Comment_Resolution_Matrix_-_Draft_RFP_-_FINAL_16_May_18.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 69 KB Posted
- Attached to
- R&D Integrated Space Experiments (RISE) Contract Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA9453-18-R-0003
About this file
This pre-solicitation notice provides information for an upcoming Request for Proposal for the Research and Development Integrated Space Experiments contract to support the Air Force's Space Superiority mission. The contract will require concept design, development, integration, testing and evaluation of new space technologies and engineering prototypes. The work will include mission analysis, systems engineering, component and subsystem integration and testing through system-level integration and testing, and experiment mission operations. The contract is set aside for small businesses with a NAICS code of 541715 and size standard of 1,250 employees. Interested parties should submit any questions on the draft RFP documents by April 5, 2018 to the identified contracting personnel. The final RFP is expected to be released in the third quarter of 2018 to provide research, engineering and technical management for space technology analysis, development, integration, experimentation, demonstration and evaluation.
CRM with clarification updated in bold letters
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Government_Response_to_Industry_Comments_-_DRFP2.docx | DOCX document | |
| Comment_Resolution_Matrix_-_Draft_RFP_-_FINAL_7_May_18.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Comment_Resolution_Matrix_-_Draft_RFP_26_Mar_2018_(RISE)_(Blank).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment_9_-_Draft_RISE_Section_M__26_Mar_18.pdf | ||
| Attachment_5_-_Draft_RISE_TO_0003_SOW_Small_Satellite_Portfolio_-_26_Mar_18.pdf | ||
| Attachment_1_-_Draft_RISE_Basic_SOW_-_26_Mar_18.pdf | ||
| Attachment_4_-_Draft_RISE_TO_0002_SOW_Positioning,_Navigation,_and_Timing_(PNT)_-_26_Mar_18.pdf | ||
| Attachment_2_-_Draft_RISE_SOW_Supplemental_Requirements_-_26_Mar_18.pdf | ||
| Exhibit_A_-_RISE_CDRL_Master_Index_(Approved_Final)_-_26_Mar_18.pdf | ||
| Attachment_3_-_Draft_RISE_TO_0001_SOW_TacticalC3_-_26_Mar_18.pdf | ||
| FA9453-18-R-0003_-_DRAFT_RFP_Model_Contract_-_26_Mar_18.pdf | ||
| Attachment_8_-_Draft_RISE_Section_L__26_Mar_18.pdf |
Show all 12
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Section L
| Document Title | Section/Para # | Comment/Question | Resolution/Action Taken |
| Section L | Document Title | Will the Government please identify whether ATTACHMENT 8 (in the electronic files provided by the Government) is actually ATTACHMENT 7 (as noted in the document title)? This will help clarify communications going forward. | Section L is Attachment 8 and has been edited to correctly identify the attachment number. |
| Section L | 1.2 | Paragraph 1.2 states that typically this contract consists of 15 Task Orders. Do the awardable Task Orders in the Draft RFP reflect the other 12 Task Orders? | The purpose of paragraph 1.2 is to provide historical information. At this time, only these three initial task orders have been identified. Future task orders will fall under the scope of the Basic Contract Statement of Work. |
| Section L | 1.2 | Do the contract typical 15 Task Orders fall under the same three subject areas that the RFP Task Orders fall under? | Future task orders will fall under the scope of the Basic Contract Statement of Work, not necessarily under the three subject areas of the three initial task orders. |
| Section L | 4.2 | Please confirm that the “List of Tables and Drawings” referenced in Paragraph 4.1 Volume Organization is not counted in the page count limitation stated in Paragraph 4.2. | Language in 4.2 has been revised to state that the list of tables and drawings is not included in the overall page count. |
| Section L | 4.2 | Will the Government consider extending the page limit to 150 pages, whereas the additional 50 pages can be distributed as 4.5 Subfactor 1: 20 pages, 4.6 Subfactor 2: 30 pages, and 4.4 All Subfactors: 55 pages. The additional 50 pages will provide the space needed to fully explain the heavily weighted Subfactor 1 & 2 and provide detailed corroborating documentation such as, System Engineering Management Plan, Engineering Processes, Test Plans, and Procedures. | The Government has adjusted the total page count from 100 to 125. Subfactors 1 and 2 have maximum page limitations of twenty pages each. Subfactors 3,4, & 5 now have 60 total pages that may be allocated as the offeror deems appropriate. |
| Section L | 2.1.7 | The DRFP states: |
A DoD Contract Security Classification specification, DD Form 254, will be incorporated as part of the contract. The Offeror SHALL have the ability to administratively process up to TS/SCI eligible personnel to perform the work required on this contract. The Offeror SHALL provide the three (3) key personnel identified in the basic SOW as TS/SCI eligible on day one of contract award. All other personnel will be required to have security clearances as identified in the DD254. For proposal purposes, use the following estimate for planning purposes: [PLEASE CONTACT CONTRACTING FOR BILLETING INFORMATION]
For proposal preparation purposes, will the government provide the DD254?
Will the government please clarify the instruction for billeting information?
| The DD254 and the security billet information was available by individual request as outlined in the FBO announcement. | ||
| Section L | 2.2, 2.3, 4.2 | In 2.2, the DRFP lists the Number of copies required for submission, e.g., Original +3 + CD-R, DVD-R. |
In 2.3, DRFP states, “The Offeror shall submit proposal volumes I through V in electronic format, using recordable compact disks (CD-R, DVD-R). Each volume shall be in a different directory (emphasis added) on a CD-R, DVD-R.” This can be interpreted as all volumes are to be submitted on one CD.
In 4.2, for Volume II, DRFP states, “Please submit an original, three (3) copies, and two (2) electronic copies via CD-R or DVD-R.”
| Will the government clarify the hardcopy and digital media requirements? | Offerors may submit all volumes on one disc; however, two (2) copies (CD/DVDs) are required. Paragraphs 2.2, 2.3, and 4.2 have been reconciled to be consistent. | ||
| Section L | 2.3 | The DRFP states, “The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Suite 2013, and Adobe Acrobat (searchable), as applicable.” |
Will the government please specify the version requirements for Adobe Acrobat?
| There is no version requirement necessary for PDFs. Ensure the document is searchable (Ctrl+F). | ||
| Section L | 3.2 | The DRFP states: |
The Offeror SHALL submit a Cross Reference Matrix using the format provided in Section L, Attachment 1, indicating the proposal reference information as it relates to the ITO, SOW, CLIN numbers, and CDRL references, with the corresponding proposal paragraph(s) in that section which addresses the reference item. This will not be counted towards page count limitations.
Attachment 1 does not include a column for CLIN numbers, will the government confirm that Offerors must include this information in the Attachment 1 and can edit the template?
| The Cross Reference Matrix now includes a column for CLIN numbers. The Offeror may not edit the template. | ||
| Section L | 4.4 | The DRFP states, In addition to the narratives, the Offeror SHALL substantiate any experience referenced in the technical proposal by providing corroborating documentation.” |
Will the government confirm that if the documentation submitted in response to this requirement is over the 25-page limit, then it can be included in Volume V, Compliance Documentation?
| The 25-page limit for corroborating documentation is a hard limitation. No additional pages will be accepted in Volume V or in any other volume. | ||
| Section L | 4.6 | The words "experience" and "plan" appear to be transposed in the last two bullets. |
Second to last bullet: Section L instructs Offeror’s to "Demonstrate the Offeror's experience in applying cradle-to-grave engineering processes…" while the evaluation factor (Section M) is on "The Offeror's plan for applying and documenting proven standards and practices to accomplish the cradle-to-grave stages…" Last bullet: Section L instructs us to "Demonstrate how the Offeror plans to tailor engineering processes" while the evaluation factor (Section M) is on "The Offeror's experience tailoring engineering processes…" If Offeror’s follow the Section L instructions, the Government will receive plans where the Government is evaluating experience and we will be providing experience where the government is evaluating plans. The Government will not be able to evaluate the offer effectively because the volume contains the incorrect information.
Did the Government inadvertently switch the words "plans" and "experience" in Section L or M? If so which section is correct, L or M?
| Language in Sections L and M has been revised to ensure congruence between 'experience' and 'plan.' | ||
| Section L | 7 | The DRFP states, “A list of Compliance and Reference Documents has been provided to the Offerors as Attachments 1 and 2 (respectively) to the Basic SOW. The Offeror shall provide a list of any Offeror, industry, commercial, and tailored Government standards, specifications, processes, and/or practices selected as compliance documents.” |
Will the government confirm that if the Offeror, industry, commercial, and tailored Government standards, specifications, processes, and/or practices are currently listed in Attachments 1 and 2, then they are not required to be included in the Offeror’s provided list?
| The language in Section 7 has been updated to provide further clarification. If the offeror intends to only use the Government's listed documents, the offeror shall state so in its proposal; however, duplication of the Government's list is not required. | ||
| Section L | 7 | The DRFP states, “A list of Compliance and Reference Documents has been provided to the Offerors as Attachments 1 and 2 (respectively) to the Basic SOW… The Offeror shall also provide a list of all Government reference documents intended to be used as compliance documents during the course of this contract.” |
Will the government confirm that if the Government reference documents are currently listed in Attachments 1 and 2, then they are not required to be included in the Offeror’s provided list?
| The language in Section 7 has been updated to provide further clarification. If the offeror intends to only use the Government's listed documents, the offeror shall state so in its proposal; however, duplication of the Government's list is not required. | ||
| Section L | 7 | The DRFP states, “…The Offeror shall submit a list of these documents, including any tailoring instructions, as an annex to the SOW.” |
Will the government clarify what is meant by “as an annex to the SOW? i.e., which SOW, (Basic, TO 001, 002, or 0003) or should this documentation be submitted in Volume V, Compliance Documentation?
| The language in Section 7 has been updated to state: "The Offeror shall submit the above information as Volume V, Compliance Documentation." | ||
| Section L | 7 | The DRFP states, “…The Offeror shall submit the completed Proposed Compliance Documents as a separately bound volume.” |
Will the government please confirm that these documents are to be included in Volume V, Compliance Documentation.
| The language in Section 7 has been updated to state: "The Offeror shall submit the above information as Volume V, Compliance Documentation." | |||
| Section L | 4.5 | SF1 is titled Corporate Management and includes instructions related to corporate management approach and corporate organization. Typically, corporate management is interpreted as "home office" and "senior management" responsibilities, not the local, program team responsible for the RISE contract. Please confirm that the Government desires Offerors to describe their corporate management approach and corporate organizational structure, rather than their RISE management approach and RISE organizational structure. | Language has been revised in both Sections L and M. Now states that "The Offeror’s corporate organizational structure and corporate management approach (to include teaming partners, as applicable) and its application to the RISE organizational structure and RISE management approach (this shall include an organizational chart delineating positions/roles/responsibilities)." |
| Section L | Attachment 2 | Please confirm that the ODC baselined amount for TO3 should be $2,160,000, consistent with Section L, paragraph 5.4.11. | Baselined amount inserted for ODCs. |
| Section L | 5.4.6 | There are two Sections 5.4.6 and Section 5.4.4 is missing. | The paragraphs have been renumbered. |
| Section L | 5.4.10 | There are two Sections 5.4.10. | The paragraphs have been renumbered. |
| Section L | 4.2 | Two entries for SF1 in the table in Section 4.2 reflect the old SF1 title (Corporate Approach and Staffing Effectiveness) and should be updated to the revised title (Corporate Management). | The titles now reflect Corporate Management. |
| Section L | Attachment 2 | Task Order 0002, CLIN 0001 - RISE (Labor/Materials/ODCs) is inconsistent with CLIN 0001 for Task Order 0001 and Task Order 0003. Please make consistent or explain the rationale if the inconsistency was intentional. | All TOs are now consistent to reflect "RISE (Labor)" |
| Section L | 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 | Each of the Section L instructions for the TO responses begins with: "The Offeror shall provide a narrative description of their technical approach to the requirements outlined in the Task Order 000n SOW…". Please confirm that the technical approach narrative description is limited to SOW 4.0 Requirements of each TO. | No, the technical approach narrative is not limited to only Section 4 of the task orders. |
| Section L | 5.4.1/TO-0001 | "For pricing purposes, price the demonstration of three (3) satellites with Tactical Data Link (TDL) communications payloads." This statement as is in conflict with The Task Order 0001 SOW which specifies execution through Critical Design Review (CDR); however, the Offeror’s narrative shall address the full life cycle, from concept design through tech transfer. We believe that you do not want us to price out the full demonstration but only up to CDR. Please confirm. | Pricing is only through Phase A. |
| Section L | 5.4.1/TO-0003 | On pg 28 its stated "Contractor Acquired Property: Price six (6) of each of the following in accordance with the instructions provided in paragraph 5.4.5." Confirm that this is suppose to be Material (CLIN 0005) and not Contractor Acquired Property (CLIN 0008) per pg 42. | Yes, this is for CLIN 0005. To eliminate confusion, the CAP CLIN has been deleted. |
| Section L | 5.4.1, Task Order 0002 | Section L, 5.4.1 states: "For pricing purposes, price the number of activities/requirements as shown in the table below. For further description of the activities, please refer to the Task Order 0002 SOW." Please confirm these are annual totals and should be priced each year over the TO period of performance. | These numbers are per year and should be priced each year. Column changed to Annual Requirements. |
| Section L | 5.4.1, Task Order 0003 | Please confirm that the six sets of Contractor Acquired Property correspond to the six concepts proceeding to Phase B, C, and D in the Task Order 0003 workload data. If so, please confirm that we should assume half of the six sets of Contractor Acquired Property are for Class 1 missions and the other half for Class 2 missions, and we should time-phase their acquisition according to the workload data schedule. | Yes, assume half are for Class 1 and half are for Class 2. |
| Section L | 5.4.1, Task Order 0003 | Given that the incumbent STRIVE contractor has detailed insight into the two representative TO 0003 missions (i.e., GEARRS and SHARC), we respectfully request the Government specify generic representative missions for pricing the Contractor Acquired Property (e.g., 6U CubeSat). | The GEARRS program is representative of Class 1 missions. The SHARC program is representative of Class 2 missions. These are strictly examples. Price for generic components/subsystems, not GEARRS and SHARC. |
| Section L | 5.4.10(b) Submission of Cost Models | Please confirm the reference to ".XLS" should be ".XLSX" instead. | Language has been revised to request submission in .XLSX. |
| Section L | 1.0 | The contractor shall perform work in the following functional areas: integrated ground experiments, ground support equipment, spacecraft, high-altitude balloon flights, launch vehicles (e.g., orbital and suborbital rockets, space plane, International Space Station (ISS) deployments), |
| Question: Please provide an example of "deployments", i.e., does it mean cargo being flown to ISS and deployment for R&D activities on ISS? Is that occurring at this time or is it anticipated? | The Basic SOW is meant to encapsulate all activities that may occur during technical period of performance. A deployment could mean cargo to the ISS and deployed for R&D activities. There are no deployments to the ISS in any of the Task Orders at this time. | ||
| Section L | 2.1.7 | A DoD Contract Security Classification Specification, DD Form 254, will be incorporated as part of the contract. The Offeror shall have the ability to administratively process up to TS/SCI eligible personnel to perform the work required on this contract. The Offeror shall provide the three (3) key personnel identified in the basic SOW as TS/SCI eligible on day one of contract award. All other personnel will be required to have security clearances as identified in the DD254. |
| Question: Does the government have an estimate of time when TS/SCI eligible personnel need to obtain their clearances? | The SOW and Section L have been updated to state that key personnel shall possess a current DoD Top Secret/SCI clearance on day one of contract award. | |||
| Section L | Table 1 | Should the Concept Development title be Mission Design instead? | The title has been changed to Mission Design for consistency. | |
| Section L | Volume Organization | Subfactor 1 is titled Corporate Management and in the following table, it is titled Corporate Approach and Staffing Effectiveness. Which is correct? | The title has been changed to Corporate Management for consistency. |
Section M
| Document Title | Section/Para # | Comment/Question | Resolution/Action Taken |
| Section M | 2.3.1 | There is no corresponding evaluation criteria for the following Section L instruction: "The Offeror’s corporate organizational structure (to include teaming partners, as applicable)". Please clarify how the Offeror's corporate organizational structure will be evaluated. | Language has been added to section M to ensure what is being requested is also evaluated. |
| Section M | 2.3.1 | There is no corresponding evaluation criteria in Section M for the following Section L instruction: "Additionally, the Offeror shall provide resumes for Key Personnel in accordance with the basic SOW section 5.2.2." Please clarify how the Offeror's Key Personnel will be evaluated. | Language has been added to section M to ensure what is being requested is also evaluated. |
| Section M | 2.3.2 | Section M states: "The Offeror’s experience tailoring engineering processes and procedures to accommodate missions of different risk classes and complexity." Section L states: "Demonstrates how the Offeror plans to tailor engineering processes to accommodate missions of different risk classes and complexity". Please clarify if the Government is evaluating an Offeror's experience tailoring engineering processes (per Section M), or their plan to tailor engineering processes (Section L). | Language in Sections L and M now align. |
| Section M | 2.3.3 | SF3 evaluation criteria includes: "The soundness of the Offeror’s approach to meeting the requirements as specified in the TO 0001 SOW." Please confirm the evaluation of the Offeror's approach is limited to the TO1 SOW 4.0 Requirements. | No, the technical approach narrative is not limited to only Section 4 of the task orders. |
| Section M | 2.3.4 | SF4 evaluation criteria includes: "The soundness of the Offeror’s approach to meeting the requirements as specified in the TO 0002 SOW." Please confirm the evaluation of the Offeror's approach is limited to the TO2 SOW 4.0 Requirements. | No, the technical approach narrative is not limited to only Section 4 of the task orders. |
| Section M | 2.3.5 | SF5 evaluation criteria includes: "The Offeror’s plan to execute the Mission Design, Implementation, AI&T, On-Orbit Operations, and technology transfer for the Class 1 satellite experiments described in the TO 0003 SOW." Please confirm the evaluation of the Offeror's plan is limited to the TO3 SOW 4. Requirements. | No, the technical approach narrative is not limited to only Section 4 of the task orders. |
| Section M | 2.3.5 | SF5 evaluation criteria includes: "The Offeror’s plan to execute the Mission Design, Implementation, AI&T, On-Orbit Operations, and technology transfer for the Class 2 satellite experiments described in the TO 0003 SOW." Please confirm the evaluation of the Offeror's plan is limited to the TO3 SOW 4. Requirements. | No, the technical approach narrative is not limited to only Section 4 of the task orders. |
| Section M | 2.3.4 | "closed-loop, satellite navigation control systems" appears to refer to a GN&C system and not a PNT system; should "control" be replaced with "PNT"? What is the intent of including "closed-loop" in this context? | Language has been added to Section M to provide further clarification of a closed-loop system. |
| Section M | 1.3.1 | If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable without a major revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. |
Question: If two task orders are scored as outstanding (blue) and one task order is scored marginal (yellow), this would be grounds for elminiation? Evaluation will be conducted using the relative importance of the factors and subfactors. IAW Paragraph 2.2, "Within the Technical Factor, Subfactors 1 and 2 are of equal importance, and when combined are significantly more important than Subfactors 3, 4, and 5 combined. Subfactors 3, 4, and 5 are of equal importance."
Model Contract
| Document Title | Section/Para # | Comment/Question | Resolution/Action Taken |
| Model Contract | Section K | Section K of the model contract includes FAR 52.222-57 Representation Regarding Compliance with Labor Laws (Executive Order 13673) (Dec 2016). This law was disapproved in November 2017. |
Will the government please remove this clause in the final solicitation release?
| Clause FAR 52.222-57 has been removed from the RFP. | ||
| Model Contract | Section I | Draft Model Contract references AFFARS 5352.209-9000, Alt. III, Alt. IV, and Alt VI. The website provided in the response to industry comments stated that these clauses (policy Memo 10-C-15) could be found at acquisition.gov however this location states, “The website declined to show this webpage” and “Most likely causes: This website requires you to log in.” The same error occurs when attempting to access using the farsite.hill.af.mil site. |
Will the government please provide referenced AFFARS in the final solicitation release?
The Model contract has been amended to incorporate the OCI clause and Alternates in full text.
Basic SOW
| Document Title | Section/Para # | Comment/Question | Resolution/Action Taken |
| Basic SOW | 5.2.4 | DRFP Basic SOW states,”...The contractor shall follow the transition plan submitted as part of the proposal and inform the PCO, Task Order Technical Manager and Government Technical Lead of progress throughout the transition period.” |
Section L, states: “How the Offeror will recruit, retain, and equip the necessary personnel to ensure performance of contract requirements from contract award through transition and throughout the period of performance. This includes providing a transition plan as part of the narrative (Basic SOW 5.2.3)” (emphasis added) Section M states, “The Offeror’s plan for recruiting, retaining, and equipping experienced personnel necessary for accomplishing the contract requirements from contract start through transition and the full period of performance (Basic SOW Sections 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.5, 5.2.7 and 5.2.8)
Will the government provide guidance on whether the transition is to be priced?
| Transition costs shall be included in the cost/price of the specific Task Orders. Language added to section L for further clarification. | ||
| Basic SOW | 4.3.9 | SOW Section 4.3.9 references the “internal RVE Purchasing Requirements” process. |
Will the government please provide the “internal RVE Purchasing Requirements” process in the final solicitation release?
| The reference to "internal RVE purchasing requirements" has been deleted from the Basic SOW. | ||
| Basic SOW | 5.9 | In accordance with SOW Section 5.9 Temporary Duty (TDY) Travel, it appears that there may be a requirement to travel outside the continental US (OCONUS). |
Will the Government add FAR 52.228-3 Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act) to the Section I contract clauses for the overall contract or will this clause be added on a task by task basis when OCONUS is required so that the Defense Base Act insurance costs may be priced to the final cost objective?
| No, the Government will not include this clause as this contract is not a public works contract and does not fall within the guidelines of the Defense Base Act. | ||
| Basic SOW | 6.4 | SOW Section 6.4 Weapons, Firearms and Ammunition references a memorandum dated 2/16/17 and states a copy can be obtained by contacting the Government Program Manager or the Contracting Officer. |
Will the government please provide referenced memorandum in the final solicitation release?
| The reference to the memorandum has been deleted from the Basic SOW. | ||
| Basic SOW | 9.1.1 | Basic SOW, 9.1.1 states, “The Government will provide base laboratory support to the contractor…” |
TO 0001 SOW, 9.0 states, “The contractor shall provide base laboratory support in accordance with Section 9 of the Basic Statement of Work.”
Will the government clarify whether the contractor shall provide this support or is it provided by AFRL/RV?
| TO 0001 and 0003 have been reworded to clarify that the Government will provide base support in the form of the laboratories. | |||
| Basic SOW | 11 | Basic SOW Section 11 states: "If the contractor has active SBIR contracts or plans to compete for future SBIR contracts within the DoD, the contractor shall provide an OCI mitigation plan addressing how it will ensure that engineering solutions do not favor research conducted under these efforts." RFP Section L, paragraph 6.12 states: "If your company or a subcontractor, teammate, etc., has active SBIR contracts or plans to compete for future SBIR contracts within AFRL/RV or AFRL/RD, the Offeror shall provide an OCI mitigation plan addressing how it will ensure that engineering solutions do not favor research conducted under these efforts." Please clarify if the breadth of potential SBIR OCIs is all of DoD, or just within AFRL/RV and AFRL/RD. | This requirement applies within AFRL/RV and AFRL/RD. Language in section 11 of the Basic SOW has been edited to reflect this. |
| Basic SOW | Attachment 1: Compliance Documents | We are unable to locate several publications on the provided http://www.e-publishing.af.mil link. Can the Government please confirm that these documents are available under their listed titles or provide additional or alternative directions to locate the Compliance Documents in SOW Attachment 1? |
Documents Unable to Be Located:
• AFMCI 23-201, Logistics Material Control Activity Operating Instruction
• AFRLI 21-102, General Logistics Program Management and Responsibilities
• AFRLI 21-103, Quality Assurance Program
• AFRLI 21-104, Technical Data Management (TDM)
• AFRLI 21-105, AFRL Foreign Object Damage Prevention Program
• AFRLI 21-107, AFRL Electrostatic Discharge Control Program
• AFRLI 91-101, Laboratory System Safety Program
• KAFBI 48-106, Workplace Written Hazard Communication Program
• KAFBI 48-109, Laser Hazard Control Program
• KAFBI 91-201, Transportation Procedures for Hazardous Material, Radioactive Materials and Explosives
• KAFBI 91-521, Lockout/Tagout Program
• PRS OI 36-12, Contract Personnel In/Out Processing Procedures
• PRS OI 91-101, Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health
• RV OI 61-1201 (OSS&E and Lifecycle SE)
• RV Supplement to AFRLI 61-103 (AFRL Research Test Management)
| The entire list of compliance documents was reviewed and re-validated. Many of the documents identified in this comment were found to be obsolete and were therefore removed from the list. In doing a comprehensive review of the list, additional documents were found to be obsolete and were also removed. in the course of the review, three new documents were added . All document are available on either the www.e-publishing.af.mil link, www.esd.whs.mil (in the case of DoD documents) or publically available on the internet (in the case of MIL-STDs and other Government regulations). The original list of 48 compliance documents has now been streamlined to 26. | |||
| Basic SOW | Section 4.7 | Final Design Review (FDR) does not appear in any of the task orders. Please define FDR and explain the differences from Critical Design Review (CDR). | A FDR is conducted after prototypes or pre-production units have been through verification testing. Problems encountered during this testing are examined. |
| Basic SOW | Figure 1 | Please clarify TRR in Figure 1 as Test Readiness Review or Technology Readiness Review. | TRR in this instance stands for Test Readiness Review. |
| Basic SOW | Figure 1 | Please define IDR as used in Figure 1. | IDR refers to Interim Design Review. |
| All SOWs | 8 | Please clarify/confirm the following CDRL observations: |
- A001, Contract Funds Status Report specified for TO1 and TO3, but not TO2.
- A004, Test/Inspection Report specified for TO1 and TO3, but not TO2.
- A006, Environmental Health & Safety Plan not specified in any TOs.
- A010, Funds and Man-Hours Expenditure Report specified for TO1 and TO2, but not TO3.
- A017, Contractor's Risk Management Plan specified for TO2, but not TO1 and TO3.
| - A019, Management Plan specified for TO2, but not TO1 and TO3. | Each Task Order has different deliverable requirements. See section 8 of each Task Order Statement of Work. CDRLs not on a TO may be required on a future TO. | ||
| Basic SOW | 4.3.1.1 | AI&T shall be conducted in the AFRL/RVE AI&T Laboratories or at field locations, test ranges, and other Government locations. |
| Question: Can you list specific government locations? Does this include foreign locations? (As specified in 5.9 TDY Travel All travel (Outside Continental United States and Continental United States)) | This will be specified per Task Order. | |
| Basic SOW | 4.3.3 | |
| 4.3.7 | The contractor shall use Department of Defense (DoD), NASA, and commercial regulations and standards in the performance of spacecraft assembly |
The contractor shall operate and maintain all AI&T Laboratory equipment, clean rooms, and work sites in accordance with applicable manufacturer’s specifications, Air Force compliance documents in Attachment 1, or as stated within TO specifications.
Question: Are there compliance documents applicable to NASA? If so, please specify. No, the Task Order and Government Program manager will specify compliance documents as required. (i.e. NASA, DoD, etc.)
Expect adherence to standard industry best practices unless otherwise specified by the Government.
Basic SOW 4.4.1.1 Pre-launch and ground operations include but are not limited to: packing, protecting, and shipping complete spacecraft and support equipment to the launch site.
| Question: Can you list the specific launch sites? | Launch sites vary by mission requirements and is protected information. | ||
| Basic SOW | 4.5 | During the AI&T phase, the contractor shall analyze, design, document, fabricate or acquire, inspect, assemble, perform functional and environmental tests on and validate spacecraft/balloon parts, subassemblies, and components, and the supporting test equipment, fixtures and aerospace/ground systems. |
| Question: Is fabrication expected to be done at Kirtland AFB and other facilities, including contractor private facilities? | Fabrication is expected to occur at Kirtland AFB. | ||
| Basic SOW | 5.2.3 | The contractor will be given a transition period of up to 30 calendar days to provide qualified personnel that meet or exceed the stated requirements per Section 4. |
| Question: Would the government consider expanding the transition period to 45 calendar days? | No. The transition-in period shall remain 30 days. | ||
| Basic SOW | 5.4.3 | The contractor is responsible for obtaining and providing all Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) for personnel supporting AFRL. |
| Question: Does this include incumbents? | Yes. NDAs will be required for all contract personnel on RISE. | ||
| Basic SOW | 7.1 | The contractor shall enter into Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA) for any portion of the contract requiring joint participation in the accomplishment of the Government's requirement. |
| Question: Is this applicable to directed subs and any other support help on an as needed basis? | ACAs are required at the Task Order level and are dependent on TO requirements. The Government does not direct subs. | ||
| Basic SOW | 11 | Activities performed under this contract include: providing systems engineering and/or providing technical direction; and obtaining access to proprietary information throughout contract performance. As a result, the Basic Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) clause and Alternates III, IV, and VI are incorporated into the RISE contract. |
| Question: Where can we find Alternates III, IV, and VI? | The model contract has been amended to incorporate the OCI clause and its alternates in full text. | |
| Basic SOW | 2. Program Manager – The Government Program Manager for this effort is |
3. Program Focal Points - The individuals listed below are identified as focal points for this contract. Principal Investigator: ; Technical Contract Manager: ; Alternate: .
| Question: Will you supply the missing names? | The Government Program Manager has been identified in the SOW supplement. The remaining names should be completed by the offeror. | |||
| Please confirm that the Government intends to award additional task orders for Transition and routine support functions (e.g., facility O&M and administrative support) as part of CLIN 0001 enabling the RISE contractor to recover their costs associated with these activities. | No. The Government does not intend to award additional task orders for transition or routine facility support. Transition and routine facility support functions shall be priced in CLIN 0001 as applicable per each Task Order in accordance with Section L instructions. | |||
| Basic SOW | Figure 1 | This figure is not called out in the text, should it be? | A reference has been added to the figure. | |
| Basic SOW | Figure 1 | The phase titles do not match the technical efforts explained through out the document, e.g., in section 2.0 Scope – Enactment versus Implementation and Experimental Demonstrations versus Operations and on page 1 and in TO 0003 references to the second mission phase is “Implementation”. Should all phase titles be consistent? | This figure has been edited to cite "Implementation." | |
| Basic SOW | Figure 2 | This figure is not called out in the text, should it be? | A reference has been added to the figure. |
TO 0001
| Document Title | Section/Para # | Comment/Question | Resolution/Action Taken |
| TO 0001 | 1 | Section 1.0 appears to contain contradictory information/Government intent. We have interpreted the Government’s intent for this TO is to execute up through Phase A for the Tactical C3 mission, yet all three paragraphs in this section include references for the contractor to provide support beyond Phase A. |
Is the Government’s intent for the Offerors to propose/price support through all phases or just up through Phase A? If it’s the latter, then the recommendation is to delete the contradictory information from the three paragraphs in this section.
| The Government's intent is for the offeror to propose and price through CDR/Phase A. Clarification has been added to sections L & M. | ||
| TO 0001 & 0002 | 6.0 & 6.1 | The DRFP states, “[PLEASE CONTACT CONTRACTING FOR SPECIFIC BILLETING INFORMATION].” |
Will the government please clarify the instruction for billeting information?
| The DD254 and the security billet information was available by individual request as outlined in the FBO announcement. | ||
| TO 0001 | 1.0 | This effort involves spacecraft component design, optimization and analyses, analytical and experimental testing, and integration of technologies and/or components into system-level spaceflight (or near-space) experiments, including system-level functional and environmental testing, launch vehicle integration, mission operations support, data processing, and analysis. This effort includes: (1) Program Management, (2) Concept Design, (3) Hardware and Software Engineering, (4) Design and Fabrication, |
| Question: What location(s) does "design and fabrication" include? Only Kirtland AFB, or can it include the contractor private facility? | Work is exepected to be performed at Kirtland AFB. | ||
| TO 0001 | 2.0 | Gov Reference Design (GRD) development Q3FY19 |
System Requirements Review Q2 FY20 Preliminary Design Review Q1FY21 Critical Design Review Q4FY21 Technology Readiness Review Q2FY22 Pre Ship Review Q4FY22 Demo Ops Activities Q2FY23 through Q1FY24
At this time, the Government anticipates the contractor’s support for this Task Order shall consist of program coordination and systems engineering support up to and including CDR in Phase A.
Question: Does the government want any response for Technology Readiness Review, Pre-Ship Review and Demo Ops Activities?
| No, the Government does not want a response beyond Phase A/CDR. | |||
| TO 0001 | 4.2 Implementation | Should the title be “Implementation” or “Enactment?” Please reference Figure 1 of the Basic SOW. | Section 4.2 of Task Order 0001 is titled correctly as "Implementation." The Basic SOW's Figure 1 has been retitled from "Enactment" to "Implementation." |
TO 0002
| Document Title | Section/Para # | Comment/Question | Resolution/Action Taken |
| TO 0002 | 4.5.8 | We respectfully request a detailed description of the Government's furnished facilities for the Navigation Technology Satellite Integration Lab (NTSIL) and the GPS Antenna Technology Engineering Range (GATER). This will greatly enhance the industrys responses to the Government and allow for more accurate resource loading and pricing. | The RISE contractor will NOT be responsible for maintaining the GATER facility. With regard to the NSTIL, the Government has added a planned NTSIL Base Support List as an Attachment to TO 2; however, the list may change prior to contract award as the NTSIL has not yet begun construction. Once construction is complete and the equipment list finalized, the base support list will be finalized and incorporated into the contract. |
| TO 0002 | The SOW does not appear to include requirements for the contractor to support the actual spaceflight or launch integration of any PNT experiments or payloads. |
| Is that intentional or is it to be assumed that any experimental payloads or prototypes developed and tested in TO 0002 will be delivered to SSP or others for spaceflight or launch integration? | This is intentional; currently no spaceflight or launch integration duties are specified. | ||
| TO 0002 | 2.0, Scope (1st table) | In the first table, section titled, “SBIR Modular Component Development” |
Will the government provide their definition of “Demo”?
Will the government provide their understanding of why the In-House Verification and Validation requires 3 months and the Demo requires 15 months?
| The word "Demo" has been removed and replaced with: "Experimentation of components with Modular Hostable PNT Payload." The In-house verification and validation timeline of 3 months is per component. The timeline for experimentation of components with Modular Hostable PNT Payload entails proving the concept of modularity by integrating multiple components and therefore requires additional time. | ||
| TO 0002 | 2.0, Scope (2nd table) | In the table for "level of activity", what do the numbers mean? The text implies these are activities - but what are examples of an activity? For example, the average quantity for signals research is 3. |
| Is this 3 projects? 3 concepts? | In the table, on the component line, the table refers to the number of components, payloads, and integrated payloads. Examples of activities are listed in the header row (verification, characterization, assembly and integration, etc.) For signals, the number represents the number of signals concepts/particular signals. | |||
| TO 0002 | 4.1.1 | Does mission definition also involve proposing objectives and conducting supporting analysis for objectives? Para 4.1.2 seems to answer this question by fleshing out para 4.1.1 - is this a correct interpretation? | No, paragraph 4.1.2 is a separate requirement from 4.1.1. | |
| TO 0002 | 4.1.5 | To support mission and architecture analysis, does the government also desire system-level modeling and simulation, for example, available and accuracy for space-based PNT solutions and performance for advanced signals (e.g., TTFF, jamming, BER, GDOP, etc...)? | No. The government clarifies what is required in 4.1.5 | |
| TO 0002 | 4.2.2.2.3 | Does this requirement to provide analyses of the capabilities of existing and planned MUE/M-Code receivers imply that the government will provide GFI from the military receiver vendors to support this analysis? |
Is there a similar requirement for analyzing the capabilities of existing and planned GPS and/or other satnav transmitters?
| No, the requirement does not imply GFI is required to perform the work specified. There is no similar requirement for analyzing the capabilities of existing and planned GPS and/or other satnav transmitters. | |||
| TO 0002 | Section 2.0/Schedule | Is Modular Hostable PNT Payload Technology an in-house technology development project? How is it related to the Advanced Signals Research? | Modular Hostable PNT Payload Technology is an experiment which will be partially worked in-house (verification, validation, and experimentation). The RISE contractor will support the Government in conducting component reviews (PDR, CDR, etc..). |
The experimental payload could be used to test advanced signals.
| TO 0002 | Section 2.0/Schedule | What are the objectives of the Phased Array GPS and Broadband GPS Payload Technology projects? Are these to be developed in-house or out-of-house? | The objective is to develop new PNT technologies. They will be developed by outside contractors and delivered for in house validation, verification, and experimentation. |
| TO 0002 | Section 4.6/Para #1 | The requirement for Ground and Flight System Software/Firmware Development for Test & Operations in the Basic SOW seems appropriate for the Advanced Signals Research activity in TO 0002, yet it is shown as Reserved under Section 4.6 of the TO 0002 SOW. Please differentiate between Sections 4.5 and 4.6 as they pertain to the Advanced Signals Research activity. | 4.6 references the Basic SOW numbering structure. As 4.6 (Ground and Flight System Software/Firmware Development for Test & Operations) does not apply to TO 0002, it is reserved. |
| TO 0002 | Section 4.5.8/Para #1 | Does the GATER currently exist, and if so, where is it located? How many antennas and what types will be hosted in the range? | Yes, it currently exists. It is part of Kirtland AFB. Currently, the government has 4 antenna projects that may be tested at GATER. These are accounted for in the component count in table 2 of the TO 0002 SOW. |
| TO 0002 | 2.0 | The objective of this Task Order is to provide AFRL/RVE with the required research, engineering, technical, and program management to perform aerospace technology research, analysis, integration, and test and evaluation for Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) experiments and demonstrations. This support includes (1) Engineering, (2) Design, Fabrication and Assembly, |
| Question: What location(s) does "design and fabrication" include? Only Kirtland AFB, or can it include the contractor private facility? | Work is expected to be performed at Kirtland AFB. | ||
| TO 0002 | 4.5.4 | The contractor shall perform AI&T activities at Kirtland AFB or at one or more facilities provided by a US Government agency, a foreign Government agency, or a commercial vendor. |
| Question: Can you provide specific locations for OCONUS, foreign government? | The SOW has been modified to remove foreign government/commercial vendor. | |||
| TO 002 | 4.5 Ground and Flight Experiment | In section 4.5.2.2. is the reference to 3.1.16.2 supposed to be 4.1.16.1? | Yes, the paragraph has been renumbered. |
TO 0003
| Document Title | Section/Para # | Comment/Question | Resolution/Action Taken |
| TO 0003 | 4.3.10 | Consistent with the significant definitions of mission, milestones, and quantities throughout the Task Order SOWs, will the Government define the quantity and details of high altitude balloon missions to be supported by the RISE contractor? | Requirement for the High altitude balloon facility has been removed from the Task Order 0003 SOW. |
| TO 0003 | 10 | The DRFP states, “Property that may be acquired by the contractor in support of this task order in support of the satellite flow depicted in table 1:” |
Will the government provide or identify Table 1?
| Table 1 has been identified/labeled. | ||
| TO 0003 | 4.6.1 | In the Basic SOW the DRFP references five phases A through E (Figure 1) however, in TO 0003 there are only four phases listed in Section 1. |
Was that intentional? Was it meant to apply only to UNP or does it apply to both UNP and SSP?
| The unique nature of UNP and the RISE contractor's advisory/mentorship role distinguish the program from the activities/Phases as described in the Basic SOW and Phases A-E in TO 3. Consequently, the Government further clarified that UNP only consists of Phases A-D (four phases) as the nanosats are owned, operated and transitioned by the universities (if transition occurs). | ||
| TO 0003 | 4.6.6 | The last sentence is paragraph 4.6.6 is incomplete. |
Will the government please provide the missing information?
| The missing information has been provided in new sub bullets. | |||
| TO 0003 | 4.6.7 and 4.6.8 | SOW 4.6.6 states: "Pertinent details of the satellite fabrication class are as follows:" SOW paragraphs 4.6.7 and 4.6.8 are subordinate to SOW 4.6.6 and should be numbered as 4.6.6.1 and 4.6.6.2 respectively. The remaining paragraphs in SOW 4.6 should be renumbered accordingly. | The paragraphs and subparagraphs have been renumbered. |
| TO 0003 | 1 | SOW 1 states: "UNP sponsors and manages a new competition every 3 years." Please provide the schedule for the UNP program including date of last competition and planned date for the upcoming competition. Also, please provide the number of schools down selected in the previous competition and the phase they are currently performing. | The Government included the UNP cycle timeline schedule in the Task Order to illustrate the the phase in which the UNP Task Order will occur upon Contract Award and through the Period of Performance for the Task Order. As stated in TO 3 Section 1: "UNP sponsors and manages a new competition every 3 years. Typically there are 10 schools in Phase A, and about 2-3 schools that continue through Phases C-D per cycle." |
| TO 0003 | 1.0 | This effort includes: (1) Program Management, (2) Concept Design, (3) Hardware and Software Engineering, (4) Design and Fabrication, |
| Question: What location(s) does "design and fabrication" include? Only Kirtland AFB, or can it include the contractor private facility? | Work is expected to be performed at Kirtland AFB. | ||
| TO 0003 | 4.5.2 | The contractor shall support the transition of missions and/or technologies and payloads to enterprise partners when appropriate. |
| Question: Can you clarify "transition"? | This refers to tech transfer and has been reworded for clarity. | |||
| TO 0003 | 4.2 Implementation | Basic SOW’s Figure 1 Phase B is titled “Enactment.” Which is correct, Enactment or Implementation? | Section 4.2 of Task Order 0003 is titled correctly as "Implementation." The Basic SOW's Figure 1 has been retitled from "Enactment" to "Implementation." |
CDRLs
| Document Title | Section/Para # | Comment/Question | Resolution/Action Taken |
| Exhibit A CDRLs | CDRL A001 (Contract Funds Status Report (CFSR) | Block 4 requires submission in Microsoft Word. We respectfully request that the requirement be changed to Microsoft Excel since Excel is a better format for submitting cost-related information. | The offeror will now submit this document in Excel. Change CDRL to match |
| Exhibit A CDRLs | CDRL A003 (Scientific and Technical Reports) | Block 5 references SOW paragraph 4.6.4. Please confirm that the reference should be to paragraph 4.4.2 instead. | Yes, it should be 4.4.2. Corrected. |
| Exhibit A CDRLs | CDRL A024 (Physical Inventories Report) | Please confirm that Block 5 should also reference SOW paragraph 10.1.1. | This is a correct reference and was added. |
| Exhibit A CDRLs | CDRL A024 (Physical Inventories Report) | Please confirm the Title for CDRL A024 should be "Physical Inventories Report" instead of "Government Property Inventory Report" | Confirmed. Physical Inventories Report is the correct title. |
| CDRL | A003 | Should the Contract Reference be SOW 4.4.2 not 4.6.4? | This question was previously addressed |
| CDRL | A024 | Should the Contract Reference should be SOW 10.0? | This question was previously addressed |
Pricing
| Document Title | Section/Para # | Comment/Question | Resolution/Action Taken |
| Section L | 5.4, 5.4.1 | Please confirm Section L 5.4.1 Task Order Pricing Instructions for Task Order 001 indicates that the contractor shall provide pricing for the Full Development Lifecycle (from concept design through tech transfer) for the demonstration of three satellites with Tactical Data Link communications payloads. If this is not correct, please clarify. | This Task Order will only be priced through Phase A. Clarity has been added to the Task Order and section L. |
| Section L | 5.3.4.4 | The DRFP states, “Explain how the proposed labor hour skill mix has been derived and how the skill mix on this proposal compares with the overall plant skill mix. |
Will the government please provide a definition for “plant” ?
| The term "plant" refers to the offeror's place of business. If your company is proposing a labor skill mix differ than what you currently have, you need to explain how you developed/how you arrived at the skill mix. | ||
| Section L | 5.4.5 | The DRFP states, “If a purchase order exceeds TINA threshold, provide an analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-3(c).” |
This section specifically addresses when cost and pricing data is required. Since the proposed task order’s price and technical solutions will be evaluated as part of the Prime’s submission, please confirm whether the cited FAR Clause should be 15.404-3(b) and since the solicitation requires other than cost and pricing data FAR 15.404-3(b)(3) would not be applicable.
| The FAR reference should be 15.404-3. | |||
| Section L | 5.4.10 | Please describe what types of cost make-up ODCs i.e., equipment, etc? | Please refer to FAR 15.408 for a definition of Other Direct Costs. |
| Section L | Table 5.4.2 | Please explain the information desired in the Base, Rate, and Amt columns of Table 5.4.2. | The base is the hours; the rate is the labor rate; and the amount is the base multiplied by the rate. |
| Section L | 5.4.10 | Will the Government provide their cost make-up for TO 0001’s ODC value of $1,239,000 and TO 0002’s value of $817,5000? | No, the Government will not provide the cost make-up of the baselined CLINs. |
| Section L | 5.4.11 | Does the RFP provided amounts include the costs of Offerors indirect burdens (in accordance with their standard accounting practices)? | The baselined amounts are expected to include both direct and indirect costs. |
| Section L | 5.4.1, Task Order 0003 | Since the Government has indicated that the Contractor Acquired Property specified in Task Order 0003 be priced and included as Materials, should we include a priced Bill of Materials for each system/subsystem and the corresponding AI&T labor, or simply provide a single price for each delivered system/subsystem. | Request that you provide a single BOM encompassing all systems/subsystems. Labor shall be accounted for as outlined in Table 5.4.2. |
| Section M | 2.4.1 | If any Task Order is determined to be unreasonable and/or unrealistic, the TEP will be determined to be unreasonable and/or unrealistic. |
Question: If two task orders are scored as outstanding (blue) and one task order is scored marginal (yellow), this would be grounds for elminiation? Color ratings are not be used for the Cost/Price Factor.
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .