SpeedDealer Solicitation Questions and Answers.pdf

SpeedDealer Government Clarifications and Questions and Answers

Government Clarifications

1. The notice posted on Friday, 21 Feb 2020, regarding scenarios are specifically for Hardware-In-The-Loop Stimulator (HWILS) and/or modeling and simulation (M&S) task in the SOW. The Government will be providing four scenarios. At this time, the scenarios will be included in the solicitation as part of the Model OT to help Offerors understand the scope of work, but will not inform the evaluation of the prototype OT award.

2. The Government does not intend to release details on any of the live-fly scenarios. Offerors will be expected to provide a capital asset, required support equipment, and personnel to operate their system, and provide data to the Government for analysis on a daily basis for the duration of the demonstration.

Questions and Answers

1. Can a company submit multiple SpeedDealer proposals? That is:

a. Can a company submit a proposal and an alternate proposal?

Offerors may only submit one proposal.

b. Can a company propose to conduct the technical review and demonstrate 2 radars?

No. The Government only has resources to support the demonstration of one system per OT award. However, the Government may allow the demonstration of multiple configurations of the same system to occur.

2. Will the gov’t provide requirements of the Far Field Range (targets sets, ranges, altitudes, speeds, etc.) available?

There are no specific requirements for proposed Far Field Ranges. The ability to utilize an Offeror’s far field range will be negotiated if their proposal is accepted. We are interested in the Offeror’s capability of testing the maximum firm track range of 5th gen fighter and EP/EA capabilities.

3. Please clarify the power requirements for the demonstration.

i. Will there be an opportunity, in the event that power is restricted, to also demonstrate the scenarios at a higher power setting

Offerors will demonstrate their systems at the 120 kW referenced in the capabilities document. However, the Government may allow additional power configurations to be demonstrated in accordance with Column B in the table in section 3.7 of the solicitation. The Government will have up to 180 kW power available in their generator configuration. Additional power beyond 180 kW would require contractor-supplied power sources.

4. Section 3.9 Criteria 3 – Maintainability and Sustainability

a. The Government’s overall strategy is to provide, to the greatest extent possible, for the ability to allow for third party sustainment.

ii. Please clarify the type of sustainment.

iii. Does the 3DELRR PO need a contractor operated/maintained or just a contractor maintained system?

This section has been updated to reflect the Government’s intent for organic sustainment

5. Are these equally weighted or is Performance more important than Producibility and Maturity is that more important than Maintainability and Sustainability?

The proposal will be given an overall rating based upon an integrated assessment of the proposal in its entirety. Each criteria will not be rated separately.

6. Please clarify the USAF’s desire for data rights (i.e.. Full, limited government use, etc.)

For the prototype OT agreement, the Government is requesting limited and/or restricted data rights. The Government requires sufficient data rights to inform the follow-on production decision. A discussion on data rights for potential follow-on efforts has been added to the technical review portion of the SOW. The solicitation now references data rights as a criteria for the follow-on production decision.

7. The solicitation states that in the event the Government determines it will not award an Agreement, costs incurred in the development and negotiation of its proposal are not recoverable from the Government.

Can you confirm this means the costs are not directly recoverable from the USAF, but that contractors are not prohibited from recovering the costs in their rates in accordance with their approved accounting procedures?

Correct, the 3DELRR PMO will not directly reimburse any costs associated with proposal preparation. No further implications regarding internal accounting systems should be inferred from this statement.

8. Will site visits, if conducted, be conducted for all contractors during the OTA period of performance? Will the site visit include an evaluation of whether there is current production of the proposed system as well as manufacturing potential to support additional production and delivery of up to 35 systems by FY27?

The necessity of site visits will be evaluated on a case by case basis.

9. The solicitation states in multiple places that the Government is seeking a "production ready" system. Does "production ready" include software which was developed via CMMI Level 5 processes?

There are no CMMI level 5 requirements. However, the maturity of the software development processes may inform the assessment of the producibility and maturity of the system if the Offeror chooses to include it in their proposal.

10. Can you please confirm that in order to achieve the required support and sustainment, the USAF will require unlimited data rights?

For the prototype OT agreement, the Government is requesting limited and/or restricted data rights. The Government requires sufficient data rights to inform the follow-on production decision. A discussion on data rights for potential follow-on efforts has been added to the technical review portion of the SOW. The solicitation now references data rights as a criteria for the follow-on production decision.

11. Is the "software code" referenced solely the software code required to read contractor's sample data?

Yes. The SOW has been updated to clarify this.

12. If the data delivered (Part A-002) is from a production configured system, as opposed to a non-production configured system, will that be viewed as a benefit?

No, as the delivery of A-002 would be completed as a SOW activity after award, the data delivered would not be considered in the initial evaluation.

13. Is the operation of the Secondary Search Radar (SSR) intended to be included in the Government Radar System Demonstration? If so, what modes are to be demonstrated?

The SSR is not a primary focus of the demonstration. However, the Government would be interested in seeing this capability if available and possible. The modes would be limited by the RFA for the demonstration location.

14. The solicitation states that a price of less than $500,000 should be proposed if necessary in order to satisfy the cost share condition. Does this mean that the total OTA value, inclusive of the contractor's one third cost share will be valued at $500,000 (OTA value = $500,000 with Contractor Cost Share = $167,000), or that the value of Government contribution prior to the contractor's one third cost will be $500,000 (OTA value = $750,000 with Contractor Cost Share = $250,000)?

To receive the full $500,000.00, the Offeror must certify that they are funding a minimum of $250,000.00.

15. Is the Government seeking any basis of estimates or other substantiating documentation to support the contractor's proposed price, given that a fair and reasonable determination has already been made?

The Government is not requiring the proposal include substantiating documentation regarding price. The Offeror’s certification detailed in the Solicitation will be sufficient.

16. Does the Government plan on releasing a draft OTA agreement?

The model OT agreement will be released with the final solicitation.

17. With regards to demonstrating a "complete understanding of the requirements," which specific requirements are being referred to (e.g.

will there be additional requirements provided in the RFP other than those than the CDD excerpts referenced in section 2)? Are all requirements weighted the same?

No additional requirements will be included. The capabilities documents contains the full set of requirements. The proposal should focus on the Criteria found in 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9.

18. Assessing Operational Availability (Ao) requires knowledge of the underlying logistical support system. What assumptions regarding spare availability, transport times, etc. should be used?

The solicitation has been updated to include preventative maintenance down time, software reset down time, system interrupt down time, and mean administrative and logistics delay time assumptions for Offeror’s use in calculating Ao.

19. The table, to be submitted in the classified appendix, requests the information be provided for both the Demo Unit and the Max Performance Configuration. Should the information requested earlier in Section 3.7 (pages 8 and 9) also be provided for multiple configurations?

No.

20. Does the Government's stated intention not to provide GFP include Government Furnished Services (GFS), such as Prime Power, should a Government test site be used?

The section has been updated to reflect the Government’s intention to supply generator power during the demonstration. The specifications of the generator are now included as an attachment to the solicitation.

21. Will the Government be considering the procurement and sustainment costs as part of the SpeedDealer demonstration award evaluation as part of Criteria 2 and 3?

No. However, it is impossible to fully divorce costs from maintenance/sustainment concepts.

22. How will "affordability" be evaluated, e.g. is there a budgetary range for the 35 system production program or lot buys?

The SOW has been updated to reflect what costs the Government is requesting for inclusion in technical review.

23. With respect to the non-Government advisors that were not in attendance at Industry Day, is the Government going to provide the POC information or shall the NDA be routed through the Government for countersignature?

All non-Government advisors have signed a proprietary information non-disclosure agreement that has been included in the contract between each firm and the government that precludes any advisor from divulging any proprietary data to which they may gain access to during the solicitation phase. Any non-Government advisor is aware that unauthorized disclosure of contractor bid or proposal information and that the transmission or revelation of such information to unauthorized persons is subject to prosecution under 41 U.S.C. 2101-2107 or under other applicable laws. If an NDA in addition to the existing NDA is desired, the Government will provide a person of contact upon request.

24. Is the Government planning on releasing the referenced "system verification spreadsheet" with the RFP? In the alternative, is the "system verification spreadsheet" released and where can it be obtained?

The system verification spreadsheet will be provided at prototype OT agreement award.

25. What is the notional delivery schedule for the 35 systems with regards to determining unit cost? The Industry Day slides suggest a 2 lot delivery, is this a correct assumption and notional schedule, or will the Government provide further clarification on delivery schedule and lot buys for the 35 systems at time of RFP release?

The Government does not intend to provide the notional delivery schedule prior to prototype OT agreement award.

26. How will the estimated unit cost be substantiated by the Government?

Discussion of the unit cost will occur during the technical review.

27. Is the production radar unit cost expected to include any 3DELRR proposed changes as identified per paragraph 2.4?

The SOW has been updated to reflect that separate costs to address potential capability gaps will also be submitted.

28. Should paragraphs 2.7 through 2.10 be considered as subordinate paragraphs to paragraph 2.6?

This has been updated in the SOW.

29. States the Government can modify the system software and regression check the updated software without Contractor involvement.

This is under the System Technical Review section. How does the Government intend to accomplish this plan? What is the Government's expectation with respect to this requirement, i.e. are Data Rights to be considered? Request further clarification.

The SOW has been updated to reflect that the contractor is to propose the ease/difficulty of performing those functions as the system is currently designed to include any restrictions the Offeror intends to impose (e.g. data rights).

30. With respect to the Government’s ability to add a radar mode to the primary and or the SSR without Contractor involvement. This is under the System Technical Review section. How does the Government intend to accomplish this plan? What is the Government's expectation with respect to this requirement, i.e. are Data Rights to be considered?

Request further clarification.

The SOW has been updated to reflect that the contractor is to propose the ease/difficulty of performing those functions as the system is currently designed to include any restrictions the Offeror intends to impose (e.g. data rights).

31. Paragraph describes Government's ability to replace DMS ability COTS without Contractor or subcontractors. This is under the System

Technical Review section. How does the Government intend to accomplish this plan? What is the Government's expectation with respect to this requirement, i.e. are Data Rights to be considered?

Request further clarification.

The SOW has been updated to reflect that the contractor is to propose the ease/difficulty of performing those functions as the system is currently designed to include any restrictions the Offeror intends to impose (e.g. data rights).

32. Paragraph describes Government's ability to replace certain DMS Non-COTS without Contractor or subcontractors. This is under the System Technical Review section. How does the Government intend to accomplish this plan? What is the Government's expectation with respect to this requirement, i.e. are Data Rights to be considered?

Request further clarification.

The SOW has been updated to reflect that the contractor is to propose the ease/difficulty of performing those functions as the system is currently designed to include any restrictions the Offeror intends to impose (e.g. data rights).

33. Is it correct to assume that M&S results will be the primary method used by the Government to assess and compare radar performance?

All information provided during prototype OT performance will be used to assess performance and inform the follow-on decision.

34. With respect to the request for the system to output Measured RCS, as this was not an original 3DELRR requirement in the TRD or CDD, is this a new requirement? What does the Government intend to use that data for?

The SOW has been updated to reflect that providing Measured RCS data is not required if it is not available in the system.

35. What is the demonstration length envisioned? Will the "TBD" be solved determined at time of RFP release?

The Government envisions a demonstration length on the order of 4-6 weeks. The date, duration, and location of the demonstration(s) will be negotiated with successful offerors at the time of the prototype OT agreement award.

36. Will multiple test sites be accepted by the Government? Will the demonstration be completed in one phase or could there be multiple demonstration phases to accommodate different test sites?

The date, duration, and location of the demonstration(s) will be negotiated with successful offerors at the time of the prototype OT agreement award. Multiple demonstration sites and/or events could be used.

37. Will data recorded during live fly activities be used for quantitative performance evaluation/ comparison purposes? If so, will the same live fly targets be used for all evaluated radars?

Data recorded will be used to assess radar performance to the 3DELRR capabilities document and inform the follow-on decision.

38. Will Past Performance be included as a formal part of this evaluation?

Past performance will not be included as a part of the evaluation.