Attach_2_ASLON-45_Combined_Synopsis_Solicitation_QA_for_FBO_Release_(15May19).pdf

Agile Small Launch Operational Normalizer-45 (ASLON-45) Combined Synopsis/Solicitation Question & Answer (Q&A)

All answers provided in this document are based on the best information available. These questions resulted from the 23 April 2019 Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) posting of the ASLON-45 Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (CS/S). The Government is providing its responses to these questions in hopes that it will assist offerors in the development of their ASLON-45 proposal. Please notify Ms. Alicia Cawley, alicia.cawley@us.af.mil, if a question was inadvertently not addressed.

1. General Questions

Q1: It appears that bidders must submit “Volume II – Price” by May 23rd and that it is to be submitted by email to Alicia Cawley and Julia Lagace. Is that correct? On page 3 it states “The offeror SHALL NOT provide any hard copies for the Government, except for Attachment 2 – Offer Sheet.” Which seems to imply that the “Offer Sheet” should be submitted in hard copy but it’s not clear.

A1: The Offer Sheet should be returned via email, there is no need to mail a hard copy. [Note: the proposal due date has been extended from 23 May 2019 to 6 June 2019 within this Amendment.]

Q2: Is “Attachment 1 – Provisions and Clauses” also due on May 23rd? If so, is it also to be submitted electronically?

A2: Yes, the fill-ins for Attachment 1 – Provisions and Clauses should be included in the email that you send the Offer Sheet on 23 May. [Note: the proposal due date has been extended from 23 May 2019 to 6 June 2019 within this Amendment.]

Q3: Do I understand it correctly to note that Volume I is not due until the in person presentation? Or is it to be submitted electronically on May 23rd as well?

A3: That is correct, Volume I is not due until the in-person presentation. To provide additional clarification, Volume I will only be presented in the form of a visual/oral presentation. The Government will not be collecting any hard copies from offerors on that day. The Government will be filming the presentation and that will act as our “record” of Volume I. [Note: the proposal due date has been extended from 23 May 2019 to 6 June 2019 within this Amendment.]

Q4: In the ASLON-45 MRD, Basic: 19 Mar 2019, paragraph 3.2.1 (page 33 of 40), it states “the total mass of the SVs is less than 45kg.” Please confirm the 45kg stated is the approximate value for total mass to the desired orbit (the three (3) SVs plus the LSC-supplied containerized deployers and associated hardware).

A4: 45kg as stated in total mass includes SVs, containerized deployers, and associated hardware.

Q5: In the ASLON-45 MRD, Basic: 19 Mar 2019, paragraph 3.2.2.4 (page 33 of 40), one of the three SV’s requires a GFP MOOG isolator to be integrated by the LSC. Please provide an ICD to include volumetric and dimensional specifications for the GFP item. Also paragraph 2.2 Government Furnished Property should be corrected to reflect that this GFP item will be provided.

A5: Added MRD 073, MOOG Shockwave Isolator Assembly ICD, with MOOG specifications. Paragraph 2.2 in the PWS has been updated to identify 3.2.2.4 as GFP provided hardware. We have provided an attachment including detailed information for the Shockwave Isolator, which can also be found on MOOG's website https://www.moog.com/content/dam/moog/literature/Space_Defense/ spaceliterature/Vibration_Control/SHOCK_VIBRATION_ShockWave_Isolator_0816.pdf

Q6: In the ASLON-45 MRD, Basic: 19 Mar 2019, paragraph 1.1 (page 29 of 40), it states that “the Initial Launch Capability (ILC) Objective will be February 2021 and ILC Threshold will be August 2021.” Please explain the contractual relationship between Objective and Threshold ILC. Should proposers assume the launch window runs from 1 Feb 2021 through 31 Aug 2021?

A6: The LSP provided IMS will establish an ILC which is the opening of the launch window. The LSP ILC may fall anywhere in between 01 Feb 2021 and 31 Aug 2021. The ILC and launch window should be accomplished between 01 Feb 2021 and 31 Aug 2021. Launch needs to be completed by threshold date of 31 Aug 2021.

Q7: In the Performance-based Work Statement for SRP-O ASLON-45, 12 Apr 2019, paragraph 3.1 (page 17 of 40), it lists reference document SMC-G-1204, SMC Readiness Review Process. We are unable to find the document. Can SMC provide it?

A7: This reference document has been uploaded as an attachment with this FBO posting.

Q8: In the ASLON-45 MRD, Basic: 19 Mar 2019, paragraph 3.5 (page 35 of 40), it states “The LSC shall provide the capability to service hazardous propellants (e.g. hydrazine and hydrazine variants...)” If the pool of SmallSats that may be manifested on the ASLON-45 mission do not have hazardous propellants, suggest that MRD 069 be deleted. If hazardous propellants are anticipated to be required, please provide a list of the propellants and quantities per SV payload.

A8: Section 2.1 of the MRD outlines Launch Service Enhancements Overview. The bottom of the table shows that hazardous propellant servicing is not required. Section 6.0, SV Hazardous Propellant Servicing, is updated to N/A.

Q9: In the Performance-based Work Statement for SRP-O ASLON-45, 12 Apr 2019, paragraph 3.2 (page 17 of 40), it lists Document Number LTS 10-2010-04 titled Test Requirements for Launch Vehicles and under comments states “Tailored RSLP version of SMC-S-016 (tailored MIL-STD-1540E).” Please detail how the LSC offeror should scope compliance with LTS 10-2010-04 (tailored RSLP version of SMC-S-016 (tailored MIL-STD-1540E)) for a fixed price commercial launch service where the Air Force is not taking possession of the launch vehicle. Recommend the document be moved from Compliance Documents (paragraph 3.2) to Reference Documents (paragraph 3.1) in PWS paragraph 3.0 and used by the LSC to compare/contrast the offeror’s completed development efforts to the standards as part of the Pedigree Review.

A9: This document has been moved from 3.2 Compliance Documents to 3.1 Reference Documents within the PWS.

Q10: The procurement specifies a dedicated launch service to deliver 3x6U payloads, and that the Q&A responses precluded commercial payloads from flying on this mission. Can you clarify whether additional Government payloads can be flown on a non-interference basis? Or is your interpretation of “dedicated” that no other payloads may be launched on this mission?

A10: Our interpretation of “dedicated” is that no other payloads may be launched on this mission.

Q11: PWS paragraph 1.4.1 on page 4 states, “The entry evidence must meet the entry criteria specified for the review as detailed in Annex 2.” Where is Annex 2 in the PWS?

A11: The table on page 19 of the PWS is now correctly labeled as Annex 2.

Q12: Flight Termination System (FTS) is listed as an acronym, but there is no mention of the FTS in the MRD. Clarify data deliverables needed for FTS system design, operations, and recurring verification.

A12: The FTS Acronym has now been deleted in the MRD. Adhering with range safety and FAA guidelines is the PWS requirement.

Q13: In the MRD paragraph 2.3.1 on page 29 it states, “Payload environmental telemetry requirements not fully defined.” There is no mention of whether payload shock and vibration data must be measure on flight. Since this is not mentioned now, can it be assumed that this is not a requirement?

A13: Please review CDRL A017, specifically “Environments.” This should have everything you need.

Q14: The RFI stated that cybersecurity would be added as a reference document. Where is this reference document listed? It would be helpful in pricing the contract to understand the specific IA and cybersecurity requirements requested.

A14: Cybersecurity was not added as a reference document. Cybersecurity is now section 1.5 in the PWS.

Cybersecurity language pertaining to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) is currently in section

1.5.2 within the PWS.

Q15: MRD section 1.1 states, “the baseline launch location for this mission will be from the East Coast of the United States.” A comment was made as a result of the December RFI that if there is no driving requirement, there is no need to over-specify the launch site. The Government’s response was, “Launch will be conducted from a US based ILS – we will remove East Coast from 2.1.” Why is this still in the

MRD?

A15: This was removed from the PWS, but missed in the MRD. We have now removed it in the MRD section 1.1 which now states, “The baseline launch location for this mission will be from the United States.”

Q16: There are various clauses that do not appear to be applicable to launch services. A list of these clauses and the explanations is in the attached spreadsheet. We appreciate your review of whether these can be removed.

A16: The Government has reviewed these clauses and provided a Government response in the column highlighted in yellow (see attachment to this document). The clauses that were marked as “have been removed” within the attachment, will be stricken through and highlighted in the updated Provisions and Clauses attachment to the CS/S.

Q17: As noted by its title, the inclusion of NIST SP 800-53 (Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations) applies to federal information systems. The analogous standard for contractors is NIST SP 800-171 (Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations), which is applied through the inclusion of DFARS 252.204-7012. This DFARS clause is included in ASLON-45 CS/S. We believe the reference to the federal standard (800-53) is an error. Can you please clarify whether NIST SP 800-53 should be removed from the list of compliance documents?

A17: The Government agrees and the NIST SP 800-53 has been removed from the list of compliance documents within the PWS/MRD.

Q18: CDRL A035’s (Contract Funds Status Report) Data Item Description (DID) states that these reports do not apply to firm-fixed-price contracts unless there are unusual circumstances (DI-MGMT-81468, paragraph 7.3). This is a FFP contract and there do not appear to be any unusual circumstances. Is this intentionally included in the contract, or is it possible to remove it?

A18: This was unintentional and the Government agrees that this CDRL does not apply to FFP. CDRL A035 has been removed. The CDRLs that apply to the ASLON-45 contract are attached to the CS/S and included in this amendment.

Q19: Payments for launch services are typically set through a milestone schedule. This is true for both commercial and Government customers. The ASLON-45 RFP does not include a payment schedule, nor does it invite offerors to propose financing terms (which would be done through FAR 52.232-31). The RFP does include FAR 52.204-22, which allows offerors to propose alternative line items to ensure that the contract is economically advantageous to the Government and the offeror. May we use this clause to propose subline items under CLIN 0001, which would function the same as a milestone payment plan? If so, how would we propose the alternative line items? Would it be an attachment to the offer sheet? How will the Government evaluate an offeror’s pricing under alternative proposals, where one proposal follows the RFP’s single-payment CLIN and the alternative proposes subCLINs? The alternative may have a different total price to reflect the subCLINs functioning as a financing mechanism.

A19: ASLON-45 is a commercial contract. The Government does not intend to offer commercial financing for the ASLON-45 contract. FAR 52.232-31 was intentionally omitted from the ASLON-45 RFP.

Additionally, no commercial interim payments or commercial advance payments are being offered for this contract. Payment will be made once the services of the contract are rendered and accepted.

Q20: Our question pertains to Volume 1 Technical Presentation, Section 1.2 Oral and Visual Presentation Guidelines, #4 Presentation Content within the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation, specifically for line items 4b-4f. Can you specify the requirements of the maturity assessment and scope of this request?

Also, is there a specific maturity model or preferred template?

A20: As shown in the Solicitation Correlation Matrix, the offeror’s maturity assessment in these areas will inform the Government’s assessment of the Technical Risk in meeting the ASLON Orbit Insertion and Payload Accommodation criteria. To inform these two risk assessments by the Government, the offeror is being asked to identify the degree of design, build, and test effort completed in each of these areas.

The Government has no specific maturity model or preferred template for the maturity assessment. Any means by which the offeror is measuring their own maturity in these areas should be sufficient to allow the Government to make an assessment of risk informed by the maturity of the design, build, and test efforts.

Q21: In Volume 1 Technical Presentation, Section 1.2 Oral and Visual Presentation Guidelines, #4 Presentation Content within the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation, specifically 4f, can you clarify what you define as “Mission Software?”

A21: The mission software maturity assessment is being requested to inform the Government’s assessment of risk of meeting the ASLON orbit insertion requirement, so all software that is required to be complete in order to meet orbit insertion would be relevant to this assessment. The specific relevant software set would be unique to each offeror’s technical solution.

Q22 Part 1: In Volume 1 Technical Presentation, Section 1.2 Oral and Visual Presentation Guidelines, #4 Presentation Content within the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation, specifically 4h-4i, can you specify whether you require tabbed or rail-based payload dispensers?

A22 part 1: Para 3.2.2.1 on Page 33 of 40 in Attachment 2, PWS/MRD, of the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation identifies “The ASLON-45 6U cubesats are tabbed configuration.”

Q22 Part 2: Additionally, what is the scope of detail to our harnessing that is required? Which items do we need to provide? Schematics, harness drawings, installation drawings, bill of materials?

A22 Part 2: The offeror is only required to identify the modifications.

Q23: In Volume 1 Technical Presentation, Section 1.2 Oral and Visual Presentation Guidelines, #4 Presentation Content within the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation, specifically 4i, can you specify the payload dispenser requirements you require?

A23: See para 3.2 on page 33 of 40 in Attachment 2, PWS/MRD, of the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation.

Q24: : In Volume 1 Technical Presentation, Section 1.2 Oral and Visual Presentation Guidelines, #4 Presentation Content within the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation, specifically 4j, what level of verification is required and is a nominal trajectory proving performance sufficient or is dispersion analysis required?

A24: The offeror is only required to provide the performance analysis, for the purpose of informing the Government’s assessment of the offeror’s ability to meet the orbit requirement. Either nominal trajectory proving performance or dispersion analysis would be sufficient.

Q25: In Volume 1 Technical Presentation, Section 1.2 Oral and Visual Presentation Guidelines, #4 Presentation Content within the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation, specifically 4o, can you provide more fidelity on what you’re looking for? Maturity of the FGSE design? Are you referring to Procurement of Ground Support Equipment?

A25: The offeror is only required to identify the Ground Support Equipment, for the purpose of informing the Government’s assessment of the offeror’s ability to meet the orbit requirement. No fidelity is required beyond identifying what the Ground Support Equipment items are.

Q26: In Volume 1 Technical Presentation, Section 1.2 Oral and Visual Presentation Guidelines, #4 Presentation Content within the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation, specifically 4r, is this focused on the Integration and Control Facility?

A26: The Government will use this facility status information to inform the assessment of risk to payload processing, so it should cover facilities relevant to payload processing that are identified in 4q and 4w.

Clause Title Reason for Removing from Contract Government Response

FAR 52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires

Per FAR 22.1006(b), this clause only applies if the Service Contract Labor Standards statute is applicable. This statute does not apply, as indicated by the contracting officer's decision not to incorporate 52.222-41. The decision not to incorporate 52.222-41 is correct because the contract is not a service contract subject to the statute.

This is correct. The Service Contract Labor Standards Statute is not applicable, as this contract's principle purpose for furnishing services in the United States is NOT through the use of Service Employees, but instead through Professional Employees as defined by 29 CFR § 541.300.

This clause has been removed.

FAR 52.222-55

(incorporated through 52.212-5(c)(8))

Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658

Per FAR 22.1906, this clause does not apply because the contract does not include 52.222-6 or 52.222-41.

This clause has been removed for the same reason as stated above.

FAR 52.222-62

(incorporated through 52.212-5(c)(9))

Paid Sick Leave Under Executive Order 13706

Per FAR 22.2110, this clause does not apply because the contract does not include 52.222-6 or 52.222-41.

This clause has been removed for the same reason as stated above.

FAR 52.223-3 Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data

Per FAR 23.303, this clause does not apply because the contract does not require the delivery of hazardous materials.

This is correct. The clause has been removed.

FAR 52.223-5 Pollution Prevention and Right-To- Know Information

Per FAR 23.1005, this clause only applies to contracts that provide for performance on a Federal facility.

Please confirm that this clause will be

This clause will be removed if the awardee will not perform any part of removed if the awardee will not perform any part of the contract on a Federal facility.

the contract on a Federal Facility. It will remain in the solicitation.

FAR 52.228-9 Cargo Insurance This clause does not apply because the contract is not for the standard transportation of cargo. It is not used for the acquisition of launch services.

Financial responsibility requirements are set by the FAA's regulations for commercial space transportation activities. This contract is subject to FAA licensing and regulations (see

PWS 1.9).

Government agrees that this does not apply. This clause has been removed.

FAR 52.232-4 Payments Under Transportation Contracts and Transportation- Related Services Contracts

This clause does not apply because the contract is not for the standard transportation of cargo. It is not used for the acquisition of launch services.

Government agrees that this does not apply. This clause has been removed.

FAR 52.232-11 Extras This clause does not apply because the contract is not for the standard transportation of cargo. It is not used for the acquisition of launch services.

There will not be any possibility of extras.

This clause will remain in the contract per FAR 32.111(c)(2) as it is a fixed price service contract and is on RSLP's current launch contracts.

FAR 52.247-2 Permits, Authorities, or Franchises This clause does not apply because the contract is not for the standard transportation of cargo. It is not used for the acquisition of launch services.

Government agrees that this does not apply. This clause has been removed.

FAR 52.247-5 Familiarization With Conditions This clause does not apply because the contract is not for the standard transportation of cargo. It is not used for the acquisition of launch services.

Government agrees that this does not apply. This clause has been removed.

FAR 52.247-6 Financial Statement This clause does not apply because the contract is not for the standard transportation of cargo. It is not used for the acquisition of launch services.

Government agrees that this does not apply. This clause has been removed.

FAR 52.247-17 Charges This clause does not apply because the contract is not for the standard transportation of cargo. It is not used for the acquisition of launch services.

Government agrees that this does not apply. This clause has been removed.

FAR 52.247-21 Contractor Liability for Personal Injury and/or Property Damage

This clause does not apply because the contract is not for the standard transportation of cargo. It is not used for the acquisition of launch services.

Financial responsibility requirements are set by the FAA's regulations for commercial space transportation activities. This contract is subject to FAA licensing and regulations (see

PWS 1.9).

Government agrees that this does not apply. This clause has been removed.

FAR 52.247-22 Contractor Liability for Loss of and/or Damage to Freight Other Than Household Goods

This clause does not apply because the contract is not for the standard transportation of cargo. It is not used for the acquisition of launch services.

Financial responsibility requirements are set by the FAA's regulations for commercial space transportation activities. This contract is subject to FAA licensing and regulations (see

PWS 1.9).

Government agrees that this does not apply. This clause has been removed.

FAR 52.247-24 Advance Notification by the Government

This clause does not apply because the contract is not for the standard transportation of cargo. It is not used for the acquisition of launch services.

The Government will not notify the

Government agrees that this does not apply. This clause has been removed.

contractor of specific service times or unusual shiipments.

FAR 52.247-27 Contract Not Affected by Oral Agreement

This clause does not apply because the contract is not for the standard transportation of cargo. It is not used for the acquisition of launch services.

Government agrees that this does not apply. This clause has been removed.

DFARS 252.223-7006 Prohibition on Storage Treatment, Disposal of Toxic or Hazardous Materials

Per DFARS 223.7106, this clause only applies to contracts that require access to a DoD installation. Please confirm that this clause will be removed if the awardee will not perform any part of the contract on a DoD installation.

This clause will be removed if the awardee will not perform any part of the contract on a DoD Installation. It will remain in the solicitation.