Comment_Resolution_Matrix_RFP_Questions_-_FINAL_Rev_1.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 55 KB Posted

Attached to
Research and Development Integrated Space Experiments (RISE) Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
FA9453-18-R-0003
Issued by
Department of the Air Force Materiel Command Research Laboratory

About this file

This is a request for proposal for the Research and Development Integrated Space Experiments (RISE) contract. The RFP seeks proposals to support the Air Force's Space Superiority Service Core mission requirements and Space Enterprise Vision growth areas by providing concept design, development, integration, test and evaluation of new space technologies, innovative engineering prototypes, and new employment concepts. Offerors should provide research, engineering, and technical management to perform space technology analysis, development, integration, experimentation, demonstration, and evaluation in support of the Air Force Research Laboratory Space Vehicles Directorate's mission. The applicable NAICS code is 541715 with a small business size standard of 1,250. The RFP is a small business set-aside. Questions about the solicitation are due by June 1, 2018 and proposals are due by June 25, 2018. The RISE contract will provide support for the incumbent through a transition period.

Comment Resolution Matrix RFP Questions Rev 1

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Research and Development Integrated Space Experiments (RISE), newest first.
File Type Posted
FA9453-18-R-0003_-_Amendment_2.pdf PDF
Comment_Resolution_Matrix_RFP_Questions_-_FINAL.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
FA9453-18-R-0003_-_Amendment_1.pdf PDF
FA9453-18-R-0003.pdf PDF
Comment_Resolution_Matrix_RFP.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet

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 TitleSection/Para #Comment/QuestionResolution/Action Taken
RFP InstructionsL.5.4.3The FRFP has provided limited labor category information and/or requirements. Can the government clarify or confirm that the intent here is for industry to propose the knowledge, skills and abilities for each task order or can the government provide the labor categories desired for each task order?The intent is for the offeror to propose the knowledge, skills and abilities for each task order.
RFP InstructionsL.2.2.4 Indexing and
L.3.0 Executive SummaryIs the Master TOC only required in Volume I - Executive Summary as stated in Section L.3.0, "Provide a concise narrative summary of the entire proposal, highlighting key or unique technical features and addressing any significant risks."?
Or does each volume contain its own detailed table of contents, as state in L.2.2.5 "Each proposal volume shall contain a detailed tablo of contents to delineate the subparagaphs within that olume. Tab indexing hall be used to identiy sections."The master Table of Contents is required in the Volume I - Executive Summary. IAW Secion L 2.2.4 Indexing, each proposal volume shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.
RFP InstructionsL.4.4 Technical Factor InstructionsIn some cases, such as with Test Plans, a single corroborating document could easily exceed the 25-page limit.
Please clarify if the Government is seeking a listing of bibliographical information about the documents, abstracts of them, or copies of entire documents that will fit within the 25-page limit.Corroborating documentation should be tailored to demonstrate the specific approach detailed in the proposal. The Government encourages offerors to discretely select the information most demonstrative of requested experience. For example, rather than submitting an entire test plan, the offeror is encouraged to submit the portion of a test plan most relevant to demonstrating cradle-to-grave space systems engineering processes, utilizing documented, and proven systems engineering standards.
Section LInstructions, including 4.1 Volume Organization and 4.2 Page Limits, Format and Specific Contenta) Should the Response for Corroborating Documentation be organized as 5, i.e. before Resumes for Key Personnel, to simplify the Governments’ confirmation of compliance and review?

b) Will the Government accept elements of the Corroborating Documentation that have and are marked as International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)?

The corroborating documentation should be organized as follows: 5. Corroborating Documentation, 6. Resumes for Key Personnel, 7. Glossary; The Government will accept elements of the Corroborating Documentation that have and are marked appropriately as International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The Government encourages offerors to discretely select the information most demonstrative of requested experience.
Section LSection 1.0; Table 1 – Anticipated Number of Flight Experiments FY19-FY24a) Please confirm that the Table reflects the inclusion of the University Nanosat Program.The table does not include the University Nanosat program. As detailed in TO 0003, the RVE requirement for the UNP program primarily provides mentorship, guidance, and advice to the participating students.
Section LParagraph 2.1.7 Security ClassificationThe Government’s stance of requiring TS/SCI clearances for key personnel on day one of the contract seems stringent, and does not afford adequate time for the transfer of clearances should a contractor other than the incumbent be the awardee. In the interests of promoting fair competition for this Total Small Business Set-Aside, will the Government consider allowing Offerors to provide key personnel who are eligible for a TS/SCI clearance on day one of contract award, with the expectation that those personnel will have obtained their TS/SCI clearance as of day one of the Technical Period?The requirement is to have a TS/SCI clearance for three (3) key personnel on day one (1) of contract award in order to begin immediate transition to the RISE TS/SCI requirements.
RFPWe request a a two-week extension to the proposal due date until July 9, 2018.The proposal due date will remain 25 June 2018.

Section L

Basic SOW

Document TitleSection/Para #Comment/QuestionResolution/Action Taken
General question of definitions of Program Phases –

References: Section 2.0 of Basic SOW (see excerpt labeled Figure A below);

Section 1.0 of Attachment 3 (Task Order 0001), definition of 4 phases (see excerpt labeled Figure B below);

Section 2.0 Scope, “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”;

Attachment 3 (Task Order 0001), Section 4.2.2, “The contractor shall attend and participate in programmatic, technical, and safety reviews (i.e., SRR, PDR, CDR, etc.) through CDR of the mission development. Typical activities include: 1) researching, preparing and presenting formal briefings at program reviews; 2) reviewing briefings and related documents and 3) providing recommendations to the Government.”

Attachment 5 (Task Order 0003), Section 1.0, (see excerpt labeled Figure C below);

Section 1.0 (see excerpt labeled Figure D below);

Section 2.0 Scope (excerpt labeled Figure E below);

Also see excerpt from RISE Industry Days: Topic University (18 Aug 2017) University Nanosat Program (labeled Figure F below), as well as multiple specific activities within the Basic SOW and Task Order requirements referring to activities pre- and post- milestones relative to the phase definitions. a) Please clarify the definitions of the phases and the milestones for entrance and exit criteria of phases as these appear to be different in the examples provided below and across the Basic SOW and Task Order Requirements.

b) Please clarify if the AI&T phase ends with a ship readiness review or at Launch of payload; or at some other criteria.

c) Please clarify if different definitions of phases are to be applied for RISE specific missions versus the University Nanosat program.

d) Please clarify the transition from Mission Design Phase to Implementation Phase (e.g. are effort to culminate in PDR to be in Mission Design (phase A) or Implementation (phase B)?

e) Are the phase definitions different for the University Nanosat Program versus specific AFRL RISE Missions?

a) The definitions of the phases and milestones and entrance and exit criteria vary by requirements/risk class/experiment/task order/etc. The Basic SOW includes Figure 1 as a visual aid to assist the offerors in understanding the notional experimental lifecycle process for RVE. Figure 1 should not drive the work performed at the task order level. For example, Task Order 0003 furnished additional detail on how the SSP program transitions through programmatic execution of R&D experiments for SSP. This includes the five phases of rigorous systems engineering processes specified in TO 0003 (Section 1.0).

b) The phases and milestones and entrance and exit criteria vary by requirements/risk class/experiment/task order/etc. The Basic SOW narrative in Section 2.0 and Figure 1 provide a overarching view of programmatic execution for RVE. How an experiment transitions from Phase C to Phase D will be further detailed at the Task Order level and may vary by experiment. Task Order 0001 and 0003 include additional information for each phase in Section 1.0 of the TO SOWs.

c) Yes, the UNP program has different processes than the SSP program. The variance is described in Section 1.0 of the Small Satellite Portfolio Statement of Work.

d) The Basic SOW narrative in Section 2.0 and figure 1 provide a overarching view of programmatic execution for RVE. How an experiment transitions from Phase A to Phase B will be further detailed at the Task Order level and may vary by experiment. Task Order 0001 and 0003 include additional information for each phase in Section 1.0 of the TO SOWs.

e) Yes, the UNP program has different processes and phase definitions than AFRL/RVE experiments. The variance is described in Section 1.0 of the Small Satellite Portfolio Statement of Work.

Basic SOW

TO 0001

Document TitleSection/Para #Comment/QuestionResolution/Action Taken
Task Order 0001Paragraph 2.0 "Scope"Paragraph 2.0 "Scope", states "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." Should the task order pricing reflect support only through CDR, or should it reflect total program cost assuming execution as outlined in this paragraph?Task Order 0001 pricing should only reflect support up to and including CDR.

TO 0001

TO 0002

Document TitleSection/Para #Comment/QuestionResolution/Action Taken
Basic SOW and Task Order InstructionsAttachment 4, Task Order 2, Section 2.0 Scope, Notional Schedulea) Under “Broadband GPS Payload Technology (Component)”, the “Gov Reference Design Development” is indicated for Q4 FY24. Should this activity be priced for the TEP, since it is past the ordering Period indicated in Section L, 6.2 Section F – Deliveries or Performance ending 31 May 2024?This activity should not be priced for the TEP. The information is provided for completeness, and to demonstrate potential work because the schedule is notional.

TO 0002

CDRLs

Document TitleSection/Para #Comment/QuestionResolution/Action Taken
Attachment 4

Task Order 0002 PNT 8.0 Deliverables Can the government clarify the following Task Order 0002 CDRLS?

A003 Scientific and Technical Report at End of Contract -- Does the government expect similar reports after major Task Order activities as needed throughout the contract period?

A013 Computer Software Products to be delivered as needed. Are these only the products developed under the TO activities?

Would the government consider the use of COTS products if they can be shown to be useful and cost-effective? How should the contractor propose pricing for these?

Would the government consider CLINS for some of these that we might propose at the start of the contract? CDRL A003 is only required to be delivered once at the end of the Task Order period of performance. Any other reports submitted will be under CDRLs A002 Status Reports and A022 Scientific and Technical Reports Summary.

CDRL A013 Computer Software Products are only the products developed for the task order.

ODCs and Materials for TO 0001 and TO 0002 are baselined and should not be included in the offeror's cost model. For TO 0003, Materials shall be priced IAW Section L 5.4.4 Schedule of Materials and Table 5.4.5. For TO 0003, the offeror may propose products they determine appropriate for their proposed approach.

The Government intends to use the CLIN structure identified in the solicitation.

Attachment 4, Task Order 0002 Section 8.0, p. 11 Given the number of V&V campaigns to be conducted for TO 0002, please consider A004 Test/Inspection Report as one of the TO 0002 deliverables. A022 Scientific and Technical Reports Summary will be sufficient to report test results.

CDRLs

Pricing

Document TitleSection/Para #Comment/QuestionResolution/Action Taken
Final RFP FA9453-18-R-0003 (1)Section L, paragraph 5.4.2Can subcontractors submit their proprietary data in sealed packages to the prime contractor for delivery to the government or must they be delivered directly to the government?Subcontractors may submit their proprietary data in sealed packages with the prime contractor's proposal or directly to the government by the closing date for offers
Final RFP FA9453-18-R-0003 (1)Section L, paragraph 5.4.1Paragraph 5.4.1 states: "1. Tactical C3: Price the demonstration of three (3) satellites with Tactical Data Link (TDL) communications payloads through Phase A as identified in TO 0001 SOW Section 2." The TO 001 SOW indicates two down selects (after Phase A and after Phase B) resulting in up to three (3) satellites at the end of the second down select (Phase B). To ensure consistent pricing among all Offerors, please indicate the number of Tactical C3 satellites addressed in Phase A prior to any downselect.As stated in Section L, 5.4.1, the Offeror should propose the demonstration of three (3) satellites with Tactical Data Link (TDL) communications payloads through Phase A for TO 0001.
Final RFP FA9453-18-R-0003 (1)Section L, paragraph 5.4.1TO 0001 SOW states: "This Task Order focuses on Class 2 and 3 efforts as defined in the Basic Contract Statement of Work." Based on the guidance provided by the Government to the previous question, please indicate the number of Class 2 and the number of Class 3 efforts Offerors should consider in their pricing of TO 0001.For pricing purposes, assume a quantity of three (3) class 3 satellites similar in form/factor/function.
Final RFP FA9453-18-R-0003 (1)Section L, paragraph 5.4.2The RFP requests a cost summary for each separately priced CLIN and has provided a sample format. The sample format is structured to address CLIN 0001.

(1) Please indicate if Offerors should prepare a separate template for CLIN 0003 (Travel), CLIN 0004 (ODCs), and CLIN 0005 (Material).

(2) Should the CLIN 0003, CLIN 0004, and CLIN 0005 templates simply reflect the Government baselined amounts plus the Materials amount developed by each Offeror for TO 0003?

(3) Should we assume that the Government baselined amounts should be apportioned equally by OFY?Travel, ODCs and Materials for TO 0001 and TO 0002 are baselined and should not be included in the offeror's cost model. The RFP requires that the offeror acknowledge whether the offeror complies with the CLIN description and the amounts provided in the RFP. The Cost Summary by Cost Element is a sample and is not a required format nor does it necessarily reflect every cost element an offeror may propose. The baselined amounts for Travel, Materials and ODCs should not be included in the cost element summary.
Section LParagraph 5.4.1. Task Order Pricing InstructionsParagraph 5.4.1 specifies the items for each Task Order that must be priced. Does the Government require a separate price buildup for each individual item listed in Section 5.4.1 (i.e. Task Order 0001 – Item 1: Tactical C3, Item 2: Transition-In)?Please see Section L, paragraph 5.4.2 for a sample cost model and a description of what is requested. An offeror should provide a cost summary for each separately priced CLIN for each Task Order but does not require a separate build up for each individual item. The Transition-in cost is included in CLIN 0001 for each task order.
Section LParagraph 5.4.1. Task Order Pricing InstructionsIf a price buildup is required for each individual item referenced in Paragraph 5.4.1, does the Government have a preference with regard to a vertical or horizontal layout for pricing of each item? For example, should the item name be listed vertically in the Cost Element column with pricing provided across each FY, or should the item name be listed horizontally in the column headers with the FY with pricing shown under each column?The format provided is a sample only and does not require a separate build up for each individual item referenced in paragraph 5.4.1.
Section LParagraph 5.4.2. Cost Summary by Cost Element (For each Task Order)Paragraph 5.4.2 provides Table 1 entitled, “Cost Summary by Cost Element”, which reflects a Material line for only Task Order 0003. Should offerors include the baselined amounts for Travel, ODCs, and Material (TOs 0001 and 0002) in the Task Order pricing sheets to include the baselined amounts in the total Task Order Price?Baselined amounts should not be included in the offeror's cost model.
Section LParagraph 5.4.2. Cost Summary by Cost Element (For each Task Order)Table 1 “Cost Summary by Cost Element” shows the cost elements of Labor and Material (TO 3 only) vertically in the Cost Element column. However, Table 1 also shows the CLIN number referenced horizontally with each FY in the Task Order cost buildup columns. Is it the Government’s intent for each separately priced CLIN to be priced horizontally in an individual column for each FY, or does the Government prefer that each separately priced CLIN be referenced vertically in the Cost Element column, with pricing provided across each FY?The cost model provided is a sample only and is not the required format. Per Section L, Paragraph 5.4.2, an offeror is to separately price and identify the Total Task Order Summary. This Total Task Order Summary should provide a cost summary by major cost elements by OFY and then roll-up into a Total Task Order Summary. To reduce confusion, the CLIN numbers have been removed from Table 5.4.2.
Section LParagraph 5.4.11 Baselined Costs by CLIN (Varies by Task Order)Should offerors apply their applicable burdens to the baselined amounts stated in Paragraph 5.4.11 for Travel, ODCs, and Materials?The description of each baselined cost is detailed in paragraphs 5.4.9, 5.4.10, and 5.4.11. The RFP requires that the offeror acknowledge whether or not their offer complies with the CLIN description. These baselined costs and any applicable burdens (if allowed) should not be provided in the offeror's cost model because they will not be included in the Total Evaluated Price (See Section M, Paragraph 2.4)
Pricing - Section L”5.4.2 Cost Summary by Cost Elements for Each task order”a) Will the offeror generate a separate cost summary by cost element for each task order?

b) Will the columns in cost summary by cost element represent each separately priced CLIN and Offerors Fiscal Year (OFY) combination?

c) Will there be multiple total CLIN columns on the cost summary by cost element schedule to sum each separately priced CLIN for all Offerors Fiscal Years?

d) Please confirm that with the removal of the “Travel, Materials, and ODC’s” from the Table 5.4.1 Cost summary by cost elements, that the Offeror is NOT required to include price in the Cost summary by cost elements.

a. The offeror should generate a separate cost element summary for each task order.

b. The cost element summary is a sample only. c. The costs should be broken down by CLIN (if necessary) by OFY. There will only be one priced CLIN broken down by OFY.

d. The baselined amounts for Travel, Materials and ODCs should not be included in the cost element summary.

Section LParagraph 5.4.2. Cost Summary by Cost Element (For each Task Order)In the interest of maintaining consistency of pricing format among Offerors and facilitating the Government’s consistent evaluation process, would the Government consider providing a cost model for pricing this effort? The instructions provided with the sample Cost
Summary table are somewhat vague, and it is unclear as to how Offerors should format their pricing by Task Order, CLIN, OFY, and individual Task Order Item. Additionally, the sample Cost Summary table and associated instructions do not illustrate how the government desires to see each Task Order Item priced. (i.e. should each Task Order Item be priced separately through direct cost, with indirect costs calculated over the sum of the Items, or should each Task Order Item be priced separately through fee with those costs rolled up by Task Order?)The cost model provided is a sample only and there is not a required format. The Contractor may use their preferred pricing format.

Pricing

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .