Consolidated QAs from Final RFP - 18DEC2020.pdf

Integrated Battle Command System

(IBCS) LRIP/FRP

RFP W31P4Q-20-R-0015 Questions Question Document Section/Paragraph/

Page No. Questions

General

N/A Please provide clarification for what is the intended use or difference for the material that is represented in the Cost-No-Fee (fixed amount) CLINs versus the material required to produce the IBCS hardware items in the Fixed-Price- Incentive-Fee CLINs?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Attachment 19, Section L, Volume V-Factor 4: Cost/Price, paragraph (5)(i) IDIQ FPIF Price Lists, states that the proposed prices on these CLINs shall include all labor, materials, ODC, and travel needed to fulfill the SOW requirements for these CLINs. Paragraph (5)(ii) IDIQ CPIF and CPFF Labor Rate Tables, states any material and travel costs related to the CPIF and CPFF CLINs shall be included in the Cost No Fee (CNF) Material and Travel CLINs. The Cost-No-Fee Material CLIN is specifically for material associated with the CPIF and CPFF CLINs.

Will the TDP provided upon contract award include additional technical data beyond 2-dimensional drawings in PDF format. That is, will other source material such as 3-dimensional models, CAD files (or equivalent), or other digital models be provided in a potentially more expansive TDP?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, un-validated 3D models will be provided upon award.

The procurement and update of laboratory support equipment, commonly referred to as “EOC-Lite” does not appear to be in the IBCS LRIP/FRP contract scope. Please clarify whether the “EOC-Lite” scope resides within the current IBCS SW OTA scope and not within this IBCS LRIP/FRP contract scope. This question is based upon the observation that drawings for the “EOC-Lite” do not appear in the provided TDP, and therefore it would be impossible for us to effect change to this equipment.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Reference IDIQ SOW Paragraph 6.6.7 and DO 0001 SOW Paragraph 5.4.7.

Should the procurement of an EOC-Lite be directed by the Government, the government will provide the TDP in its direction to the contractor in accordance with Section 6.6.7 of the IDIQ SOW and Section 5.4.7 of the DO

0001 SOW.

Task Order 1, Attachment 21

The Draft IBCS RFP TO1 Attachment 21 identifies a requirement for an updated Program Protection Implementation Plan (PPiP); CDRL A090. The PPiP is derivative and developed based on the Program Protection Plan (PPP). Offeror respectfully requests copies of the IBCS PPP and the current version of the PPiP be provided at the USG's earliest convenience.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The IBCS Program Protection Plan (PPP) will be provided upon contract award.

Technical Data Package

IBCS IPL

Please be advised that the version of the Indented Parts List (IPL) provided in the Final Technical Data Package (TDP) is listed as Rev -, dated 30-Mar- 20, however, a Rev A, dated 19 Oct. 20, was provided as an update to the Draft TDP. Please provide clarification as to which version of the TDP is the basis of offerors bids?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Rev A, dated 19 Oct 2020

Attachment

01, IBCS

LRIP/FRP

SOW

1 Introduction, 4 General requirements, 8.1.17 Technical Manual Data Rights Requirements

In the noted sections of Attachment 01 IBCS Intellectual Property (IP) Rights on deliverable technical data shall be provided with Unlimited Rights.

However, there are no Intellectual Property sections in either the Model Contract nor Section L that provides the bidders to fill-out the Data Rights assertion tables as required per the DFARS 252.227-70XX IP clauses, which are referenced in Section I of the Model Contract. Please advise how the government intends to request, evaluate and document Data Rights provisions from all bidders?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please follow standard data rights assertion process from the DFARS and FAR clauses to receive an evaluation of data rights assertions.

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

Page 31 - Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

In the Contracts Data Requirements List (CDRL) part of Section L, it references "CDRLs are identified in the RFP as a separately Priced CLIN.

The Offeror shall provide the cost for each CDRL as identified in Attachment

28. The offeror shall also provide a Basis of Estimate(BOE) to support the cost provided in Attachment 28." However, on Page 3 of the Solicitation, it indicates that the CDRLs are "Not Separately Priced" (NSP) CLINs. In addition, Attachment 28 is a "HWSW Baseline Inventory Template" that is not related to CDRLs. Please clarify whether CDRLs are to be separately priced and recommend removing HWSW Baseline Inventory Template from the CDRL exhibit?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Section L, CDRL language will be corrected to read: CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LIST (CDRL), DD1423. Offerors are required to follow instructions provided on the DD1423 and specifically the instructions on page 3 for Blocks 17 ("Price Group") and 18 ("Estimated Total Price") to include all pricing information. The Government will review these individual CDRL costs but they will not be an Evaluation Factor. The Government intends to use this information to determine the potential to re-scope the CDRL requirements, with the intent to eliminate duplicate data requests and data requests that have high cost/low benefits.

Section L.2 - Proposal Files

The RFP states that "Excel foldouts will only be allowed in the Pricing Volume." Will the Government reconsider the use of 11 x 17 foldouts in the other Volumes to ensure bidders are able to convey information in a format most appropriate for full understanding?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Since proposals are to be submitted electronically and on CD’s, the requirement for Excel foldouts will be removed from Section L.

Delivery Order 0001

Statement of Work

6.7.3

6.7.3 Identification of Subcontractor Change

If the Contractor substitutes an identified subcontractor during the quarter, the Contractor must coordinate the substitution with the PCO. The Contractor must attempt to find like/similar small business firms matching the socio-economic categories identified in the original list of small business subcontractors when replacing/substituting small business subcontractors from the list. The PCO must, within 30 days, agree with any small business subcontractor substitutions requested by the contractor prior to those replacement subcontractors performing any work on this contract. If the Government does not respond within 30 days, the contractor shall assume the request is approved.

The above is in conflict with FAR 52.219-9(d)(13) - Assurances that the Contractor will provide the Contracting Officer with a written explanation if the Contractor fails to acquire articles, equipment, supplies, services or materials or obtain the performance of construction work as described in (d)(12) of this clause. This written explanation must be submitted to the Contracting Officer within 30 days of contract completion.

Offeror respectively requests the USG consider replacing the requirement for the 6.7.3 "Identification of Subcontractor Change" with FAR 52.219- 9(d)(13). Consideration should be given to this contract being a IDIQ type contract. The offeror is committed to meeting the small business participation targets but the utilization of planned small business subcontractors and/or substitutes will depend on the timing/scope of task orders. The 30-day approval cycle noted in 6.7.3 will impact schedule when subcontractor substitution is required immediately. Waiting for a PCO approval for subcontractor changes could impact schedule and cost requirements.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The USG deletes IDIQ SOW paragraph 9.6.3 and DO 0001 SOW paragraph 7.7.3. Offerors shall use FAR 52.219-9(d)(13).

Section M - Evaluation

Page 10 - Factor 4:

The RFP mentions two different calculations for TEP. First for "the IDIQ" and second for DO 0001 only. Will TEP for each offeror be IDIQ pricing (from Attachment 18) plus DO 0001 pricing (from Attachment 23)? If there

Factors for Award Cost/Price evaluation are two separate TEP evaluations, what is the relative importance of each?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The TEP for the IDIQ will not be added to the TEP for the DO 0001. The Government has an obligation to purchase supplies and services at a fair and reasonable price. Because DO 0001 will be awarded as part of the IDIQ contract award, the Government will be evaluating both the Total IDIQ Price proposed and the Total DO 0001 Price proposed in accordance with the Factor 4: Cost/Price evaluation criteria in Section M. The Total IDIQ Price proposed and Total DO 0001 Price proposed will be evaluated for Compliance with Section L- Volume IV Cost/Price, Unbalanced Pricing, Business Systems, Reasonableness, and Cost Realism on the cost-reimbursement CLINs.

Delivery Order 0001

Statement of Work

5.6-7

The SOW states that if there is a lapse in production of 12 months or more, an FAI shall be conducted. Typically, the industry standard is 24 months.

Please provide the reasoning for shortening this period to 12 months.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: A FAI after a 12-month break will serve to help ensure new suppliers are adhering to the requirements as well as demonstrate the manufacturing processes and procedures resulting in a compliant product. New vendors, personnel changes and the lapse of time can adversely affect the compliance of an end item with the FAI serving as a way to help ensure the Government does not receive non-compliant hardware that has to be repaired in the field or sent back to the original manufacturer.

Attachment0001_IBCS_

LRIP_ FRP_SOW

8.5.7

(FRACAS)

For the 45 day turnaround from notification by the IAMD project office, is a complete root cause and corrective action plan required, or is a status update with potential root causes and corrective actions sufficient with updates to be provided at failure review boards?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: A status update with potential root causes and corrective actions is sufficient with updates to be provided at failure review boards.

Technical Data Package

Qualified Artifacts

Offeror has assumed that delivered TDP is fully qualified and is requesting access to qualified artifacts against our current requirements baseline.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The TDP provided has gone through a Physical Configuration Audit (PCA).

The IBCS PCA Report and specific artifacts may be provided upon request.

Attachment0001_IBCS_L

RIP_ FRP_SOW

Security 9.10.3

Per the current section and SOW requirements, Offerors do not have the ability to provide CI Agents with all of the required training. It is recommended that the following section be updated to read "For all contractors with security clearances. Per AR 381-12 TARP, contractor employees must receive annual TARP training. Contractors FSOs will ensure that all applicable AR 381-12 requirements are implemented.”

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: IBCS LRIP FRP SOW, Paragraph 9.10.13 does not require offerors to provide CI Agents. The paragraph states that the contractor employees be trained by a CI Agent or “Other Trainer” as specified in chapter 2, paragraph 2-4b of AR 381-12. If a local area CI Agent is not available then the contractor is allowed to utilize other trainers.

W31P4Q-20-R-0015-

LRIP FRP

Section B

Please provide direction to the offerors for bidding offset costs, and specify the prospective FMS customers expected to procure IBCS in Per the W31P4Q-20-R-0015- LRIP FRP RFP Section B(0013 through 0021)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Price to the quantities provided for each CLIN

Exhibit A CDRLs

A070 Materiel Fielding Plan

(MFP)

Per CDRL A070 Materiel Fielding Plan (MFP) an updated plan is requested to be delivered every 60 days after submittal of the Initial Draft MFP. The industry standard for an USG LRIP Contract is typically 180 days to deliver updates. It is recommended that the MFP Update submittal timeframe be changed to every 180 days because routinely the formal PDM review process for the MFP CDRL goes through a (4-5 week review cycle). Under those time constraints updates every 60 days could be extremely difficult to achieve.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: CDRL A070 will be updated to reflect 180 days delivery.

Attachment 19 Section L & Attachment 06 – Obsolete Parts List

Section L Volume V,

(5) (i)

Please clarify that if offerors identify additional obsolete items during their proposal development effort, they can add obsolete items to those provided by the USG in Attachment 06 and shall be exempt from pricing as part of offerors’ proposals?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Section L, Attachment 19, states “The proposed prices on these CLINs shall include all labor, materials, ODC, and travel needed to fulfill the SOW requirements for these CLINs, with the exception of pricing for the TDP obsolete parts identified in Attachment 06.”

Any additional obsolete parts that are identified by the offeror should be included priced and included in the proposed prices for the hardware CLINs.

Attachment 0021 Attachment 0019

Section 9 Section2 Volume V, (d)

Please clarify and resolve the conflicting language in these documents regarding schedule and deliverable quantities.

In Attachment 0021 it directs the offeror to support the delivery of up to 3 EOCs/ECTs and 6 Relays systems per month starting 15 months after contract award.

However, in Attachment 0019 it directs the delivery rate of the following:

1) Engagement Operations Center Qty 12/15 Months ARO, 2) Engagement Center Trailer Qty 12/15 months ARO, 3) Integrated Collaborative Environment Qty 12/15 months ARO, and 4) Integrated Fire Control Network Relay Qty 24/15 Months ARO.

It appears that Attachment 0019 is requesting 4x the rate of the EOC quantities than Attachment 0021.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government believes that the question above inadvertently reverses the references. Attachment 0021, DO 0001 SOW, Section 9, identifies the actual quantities to be delivered within the period of performance of the DO.

Attachment 0019, Section L, refers to the offeror’ s “capability” to produce and deliver “up to 3 EOCs/ECTs and 6 Relays per month” for surge capabilities.

NEA TDP information not available

As offerors refine the NEA concept and study the IFCN design at large, there appears to be incomplete information regarding power requirements. Specifically, there does not appear to be a power budget established in the IFCN CIDS. It is noted that power types (such as 28VDC) are established but are not allocated overall. This arose as the generator appears significantly oversized for the current load. In addition, the TDP did not provide a power analysis for the IFCN, similar to the power analysis that was provided for the EOC in “Attachment 0022a.3 - S280_System Power Analysis_12-5-2017.” Please provide power demand requirements for the IFCN, and more specifically, the existing

NEA.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: IFCN Relay Power Analysis 2020-12-14 is added to the unclassified technical documents and will be provided to the potential offerors. The excel sheet is embedded as an attachment to this Q&A document.

NEA TDP information not available

Please provide existing weight budgets and center of gravity (CG) analysis for the IFCN, including contributions at the part, component, and assembly level including the NEA fully assembled onto the trailer.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: LUT 2 Configuration V2 Relay Weights is added to the unclassified technical documents and will be provided to the potential offerors

21 NEA TDP information not available

N/A Please provide existing computer aided design (CAD) models for all available designs, including specifically the IFCN, the NEA, and the EOC shelter.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Un-validated 3D models will be provided upon award.

Attachment 19, Section L

Page 1, Page

Per page 1, it is directed that, "offerors proposal to be valid for 120 calendar days after date of required proposal submission."

However, in accordance with Section L, Volume V (1), it is directed that, "the offeror shall assume an award date of 4th Q FY21." That would require approximately a validity period of Offeror's proposals to be for 9 (nine) months.

Please clarify and resolve the conflicting language in Attachment 19, Section L regarding proposal validity period.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The offeror’s proposal will be valid for 120 calendar days after date of required proposal submission.

W31P4Q-20-R-0015, Section D

Section D Packing and Marking of the Final RFP has been omitted.

Please provide clarification for this omission and it is requested that the entire section be provided to RFP via amendment. Also, please provide any SPI's (Special Packaging Instructions) that have been developed.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Packaging instructions are provided in SOW 8.1.11, 8.1.14 and 8.1.15

Attachment 0001, LRIP/FRP Statement of Work

Section 4d.

The DFARS clause referenced in this section does not mandate that all TDP delta data be provided with unlimited data rights in all instances.

Please confirm that this is the level of data rights that the USG intends to require?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The USG concurs and removed the requirement for unlimited data rights in the Attachment 0001 SOW and Attachment 0021 SOW.

Attachment 0001, LRIP/FRP Statement of Work

Section 7.5, If Class I ECPs are out of scope, how are the costs to be handled for proposals/reviews of such preliminary ECPs when they can’t be estimated currently?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Class I ECPs will be conducted in 2 phases after the IDIQ Contract award: (1) preliminary ECP's will be issued via the CPIF Product Engineering Services CLIN and (2) implementation of the ECP's will be issued via the CPFF New Capabilities Engineering Services CLIN.

Please provide the results from the latest Physical Configuration Audit (PCA) in order to allow the offeror to complete the reconciliation of the TDP with the MDP

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: IBCS System PCA Report (A280-001 PCA Report redacted) is added to the unclassified technical documents and will be provided to the potential offerors

Offeror has reviewed the TDP and has identified discrepancies and omissions that are listed in an attachment, which will be provided under separate cover.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Noted, the offeror’s proposed approaches will be evaluated when the proposal is submitted

The TDP provided with the Final RFP is for bidding purposes and does not include obsolescence activities currently being executed by the USG and incumbent Contractor. Will the TDP provided upon contract award include additional Technical data beyond 2-dimensional drawings in PDF Format? Or will other source material such as 3-dimensional models, CVAD files (or equivalent), or other digital models be provided in a potentially more expansive TDP?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Un-validated 3D models will be provided upon award.

The procurement and update of laboratory support equipment, commonly referred to as “EOC-Lite” does not appear to be in the IBCS LRIP/FRP contract scope. Please clarify whether the “EOC-Lite” scope resides within the current IBCS SW OTA scope and not within this IBCS LRIP/FRP contract scope. This question is based upon the observation that drawings for the “EOC-Lite” do not appear in the provided TDP, and therefore it would be impossible for us to effect change to this equipment.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: EOC Lite will be procured through another contract.

Task Order 1, Attachment

The Final IBCS RFP TO1 Attachment 21 identifies a requirement for an updated Program Protection Implementation Plan (PPiP); CDRL A090.

The PPiP is derivative and developed based on the Program Protection Plan (PPP). Raytheon respectfully requests copies of the IBCS PPP and the current version of the PPiP be provided at the USGs earliest convenience via RFP Amendment.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The IBCS Program Protection Plan (PPP) will be provided upon contract award.

31 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

CDRL A078,

IPMR

Incorrect SOW paragraph reference in Block 16 remarks. Section B and the Cost/Price proposal instructions detailed above.”

Block 16 states Format 1 in accordance with SOW paragraph 4.8.2.1. Is the SOW reference to paragraph 4.8.2.1 in CDRL 078 Block 16 correct or is there another SOW paragraph that should be referenced?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SOW Reference in CDRL 078, Block 16 remarks will be updated to reflect the SOW reference as paragraph 9.1 of the SOW.

32 Attachment 0019, Section L

2.a Format As indicated in initial Q&A's, the use of 11 x 17 Pages are not mentioned in Section L Format Instructions. Per Section L.2.a the page setup parameters indicate the use of 8.5" width and 11" height parameters. Per the prior Questions and Answers Round 2 dated July 28, 2020, 11" x 17" pages were authorized for use for enhanced graphic requirements.

Request the government add this change to Section L-2.a to align to previous guidance?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The USG authorized 11” x 17” pages for enhanced graphic requirements.

33 Attachment 0019, Section L

L-1.Table 1 (Note 1 and Note 2)

Reviewing section L documentation, there appears to be 20 pages not allocated. Per Section L Table 1 Note 1 & 2, the total response page counts for individual sections in Volume II Factor 1 equal 180 pages of the 200 page maximum.

Can the additional 20 page count be applied above the sections at the subfactor level and at the factor intro to provide context and clarity in the content flow?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The additional 20 pages are intended to be used at the factor level for intro and clarity as needed.

34 DD254 Block 11i The solicitation DD254 does not have the TEMPEST block (11i) checked, however in the Security Guidance Block (13) it spells out the TEMPEST requirements. Would the government clarify TEMPEST Requirements.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: DD254, Block 11i should be checked. This was an oversight. The offeror should consider Block 11i checked and the DD254 will be updated to reflect this oversight at contract award.

35 W31P4Q-20-R-0015-

Section I USG may evaluate pricing during the PoP and resulting in a downward adjustment due to DFARS 252.215-7015 Inclusion of DFARS 252.215-7015 (Program Should Cost Review) will cause offers to risk up their bids which will inherently add cost to fixed price CLINS due to the possibility of only downward adjustment.

Recommend delete this clause.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The USG will not delete DFARS 252.215-7015.

36 W31P4Q-20-R-0015-

Section E The use of FAR 52.246-15 could result in open-ended opportunity for rework.

Inclusion of FAR 52.246-15 (Certificate of Conformance) subjective language "reject within a reasonable time” allows for open-ended contractor liability. Inclusion of this clause could cause offerors to increase their fixed price bid as a risk mitigation effort, increasing USG costs. Recommend delete this clause.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The USG will not delete FAR 52.246-15.

37 General The need for ACO contact information and submission of the SB Subcontracting plan via Safe.

Attachment 19 (Section L) B. Small Business Subcontracting Plan paragraph (3) requires submittal of Plan to the ACO. Please provide ACO name, address, phones number and email address. Also please confirm, due to uncertainty of Government return to work, that DoD Safe submittal is acceptable.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The USG will provide the ACO information when this becomes available

38 W31P4Q-20-R-0015-

LRIP FRP

pg 2 of 164 / Sec L, pg 20

Conflicting award dates RFP document says "estimated award date is 3rd quarter fiscal year 2021" but this conflicts with Section L page 20 stating award is Q4 GFY 2021". Could the government identify which is correct?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The USG will correct the dates to be consistent throughout.The estimated award date is 4thQFY21

39 Section L Page 26 Unsanitized proposal delivery requirements Can USG confirm that the section L requirements for “D. Subcontracts” to submit unsanitized proposals only applies to "Major" subcontractors as defined?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, only “major” subcontractors as defined are required to submit un-sanitized proposals. The Section L instruction should read, “In support of the subcontract rates used to develop the proposed blended FBLRs in the IDIQ CPIF and CPFF Labor Rate Tables, the offeror shall ensure that all proposed major subcontractors submit an un-sanitized proposal to the Contracting Officer and their cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) offices no later than the proposal due date.” Section L will be updated to reflect this change

40 Section L Attachment 23

Tab 7, Cost Element Summary

DO 001 attachment 23 conflicting directions The DO 001 Attachment 23 Cost Element Summary tab direction on the tab and the example formula links indicate this tab should be supported by information contained within the Attachment 23 cost model. Section L, pg 28 “Provide formulas in the cost element summaries to show how the direct labor costs, indirect costs, subcontract costs, material costs, travel costs, and fee costs are calculated from the supporting cost information worksheets in Attachment 18" is in conflict with the direction in Attachment 23. Further, due to differing weighting of cost element between the IDIQ and DO 001, it is unlikely things like weighted average direct and indirect rates would be the same between the Attachment 18 and Attachment 23 due to award timing.

Can USG confirm that the direction in Section L, pg 28 should reference Attachment 23 instead of Attachment 18?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, this instruction should reference Attachment 23 instead of Attachment

18. It should read, “Provide formulas in the cost element summaries to show how the direct labor costs, indirect costs, subcontract costs, material costs, travel costs, and fee costs are calculated from the supporting cost information worksheets in Attachment 23.” Section L will be updated to reflect this change

41 Section M Page 10 Evaluation of Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is unclear Given that DO 001 pricing is already included within the IDIQ TEP we believe it is USGs intention to evaluate TEP through summing FPIF, CPIF, CPFF, Cost No Fee plug amounts and applicable GFP price adjustments of the IDIQ. Further we assume DO 001 total price will only be used for budgetary and contract execution purposes. Can USG please confirm?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government has an obligation to purchase supplies and services at a fair and reasonable price. Because DO 0001 will be awarded as part of the IDIQ contract award, the Government will be evaluating both the Total IDIQ Price proposed and the Total DO 0001 Price proposed in accordance with the Factor 4: Cost/Price evaluation criteria in Section M. The Total IDIQ Price proposed and Total DO 0001 Price proposed will be evaluated for Compliance with Section L- Volume IV Cost/Price, Unbalanced Pricing, Business Systems, Reasonableness, and Cost Realism on the cost-reimbursement CLINs.

42 Section L Page 9 Possible reuse of duplicative labor category information for Volume I.

Question: Will Attachment 15, included in Vol V satisfy the Section 5 Labor Category Mapping requirement?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes

43 W31P4Q-20-R-0015-

LRIP FRP

Page 2 of 164, Section B, Labor CLINs

Conflicting Order Period defined Labor CLINs align to Order Periods within Section B are defined as 15 POP; however RFP pg 2 defines the Order Periods as 365 days. Can you confirm that Order Periods are 15 month POPs and overlapping such that the last 3 months of Order Period 1 overlap with the first 3 month of Order Period 2 in a manner that total IDIQ POP remains 60 months?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Ordering Period defined in Section A, Page 2 is 12 months (365 days DACA), which means that each CLIN in Section B can be ordered against for a period up to 12 months. Each order will include the period of performance for that specific order.

44 DO 0001, SOW Paragraph

7.7.1 Subcontracting Plan

CDRL A084 deleted from DO-1 list of deliverables.

DO 001 SOW paragraph references the development CDRL A084 but the CDRL has been deleted from the table of deliverables in the back of the SOW. In addition the 1423 form for CDRL A084 was not included in Exhibit B. Can USG clarify?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The requirement for the Subcontracting Plan is required at the overall IDIQ and not at the DO/TO level

45 Exhibit B, DO 0001 CDRL A028 A028 CDRL Test Report Delivery Requirement.

A028 Test Report DI NDTI 80809 states “Submission due NLT 60 days prior to test event” A028 is a Test Report so it can’t be submitted prior to the test event. Request USG update 1423 form to state a delivery date after the Test Event.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Concur. DD1423, CDRL A028 will be updated accordingly

46 Section L 1.6.e.i Clarity of page count as it refers to form 1692 within Factor 1, Section 1 Given that the technical volume appendices contain supporting data required to execute the preliminary ECP tasks, to include Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Assertion of data rights associated with the design, we assume the 1692's will be considered “supporting data” and not be considered part of Factor 1, Section 1 page count. Can USG please confirm?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: DD Form 1692 sheets should be included in the page count (they are minimal, but provide required information).

47 IDIQ and DO 0001 SOW IDIQ SOW 8.1.18

DO 0001 SOW

6.3

The DiD listed with the CDRL requirement (A051) Equipment Facility Requirements DI-SESS-81638, does not address temporary storage of equipment. This DiD is for development of a Training area, training support, shore facility requirements and the procurement of Technical Training Equipment, Training Devices, and logistic support to establish or sustain formal training at Naval Training Activities Will the USG consider removing DiD reference DI-SESS-81638 and replace it with a more appropriate reference document for establishing a short term storage plan of 30 days or less for MEI count identified in paragraph 8.1.18 (and DO1 Paragraph 6.3)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Temporary storage plan, associated DID and CDRL is removed from IDIQ SOW paragraph 8.1.18 and DO 0001 SOW paragraph 6.2.

48 Section L Volume III – Factor 2:

Management Subfactor 2 Depot SubK Mgmt

The USG added requirement to Subfactor 2 to negotiate a signed partnering agreement (general terms and conditions) followed by an implementation agreement (specific work focus) with our public partners. Does the USG intend for the required partnering agreement and the implementation agreement to be submitted as supporting documentations to the technical volume appendix applicable under Section L. e. Page Limitations item i, so as not to count against page count in the technical volume?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government intends for the partnering agreements and the implementation agreements to be included in the page count. The page count in Section L, Volume III-Factor 2, Management will be updated to reflect a page count of 175.

49 Volume IV, Small Business

A.(2)(f) eSRS reports, due to their length, are typically included as an Appendix to Small Business and counted against the Volume page limitations.

Section L requests three years electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) as evidence of performance on similar work. These reports are typically 3+ pages per report and not included in page count as it could easily consume 15+ pages of the 25 page volume limit. Will the Government allow these reports to be presented as an Appendix and not count against page limitations of the volume?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The USG will allow the eSRS reports to be presented as an Appendix and not counted against the page limitations on the volume.

50 Section L Attachment 23

Tab 7, Cost Element Summary

DO 001 attachment 23 conflicting directions The DO 001 Attachment 23 Cost Element Summary tab direction on the tab and the example formula links indicate this tab should be supported by information contained within the Attachment 23 cost model. Section L, pg 28 "Provide formulas in the cost element summaries to show how the direct labor costs, indirect costs, subcontract costs, material costs, travel costs, and fee costs are calculated from the supporting cost information worksheets in Attachment 18" is in conflict with the direction in Attachment 23. Further, due to differing weighting of cost element between the IDIQ and DO 001, it is unlikely things like weighted average direct and indirect rates would be the same between the Attachment 18 and Attachment 23 due to award timing. Can USG confirm that the direction in Section L, pg 28 should reference Attachment 23 instead of Attachment 18?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Yes, this instruction should reference Attachment 23 instead of Attachment

18. It should read, “Provide formulas in the cost element summaries to show how the direct labor costs, indirect costs, subcontract costs, material costs, travel costs, and fee costs are calculated from the supporting cost information worksheets in Attachment 23.”

51 Section M Page 10 Evaluation of Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is unclear Given that DO 001 pricing is already included within the IDIQ TEP we believe it is USGs intention to evaluate TEP through summing FPIF, CPIF CPFF, Cost No Fee plug amounts and applicable GFP price adjustments of the IDIQ. Further we assume DO 001 total price will only be used for budgetary and contract execution purposes. Can USG please confirm?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The USG has an obligation to purchase supplies and services at a fair and reasonable price. Because DO 0001 will be awarded as part of the IDIQ contract award, the USG will be evaluating both the Total IDIQ Price proposed and the Total DO 0001 Price proposed in accordance with the Factor 4: Cost/Price evaluation criteria in Section M. The Total IDIQ Price proposed and Total DO 0001 Price proposed will be evaluated for Compliance with Section L- Volume IV Cost/Price, Unbalanced Pricing, Business Systems, Reasonableness, and Cost Realism on the cost-reimbursement CLINs.

52 W31P4Q-20-R-0015-

LRIP FRP

Page 2 of 164, Section B, Labor CLINs

Conflicting Order Period defined Labor CLINs align to Order Periods within Section B are defined as 15 POP;

however RFP pg 2 defines the Order Periods as 365 days. Can you confirm that Order Periods are 15 month POPs and overlapping such that the last 3 months of Order Period 1 overlap with the first 3 month of Order Period 2 in a manner that total IDIQ POP remains 60 months?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The Ordering Period defined in Section A, Page 2 is 12 months (365 days DACA), which means that each CLIN in Section B can be ordered against for a period up to 12 months. Each order will include the period of performance for that specific order.

53 Section B Quantity Column

Target Price. We believe the target price used in Section B is based on evaluated quantities as reflected in the quantity column of Section B. Is this an accurate assumption?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Yes

54 Section L Pages 19-20 Submittal of subcontractor unsanitized proposals. Can the Government confirm the Section L requirement for “D. Subcontracts” to submit unsanitized proposal only applies to “Major” subcontractors as defined?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Yes, only “major” subcontractors as defined are required to submit un-sanitized proposals. The Section L instruction should read, “In support of the subcontract rates used to develop the proposed blended FBLRs in the IDIQ CPIF and CPFF Labor Rate Tables, the offeror shall ensure that all proposed major subcontractors submit an un-sanitized proposal to the Contracting Officer and their cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) offices no later than the proposal due date.” Section L will be updated to reflect this change

55 Section L Pages 20-21 GFP Evaluation. How will GFP be evaluated? Wat is the intent of the adjustment.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The GFP adjustment relates to any GFP from other Government contracts that the offeror is proposing to utilize on a rent-free basis in performance of the IDIQ and DO 0001. This requires the offeror to calculate an IDIQ GFP Price Adjustment and a separate DO 0001 GFP Price Adjustment when applicable. RFP Section L Cost/Price will be updated to clarify this intent.

For purposes of evaluation only and when additional required GFP from other Government contracts is proposed on a rent-free basis in performance of the IDIQ, the IDIQ GFP Price Adjustment for each classification of property, calculated in accordance with Attachment 6, shall be added by the Government to the IDIQ proposed price and to the IDIQ Total Evaluated Price. For purposes of evaluation only and when additional required GFP from other Government contracts is proposed on a rent-free basis in performance of DO 0001, the DO 0001 GFP Price Adjustment for each classification of property, calculated in accordance with Attachment 6, shall be added by the Government to the DO 0001 proposed price and DO 0001 Total Evaluated Price. RFP Section M Cost/Price and RFP Attachment 26 will be updated for clarification.

The Price Adjustment is to ensure that an offeror proposing additional GFP is not given an unfair competitive advantage because it is proposing GFP that the other offerors don’t have access to.

56 Section L Page 9 Volume 1, Section 1 Points of Contact. Please confirm contractual points of contact are sufficient

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The Points of Contact should be anyone from the contractors organization authorized to answers questions on the proposal submitted (i.e. Contracts Manager, PM, etc.).

57 Section L Page 9 Volume 1, Section 6 Company Agreements. What agreements should be included in this section? Section L, page 15 states Teaming Agreements, letters of commitment, contracts, joint ventures, mentor protégé, etc. are to be included in Volume IV.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The Company Agreements should list all partnership agreement to be used to execute this effort. Selection L, page 15 only identifies small business use.

58 Section L Price Build Up Due to POP variances, labor rates in DO1 won't tie to order period 1

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Assuming “Price build-up for the base contract labor category” is a reference to the price build-up of the DO 0001 proposed CPIF Blended FBLRs by labor category, there is no requirement that the DO 0001 CPIF Blended FBLRs by labor category tie to the Ordering Period 1’s IDIQ CPIF Blended FBLRs from the IDIQ CPIF Labor Rate Table in Attachment 18. As stated in the RFP, “The offeror shall ensure that the DO 0001 proposed CPIF Blended FBLRs by labor category do not exceed Ordering Period 1’s IDIQ CPIF Blended FBLRs from the IDIQ CPIF Labor Rate Table in Attachment 18.”

59 Section L MEI Pricing/Docum ent

BOE’s for FPIF CLINS

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The RFP Section L Cost/Price instructions dated 7 December 2020 do not require BOEs be submitted in support of the FPIF CLINs but require the offeror to “provide additional worksheets in Attachment 18 showing the offeror’s calculations used to build up the FPIF unit prices by CLIN/SLIN.”

However, the RFP will be amended to remove the requirement that offerors show the build up of the proposed FPIF unit prices by CLIN/SLIN in Attachment 18 to remove any confusion that the USG is requiring offerors submit BOEs to support the reasonableness of proposed FPIF unit prices.

Therefore, the build up of proposed FPIF unit prices and the supporting BOEs are not required. Offerors are required to complete the IDIQ FPIF price lists in Attachment 18, proposing unit prices by quantity and by CLIN/SLIN and ordering period in accordance with the Section L Cost/Price instructions. As stated in Section L, the Government does reserve the right to request additional or more detailed information to support an evaluation of reasonableness of proposed FPIF prices.

60 W31P4Q-20-R-0015 Section B Is Section B based on evaluated quantities as reflected in the quantity column of Section B

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Yes

61 Attachment 15 Skill Classification Crosswalk

Mapping labor categories

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The offeror is required to complete the requested information in the Attachment 15 Skill Classification Crosswalk for all IDIQ contract labor categories identified in Attachment 15. When mapping the contract labor categories identified in Attachment 15 to the offeror’s internal contractor/corporate labor categories, the offeror shall ensure that proposed labor category descriptions, education, and experience provided for contractor/corporate labor categories meets the minimum contract labor category requirements as defined in Attachment 15.

In accordance with the RFP instructions, for any labor categories proposed as part of the IDIQ CPIF Labor Rate Table and IDIQ CPFF Labor Rate Table that are in addition to those identified in Attachment 15, the offeror shall provide in Attachment 15 the proposed labor category job descriptions and minimum qualifications (education and experience) that will be utilized for each additional proposed labor category. The RFP Section L Cost/Price language will be amended to clarify that this information for additional labor categories is to be provided in the Attachment 15 Skill Classification Crosswalk.

Attachment 15 will be used to assess the offeror’s understanding of the IBCS contract requirement, so that the USG can ensure that the offeror is proposing qualified employees for the effort. Attachment 15 further provides insight into the offeror’s composite labor rate calculations, identifying the internal contractor/corporate labor categories and their weightings used when proposing composite contract labor rates.

If a contract labor category is comprised of only one internal contractor/corporate labor category, the offeror shall still complete Attachment 15 to show that the single proposed contractor/corporate labor category meets the minimum qualifications identified in Attachment 15 for the contract labor category.

62 W31P4Q-20-R-0015 Section B, CPIF CLINs Would the Government consider increasing the max fee on CPIF CLINs?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE No. The offeror shall propose fee in accordance with the Section L Cost/Price instructions

63 Section L Indirect Rates How are indirect rates proposed?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE The offeror shall propose indirect rates that are realistic for the effort in accordance with the Section L Cost/Price instructions. The RFP Section L Cost/Price indirect rate instructions for the CPIF and CPFF CLINs will be updated so that they read as shown below.

The offeror shall provide the following in support of the proposed indirect costs:

1. A listing of indirect rates by CLIN and ordering period used in the development of the proposal. The offeror shall disclose the correlation between the contractor’s fiscal year and the proposed indirect rates by ordering period.

2. A narrative explaining the basis of estimate for proposed indirect rates used to support why the proposed rates are realistic;

3. State whether the proposed rates represent a FPRR or FPRA and note the date of the agreement. If the proposed indirect rates are based on a FPRR or FPRA, the offeror shall provide a copy of the FPRR or FPRA;

4. State whether or not the proposed indirect rates have been adjusted for the impact of this proposal. For any proposed indirect rates that have been adjusted for the impact of this proposal, the offeror shall show the impact of the proposed effort on the offeror’s total indirect pool expenses and the total indirect base expenses. If the proposed indirect rates have not been adjusted for the impact of the proposal, provide the impact that this effort would have had upon the total indirect rate pool expenses and base expenses had the offeror adjusted its indirect rates for the impact of this proposal.

5. If the proposed indirect rates are not based on a FPRR or FPRA, the offeror shall provide an indirect rate proposal, providing the total pool expenses and the total base expenses. Additionally, provide the offeror’s actual indirect rate history for the prior three years for all indirect rates not supported by a FPRR or FPRA, showing the historical total pool and base amounts.

64 TDP Drawings

EPFPU Relay Drawing

The V2 RELAY EPFPU INSTALLATION drawing (ALH-216644) provided as part of the TDP is provided to assist in ECP development in Attachment 22c.

The PFPU will be replaced by the IFCS (to be provided as GFE). It is not intended for the bidders to procure components associate to ALH-21664 identified in the TDP.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Number 64 was provided by the USG as clarification. No question was submitted.

Sheet1

POWER REQUIRED / POWER AVAILABLE

POWER REQUIRED (cooling mode, worst case) MAX PWR (WATTS) Nominal Power (watts) (80% max) Test Calculation

ALTITUDE (FT) Power Required Power Available

MISSION CASE Max Power (W) Nominal Power (W) Temperature (F) ground altitude temperature

Baseband Processing Unit (BPU) 185 148 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 160 1000 155

Status and Coordiante Input Module (SCIM) 132 105.6 0 3,047 2,438 3,247 3,247 3,247 3,247 3,247 3,247 3,247 3,247 2000 149

IGRM Assembly 60 48 1,000 3,047 2,438 3,247 3,247 3,247 3,247 3,247 3,247 3,247 ** 3000 144

KG-250X 19 15.2 2,000 3,047 2,438 3,247 3,247 3,247 3,247 3,247 3,247 ** ** 4000 138

SecureSync Timing Unit, Spectracom 80 64 3,000 3,047 2,438 3,247 3,247 3,247 3,247 3,247 3,247 ** ** 5000 133

Media Converter, miConverter 18 48 38.4 4,000 3,047 2,438 3,247 3,247 3,247 3,247 3,247 ** ** ** 6000 128

Switch, 18 Port, Parvus 25 20 5,000 3,047 2,438 3,107 3,107 3,107 3,107 3,107 ** ** ** 7000 122

Router 50 40 6,000 3,047 2,438 2,967 2,967 2,967 2,967 ** ** ** ** 8000 117

ECU 1,542W, 28Vdc (Low setting)(Heating is 600) 882 706 7,000 3,047 2,438 2,827 2,827 2,827 2,827 ** ** ** ** 9000 112

ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS 0 8,000 3,047 2,438 2,687 2,687 2,687 ** ** ** ** ** 10000 106

HRFU (280 with heaters on) 110 88 9,000 3,047 2,438 2,547 2,547 2,547 ** ** ** ** **

B-side processor (RS-112 DC powered) 330 264 10,000 3,047 2,438 2,407 2,407 ** ** ** ** ** **

TEC (EIC 1500 BTU) 1100 880 * AMMPS follow MIL-DTL-32496 The sets shall not wet stack or incur failure during sustained light load operations (300 hours from 0 to 10% rated load).

BEACONS 26 21 ** Temperatures not attainable at altitude. Information is based on 160°F ground temperature decreasing at 5.4°F per 1,000 ft.

TOTAL REQUIRED POWER 3047 2438

1000 5000 g62249: J Manson:

Green values are specifically listed on data sheet. Other values are interpolated. 3247

4000 5000 3247

5000 4825 3107

6000 4650 2967

7000 4475 2827

8000 4300 2687

9000* 4125 2547

10000* 3950 2407

Note: Green values are specifically listed on data sheet. Other values are interpolated.

TMT Power Losses Ideal

PSS EFFENCY 80% 90%

Battery Back-up Max Charge Consumption (W) 378 302.4

300 Watt Inverter (W) 375 100

Power to NEA at Altitude and Temperature

100 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 3247 3247 3247 3247 3247 3107 2967 2827 2687 2547 2407 110 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 3247 3247 3247 3247 3247 3107 2967 2827 2687 2547 120 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 3247 3247 3247 3247 3247 3107 2967 2827 EST MAX 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 3047 3047 3047 3047 3047 3047 3047 3047 3047 3047 3047 EST NOM 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 2437.6000000000004 2437.6000000000004 2437.6000000000004 2437.6000000000004 2437.6000000000004 2437.6000000000004 2437.6000000000004 2437.6000000000004 2437.6000000000004 2437.6000000000004 2437.6000000000004 Measured 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 1 Altitude (Feet)

Power (Watts)