Consolidated_ARTSV2_RFP_Industry_Comments_Responses_16_Mar_2016.pdf

Consolidated ARTSV2_RFP_Industry_Comments_Responses

Item Section/Area Question/Comment Response

FA8210-16-R-

5000, Model

Contract, Q&A released to

Industry, Section L

1.1 USG Cost

Estimate

Standard Form 1447 (cover page), Boxes 17-22

Request USAF provide clarification regarding what the intent of “Notice to Offeror(s)” paragraph means.

The Questions and Answers released to industry indicate the GFY17-20 Funding Profile is approximately 44%, 28%, 20%, 8%.

Recommendation: If it was USAF’s intent to insert language notifying industry that SF 1447 and Section G would not be populated with financial information until award, could the SF 1447 please be modified? In lieu of current wording in Boxes 17-22, recommended language below for USAF consideration:

“Notice to Offeror(s)/Supplier(s): Contract value and funding value information will be populated by Line Item on SF 1447 boxes 17-22 and Section G, as applicable, at contract award.

Subject to funding availability, it is the Government’s intent to award and incrementally fund this program. The current RDT&E Government funding profile for GFY17-20 is projected at approximately 44%, 28%, 20%, 8% respectively based on the Government’s cost estimate in Section L 1.1.”

The initial ARTS-V2 RDT&E effort is planned to be funded with FY17, appropriated 3600 dollars. The funds are currently included in the FY17 budget submission. As such, there is a reasonable expectation that funding this effort will be authorized and available upon enactment of the Authorization and Appropriation Bills for the applicable fiscal year.

As the Government has issued the solicitation in advance of available FY17 funds, Per AFFARS MP5332.7, the statement “Notice to Offeror(s)/Supplier(s): Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an offeror for any costs.” must be included in the solicitation.

It remains the Government's intent to award and incrementally fund this program. It is also accurate that the contract value and funding value information will be populated by Line Item on the SF 1447 and Section G, as applicable, at contract. award.

Model Contract Responses

3/16/2016 Model Contract 1 of 14

FA8210-16-R-

5000:

Section B, CLIN 0500 PRA Retrofit, Line Item Matrix

CLIN 0500 PRA

Retrofit, Section L

Paragraph 6.4.2 Section M

Paragraph 6.1.4.3

Request USAF to clarify the contract type for CLIN 0500 PRA Retrofit. Section B shows CLIN 0500 as Fixed Price, while Section L, Section M, and Attachment 15 Line Item Matrix all reference CLIN 0500 PRA Retrofit as Cost Plus Fixed Fee.

Industry needs clarification in order to bid and calculate TEP properly.

Recommend Government provide clarification and/or changes.

CLIN 0500 PRA Retrofit was intended to be a Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLIN. This will be corrected in the forthcoming Amendment 2.

Solicitation/Contrac t FA8210-16-R-

Section I Clause, 52.242-2, Production Progress Reports

This clause is only applicable when production status reports are a deliverable requirement. CDRL D001 Production Status Report that was in the OCT 2014 RFP release was removed in the JUN 2015 RFP release and is not located in the Final RFP release or Amendment 1.

Recommend Government remove this clause as it is not applicable, and production progress reports are not a mandatory deliverable requirement (covered in FAR

42.1106 which states that Contracting Officers 'MAY' require production progress reports…)

FAR Clause 52.242-2 will be removed from the soliciation. This will be corrected in the forthcoming Amendment 2.

3/16/2016 Model Contract 2 of 14

Request clarification for incorporation of this mandatory flow-down clause. As written, the release of any Unclassified information (email, drawings, videos, tech reports, subcontract Purchase Orders, etc.) outside of the ARTS-V2 prime contractor (and any tier thereafter) requires the written approval of the Contracting Officer whereby requests must be submitted at least 10 business days in advance of the planned release date.

1. Could the Government please clarify whether or not this clause applies to the release/transfer of data (e-mails, drawings, technical reports, subcontract data, etc.)

between the ARTS-V2 prime contractor and all subcontractor tiers involved in the routine day-to-day execution of the program?

2. If this clause does apply to the day-to-day transfer of data among the ARTS-V2 contractor team, could the Government please explain in more detail how their review and approval processes/timelines will work so industry can adequately evaluate the potential cost and schedule impacts the Government data reviews/approvals may have on the timely execution of the program.

Request Government consider these possible alternatives to help limit the number of requests generated throughout performance:

1.) Reconsider inclusion of this clause (as there are other Ts & Cs in the RFP that pertain to proper handling of information), or

2.) Include deviation language that limits the clause to news/press releases, articles, brochures, trade association meetings, published papers, etc., or

3). Include deviation language that limits the clause to deliverable items and allows for information to/from the Prime Contractor to/from subcontractors (all tiers) any Unclassified information, regardless of medium, for purposes of contractual performance which would not require Contracting Officer approval in advance of release.

Solicitation/Contrac t FA8210-16-R-

Section I Clause, 252.204-7000, Disclosure of Information

It is anticipated that the contractor will have access to or generate unclassified information that may be sensitive and inappropriate for release to the public. Therefore, per DFARS 204.404-70 (a), the clause has been included.

However, for clarification, in this case, the “Contractor’s organization” would include the subcontractors performing within the scope of this contract. Note 252.204-7000(c), the Contractor agrees to include a similar requirement in each subcontract under this contract.

3/16/2016 Model Contract 3 of 14

Solicitation/ Contract FA8210-

16-R-5000

Section I Clause, 52.232-18, Availability of Funds

Request clarification for incorporation of this clause as it is unclear why it was inserted into the Final RFP. Industry understands that in the event of contract award, funds would be obligated for EMD performance (exclusive of option awards, unless desired by Government). Additionally, Production Options would be awarded subject to the availability of funds and Government interest thereafter.

Request Government consider removing this clause as it implies cost/schedule risk associated with delays in the initiation of any/potentially all contract performance which cannot be predicted and/or bid in response to this RFP. Additionally, it implies inherent risk that EMD and/or Production dependent CLINs may not be awarded simultaneously, if at all (e.g., for EMD the PRA CLIN 0001 success is dependent upon award of the Travel CLIN 0004. This type of dependent relationship requires both CLINs to be awarded and funded at the same time). Industry needs to understand how much funding is coming, the frequency of said funding (e.g., quarterly? yearly?)

and timing of funding (e.g., approximately 15 Oct).

The initial ARTS-V2 RDT&E effort is planned to be funded with FY17, appropriated 3600 dollars. The funds are currently included in the FY17 budget submission. As such, there is a reasonable expectation that funding this effort will be authorized and available upon enactment of the Authorization and Appropriation Bills for the applicable fiscal year.

As the Government anticipates this contract will be chargeable to funds of the new fiscal year and will be initiated before the full funds are available (I.E. incrementally funded) this clause remains necessary.

It is worth repeating, the current RDT&E Government funding profile by fiscal years 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 is projected at approximately 44%, 28%, 20%, and 8% respectively, and while subject to availability of funds there is a reasonable expectation that funding this effort will be authroized.

3/16/2016 Model Contract 4 of 14

Solicitation/ Contract FA8210-

16-R-5000

Section L Paragraph 2.2

Organization/Numb er of Copies/Page Limits, Table 1, Volume 5, Factor 4 Past Performance

The Business Relationships summary sheet(s) are printed as separate pages by the PPI tool from the individual prime and subcontractor PPIs. Do the business relationships count towards the individual PPI page counts?

The Past Performance Information tool generates all PPI printed sheets with single line spacing. Because there is no apparent way to change the font or formatting of documents generated by the PPI tool (undetermined font and single line spaced), are printed PPIs within the specified page count acceptable (i.e. 6 pages per PPI)?

Recommend that the Business Relationships sheets do not count towards the individual PPI page counts because they reflect the organizational structure and relationships for the ARTS-V2 contract and they are printed as separate sheets.

Recommend that the single line spaced, printed copies of the PPIs that are generated by the PPI tool and are within the page count recommended in Section L be acceptable format for the Past Performance Volume.

Recommend Section L allow for utilizing printed copies generated from the tool, to be turned into images whereby contractor proprietary markings, solicitation number, and required FAR clause may be applied per other requirements of Section L for volumes.

Please note: if this was acceptable, a revision to Section L font format requirement of Times New Roman 12 and 1.5 Line Spacing would be required specific to this volume, so long as the information was still legible.

Yes, the Business relationships summary sheets do count towards the individual PPI tool page count. Section L Table 1 will be modified to clarify "6 sheets per PPI” That is to say the Max sheets per individual PPI tool output would be 6. For example if 2 recent/relevant PPIs are included, the Max page count for total PPI tool output would be 12. (6 each)

Section L 7.3, states that PPI sheets shall be submitted using the EZ Source PPI tool, and that all other Past Performance Information for Volume 5 will be delivered IAW Table 1 and Paragraph 2.2. We did not intend for formatting to be included in the PPI tool outputs. Paragraph 2.2.2.1 will clarify the PPI tool output exclusion from formatting guidelines. This will be correct in the forthcoming Amendment 2.

Solicitation/ Contract FA8210-

16-R-5000

Solicitation Cover page and Section L

Request Government provide clarification to proposal delivery deadline. Synopsis and solicitation cover state 4:00 PM. Section L states 2:00PM.

Request Government review and amend where applicable.

Section L will be updated to state 4:00 PM. This will be corrected in the forthcoming Amendment 2.

3/16/2016 Model Contract 5 of 14

FA8210-16-R-5000

- Solicitation

Section B, CLIN

CLIN 0003 (PRA Manufacturing Tooling) has the same period of eligibility for exercising the option as Production Option 1. CLIN 0003 is specified to have acceptance occur at destination, which is Hill AFB, within six (6) months ARO. This could impact the ability to execute Production Option 1.

Is the expectation to deliver the tooling to Hill AFB under CLIN 0003, only to have it immediately returned as GFP for re-installation at the Contractor’s facility, or redistribution through the Contractor’s supply chain for re-installation at subcontractor facilities? Or is the Contractor expected to deliver a second set of tooling to the Government, so that production capabilities are not impacted by the CLIN 0003 delivery?

Acceptance will be changed to occur at origin.

If any production options are exercised, the tooling is anticipated to become GFP.

FA8210-16-R-5000

- Solicitation

Section B, CLIN

Government response to SOO comment #6 was “The ESSS system is a standalone system and will be located within a secure room and will not require an IATO, ATC, or ATO.” However, the CLIN description for CLIN 0504 states that ESSS development, documentation, and delivery shall be IAW SOO paragraphs 4.5.5 and 4.5.5.1 (among others). This contradicts the Government’s response to the aforementioned SOO comment #6 (from the DRAFT RFP Industry Comments), as SOO paragraphs 4.5.5 and 4.5.5.1 would require execution of the Risk Management Framework (RMF) process, to include implementing security controls to achieve IATO, ATC, or ATO.

Does ESSS require implementation of security controls in accordance with the Risk Management Framework (RMF) process to achieve IATO, ATC, or ATO? If so, what is the security categorization of ESSS?

If implementation of security controls to achieve IATO, ATC, or ATO is not required, then should the reference to SOO paragraphs 4.5.5 and 4.5.5.1 be removed from the CLIN description for CLIN 0504?

No, the ESSS does not need to achieve IATO, ATC, or ATO.

However, the ESSS does require implementiation of functional security system controls, for the purpose of testing software updates/upgrades. Any security control implemented in the system would need to be replicated in the ESSS to maintain system integrity for the purposes of software testing.

The system security controls in SOO paragraphs 4.5.5 and 4.5.5.1 remain in CLIN 0504.

FA8210-16-R-5000

- Solicitation Section L, Paragraph 2.2.2.2

In response to Q&A #6 released to industry on 1/20/2016, was the USG’s intent to update Section L 2.2.2.2 to include formatting flexibility?

Section 2.2.2.2 allows for the following flexibility "For charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 8-point and alternate fonts will be accepted."

3/16/2016 Model Contract 6 of 14

Posting - 27 January 2016 Posting - 10 February 2016 Posting - 17 February 2016 Posting - 3 March 2016 Posting - 16 March 2016

3/16/2016 Model Contract 7 of 14

Item Section/Area Question/Comment Response

Attachment 7 -

SPS

3.2.4.1 and 3.2.4.2

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seems to have changed the link to the list of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) yet again. The EPA website links specified in paragraphs 3.2.4.1 and 3.2.4.2 of the SPS do not work. Attempting to follow the link results in “HTTP 404 Not Found.”

A list of ODS was found at http://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/ozone-depleting-substances.

Is the list of ODS at the link above the same set of ODS that are prohibited by paragraphs 3.2.4.1 and 3.2.4.2 of the SPS?

Noted, the link changed again. The new link provided in the comment is correct:

http://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/ozone-depleting-substance

Within the link are two tabs, one for Class I and one for Class II.

Attachment 7 -

SPS 3.3.2.1.3.1 -

3.3.2.1.6.3

[Summary of a contractor comment]

Using an antenna model developed with ITEAMS data has uncovered a potential requirements ambiguity with respect to RMS side lobe requirements. Modeling of the side lobes over the principle planes (vs. forward hemisphere) may give side lobe levels outside the required classified parameters and may result in the antenna pattern not being entirely threat representative. Recommend changing verbiage of side lobe level location to be averaged over the "forward hemisphere" instead of "principle planes".

After analyzing this RMS side lobe issue, it was determined that that sidelobe levels were modeled over the forward hemisphere in creating the ITEAMS data. Concurrence from SMEs at MSIC validated that a change in the SPS wording for the RMS sidelobe levels is warranted.

The classified sidelobe level numerical parameters remain unchanged. The wording on the location will be changed from "principle planes" to "forward hemisphere". The RMS sidelobe levels will now be averaged over the forward hemisphere vs. two cuts along the principle planes.

Attachment 7 -

SPS 3.3.2.1.3.1 -

3.3.2.1.6.3 and

Questions/ Comments Released to

Industry

Regarding the Q&A released with Amendment 3 (Reference: Q&A, page 8 of 12, #002), stating “[Summary of a contractor comment]”, can you please provide the entire question/comment as submitted?

It is important that industry fully understands the basis for the change to the SPS since the resulting requirements are ambiguous.

Entire contractor comment will be submitted by classified means and mailed to all offerors that have currently requested classified source selection documents.

Requirements in question are being re-reviewed to ensure they are clear and correct.

Other Document Responses

3/16/2016 Other Documents 8 of 14

Attachment 7 -

SPS

3.3.4.2.1

Paragraph 3.3.7.1 of SAE AS8090 restricts the ARTS-V2 to a height of 132 inches and a width of 96 inches. Satisfying the Radar Cross Section (RCS) requirement of SPS paragraph 3.3.2.4 requires exceeding the maximum dimensions imposed by SAE AS8090. Therefore, the dimension requirements of SAE AS8090, paragraph 3.3.7.1, are not applicable to ARTS-V2. Is this interpretation correct?

This interpretation is correct, the SPS requirement takes precedence.

Attachment 7 -

SPS

Table 8-1

Since paragraph 4.3.1.5 of Section L references Table 8-1 of the SPS, we want to be sure we’re clear on the SPS requirements that trace to KPP1, KPP2, and KSA4.

Table 8-1 has some apparent errors in the SPS paragraph references. Recommend the following changes:

KPP2

Change “3.3.2.15” to “3.3.2.1.15”. There is no paragraph 3.3.2.15 in the SPS, but SPS paragraph 3.3.2.1.15 is marked with “[KPP2]”.

Delete “3.3.2.1.18.4”. There is no paragraph 3.3.2.1.18.4 in the SPS.

KSA4

Change “3.3.2.1.26” to “3.3.2.1.24”. The paragraph number for the Electronic Scanning Array requirement changed between the 4 September 2015 and 15 December 2015 versions of the Draft RFP, and the Amendment 3 version of the SPS still shows this requirement in SPS paragraph 3.3.2.1.24.

Change “3.3.2.1.27” to “3.3.2.1.25”. The paragraph number for the Antenna Tilt requirement changed between the 4 September 2015 and 15 December 2015 versions of the Draft RFP, and the Amendment 3 version of the SPS still shows this requirement in SPS paragraph 3.3.2.1.25.

Concur. Government will update the SPS in accordance with the recommended changes.

3/16/2016 Other Documents 9 of 14

Att. 19 - Statement of Objectives and Att. 20 - Exhibits

Contract Data Requirements List

(CDRL) versus Statement of

Objectives (SOO) requirements

Paragraph 3.1.4, Note M

The following CDRLs have deliveries during each of the production options and the shell production option: Test Plan – Radar Cross Section (GZ69, NZ23, QZ23, SZ23 and AZ01), Test Procedure – Radar Cross Section (GZ70, NZ24, QZ24, SZ24 and AZ02), and Test/Inspection Report – Radar Cross Section (GZ71, NZ25, QZ25, SZ25 and AZ03). Did the Government intend to perform RCS Testing using the Chicken Little Facility at Eglin AFB for every surrogate shell produced on this contract? If yes, there is a cost avoidance opportunity if this requirement is removed/changed as it will no longer require engineering support and travel for each unit (which is not likely to provide unique results for each unit produced). The SOO states that “In the case of RCS testing the Government will directly fund 2 rounds of system level testing.”

However, to be consistent with the CDRL delivery requirements, NOTE M of the SOO should be clarified as follows: “…In the case of RCS testing, the government will directly fund 2 rounds of system level testing of the PRA and 1 round of testing for each RCS shell delivered under CLINs 0511, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001.”

Recommend Government provide clarification and/or changes.

Note M specifically covers DT&E testing. Government Funding for DT&E is limited to the PRA, where all DT&E testing will be performed.

RCS Testing using the Chicken Little Facility is required for EVERY surrogate shell that is delivered. This is part of the acceptance requirement for each surrogate shell.

Funding for all testing following the DT&E tests are the responsibility of the contractor and must be included in the proposed cost to the Government for each item.

NOTE: The Points of Contact at Chicken Little are Tamika McKinney (850-882-8151) and William "Scott" Crookshanks (850- 882-8146)

Attachment 22 – Cybersecurity Strategy Plan Appendix B

Appendix B of the Cybersecurity Strategy Plan lists all security controls and control enhancements in NIST SP 800-53 Rev 4 as the control set from which to tailor.

However, paragraph 3.d of DoDI 8510.01 states that the ARTS-V2 PIT system categorization in accordance with CNSSI 1253—Confidentiality: High, Integrity:

Medium, Availability: Low—shall be used for the implementation of the corresponding security controls. CNSSI 1253 also specifies the control set for tailoring based on the categorization, therefore implying that ARTS-V2 shall tailor from the categorization-based control set rather than the full list of NIST SP 800-53 Rev 4 controls. Is this interpretation correct?

Yes, that interpretation is correct.

The FISP 199 defines how to properly categorize the system.

Based on this guidance, Confidentiality: High, Integrity: Medium, Availability: Low is the categorization determined by the SPO.

CNSSI 1253 defines what security controls are required based on these categorizations. NIST SP 800-53 Rev 4 contains the details for each of the required security controls identified in CNSSI 1253.

3/16/2016 Other Documents 10 of 14

Att 23 - Section L Paragraphs 8.1 &

9.3.4.1

Att 24 -Section M Paragraphs 8.1 &

8.2

The offeror’s interpretation of a compliant response to the solicitation concerning small business requirements is as follows:

• Submittal of a DCMA-approved Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan (CSP) is compliant to FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7004.

• If the CSP is provided then an Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not required as an additional submittal.

• A Small Business Participation Plan is to be provided in addition to the CSP to show compliance to Statement of Objectives (SOO) paragraph 4.4.8, and further 4.4.8.6 is fulfilled by submittal of the CSP.

• In summary: The Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan to be provided as an attachment to the Model Contract (Section L - 9.3.4.1) PLUS a Small Business Participation Plan to be provided in the Small Business Volume of the proposal complies with the requirements in Section L: 8.1, 9.3.4.1, and Section M: 8.1, and 8.2, and SOO Section 4.4.8.

Request USAF confirm if Section L & M interpretations as outlined above are correct.

The offeror's interpretation as described is correct…That is to say, a DCMA-approved Comprehensive Small Business Plan would meet the requirement of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

As mentioned, the Small Business Participation Plan as defined in SOO paragraph 4.4.8 is a distinct and separate requirement.

BOTH are required.

3/16/2016 Other Documents 11 of 14

Att. 24 Section M

Small Business Evaluation (Ref:

Section M 8.1 and 8.2, Att. 19

Statement of Objectives (SOO)

4.4.8)

Are the specific percentages (5% SDB, 5% WOSB, 3% Hub-zone, 3% SDVOSB) referenced in SOO Section 4.4.8 intended to be calculated as a subset-percentage of the 11% Small Business requirement?

For Example: Subcontracted Value = $10,000,000 Small Business: 11% = $1,100,000 SDB: 5% of 11% = $55,000 WOSB: 5% of 11% = $55,000 Hub-zone: 3% of 11% = $33,000 SDVOSB: 3% of 11% = $33,000

Given the total amount of subcontracted value is set by each offeror, how will the government assess “Best Value” for companies that meet the 11% socio-economic small business goal by minimizing the total amount of their subcontracted work in order to lower their overall small business participation?

Given the Government’s desire to make a “Best Value” determination, would the Government give consideration to industry for exceeding the 11% total small business goal category, beyond “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” per DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table A-1 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings, and Section M paragraph 4.2.1?

The example is correct, the specified percentages referenced in SOO Section 4.4.8 is intended to be calculated as a subset-percentage of the 11% Small Business requirement.

It is also accurate, that the amount of subcontracted value is determined by each offeror, and this may result in a wide variety of small business participation.

Per section M 8.1, Factor 5 will be evaluated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. Therefore, exceeding the 11% total small business goals would result in an acceptable rating, however, additional consideration will not be given.

Att. 6 GRIDS Paragraph 1.2.6, SOO Paragraph

4.1 & 4.1.6 CCD Paragraph

6.6.

GRIDS paragraph 1.2.6 states, "The Government anticipates all work required to produce the CDRLs under this contract will be entirely Government funded and that the contract’s data deliverables will not require the contractor to deliver or disclose any non-public, proprietary, or confidential information ." SOO paragraph 4.1 and 4.1.6 are not in alignment with the GRIDS statement above and FAR 12.212. " In development and production of ARTS-V2 systems: Source Code and associated libraries shall be delivered in the native source format in which it was developed. " Request USAF to clarify their expectations that commercial software source code is not required to be delivered as it is trademarked software and not developed with USG funds per CCD paragraph 6.6.3 and FAR 12.212.

Government concurs that SOO Paragraph 4.1.6 needs to be clarified.

SOO Paragraph 4.1.6 will be updated to: "Non-commercial code and associated libraries shall be delivered in the native source format in which it was developed." Commercial and open source code shall be delivered IAW the license agreement and will include any and all libraries and source code covered by the license.

3/16/2016 Other Documents 12 of 14

011 Att. 6 - GRIDS Paragraph 5.3.1

Paragraph 5.3.1 provides insight into the Government's intent in using data other than technical data.

"Contractor agrees and, if necessary, hereby grants to the Government the right to use, modify, perform, display or disclose all data listed in Table 3 below, in whole or in part, within or outside the Government, and without restriction unless identified as “NAFP” (not available for purchase) " Request the USAF to please clarify who outside the Government will be provided the other than technical data CDRLs. Does outside the Government only refer to the Government Support Contractors? If so, could that sentence be revised to say "within the Government and Government Support Contractors whereby NDAs may be executed in advance of access to company sensitive information"?

The concern is the Non-Technical CDRLs will contain Industry's company sensitive rate/proprietary information. Industry would like to provide this information to provide the Government with their minimum requirements, but certain protections are required given that rate sensitive information must be provided to comply with non-technical CDRL DID requirements.

GRIDS Paragraph 5.3.1 will remain unchanged.

It is NOT the Government's intent to require contractors to provide any license rights that would require rate sensitive deliverables.

The Government position is to seek license rights to the maximum set of data (technical as well as other than technical) to facilitate success in its minimum need to "execute system, sub-system, and component competative reprocurement, accomplish program sustainment, and perform organic or Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Maintenance " over the life of the system.

As stated in GRIDS Paragraph 5.3.1, contractors have the option of identifying any of the CDRLs listed in Table 3 as NAFP and addressing in the Gap Analysis how the government may still meet its minimum need (stated above).

NOTE: The Government reminds all contractors that listing any CDRL with limited rights/NAFP is not an inherent evaluation weakness if sufficient justification is provided describing how the Government's need to "execute system, sub-system, and component competative reprocurement, accomplish program sustainment, and perform organic or Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Maintenance " over the life of the system is not adversely impacted.

3/16/2016 Other Documents 13 of 14

Attachment 20 -

Exhibits

BZ28

The initial submittal of the Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) is due no later than thirty (30) days prior to Post Award Conference (PAC). It is our understanding that the PAC is conducted as soon as possible after Contract Award. Therefore, there is very little time to develop the ARTS-V2 specific QAPP, route through internal release procedures, and still submit the CDRL data item no later than thirty (30) days prior to the PAC.

Recommend changing the initial submittal for BZ28 to no later than thirty (30) days after PAC, consistent with that of the other top-level program plans (Program Management Plan, Systems Engineering Management Plan, Configuration Management Plan, and Risk Management Plan).

Government concurs. CDRL BZ28 initial submittal will be corrected to NLT 30 days after PAC.

Posting - 27 January 2016 Posting - 10 February 2016 Posting - 17 February 2016 Posting - 3 March 2016 Posting - 16 March 2016

3/16/2016 Other Documents 14 of 14