| M = Modified | Government Response | | | | | | |
| 1 | Section L, Page 3, 2.1 | "oral and visual presentation with a partial written submittal" | Is the oral and visual a powerpoint presentation given in person? When and where will this be? Typo with numbering. | Numbering of sections is inconsistent. Please clarify what is needed for the oral presentation. | Accepted | Numbering snafu acknowledged, will be remedied in final RFP. Yes the oral/visual presentation will be in-person, data and location will be announced in the RFP. |
| 2 | Section L, Page 4, 2.7.4 | "2.7.4 Electronic Reference Documents (Bidder’s Library):" | What are these documents? Are they available now? | Would like to have access to available documents. | Accepted | Bidder's Library 1.0 will be made available when the RFI Dispositions are posted. |
| 3 | Section L, Page 6, 3.1 | "3.1 Non-Governmental Advisors " | Can we put an NDA in place for company proprietary information? | We would like to protect company proprietary information. | N/A | NDA's will be used |
| 4 | Section L, Page 7, 4.2.1.2 | "Dates should be nominal and reflect a contract award of 01 January 2019" | Award date of 01 January 2019 is too soon. Actual award is going to be 3rd quarter of 2019. Shouldn’t our start date include that for the IMS? | Award date should relect the actual date of award for IMS. | Accepted | This wording will be updated to reflect the actual releae date of the RFP (and subsequent anticipated award date). |
| 5 | Section L, Page 9, 4.2.3.1 | "Demonstrate how the proposed LS design will interface (ie, mechanical, electrical, environmental, etc.) with the payload characteristics specified in the MRD." | Payload environments will be difficult to describe at such an early stage. We can provide testing plans to develop environments. | For an early stage proposal, detailed environments will not yet be defined. | N/A | The government cannot award a launch service contract to a provider whose launch solution is not assured to meet the payload environmental constraints. |
| 6 | PWS, Page 1 | "Agile Small Launch Operational Normalizer (ASLON)-45 " | What is meant by "Normalizer" | Clarification of full meaning of title | N/A | The word "normalizer" reflects a longer range intent to normalize the use of agile small launch systems for spacelift operations via the SRP-O acquisition strategy, using this mission as the initial sub-400-lb spacelift procurement. |
| 7 | PWS, Page 4, 1.4.1 | "The entry evidence must meet the entry criteria specified for the review as detailed in Annex 2" | Where is Annex 2? | Please direct us to where Annex 2 is located. | N/A | Annex 2 begins on page 17 of the PWS. |
| 8 | PWS, Page 8, 1.8.7.2 | AFI 91-217 Attachment 2 | Where Attachment 2? | | N/A | AFI's are available to the public at https://www.e-publishing.af.mil/ |
| 9 | PWS, Page 8, 1.8.7.2 | CDRL A015, CDRL A002, A018, CDRL A024, CDRL A015 | Where are these CDRLs? | | N/A | The CDRLs will be releaed with the RFP. |
| 10 | PWS, Page 29, 1.4.1 | "The launch will be conducted from an east coast launch site." | Will the launch site be Wallops? | | N/A | The specific launch loaction is to be proposed by the launch service provider. |
| 11 | PWS, Page 29, 2.2.1 | "The SV(s) mission is scheduled for June Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21)." | June 2021 is too soon. I would suggest 1st quarter 2023. | The mission date of June 2021 allows for only 2 years from contract award date to launch. As of today , no launch service has made orbit in such a short period of time from launch date. | Rejected | If no respondents can meet the required launch date then the requirement may be revised. |
| 12 | PWS SRP-O pg 7, para 1.8.2 | Format error in list of reviews | Add the move the SRCR line down to become part of the the bulletized list of reviews | minor format fix | Accepted | SRCR moved to bullet format |
| 13 | PWS SRP-O pg 7 and beyond, para 1.8.7.2 and all following paragraphs | Multiple format errors in subparagraph numbering. | Correct/add appropriate subparagraph numbering to the text presently starting with para 1.8.7.2 (which is erroneously listed under major section number 1.8.4). Suggest that text for each separate CDRL item have its own subparagraph number. | format fixes | Accepted | SRCR moved to bullet format |
| 14 | PWS SRP-O pg 7, para 1.8.7.2 | Coupled Loads Analysis (CLA) | Update text to clarify the schedule for the CLA work including when spacecraft CLA model input will be provided and when LSC will provide the results of the CLA. This CLA schedule should be clarified for both the preliminary and final coupled loads analyses cycles (eg PCLA and FCLA) | Clarify spacecraft and launch service provider inputs and output schedules for CLA work | Accepted | Sub para. To 1.8.2 LSC shall host and conduct a mission kick off meeting at LSC with government representatives within 30 calendar days of contact award. The IPT will mange the schedule for the space craft CRA model for the giver - reciever list. |
| 15 | PWS SRP-O pg 8, para 1.8.8.3.1 | Payload mechanical interface verification. "Fit check at LSA facility" and no mention of separation system used for spacecraft shock test. | Move location of sep system to spacecraft fit check to the spacecraft environmental test facility. Also update text to describe LSA providing sep system hardware to be used for separation shock testing of spacecraft during spacecraft environmental test flow. | Eliminates needing to ship the spacecraft to do the fit check (S/C is almost always on mission launch schedule critical path), and use of sep system for S/C shock testing provides the most realistic shock environment on the S/C. | Rejected | Common operating procedure states fit checks will be done at the LSC |
| 16 | PWS SRP-O pg 9 | Range Safety: "The LSC is responsible for obtaining, producing and/or coordinating all items required by the Range." | Update to say: "The LSC is responsible for obtaining, producing and/or coordinating all items required by the Range including integration of the spacecraft range safety inputs provided by the spacecraft team." Also make sure that the delivery schedule of the range safety inputs from S/C provider are defined. | Clarifies that the spacecraft team will provide range safety inputs for their spacecraft hardware and their launch site operations (eg fueling, lifting, etc). | Modified | SC range requirements are part of the giver reciever list and managed through the IPT process |
| 17 | PWS SRP-O pg 10, para 1.8.10.9.1 | "The Payload Contractor will transfer responsibility for the payload to the LSC when the payload is fully prepared for immediate mating with the LV, and is approximately three inches away from the LV mating surfaces. " | Consider deleting the underlined words and replace them with saying which organization is responsible for the final spacecraft lift used to mate to the LV. Often this could be S/C lead for S/C list to mate to separation system and LV adapter, followed by LV lead for mating SC on LV adapter to LV. This later step often includes a S/C & adapter rotation from vertical to horizontal, assuming horizontal mate of S/C to L/V. | Generally not good practice to change operations responsibilities in the middle of a spacecraft lift. | Rejected | Common operating procedure dictates that the hand off works at 3 inches |
| 18 | PWS SRP-O pg 10 | "A design compatibility test to establish high confidence in electrical compatibility of the payload and payload GSE with the launch complex will be performed at the ILS." | Design compatibility tests are best done much earlier such as by sending a LV interface simulator to the spacecraft I&T facility, to verify electrical/software design interfaces before arrival at the launch site. These interface tests are repeated again at the launch site, but the risk of finding first time problems during the launch site testing is significantly reduced. | See comment at left. | Rejected | This mission is cube sats - will not require electrical check before arrical at the launch site |
| 19 | PWS SRP-O pg 12 | The LSC shall provide trajectory and covariance data to support collision avoidance calculations. | The LSC shall perform the post-separation collision avoidance analysis to ensure no recontact of S/C and L/V upper stage after S/C separation from L/V. | The original text implies post separation collision avoidance calculations are performed by the S/C team. Consider modifying this to have the launch service provider perform the post separation collision avoidance analysis, since the upper stage of the LV is likely to perform more post-separation collision avoidance maneuvers than the S/C does. | Modified | Step one (collision avoidance)-added Joint Space Operations Center and Safety. Step two (post-separation)- added "LSC shall also obtain launch veicle frequency clearance from the Federal Communciations Commission FCC or equivilant The LSC shall submit a copy of the approved license(s) and all supporting documentation" Added - customer analysis 1.9.1 |
| 20 | PWS SRP-O, Table on pg 13 and 14 | Pages 13 and 14 and all other tables in this document | Ensure that the "PWS Paragraph" column paragraph references, are updated IAW any of the paragraph renumbering mentioned in item #2 above. | Make alll paragraph references consistent. | Accepted | Reformatted PWS |
| 21 | PWS SRP-O, pg 14 | Launch campaign row: Performance: No more than 3 validated complaints from the cognizant flight safety office. No more than 3 validated complaints from the launch range ground safety office. No more than 3 validated complaints by the payload provider. | Suggest reword this to make it more general, something like: "Significant concerns raised by flight safety, ground safety and/or payload provider all successfully resolved to contracting officer satisfaction." | "Validated complaints" can be some what vague in terms of importance. For instance, is forgetting to refill the soda machine in the break room a "valid complaint"? It is important to not put in a contractual acceptance criteria that may stiffle reporting of issues that need mutual resolution by affected stakeholders. What is important is to encourage all of those issues to be raised, addressed and resolved to mutual satisfaction. | Rejected | Core is responsible for validating complaints |
| 22 | PWS SRP-O | Downrange ground antenna assets for reception of LV telemetry not discussed | Clarify if the LV provider should assume that the range provides the ground antenna assets for LV telemetry receipt including sufficient down range assets to monitor spacecraft separation in real time. | Clarify scope of work for what LV provide does (or does not) have to provide. | Rejected | If launch service is going to propose using a government range they need to be familiar with the capabilities of the government range and request these capabilities through UDS process |
| 23 | PWS SRP-O, pg 16 | "Payload integration analyses" | Both RF and antenna pattern analyses are listed under "payload integration analyses", when these are typically LV specific analysis (LV telemtry RF links and flight termination RF links if autonomous flight termination is not used) that do not affect the payload (S/C). Suggest changing "Payload Integration Analyses" to "Launch Vehicle Analyses" and "Payload trajectory and performance analysis" to "Launch vehicle trajectory and performance analysis". | Clarifies which analysis are LV specific (and not dependent on payload details.) | Accepted | Moved to 1.9.1 |
| 24 | PWS SRP-O, pg 21 | PR Entrance Criteria Table | I expect much of the design data requested here is only needed for the first flight of a new vehicle configuration, since it is not cost effective to have all of that data resubmitted for every recurring flight of that same configuration. It is valid to ask for design verification data for any vehicle baseline design changes that occurred from the first to the present mission. Suggest add a foot note to the table to clarify this. Something like "For recurring missions, only the design and/or operational changes from the original first flight mission need to be addressed". | Clarify the scope of PR data needed for recurring missions. | Rejected | All pedigree review documents are required for each mission regardless of previous flights |
| 25 | PWS SRP-O, pg 22 | PR Entrance Criteria Table, line 20 "Build Paperwork and Travelers" | This build paperwork does not leave the factory so it cannot be a deliverable data item. It is also volumous. Add a footnote saying this documentation is available for inspection at LV contractor facility. | Clarify that build paperwork is available for inspection at contractor's facility. | Accepted | Bulid paper does not need to be provided ahead of time - provided for review at LSC facility at PR |
| 26 | PWS SRP-O | Items not discussed: Flight Termination System (FTS) | The FTS design is a big deal to range safety approval, so it would be useful to elaborate on the specific data deliverables needed for FTS approval for initial and recurring flights. This is also dependent on whether the LV FTS is autonomous (eg LV GPS/IMU based) or ground based (eg ground tracking with a red button to send RF destruct command to LV. | Clarify data deliverables needed for FTS system design, operations, and recurring verification. | Modified | Deleted FTS acronym - adhering with range safety and FAA guidelines is the PWS requirement |
| 27 | MRD document pg 27, para 1.1 | The mission responsibility of the Launch Services Contractor (LSC) will end when Space Vehicle (SV) has been deployed | add "….and post separation maneuvers are completed that ensure no recontact between LV upper stage and spacecraft." | Clarifies that LV is responsible to ensure no recontact with SC after separation. | Modified | Removed that statement from the MRD |
| 28 | MRD pg 29 para 2.3.1 | Payload environmental telemetry requirements not fully defined | No mention of whether payload shock and vibration data must be measured on flight. | Since this is not mentioned now, can we assume this is not a requirement? We wanted to point this issue out if this was inadvertently left out. Do note that shock and vibration data take a LOT of downlink bandwidth so avoid asking for anything more than you absolutely need in order to minimize costs. | Modified | Will add Viberation level requirements to the PWS |
| 29 | MRD pg 29 para 2.3.1 | Measurements | usually good to mention that you want telemetry that confirms successful S/C separation from L/V. | Positive confirmation of S/C separation is a good thing to see during real time launch operations. | Modified | Want the data - not real time |
| 30 | MRD pg 30 para 2.5 | Payload Characteristics - no mention of whether payload is fueled or not | Need to know if the LV needs to provide any safety inhibits associated with hazard control of the spacecraft propulsion system if one is used. | Clarification of how payload propulsion (if used) safety is controlled | Accepted | RFP (MRD) will specify SV popwer requirments |
| 31 | MRD pg 30 para 2.5 | Payload Characteristics - multiple TBDs | As a minimum define the NTE payload volume dimensions so we can assure LV fairing envelope is large enough. | Data needed to confirm no major disconnect on payload size versus fairing envelope | Accepted | Detailed information in the MRD |
| 32 | RFP section L, page 5, Table 2-1 Right Column | Not clear what the values in the right hand column mean. For example, does "30" mean "30 pages max" or "due 30 working days after RFP release" or "30 calendar days after RFP release" or something else? | Consider deleting the right hand column of this table, or modify it to eliminate confusion described at right. | Eliminate or correct unclear RFP text. | Accepted | 30 Days |
| 33 | RFP section L, page 5 | Asks for both oral and visual proposal format. Please clarify what format you want for the delivered paper proposal. Should the delivered "paper" proposal be annotated viewgraphs of the oral presentation or a full written paper proposal? | see comment at left | clarify requested format of delivered proposal. | Modified | Updated in Combined Synopsis |
| 34 | RFP section L, page 7, para 4.2.1.1 | Requests WBS detail to the "3rd level of detail". | An explicit statement of whether certified cost and pricing detail is expected should be included. | FAR-15 procurement is in contrast to the rapid acquisition the USG, and SMC in particular, have been advocating for. | | |
| WBS detail to the 3rd level indenture, with certified cost and pricing data, may be difficult to attain for new entrant small launch providers. DCMA and DCAA estimates on the difference between FAR 12 and FAR 15 procurement is ~25-30%, and is questionable for ASLON-45 | Rejected | Firm fixed price contract certififed cost and pricing data is not required. WBS should not contain pricing information. | | | | | |
| 35 | RFP section L page 8 para 4.2.2.2 | "Launch Solution Maturity: Demonstrate how the Offeror’s proposed LS design meets the flight history requirements in the MRD." | I could not find "flight history requirements" in the draft MRD document, so RFP requirement for flight history looks incomplete. | Define flight history requirements in MRD, or delete the listed text from RFP section L. | Accepted | The flight history requirment is 0 - will be added to the documentation |
| 36 | RFP section L, page 8, para 4.2.2.2.2 | Requests full flight history of the proposed launch vehicle | Consider deletion since para implies only launch vehicles with extensive flight history will be a downselect discriminator | Assumption is SRP-O, ASLON-45 procurement is to stimulate the small launch industrial base, vs targeting established, legacy launch providers | Accepted | Flight history is not required, if no flight history, design and test maturity is required |
| 37 | RFP secttion L page 9, para 4.2.3.1 | Says "4.2.3.1 Design Interface: Demonstrate how the proposed LS design will interface (ie, mechanical, electrical, environmental, etc.) with the payload characteristics specified in the MRD." However the MRD has no details on required electrical interfaces to the payload. | Update MRD to add a few generic electrical interface requirements: suggestions: 28V unreleated heater power up to X amps, TBD payload TLM interface for monitoring payload during launch and operations prior to release (RS-422 serial interface up to X kbps), etc. | Define top level required payload electrical interfaces | Accepted | Requirements will be detailed in the MRD |
| 38 | RFP section L pg 10 para 5.3 | Price Detail does not clearly what level WBS the cost rational should be supplied for. | Recommend requesting cost justification be provided at the system and subsystem levels of the WBS | If level of cost detail for cost proposal is not clear in RFP, it may be hard to assess cost inputs from multiple bidders that submit costs at different cost detail levels. | Rejected | No Cost Data required FFB |
| 39 | RFP section L pg 10 para 5.3 | Price Detail does not clearly if costing inputs should be done using real-year dollars, or fixed year dollars. Also cost instructions should define required contract start date and required launch date. For the optional section launch, define the required 2nd launch date. | see comment at left | Clarify price proposal requirements that are presently not clearly defined. | Rejected | No Cost Data required FFB |
| 40 | RFP section L, pg 10 Table 5-1 | CLIN Structure does not included the 2nd optional launch. | Add a separate new CLIN to Table 5-1 for the optional second launch (CLIN 0003?) | Update table 5-1 to match cost line items defined in section L text. | Accepted | Removed second launch option |
| 41 | RFP section M, page 3, Table 2-0 | Table 2-0 | correct typo in lower left corner of table, "techical" should be "technical" | Minor spelling fix. General comment: run spell checker on all RFP docs to clean up any other minor spelling issues. | Accepted | Fixed Gramatical Error |
| 42 | RFP section M | Global comment: document needs some clean up in arrangement and numbering of subsections. | see comment at left | clean up document formating | Accepted | Fixed formatting |
| 43 | PWS, Page 4, Parapraph 1.1 | "...The objective of this program is to provide flexible small launch capability using Launch Vehicle (LV) designs based on commercial propulsion systems to meet a variety of mission and payload requirements…" | Requesting confirmation that only commercial propulsion will be considered or clarification on using GFP boosters for SRP-O launch system solutions. | The introduction in the ALSON PWS clearly calls out for designs based on commercial propulsion (see PWS paragraph 1.1). However, the ALSON-45 MRD has two references to GFP boosters (see MDR parapgraphs 1.8.10.4.1 and 2.2.1). | Accepted | GFP references will be remvoed from the MRD |
| 44 | PWS, para 1.41, pg 4 | Entry evidence shall be submitted thirty (30) calendar days (or earlier if available) in advance of the review event. | Entry evidence shall be submitted fourteen (14) calendar days (or earlier if available) in advance of the review event. | Recommend this language be more flexible to support commercial launch timelines. The original language will extend the launch integration process by approx. 30 days for each review in the schedule. | Rejected | 30-Days is the current requirement |
| 45 | PWS, para 1.8.10.12, pg 12 | The LSC shall provide the Government with access to all voice (transmit and receive), video, and data networks used for launch support . | The government shall have access to all voice, video and data networks required to conduct mission assurance; negotiated at the start of the contract. | This is an open ended requirement that may be difficult to fully support. Recommend the voice, video, and data required to conduct mission assurance be negotiated at the start of the contract | Rejected | Required for Cat. 1 |
| 46 | PWS, para 1.8.10.13, pg 12 | The LSC shall conduct an analysis of and participate in a review of all launches, operations, flight telemetry, and other data to determine LV performance | The LSC shall conduct an analyis of and participate in a review of all government missions, including operations, flight telemetry, and other data to determine LV performance | We do not feel that the request for verification of LV performance for all flights, including commercial, should be included in the pricing for this contract. | Accepted | Removed all launches |
| 47 | PWS, para 1.8.10.13, pg 12 | Failure Review: In the event of a complete or partial mission failure, the LSC shall participate in a Government-led evaluation of the root cause of the failure event to identify remedial actions required to prevent recurrence. | Failure Review: In the event of a complete or partial mission failure, the Government will have the ability to participate in a LSC-led evaluation of the root cause of the failure event to identify remedial actions required to prevent recurrence. | We firmly believes that the LSC should lead the failure review, with participation from the Government. | Rejected | This requirement does not precludethe LSC from leading their own investigation, however in the event of a failure the government will conduct an investigation and the contractor shall participate. |
| 48 | PWS, para 1.8.10.13, pg 12 | The mission is not subject to the SMC flight worthiness certification process or MAC IV&V activities, but will rather be licensed under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) licensing guidelines. | Please provide a table demonstrating the differences between the SMC flight worthiness certification process or MAC IV&V activities and the ASLON-45 Request for Proposal. | A comparison between what's requested in this RFP and SMC flight worthiness certification process or MAC IV&V activities would be helpful. Many of the pieces and parts of flight certification and mission assurance are scattered throughout the PWS, so the intent is not clear. | Rejected | SMC flight worthiness certification is not within the scope of this effort |
| 49 | PWS, para 1.8.10.13, Service Summary, Item 1.4, pg 14 | No more than 3 validated complaints from the cognizant flight safety office. No more than 3 validated complaints from the launch range ground safety office. No more than 3 validated complaints by the payload provider . | Recommend removal or please provide further explanation. | This performance measure is unclear, and not a typical measure. Could a more detailed description of how this performance metric would work? | Rejected | Core is responsible for validating complaints |
| 50 | PWS, para 1.8.10.13, Service Summary Table, Item 1.4, pg 14 | Schedule: No more than 14 days of LSC-driven launch delays (per schedule as of PSR). | Our commercial practice is to downselect a flight window 45 days out. | Not specific enough for our commercial launch vehicle requirements. | Modified | PSR is 60 days out as stated in Figure 1 |
| 51 | PWS, Table SRCR, Item 3.0, pg 18 | Coordinated and signature ready Cybersecurity Implementation Plan (CSIP) (PWS 1.5.2) | Recommned adding a reference for the specific cybersecurity requirements requested. | It would be helpful in pricing the contract to understand the specific IA and cybersecurity requirements requested. | Accepted | Will add compliance document |
| 52 | PWS, Table PR - Entrance Criteria, Item 1.0, pg 21 | Acceptance testing of subassemblies and/or components (PWS 1.10.1.5.5) | Acceptance testing of subassemblies and/or components as determined at contract start. | Recommend adding in language that allows each launch provider to negotiate an agreed upon list of pedigree review-able sub assemblies and components. | Rejected | The list of pedigree review items is the total list of as built components |
| 53 | MRD, para 2.5.4, pg 30 | Payload Access: The LS shall provide access to the payload after fairing encapsulation without removing the fairing or breaking electrical connections. Fairing access shall support conditioned air and / or gaseous nitrogen purge of the fairing volume during ground operations and prior to launch. If needed, associated GSE doors shall be included to allow for cabling pass-through during ground processing, while maintaining environmental controls within the fairing. The opening size shall be defined by the LSC. | Payload Access: The LS shall provide access to the payload up until fairing encapsulation. | This requirement requires us to design, test and produce a new fairing to support this mission. Recommend changing this to a preferred solution rather than a hard requirement. | Accepted | Updated MRD |
| 54 | Attachment 3 ASLON SRP-O Cat 1 PWS RFI Final, 28; 2.1.1 | The final launch configuration will be LSC proposed, the government has not identified constraints on allowed configurations. Rideshare/Dedicated Launch/Multiple Launch: This mission requires a dedicated launch solution, a rideshare proposal is not acceptable due to SV customer requirements. The launch solution may be further segregated into multiple launches, there is no requirement for the SVs to launch together. | Remove " a rideshare proposal is not acceptable due to SV customer requirements": | | | |
