Responses to Offerors Questions.doc

30 AUG 2010

Responses to Questions/Comments submitted by potential offerors in response to the second FA9300-10-R-0001 draft RFPs, Sections L & M posted to FedBizOpps on 06 JUL 2010.

1. Question:

For this Solicitation, the areas of "Advance liquid rocket engine technology" and "Advance solid and hybrid rocket motor component and propulsion system technology and capability" I have relevant data, institutional records, and computational software programs for both fields but they are both earlier than my research into emerging propulsion or used only with pervasive propulsion.

How much of this Solicitation determination will be based off a need of "Advance liquid rocket engine technology" and "Advance solid and hybrid rocket motor component and propulsion system technology and capability" dedicated experience to possess the overall superior competence expected?

Response:

The PWS requires past performance in these areas as specified in Section M, paragraphs 3.3 Recency Assessment and 3.4 Relevancy Assessment explains how past performance will be evaluated. Scope is further addressed in paragraph 3.4.1 Tasks/functions referenced in the ROSS II PWS (such as the capability to design, evaluate, construct, reconfigure and modify experimental research test facilities and systems; the capability to maintain special test equipment/facilities and support infrastructure; the capability to perform research and development test operations and test operations support; and the capability to perform comparable contract/program management).

2. Question:

In Appendix D of the PWS the Government has indicated an Estimated Contract Man-Year Equivalent of 110 for each contract year. In the FTE Description spreadsheet released with the revised DRFP on July 13, the FTEs total 100. Could the Government please explain the difference in these two numbers?

Response:

The correct total for FTEs is 124. There was an error in Appendix D and it will be corrected in the final RFP.

3. Question:

In response to Question 6 regarding the page limitations for the Executive Summary, the Government answers that “an executive summary is not included as part of the evaluation process and as a result is no longer requested to be part of the proposal package.” However in Section L.1.6 Organization Distribution, it states that there is no page limit for Volume III Contract Documentation “except for Executive Summary is 2 pages.” Will the Government clarify if an Executive Summary should be included as part of Volume III – Contract Documentation?

Response:

The Government does not desire an Executive Summary. All references to the Executive Summary will be removed from the RFP.

4. Question:

It appears that Section L, pages 23-38 are duplicates of Section L, pages 6-22. Will the Government delete the duplicated pages from the final RFP?

Response:

Yes, the Government will delete any duplication from the final RFP

5. Question:

Offerors are required to discuss as part of Past Performance their ability to overcome problems and the effect of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. However, there are no requirements for problem resolution discussion on the Attachment L-2 form. In addition, given the five pages per contract and double spacing requirement, it will be difficult to adequately discuss any contract problems, actions taken, and results in detail. Will the Government consider adding the problem resolution requirement to the L-2 form and include additional page count to sufficiently discuss problem resolution?

Response:

The Government added additional criteria in L-2, para H and will increase the page limitation to 10 pages. Also, the Government will obtain problem resolution history via the L-3 Past Performance Questionnaire.

6. Question:

The first paragraph under 3.2.1 Specific Content requires offerors to state the relevant portion of services to be performed on ROSS II, along with the nature of functions or tasks in the PWS that each subcontractor will perform. This requirement does not appear related to past performance and is not included in the Attachment L-2 form. Will the Government please clarify where this information should be included?

Response:

L-2, pg 16, paragraph G. states…”Describe the nature or portion of the work on the proposed effort to be performed by the business entity being reported here. Also, estimate the dollar percentage of the total proposed effort to be performed by this entity and whether this entity will be performing as the prime or subcontractor.” The offerors are now allowed a total of 10 pages in order to address L-2 including paragraphs G through M.

7. Question:

The Organizational Conflict of Interest (Alternate 1) clause provided in the DRFP states that the prime contractor shall not furnish nondevelopmental items to the DOD either as prime or subcontractor, for the duration of the initial production contract plus 25 years. In a.2.ii, it states that the contractor cannot supply liquid rocket engines, solid rocket motors, and spacecraft propulsion systems for a period of 30 years. This would seem to be an unrealistic period for any contractor to be excluded from a potential line of business. In addition, there is little possibility that any information that a contractor might gain on the ROSS II contract would provide any competitive advantage for this length of time. Our experience is that most RFPs preclude contractors from providing similar products for the life of the contract plus 3 years. Will the Government consider changing these clauses to read “over the life of the contract plus 3 years”?

Response:

The clause will remain the same. The organizational conflict of interest clause included in this solicitation may be modified during negotiations.