |
| A3. | The Government will assess SB contractor capabilities to meet mission requirements via pre-solicitation Request for Information to determine if a task order will be set aside for SB. |
| Q4. | If a SB submits a proposal that is not awarded in the initial procurement action, can that SB compete again for an award using the two or four yr on-ramp? |
| A4. | Yes. Any offeror can compete for future awards, but must meet the same initial award criteria. |
| Q5. | If a SB supports SRP-4 through partnership with a large business that wins an IDIQ award, would that SB be eligible to compete for task orders designated as SB set asides? |
| A5. | No, only SBs awarded an IDIQ contract as a prime are eligible to compete for SB set asides. |
| Q6. | Are the SB Subcontracting Plan goals identified in Sec L for the basic IDIQ contract or for individual task orders? |
| A6. | SB Subcontracting goals are for both the basic contract and subsequent task orders. |
| Q7. | Does the Government intend to set aside a TO for SBs prior to RFP release, or provide SBs with an advantage during TO evaluation after the submission of proposals? |
| A7. | SB set asides will be determined prior to TO RFP release based on mission requirements; for TOs that are not set aside for SB, there is no competitive advantage for SBs, all TO proposals are evaluated identically. |
5. Launch Vehicle Integration, Development and Design
| Q1. | What responsibility does the customer have to integrate their payload? |
| A1. | The SRP contractor is responsible for the integration of any payloads to the launch vehicle. Payload customers will be available to support integration activities. |
| Q2. | Are launch infrastructure, ground equipment and facilities provided by the contractor or the launch facility? |
| A2. | Contractors are expected to provide the launch infrastructure, ground equipment, and facilities unless it is identified as available to all providers on the SRP GFP list, or can be obtained for use through another Government agency (see question above re: fair rental value of government furnished property not offered on the SRP contract solicitation). |
| Q3. | Will Government integration facilities at the range be available to the launch contractor? |
| A3. | Yes, subject to scheduling. Otherwise, contractors are expected to provide for their own integration facility or arrange use through another Government agency. |
6. Section L
| Q1. | For a new contractor, the level of detail required to write quality BOEs may not be available. Would a high risk cost assessment eliminate a SB from consideration for the SRP-4 procurement? |
| A1. | Not necessarily. All competitors will be assessed (whether small business or other) with an award decision based on that assessment. |
| Q2. | What is the page count for the Past Performance section? |
| A2. | Page count requirements will be identified in the draft RFP release. Potential offerors will have a chance to recommend changes during the draft RFP review/comment process. |
| Q3. | Based on the relative importance of factors, Technical is greater than Price/Cost. Is there a weighting of factors? |
| A3. | There is no weighting of factors; Subfactor 1 is equally important as Subfactor 2. |
| Q4. | Is there a cap on the number of hours a contractor can bid for the special studies? |
| A4. | Study CLIN details will be finalized prior to draft RFP release. |
| Q5. | Are contractors allowed to bid all 4 sample missions? |
| A5. | For SRP-4, there will be 2 sample missions. Both must be bid. |
| Q6. | Are you looking for a spread of mission capabilities in your selection of IDIQ contractors? |
| A6. | Due to Industry Day feedback, the acquisition strategy for suborbital and orbital mission capabilities has been reassessed. The new plan is to emplace an IDIQ contract (SRP-4) for the suborbital mission segment only and conduct individual competitions for the orbital missions (known as SRP Orbital). For SRP-4 (IDIQ contract), offerors must meet both sample mission requirements to qualify for an IDIQ award; there is no evaluation criterion that would support establishing a spread of capabilities. For orbital (individual contracts), offerors need to only meet MRD requirements for the solicited mission; establishing a spread of capabilities is inherent since each mission is competed on a full and open competition basis (unless set aside for SB). |
| Q7. | How does lack of experience affect past performance? |
| A7. | Past performance will not be evaluated |
| Q8. | How will you assess sample mission proposals? Will they be pass/fail? Will they be scored? |
| A8. | All proposals must meet the minimum requirements set forth in the Sample Mission MRDs. Proposals will be scored per the criteria identified in section M. |
| Q9. | Can offerors provide feedback and ask questions about sample missions before proposal submission? |
| A9. | Comments on sample missions are encouraged up to final RFP release. |
| Q10. | Who is required to perform range interface programing? |
| A10. | Contractors are expected to meet PWS requirements for range interface; e.g. submit Program Requirements Document, Operations Requirements, and any range safety tailoring. The Government will provide separate funding to a Government range for any required range resources. The contractor is expected to provide any launch facilities (e.g. commercial Spaceport) if Government facilities are not called out in a sample mission or future task order. |
| Q11. | Sec L 1.2 indicates an offeror may propose a solution for both sample missions in either class (suborbital or orbital) with full pricing. In addition the offeror may propose a solution in the other class for extra credit, but pricing is not required for the additional mission. If the Government awards any of the sample missions upon ID/IQ award, will the offeror be considered for TO award if pricing is not provided for that specific TO? |
| A11. | Due to the change in strategy to segregate the suborbital SRP-4 IDIQ from the SRP Orbital mission-specific solicitation approach, this question is no longer applicable. |
| Q12. | Sec L 1.2 states “Credit will be given to offerors who successfully propose an additional sample mission in another group.” How will capability be equally assessed for those offerors who propose a solution for a (third) mission in another group versus offerors who propose solutions for only two missions? |
| A12. | For SRP-4, there will be 2 sample missions. Both must be bid. |
| Q13. | Sec L 1.3 indicates the Government reserves the right to award TOs for any or all of the sample missions in conjunction with the basic IDIQ award. Can the Government provide information on the likelihood of award for each sample mission to allow offerors to prioritize selection of their proposed sample missions? |
| A13. | No; the Government's objective with the sample missions is to provide sample missions which correspond as closely as possible to anticipated mission needs. The awardability of the sample missions will change during the course of the source selection, so any statement made by the Government about likelihood of award at the time of solicitation would be misleading as it is unlikely to be accurate at the time of award several months later. |
| Q14. | Sec L 1.3 requires all potential offerors propose both sample missions for their respective mission area (either sub-orbital or orbital), requiring every competitor to address MA Cat 1 and 2. Some commercial launch providers may not be interested in MA Cat 2 missions. |
| A14. | For SRP-4, there will be 2 sample missions. Both must be bid. |
| Q15. | Sec L2.7.4 states “Bidder’s Library documents for this solicitation may be available on request from the CO. Documents will be released via Compact Disc (CD) to potential bidders on file with the CO.” When will the first bidder’s library documents be distributed? |
| A15. | The bidder’s library is available upon request with this FBO posting. |
| Q16. | Sec L 2.8, Table 2.2 requires submission of mission accomplishment summaries (10 pg limit each) for the 2 sample missions in the selected class (suborbital or orbital) and one optional mission in the other class. How will the Government evaluate balanced capability to address requirements across all mission classes if offerors do not provide mission solutions for both classes? |
| A16. | No longer applicable. Orbital and suborbital missions will be evaluated separately via separate contracts per the revised acquisition strategy. |
| Q17. | Sec L 2.8 Table 2.2 requires submission of QA Certificate and references Sec L102, para 4.2.5.1.4.1. This paragraph number does not appear in Sec L. |
| A17. | Proper cross references will be updated in draft RFP release. |
| Q18. | Table 2.2 specifies a list of technical appendices which is not consistent with the items discussed in Sec L para 4.2.5. |
| A18. | Proper cross references will be updated in draft RFP release. |
| Q19. | Per Sec L 5.2, past performance information specified in Appendix C is to be submitted 14 days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals, while table 2.2 says 30 days after RFP release. |
| A19. | Proper cross references will be updated in draft RFP release. |
| Q20. | Sec L 2.1.8.2 states “For tables, charts, graphs, and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 10 point.” Can you make this smaller? |
| A20. | 10 point is required for legibility. |
| Q21. | Sec L 4.2.3.3 requires a description of the offeror’s approach to interfacing with the Government’s Cat 1 and 2 MA processes. Current copies of the Government’s MA processes, standards, and compliance documents are needed to facilitate this assessment. |
| A21. | Launch Service MA (LSMA) PWS will be included in bidder’s library. Annex 1 describes the types of analyses the launch contractor will provide to support Government MA process |
| Q22. | Per Sec L 4.2.5.1.7, "If the offeror has an approved master subcontracting plan (or approved comprehensive subcontracting plan (DFARS 219.702)), submit an addendum with its proposal covering any additional information required by this solicitation." What additional information will be included in the addendum? |
| A22. | SB subcontracting goals and any additional information required in this solicitation will be identified in the final RFP. |
| Q23. | Per Sec L 4.2.5.1.7, "Offerors will provide targets of their participation, expressed as dollars and percentages of total contract value." Would the Government allow the targets of participation to be at the total subcontract value as opposed to the total contract value? |
| A23. | No. |
| Q24. | Sec L para 6.0 references Vol III and para 7.0 references Vol V. Is there a Vol IV? |
| A24. | Proper cross references will be updated in the draft RFP release. |
| Q25. | The SRP-4 Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) fee structure was described as being limited to a 10 percent of target cost maximum. Is this final? |
| A25. | The CPIF fee structure is being reviewed and will be updated as required in the draft RFP release. |
| Q26. | Sec L 4.2.4.3.4 identifies the requirement for an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) per PWS requirements for each sample mission. Is a resource loaded schedule required? |
| A26. | Yes |
7. Sample Mission – Mission Requirements Document (MRD)
| Q1. | Are suborbital launches out of White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) Cat 1 MA? |
| A1. | Sample Mission 1-2 from WSMR is a Cat 1 mission. Cat 1 missions will require an FAA license. |
| Q2. | Please provide clarification concerning the multiple launch sites identified in the sample missions. |
| A2. | Typically, suborbital launch sites and terminal reentry conditions will be identified in the task order MRD. Orbital launch sites will be determined by the launch contractor based on the satellite launch and insertion parameters. |
| Q3. | Are there any apogee limits on Sample Mission 1-1? |
| A3. | No, however, range constraints to apogee may apply. |
| Q4. | Would an air launch be allowed for Sample Mission 1-2? |
| A4. | Any Sample Mission launch solution is acceptable provided it meets PWS and MRD requirements. |
| Q5. | Sample missions require summary-level descriptions of the mechanical and electrical interfaces to the launch vehicle to support the definition and pricing of a launch solution. |
| A5. | Sample mission interface information will be updated with draft RFP release. |
8. Section M
| Q1. | Does Sec M Par 3.2.1.2.7 imply AS9100 certification is required for Cat 1 MA missions? As an alternative, may additional credit be given for proposals that have demonstrated launches? |
| A1. | AS9100 is not a requirement for this solicitation. If an offeror has AS9100 or equivalent certification, a potential credit may be given in the Government evaluation process. Having demonstrated launches does not necessarily reflect quality processes. |
| Q2. | Will credit be given for a SB that is not currently ISO qualified, but will be by proposal submission? Is flight experience required? |
| A2. | ISO qualification will not earn credit and flight experience is not required. |
9. Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS)
| Q1. | Is “SMC–S-016 Systems Engineering Requirements and Products” a compliance document? |
| A1. | A tailored version of SMC-S-016 is identified in the PWS compliance list and will be provided in the bidder’s library. |
| Q2. | Many PWS requirements are onerous for a SB such as MA support. Is a compliance plan that establishes required infrastructure and personnel acceptable? |
| A2. | No. All support and Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRL) will be required as stated in the PWS. Any PWS requirements that potential offerors identify as onerous should be individually identified during the Draft RFP review process, and the offeror should provide a recommended alternative that is less onerous with supporting rationale why the less onerous requirement would more effectively meet the government's objectives for mission success at an appropriate price. |
| Q3. | The PWS is somewhat confusing and inconsistent linking the various CDRLs and reviews together for the different MA categories. It is suggested that specific CDRLs be called out separately for MA Cat 1 and 2. |
| A3. | Some Cat 1 and 2 CDRLs are common. A table delineating Cat 1 and Cat 2 requirements will be taken under consideration for final draft RFP. |
| Q4. | The PWS is hard to follow regarding reviews. When are they required and what is expected? Tables that clearly specify review expectations would help. For a purely commercial endeavor such as Cat 1 MA, there are still many reviews. For a commercial launch service, the review is on sufficiency of the performing the mission, not on sufficiency of the launch vehicle design. |
| A4. | Cat 1 MA does not replicate a commercial launch service. Offerors should note that even for a Cat 1 mission, the Government cannot buy insurance on the government payload and carries 100% risk for loss of the payload; therefore, an appropriate amount of due diligence is required. This diligence is most often emplaced contractually in the form of reviews and data deliverables. Specific reviews and data are required for a Cat 1 MA that would not be expected for a purely commercial service. The objective of Cat 1 MA is to reduce the cost of the launch service for missions that have a higher risk tolerance in order to appropriately balance the launch service costs with the risk. |
| Q5. | How will the orbital launch requirement for 0-400lbs to LEO in PWS 1.1 be evaluated? Is 400lbs the threshold requirement? Please specify the threshold orbit altitude and inclination. |
| A5. | This is no longer relevant as the SRP Orbital requirement will not have an IDIQ established. |
| Q6. | Per PWS 1.2, are there two different on-ramps? One for existing launch vehicles and one for new launch vehicles (without launch heritage)? |
| A6. | Offerors seeking award of an IDIQ contract through on-ramps will have to satisfy the initial contract award requirements regardless of launch vehicle heritage. |
| Q7. | Per PWS 1.2.1, "The LSC shall manage and maintain GFP (if applicable) using documented LSC procedures when Government-provided procedures are unavailable." For which GFP are Government-provided procedures available? |
| A7. | Available Government-provided procedures will be published in the bidder’s library. |
| Q8. | Per PWS 1.4.1, "Entry criteria evidence shall be submitted forty five (45) calendar days (or earlier if available) in advance of the review event." From Section 1.8.1.7, the SRR must be conducted "no later than 60 calendar days after TO award." Was it the Government’s intent to provide only 15 calendar days to generate all Entry Criteria for the System Requirements Review (SRR)? |
| A8. | Entry criteria for SRR will be amended in PWS to 15 days prior to event. |
| Q9. | What are the consequences of not meeting performance thresholds defined in Section 2 Service Summary? |
| A9. | Contractors who fail to meet performance thresholds will be required to adhere to the remedies listed in the Inspection of Services Clause. |
| Q10. | Per PWS 1.4.1, Government approval to proceed with formal reviews will be "no later than twenty one (21) calendar days prior to formal review." This date is based on the 45 days prior to review receipt of Objective Evidence. Is 21 days reasonable? |
| A10. | Entry criteria for SRR will be amended in PWS to 15 days prior to event and 7 days prior for exit criteria. Submittal and approval dates for other reviews will remain the same. |
| Q11. | Per PWS 1.4.2, a draft formal review package shall be submitted twenty one (21) calendar days prior to the review. Is 21 days reasonable? |
| A11. | Entry criteria for SRR will be amended in PWS to 15 days prior to event and 7 days prior for exit criteria. Submittal and approval dates for other reviews will remain the same. |
| Q12. | Per PWS 1.6.1, NIST SP 800-171 compliance is required at the time of contract award, however, DFARS 252.204-7012 (Dec 2015) requires compliance by December 31, 2017. |
| A12. | The incoming system would have to be compliant prior to processing, transmitting, and/or storing controlled unclassified data. This would be determined by the schedule of the contract and the need of the Government data on the commercial system. DFARS 252.204-7012 requires compliance not later than December 31, 2017, and since any mission ILC will be after Dec 2017, the NISTSP 800-171 requirement is valid. |
| Q13. | Per PWS 1.6.2, accreditation is directed by following the Defense Security Service Office of the Designated Approving Authority certification and accreditation process. Will the classified systems used on this contract be accredited using DoDI 8510.07 (Mar 2014)? |
| A13. | Commercial systems cannot be accredited using DoDI 8510 and must follow the DSS process. If the system is Government owned, then 8510.01 (Mar 2014) may be used, but SRP-4 is procuring a R&D launch service and not taking ownership of any system. |
| Q14. | Per PWS 1.6.2, "hardware and software for certification and accreditation is not expected to exceed a combined Information Sensitivity Matrix of Medium, Medium, Low as defined in DoD 5220.00-M." Is there an extra Medium or should it be Medium-Low in this statement, "Sensitivity Matrix of Medium, Medium, Low"? |
| A14. | Sensitivity Matrix of Medium, Medium, Low" should be Sensitivity Matrix of Medium, Medium, Basic with each sensitivity rating applying to confidentiality, integrity, and availability, respectively. This will be corrected in the final draft PWS. The DoD 5220.00-M should read 5220.22-M. |
| Q15. | The PWS 1.8 figure outlining reviews should be broken out between MA categories. A table of expectations for each review would be useful. |
| A15. | A table delineating Cat 1 and Cat 2 requirements will be taken under consideration for final draft RFP. Exit and Entry criteria in Annex 3 outlines the expectations of the data required at those reviews. |
| Q16. | PWS 3.1 Specific elements of the FAR or D-FAR elements should be called out rather than just "FAR". Additionally, Other Transactional Authority (OTA) should be considered for new entrants that are interested in the Mission Assurance Category 1 only. |
| A16. | Specific clauses will be defined in the model contract. |
| Q17. | PWS 1.8.1.1 refers to MA Cat 3 with no subsequent discussion of Cat 3. |
| A17. | Cat 3 is not applicable to SRP and will be removed from the final draft PWS. |
| Q18. | Per PWS 1.8.1.1, the Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) dictionary, Integrated Schedule (IS), cost reporting, and other stated elements in this section should be linked. This implies extensive Earned Value Management System (EVMS) tracking and cost account processes that should not be required for a commercial launch service. |
| A18. | CPIF TOs require linked CWBS dictionary, IS, and cost reporting. FFP TOs will not require EVMS reporting, however a CWBS dictionary and IS is required, but does not require resourced linking. |
| Q19. | | Per PWS 1.8.1.3, what is the extent of the "launch site operations campaign?” |
| A19. | Daily schedules of the launch campaign are required from the arrival of the launch vehicle at the launch site through the launch. | |
| Q20. | Per PWS 1.8.1.2, the contractor shall conduct the Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) not later than 90 calendar days after contract award. Is 90 days reasonable? |
| A20. | The IBR does not have entry and exit criteria. The CDRL will define deliverable dates. 90 days is valid. |
| Q21. | Per PWS 1.8.1.2 & 2, the contractor shall identify and document all indicators of a non-compliant Earned Value Management System. This is not aligned with commercial launch service procurement. These requirements are further amplified in Section 2 on the Service Summaries. |
| A21. | CPIF TOs require an IBR and EVMS reporting. FFP TOs do not require an IBR or EVMS reporting. |
| Q22. | Per PWS 1.8.1.3, what is the definition of the User's Guide referenced in this paragraph? A user's guide is primarily a marketing document and should not be subject to contract requirements. |
| A22. | Per Sec L 1.3, the User’s Guide will provide information on the contracted launch solution necessary for potential satellite or payload developers to understand the interfaces, launch environments, available payload volume, ordnance/command discrete available, power available, etc. necessary to design an Interface Requirements Document and/or decide if the launch solution is capable of placing the satellite/payload into the required orbit/trajectory. Additional requirements for the User’s Guide will be provided post award of the basic contract. |
| Q23. | Per PWS 1.8.1.4, weekly meetings are required. This seems excessive for a launch service that can last 24 months. Can the frequency of interaction be determined as appropriate? |
| A23. | Weekly integrated Product Team (IPT) meetings are the standard and may be adjusted depending on mission requirements. If adjusted, TOs will state the change. These are generally 1 hr telecons for status and action items. |
| Q24. | Per PWS 1.8.1.6, on-site Government representatives require access to the contractor’s network, and real-time access to contractor design, test, and integration information systems. Contractor networks contain data for multiple programs that are unrelated to SRP4. Government representative can access SRP4 data on the local area network, but not the company intranet or other areas of the local area network. Contractor design, test and integration information systems contain data for multiple programs that are unrelated to SRP-4. |
| A24. | The PWS will be amended to state SRP-4 only task orders. |
| Q25. | Per PWS 1.8.1.6, Government representative(s) shall have real-time access to contractor design, test and integration information systems." For a MA Cat 1 commercial launch service, this is excessive. |
| A25. | The program office will consider this for FFP TOs and modify them accordingly based on mission requirements. |
| Q26. | Per PWS 1.8.1.7, the SRR shall be performed no later than 60 calendar days after TO award. Is 60 days still reasonable? |
| A26. | Yes, with corrected entry/exit criteria changes to 15 days and 7 days respectively. |
| Q27. | Per PWS 1.8.2.2.6.1, "A series of mechanical/structural tests shall be conducted at the Launch Services Contractor (LSC) facilities to verify the Launch Vehicle (LV) mechanical and structural characteristics." What series of mechanical/structural tests will be conducted? |
| A27. | A mechanical interface check to verify proper mating of the payload to LV is conducted. Separation tests, acoustic tests or modal surveys may be required for mission unique requirements. |
| Q28. | What launch sites does PWS 1.8.1.10 refer to? |
| A28. | This refers to any launch site proposed and awarded under a TO. |
| Q29. | PWS 1.8.1.10.1 provides requirements for Range Safety preparations and approvals. Are these requirements in excess of the normal FAA launch license process? |
| A29. | Cat 1 MA does not mirror a commercial launch service. Specific reviews and data are required for a Cat 1 that may not be expected for a purely commercial service, including the verification of FAA license and range safety approvals. See Annex 3 Pre-ship Readiness Review (PSR) requirements. |
| Q30. | PWS 1.8.1.11.8: Classified Payloads: This paragraph assumes the LSC will provide facility/personnel etc. Recommend generalizing this to accommodate other means of processing classified payloads - i.e. cleared personnel at a cleared facility encapsulate a payload, but then further integration/mating in unclassified facilities. |
| A30. | All suborbital offerors must meet the basic PWS requirements for classified processing and integration facilities. Orbital facility requirements will be based on mission requirements. |
| Q31. | PWS 1.8.1.11.9 Launch Vehicle (LV)/Space Vehicle (SV) Operations: These paragraphs are very specific in terms of interaction between the launch service provider and the payload provider. Recommend making this generic to accommodate variations and new entrants. These paragraphs dictate test order and even specific crane moves, which should be defined on a mission by mission basis. |
| A31. | The Government will consider the recommendation. |
| Q32. | What is meant by the launch vehicle will provide "adequate" instrumentation in PWS 1.8.1.11.12.1? Could you define “adequate” or address it as a mission-specific requirement? |
| A32. | Measuring the predicted, or modeled, launch and flight environments is a PWS requirement. The meaning of “adequate” will be better defined in the draft PWS included in the draft RFP. |
| Q33. | Why does the Government lead the failure review board with customer participation for Cat 1 missions as stated in PWS 1.8.1.11.13.4? The LSC leads this for typical commercial operations. |
| A33. | The LSC is required to participate in a Government-led failure review board distinct from a commercial review board. |
| Q34. | Does PWS 1.8.2 imply the same system technical requirements for a Cat 1 as a Cat 2 mission when it says "Obtaining applicable licenses shall not relieve the LSC from the requirements described in Section 1.8.1?" |
| A34. | Cat 1 MA does not mirror a commercial launch service. Specific reviews and data are required for a Cat 1 that may not be expected for a purely commercial service. Annex 3 outlines the differences in data required. |
| Q35. | PWS Section 1.8.2.2.2 states, "Any hardware or software modifications that are subsequently made to the actual flight computer (on any mission) shall also be made by the LSC to the representative flight-like computer at no additional cost to the Government." Also, "The LSC shall provide technical support as needed and design information to the Mission Assurance Contractor (MAC) to facilitate integration of the computer with the MAC’s test bed." Will the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) restrict the number of times the MAC's flight computer is updated or how much support the LSC must provide for the MAC's test bed? Or is this at the discretion of the LSC? |
| A35. | The LSC may determine the number of updates to the flight computer, after its initial receipt, during the mission timeline. If a similar flight computer is used in future missions, updates would be required for any configuration changes. If there are no configuration changes, then only updates to mission specific software is required. |
| Q36. | Industry Day indicated the Government will use TO-specific MA standards (Cat 1 or 2 likely, Cat 3 less likely). Where are the specific requirements for each MA option? |
| A36. | Data required by the MA contractor for Cat 1 or Cat 2 is defined in Annex 1 of the PWS. The LSC must fulfill PWS requirements as defined in 1.8.2. Reference to Cat 3 will be removed. |
| Q37. | Per PWS 1.8.1.11.1, the LSC shall specify in each proposal all required Government range services. Will the Government make range facilities (assembly buildings, launch pads, etc.) available? If so, how will the costs of these resources be accounted for in TO evaluation? |
| A37. | Yes, if requested by the contractor, the Government will make range facilities available for use on SRP. The Government is assessing its cost accounting process for range services, and once complete, the Government will update the information in the draft RFP release. |