CRM Responses_Final_7May2020.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 67 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Rocket Systems Launch Program Mission Assurance (RSLP MA) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8818-18-R-0003
About this file
This final request for proposal solicits offers for the indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for Rocket Systems Launch Program Mission Assurance services. The Air Force Space Command Space and Missile Systems Center intends to award one contract. Interested vendors must request a copy of the bidder's library containing relevant program guidance from the contracting officer by May 27, 2020 to be eligible to respond. Proposals for the mission assurance services are due no later than 3:00pm MDT on May 27, 2020 and shall be submitted electronically to the specified contracting officer and contract specialist email addresses. The services required include systems engineering, software, structures, propulsion, and other technical support areas for various sample missions including launch of cubesats and launch of national security payloads. The contract will have both cost-plus-incentive-fee and cost-plus-fixed-fee line items.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amend1_FA8818-18-R-0003 Model Task Orders 01-06_11May.pdf | ||
| Amendment 0001 SF30_FA8818-18-R-0003_RSLP MA.pdf | ||
| FA8818-18-R-0003 Final RSLP MA Solicitation SF33.pdf | ||
| FA8818-18-R-0003 Model Task Orders 01-06.pdf | ||
| Copy of 2nd DRFP Posting CRM Government Responses.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Comment Resolution Matrix
| Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM) | |
| Instructions: |
1. Review the Rocket Systems Launch Program Mission Assurance (RSLP MA) draft RFP.
2. Complete CRM columns (B - G only) to provide feedback and recommended edits.
Comment Type (Column C):
A - Administrative: Comments that address minor items such as typographical, format, and/or grammatical errors.
S - Substantive: Comments of a less serious nature that have noticeable impact on the document’s quality or content. The document appears to be incorrect, misleading, confusing, or inconsistent with other sections.
C - Critical: Comments that address contentious issue(s) that will cause non-concurrence with the publication.
Gov't Decision (Column H):
A - Accept: Agree with comment.
R - Reject: Disagree with comment; rationale required for rejection.
M - Accept with modification: Partially agree with comment; rationale required for modification.
| Item # | Source Document | Comment Type | |
| A/S/C | Page | ||
| # | Para / Section # | Comment |
Provide original language and proposed change
| Rationale | |||||||||
| Provide concise, objective explanation of the rationale for the comment | Decision | ||||||||
| A/R/M | Notes | ||||||||
| 1 | Section L | C | 8 | 2.2 | The Offeror shall submit all volumes electronically. The proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2016, MS Office Excel 2016, MS Office Project 2016, or MS Office Power Point 2016, as applicable. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, appendices, annexes, and attachments, if any. What methods does the Government prefer for the electronic submittal? Example: email, DOD Safe. If the method is email, is there a limit size for delivery? Can we email the Government with several emails? Also, will the Government accept zipped files for delivery? | Clarification of method of delivery | M | Change reflected in Section L, Rev 1, paragraph 2.2, to clarify the use of the DoD SAFE Site for uploading proposal files. Additionally, offerors must now provide a second PDF copy. |
FROM:"The Offeror shall submit all volumes electronically. The proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2016, MS Office Excel 2016, MS Office Project 2016, or MS Office Power Point 2016, as applicable. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, appendices, annexes, and attachments, if any."
TO: "Offerors must request a link from the Contracting Officer (alicia.cawley@us.af.mil) and Contract Specialist (april.miller@us.af.mil) in order to upload their proposal electronically to the DoD SAFE Site. Requests for an upload link shall be received between 18 May 2020 1500 MDT and 26 May 2020 1500 MDT. Proposals shall be uploaded by the proposal due date of 27 May 2020 1500 MDT. The proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2016, MS Office Excel 2016, MS Office Project 2016, or MS Office Power Point 2016, as applicable. Additionally, the Offeror shall submit a second electronic copy of the proposal in Adobe PDF format to assist in the verification of compliance with page count, margins, and other RFP requirements. In the case of a conflict between the PDF and Word copy, the PDF will be considered the correct version. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, appendices, annexes, and attachments, if any."
2 Section L A 21 6.1.5 Model Task Orders 01-06: Completion of blocks 9, 16, 25, and all applicable fill-ins within the CLINs… Does the Government want us to fill-in Section 11 ot the Model Task Order? Clarification needed on directions to complete form A Change reflected in Section L, Rev 1, paragraph 6.1.5, to add Section 11.
FROM: Model Task Orders 01-06: Completion of Blocks 9, 16, 25, and all applicable fill-ins within the CLINs…
TO: Model Task Orders 01-06: Completion of Blocks 9, 11, 16, 25, and all applicable fill-ins within the CLINs… 3 Section L A 8 2.2 Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, appendices, annexes, and attachments. Does the Government have file naming matrix that they would like to see for all the separate files? Example: Volume III Contracts, (File for Section Solicitation/Contract Form A-K, File for rest of Contract Volume requirements, File for Attachment for Professional Employee Compensation Plan) Volume I Technical (File for Subfactor 1, File for Subfactor 2 Kickoff slide, File for Subfactor 2 TOIDs 4-6, File for Subfactor 2 Final slides)? Clarification of method of delivery of files R The Government does not have a file naming matrix.
Please refer to Table 2 - PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION for what the Government requires to included in the proposal volumes.
| 4 | Section L | A | 21 | 6.1.3 | Provide Attachment 6 , Contract Work Breakdown Structure. Since this is included in Volume II Cost, can we just state where the Contract Work Breakdown Structure is located in Volume II Cost, or do we also need to put the full Contract Work Breakdown Structure into Volume III? | Clarification | R | The Government requires the CWBS to inform the BOEs in Volume II: Cost as well as the CWBS as an attachment in Volume III: Contract Documentation. |
| 5 | Section L and SRP-O PWS | C | 39, 7 | 4.0, 1.8.3 | Section L, Task Order Milestone Schedule, lists 4 LSC led reviews including SRR, MDR-1, MDR-2 and PR. SRP-O PWS calls out 3 reviews SRCR, MDR and PR. Question: Please reconcile the inconsistency. | Clarity of proposal requirements. | A | SRP-O does not have a contract level PWS. The Gov't assumes the comment is related to the RSCD MRD (RSCD is only mission in this RFP under SRP-O). |
For consistency with the MRD, TOID 0005 (RSCD) Paragraph 4.0 Task Order Milestone Schedule is changed as follows:
FROM: The following is provided for proposal and planning purposes:
- Launch Service Contract Award 01 May 2020
- Service Rqmts Review (SRR) Oct 2020
- Mission Design Review #1 (MDR #1) Mar 2021
- Mission Design Review #2 (MDR #2) Aug 2021
- Pedigree Review Nov 2021
- ILC Apr 2022
TO: The following is provided for proposal and planning purposes:
- Launch Service Contract Award 01 May 2020
- Service Requirements and Concept Review (SRCR) Aug 2020
- Mission Design Review (MDR) May 2021
- Pedigree Review Jul 2021
- Threshold ILC Sep 2021
This change is reflected in Section L, Rev 1 attached to the SF30 Amendment 0001.
| 6 | Section L | A | 23 | 6.5 | We cannot locate the SMC OCI Plan Checklist. Page 23 of Section L states: “At a minimum, the plan shall address all of the items identified in the most current version of SMC’s OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist provided as an attachment to this solicitation.” | Clarification | A | The SMC OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist is added to Section L, Rev 1 as Appendix F. |
| 7 | RSLP MA PWS | S | 15 | 3.3.1.1 | Mission Development first sentence states "assess and provide …. prior to award." Question: Is the Government's intent to have this sentence apply to the entire Mission Development paragraph? | Clarity of proposal requirements. | N/A | No, the referenced sentence, "Assess and provide input to mission requirements development with the launch service and payload stakeholders prior to award" is one element of the Mission Development paragraph and applies to the pre-award timeframe. Subsequent sentences deal with other aspects of mission development that may occur before or after award. |
| 8 | RSLP MA PWS | S | 16 | 3.3.1.5 | Section states: "System Safety, Range Safety, and Environmental Health & Safety: "For missions using GFP Motors,…This includes…..In addition, the MAC will provide…" Question: Is any portion of this element (any sentence) applicable when GFP motors are not used? | Clarity of proposal requirements. | N/A | No, paragraph 3.3.1.5 provides CAT 1 requirements for System Safety, Range Safety, and Environmental Health & Safety which apply only to missions using GFP Motors. (Note: CAT 2 requirements in paragraph 3.3.2.5 are not limited to GFP motors.) |
| 9 | RSLP MA PWS | S | 17 | 3.3.1.14 | Pedigree Review: "For LV components or subsystems with elevated technical risk, review and evaluate LSC's launch system pedigree, design qualification, qualification testing and flight item acceptance testing processes….." Question: Does the Government intend for the processes to apply just to acceptance testing or all the items listed? Is the intent under CAT 1 to be just a process review? | Clarity of proposal requirements. | N/A | This requirement applies to all the areas listed. Intent is to provide a mechanism for the Government to "dive deeper" into areas of elevated technical risk and to provide adequate information to, "Advise the RSLP Mission Manager on risk and risk mitigations." as also stated in 3.3.1.14. |
| 10 | RSLP MA PWS | S | 28 | 3.3.2.25.1.2 | Original: Provide a comprehensive overview of planned MA activities conforming to the MRD requirements, containing the following functional disciplines or key technical areas: Systems Engineering, GNC, Software, Fluid Mechanics, Structures, Propulsion, Ordnance, Avionics, and Environments Field/Launch Operations, and Post Flight Analysis. |
Proposed: Provide a comprehensive overview of planned MA activities conforming to the MRD requirements, containing the following functional disciplines or key technical areas: Systems Engineering, GNC, Software, Fluid Mechanics, Structures, Propulsion and Ordnance, Avionics, Environments, and Field/Launch Operations, and Post Flight Analysis.
Question: Please consider including a comma to ensure the Government is asking for "Environments IV&V" and "Field/Launch Operations" to be separate disciplines. Similarly, please consider removing the comma between "propulsion" and "ordnance" as they are combined in all other parts of the PWS. Clarity of proposal requirements. A PWS paragraph 3.3.2.25.1.2 is changed FROM: Provide a comprehensive overview of planned MA activities conforming to the MRD requirements, containing the following functional disciplines or key technical areas: Systems Engineering, GNC, Software, Fluid Mechanics, Structures, Propulsion, Ordnance, Avionics, and Environments Field/Launch Operations, and Post Flight Analysis.
TO: Provide a comprehensive overview of planned MA activities conforming to the MRD requirements, containing the functional disciplines or key technical areas: Systems Engineering, GNC, Software, Avionics, Fluid Mechanics, Structures & Dynamics, Propulsion & Ordnance, Environments, Field/Launch Operations, and Post Flight Analysis."
This new language is highlighted on the change page provided, pg 28, within the SF30 Amendment 0001.
11 Section L S 1 I.A. 52.215-22 The referenced clause is limited to the CPIF CLINs only. Question: Please clarify/confirm the inapplicability to the CPFF CLINs. Ensures the clause is applicable to all appropriate CLINs. A The subject clause applies to CPIF and CPFF CLINs. The statement that it only applies to CPIF has now been deleted.
This change is reflected as strike-through text and is highlighted in Section L, page 1, attached within the SF30 Amendment 0001.
12 Section L A 1 I.B. 252.215-7007 Since the solicitation does not provide offerors fewer than 30 days to submit proposals, this clause should not be included in the solicitation. Question: Please consider removing the clause. Removal of the clause provides clarification/confirmation that the solicitation will not be cancelled and resolicited. A This clause does not apply and has now been removed from the solicitation.
This change is reflected as strike-through text and is highlighted in Section L, page 1, attached within the SF30 Amendment 0001.
13 Section L A 1 I.B. 252.216-7002 This clause is an Alternate that's used when FAR 52.216-29 is included in the solicitation. Question: Since 52.216-29 is not included in the RFP, please consider removing 52.216-7002. Removes inconsistency. A This clause does not apply and has now been removed from the solicitation.
This change is reflected as strike-through text and is highlighted in Section L, page 1, attached within the SF30 Amendment 0001.
14 Section L S 8 2.2 Section 2.2 states, "The Offeror shall submit all volumes electronically."
Questions: For e-mail submission of proposals:
(a) Is there a file size limitation for e-mails?
| (b) Are zip files acceptable? | Clarity of proposal delivery requirements. | M | Please refer to Question #1 | |||
| 15 | Section L | C | 10 | Table 2 Notes | Original: Notes: Refer to https://beta.sam.gov/ for actual date and time of submission deadlines. All proposal volumes/documents are due 45 days after RFP release. |
Proposed: Notes: All proposal volumes/documents shall be submitted electronically to all of the following e-mail addresses no later than 3pm MDT, May 27, 2020: Alicia Cawley (alicia.cawley@us.af.mil) and April Miller (april.miller@us.af.mil).
Question: 45 days after RFP release is May 25, 2020, which differs from the date provided on beta.sam.gov. Please specify a firm proposal due date (May 27, 2020) in the RFP and include the e-mail addresses to which proposals are to be submitted. Clarity of proposal delivery requirements. M Please refer to Question #1.
Section L, Rev 1 identifies 27 May 2020 as proposal due date.
| 16 | Section L | C | 23 | 6.5 | Original: "At a minimum, the plan shall address all of the items identified in the most current version of SMC’s OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist provided as an attachment to this solicitation." The OCI mitigation checklist is not attached to the solicitation. Please provide the most current version of SMC's OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist. | Resource for generating the OCI Plan. | A | Please refer to Question #6. | |
| 17 | Section L | C | 24 | 6.6.4.5 | The following link is not functioning: http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/preaward/pacrqsts.htm | ||||
| Question: Please provide the functioning link. | Offerors are unable to provide the required verification of the registry entry. | A | Link has been updated in Section L, Rev 1, Para 6.6.4.5 |
FROM: "(http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/preaward/pacrqsts.htm)."
TO: "(https://ofccp.dol-esa.gov/preaward/pa_reg.html)"
| 18 | Section L | S | 36 | 3.5 | Original: "SMC/ECLX…..anticipates the launch solution will be composed of 4 launches of the same type…" Question: What is the Government's definition of type? Are NG's Minotaur IV and Minotaur III considered same type? Similarly, are FireFly's Alpha and Beta considered the same type? | Clarity of proposal requirements. | N/A | Types are rockets or variants named by the manufacturer. NG's Minotaur IV and Minotaur III are not the same type. FireFly's Alpha and Beta are not the same type. |
| 19 | Section L and OSP-4 STP-XS1 MRD | C | 36, 9 | 3.5, 2.4 | Section L Original: "SMC/ECLX…..anticipates the launch solution will be composed of 4 launches of the same type…" STP-XS1 MRD Original: "The LSC may propose more than one LV type…" Question: Since the statements contradict, which one takes precedence? | Clarity of proposal requirements. | N/A | In TOID 0004, Section L the Government is stating our anticipation of the nature of the launch solution based on our current (pre-award) understanding to provide parameters to the MAC. The MRD does not require the LSC to propose in this manner. There is no contradiction or precedence relationship. |
| 20 | Section L | A | 39 | TOID 0005 Section 4.0 | The RSCD MRD specifies an ILC of Sept 2021, but the RSCD TOID 0005 specifies an ILC of April 2022. Request confirmation to use the TOID 0005 ILC date. | Clarification | M | TOID 0005 Para 4.0 TASK ORDER MILESTONE SCHEDULE updated to reflect ILC of Sept 2021 and reflected in Section L, Rev 1. |
See Question #5
| 21 | Section L and RSCD MRD | C | 39 | 4, 27 | Section L, Task Order Milestone Schedule, lists ILC as Apr 2022. RSCD MRD Overview states ILC objective is September 2021 and threshold is November 2021. Question: Please resolve the inconsistency. | Clarity of proposal requirements. | A | See Question #5 |
| 22 | Section L, TOID 6 | S | 43 | 5.3 | Regarding ODCs, Section 5.3 states, in part: "See below and paragraph 4.0 for additional details. Please clarify the reference to paragraph 4.0 (Task Order Milestone Schedule) and explain its applicability to ODCs, and identify which TOID section is referenced "below". | Clarity of references. | M | Reference to paragraph 4.0 deleted. |
TOIDs 0002, 0003, 0005 and 0006 paragraph 5.3 Other Direct Costs (ODC's) changed FROM: The MAC shall also provide all required ODC costs for this TO, excluding travel costs. See below and paragraph 4.0 above for additional details.
TO: The MAC shall also provide all required ODC costs for this TO, excluding travel costs.
This change is reflected in Section L, Rev 1 attached to the SF30 Amendment 0001.
23 Model Contract Section I S 25 28 52.215-23 52.216-07 52.228-07 52.232-20 52.233-03 52.242-04 52.244-05 252.242-7006 The referenced clauses are limited to the CPIF CLINs only. Question: Please clarify/confirm the inapplicability to the CPFF CLINs. Ensures the clauses are applicable to all appropriate CLINs. A All of the subject clauses apply to both CPIF and CPFF CLINs. The statement that it only applies to CPIF has now been deleted from under each clause.
This change is reflected as strike-through text and is highlighted in Section I attached within the SF30 Amendment 0001.
24 Model Contract Section I S 26 52.242-01 This clause is limited to CPIF and Fixed-Price Incentive (Firm Target) CLINs only.
Questions:
(a) Please clarify/confirm the inapplicability to the CPFF CLINs.
(b) Please clarify the applicability of the Fixed-Price Incentive CLINs (we cannot find any reference to this type of CLIN in the RFP). Ensures the clause is applicable to all appropriate CLINs. A (a) The subject clause applies to both CPIF and CPFF CLINs.
(b)This contract does not contain any FPIF CLINs. The statement that it only applies to CPIF and FPIF CLINs has now been deleted.
This change is reflected as strike-through text and is highlighted in Section I attached within the SF30 Amendment 0001.
25 Section J, Exhibit A (CDRLs for CLIN 0001) S 1 CDRL A0006 Block 4 of the Small Business Subcontractor Report references outdated compliance requirements for 52.219-14 (Limitations on Subcontracting). Question: Please update the stated requirements for 52.219-14 to reflect DEVIATION 2020-O0008) (MAR 2020) consistent with Section I of the RFP. Ensures the CDRL requirements align with the current version of the FAR clause (e.g., cannot subcontract more than 50% of the total contract performance to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities vs. cannot subcontract more than 50% of the cost for personnel). A CDRL A006 Block 4 is now changed FROM: For compliance with FAR 52.219-14 the effort in Section II is further defined to include:...
(c) If at least 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel is NOT expended from the prime contractor, the contractor shall provide the following:
TO: For compliance with FAR 52.219-14 DEVIATION 2020-O0008 (MAR 2020) the effort in Section II is further defined to include:
(c) If at least 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel is NOT expended from the prime contractor, or employees of a similarly situated subcontractor, the contractor shall provide the following:
CDRL A006 from the original RFP on 10 Apr is hereby deleted and replaced by CDRL A006 provided in the SF30 Amendment 0001.
| 26 | Model Task Orders | C | 1 | DD 1155, Block 25 | Please clarify what value goes in Block 25: Total Cost exclusive of fee? Total Cost plus target incentive fee? Total cost plus maximum incentive fee? | Clarity of proposal requirements. | N/A | The value in Block 25 should be total CPIF, which is comprised of total estimated cost plus target fee |
| 27 | Section L, TOID 6 | C | 40 | 4.0 | Paragraph 4.0 of TOID 0006 (HVTI mission) has dates for MRD #1 and MDR #2. The SRP-4 PWS discusses Preliminary Design Review and Critical Design Review. Are these intended to be the same reviews? | Clarity of proposal requirements. | A | For consistency with the SRP-4 PWS, TOID 0006 (HVTI) Paragraph 4.0 Task Order Milestone Schedule is changed as follows: |
FROM:
-Launch Service Award 30 Aug 2021
- Service Rqmts Review (SRR) Dec 2021 -Mission Design Review #1 (MDR#1) Mar 2022
- Mission Design Review #2 (MDR #2) Aug 2023
- Pedigree Review Nov 2024
- ILC Apr 2025
- PFR Jun 2025
TO:
-Launch Service Award 30 Aug 2021
- Service Rqmts Review (SRR) Dec 2021 -Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Mar 2022 -Critical Design Review (CDR) Aug 2023
- Pedigree Review Nov 2024
- ILC Apr 2025
- PFR Jun 2025
| 28 | Section L TOID 0005 | A | 38 | 3.1 | TOID states "The payload for this Task Order will be 8 Prometheus CubeSat’s…" | |
| The RSCD MRD states "...for the rapid launch of 18U of cubesat government space vehicles (SVs), composed of TBD combination of 3U, 6U, and/or 12U cubesats." | The constraints in the MRD limit the payload complement to at the most six 3U cubesats and at the least a combination of one 6U and one 12U. A complement of eight 3U cubesats would require 24U total capability or else would require cubesats smaller than 3U to fit within the specified 18U. Given the requirement for rapid payload integration, is the intent to make all cubesats on the mission the same form factor? Please clarify. | N/A | Prometheus CubeSats are 1-1/2U in size and are expected to deploy in pairs. A complement of eight (8) Prometheus CubeSats will occupy the same volume as four (4) 3U CubeSats or 12U total volume. This would allow accomodation for an additional 6U. |
The CubeSats on the mission may have a variety of form factors and combinations of form factors as described in para 3.2.1 of the RSCD MRD.
| 29 | Section L | S | 18 | 5.3.4.1 | The directions for the Cost Element Summaries in section 5.3.4.1 states : The Cost Element Summary must show at least the following information, as applicable: Labor hours and dollars, indirect labor costs (e.g. fringe, overhead, G&A), materials, travel, other direct costs (identify components making up other direct costs), Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCOM), and profit/fee. In addition, Table D-2 has a section for travel costs. Do we include estimates for travel for TOIDs 0002 -0006 in Table D-2, but not in the Total Proposed Price (Table D-4)? | Requirements clarification | N/A | 5.3.4.1 states "as applicable." The travel cost element reference is only applicable to TOID 0001. You will not include estimates for travel for TOIDs 0002-0006 in Table D-2. |
| 30 | Section L | We suggest that offerors are to also submit a version of all documents in Adobe PDF format in addition to the MS Word compatible formats, since we are not submitting a paper copy at this time. Due to different settings, default styles, and preferences in different versions/installations of Microsoft products, formatting, such as font styles and sizes, and/or placement of pictures, tables, diagrams may shift around, causing the document to appear different or to be above page count. Normally, the paper copy would be used to verify compliance with page count and other RFP instructions. Since this is an electronic submission, we suggest that an Adobe PDF copy be included with submissions to verify compliance with page count, margins, and other RFP requirements. | A | Please see changed language regarding proposal submission in Item #1 above. |
image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .