OSP-4_draft_RFP_CRM.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 53 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8818-19-R-0001
About this file
This document is a request for industry feedback on the draft Request for Proposal for the Orbital Services Program-4.
The Air Force Space Command Space and Missile Systems Center is seeking feedback on the draft RFP for OSP-4, which provides launch services to support small launch requirements for United States Government agencies. Industry is asked to review the provided "OSP-4 Starts Here" brief and complete the Comment Resolution Matrix included in the Excel file by June 13, 2019 at 4 pm Mountain Time, noting any recommended edits to the draft RFP without including proprietary information. The Government also requests industry response to whether a separate Mission Assurance contract line item number would benefit the Government. Feedback received will be considered for incorporation into the quality of the final OSP-4 RFP. The first OSP-4 mission is expected to be Space Test Program Small Spacelift #28. All responses related to this request for feedback should be submitted to the email addresses provided. While this opportunity is not set aside for small businesses, responses from small and small disadvantaged businesses are encouraged.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Comment Resolution Matrix
| Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM) | |
| Instuctions: |
1. Review the Orbital Services Program-4 (OSP-4) draft RFP.
2. Complete CRM columns (B - G only) with recommend document edits.
Comment Type:
A - Administrative: Comments that address minor items such as typographical, format, and/or grammatical errors.
S - Substantive: Comments of a less serious nature that have noticeable impact on the document’s quality or content. The document appears to be incorrect, misleading, confusing, or inconsistent with other sections.
C - Critical: Comments that address contentious issue(s) that will cause non-concurrence with the publication.
Gov't Decision:
A - Accept: Agree with comment.
R - Reject: Disagree with comment; rationale required for rejection.
M - Accept with modification: Partially agree with comment; rationale required for modification.
| Industry Question |
| Question: Would the Government benefit from having a separate Mission Assurance (MA) Contract Line Item Number (CLIN)? |
Answer:
| 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 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 28 | |
| 29 | |
| 30 | |
| 31 | |
| 32 | |
| 33 | |
| 34 | |
| 35 | |
| 36 | |
| 37 | |
| 38 | |
| 39 | |
| 40 | |
| 41 | |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 44 | |
| 45 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 49 | |
| 50 |
image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .