CRM T3PI_Govt Responses 20241206_Final.pdf

Comment/Question Government Response Document Section CDRL A015 requires the offeror to design and develop a SEMP that covers the T3 SE&I efforts. Given other aspects of the SOW reflect T1 and T2 efforts, does the Government expect that the offeror will refer to other SEMP documentation provided by existing Primes, or discuss how T3 will assist in the management of these other engineering efforts?

The Government does not expect to provide SEMP documentation for all existing T1 and T2 programs, though select design and engineering process documents will be provided during execution as required.

CDRLs A015

The SUPERNOVA-NOVA ICD was originally developed by another Prime contractor team. Is it the intent for the T3 offeror to take control of this document and manage development of the document and interfaces moving forward, maintaining backwards compatibility with T1 and T2?

The final SOW has been updated to state that "The Contractor shall support the development of the intra-PWSA interface requirements products that comprise the T3 Program FBLs, including but not limited to the space-to-ground (S2G) and SUPERNOVA-NOVA ICDs. These ICDs are expected to be primarily developed and managed by the Ground Segment integrator."

SOW 2.2.2.04

Is it the intent that the T3 offeror will engage with the AFCGI and F2 primes regarding support and oversight for SE&I activities?

No, AFCGI is not envisioned to become part of T3. The T3 Custody Layer will be new acquisitions.

SOW 4.1.1.01 - AFC Mission Lead

The T3 offeror is to manage the T3 ERB and CCB processes (2.2.4.04), does this extend to T1 and T2 primes regarding change management?

The T3PI Contractor is not expected to manage T1 and T2 processes. However, the T3PI SOW states "The Contractor shall coordinate ICD development (draft ICDs) with all relevant acquisition, development, integration, test, and operations teams and associate contractors responsible for the delivery and operations of system elements in compliance with the ICDs and ensure that their equities are addressed. This includes acquisition, development, integration, test, and operations teams responsible for any system elements expected to comply with all or part of each ICD, irrespective of their lifecycle phase (e.g., S2U ICD coordination with teams responsible for user equipment initially intended for T1)."

SOW 2.2.4.04

In section 2.2.5.06 the T3 offeror is to embed systems engineering with the Ground Program integrators, could the Government provide more specificity as to the number of PWSA Enterprise Ground system integrator’s there are?

It is expected that there will be a single ground integrator.

SOW 2.2.5.06

Is the government intending to provide a staffing estimate? We recommend providing an estimate or not-to-exceed funding profile to assist with grading and ensuring best value.

If a decision is made to include an NTE profile, it will be included in the final solicitation.

SecM Overall / Section 5

Is the government intending to provide access to a bidder's library, specifically artifacts and documents that the awardee will hav to assess? We recommend a complete bidder's library to assist with cost and staffing estimation.

A bidder's library will be included with the final solicitation.

Backup Ref Overall

SDA-SN-25-0004 (T3 Integration Draft RFP&RFI) 6 Dec 2024

Question: The SOW (2.2.1.02) states the Contractor shall recommend and provide updates to the PWSA Enterprise FBL Architecture products. Once updates are made to existing FBL artifacts for T1 and/or T2 will the T3 contractor maintain product configuration and change management?

T3PI will not have product configuration and change management responsibility over all T1 and T2 FBL artifacts but is expected to be informed of change to these products and to incorporate corresponding updates in T3 artifacts as required.

1. (CUI) PWSA T3 Program Integration SOW as of 8 Nov 2024 FINAL DRAFT

2.2.1.02

Question: If ICDs are evolved from T1/T2 to T3 versions of the document (e.g. NOVA- SUPERNOVA ICD), who will be responsible for adjudicating changes or conflicts between T2 versions of the ICD (which may be evolving over T2) and T3 versions of the ICDs. For example, does the T3 Program Integrator have any additional responsibilities to seek approval to changes to the ICD with the T2 GMI contractor before releasing / updating for release (since those changes may have impacts on T2 operation and functionality)?

Please review the SOW. The T3PI is expected to coordinate ICD updates with the stated organizations prior to release. The T3PI contractor is expected to exercise the discretion required to ensure that ICD changes do not preclude T3 integration with the existing PWSA.

1. (CUI) PWSA T3 Program Integration SOW as of 8 Nov 2024 FINAL DRAFT

2.2.2.06

Question: If the T3 Program Integrator requires changes/enhancements to the T1/T2 Systems (SV Vendor SW, Ground Systems) to support interoperability with T3, who will moderate those changes? Will the T1/T2 contractors (Ground and SV Vendors) be required to support working groups and CCBs to support the development of changes to baselines required by the T3 Program Contractor? Comment: Backward compatibility strategies along with the ability to upgrade T1 and T2 systems will be key to making the T1/T2 integration with new T3 features possible.

The Government is responsible for moderating changes that may be required to T1/T2 system elements over the course of T3PI execution.

1. (CUI) PWSA T3 Program Integration SOW as of 8 Nov 2024 FINAL DRAFT

2.2.4.04

Question: The SOW (e.g. 2.2.3.01.5) discusses system-level test plans for E2E, FAT, and OAT testing. Is the expectation that mentioned plans from prior tranches be available for use by the T3 Program Integrator?

Yes, system-level test plans from prior tranches are expected to be made available to the awarded T3PI contractor during execution.

1. (CUI) PWSA T3 Program Integration SOW as of 8 Nov 2024 FINAL DRAFT

2.2.3.01.05

Question: Is there any interoperability testing expected between the T3 SVs and the T1/T2 SVs? For example, we could imagine that T3 SVs may be needed to interconnect in select scenarios with T1/T2 TL planes. Additionally, there may be required checkout/regression of T3 SVs with T1/T2 GEPs.

Provided in Final Solicitation - SOW

1. (CUI) PWSA T3 Program Integration SOW as of 8 Nov 2024 FINAL DRAFT

2.2.3.01.05

Question: Is the T3 Program Integrator responsible for transition of the T2 Enterprise into the T3 Enterprise? If so, what is the strategy for not impacting T2 operations during that transition?

Provided in Final Solicitation - SOW 1. (CUI) PWSA T3 Program Integration SOW as of 8 Nov 2024 FINAL DRAFT

2.2.3.01.05

Will SDA provide an OCI chiclet chart (simliar to what was published for TO and T1) on SDA's determination of OCI concerns regarding upcoming procurements for PSWA T3 efforts?

An OCI chicklet chart is not intended to be provided. The Government has determined there is potential organizational conflict of interest (see FAR Subpart 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest) due to the nature of the anticipated separate solicitations and contracts for the entire Tranche 3 Program.

The entire, fully integrated T3 program will likely include multiple T3 SV contractor(s) (primes and subs) and T3 Ground contractor(s) (primes and subs) who will interface with this T3PI Contractor, therefore if a T3PI Contractor intends to bid or perform on any other T3 contract, there will be an OCI that requires mitigation. In addition, SDA's OCI policy states that SDA SETA must remain OCI free within SDA, and therefore a contractor cannot concurrently be an SDA SETA contractor and a T3PI Contractor.

If industry is planning to bid on upcoming space vehicle and/or ground procurements would winning and executing on PWSA T3 Integrator have a potential OCI concern and would that concern be mitigatable?

The Government has determined there is potential organizational conflict of interest (see FAR Subpart 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest) due to the nature of the anticipated separate solicitations and contracts for the entire Tranche 3 Program. The entire, fully integrated T3 program will likely include multiple T3 SV contractor(s) (primes and subs) and T3 Ground contractor(s) (primes and subs) who will interface with this T3PI Contractor, therefore if a T3PI Contractor intends to bid or perform on any other T3 contract, there will be an OCI that requires mitigation. In addition, SDA's OCI policy states that SDA SETA must remain OCI free within SDA, and therefore a contractor cannot concurrently be an SDA SETA contractor and a T3PI Contractor.

FAR Clause 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards is included in the draft contract. Will the Government confirm if a DoL Wage Determination is applicable to this award and, if so, please provide the WD?

This clause will be removed from the solicitation. This is not a service contract.

Model Contract Section I, page 11 of 41 The industry standard for a CPAF contract is to include a base fee in addition to the award fee. Allowing for a base fee ensures the Contractor's basic costs are covered, encourages flexibility regarding changes in the scope of work without the need to renegotiate, allows the performer to address surges, and helps the Government eliminate cost overrun. Would SDA consider adding a base fee percentage to the fee structure?

Any changes to fee structure will be determined in the final solicitation

Award Fee Plan 1.0, Table 1

Table 1 (Evaluation Factors) names Factor 1 as "Program Management / Personnel Qualifications", but Section 5 (Evaluation of Factor 1) names Factor 1 as "Personnel Qualifications" only. Will the Government clarify?

Updated in the final solicitation.

SecM 1.1, 5

Will the Government confirm how many Past Performance references are allowed for Factor 3?

See section L of final solicitation. SecM 7

Will the Government confirm that the "Personnel Qualification Matrix" and "resume and skills matrix" are the same matrix and will they provide this template?

Template will be provided.

SecM 5.3; 8.2

Will the Government provide the labor category descriptions for the Key Personnel in SOW Section 4.1?

Key personnel required qualifications are identified in Table 4-1 in the T3PI Statement of Work.

SOW 4.1

In multiple locations the scope of work is left unbounded by inclusion of the term '...including but not limited to...' Will the Government bind key engineering work in the areas where this language is used?

This is intentional and is consistent with a cost type contract.

SOW

2.2.1.01, 2.2.2.01, 2.2.2.04, and others

Could the Government provide further description, such as the types of trade studies, of the technical interchange meetings that the contractor will be executing?

Will be determined during execution

SOW 2.2.5.01

There are inconsistencies within Section M regarding the name of Factor 1.

Table 1 calls the section "Program Management/Personnel Qualifications", Section 5/Line 89 calls it "Pesronnel Qualifications", and Line 116 calls it "Schedule and Schedule Management". Request clarification on the section name.

Updated in the final solicitation.

SecM 1.1, 5

There are inconsistencies within Section M regarding the name of Factor 2. Table 1 calls the section "Technical Approach", Section 6/Lines 131, 160-161, 165-166, and Table 3 calls it "Program Management and Technical Approach". Request clarification on section name.

Updated in the final solicitation.

SecM 1.1, 6

Sections 5 and 6 both include reference to program management with similar requirements. Request clarification of requirements.

Updated in the final solicitation.

SecM 5, 6

Line 135-136: "The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical approach and system architecture that demonstrates experience of integrating systems. " How will the Government evaluate system architecture? The SOW does not appear to require a system architecture to be developed on this contract, but rather to assess the system architecture(s) developed by the development contractors.

Line 144 also contains "system architecture"

See section L & M of final solicitation.

SecM 6

Section 1.2/Line 49 states "any offeror receiving a rating of 'Unacceptable' or 'Not Reasonable' in one or more Factor(s) may be deemed ineligible for award and not be further considered for this selection." However, the ratings for Factor 3: Past Performance Confidence do not contain either of these ratings in Table 1 or Table 5.

Updated in the final solicitation.

SecM 1.1, 1.2, 7

There is a discrepancy between the adjectival ratings listed for Factor 3: Past Performance Confidence in Tables 1 and 5. Table 1 contains the word "Good" under Limited, Neutral, and No Confidence.

Updated in the final solicitation.

SecM 7

Table 1 references Total Evaluated Cost/Price for Factor 4: Security. Recommend removing this reference as evaluation criteria does not mention a requirement for inclusion of cost/price information within this section.

Updated in the final solicitation.

SecM 1.1

There is an inconsistency of numbering of Cost/Price Factor in section 10. Line 265 calls it "Factor 6" and Line 322 calls it "Factor 5". Request clarification.

Updated in the final solicitation. SecM 10

Request access to Reference Documents listed in Table 1-6 A bidder's library will be included with the final solicitation. SOW 1.7 Relative to the following statement, will the contractor be required to develop hardware and software for "prototypes"? 2.2.5.09 (U) The Contractor shall perform system prototyping and development activities …

Protoyping activities are not expected to involve hardware development.

SOW 2.2.5.09

Recommend the Govt change this to "10 years’ experience in tactical data link systems engineering focused on development, integration, and testing". Very few people across industry have the specific level of experience as currently described.

Updated in the final solicitation.

SOW Table 4-1, Row 3

Recommend the Govt consider generalizing this position description. The current requirement is very specialized and relatively new in the space enterprise. "AOC" experience would be equally relevant.

Updated in the final solicitation.

SOW Table 4-1, Row 5

CDRL A019, Program Trade Studies and Technical Assessments: Recommend the government provide applicable delivery timelines as well as timelines for Government-provided Evaluation and Weighting Criterion.

Noted CDRLs CDRL A019

CDRL A021, Program Technical Documentation. Recommend adding the following Text to CDRL: Product manuals, Repair manuals, User guides, API documentation, SDK documentation, Project plans, Business standards, and Test schedules.

Noted

CDRLs A021

"Personal knowledge of contractor’s performance". Too subjective. Whose "personal knowledge"?

Standard language provided in section M. SecM Line 188

"...relevant (based on size, scope and complexity) record of past performance…".

Recommend the Govt provide definitions or target numbers" for "size, scope and complexity"

Standard language provided in section M.

SecM Line 196

Relevancy definition on line 196 includes size. Assuming size and magnitude are synonymous, recommend being consistent between definitions. Please further define "magnitude of effort" in Table 4.

Standard language provided in section M.

SecM Tabel 4

Para 4, Capability Evolution. Recommend adding "Prototype" as it is mentioned in the SOW as a requirement.

Noted Backup Ref Para 4.

This formula is unclear: "$ Fee = scale of 0-100 for final performance scores < 39%" Will $ Fee = 0 for performance scores < 39?

Updated in the final solicitation. Award Fee Plan 8.0 (Line 255)

These appear to be criteria which must be met to receive a Satisfactory rating. In most cases, it is not clear how the contract can exceed the criteria. Can the government provide "meets" and "exceeds" definitions for each criteria?

The Government is looking to incentivize performance above "satisfactory" and is looking for contractors who continually provide "good or excellent" performance. The Definitions are appropriate for this approach and the contract type.

Award Fee Plan Appendix C

Drawing from DoD space and human spaceflight integration experience, recommend merging Technical Review and Systems Engineering requirements to enable concurrent assessment of design approaches and verification methods. This integration has proven to reduce review cycles and improve first-time quality in similar complex space programs.

Noted

SOW Technical Areas Based on recent commercial space program experience, suggest combining Ground Systems development with Launch Integration planning. Direct experience shows significant schedule and risk reduction when these interdependent activities are managed through unified processes and shared technical baseline.

Noted

SOW Engineering Support

Recent experience with large-scale space integration suggests Requirements Assessment and Verification Management are most effective when combined under single technical authority. This approach has demonstrated improved requirements closure rates and reduced verification cycles on similar programs.

Noted

SOW Requirements Management Space systems development experience indicates Mission Assurance effectiveness increases when tightly coupled with Configuration Management (and Data Management) processes. Programs have shown improved quality metrics when these activities share common technical baseline and integrated change control processes.

Digital Engineering needs to be phased to support cost controls and operation readiness.

Noted

Technical Requirements Mission Assurance Recent space integration programs demonstrate enhanced effectiveness when Digital Engineering (DE) tools span both development and test activities. Unified digital framework enables more efficient verification and reduces integration cycles through improved modeling and simulation capabilities. MOSA architectures enable the mission or OCI controls require enhancement.

Noted

Technical Requirements Digital Engineering Complex integration experience shows Schedule Management benefits significantly from direct coupling with Integration Risk, & Test planning. Programs demonstrate improved milestone achievement when these activities share common planning framework and unified risk assessment approach.

Noted

SOW Program Integration The SOW indicates program integration work that is tied to Tranche 3 program segments that will involve activity and support that will not necessarily be level loaded over the PoP. Will the Government publish a general Tranche 3 program schedule with major program milestones to enable the alignment of support resources in the proposed solution?

Updated in the final solicitation.

SOW 1.2

Please release and/or comment on the specification for the program collaboration IT environment that you seek the Program Integration contractor to support. Are there specific tools that you seek to enable communication with the contractor team or can the contractor define the toolsets? Will the Government provide software licenses as GFP or will the contractor include those cost in its proposal? Based on current information furnished, Contractor anticipates hosting a collaboration/data sharing library structure as opposed to employing a Government furnished solution. Is this assumption accurate?

The Government's intent is for the Integration Contractor to establish an "interface" or mechanism of communicating with the T3 associate contractors. How the Integration Contractor establishes the method of communication is up to the Integration Prime Contractor.

SOW General Question Does the Government intend to publish a budget level or headcount expectation for the Program Integration program? If so, can that information be provided before the final RFP release? Will the Final RFP instructions identify specific cost volume budget cycle information (6 mos, 12 mos, 60 mos)?

If a decision is made to include an NTE profile, it will be included in the final solicitation.

SOW Throughout, general question Will the Government publish labor category expectations or schedules to allow for the pricing solution to be normalized to a Government reference?

Clause 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards will be removed from the contract and Labor categories are not required. SAM.Gov General Question

Contractor seeks the opportunity to include specific innovations and strategies for implementation in the proposed technical/program response. Please provide pagecount and/or options for provision of this information in the final RFP instructions.

See section L of final solicitation.

SAM.Gov General Question Does the Government believe any of the HALO space segment activities will be included under the broader Tranche 3 effort?

No SOW General Question

The draft model contract and CLIN structure suggests a single award for the five (5) year period of performance? Contractor also assumes that the contract will be incrementally funded. Is there a funding schedule or other contract action plan that is planned (e.g. base and option years?)?

See final solicitation

Model Contract General Question Regarding expected final RFP release date, 29 November 2024 is the Friday after Thanksgiving. Given the holiday schedules of most in industry, please provide advance notice if possible if you intend to hold to this release date to ensure that staff monitor publication sites over the holiday (or propose that the Government consider moving to no earlier than the following week)?

-15 day notice posted to SAM.gov on 27 Nov 2024

SAM.Gov General Question

SDA Tranche 3 program elements are defined in the solicitation document. It would be helpful to Contractors if the size of the Custody program is identified (at least at a summary level). For example Space Systems Command Missile Track Custody (MTC) program Epoch 1, Epoch 2, etc or generally quantity of SVs, vendors, and ground system relationships expected?

T3CL architecture is still being defined; see T3PI Program Integration Backup Ref Doc, RFP Attachment 7 for bidding purposes.

SOW 1.1

Does the Government plan to serve as interface and furnish all Space Vehicle and Ground Segment documentation to Contractor or is Contractor required to execute Non-Disclosure Agreements and/or Associate Contractor Agreements with Vendors to gain access to Tranche 3 vendor technical information?

The contractor is required to execute associate contractor agreements in accordance with Section H FA2401.52.2239-9ZH1 - Associate Contractor Agreement.

SOW 1.1

(U) PWSA P3 PI Draft RFI. Security - The effort will require all personnel with access to this program to have TS/SCI clearances and for the Contractor to have cleared facilities capable of processing/storing TS/SCI data

(U) SOW 4.4 (U) All personnel assigned to work on this contract who will be handling classified shall have, at a minimum, an active, final granted SECRET clearance when brought onto the program. Personnel handling TOP SECRET information shall have an active, final granted TOP SECRET clearance with SCI Access Eligibility. SDA will sponsor SCI accesses for Contractor personnel supporting the PWSA Enterprise and T3 Program Integration program to enable them to participate in program activities which require access to compartmented information.

(U) Please confirm personnel security clearance requirements.

See final solicitation SOW 4.4

(U) 1.1 Evaluation Factors: Table 1 Evaluation Factors identify Factor 1 as "Program Management/Personnel Qualifications". Paragraph 5 is titled as: "Evaluation of Factor 1: Personnel Qualifications" and paragraph 6 is titled as :Evaluation of Factor 2:

Program Management and Technical Approach"

(U) Program Management is addressed in Factor 1 and Factor 2. Please confirm "Program Management" is evaluated in both factors. Recommend update of Factor 1 as Program/Management/Personnel Qualifications in paragraph 5.

Updated SecM 1.1

(U) Following Compliance documents are listed in SOW 1.6 as Classified.

1) SDA-SCG-0012 SDA Security Classification Guide: TACSATCOM 07 Apr 2023 Classified

2) SDA-SCG-0013 SDA Security Classification Guide: Warlock 15 May 2023 Classified

3) SDA-T2-PPP Tranche 2 Program Protection Plan (Classified) 02 Apr 2024 Classified;

to be replaced by T3 PPP

(U) Will these documents be provided in a classified Contractor's Bidders Library?

A bidder's library will be included with the final solicitation. SOW 1.6

(U) Will all of the documents listed in SOW 1.6 Compliance Documents be provided to bidders?

A bidder's library will be included with the final solicitation. SOW 1.6

(U) Will all of the documents listed in SOW 1.7 Reference Documents be provided to bidders?

A bidder's library will be included with the final solicitation. SOW 1.7

(U) 3 General Instructions. The Government will evaluate, in accordance with this attachment, information that the Offeror provides in response to Attachment 4 and sub attachment – Proposal Instructions.

(U) Please provide the Attachment 4. Proposal Instructions

See final solicitation SecM 3

(U) Row 55-57

(U) 3. Key Personnel resumes and qualification matrix demonstrate requisite education and experience as identified in Section 4.1 of the SOW and are complete in accordance with the resume and skills matrix template including letter of intent.

(U) Please provide the Qualification Matrix for Key Personnel

See final solicitation SecM 5

(U) Row 89: Sec M.5 Evaluation of Factor 1: Personnel Qualifications and Table 2

(U) Row 115-118: The Government will assign significant strengths, strengths, and/or deficiencies, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses to the Offeror’s proposal to arrive at the Factor 1: Schedule and Schedule Management rating

(U) There are two Factor 1 evaluation criteria. Please confirm correct Factor 1?

Updated SecM 5

(U) Row 195-199 (U)The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s recent (performance was within three

(3) calendar years of the proposal due date) and relevant (based on size, scope and complexity) record of past performance information obtained to determine whether past performance efforts relate to the scope of activities described in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and Attachment 2 – Technical Requirements Document.

(U) Please provide the Attachment 2. Technical Requirements Document

Updated SecM 7

(U) As the Draft Request for Proposal was released on 11/7, and with three federal holidays across proposal schedule, with proposal submission on 1/15/25, would SDA consider extending this acquisition for 2 weeks with new submit date of Wednesday, 1/29/25? This would allow adequate time for Past Performance program CO and Government Approvals and completion of Past Performance Questionnaires to be completed and returned.

Proposals will be due 31 Jan 2025. SAM.Gov

(U) Typically in this industry, a contractor will accept an additional 3 years of work experience in lieu of a Master's degree. Suggest SDA edit the key personnel requirements to add where appropraite: "Master's degree (or additional 3 years of space related work experience in lieu of a Master's degree)."

Updated SOW

(U) The contractor is required to distribute various documents and products to SDA and stakeholder teams, for example: "(U) The Contractor shall distribute releases of all verification products that comprise the T3 Program-managed FBLs to all relevant acquisition, development, integration, and operations teams as directed by the Government."

(U) What collaboration tool does SDA expect to utilize for the T3 program so that products are shared in one place and not e-mailed? What software licenses are provided in this Government provided collaboration environment? (Note: T0 used DI2E and then Naval Lift)

The Government's intent is for the Integration Contractor to establish an "interface" or mechanism of communicating with the T3 associate contractors. How the Integration Contractor establishes the method of communication is up to the Integration Prime Contractor.

SOW 2.2.3.08

(U)These tables are listed in the SOW Table of Contents, but are not included in the

SOW.

(U) Table 1 1 (U) PWSA Capabilities (Table is CUI)

(U) Table 1 2 (U) PWSA Capability Progression (Table is CUI)

(U) Table 1 3 (U) T3TL Mission-Specific Space Vehicle Variants (Table is CUI)

(U) Table 1 4 (U) T3TRK Mission-Specific Variants (Table is CUI)

(U) Can you please provide an updated SOW with the contents of these Tables?

Updated SOW ToC

(U) These Figures are listed in the SOW Table of Contents, but are not included in the

SOW.

(U) Figure 1 1 (U) PWSA System Architecture (Figure is CUI)

(U) Figure 1 2 (U) PWSA Evolution (Figure is CUI)

(U) Figure 1 3 (U) PWSA Configuration Baselines Tree (CUI)

(U) Figure 1 4 (U) Notional PWSA Enterprise Functional Baseline (Figure is CUI)

(U) Figure 1 5 (U) Notional T3 Program-Managed Configuration Baselines (Figure is

CUI)

(U) Can you please provide an updated SOW with the contents of these Tables?

Updated SOW ToC

(U) Rows 152-166

(U) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical processes and approach throughout the entire lifecycle to include systems engineering and integration activities supporting the T3 Program, which will extend the PWSA through the acquisition and integration of hundreds of space vehicles (SV) and associated Ground Segment (GS) elements. The following to be evaluated can be found in the SOW, section 1.3, Scope.

(U) (For complete analysis, PI solution development, and program staffing (to develop cost), can you please provide more detailed metrics on work to be accomplished during the T3 PoP?

Updated SecM 6

(U) 2. The Offeror’s proposed personnel listed in the Personnel Qualification Matrix are appropriately cleared in accordance with SOW Section 4.4.

(U) Can you please provide the Personnel Qualification Matrix?

See final solicitation Backup Ref 8

(U) 2. The Offeror’s proposed personnel listed in the Personnel Qualification Matrix are appropriately cleared in accordance with SOW Section 4.4.

(U) Is it SDA's intent to required Offerors to provide a Personnel Qualification Matrix with 100% of planned FTE's included, by name and security clearance status?

See final solicitation SecM 8

(U) In trying to determine staffing levels, we evaluated the following:

(CUI) Table 1-3 - T3TL: Has values 140 SV's and 14 Planes (CUI) Table 1-4 - T3TRK: 54 SV's (TBR) and 12 Planes (TBR)

(CUI) Can SDA provide updated number of anticiapted SV's and Planes? Can you please provide any information of expected SV's for Custody Layer?

T3 architecture is still being defined; see T3PI Program Integration Backup Ref Doc, RFP Attachment 7 for bidding purposes.

Backup Ref

(U) To alleviate burden on the Government during the holiday season/accommodate paid time off, would the Government consider CPARS submissions in lieu of a PPQ?

(U) In accordance with "FAR Subpart 42.15 (Contractor Performance Information)," Government agencies are directed to prepare past performance evaluations at least annually, using the Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR). As a result, many Government agencies no longer complete Customer Past Performance Surveys, since the requirement is to enter this data into a CPAR which is then stored for Government use in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). In addition, Survey data is not materially different than data collected via the CPAR/CPARS process. Requiring reference clients to complete a PPQ places an unnecessary burden on Government personnel.

(U) We request the Government incorporate the following: "If the referenced Past Performance contract has received a CPAR evaluation within the past 5 years, a PPQ is not required.

No. The Government requires PPQs for this source selection. SecM

(U) With the Final RFP, would the Government provide the reference document "PWSA Capabilities, Architecture, and Systems Engineering References Relevant to Tranche 3 Program Execution" to include Figures 1-4 and 1-5 as landscape pages, as they currently appear cut off in the provided version.

A bidder's library will be included with the final solicitation. Backup Ref Figs 1-4 and 1-5

(U) The baseline trees in the PWSA Capabilities, Architecture, and Systems Engineering References Relevant to Tranche 3 Program Execution document are helpful. To estimate the architecture effort, we request the Government provide “PWSA System Architecture” (Ref. Fig 1-4) products in the T3 Bidder’s Library so the contractor can assess the maturity of these products and propose the right-sized architecture team. Please also define what tools are used to manage the current PWSA System Architecture.

A bidder's library will be included with the final solicitation. Backup Ref Fig 1-4

(U) To estimate this effort, we request the Government provide available T3 baseline documents in the T3 Bidder’s Library so the contractor can assess the maturity of the T3 requirements baseline and propose the right-sized requirements management team. If the T3 Program Integrator is maturing documents developed in prior Tranches, it is important to understand the "As Is" state of these baselines.

A bidder's library will be included with the final solicitation. Backup Ref Fig 1-4

(U) To estimate this I&V effort, we request the Government provide available “Verification and Validation Products” in the T3 Bidder’s Library so the contractor can assess the maturity of the T3 I&V baseline "As Is" and propose the right-sized I&V team. We assume that prior Tranches have matured and proven test plans that are assessed/matured and managed for T3. Is this assumption valid?

A bidder's library will be included with the final solicitation. Backup Ref Fig 1-4

(U) The baseline trees in the PWSA Capabilities, Architecture, and Systems Engineering References Relevant to Tranche 3 Program Execution document are helpful (Ref. Fig 1-4) to understand the scope of the baseline under configuration management. To right-size our CM team with appropriately skilled staff, it would be helpful to understand the tools used currently to manage the configuration baseline, as well as the expected cadence for Engineering Review Boards (ERBs) and Configuration Control Boards (CCBs). Please add this information to the Backup documentation in the T3 Bidder's Library.

A bidder's library will be included with the final solicitation. Backup Ref Fig 1-4

(U) Past Performance. To adequatley provide relevant past performance across all Statement of Work 2.2.1-2.2.9, as well as Management, Security or other areas required by Section L, would you please allow 5 pages per citation to be submitted?

See final solicitation SecM

(U) The following section in the Model Contract, Section H: FA2401.52.2239-9ZH1 - Associate Contractor Agreement states:

(U) The Contractor hereby agrees to closelycooperate as an Associate Contractor with the other Associate Contractors onthis effort.

(U) This involves as a minimum:

-Maintenance of a close liaison andworking relationship -Maintenance of a free and open information network with all Government-identified Associate Contractors -Delineation of detailed interface responsibilities -Entering into a written agreement with the other Associate Contractors setting forth the substance and procedures relating to the foregoing, and promptly providing the Procuring Contracting Officer with a copy of same -Receipt of proprietary information from the Associate Contractors and transmittal of Contractor proprietary information tothe Associate Contractors subject to any applicable proprietary information exchange agreements between Associate Contractors when, ineither case, those actions are necessary for the performance ofeither.

(U) Question: Is this "free and open information network" provided by the Govt via GFx? Or is this database/network to be established and maintenanced by the Awardee and direct charged to the contract?

Neither. The Government's intent is for the Integration Contractor to establish an "interface" or mechanism of communicating with the T3 associate contractors.

How the Integration Contractor establish the method of communication is up to the Integration Prime Contractor.

Model Contract Section H: FA2401.52.2239- 9ZH1 - Associate Contractor Agreement

(U) Per the cited clause, if the "free and open information network" is provided as GFx, can the Govt please clarify what the expectations for "maintenance" are? For example, will the Govt expect the most current IMS and program information to be updated in this database within 10 days of Govt approval of those documents?

The Government's intent is for the Integration Contractor to establish an "interface" or mechanism of communicating with the T3 associate contractors.

How the Integration Contractor establish the method of communication is up to the Integration Prime Contractor.

Model Contract Section H: FA2401.52.2239- 9ZH1 - Associate Contractor Agreement

Can the Government describe how they envision the Program Integrator interfacing with Tranche SV and GS contractors? Will Associate Contractor Agreements for data transfer and discussions be used?

The contractor is required to execute associate contractor agreements in accordance with Section H FA2401.52.2239-9ZH1 - Associate Contractor Agreement. Model Contract

SOW 1.3, 2.2.4.03, 2.2.9; CDRL

A020

Will SDA provide technical data in the bidders library to permit bidder's understanding of Program Integrator size and complexity?

A bidder's library will be included with the final solicitation.

CDRLs

CDRL A003, A016, A017, and A018

Request SDA share their T3 PWSA budget with bidders to assist bidders in defining LOE and staffing.

If a decision is made to include an NTE profile, it will be included in the final solicitation. Model Contract N/A

What is SDA's priority of SOW tasks? See final solicitation SOW SOW 2.2.1-2.2.9, 3, and 4 Graphics on page 7 & 8 bleed off the page, request complete graphics. Updated Backup Ref Atch 7 Request clarification regarding: The Contractor shall recommend and "provide updates" to PWSA Enterprise FBL Architecture products to add content, correct content, or otherwise render the products more effective in providing the necessary architectural guidance to ensure T3 Program delivery. (A021) This statement has significant impact on estimating FTE levels. Please provide a copy of the FBL and

CONOPS.

A bidder's library will be included with the final solicitation.

SOW 2.2.1.02

Request clarification on OCI conflicts. Does SDA intend that the program integrator is prevented from being a developer and vice versa?

The Government has determined there is potential organizational conflict of interest (see FAR Subpart 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest) due to the nature of the anticipated separate solicitations and contracts for the entire Tranche 3 Program. The entire, fully integrated T3 program will likely include multiple T3 SV contractor(s) (primes and subs) and T3 Ground contractor(s) (primes and subs) who will interface with this T3PI Contractor, therefore if a T3PI Contractor intends to bid or perform on any other T3 contract, there will be an OCI that requires mitigation. In addition, SDA's OCI policy states that SDA SETA must remain OCI free within SDA, and therefore a contractor cannot concurrently be an SDA SETA contractor and a T3PI Contractor.

SOW 2.1.1.06

This seems to be a professional engineering contract so we recommend all FAR clauses with a service contract be removed. FAR 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards; FAR 52.222-55 Minimum Wages for Contractor Work.

This is an engineering and development (R&D) contract. Clause 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards will be removed from the contract and Labor categories are not required. The Government will review the Service clauses and will update the RFP accordingly. Model Contract Section I Contract Clauses

Request FAR clause 52.244-6 commercial sales be added to allow for commercial products, licenses, etc.

This clause will be added to the final RFP.

Model Contract Section I Contract Clauses

Please clarify the OCI requirement for avoidance and consider the opportunity to mitigate in the final RFP.

The Government has determined there is potential organizational conflict of interest (see FAR Subpart 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest) due to the nature of the anticipated separate solicitations and contracts for the entire Tranche 3 Program. The entire, fully integrated T3 program will likely include multiple T3 SV contractor(s) (primes and subs) and T3 Ground contractor(s) (primes and subs) who will interface with this T3PI Contractor, therefore if a T3PI Contractor intends to bid or perform on any other T3 contract, there will be an OCI that requires mitigation. In addition, SDA's OCI policy states that SDA SETA must remain OCI free within SDA, and therefore a contractor cannot concurrently be an SDA SETA contractor and a T3PI Contractor.

SAM.Gov

Bullet 11 under "respondents may address any or all of the following"

We agree with the determination of and recommend consideration for a woman owned small business set aside under NAICS 541715.

The Government does not intend to set this acquisition aside.

SAM.Gov

To ensure the requested unlimited page count RFI responses are given due consideration, we recommend postponing the release of the final RFP until RFI feedback sessions can occur. We suggest these be 1-on-1s with the governmetn Program Director and Program Manager and those that submitted RFIs. This will foster a more collaborative environment and enable further clarification and alignment with the Government's requirements for the final RFP. This will pay forward into contract execution and lend to reaching mission impact faster.

Noted

SOW

It is recommended to establish a page count limit for the RFP technical approach section to ensure concise and focused submissions.

Included in Section L of the final Solicitation SAM.Gov

It is recommended to place less emphasis on past performance in the evaluation criteria, as this project involves greenfield work, and determining what constitutes "relevant" experience may be inherently subjective for scoring.

See final solicitation

SOW

We recommend the Government consolidates down to one description for the four mission engineering leads in the key personnel. The consolidated description for the quantity of 4 mission engineering leads will include education required and relevant years of experience, but not years of engineering experience in the specific mission callout. Then specify coverage of mission area subject matter expertise in the key personnel team writ large and scored in aggregate experience. This will allow for flexibility in how the key personnel team is built that in turn will increase competition and raises assurance of staffing and retention of the key personnel team requirements in the execution of the contract.

Updated - see final solicitation

SOW 4.1.1.01

Nov 25