Consolidated_STP-S28_CRM_Response.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 Fair Opportunity Proposal Request for STP28 C 7 1.3.9.5

IS: The Offeror shall submit their proposed prices for all CLINs and sum the CLIN prices for the Total Proposed Price (TPP).

Change to: The Offeror shall submit their proposed prices for all CLINs and sum the CLIN prices for the Total Proposed Price (TPP). For CLINs 001 and 00X (X to be defined by the USG for Mission Assurance CLIN), Offerors shall assume the following mass properties, inclination requirements, complement(s) and mission assurance requirements for pricing purposes”. (USG to insert added columns in table of mission specific requirements for pricing purposes.)

The FOPR needs to define the exact, specific mission requirements and assumptions for pricing purposes (i.e.

total mass, orbital inclination, complements, security level…….). R

Mission Requirements can be found in the MRD.

The FOPR will have a funding cap due to our funding profile.

2 Fair Opportunity Proposal Request for STP28 C 7 1.4.2.1

IS: Element 1: Mission Execution. Provide a Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS), CWBS dictionary, and Integrated Schedule (IS) as described below. (FOPR requires submission of a CWBS, CWBS dictionary, and Integrated Schedule (IS)).

Change to: (Delete in its entirety.)

Consistent with FAR Subpart 12, submission of a CWBS, CWBS Dictionary & IMS is not required. A requirement for a mission-specific schedule in Contractor format is consistent with best commercial practices.

M

Will align with OSP-4 standard. The CWBS requirement has been removed, the contractor will be required to submit an IMS and IMS Dictionary.

3 Fair Opportunity Proposal Request for STP28 C 8 1.4.2.4

IS: The Offeror shall provide a description of how it will integrate its processes and products, including a description of its command media, with the Government Mission Assurance process described in the following PWS paragraphs and associated subparagraphs: 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.3.

Change to: The Offeror shall provide a description of how it will integrate its mission-specific processes and products, including a description of its command media, with the Government Mission Assurance process described in the following PWS paragraphs and associated subparagraphs: 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.3.

Provides clarity to the fact the Contractor's commercial products and processes to be integrated into the MA do not extend to the general/common production line.

M

Open to the idea that we are not after capturing the whole production line; however, the Offeror will need to provide a description of how it will integrate its processes and products, as appiled to mission-specific processes or products.

FOPR statement will be modified to (updates italicized in BLUE): The Offeror shall provide a description of how it will integrate its processes and products, as applied to this specific mission , including a description of its command media, with the Government Mission Assurance process as designated in the MRD .

4 Fair Opportunity Proposal Request for STP28 C 15 2.6.1.2

IS: The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices using the table below: (which includes) CLIN: 0001 Design Integration, MA and Launch Services, CLIN: 0002 Data and Reports, GFP (From Appendix B) Cost Offsets, and GFP (From Table 1.6.3.1-1) Rental Equivalency.

Change to: The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices using the below table:

CLIN: 0001 Design Integration and Launch Services, CLIN: 000X Mission Assurance, CLIN: 0002 Data and Reports, GFP (From Appendix B)Cost Offsets, and GFP (From Table 1.6.3.1-1) Rental Equivalency (USG to update table) .

Mission Assurance should be priced as a stand-alone cost

(CLIN: 000X).

M

Will align to the OSP-4 standard.

5 30May19 MRD Draft C 9 2.4

IS: The launch solution shall include only dedicated launch(es) to provide the STP-S28 launch service.

(MRD 001) The LSC may propose the launch solution as a multi-manifest mission, which will include compliance with the OSP-4 PWS section on multi-manifest mission requirements.

Change to: The launch solution shall include primary launch(es) to provide the STP-S28 launch service.

(MRD 001) The LSC shall propose the launch solution as a multi-manifest mission, which will include compliance with the OSP-4 PWS section on multi-manifest mission requirements.

Contractors need clarity to properly bid. Use of primary multi-manfest will allow for LSCs to provide lower price solution across all compliments.

R

OSP-4 provides for both dedicated and primary missions. The S28 mission requires dedicated launch solutions.

Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM) - Critical

6 30May19 MRD Draft C 10 3.1

IS: The LV(s) shall integrate all Complement 1 SVs listed in Table 3-1 into the launch solution. (MRD 005) The LV(s) shall integrate all LSC-proposed additional Complement(s) SVs into the launch solution. (MRD 006)

Change to: "The LV(s) shall integrate all Complements listed in Table 3-1 through 3-7 into the launch solution. (MRD 005)

The LSC proposed launch solution shall meet the conditions listed in the columns of Tables 3.1 to 3.7"

Current phrasing is too ambiguous for what constraints are present for the Launch Solution. Specifically, it is not clear what combination of SVs can be co-manifested on a single launch attempt. For example, can SVs from the muliple complements be combined. Additionally, in connection with Section 3.8 on security there may be additional security constraints on SVs that may not be capable of manifesting with other SVs.

With the current lack of clariety on constraints it will not be possible to adequately bid, price, and later evaluate.

R

(1) There is no restriction on combining SVs from multiple compliments on individual launches.

(2) All classification requirements will be finalized in the released RFP

(3) There will be no security constraints on SVs the will prevent them from being manifested with other SVs

7 STP-S28_MRD C 9 2.4

MRD requires a dedicated launch solution, which per the PWS requires that "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, as launch providers can offer lower priced services using recovery without impacting the mission. Additionally, this is standard practice for the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program. For example, the NSSL Phase 2 Model Contract excludes booster recovery from the definition of Secondary Objectives. 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.

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

A

This is within the intent of "dedicated launch".

A recovered launch vehicle is a valid solution

8 MRD C 4 1.1

The ILC Stated is NLT than December 2021, yet Table 3-1 lists Payload ready dates of Dec-21, and the statement in 2.4.2 that says launch shall be no earlier than 6 months from ready date. These two statements appear in conflict.

Requirements appear in conflict. Please clarify.

A

Table 3-1 has been updated. There is no longer a conflict in the updated MRD

9 MRD C 9 2.4.2

Requirement for launch readiness is NET 6 months past SV ready date. Do you mean NLT? If stated correctly, how will the Government bound the launch window for offerors?

Request clarification.

R

The requirement is correct as written, the 6 months buffer is designed to allow for moderate delays in SV completions.

10 MRD C 11-15 3.2 What is the rationale for the grouping of Compliments? Are some SV's higher priority than others? How will offers determine what is the best offer to the Government? R

Complement 1 is the minimum requirement, the other complements are grouped so as to be equal in overall priority. All other complements are equally weighted. The best offer to the government is the one which services the most complements within the launch service price cap.

11 MRD C 11-15 3.2 Can offerors bid on specific SV's other than Complement 1 if they do not bid Complement 1? R No. Complement 1 is the minimum required S28 manifest.

12 MRD C

General: Can teams be formed to respond to this FOPR, or must teams be defined on the baseline OSP-4 IDIQ Contract?

A

An OSP-4 IDIQ holder may include subcontractors in their launch service proposal as long as no contracting rules are violated (e.g. the prime contractor must provide more than 50% of the contracted service)

13 MRD C 4 1.1 Please clarify the Government's objective -- will an offer that does not meet all Complement 1 orbits and payloads be non-compliant? R

That is correct, all Complement 1 requirements must be met.

14 MRD C 11-15 3.2

Table 3-1 shows that the LSC is responsible for providing the SV dispenser.

a. Is the dispenser mass included in the listed SV mass?

b. Is the LSC responsible for integrating the SV’s into the deployers or are the deployers delivered to the SV providers for integration?

c. If the LSC is responsible:

i. Will all SV’s be delivered to the LSC facility?

ii. Will each SV provider participate in the integration?

iii. Does the LSC assume all liability once transferred including mission success?

A

These will be clarified in the final MRD.

a. The dispenser mass is not included in the SV mass.

b. The SVC is responsible for integrating the SVs into the deployers at a location to be decided after contract award c.i. Yes c.ii. Yes c.iii. The LSC is responsible for delivery to orbit and release of the SV, not for SV operation. LSC period of assuming liability is defined in the updated PWS

2.1.4.10.2 (added sentence italicized in BLUE):

"...The SV(s) contractor will transfer responsibility for the SV(s) to the LSC when the SV(s) is prepared for immediate mating with the SS and is approximately three inches (3”) away from the SS mating surfaces.

The LSC shall conduct mechanical mating, spurious voltage, and electrical connection checks in concert with the SV(s) contractor. The LSC’s responsibility for the SV(s) will end at SV(s) separation(s) ."

15 MRD C 9 2.4.1 2.4.1: Launch Solution Maturity: does this section imply that a proposed launch solution for Comp 1 could be its maiden flight? A

Yes

16 MRD C 15 3.2 What is the envelope for the complement 6 >ESPA 3? A See RSLP SLIS 3.1.1

17 MRD C 11-15 3.2 Is there a priority launch order of the SV's? Is there a priority launch order of the complements of SV's.

Please clarify R

There is no priority launch order.

18 MRD C 11 3.2 If any of the SV’s in Complement 1 are not ready by the ILC integration schedule, are they kicked off the manifest or is the ILC delayed until they are ready? A

Any SV that is not ready to meet the contractual ILC (including delay clause) will be kicked off and replaced with a mass simulator or equivalent replacement SV. Any ILC change outside the delay clause will require contract modification.

Item # Source Document Comment

Type A/S/C

Page # Para / Section #

Comment Provide original language and proposed change

Rationale Provide concise, objective explanation of the rationale for the comment

Decision A/R/M Notes

1 30May19 MRD Draft S 8 2.2

IS: Mission specific additional performance capabilities will be detailed in the SV-LV ICD.

Change to: (remove - "additional") Mission specific performance capabilities will be detailed in the SV-LV

ICD.

The SV-LV ICD will need to be available to Contractors when the FOPR is sent out in order for them to price/evaluate any additional performance capabilities. When will the LV/SV ICD be developed? Any added capability after award of an FFP contract would require a change request and a modification for added costs.

M

Deleted

2 30May19 MRD Draft S 9 2.4.2

IS: If more than one LV is used to provide the STP-S28 launch solution, then the ILC of each subsequent launch shall be NET four months after the previous launch.

Change to: (Delete)

Launch providers may be able to provide the service faster than NET four months. What is the rationale reason for any delay? If there is a reason, the reason should be stated. M

The SRP customer agency has requested this spacing to mitigate government workload limitations wrt management of the space vehicles, but the reasoning is not relevant MRD content.

3 30May19 MRD Draft S 11 Table 3.1 to 3.7

IS: Note: Eccentricity goal for each SV other than Cube 15 is 0. Cube15 eccentricity goal is 0.0287.

Change to: (add a column to table for eccentricity, if it is a requirement. A goal is ambiguous.)

Ambiguous recommendation.

If required add as a separate column in tables with an acceptable tolerance for all SVs. M

Deleted

4 30May19 MRD Draft S 17 3.8 (MRD 020)

IS: Some of the STP-S28 SVs are being provided by international mission partners requiring a Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) defined by ITAR regulations, and some of the SVs are classified at the TBD level.

Change to: Some of the STP-S28 SVs are being provided by international mission partners requiring a Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) defined by ITAR regulations. These SV's may be included even if there are classified SV's in the Integrated Payload Stack (IPS). Some of the SVs are classified at the TBD level. (add a coulum to the tables 3.1 through 3.7 that identiifes SV's from International Partners and wether they can be included with classified payloads in the IPS.)

List restrictions on SVs that can not rideshare with other classified SVs.

With the current lack of clariety on constraints it will not be possible to adequately bid, price, and later evaluate.

M

Updated MRD to "Some of the STP-S28 SVs are being provided by international mission partners requiring a Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) defined by ITAR regulations. The international SV(s) may be included even if there are classified SV(s) in the Integrated Payload Stack (IPS)."

Reject adding column to identify International Partners. Specific international payloads will be defined during contract execution

5 30May19 MRD Draft S 17 3.8 (MRD 020)

IS: The launch solution shall include appropriately obtained TAAs and appropriately cleared personnel to support integration and encapsulation of the IPS(s) at the TBD classification level at the PPF.

Change to: The launch solution shall include appropriately obtained TAAs and appropriately cleared personnel to support integration and encapsulation of the IPS(s) at the (provide classification level required) classification level at the PPF.

Clarify classification and access level required to support STP- S28, required for adequate pricing.

A

All TBDs wil be removed on the MRD released with the RFP

6 Model Contract S 7

4. FAR 52.212-

04 CONTRACT

TERMS AND

CONDITIONS--

COMMERCIAL

ITEMS (Oct 2018) (item (1))

Please clarify the intent of the following sentence: "In the event the Government determines the mission was not a success the Government may withhold up to 20% of the firm fixed price."

How will the Government determine the withhold amount up to 20%? Understanding the Government’s expectation for this requirement will minimize the likelihood of Offeror nonconcurrence. A

Updated MRD will include "Mission Success" in Section 1.1 and add: "S28 mission success is defined as successful deployment of the contractual SV manifest within contracted orbital parameters."

7 MRD S 11 3.2 Please clarify the orbit requirements for Cube 23 A Provided in updated MRD

8 MRD S 12 3.2 in Table 3-1, Complement 1 ESPA 2 lists the payload is 30 kg. This does not fit the definition of ESPA class, please confirm that this is not a typo A

This is not a typo. The mass property is correct.

Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM) - Substantive

9 MRD S 11 3.2

Section 3.2: It states the LV shall provide insertion orbit accuracy of within +/- 10 nmi for both apogee and perigee of the required orbits for the Complement 1 and additional Complement(s) SV’s that require this enhancement (MRD 009). However, in review of Complement 1, Cube 24 states an apogee and perigee of 500 km with no tolerance, conflicting with the +/- 10 nmi. Is this a typo? Request clarification

A

MRD updated with corrected Apogee/Perigee tolerance in the Complement tables

10 MRD S 17 3.4.3.6

Section 3.4.3.6: Air Quality – it states the launch solution shall include contamination control enhancement (CCE) air quality – what class air is required? Does this apply to the encapsulated fairing only, or does this also apply to the integration environment?

A MRD updated - No CCE Air Quality enhancement required

11 MRD S 17 3.8

Section 3.8: Security – it states that some of the SV’s are being provided by international mission partners requiring a TAA, while some are classified at the TBD level. Will the SMC RSLP office provide a DECA at working group meetings with the international mission partners?

A If a TAA is required then the Gov't will provide a DECA representative.

12 Fair Opportunity Proposal Request S 14 2.4.2.5

Please clarify whether an offeror with multiple strengths will receive a higher rating than an offeror with a single strength.

It is unclear how offerors will be evaluted based on the number of complements they propose to integrate. Table 2.3.2-1 states that an offeror will receive an outstanding rating if its proposal contains at least one strength; it does not account for multiple strengths. Paragraph 2.4.2.5 states that an offeror can receive multiple strengths based on the number of complements. Will all offerors with outstanding ratings be evaluated the same, or will the number of strengths be considered in evaluating the best value?

A

Updated the OSP-4 FOPR Template. The number of strengths will be considered in the Best Value decision. This will be discussed at Industry Day telecon.

Updated the OSP-4 Ordering Guide:3.3.1. Best Value Tradeoff. The expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. It represents the most advantageous tradeoff between price and technical.

Best value is determined based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria including strengths.

13 Fair Opportunity Proposal Request S 14 2.4.2.5

How will the Government procure launch services for complements that are not included in the awardee's contract?

The STP-S28 mission only requires the launch of Complement

1. What is the acquisition strategy for complements that are not awarded through this mission?

R That will be determined after S28 award.

14 Mission Requirements Document S 9 2.4 Please clarify the definition of "multi-manifest mission."

The MRD uses "multi-manifest mission" to mean using multiple launches to perform the mission. However, the PWS, in sections

1.2 and 2.1.7, defines "multi-manifest mission" as a single launch where the OSP-4 payload is primary and other payloads are manifested on the same launch. Does multi-manifest mean a single mission performed through multiple launches, or multiple payloads launched on a single vehicle?

M

S28 is not a multi-manifest mission. Word has been replaced with "multi-SV mission"

15 Mission Requirements Document S 9 2.4.2 What is the no-later-than initial launch capability for additional complements?

The MRD states that Complement 1 has an ILC of NLT December 31, 2021 and subsequent launches shall be at least four months after the previous launch, but it does not define the latest launch date for each additional complement. R

Clarification - The MRD states that the ILC for the offeror's first launch (vice Complement 1) is NLT Dec 31, 2021. The government does not have a NLT date for subsequent launches, as there could be multiple potential launches proposed.

Item # Source Document 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 Fair Opportunity Proposal Request for STP28 1.1.2

IS: Non-conformance with these instructions may result in rejection of the proposal or an unfavorable proposal evaluation, or being deemed ineligible for award.

Change to: Non-conformance with the FOPR instructions may result in rejection of the proposal or an unfavorable proposal evaluation, or being deemed ineligible for award.

In order to avoid confusion with previous sentence that references the PSW, MRD, etc.

Clarity regarding submission requirements A

2 Fair Opportunity Proposal Request for STP28 1.3.5

IS: Indexing. Include a master Table of Contents (TOC) of the entire proposal.

Change to: A master Table of Contents (TOC) of the entire proposal should be included with Volume (USG fill in).

Clarity regarding submission requirements

A

3 Fair Opportunity Proposal Request for STP28 1.3.8

IS: The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2010/2016, MS Office Excel 2010/2016, MS Office Project 2010/2016, and MS Office Power Point 2010/2016, as applicable. (FOPR does not state where electronic submissions should be sent to.)

Change to: Electronic submission should be sent to (USG to fill in full address).

Clarity regarding submission requirements

A

FOPR instructions have been updated.

4 30May19 MRD Draft 1.3

IS: Manage Range support at Government launch ranges

Change to: Manage Range support at Government launch ranges or provide equivalent support, as applicable, at commercial launch sites. (USG needs to add words to detail the level of support they intend to offer.)

Not all LSCs will operate out of Government Ranges; before we can recommend a change, we need to know what support the USG offers at Ranges.

M

Update MRD to add verbiage under LSC roles and responsibilities: "LSC is responsible to manage range support at all non-government launch ranges in accordance with the OSP-4 PWS." which is now aligned with the OSP-4 PWS requirement:

PWS 2.1.2.1 Launch Site and Services: The Government will provide Government services at Government ranges (e.g., Flight Safety, Telemetry, and Radar). The LSC shall specify all required Government range services/support. All spaceport services, non-Government range services, and launch site services shall be provided by the LSC unless otherwise stated in the MRD. [CDRL A003 - Range/License Related Documentation]

5 30May19 MRD Draft 1.3

IS: A MAC, under contract to SMC/LEX, will provide MA and Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) support for the LV.

Change to: A MAC, under contract to SMC/LEX, will provide MA and Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) support in accordance with the PWS for a Category 2 mission

Consistency with work to be conducted

A

MRD updated.

Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM) - Administrative