Consolidated_OSP-4_DRFP_CRM.pdf

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 CRM A 1 N/A WAS: "Instuctions" TO: "Instructions"

Typo A Updated

2 Attachment 1 - PWS A 7 2 WAS: "(e.g. hardware ..."

TO: "(e.g., hardware …"

Usage A Updated

Attachment 1 - PWS

A 9 2.1.1

WAS: LS Formal Reviews: The LSC shall host the following MA formal reviews at their facility in order to provide the Government insight into the processes, methodology and progress being made by the LSC [CDRL A018 - Report, Record of Meeting Minutes]:

TO: LS Formal Reviews: The LSC shall host the following LS formal reviews at their facility in order to provide the Government insight into the processes, methodology and progress being made by the LSC [CDRL A018 - Report, Record of Meeting Minutes]:

Error calling these MA Formal Reviews since these at LS Formal reviews. MA Formal Reviews are in paragraph 2.1.2

A

Updated

Attachment 1 - PWS

A 9 2.1.1

WAS: "At the conclusion of the requirements analysis the LSC shall …" TO: "At the conclusion of the requirements analysis, the LSC shall ,,,"

Comma usage

A

Updated

Attachment 1 - PWS

A 9 2.1.1.1.1 WAS: Requirements Decomposition, Traceability & Validation (CAT 2/3 Missions only):

TO: Requirements Decomposition, Traceability & Validation:

Conssitent with Annex 2, SRR Entrace Criteria A

Updated

Attachment 1 - PWS

A 14 2.1.2.1.2

WAS: Obtaining applicable licenses shall not relieve the LSC from the requirements described in Section 1.9.

TO: (Delete)

Current PWS has no Section 1.9. The Air Force should take care to ensure requirements under OSP-4 are not duplicative of FAA Licensing requirements. A

Updated

7 Attachment 1 - PWS A 20 2.1.4.10 WAS: "All integrated operations shall be performed …" TO: "The contractor shall perform integrated operations ..."

Use "The contractor shall …" for clarity. Avoid passive voice which doesn't clearly state who "shall perform." A Updated

8 Attachment 3 - ITO A 2 1.2 WAS: "The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail …"

TO: "The proposal shall be clear, concise, and sufficiently detailed …"

Parallel list A

Updated

9 Attachment 3 - ITO A 2 2.1 WAS: "… PCO, contact information …" TO: "… PCO. Contact information …"

Two sentences A Updated

10 Attachment 3 - ITO A 2 2.2 WAS: "... pre-award debriefing or they may choose ..."

TO: "... pre-award debriefing, or they may choose ..."

Compound sentence A Updated

11 Attachment 3 - ITO A 4 2.6.2 WAS: "… volume and each 8.5 x 11 inch surface..."

TO: "… volume, and each 8.5 x 11 inch surface ..."

Compound sentence A

Updated

12 Attachment 3 - ITO A 4 2.6.7

DELETE: "Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes." Redundant with 2.6.1

A

Updated

13 Attachment 3 - ITO A 5 2.7 WAS: "In the event there are any discrepancies…"

TO: "In the event of discrepancies …"

Eliminate "false subject" A

Updated

14 Attachment 3 - ITO A 5 2.9 WAS: "… 52.212-1(f)"

TO: "… FAR 52.212-1(f)."

Missing word A

Updated

15 Attachment 3 - ITO A 5 3.1.3 Beginning with "Non-Governmental Advisors …" make this Section "3.1.4" This is a separate topic from teaming arrangements A Updated

16 Attachment 3 - ITO A 6 4.1

WAS: "By the Offeror’s proposal submission, you are representing that the Offeror’s firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation."

TO: "By submitting a proposal, the Offeror is representing that they will meet all solicitation requirements."

Clarity

A

Updated

17 Attachment 3 - ITO A 6 4.2 DELETE: ", etc." e.g. means "for example," so etc. is redundant A Updated

18 Attachment 3 - ITO A 6 4.2 WAS: ", this is known as the "evidence narrative"."

TO: "… in an "evidence narrative.""

Clarity, eliminate unclear antecedent A

Updated

19 Attachment 3 - ITO A 7 5.1.3.1 WAS: "… may accept or may not accept."

TO: "… may or may not accept."

Clarity A

Updated

20 Attachment 3 - ITO A 7 5.1.3.1 WAS: "Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirement,"

TO: "Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements,"

Typo A

Updated

21 Attachment 5 - OG A 2 2.2 WAS: "Once the ceiling is reached no new …"

TO: "Once the ceiling is reached, no new …"

Comma usage A

Updated

22 Attachment 5 - OG A 2 2.4 WAS: "… will be SMC/LE director …"

TO: "… will be the SMC/LE director …"

Typo A

Updated

23 Attachment 5 - OG A 3 2.5.1 WAS: "If a TO is competed among OSP-4 IDIQ contract small business concerns and the TO contracting officer receives …"

Comma usage A

Updated

Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM) - Administrative Comments

24 Attachment 5 - OG A 8 1.2.5

WAS: "All non-Government advisors have signed non-disclosure statements which strictly prohibits any release

TO: "All non-Government advisors have signed non-disclosure statements, which strictly prohibit any release …"

Restrictive clause & subject verb agreement

A

Updated

25 Attachment 5 - OG

A 13 1.4.1.2 WAS: "The Offeror shall state the launch origination point (i.e., Eastern/Western Range, Air Launched, etc.) used for their calculation."

TO: "The Offeror shall state the launch origination point (e.g., Eastern/Western Range, Air Launched) used for their calculation."

Usage

A

Updated

26 Attachment 5 - OG A 15 1.4.2.5 WAS: "… Complements (e.g., Complement 2, Complement 3, etc.) the proposed LS will accommodate."

TO: "… Complements (e.g., Complement 2, Complement 3) the proposed LS will accommodate."

e.g. means "for example," so etc. is redundant A

Updated

27 Attachment 5 - OG

A 15 1.4.2.6 WAS: "The Offeror shall provide a ‘White Paper’ describing their approach (i.e., assumptions, methodology, analysis, etc.) …"

TO: "The Offeror shall provide a ‘White Paper’ describing their approach (e.g., assumptions, methodology, analysis)…" i.e. means "that is," so it is a complete list, etc. is inappropriate

A

Updated

28 Attachment 5 - OG A 15 1.4.3.4 WAS: "… (e.g., fully executed teaming agreement, planned purchase order, signed letters of commitment, etc.)"

TO: "…(e.g., fully executed teaming agreement, planned purchase order, signed letters of commitment)" e.g. means "for example," so etc. is redundant

A Updated

29 Attachment 5 - OG

A 18 1.7.4 WAS: "SBPCPD"

TO: "SBPCD"

Typo

A

Updated

30 Attachment 5 - OG A 19 2.3 WAS: "The Decision Authority will select the best submission which …" TO: "The Decision Authority will select the best submission that …"

Restrictive clause A Updated

31 Attachment 5 - OG A 19 2.3 WAS: "This may result …" TO: "This approach may result …"

Unclear antecedent A Updated

32 Attachment 5 - OG A 22 2.6.1 Table 2.6.1.2-1 should appear after Section 2.6.1.2 Format error A Updated

33 Attachment 5 - OG A 23

2.6.1.3 WAS: "This applies to all proposed prices."

TO: "This assessment applies to all proposed prices."

Unclear antecedent A

Updated

34 Draft RFP A 6 Sec 3 Delete Section 3 Section 3 is a duplicate of Section 2 A Updated

35 Draft RFP A 7 Sec 4 Para (a)(1) Replace "insertation" with "Insertion" Insertation is not a recognized word A Updated

36 Attch 3, Instruction A 5 3.1.2 "SSs" should be "SS". Not plural in this usage A Updated 37 Attch 3, Instruction A 5 3.1.2 "launch solution (LS)" should be "Launch Solution (LS)" Consistency A Updated

38 Attch 3, Instruction A 10 Question 2 Parts a and b would both be more clear with an additional subject. For example, "Integration and Test will be able to launch" does not make sense, although we understand the intent A Updated

39 Model Contract A 1 SF 1449 The address for SMC/ADK in block 9 is "2548 Aberdeen Ave SE". This appears to be a typo as the address is listed as 3548 elsewhere. Please clarify or correct.

Assumed typo. A Updated

Attachment 5, Ordering Guide

A 16 Appendix A FOPR Template, Para. 1.6.1

Paragraph states: "The Offeror, when completing Table 1.6.4-1 shall fill in the same price for CLINs as the SF 1149 Continuation pages." Should this be SF 1449?

Assumed typo. A Updated

41 PWS A 12 2.1.1.4.6 Please add the following in blue: "…separation system contractor. The test(s) shall include…" This addition allows for multiple tests to be conducted rather than restricting it to a single test, which allows the requirement to encompass all Offeror methods of testing.

A Updated

42 PWS A 25 2.1.7.4; Global

Recommend changing to "LV" here rather than "SS" here and throughout when the text refers to the launch vehicle.

Usage of SS is confusing. For instance, since the SS is defined to include the whole launch service, does “SS closeout activities” include the contract closeout? The intent is probably LV closeout. Using the LV terminology is more akin to standard terminology.

A

Updated

43 PWS A 32 A1-2 (table; item A1-2.11)

Please change to the following: "Assembly of LV SS." This is a good example regarding the comment above about changing "SS' to "LV" when referencing the launch vehicle. The specificity here is important as it is referring to assembly of the launch vehicle specifically. By contrast, "assembly of the SS," given that it is the service, could include subcontractor teaming arrangements, small business initatives, etc., which is not the intent here.

A

Updated

44 Instructions to Offerors A 4 2.6.1 In Section 2.6.1, please provide a contextual definition of what is meant by “correlation matrices.” Also, please delete "glossaries."

Understanding the Government’s expectation for this deliverable will minimize the likelihood of Offeror nonconcurrence. A Updated

45 Model Contract A N/A N/A Please fix page numbering in Solicitation Provisions. The page numbering is inaccurate and duplicated in some places. A Updated

Attachment 3 Instructions to Offerors A 3 2.6

Is: Table specifies 1 electronic copy of the proposal volumes is required; however, the sentence below the table indicates two.

Change To: …one paper copy and one electronic copy.

Update this section to specify the number of electronic copies consistently. A

Updated

Attachment 3 Instructions to Offerors A 4 2.6.6

Is: Indexing: Include a master Table of Contents (TOC) of the entire proposal. (but does not state which volume the Master TOC should be included with)

Change To: Indexing: Include a master Table of Contents (TOC) of the entire proposal with Volume I.

Update this section to specify which volume(s) the Master TOC should be included with A

Updated

Attachment 3 Instructions to Offerors A 5 2.7

Issue: The distribution instructions in 2.8 address the requirement for hard copy submissions but this section does not state the distribution requirements for electronic copies.

Is: The Offeror shall submit all volumes in electronic format using read/write CDs or DVD ROMs Each volume

Update RFP to specify distribution instructions for electronic copies. A

Updated

FA8818-19-R-001 Model Contract

A 17-18

FAR 52.233-03

PROTEST

AFTER AWARD

(Aug 1996) , Alternate I , (Jun 1985)

Is: Alternate 1 of this provision; however Alternate 1 is not applicable to FFP Contracts.

Change To: remove Alternate 1 in its entirety.

Consistent with FAR 33.106 (b)

A

Alternate replaced with 52.233-03

Initial Minimum Award Task Order A All Schedule

Is: This document does not define the period of performance, delivery date or acceptance criteria for this TO.

Change To: define the period of performance and delivery date and specify the acceptance critera.

Provide clarity regarding schedule and delivery requirements

A

Updated

Attachment 5, Orbital Services Program - 4 (OSP-

4) Ordering Guide

A 3

3. Ordering Procedures –

Design, Integration, MA, & Launch Services (CLIN

0001)

Is: All prime contractors will receive a FOPR unless there is a fair opportunity exception.

Change To: (Clarify how does the USG define "fair opportunity exception" in this context?) The USG defines a "Fair Opportunity exception" as…..

Requires a definition.

A

Updated

52 Attachment #2 DD-254 A 1 8A

Issue: Performance location based on contractor location, not USG office

Is: Kirkland AFB, N

Change To: Contractor Location

Should be performance locations

A

Updated

53 Attachment #1 - PWS A 14 2.1.2

IS: LSC shall support the IV&V effort undertaken by the MAC with deliverables such as flight computer and flight software

Change To: LSC shall support the IV&V effort undertaken by the MAC

Avoid using examples. Deliverables will be defined in CDRLs or

DD-250.

A

Updated

54 Attachment #1 - PWS A 14 2.1.2.1.2 IS: Obtaining applicable licenses shall not relieve the LSC from the requirements described in Section 1.9.

Change To: (Delete)

There is no Section 1.9 A

Updated

55 Attachment #1 - PWS A 20 2.1.4.9

Is: Classified Payloads: Payloads may be classified to varying degrees and the LSC shall be able to accept delivery and process all payloads.

Change To: Classified Payloads: Payloads may be classified to varying degrees and the LSC shall be able to accept delivery and process all payloads in accordance with DD-254.

Classified info requirements should refer to DD-254.

A

Updated

56 Attachment #1 - PWS A 29 4.1

Is: Document Number / Document Title / Comment

Change To: (add a column with a date & revision number) Allow for a commercial substitution.

Failing to indicate which revision will result in contract ambiguity of requirements. In addition, at the time of contract award the PWS/Price/Terms should be tied to a set of baseline requirements. If revisions are released during the course of the ID/IQ contract they will be considered a change in contract requirements.

A

Updated

57 Attachment #1 - PWS A 30 4.2

Is: Document Number / Document Title / Comment

Change To: (add a column with a date & revision number) Allow for a commercial or equivalent substitution)_

Failing to indicate which revision will result in contract ambiguity of requirements. In addition, at the time of contract award the PWS/Price/Terms should be tied to a set of baseline requirements. If revisions are released during the course of the ID/IQ contract they will be considered a change in contract requirements.

A

Updated

58 Attachment #1 - PWS A 31 A1-2.3 IS: Vehicle Outer Mode Line

Change to: Vehicle Outer Mold Line

Administrative A

Updated

59 Attachment 5 - OG

A 13 1.4.1.1 WAS: "… orbital launch*."

TO: "orbital launches*."

Plural

M

"launch(es)" since X may be 1.

60 PWS A 25 2.1.7.4.2 Please change the following: "…except from this requirement for after any post-separation payload propulsion maneuvers."

This change will provide clarity to the requirement. M Language updated

61 PWS A 49 Annex 3 (table;

item "SS")

Recommend changing this and all instances to "LS" instead of "SS." Secondly, recommend adding “LV” and using that terminology throughout.

"Launch Service" is a common term throughout SMC/LE and other Government agencies and is in line with other SMC/LE contracts. "SS" has the sound of the spacecraft service and can be misleading. Also, usage of “Launch Vehicle” will clarify the respective activity in many requirements.

M

The PWS terminology reflects the growing complexity of launch service solutions that may compete on OSP-4, not all launch services are anticipated to be what we traditionally think of as launch vehicles.

FA8818-19-R-001 Model Contract

A 95

53. DFARS

252.246-7000

MATERIAL

INSPECTION

AND RECEIVING

REPORT (Mar

2008)

Is: As of December 21, 2018, DFAR 252.246-7000 is listed as reserved.

Change To: Clarify date.

Requiring a DD250 in conjunction with the Contractor invoices submitted via WAWF is consistent with FAR.

M

DFARS 252.246-7000, Material Inspection and Receiving Report. This clause is deleted in its entirety because its procedures predate the WAWF automated procedures and processes. Therefore, much of this clause is now. 252.246-7000 has been replaced.

63 Attachmen #2 DD-254 A 2 10

Issue: Requires more items

Is: RD, and FRD are selected

Change To: Add SAP, & SCI

RD and FRD but not SCI or SAP doesn't make sense

M

Updated - SCI

64 Attachment #2 DD-254 A 4 10B, 10,D

Issue: Requires more items

Is: RD, and FRD are selected

Change To: Add SAP, & SCI

RD and FRD but not SCI or SAP doesn't make sense

M

Updated - SCI

65 Instructions to Offerors A 4 2.6.6 Consider modifying Section 2.6.8 to read as follows: “All volumes of the proposal may be bound together in a three-ring, loose leaf binder permitting the volumes to lie flat when open.”

Consolidating the three volumes in one binder will eliminate unnecessary production materials. M

The Offeror may bind all volumes in one binder.

66 Model Contract A 7 52.212-04

Was: Tailored and non-tailored sections of the clause are intermingled and paragraphs that are tailored are not identified. All paragraphs are left justified To: Tailored paragraphs are either in a separate, tailored version of 52.212-4, or paragraphs that have tailored language are somehow clearly identified. Formatting is changed so that it is more clear which paragraphs are subparagraphs, subsubparagraph, etc.

It is in both parties' interest to ensure that both parties understand which language is tailored from the standard 52.212-

4. This will reduce confusion during negotiations and contract performance.

A

Formatting has been upated to clearly identify tailored sections.

FA8818-19-R-001 Model Contract

A 19

15. FAR 52.243-

01 CHANGES --

FIXED-PRICE

(Aug 1987) , Alternate I , (Apr 1984)

Is: ...text from both 52.243-1 entitled Changes Fixed Price (AUG 1987) as well as Alternate 1 (APR 1984) but is only marked as Alternate 1( APR 1984).

Change To: (update 52.243-1 to reflect Alternate II which is the applicable provision if the requirement is for services and supplies.)

Consistent with FAR 43.205 (a) (1)

A Alt I for services alone. Alt II for services and supplies, per FAR 43.205(a)

Attachment 1 - PWS

A 7-8 2.1

WAS: These mission reviews provide insight into the LSC’s structured SE approach and provides the Government an opportunity to conduct contract surveillance as described in Section 3.0 – Service Summary.

TO: (delete)

Unneccessary rationale

R

It is necessary to explain intent.

69 Attachment 1 - PWS A 8 2.1 WAS: "The LSC is responsible for collecting, logging, disseminating and assigning resources …" TO: "The LSC is responsible for collecting, logging, disseminating, and assigning resources ,,,"

Add serial comma (this is an example, it is also missing elsewhere) R This is gramamtically correct.

70 Attachment 3 - ITO A 2 1.2 WAS: "… facilities and experience …"

TO: "… facilities, and experience …"

Include serial comma R

This is gramamtically correct.

71 Attachment 3 - ITO A 6 4.1 DELETE: "It is not necessary to state this in the Offeror’s proposal." Redundant, eliminate "false subject" R Clarifies intent.

72 Attachment 3 - ITO A 7 5.1.1.1 WAS: "The Offeror shall complete blocks 12. 17 and 30 …"

TO: "The Offeror shall complete blocks 12. 17, and 30 …"

Include serial comma R

This is gramamtically correct.

73 Attachment 3 - ITO A 8 5.1.4.1.3 WAS: "… contract which disqualifies the Offeror from further consideration for award of future contracts."

TO: "… contract that disqualifies the Offeror from further consideration for award of future contracts."

Restrictive clause R

This is gramamtically correct.

74 Attachment 5 - OG A 19 2.1 WAS: "Award will be made in ..."

TO: "The award will be made, in ..."

Usage R This is gramamtically correct.

75 Attachment 5 - OG A 19 2.2 WAS: "… with one, some or all Offerors as …" TO: "… with one, some, or all Offerors as …"

Use serial comma R This is gramamtically correct.

76 Instructions to Offerors A 5 2.7 Consider allowing electronic copies to be submitted via email. If this is permissible, please provide an email address to which responses can be submitted.

Allowing submittal of electronic copies via email will result in a more streamlined process for deliverables. R Submit with hardcopy via postal service or physically drop off proposal.

77 Instructions to Offerors A 5 3.1 The text states that "Cost and price information shall not be included in this volume or any volume of the Offeror’s proposal." Please clarify where cost information should be provided.

Understanding the Government’s expectation for this deliverable will minimize the likelihood of Offeror nonconcurrence. R

This statement reiterates that the IDIQ will not consider price, only capability. Pricing is covered in the Ordering Guide.

FA8818-19-R-001 Model Contract

A 5

Schedule of Supplies & Services

(continuation)

Issue: DFRP has minimal information regarding CLIN 009 requirements.

Is: (has no hardware specified)

Change To: (Specify Hardware and state reference for requirement)

Clarification only.

R

If necessary, hardware will be identified at the task order level and is dependent upon mission requirements.

FA8818-19-R-001 Model Contract

A 15 52.232-18

Availability of Funds

Is: ...funds are not presently available for this contract.

Change To: "Except for funds required for the minimum order defined in this ID/IQ, funds are not presently available for this contract."

Clarification regarding funding availability for Minimum Order required under the IDIQ.

For clarity proposed change is to revise this sentence to read R

Standard clause

FA8818-19-R-001 Model Contract

A 55

DFARS 252.211-

7003 ITEM

UNIQUE

IDENTIFICATION

AND VALUATION

(Mar 2016)

Is: This provision is only applicable to supplies/hardware requirements under the contract.

Change To: specify this provision/clause is only applicable to CLIN 009.

Provides clarity given this contract is predominately for Services and not supplies/hardware.

R

Technically, a Services CLIN may also include a minority of supply items.

81 Attachment #1 - PWS A 31 A1-1

Is: A1-1 Category 1 Analyses For missions using Category 1 MA, the LSC obtains license to launch through the FAA and may be required to obtain SS frequency clearance from the Federal Communications Commission. The LSC shall submit a copy of the approved license and all supporting documentation. The following analyses shall be conducted and provided to support SV(s) integration:

Change to: A1-1 Category 1 Analyses For missions using Category 1 MA, the LSC obtains license to launch through the FAA and may be required to obtain SS frequency clearance from the Federal Communications Commission. The LSC shall submit a copy of the approved license and all supporting documentation (A0XX). The following analyses shall be conducted and provided to support SV(s) integration:

Need to identify any deliverable with a CDRL number.

R

We're asking for a copy of an existing document, that's not a CDRL.

82 Attachment #1 - PWS A 7-8 2.1

Is: These mission reviews provide insight into the LSC’s structured SE approach and provides the Government an opportunity to conduct contract surveillance as described in Section 3.0 – Service Summary.

Change To: (delete)

Unnecessary rationale

R

Intent is useful information.

Item # Source Document Comment

Provide original language and proposed change Rationale

Provide concise, objective explanation of the rationale for the comment

Decision A/R/M Notes

1 Model Contract Remove 252.225-7009 The clause is N/A. The contract is for launch services, not for the delivery of launch vehicles or other space systems that the government will take ownership of.

A Concur, clause removed

2 PWS

PWS notes "A dedicated launch service is one in which the Government reserves all capacity of the launch solution."

Please clarify that vehicle performance may be reserved by the contractor for launch vehicle hardware recovery (and thus not offered as part of the launch solution capacity) even in the case of a dedicated launch service.

Allowing contractors to recover their launch vehicle hardware will provide better value to the Government. Additionally, this is standard practice for the National Security Space Launch program beginning with Phase 2. For example, the NSSL Phase 2 Model Contract excludes booster recovery from the definition of Secondary Objectives.

Further, consideration by the Government of reusable hardware is aligned with the direction provided by FY19 NDAA Section 1603.

While OSP-4 is not the same as the NSSL program, the government would benefit from considering reusable launch vehicles for the more flexible OSP-4 program.

A Concur

3 Model Contract

Request deletion. FAR 44.204(a)(1) prescribes this clause to only (i) a cost-reimbursement contract; (ii) a letter contract; (iii) a fixed-price contract under which unpriced contract actions are anticipated;

(iv) a time and materials contract; or (v) a labor-hour contract.

This contract does not meet the criteria.

A Deleted

4 Model Contract Mission assurance activity should be its own CLIN. This allows for clarity in pricing and properly gives the

Government a discount when lesser mission assurance is required.

A Mission Assurance will be a separate CLIN

5 Attachment #1 - PWS

IS: Simulations & Rehearsals: ….and one wet dress rehearsal (for liquid propulsion SSs only).

Change to: Simulations & Rehearsals: ….and one wet dress rehearsal (for ground launched liquid propulsion SSs only).

Air-launched systems are not conducive to the concept of a "wet dress" rehearsal. A Concur, update completed.

6 PWS Recommend deleting the requirement for contractors to "develop and maintain a Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS), CWBS Dictionary" and associated subsections.

Since this is a firm, fixed-price (FFP) contract, cost reporting is not required or necessary. Thus, this requirement is not applicable to this contract.

A - This is a duplicate.

Agree CWBS is overkill for FFP, but the CWBS is/was also used to define the IMS entries, so the government will require an IMS dictionary.

7 Model Contract

Was: "In the event the Government determines the mission was not a success the Government may withhold up to 20% of the firm fixed price."

To: "In the event the Government determines the mission was not a success and the cause of the failure was solely attributable to the launch vehicle the Government may withhold up to 10% of the firm fixed price.

The contract language makes no allowance for mission failures caused by the spacecraft or other reasons outside the control of the launch services provider. M Changed "mission" to "launch service" to alleviate cross-pollination.

Model Contract Although the model contract contains various clauses that address payments, the contract does not contain any payment terms or financing methods (milestone payment plan, etc.). Are payment terms expected to be proposed on Task Order RFPs, or will the Government provide payment terms in the final RFP? Clarification and/or document revision is requested as applicable.

Payment / financing provisions are necessary to support successful contractor performance on Task Orders. M Each mission will have partial delivery payments, the model contract will be updated.

9 Model Contract

Please clarify this requirement: Will contractors be liable for the payload as government furnished property, and thus will have to acquire insurance for the payload?

Is the payload considered “Government Property” or “Government Furnished Property” for the purposes of clause 17 (52.245-01)?

Is the contractor responsible for loss of the payload under 52.245-01? If so, at what points does the contractor's responsibility commence and end?

Will the government provide the value of all payloads, since this information would be required to procure insurance coverage for the payloads?

How will the government evaluate providers' insurance costs? For example, will the government add an evaluation of insurance rate to the Total Evaluated Price assessment?

Understanding the Government’s expectation for this requirement will minimize the likelihood of Offeror nonconcurrence.

M

No, there is no intent for the contractor to assume financial liability for the payload nor treat the payload as GFP.

The payload is Government Property, but is not considered Government Furnished Property. While the payload may be physically attached to the launch provider’s hardware, the payload is never outside of the government’s supervision and therefore never actually “furnished” to the contractor in the normal sense of the GFP terminology.

No, the contractor is not responsible for loss of the payload.

N/A

N/A

FA8818-19-R-001 Model Contract

Issue: DRFP includes FAR clauses 52.246-4 Inspection of Services-Fixed Price

Is: (a) Inspection/Acceptance. Pursuant to FAR Subpart 12.402(b), FAR clauses 52.246-4 Inspection of Services-Fixed Price shall govern and apply to this contract and are incorporated herein by reference and in full text separately. The Government reserves the right to perform in-process inspection of testing of any launch services tendered for acceptance prior to launch.

(1) Acceptance for launch service is upon mission meeting orbit insertation requirements.

Change To: (include a tailored provision consistent with standard commercial practices) limiting the USG's inspection and acceptance rights to launch services and the mission specific requirements to meet the orbital insertion accuracy specified in the Mission ICD or MRD.

Use of standard commercial practices are consistent with the intent of FAR Part 12. In addition, adding a defined term for "orbital insertation" shall help ensure acceptance criteria is adequately defined.

In addition, the DRFP does not adequately define "meeting orbit insertation" to specify acceptance parameters in the event of an anomaly caused in whole or in part by the USG and it is proposed a definition of this term be added.

M

Fixed "insertation" to "insertion". The payload is Government Property, but is not considered

Government Furnished Property. While the payload may be physically attached to the launch provider’s hardware, the payload is never outside of the government’s supervision and therefore never actually “furnished” to the contractor in the normal sense of the GFP terminology.

Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM) - Critical Comments

Attachment 5, Orbital Services Program - 4 (OSP-

4) Ordering Guide

Is: PCO to perform market research to determine whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of receiving offers from at least two responsible OSP-4 IDIQ contract small business concerns. If market research reveals there is a reasonable expectation that two or more responsible small business concerns, who are competitive in terms of market prices, quality and delivery, will submit proposals, then the TO will only be competed among those responsible small business concerns. If a TO is competed among OSP-4 IDIQ contract small business concerns and the TO contracting officer receives no acceptable offers, then the FOPR shall be withdrawn and the requirement, if still valid, shall be resolicited on an unrestricted basis to the entire pool of OSP-4 IDIQ contract awardees.

Change To: delete this provision in its entirety.

Ensure and maintain fair and equal competitive environment This 2 step process is contrary to the DOD's assured access to space initiatives and desire to maintain a competitive landscape for launch services over the next 9 years.

M

Per FAR 19.502-4, the Contracting Officer may (at their discretion) set-aside task orders to small business. The process is clearly defined in OSP-4's Ordering Guide.

12 Attachment #1 - PWS

Is: Space Flight Worthiness: For SMC SFWC missions, the LSC shall support the SMC Readiness Review process, the IV&V efforts of the MAC and the SMC Independent Readiness Review Team (IRRT). Details of the required data submittals are in Annex 1 (A1-2). The LSC shall analyze the SS against each of the applicable criteria, refer to SMC-G- 1202 “Space Flight Worthiness Criteria” (SFWC), provide a matrix identifying compliance or non-compliance, and provide and cite confirming evidence and/or associated mitigations for non-compliances. SMC flight worthiness certification is required prior to launch. [CDRL A022 - DRIP (Government Reviews)]

2.1.2.1.1.1 SFWC Discussions: The LSC shall make available appropriate personnel for the discussion and clarification of status and issues related to the SFWC matrix and items detailed in Annex 1 (A1-2) on a monthly basis during the design, development, and test phase, and weekly during the launch campaign. The LSC shall support additional discussions, as required, to provide the Government, Independent MAC and/or the IRRT with confidence in the accuracy and sufficiency of the information provided. The LSC shall support 2-hr monthly meetings with at least one representative from each design discipline.

Change To: (Delete)

Cat 1 ought to be FAA launch license. Consistency, not included in Annex 1 for Cat 1 Or Figure 1 on pg 8.

M Government will ensure consistency throughout the PWS, however, Cat 1 cannot be FAA-only.

Attachment 3, Instruction to Offerors

First paragraph states "If the Offeror has multiple solutions (i.e., SSs), submit the solution that provides the best opportunity to meet the evaluation criteria outlined in the Evaluation Criteria, Attachment 4." Please confirm the Offeror will have the opportunity to on-ramp multiple vehicles. If so, would the Offeror provide a separate Capability Questionnaire for each vehicle. It is also unclear how this requirement would apply to a vehicle with multiple configurations. Should all proposed vehicle configurations be addressed in one questionnaire, or only the base configuration? Request clarification, or document revision as necessary.

It is unclear how OSP-4 would allow contractors to propose their optimal solution to a given Task Order FOPR if the contractor is limited to a single vehicle / configuration.

M

SMC/LEX is interested in Offerors demonstrating a launch capability, not certifying launch vehicles. For

OSP-4 Task Orders, the Offeror can propose whichever vehicle/configuration best suites mission requirements. The following statement has been added to clarify: "The Offeror is not bound to any one solution".

Exhibit A CDRLs Exhibit A only contains CDRL A001, and A002 Continuation page. Additionally, the PWS references several CDRLs that are not included within Exhibit A. It appears that a significant number of CDRLs are missing from the document.

Please revise Exhibit A to include the missing CDRLs

CDRLs are required to support proposal responses.

M

The government checked FBO to ensure the CDRLs were accessible, both on a Government computer and on a personnel laptop, and the file downloaded correctly. During RFP release, the government will work with any offeror experiencing issues to ensure they recieve the entire RFP packege and, if necessary, extend the proposal deadline.

Of note, the government did identify a few administrative issues with the CDRLs that were corrected.

15 Attachment 3 - ITO

WAS: "2. What is your status of Integration and Test (includes aircraft, if air launch) and do you plan to complete your first launch within one year?

a. Integration and Test is ongoing but will be able to launch within a year of contract award

b. Integration and Test is complete and have successfully completed one or more prior launches"

TO: "2. What is your status of Integration and Test (includes aircraft, if air launch) and do you plan to complete your first launch within two (2) years?

a. Integration and Test is ongoing but will be able to launch within two (2) years of contract award

b. Integration and Test is complete and have successfully completed one or more prior launches"

The OSP-4 on-ramp timeline should be consistent with the norminal payload integration timeline of 24 months. If 2 years is not acceptable, consider on-ramping larger LVs (e.g. >1,000 lbs to GTO) at least 2 years prior to first launch to accommodate the more complex development of larger launch systems. R

The government is targeting contractors who can meet the requirement today and those who are approx. a year out; the set of questions are used to quantify and determine who is approx. a year out.

This timeline is consistent with the 12-24 month launch campaign.

Attch 1, PWS Classified payload processing tasks must be elaborated if processing extends beyond fueling, Integrated Systems Tests (ISTs), and typical pre-mate processing of the payload (i.e. activities unique to the payload/beyond what is expected for SS/SV integration)

Para 2.1.4.9 is unclear as to the extent of payload processing required of the LSP.

R

Integration of the SV(s) to the SS are elaborated in other sections of the PWS, specifically, paragraphs

2.1.2.10 - 2.1.2.10.5. Classification requirements will be listed in the MRD as these are mission-unique including the classification guide.

Attch 4, Eval Criteria "Basis for Contract Award: This source selection is conducted In Accordance With (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3…". Consider a secondary objective of the OSP-4 solicitation to be USG support of the nation's small launch industrial base.

The OSP-4 RFP, and supporting materials, are clearly written as an extension of program of record solicitations conducted under FAR 15 acquisition rules.

Since OSP-4's payload mass requirements fall well within the capabilities of new entrant small launch providers, the solicitation could be viewed as an opportunity to nurture the small launch industrial base, a position advocated by OSD R&E.

R

The government agrees, but does not feel the need to explicitly state so in the solicitation. OSP-4's "low barrier to entry" will help establish a large vendor pool of mature companies and new entrants. As a result, new entrants will have an opportunity to compete on government missions.

Attch 4, Eval Criteria Question: Are the technical requirements referred to in Sec 3.0 the ONLY basis of award? For small launch new entrants, the Secret level of classification is a barrier to entry for the OSP-4 contract, UNLESS the USG enables entry by permitting compliance with DSS and NISPOM requirements some time into the period of performance vs at award

Secret classification level of OSP-4 contract needs to explicitly state the expected effectivity of an FCL.

R

Yes, the technical requirements are the only basis of award; one intent of the IDIQ approach is to put the awardees on contract to facilitate facility security clearance efforts prior to mission task order awards.

Attachment 5: Ordering Guide

Change the ordering period to 5 years. DFARS 217.204 limits the initial ordering period of a task order or delivery order contract to 5 years. In addition, an overly lengthy ordering period prevents the Government from benefitting from short- and mid-term changes in the launch services market. Notwithstanding the on-boarding process, new technologies and business models may be fundamentally inconsistent with OSP-4. This would artificially restrict the solutions and providers available to the Government.

R Approved for a 9 year ordering period.

20 Model Contract

Please add FAR 52.211-7 Alternatives to Government Unique Standards. Per DFARS 211.107, to comply with section 875(c) of the NDAA for 2017, use the provision at FAR 52.211-7 in DoD solicitations that include military or Government-unique specifications and standards. This solicitation includes military or Government-unique specifications.

R

Clause should be included in soliciations when the agecny uses transaction based reporting method to report the use of voluntary standards to the National

Insitute of Standards and Technology.

FA8818-19-R-001 Model Contract

Is: H002 -This special provision provides expansive and general rights to the Aerospace Corporation which are not consistent with standard commercial practices.

Change To: (subparagraph (b) as follows :) "In the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees to cooperate with The Aerospace Corporation by 1) responding to invitations from authorized U. S. Government personnel to attend meetings pertaining to specific USG Missions order under a TO; 2) by providing access to mission specific technical information and research, development planning data such as, but not limited to, design and development analyses, test data and results, equipment and process specifications, test and test equipment specifications and procedures, parts and quality control procedures, records and data, mission specific schedule and milestone data, all in their original form or reproduced form and including top-level life cycle cost* data, where available applicable to the mission;

3) by delivering data as specified in the Contract Data Requirements List; 4) by discussing technical matters relating to this program; 5) by providing access to contractor facilities utilized in the performance of this contract; 6) and by allowing observation of mission specific technical activities by appropriate technical personnel of The Aerospace Corporation. The Aerospace Corporation personnel engaged in GSE&I, TR, and/or TS efforts: (i) are authorized access to all such technical information (including proprietary information) pertaining to this contract and may discuss and disclose it to the applicable DoD personnel in a program office; (ii) are authorized to discuss and disclose such technical information (including proprietary information) to the commander or director of the various DoD organizations it supports and any U.S. Government personnel in a program office which, if not disclosed to the U.S. Government, could have adverse effects on the reliability and mission success of a U.S. Government program; and (iii) Aerospace shall make the technical information (including proprietary information) available only to its Trustees, officers, employees, contract labor, consultants, and attorneys who have a need to know.

c. The contractor further agrees to include in all subcontracts

Consistent with standard commercial practices as aligned with the same rights afforded to the FAA Launch License authority.

R Requirement for government contracts.

22 Attachment #1 - PWS

Issue: PWS doesn't conform to Commercial Practices. Recommend calling out only applicable paragraphs that apply to Commercial (requires only FAA license minimums).

Is: No designation

Change To: (Comm)

The extensive activity requested, that is not standard commercial practices, drives added costs and is not part of a standard commercial practice. R

Although launch services are considered commercial, there are additional government requirements above and beyond the scope of commercial practices.

23 Attachment 3 - ITO

Increase Technical Volume pagecount to 17 pages (notionally, 1 page for Capability Questionnaire and 4 pages for each evidence narrative)

ITO requires that evidence narratives are "specific, detailed, credible, and provide all the information" including "substantiating data (e.g., analysis, test results)." This requirement is inconsistent with a very limited pagecount.

R On the questionnaire, answer "a" and "b" are acceptable. The government believes one page is sufficient to support the selected answer.

Attch 1, PWS Excess ballistic missile motors, when provided by the USG to an LSP, automatically disadvantage liquid solutions and small launch providers operating emerging systems.

To take advantage of excess ballistic missile motors provided as GFP, small launch providers would need to RE-architect their systems around that solution.

Note: This is more of a comment, because the alternative, for competition's sake, would be the exclusion of the GFP.

R

When excess ICBM motors are used, the government applies a Fair Market Value (FMV) offset to ensure there is no competitive advantage.

The government expects commercial systems to be very competitive from a cost perspective.

Attch 3, Instruction Can it be specified that mass to orbit be that achieved from launch sites for which the offeror has agreements in place?

Otherwise, we could inflate our payload mass numbers by assuming equatorial launch from sites to which we do not have access.

R Government is simply asking you to state capability, no restrictions on which capability you choose to provide.

26 PWS

Recommend removing SLPRD and SLIS from this sentence and the subsequent subparagraphs. Make 2.1.1.1 concentrate on the MRD. For SLIS and SLPRD, change to add a new section on vehicle acceptance or certification.

Certify the launch vehicle against the SLPRD and SIS once on the IDIQ. Do not repeat for every mission. If requirements are important enough, they will be reiterated in the MRD.

Alternatively, leverage EELV (NSSL) certification if available.

This will save the Government and the contractor time and money.

R - combine with other duplicate comments on LV cert

SRR must cover all requirements, there is no vehicle certification process for RSLP/OSP.

PWS Describe the results to be achieved rather than how to do the work. The stated objective of OSP-4 is to establish a low barrier to entry for small businesses. The PWS, however, is overly prescriptive. It dictates a single, Government-imposed approach to design, development, engineering, production, and testing.

For example, the PWS fails to accommodate commercial practices such as agile design and white-tail production. In addition, the testing oversight assumes that launch vehicles are developed and built specifically for OSP-4; this ignores that launch vehicles and components may have already been qualified for commercial use. In sum, the draft PWS tells the contractor how to do the work. This is the function of a statement of work. In contrast, a performance-based work statement describes general requirements and allows the contractor to determine how to satisfy them. As currently written, the specificity of the requirements erect an insurmountable barrier to entry to small businesses, both in terms of expense and inconsistency with a commercial business model.

R - combined 3 same comments into 1

OSP-4 accomodates low barrier to entry with a multiple level MA approach, but some missions require high levels of MA so the PWS must serve multiple levels of need.

28 Multiple

WAS: "The objective of OSP-4 is to provide flexible small launch capability using launch vehicles with commercial and/or Government Furnished Property (GFP) motors to meet the customer’s requirements."

TO: "The objective of OSP-4 is to provide flexible launch capability using commercial launch services to meet the customer’s requirements."

Recommend this acquisition be reframed as procurment of payload delivery services to specified orbits, rather than development contract for a primary or dedicated LV. The current approach presumes a technical solution and levies a comprehensive and limiting set of requirements that preclude several innovative approaches. For example, the proposed approach would preclude a solution with multiple payloads where primary was undefined because all the payloads were treated equally (e.g. dedicated rideshare). This recommended approach would eliminated the detailed IV&V during development and specify the payloads to be launched, including their interfaces and constraints, and the orbits.

R - Combined 7 similar into one comment

OSP-4 is not intended as a rideshare contract, the intent of this paragraph is to state that fact. As stated, the government has a much simpler acquisition method to acquire rideshare services for payloads that do not require the levels of mission assurance reflected in OSP-4 requirements.

Attachment 5, Ordering Guide

According to the ordering guide, Past Performance (Factor 2) "…only applies to performance on OSP-4 TOs." Past Performance only being considered on OSP-4 Task Orders is reinforced in several other sections as well. Request that the Past Performance factor be expanded to consider performance on any Government contract.

Past Performance is an important element in evaluating contractor proposals. Considering only OSP-4 Task Orders significantly weakens, if not defeats the value of this evaluation factor. Contractors of various past performance would be graded equally in early Task Order procurements. Additionally, contractors on-ramping later in the OSP-4 ordering period, or contractors yet to receive a TO, would be significantly disadvantaged regardless of their actual past performance outside OSP-4. Limiting Past Performance to OSP-4 TOs would likely arbitrarily skew the evaluations of contractor proposals and unnecessarily limit the Governments ability to perform best value trade off analysis of the riskiness of each proposed launch solution.

R - Combined w/ same comment from 2nd vendor

The government is not trying to preclude any Offeror based on its previous performance on similar launch service contracts. Instead, the government's goal is to incentivize Offerors to fulfill contract obligations set forth under OSP-4. Having no past performance history will result in a "Neutral" rating, thus an Offeror who has yet to recieve an

OSP-4 TO will not be negatively impacted.

30 Attachment #1 - PWS

Issue: a Category 1 Mission as FAA-licensed only. This would enable a "commercial" option to SV customers for whom it makes sense. The SMC SFWC should be reserved for Category 2 & 3 Missions.

Is: Category 1: These missions may be subject to the SMC SpaceFlight Worthiness Certification (SFWC) process and/or be licensed under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) licensing guidelines as well as the accompanying MAC’s IV&V activities.

Change to: Category 1: These missions will be licensed under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) licensing guidelines.

(Consistent with FAA launch License only, delete SFWC and IV&V)

Consistent with a commercial item order and use of FAR Part 12

R - Combined with 2 other comments on same.

Although launch services are considered commercial, there are additional government requirements above and beyond the scope of commercial practices.

Item # Source Document

Comme nt 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

Attachment 1 - PWS

S 47 PSR EC

WAS: 5. Updated RTVM (SPS RTVM, PWS RTVM, MRD RTVM) (PWS 2.1.1.1.1, 2.1.1.3.1)

TO: 5. Updated RTVM (SPS RTVM, PWS RTVM, MRD RTVM) (PWS 2.1.1.1.1, 2.1.1.3.1)for Cat 2/3 Missions Only.

Consistent with previous PWS call outs.

A Concur

2 Attachment 3 - ITO S 4 2.6.6

Eliminate this requirement for multiple TOCs Inappropriate for small proposal size

A Master TOC is now the only requirement.

3 Attachment 3 - ITO S 4 2.6.7

Eliminate this requirement for multiple Glossaries Inappropriate for small proposal size

A One glossary is now the requirement.

4 Attachment 5 - OG S 11 1.3.5 Eliminate this requirement for multiple TOCs Inappropriate for small proposal size A Concur 5 Attachment 5 - OG S 11 1.3.6 Eliminate…