RSLP MA draft RFP CRM.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 53 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Rocket Systems Launch Program Mission Assurance (RSLP MA) DRAFT RFP FOR COMMENT Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8818-18-R-0003
About this file
This document is a request for industry feedback on a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for Rocket Systems Launch Program Mission Assurance (RSLP MA) services. The RSLP MA program includes systems engineering, risk management, technical analysis, Independent Verification and Validation, quality assurance, and logistics planning and analysis for rocket launch missions. The Air Force seeks comments on evaluation criteria, incentives, the performance work statement, contract data requirements lists, and whether 30 days is adequate time to prepare proposals. Interested parties may request the RSLP MA Bidder's Library containing necessary reference documents. The small business set-aside requires 1250 employee size standard and applies North American Industry Classification System code 541715. Responses are due by February 11, 2020 to the contracting officer and specialist listed, noting an incorrect contracting office address in the document.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Draft Model Contract FA8818-18-R-0003.pdf | ||
| Draft Section J Attachments.pdf | ||
| Draft Section L.pdf | ||
| Draft Section M.pdf | ||
| Draft Section J Exhibits (CDRLs).pdf |
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 | |||||
| EX | PWS | A | 2 | 1.1.5 | Original: The Government will assign a Contracting Officer's Representative (COR); the COR will act as the primary interface with the MAC and provide contract surveillance (i.e. qualityy assurance) as described... | |
| Revised: The word quality is misspelled | Update ensures the RFP is error free. | |||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | ||||||
| 3 | ||||||
| 4 | ||||||
| 5 | ||||||
| 6 | ||||||
| 7 | ||||||
| 8 | ||||||
| 9 | ||||||
| 10 | ||||||
| 11 | ||||||
| 12 | ||||||
| 13 | ||||||
| 14 | ||||||
| 15 | ||||||
| 16 | ||||||
| 17 | ||||||
| 18 | ||||||
| 19 | ||||||
| 20 | ||||||
| 21 | ||||||
| 22 | ||||||
| 23 | ||||||
| 24 | ||||||
| 25 | ||||||
| 26 | ||||||
| 27 | ||||||
| 28 | ||||||
| 29 | ||||||
| 30 | ||||||
| 31 | ||||||
| 32 | ||||||
| 33 | ||||||
| 34 | ||||||
| 35 | ||||||
| 36 | ||||||
| 37 | ||||||
| 38 | ||||||
| 39 | ||||||
| 40 | ||||||
| 41 | ||||||
| 42 | ||||||
| 43 | ||||||
| 44 | ||||||
| 45 | ||||||
| 46 | ||||||
| 47 | ||||||
| 48 | ||||||
| 49 | ||||||
| 50 |
image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .