GEARSS_Master_CRM_-_Industry_PWS_L__M_Feedback_with_names_removed_-_20150410.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 34 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8823-15-R-0001
About this file
Government's consolidated response to Industry's Comments/Review of Draft GEARSS PWS and Sections L M.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| GEARSS_PWS_(V9)_-_20150316.docx | DOCX document | |
| Copy_of_GEARSS_CRM_Industry.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| GEARSS_Section_M_(V3)_-_20150319.docx | DOCX document | |
| GEARSS_Section_L_(V3)_-_20150319.docx | DOCX document |
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
Comments
| GEARSS Document: _______________________________________________ | ||
| # | Page #, Section #, Paragraph # | Critical |
Substantive Admin Was (Original Language) ACTION (Suggested Change) Rationale A = PO Accepts R = PO Rejects
| M = PO accepts with Modification | PO Response | |||||
| 1 | General | A | Will the Gov't disclose the budget available for this contract or provide historical workshare for contract scope? | R | No. The Government believes the FFP and LTPA nature of this acquisition will provide the best price for the effort. We have no basis for the historical workshare; therefore, we will not provide this level of detail. | |
| 2 | General | A | Will there be a phase-in period as part of the contract transition? We recommend 30 days to reduce risk. | A | Yes. That will be defined in the released RFP. We anticipate a 30 day transition as suggested. | |
| 3 | General | A | Does the Gov't plan to provide any requirements for the availability of remote sites being operational? | A | Yes. The Government will ensure the Performance Based Outcomes are posted to the Bidder's Library. | |
| 4 | General | A | Does the Gov't plan to provide a full draft solicitation for further review? | A | Yes. The Government will release a full draft RFP for review which will include Section A through M and the updated PWS. | |
| 5 | General; Section L, Table 2 (page 6) | A | Does the Gov't plan to provide plug numbers for ODC/travel costs that will be used for all offerors? | A | Yes. The Government will provide plug numbers for all potential Offerors to use in their proposals to level the playing field. | |
| 6 | General; Section M, 2.3.1 (page 3) | S | If there is a transition period added, we recommend that pricing is not part of Total Evaluated Price (TEP) since incumbent contractor has no/minimal transition costs. | A | The Government will not require the contractor to include this in the TEP. | |
| 7 | General | S | Are there any collective bargaining agreements in place or services anticipated to fall under the Service Contract Act (SCA)? If so, please identify the CBA(s) and/or WD tables. | R | No. There are no collectivie bargaining agreements. | |
| 8 | Section L, 1.2, 1.3, 2.11, 3.1.3.2 | A | Several TBD are still in place. Please clarify. | A | The Government fully intends to have the TBDs defined and populated when the final Draft RFP is released for final industry review. | |
| 9 | Section L, 2.7 (page 2) | S | Will GEARSS be a 8(a) acquisition or simply a small business set-aside? | A | The GEARSS acquisition will be Small Business Set Aside under the NAICS code 517919 as specified in the orginal Sources Sought Solicitation. The Government will not specify any additional small business criteria such as 8(a). | |
| 10 | Section L, 2.8.3 (page 2) | S | Please verify that line spacing shall be 1.5 line spaced and not single spaced. | A | Yes. The line spacing shall be 1.5 as documented. | |
| 11 | Section L, 2.10 (page 3) | A | When will the bidder's library become available and fully populated? | A | The Government will make the Bidder's Library available for the Draft RFP review and will provide a fully populated version by final RFP release. | |
| 12 | Section L, Table 1 (page 3) | S | The technical volume attachments appear to address all or the majority of the specific instructions for the technical volume, therefore it is unclear what the Gov't expects in those 30 pages. Please clarify instructions or reduce the number of pages to 10-15. | R | The Government is making 30 pages available if Offeror's chooses to use them to describe their processes in detail. There is no requirement to use all 30 pages. The attachments are available to provide evidence of their processes. | |
| 13 | Section L, 3.1.2.2 (page 4) | S | Does the Gov't expect contingent offers to be in place for all staff that currently employed? We recommend only requiring contingent offers for staff identified as key personnel. | A | No. The Government does not expect contingency offers to be in place for all staff. We will change Section L, 3.1.2.2 to read: "e.g., hiring procedures, retention statistics, contingency offers to potential employees". The Government expects Offerors to provide adequate proof they will be able to staff the requirements of the PWS. | |
| 14 | Section M, 2.2.3 (page 3) | S | Subfactor evaluation is based upon configuration management (CM) and software development, but this is not addressed in the Section L instructions or identified in the PWS. Please clarify in the PWS, the CM and software development tasks, or re-state the evaluation criteria. | A | The Government will change this to read: "2.2.3 Subfactor 3: Technical Process Approach. This subfactor evaluates the proposal to determine if the proposal meets the requirements for technical understanding. The criteria are met when the Offeror: | |
| 15 | PWS, page 3 | S | PWS states "Support for GIN will be required 24/7", but other locations within the PWS indicate operations support for 12 hrs, 5 days per week. Please confirm support required for the GIN. | M | Agree this could create confusion. The Government will update the PWS descriptions for the GIN, GA and MS to delete specific operational hours. Paragraph 3 will have specific requirements for work days and hours as required for all work locations. | |
| 16 | PWS, page 3 | S | PWS states "Daily on-site maintenance is provided via a separate contract, 12 hours a day, 5 days a week" for both GAs and MSs, but this scope appears to be included in other sections of the GEARSS PWS. Please confirm support required/not required for GAs/MSs. | A | Agreed. The Government is removing references to the "separate contract" as all those requirements are part of the GEARSS acquisition. | |
| 17 | PWS, 2.3.2.1 (page 6) | S | Please clarify the contents of CDRL A001 (Data Accession List). | A | The contents of the DAL is documented in DI-MGMT-81453A in Bidders Library. | |
| 18 | PWS, 2.8 (page 8) | S | Please identify the ACAs anticipated to be in place by the GEARSS contractor. | A | Offerors should expect to have ACAs with Lockheed Martin for the GCS contract. | |
| 19 | PWS, 3.x (pages 10-11) | S | Several deliverables are identified in the Program Management section, but there is only referenced CDRLs. Please verify all CDRLs to be delivered under the GEARSS contract. | R | Reference the following notes in PWS, Paragraph 3: |
NOTE: When “contractor format” is referenced throughout all paragraphs of the PWS, the contractor shall provide a contractor generated, consistent, standardized format that is approved by the Government.
NOTE: All products derived from the tasks listed in this PWS shall be delivered in contractor format, unless otherwise specified for a particular task, and coordinated directly with the Government.
The Government's intent is to allow for the contractor to provide technical and programmatic inputs without the formal requirements of submitting a CDRL. This approach currently works for other Government contracts and will be the approach used on GEARSS.
| 20 | PWS, 3.1.2 (page 10) | S | Please clarify if two monthly meetings are required or a single meeting, as identified in STD #3. | A | Agreed. The Government has changed the wording as follows: "Prepare for and brief to the Government one monthly contract and PWS status meeting to include program management, schedule, risk management, accomplishments, issues and upcoming events for all GEARSS tasks. In contractor format, provide an itemized agenda, a meeting presentation and meeting results to assigned Government representative(s)." |
| 21 | PWS, 3.1.2 (page 10) | S | Is the offeror required to utilize GSIMS or can another portal/link be made available? | R | Yes. The Government will provide a GSIMS account request form in the Bidder's Library. GSIMS is the ONLY accepted data repository for all sustainment related contracts and tasks. |
| 22 | PWS, 3.1.3 (page 11) | S | STD #1 identifies a self-assessment report. Please provide further details of contents required in this report. | R | The Government is simply asking the contractor to provide their indendent performance assessment on the tasks of the GEARSS PWS. This will assist the Government in their annual CPAR assessment. The contractor can provide as much, or as little, inputs as desired. |
| 23 | PWS, 3.1.4 (page 11) | S | Will all local procedures be published in the bidder's library? | A | Yes. |
| 24 | PWS, 3.2.1 (page 12) | S | Will all current training materials be included in the bidder's library and transferred to the GEARSS contractor? | A | Yes. |
| 25 | PWS, 3.3.1 (page 14) | S | STD #2 identifies two qualified RSTs at each remote site location at all times, but STD #1 only identifies 8x5 support. Please verify support requirement for RSTs. | M | The Government understands where there may be some confusion with the STDs as written and has modified the STDs as follows: |
"STD #1: The contractor shall provide a minimum of one RST 8-hours per day, 5-days per week.
STD #2: The contractor shall provide 24- hour/7-days per week on-call support.
STD #3: The contractor shall provide a minimum of two qualified RSTs at each remote site location at all times in support of 3.3.1, STD #4.
STD #4: The contractor shall provide adequate coverage when conducting maintenance activities that require two persons for safety and/or security situations."
26 PWS, 3.3.1 (page 14) S STD #3 identifies more than two persons for safety and/or security situations. Please identify those situations that would require more than two persons. M The Government was mistaken when referencing two or more persons and modified what is now STD #4 as follows:
"STD #4: The contractor shall provide adequate coverage when conducting maintenance activities that require two persons for safety and/or security situations."
| 27 | PWS, 3.3.8 (page 17) | S | Can the Gov't identify upcoming on-site contruction activities or historical contruction projects? | A | The Government expects the contractor to monitor all construction activities that occur at each remote site and keep the Government up to date on progress, problems and support required as outlined in the STDs. Typically, this equates to approximately 2 contructions efforts per site per year. An example would be OCX prep activities. The contractor will not be responsible for these efforts but would simply provide monitoring. |
| 28 | PWS, 3.3.10 (page 19) | S | STD #3 identifies security clearance commensurate with the highest level of classification of materials required. Will there be any materials above the level of Secret classification? | A | No. |
| 29 | PWS, 3.3.11 (pages 20-21) | S | STDs #3, 21, and 22 - Can the Gov't identify the frequency of site visits, familiarization tours, and visitors/permanent parties at each site? | R | The Government expects the contractor to support all visits that occur at each remote site regardless of number. Additionally, the Government expects the contractor to provide transportation and lodging support as required. The frequency can vary annually. |
| 30 | PWS, 3.3.11 (page 20) | S | STD #7 - Will the baselined inventory of tools be included in the bidder's library and transition to the GEARSS contractor? | A | Yes. |
| 31 | PWS, 3.3.11 (page 20) | S | STD #7 - Please clarify the equipment, instrumentation, and vehicles at each site and whether they will transition to the GEARSS contractors or should be included in ODC costs in offeror's proposal. | A | The Government will provide a detailed list of site specific support equipment. The Government will post this list in the Bidders Library. The Government will provide all equipment for the contractors use as GFE or GFP. The Government will transfer accountability to the GEARSS prime contractor at contract start. |
The Government will allow the purchase of one vehicle per remote site as an ODC.
| 32 | PWS, 3.4 (page 25) | S | Is technical support required at the AMCS at all times or only when backup operations are in place at Vandenberg AFB? | A | Technical support is only required at the AMCS when operations are transferred to VAFB. |
| 33 | PWS, 3.4.1 (page 25) | S | STD #1 - Can the Gov't identify the projected LADO and OCX deliveries to be supported? | R | This STD does not cover LADO and OCX deliveries. The technical support is required for assisting operations crews and analysis personnel in daily mission support activities. |
| 34 | PWS, 3.4.1 (page 25) | S | STD #3 - Will existing engineering tools and algorithms be transitioned to the GEARSS contractor without any data right limitations? | A | Yes. All engineering tools and algorithms that reside on the system will be transitioned to the GEARSS contractor. |
| 35 | PWS, 3.4.1 (page 25) | S | STDs #4, 6 - Will existing reports be available in the bidder's library? Also, will these reports be further defined as CDRLs? | A | Yes, if the reports are unclassified; however, these will not be defined as CDRLs. These reports are considered technical level working documents. |
| 36 | PWS, 3.4.2 (page 25) | S | Will this support be required on a 24-hour basis throughout the launch and early-orbit operations? | A | PWS task 3.4 requires the following daily coverage and on call support: "The contractor shall provide direct operations support and analysis ... for a minimum of 12 hours per day, five days per week (0600-1800, Mon-Fri) with 24 hour on-call support." |
The Government's expectation is for the contractor to support the 2 SOPS customer as directed and would fall under the 24 hour on-call support portion of the task.
| 37 | PWS, 3.4.2 (page 26) | S | STD #5 - Please clarify the OA requirements and number of reports required. | A | The OA requirements are defined as "senior" support to 2 SOPS day-to-day OA personnel. There are no reports defined for STD #5. | ||
| 38 | PWS, 3.4.3 (page 26) | S | Can the Gov't identify level of support or how often the simulators are used? | A | The Contractor should expect the simulators to be used weekly throughout the duration of the GEARSS contract. The level of support will vary depending on the training and/or scenarios required. | ||
| 39 | PWS, 3.4.5 (page 28) | S | Please clarify the tasks completed by the technical advisors and how this is differentiated from GCSS staff. | A | These tasks are different from the GCS contract. The TA will provide historical and technical perspectives to the customer leadership and technical staff on new systems, impacts to operations and system modifications. | ||
| 40 | PWS, 3.4.8 (page 29) | S | Please clarify the engineering support required for the GPSOC and how this is differentiated from the existing GPSOC staff. | A | The existing GPSOC staff will only provide 24/7 operations positions. STDs #2 through #5 define the specific requirements for the engineering support. | ||
| 41 | Page 3, Section L, Para 2.9 | S | No classified information shall be included in Offeror's proposal | Classified information, such as in past performance documentation, will be allowed IAW stated security procedures | There is no allowance for the submission of any past performance related to the SOW, based on contracts of like-size and complexity. Some citations of past performance relating directly to this scope of work may be classified and should be allowed. No paste performance required nor evaluated clearly indicates favoritism toward incumbent and has the affect of discourage any competition regardless of SBSA. | R | The Government believes all potential offerors will be able to propose to the GEARSS requirement without the need to provide classified information. |
| 42 | Page 3, Section L Table 1 and 3.1 | C | The only past performance requirement appears to be for staffing and not for the technical approach or phase-in. Recommend adding past performance for technical approach and phase-in. | R | The Government will not be assessing Past Performance for this acquisition so the comment is not valid. | ||
| 43 | Page 4, Section L, Para 3.1.2.2 | C | Provide clear evidence (hiring procedures, retention statistics, Contingency offers to potential employees, ect | "Ect" needs to be clearly defined, or it needs to be deleted. Was is the specific evidence that is required here? | This is another item that left uncorrected, will clearly favor the incumbent and discourage competition. It should not be left to the offeror to try and define what "ect" means. | A | The Government will change Section L, 3.1.2.2 to read: "e.g., hiring procedures, retention statistics, contingency offers to potential employees". The Government expects Offerors to provide adequate proof they will be able to staff the requirements of the PWS. |
| 44 | Page 5, Section L, Para 3.1.3.1 | C | Describe the performance required day-to day of the PWS high level objectives. | Describe how your offer satisfies the requirements of the PWS | This requirement clearly favors the incumbent as only they know what the "day to day" required performance actually is and can articulate that information in a proposal. | A | Accepted as suggested. The Government modified Section L, 3.1.3.1 as follows: "Describe how your offer satisfies the requirements of PWS 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 that demonstrate a clear understanding of the technical and operational environment." |
| 45 | Page 6, Section L, Para 3.3 | C | Are there staff that are wage determined (union or Service Contract Act) at these sites? If so what wage determinations should be used for estimation? | R | No. | ||
| 46 | Page 1, Section M, Para 1 | C | Basis for Contract award | Consider Best Value basis with price as critically important. | Overall, what you are asking a non-incumbent competitor to do is to bid on a contract, with Evaluation factors based on acceptable, non acceptable coupled with an LTPA. Since there is a sole source incumbent now, this contract basis and evaluation factors will clearly favors incumbent and discourage competition, no matter if this is SBSA or not. | R | According to our SMC program attorney: "Many people operate under the misimpression that "best value" and "LPTA" are mutually exclusive concepts. In reality, the latter is a subset of the former; i.e., LPTA is a type of best value source selection process. FAR 15.101-2(a). The current incumbent is a large business who will be precluded from competing as a prime on this SB set-aside. |
The Government believes that LPTA is the correct basis for contract award. The incumbent, as a large business, does not have an advantage in this matter. The Government has VERY successfully used LPTA in the past and will continue to do so where it makes sense.
47 Page 2, Section M, Para 2.2 C the word "clearly" is mentioned at least 7 times in the evaluation language. The term "clearly" should be deleted and replaced with "meets the requirements" . The word "clearly" would favor incumbent's clear understanding of ongoing work, and since the evaluation criteria is Acceptable/Unacceptable as to "meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation". Since evaluation criteria rating is acceptable/non-acceptable, the term "clearly" is not needed. "Meets the minimum requirements" should be all that's needed for this paragraph. "Clearly" infers a value judgment and should not be required in an LPTA evaluation. R According to our SMC program attorney: "Webster's Dictionary defines "clearly" as "without doubt"--which I take to mean a higher standard than the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal cases much less the even lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard in civil cases. I suspect the reason why the DoD Mandatory Source Selection procedures use that word in the LPTA context is to convey the message that any reasonable person reviewing an offeror's proposal could have only come to one conclusion: To take the position that the offeror did NOT clearly meet the requirements would be like asserting the sun rose in the West this morning.
Use of the word "clearly" is mandated unless the program office obtains a waiver from USD(AT&L)/DPAP."
| 48 | Page 2, Section M, Para 2.2.1.1 | S | "in place at contract award" | contractor is "ready to execute requirements" at contact award. | What does "in place" mean…in place at each location?, in place at contactors location?, in process of being hired?.. "In place" needs to be clearly defined. Favors incumbent as they have people in place right now. | A | The Government will change "in place at contract award" with "ready to execute requirements" as suggested in Section M, Paragraph 2.2.1.1. The Government also made this change for Section M, Paragraph 2.2.1.2. The Government also made this change without suggestion from the Contractor in PWS 3.5.2, STD #1 and STD #2. |
| 49 | Page 2, Section M, Para 2.2.1.2, |
and Page 19, PWS Para 3.3.10 and Page 30, PWS Para 3.5.2
| C | 2.2.1.2 evaluates the ability to ensure all technical staff are in place at contract start. However, PWS 3.3.10 STD #2 requires that the CRO be appointed in writing to a designated authority (who may reject that appointment). What is the process by which a non-incumbent could meet this requirement and still pass Section M 2.2.1.2 since the approval may be required to be done prior to contract award? | R | The Government believes this is the type of activity that the contractor's leadership and management personnel would conduct during the transition period from Contract Award to Contract Start. | |
| 50 | Page 2, Section M Para 2.2.1.2 |
and Page 18. PWS Para 3.2.1, and
| Page 30, PWS Para 3.5.2 | C | 2.2.1.2 evaluates the ability to ensure all technical staff are in place at contract start. However, PWS 3.2.1 STD #1 presents the possibility that the Government may require an NAO to sit through a review panel process prior to certification. What is the process by which a non-incumbent could meet this requirement and still pass Section M 2.2.1.2 since the certification may be required to be done prior to contract award? | A | The Government understands the concern raised by this comment. The Government is evaluating options and will address this clearly prior to final RFP release. | |
| 51 | Page 2, Section M, Para 2.2.1.2 |
and Page 20, PWS Para 3.3.11 and
| Page 30, PWS Para 3.5.2 | C | 2.2.1.2 evaluates the ability to ensure all technical staff are in place at contract start. However, PWS 3.3.11 STD #20 requires that the RST ensures that all on-site employees at KWAJ, ASCN, and CAPE undergo initial security training. What is the process by which a non-incumbent could meet this requirement and still pass Section M 2.2.1.2 since the training may be required to be done prior to contract award? | R | The Government believes this is the type of activity that the contractor's leadership and management personnel would conduct during the transition period from Contract Award to Contract Start. | ||||
| 52 | Page 5, PWS Para 1.3, Items #5 & #6 | C | #5 and #6 have references to "all GCS contractor personnel". What is the contractual relationship between GEARSS and GCS? How many personnel? | A | The Government changed the "GCS" reference to "GEARSS". | |||
| 53 | Page7, PWS Para 2.3.3 and 2.6 | A | Section 2.3.3 states "The contractor shall provide qualified personnel during designated Government non-work days or other periods where Government offices are closed due to weather or security conditions." Section 2.6 states "Normal work weeks are five days per week, except US Federal Holidays, unless assigned to operational crew duties." | Recommend changing section 2.3.3 to state, "For operational crew duties, the contractor shall provide qualified personnel during designated Government non-work days or other periods where Government offices are closed due to weather or security conditions." | Operational crew positions are mission essential; other contractor positions are not. | R | PWS 2.3.3 is not relative to crew positions. PWS 2.6.2 and 3.2.1, STD #3 provides guidance on coverage for crew positions. | |
| 54 | Page 10, PWS Para 3.1.1 | S | Please identify examples within the Bidder's Library that document requests and responses of comparable scope for this requirement. | A | The Government will provide example(s) of requests for engineering estimates in the Bidders Library as requested. The Government will determine if the responses received to date would potentially compromise the GCS prime contractor's intellectual properaty or trade practices. | |||
| 55 | Page 11, PWS Para 3.1.4 | S | Please provide a workload factor or a Bidder's Library artifact that shows the number and scope of such maintenance requirements on an annual basis. | A | The Government will provide all reference material for each task, standard or objective in the Bidders Library as requested. | |||
| 56 | Page13, PWS Para 3.2.3 STD #1 | S | Will there be artifacts with workload factors in the Bidder's Library to scope the effort required for a missions operations transfer? | A | The Government will provide all reference material for each task, standard or objective in the Bidders Library as requested. | |||
| 57 | Page 15, PWS Para 3.3.3 | C | Please provide all data from the IMDS for a period of one contiguous year, with appropriate IMDS schema documentation. | R | The Government believes that all reference material to conduct the requirements of PWS 3.3.3 is adequate for the contractor to propose the effort and defines the steps and time required for each PMI. IMDS is a database that documents maintenance actions. The contractor should be knowledgeable of IMDS to seriously consider bidding this effort. | |||
| 58 | Page 15, PWS Para 3.3.3 | S | Please provide a workload factor or a Bidder's Library artifact that establishes the effort required to perform corrosion control on an annual basis. | A | The Government will provide all reference material for each task, standard or objective in the Bidders Library as requested. | |||
| 59 | Page 15, PWS Para 3.3.4 | S | Please provide a workload factor or a Bidder's Library artifact that establishes the effort required to perform the TMDE program. | A | The Government will provide all reference material for each task, standard or objective in the Bidders Library as requested. | |||
| 60 | Page16, PWS Para 3.3.5 | S | Please provide a workload factor or a Bidder's Library artifact that establishes the effort required to maintain the technical documentation. | A | The Government will provide all reference material for each task, standard or objective in the Bidders Library as requested. | |||
| 61 | Page17, PWS Para 3.3.8 | C | Please provide the log of all service calls, work requests, and job orders for a period of one contiguous year for each site. | A | The Government will provide one year's sampling of daily logs for each remote site in the Bidders Library as requested. | |||
| 62 | Page 23, PWS Para 3.3.13 STD #1 | S | Will the EM program already be established at time of contract award? | A | Yes. The Government will remove the word "establish" in PWS 3.3.13, STD #1. | |||
| 63 | Page 25, PWS Para 3.4.2 | S | Please provide a workload factor for the level of Orbital Analyst support required. | R | The Government does not intend to provide estimated or historical level of effort for any tasks or standards for the GEARSS effort. Offerors should submit methodologies for accomplishing the required tasks and propose the appropriate labor to meet the requirements. | |||
| 64 | Page 26, PWS Para 3.4.3 | S | Please provide a workload factor for the level of PTE and LADO OLT support required. | R | The Government does not intend to provide estimated or historical level of effort for any tasks or standards for the GEARSS effort. Offerors should submit methodologies for accomplishing the required tasks and propose the appropriate labor to meet the requirements. | |||
| 65 | Page 27, PWS Para 3.4.3 STD #17 | S | Please provide a workload factor for the required level of weekend support for reserve forces. | R | The Government does not intend to provide estimated or historical level of effort for any tasks or standards for the GEARSS effort. Offerors should submit methodologies for accomplishing the required tasks and propose the appropriate labor to meet the requirements. | |||
| 66 | Page 28, PWS Para 3.4.5, STD #1 and STD #2 | S | Will documentation be provided in the bidder's library that is representative of what is required to perform STD #1 and STD #2? | R | The TA will provide historical and technical perspectives to the customer leadership and technical staff on new systems, impacts to operations and system modifications. There are no specific documentation that defines this level of expertise. The contractor must have in-depth knowledge and experience required to meet the requirements of PWS 3.4.5, STDs # through #3. | |||
| 67 | Page 28, PWS Para 3.4.6 | S | Please identify examples within the Bidder's Library that document requests and responses of comparable scope for this requirement. | M | The Government will modify PWS 3.4.6 in its entirety as follows: |
"3.4.6 The contractor shall provide technical feasibility and analysis support as required by the Government operational flight commander.
NOTE: This support may include, but is not limited to, the analysis of current user range data, predictive performance measurements, detection and prevention of anomalies and impacts on navigation performance for modifications.
Performance Standards STD #1: The contractor shall, in contractor format, deliver results of the technical feasibility and analysis support to the Government within 10 days of task completion."
| 68 | Page 29, PWS Para 3.4.8 STD #1 | S | Will the PWS be updated to include a detailed description of all tasking required for "engineering support"? | M | The Government will update the task as follows: "3.4.8 The contractor shall provide direct warfighter specific/related GPS system and operational/engineering support." The Government will also delete STD #1 and renumber the remaining STDs. | |||
| 69 | Page 29, PWS Para 3.4.8 | C | Please provide for GIN, GIANT, and associated macros: all source code; all build scripts; all associated lifecycle documents (requirements specifications, design documents, ICDs, test plans, etc.); and all discrepancy report activity (all DR content, all DR state changes) for a contiguous one year period. | M | The Government will provide all required documents associated with the task for PWS 3.4.8. The Government also will change STD #2 to read: "STD #2: The contractor shall generate scripts to format data for end-users and support continuous improvement efforts for associated macros." | |||
| 70 | Page 29, PWS Para 3.4.8 | |||||||
| STD #5 | S | Last word is "request" | Suggest this should be "discovery" | A | The Government will change the word "request" to "discovery" as suggested. | |||
| 71 | Page 30, PWS Para 3.5.2, STD #2 | S | Since some of the operational sites are remote will a bidder be reimbursed for travel costs pre-award to relocate personnel? | A | Yes; however, the Government will reimburse for relocation costs prior to contract start versus prior to contract award. | |||
| 72 | Page 30, PWS Para 3.5.2 | |||||||
| STD #1 | S | Will the Government state a date for contract award for purposes of this requirement? | A | The Government plans to award the GEARSS contract no earlier than 1 Sep 15 and no later than 1 Dec 15. | ||||
| 73 | Page 31, PWS Para 3.6.4 | S | Please identify all software configuration items for which SCRs will be assigned -- is this just GIN, GIANT, and associated scripts, or does it encompass other software items? To what extent is Contractor responsive for resolving these SCRs? | M | The Government will change the task to read as follows: "3.6.4 Prepare for and attend semi-monthly 2 SOPS Requirements Screening Panel (RSP)." This task only requires the contractor to attend the meeting for awareness. | |||
| 74 | Page 34, PWS Para 4.3 | S | Please provide all documents cited in Section 4.3 in the Bidder's Library. | A | The Government will ensure the documents listed in 4.3 is complete and up-to-date and all documents will be posted to the Bidders Library. | |||
| 75 | Page 3, Section M002, Paragraph 2.2.3 | S | This subfactor evaluates the proposal to determine if the proposal meets the requirements for technical process maturity to include configuration management, software development, and responding to system outages. | It would be benefical to include a system outage scenario enabling offerors to describe how they would address and resolve an Operational Control Segment system outage. | Provides offerors ability to clearly demonstrate an understanding of the GEARSS environment. | R | The Government believes potential Offerors should be able to provide an example of an outage scenario and show how the Offeror would resolve the outage. The Government believes there is enough information and detail in existing procedures to describe their processes. These procedures will be provided in the Bidders Library and are many times documented in Technical Orders. | |
| 76 | 2 of 6, Section L, 2.8.2 | S | "one face of a sheet of paper" | No size is given, suggesting that an 11X17 face is counted as one page. Is this correct? | Clarity | A | Yes. Please see Section L, Para 2.8.1 for paper size requirements. | |
| 77 | 3 of 6, Section L, Volume Matrix | S | Contracts Volume | Move from Volume I, Executive Summary, to a separate volume | Organization | R | No. Please follow the instructions outlined in Section L, Volume Matrix table. | |
| 78 | 3 of 6, Section L, Volume Matrix | S | Page Limit; 30 Total | Given the breadth of material to be covered in this section, suggest increasing page count to 40 pages. | Organization | R | The Government believes 30 pages is adequate to describe Phase-In, Critical Staffing and Technical Process Approach. Other potential Offerors suggest reducing the number of pages so the Government will stay with 30 as the requirement. | |
| 79 | 3 of 4, Section M, 2.2.3 | S | "software development" | The PWS does not suggest that any software development is required on this contract. Should this refer to script development? | Clarity | A | The Government will change this to read: "2.2.3 Subfactor 3: Technical Process Approach. This subfactor evaluates the proposal to determine if the proposal meets the requirements for technical understanding. The criteria are met when the Offeror: | |
| 80 | 30, PWS, 3.5.2 STD#1; 4 of 6, L 3.1.1.1; 2 of 4, M 2.2.1.1 | S | STD #1: The contractor shall ensure leadership and management personnel are in place at contract award. | Requirement is subjective in that it leaves the determination of positions to which this requirement applies to the offeror. Suggest specifying which leadership and management positions shall be in place at contract award (e.g., Contractor Program Manager). | Clarity | R | The Government will leave this decision up to the Contractor to decide which leadership and management positions are required at contract award to ensure all requirements are met at contract start. | |
| 81 | 28, PWS, 3.4.6 | S | "approximately 24" | Given the varible nature of this requirement, suggest including a fixed-price level of effort CLIN to eliminate ambiguity from pricing and execution of these studies. Absent this, request the government provide historical data for use in estimating this work. | Clarity | M | The Government will modify PWS 3.4.6 in its entirety as follows: |
"3.4.6 The contractor shall provide technical feasibility and analysis support as required by the Government operational flight commander.
NOTE: This support may include, but is not limited to, the analysis of current user range data, predictive performance measurements, detection and prevention of anomalies and impacts on navigation performance for modifications.
Performance Standards STD #1: The contractor shall, in contractor format, deliver results of the technical feasibility and analysis support to the Government within 10 days of task completion."
| 82 | 31, PWS 3.6.2 | S | "40 weekly and approximately 10 out of cycle MCBs" | Please clarify what time period is applicable to this requirement. Is it 40+10 per contract year? | Clarity | A | Yes. The Contractor should plan for these meetings to all occur in each CY of the GEARSS effort. |
| 83 | 32, PWS 3.6.5 | S | "Host at contractors facility" | Please provide the approximate number of attendees and the security clearance requirements. | Clarity | M | The Government is modifying the 3.6.5 task as follows: "Participate in and provide technical inputs for the Sustainment and Operations Schedule Review." |
| 84 | General | S | N/A | Are contractor owned vehicles required or will the Government provide vehicles to perform required transportation supporting the contract (e.g., transporting TMDE to PMEL Lab from CCAFS to PAFB)? | Clarity | A | The Government will allow the purchase of one vehicle per remote site as an ODC. |
Instructions
| GENERAL: | |||
| Following are the instructions for the GEARSS Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM) | |||
| INSTRUCTION: | |||
| During the review process, comments, questions, concerns regarding the document under review is to be documented and communicated using the CRM. The CRM, sheet 1 of this workbook, is initiated by the Reviewer and provided to the Project Officer as directed in the timeline associated with the assigned task. Following are instructions for completing the CRM form: | |||
| Project Officer & Reviewer completes: | |||
| 1 | Comment Number | Number sequentially. This will be used to identify specific comments. | |
| 2 | Reviewer Name | Enter your name, Rank (as required) First, Middle Initial, Last | |
| 3 | Organization | Enter the organization you represent, i.e., Gov, Aero, SE&I, etc. | |
| 4 | Office Symbol | Enter the office symbol you are assigned to, i.e., ENR, GPC, etc. | |
| 5 | Phone Number | Enter the phone number where you may be reached. | |
| 6 | Enter the e-mail where you may be reached. | ||
| 7 | Document Line # | Enter the line # if the document is prepared with the line #. | |
| 8 | Page | Enter the page number your comment relates to. | |
| 9 | Paragraph | Enter the paragraph number your comment relates to. i.e., 3., 3.0, 3.1.1, 3.1.1.1, etc. | |
| 10 | Comment Against (Baseline/ PIRN/IRN | Enter the document you review / comment against | |
| 11 | Original Reviewed (WAS) | Enter the original text from the document reviewed | |
| 12 | Suggested Change - | ||
| New Text (IS) | Enter the change that you, as a reviewer, recommends. | ||
| 13 | Rationale for Change | Enter your rationale for change comments. | |
| 14 | Date of the new text | Enter the date for the new text suggested | |
| 15 | TYPE Critical/Substantive/Admin (C/S/A) | Enter the "Type" code that best fits the proposed change. Use the Comment Type Code Table below. (Critical/Substantive/Admin) | |
| 16 | Disposition - |
Accept, Accept with Comment Reject, or Deferred Comment
| (A/ A/C /R/D) | Enter your disposition of each comment provided by the reviewer using the Comment Resolution Code Table below. | ||
| 17 | Disposition Rational | Enter the rational for the disposition status | |
| 18 | Final Changed Text | Enter the final text agreed, if there is a re-evaluation. If no-revaluation, ICC enters the text suggested, becomes the final | |
| 19 | Reviewer Concurrence | ||
| (Concur or Non Concur) | Reviewer approves the final text | ||
| 20 | Concurrence Method (email, phone, mtg) | Enter method Concurrence received | |
| 21 | Date Concurrence Received | Enter the date Concurrence received | |
| 22 | Non Concurrence Rational | Enter the Rational if reviewer does not agree with the disposition | |
| 23 | Final Comment Status | Enter the Final Comment Status (Open/Closed) | |
| 24 | DOOR ID (if applicable) | Enter the ID from the DOORS Data Base | |
| 25 | Notes | Notes | |
| Disposition: | |||
| The reviewer assigns an importance code to each comment provided on the CRM. Below is the table to be used in determining comment importance. | |||
| COMMENT TYPE CODE TABLE | |||
| CODE | IMPORTANCE | DEFINITION | |
| C | Critical | Comments of a very serious nature that will preclude final approval and publication of the document. You are willing to elevate the comment or issue to senior organizational leadership (e.g., general officer) and recommend they non-concur. These are the “show-stoppers.” Convincing rationale for critical comments must be provided. The individual making the comment and the document writer will reconcile the comment. | |
| 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. | |
| A | Administrative | Comments that address minor items such as typographical, format, and/or grammatical errors. |
| CRM Adjudication: | ||
| Upon review of each comment, the Project Officer assigns a recommendation code. As necessary, the reasoning regarding the assigned disposition will be provided. Below is the table to be used in determining comment resolution. | ||
| COMMENT RESOLUTION CODE TABLE | ||
| CODE | RECOMMENDATION | DEFINITION |
| A | Accept | Accept comment as written. No change. |
| A/C | Accept with Comment | Accept comment with changes, providing detailed explanation. The individual making the comment and the Project Officer will reconcile the comment. |
| D | Deferred | Comments are administrative and will be included in the next change, or the comments are not within the scope of the proposed request for disposition. |
| R | Reject | Rationale for rejection. For example, rationale will include “comment not technically sound, not cost effective, or cosmetic in nature”. |
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .