JEDI_DRAFT_RFP_QA.pdf

Section Paragraph Comment/Question Government Response

When will the solicitation be released?

The Government anticipates the solicitation to be released in January.

DRAFT_SOW 4.8.2

Para 4.8.2 wants reporting on ECP status and asks for it in CDRL A011 (Subcontract Plan). Should the correct CDRL be A009 (Monthly Status)?

Yes, the SOW has been updated to call out CDRL A009.

DRAFT_SOW

Appendix A

B

Recommend the time period for notification be changed from

1 hour to 24 hours.

The Government has updated the SOW.

DRAFT_SOW 4.1.6

Under which CLIN should we include the costs for the program meetings, as we are not certain which CLINS will be purchased? Providing the meeting costs within each End-Item CLIN would result in redundant meeting cost.

This is a business decision for each Offeror to make.

L

4.4.3

There is risk that an Offeror's Supply Chain Processes might be optimized for materials/suppliers other than what constitutes the majority of JTE sub‐systems (e.g., IT equipment vs.

metalwork and RF electronics).

Suggest requiring that Offerors describe how they have worked with large scale high power electronics (and other materials relevant to the JTE Bill of Material) in the past.

The Government believes there is adequate evaluation criteria to determine technical acceptability

L

4.4.2

Long lead material items are a major schedule driver.

Suggest requiring long lead material milestones/events for specific components (e.g., transmitters, pedestal, CEAR, etc.)

in the IMS to assist the Government in evaluating schedule realism.

Clarified in Section L 4.4.2 that long‐lead material shall be included in the IMS.

DRAFT_Sample_T ask 2.6

There appears to be a typo in this sentence: “The schedule shall include prior to factory acceptance, environmental, and site acceptance tests.”

The Government has updated the Sample Task.

DRAFT_SOW 4.1.8

Does the contractor install the retrofit kits or are the kits purchased then installed by the Government?

The PCA is required to occur on the kit components only. The Government will install the kits.

DRAFT_SOW 4.2

Will the Government define a likely mix of 24 JTE end-items when the RFP is released?

No, orders will be issued as requirements are identified.

DRAFT_SOW 4.1.6.1

How do we cost the “and as requested by the Government”

PMRs?

The Government has updated the SOW to require not more than a total of 5 PMRs per year. Government

Estimates 1 per quarter and 1 additional PMR as requested.

M

4.4.1.3

There is risk here. Where is the tie between supplying a component and making the JTE Software work on that component? It’s one thing to build the JTE, it’s another to load and make millions of SLOCs run on the supplied hardware.

Suggest the Government add an eval criteria based on the

Offeror's ability and approach to handle JTE's complex set of software and integrate it with the procured hardware subsystems.

After consideration, the Government has decided not to include this as an evaluation criteria.

L

5.3.2

Section J, Attachment 2 and Section J Attachment 3 were not included in the DRFP Package.

The Government has removed the past performance factor from sections L&M, therefore the attachments are no longer required.

DRAFT_SOW 4.2.3.1

With the aggressive delivery schedule, it may not be possible for the Contractor/Government to process an ECP and maintain schedule.

Suggest including First Article Testing and Qualification of replacement parts.

In order to follow proper configuration management rules within the Government, an ECP must be completed to authorize all technical data changes.

The responses contained in this document represent the Governments current information at the time of posting. The Government reserves the right to change any information through the official release of the RFP.

DRAFT_SOW 4.4.10

The test procedures in the TDP do not include First Article SAT demonstration of all 3 phases.

SOW section 4.4 states:

The Government will provide test plans and procedures as GFP, the Contractor shall update or supplement as necessary to complete all testing prior to MRR or as part of an ECP.

DRAFT_SOW 4.1.6 MMR Typo The Government has updated the SOW.

SOW

4.1.10

In order to understand and forecast the LOE required to

“develop, prepare and deliver TO change pages…” for the JEDI program, will the Government provide the unclassified technical manuals for the current configuration of the JTE as part of the RFP?

Yes. The Government has included, in the TDP, a reference copy of these manuals.

DRAFT_SOW 4.4.3

Test reports … shall include a tabular listing of dimensions on each sub-assembly or part. This tabular listing, in combination with the individual inspection reports shall be of sufficient quality that it can be used as part of a PCA. If sufficiently detailed, the Government may choose to allow the use of this data in lieu of disassembly of the LRU for PCA inspection

Is it correct to assume that the tabular listing can point to dimensions on Receiving Inspection reports and Drawings? If so, yes.

M

7.5

Will the Range‐Threat SPO hold teleconferences with Offerors if there are post‐submittal discussions/Ens?

If Discussions are held, and if the Government determines teleconferences are in its best interest, teleconferences will be held to discuss ENs with all

Offerors in the competitive range.

Will the Government consider form, fit and function equivalent, Brand Name or Equal (BNoE), components to be proposed as substitutes for equipment with directed sources in the JTE TDP?

Industry Day Q&A#74 states that variation to the baseline will need to be submitted as an ECP. May a contractor propose substitutes as part of the bid/award process to be considered using the ECP process?

Given the potential inequality of quotes from directed sources, may bidders utilize substitutes to level the playing field for bidders and offer additional value to the government over directed sources?

The Government expects a completed Pricing

Workbook. The following verbiage has been added to the Pricing Workbook and the front page of the solicitation:

If an obsolete part (spares or support equipment) is identified by the Offeror, notify the government

Contracting POCs per the front page of the solicitation, and include documentation from the OEM that identifies the part's obsolescence.

DRAFT_SOW 4.1.14.7

Beyond cyber security, is Information Assurance accreditation required?

Per the SOW the Contractor will be required to address cyber security as part of any ECP that modifies software. All references to IA have been replaced with the current cyber security nomenclature.

Section L 2.21.1

Some standard pricing tools output a Cost Volume in Arial

Narrow 10 point font.

For Volume I Cost/Price, is it acceptable to provide pricing outputs that deviate from the prescribed font, font size, and line spacing?

Deviations from the required formatting will be deemed as an unacceptable submittal.

L

4.5.1

There is a close connection between Supply Chain Processes, Receiving Inspection, Production Plan, and System Delivery.

Suggest requiring a description of how the Offeror ties in

Supply Chain processes and Receiving Inspections/QA to the

Production Plan. Suggest adding Supply Chain and Receiving

Inspection/QA inputs/outputs to the picture/diagram of the manufacturing process flow.

The Government believes this requirement is already embedded in Sections L and M evaluation criteria.

DRAFT_SOW 4.1.14.5

This requirement will add cost and schedule risk to the program and will increase the Government workload. There will be pressure from the contractor on the Government to review non‐conformances quickly. This process may alter the way an Offeror assesses cost, schedule, and risk.

This will remain the Government's requirement on this contract.

TEP Pricing

Worksheet

Suggest that Duties/Responsibilities for these categories includes experience in providing Provisioning Technical

Documentation (PTD) and preparing USAF Technical Orders.

The contract does not require the delivery of TOs, only change pages to allow the Government to update current books. Definitions are sufficiently outlined on the DOL website.

M

Table 2

Although the FAR states that unknown past performance shall be considered acceptable, an Offeror with unknown past performance would appear to add risk to the JEDI program.

To ensure a low risk program, suggest the Government set the bar high for both Technical Acceptability (Factor 2: Technical) and Completeness, Reasonableness, and Balance for Factor 1:

Price.

The requirement for past performance factor has been removed from sections L&M.

The Evaluation criteria for Technical Acceptability have been defined in section M.

M

4.4.2.2

There is no evaluation of the Offeror's data rights position on any data or software that is a variance from the TDP.

Suggest evaluating the Offeror's willingness to offer Unlimited

Rights, Government Purpose Rights, etc. per SOW Section

4.1.9.

By submitting a proposal, Contractors agree to all terms and conditions outlined in the solicitation. No additional certification required.

DRAFT_SOW 4.1.14.7

What are the Authority to Operate (ATO) requirements for each site acceptance location? Previously, each site had a different set of requirements.

See Section 4.2.3.3 of the SOW for specific details on ATO compliance.

L

4.4.2

Is the IMS counted in the 100 page limit for the Technical

Volume

Revised Section L 4.4.2 to require a critical path version of the IMS in the technical volume, but the full IMS shall be included as an attachment and not count toward the page limit.

FA821018R5000 Item 9

Suggest minimum 60 day turn due to senior management reviews and approvals required for a $450M ceiling IDIQ contract vehicle.

The Government anticipates allowing a minimum of 60 days.

DRAFT_SOW 4.4.3

Would the Government consider publishing a list of LRUs that it considers high risk?

No, the high‐risk LRUs are deemed so based on the

Contractor's risk management.

SOW

M

4.1.16

4.4.1.5

Both paragraphs require the contractor to manage/track obsolescence/DMSMS for the JEDI program. Section M states that the contractors approach will be evaluated. It is our experience that a successful program has a formal

Obsolescence/DMSMS Management Plan which clearly defines the roles, responsibilities, and requirements of both the government and contractor. Will the Government include the requirement for an Obsolescence/DMSMS Management Plan?

At this time, the Government does not anticipate requiring an obsolescence plan as a formal deliverable.

DRAFT_SOW 4.2

Since end‐item delivery could be 18 or 24 months, it’s possible for Government orders to result in 48 end‐items in simultaneous production. This results in greater production throughput than anticipated.

The Government will not order more than 24 total end‐ items, of all types, in any 12‐month time frame during the life of the contract, unless mutually agreed upon.

DRAFT_SOW 4.6

We have a concern that GFP systems sent to the contractor to receive retrofit kits could get caught up in material authenticity requirements.

The Contractor will not be provided any GFP end‐items to install retrofit kits. The Contractor is building kits that the Government will field through a Time Compliance

Technical Order at the field level.

DRAFT_SOW 4.1.16

Suggest adding a Counterfeit Prevention Plan CDRL (IAW DI‐

MISC‐81832) as a requirement, and possibly requiring a draft with the proposal.

After consideration, the Government has decided not to add this requirement.

FA821018R5000

DFARS

252.204-7012

A check of the solicitation does not identify any Covered Defense Information (CDI) associated with the program. Please identify any CDI associated with the program. If no CDI is identified, then our understanding is that none of the information is CDI.

DFARS 252.204-7012 is required by DFARS 204.7304(c).

DRAFT_SOW 4.1.1

Very broad language.

Suggest the following edit:

“The Contractor shall flow down all appropriate requirements of this SOW and contract to all Sub‐Contractors, suppliers and vendors.”

The Government has updated the SOW.

L

2.22.1

Is hyperlinking between different filenames acceptable when it is an attachment within the same volume?

No, hyperlinking between different documents is not acceptable.

TEP Pricing

Worksheet

First Article

Testing

Suggest adding Retrofit Kit First Article Testing price matrices The Government has updated the Pricing Workbook.

L

6.9.8

Section J was not provided with DRFP Attachments were omitted from the Draft solicitation but will be included in the official RFP.

It appears the DRFP is not a small‐business set‐aside. Has that decision been made or is the Government still analyzing the information from the Industry Day to make a determination?

Based on current market research, the Government is proceeding with full and open competition.

TEP Pricing

Worksheet End‐Items

US and FMS end‐items have different part numbers. Pricing is different.

Suggest adding separate pricing matrices for US vs. FMS end‐ items.

The Government wants 1 price for both US and FMS end‐items in order to maximize the quantities ordered.

DRAFT_SOW 4.4.1

Environmental Testing, EMI/EMC, Vibration/Mobility Testing, and Signal Fidelity Testing are missing from this list.

End‐item First Article Testing does not require these types of testing. Any new LRUs that are changed as part of the end‐item design must undergo these verifications.

L

4.4.4

Is the CMP counted in the 100 page limit for the Technical

Volume?

Revised Section L 4.4.4 to require an outline as opposed to a full plan. The CMP outline will count toward the technical volume page limit.

Section L 4.4.2

It is unclear if the Government is requesting an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for each end-item type (TEU, WTEU, FC2U, MC2U), or an IMS that includes delivery of all 24 end-items in 24 months. Please clarify.

Section L has been updated to read:

The Offeror shall provide a Gantt Chart depicting the start and end points of all events required to complete the production and qualification testing for 1 of each end-item type from order to system delivery.

DRAFT_SOW 4.1.10

There is nothing in this paragraph specific to FMS TO documents, redactions in particular.

Please clarify if the contractor is responsible for redacted FMS versions of TO change pages?

As FMS requirements for this contract emerge, ECPs may be required to perform all required changes.

DRAFT_SOW 4.1.6.7

This paragraph requires the contractor to deliver drawings for

PCA, but does not state the design authority or requirement for Government approval for all drawing changes.

Are contractors required to submit marked‐up drawings to the

Government for approval prior to any drawing modifications and deliver the updated drawings and full revision history on the Government forms at no additional cost to the

Government?

The Government is the design authority for the TDP.

The Contractor on this effort, shall not alter the

Government's TDP without written permission from the

Government.

DRAFT_SOW 4.4.5

Do we assume Bench Testing only applies to End Items undergoing First Article Test, or all (i.e., Recurring) End Items?

The Government requires formal bench-level testing for end-items undergoing First Article Testing.

L

5.1

Attachment L‐2 is not included in the DRFP document package. The Government has removed the past performance factor from sections L&M, therefore the PPI tool is no longer required.

DRAFT_SOW 4.4.1

Since FMS and USAF end items are configured differently, is First Article Testing required for both FMS and USAF end items, or just USAF?

No, First Article Testing is for the first unit ordered. If a new system variant is created through an ECP, the associated testing for that shall be part of the ECP.

TEP Pricing Worksheet

End-Items and Retrofit Kit tabs

Please confirm that the Government is requesting unit prices in each worksheet cell for QTY 1-2, QTY 3-4, and QTY 5+.

Pricing Workbook updated to reflect unit prices for a single end item based on the quantity discount and year.

L

5.5.1

Do the 5 pages for each PPI Tool Submission count towards the 20 page limit for the Volume?

The Past Performance factor has been removed from section L&M.

L 5.5.1

Do we need to print out the pages from the PPI tool for sub‐ mission?

The Past Performance factor has been removed from

Sections L&M.

FA821018R5000

Section B, All

CLINs

It may be administratively challenging to combine US and FMS units in the same CLIN.

US and FMS parts and end‐items will be broken out into sub‐CLINs as necessary on the task/delivery order level.

DRAFT_SOW 4.1.6.7

A full FCA is not possible if environmental, mobility, etc.

requirements in the SPS are not re-tested. If a full FCA is required to verify that all SPS and derived requirements have been meet, can previous test results be used to document requirement compliance?

If the TDP is followed using identified venders and suppliers then environmental qualification of those components is not required. In the case that a component needs to be replaced those components must be fully qualified.

L

6.9.7

This means the "DRAFT" documents such as IMS/IMP, CMP, etc., become a part of the contract. Not the final program documents which makes the drafts binding.

The Government has updated Section L to read:

The proposed Technical Volume, Volume II, when accepted by the Government, will be incorporated into the contract upon award until the CDRLs are delivered

L

4.5.2

SOW Section 4.1.9 requires Unlimited Rights, Government

Purpose Rights, etc. for items that are changed from the TDP.

Suggest Offerors assert their compliance to providing the

Government with the data rights requested in the SOW for any variance from the TDP.

By submitting a proposal, Contractors agree to all terms and conditions outlined in the solicitation. No additional certification required.

DRAFT_SOW 4.2

This paragraph indicates that this includes all production qualification testing and then in the next paragraph indicates that the contractor shall provide all facilities. The contractor cannot provide facilities for SAT execution.

Per Industry Day: The Contractor will be required to arrange and pay for any Government test facility.

Is the contractor responsible for SAT facility, government personnel, and aircraft costs?

The contractor is responsible for providing/arranging all test facilities required to meet First Article requirements, with the exception of SAT.

For all production SATs the Contractor is not responsible for providing/arranging the test facilities.

The SOW has been updated to reflect SAT responsibility.

Will the Government provide a sample formula or an example tab within the excel pricing spreadsheet to calculate the TEP?

The TEP will be calculated based on a pre‐determined notional quantity of end‐items, retrofit kits, spares, etc.

to be purchased across the five year ordering period as well as the Offeror’s proposed labor hours and labor categories to successfully complete the Awardable

Sample Task. The quantities used and the years the items will be purchased will not be made public. This is to ensure that Offeror’s provide fair pricing across items and years.

DRAFT_SOW 4.4

Does the Government expect that Contractors will require the use of Government facilities such as Redstone, NATC, and the Eglin Climatic Chamber to perform Environmental Testing, Vibration/Mobility Testing, etc.? If so, is it the Contractor’s responsibility to arrange and pay for use of these facilities?

It’s unclear if the Government is anticipating system-level qualification testing (thus requiring large Government facilities), or smaller-scale component-level qualification testing that is available throughout Industry.

The contractor is responsible to arrange and pay for all test facilities required to meet First Article requirements, with the exception of SAT. This includes, if part of the Contractor solution, Government facilities such as Redstone, NATC, the Eglin Climatic Chamber, etc.

For all production SATs the Contractor is not responsible for providing/arranging the test facilities. If the scope of change is significant enough to warrant system level testing rather than just component level testing, then the Government is willing to consider system level testing, however this is a business decision for the Contractors to determine and propose.

DRAFT_SOW 4.4.1

What is the criteria for “as new”? SOW sections 4.4.7 and 4.4.9 have been updated to read:

Each end‐item undergoing Environmental or

Vibration/Mobility Testing shall be refurbished to an

“as‐new” configuration including appearance. “As‐new” configuration is defined as a unit that is free of visual and performance defects (i.e. corrosion, physical damage, etc.).

DRAFT_SOW N/A

The SOW does not distinguish between USAF and FMS items, specifically when discussing Software.

Suggest that the SOW call out USAF and FMS separately, since there are different part numbers, software, etc. Recommend additions to the SOW to call out all the configurations that are required.

Part differences are outlined in the Government provided TDP.

DRAFT_SOW 4.2.3.3

Hardware changes due to obsolescence may require software modification and re‐test.

Suggest clarifying that hardware changes due to obsolescence may require a software change. Suggest clarifying the scope of

CSCI regression testing required.

Replacing an obsolete part requires an ECP, and as part of that ECP any software change must be outlined and approved by the Government.

FA821018R5000

FAR Clause 52.204-15

Per FAR 4.1705: the clause is restricted to IDIQ Services Contracts. Please advise if this requirement can be removed from JEDI.

Required by FAR 4.1705 (b) : The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.204-15, Service Contract Reporting Requirements for Indefinite-Delivery Contracts, in solicitations and indefinite-delivery contracts for services (including construction) where one or more orders issued thereunder are expected to each meet or exceed the thresholds at 4.1703.

M 3.4

Will deviations cause an offer to be deemed unacceptable? This requirement has been removed from the solicitation.

DRAFT_SOW 4.8.2

By definition Class II ECPs have no cost, so this should state that Class II ECPs are included in the CLIN price.

i.e. "that are" should say "are".

The Government has updated the SOW.

L 2.21.1

Is it 1.5 line spacing or single line spacing for the typed volumes?

Section L has been updated to specify 1.5 spacing throughout.

DRAFT_SOW 4.10.4

Export of US‐based JTE systems to OCONUS USAF ranges is currently handled by the USAF. Industry has no visibility into the export authority and process that the USAF uses to ship these systems. Suggest the USAF engage in a dialogue with

Industry to share this export knowledge and procedures.

The Government currently only ships OCONUS to established US military installations and no export license was required. The Contractor is required to obtain and maintain necessary export licenses to ship contractor owned property to OCONUS locations.

L

5.1

Definition of "key sub‐contractors and critical sub vendors Key sub‐contractors and critical sub‐vendors are defined as any company that will build or supply a critical component (i.e.

transmitters, receiver, pedestal, etc.) of any end‐item” is subjective as to what the offeror sees as a critical component.

The Past Performance factor has been removed from

L&M.

DRAFT_SOW 4.2.3.3

This utility is obsolete. Dameware V 12 is authorized as a replacement for

PCAnywhere V 12.

DRAFT_SOW 4.6

This paragraph indicates that Retrofit Kits are subject to an FCA. Does this imply that First Article test is required for Retrofit Kits?

Yes, please refer to Section 4.4.1 in the SOW.

DRAFT_SOW 4.4.10

Is SAT required on each end-item type or on each end-item?

For example, if three WTEUs are delivered, is one SAT required on a representative WTEU, or is a SAT required for each WTEU (3 SATs)?

The SOW has been updated to read:

“The Contractor shall perform a SAT of each end-item at a Government directed test or training range following the completion and Government approval of all previous First Article Testing.”

L

2.16.1

Please verify that “indexed list of Tables and Figures” as required by Section L 2.20.2 is also excluded from page limits.

This is also referred to as List of Tables and Drawings in Section

L 4.3

Included in Section L 2.16.1

Is the Government planning on providing a source letter to interested parties so that we may discuss the requirement and request pricing from the directed source?

The Government has issued letters to multiple companies already. The Government has not received feedback that this has been an issue across a wide number of suppliers, therefore it has been the stance of the Government to issue these letters on a case‐by‐ case basis. If you have specific instances where this has been an issue please inform the PCO, Wade Pilcher.

M

4.4.3.2

Given the delivery time lines, it should be made clear that the plan should show how the equipment will be in place prior to contract award.

After consideration, the Government has decided not to include this as an evaluation criteria.

DRAFT_SOW 4.1.4

Please clarify the intent of the Integrated Master Plan (IMP). The words in the SOW call for an event driven plan with conditions to complete tasks and activities (traditional Integrated Master Plan), while the referenced Data Item Description (DID) for this IMP calls for a management plan focused on organization, processes, policies, and reporting requirements. Additionally, is it your intent that the IMP is vertically traceable to the IMS as called out in DID DI-MGMT- 81650?

Yes, the IMP does need to address the organization, process, policies, and reporting requirements in relation to accomplishing contractual tasks and events. Yes, the IMS and the IMP should be consistent with each other.

FA821018R5000

Section B CLIN

Consider adding SubCLINs for each end‐item (TEU, WTEU, FC2U, MC2U, Retrofit Kits, etc.) for the case when First Article

Testing is required for each.

The Government will include a sub‐CLIN for each end‐ item

M

7.2

If this is LPTA, how does the govt plan on evaluating standard

vs. accelerated delivery schedule?

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated at the price(s) proposed in the pricing workbook based on a pre‐determined notional quantity of end‐items

(standard and accelerated delivery schedules), retrofit kits, spares, support equipment, SDS, First Article

Testing, Training, and FMS SATs to be purchased across the five year ordering period. The offeror’s Price proposal will also be evaluated based upon the applicable hourly rate multiplied by the corresponding notional quantity of labor hours specified in the offeror’s response to the awardable sample task in

Section M of the solicitation. The quantities used and the years the items will be purchased will not be made public

M 7.1 There appear to be typos in this Section Section 7.1 has been removed.

M 3.5

Will non FAR compliant compensation cause an offer to be deemed unacceptable?

Yes

L

2.21.3

Text in raster format graphics aren’t searchable, these are common graphic formats used in Word documents such as

.jpg, .png, .tif, .bmp, and .wmf. These raster format are a pattern of dots, so there is no data contained in the graphic which would be searchable by the host program, as stated in

Section L paragraph 2.22 shall be Microsoft Word. Given the further direction in paragraph 2.22 that Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) formats shall not be used, our ability to provide high quality, meaningful graphics may be limited to the use of the

Illustrations function contained in Microsoft Word. Will the government remove the requirement for text contained in graphics/figures to be searchable?

The Government has considered this request and decided not to change the requirement. All graphics and figures must be searchable.

DRAFT_SOW 4.4.1

This sub-paragraph lists a test sequence that does not include Environmental or Vibration/Mobility testing, although the first sentence in the sub-paragraph states the following:

"If ordered, First Article Testing of each end-item type shall include FCA, PCA, and shall verify that all aspects of the system performance have met the system performance specification, system specifications, subsystem specifications, drawings, and other applicable technical documentation."

How are all system performance specifications to be verified if the Environmental Test and Vibration/Mobility Test are not executed to verify the associated requirements?

First Article Testing, as outlined in the SOW, includes LRU testing.

First Article Testing shall adhere to the following sequence:

1) LRU Testing

2) CSCI Testing

3) Bench Level Integration Testing

4) First Article FAT

5) PCA

6) First Article SAT

7) Reliability

For environmental and vibration/mobility testing, the Contractor shall test any new LRUs that has not already been verified. If system level accomplishment of this testing is deemed necessary as part of a Contractor’s solution, the details should be included in the Contractor’s First Article Test Approach.

DRAFT_SOW 2

Although four end-items are called out, the Government may wish to consider defining eight end-items: four USAF end-items, and four FMS end-items. USAF and FMS units are different in both physical configuration and software configuration. This difference should be reflected in RFP Schedule B, test requirements, and the TEP pricing worksheet.

Furthermore, is there a requirement to keep the USAF and FMS end-items in sync (e.g., physical and software configuration) when updates are made to one or the other?

The Government has considered this option and has decided to ask for a single price for both US and FMS units. The Government's intent is to use this to drive higher quanitity buys at a single unit price.

All potential variances shall be completed as part of an approved ECP at which time the decision to maintain consistancy between the baselines will be made.

TEP_Pricing_Worksheet_Draft.xls ‐ Does the Air Force intend to include software engineer or computer scientist to the labor categories listed on the pricing spreadsheet?

The Government expects all engineering disciplines to fall under the three general engineering categories defined in the Pricing Workbook.

L

4.4.4

Quality Assurance should be integral to JEDI and is essential to predictable delivery and performance of JTE end items. Adding

QA to the CMP mixes two disciplines and appears to diminish the importance of QA to the JEDI program.

After consideration, the Government has decided not to separate the QA and CM plans.

DRAFT_SOW 4.1.10.1

Is this only for new/changed items? The SOW states that this will only be completed as part of an ECP.

DRAFT_SOW 4.2

Unclear if US and FMS end‐items (TEUs for example) count as different end‐items or the same end‐item? They have different part numbers, so there is a difference.

First Article Testing may be ordered for any end‐item type, regardless of whether it is US or FMS.

US and FMS end‐items shall be priced the same.

DRAFT_SOW 4.2.3.3 Please clarify if these are new cybersecurity requirements.

Current cybersecurity requirements are found in SOW paragraph 4.2.3.3.

DRAFT_Sample_T ask

Government Requirements in Section 2 should include a requirement for impact to the Software baseline and proposed mitigation. Regression testing on fielded systems should be outlined.

The Government has updated the Sample Task.

DRAFT_SOW 4.1.15.1

Suggest the Government request proof of approved security processes and certifications.

The DD254 assures this.

DRAFT_SOW 4.4.4

Are there new Information Assurance requirements on JEDI? Cybersecurity accreditation is required. See SOW section 4.2.3.3

All references to IA have been replaced with the current cybersecurity nomenclature.

L

4.4.2

Delivery schedule is a key JEDI requirement. Suggest requiring a formal Schedule Risk Analysis to assist the Government in determining schedule realism.

After consideration, the Government has decided not to include this as an evaluation criteria.

Many of the items contained within the Technical Data

Package are directed source items provided by the incumbent, the incumbents legal subsidiaries, or from vendors that already have agreements in place with the incumbent. This presents a significant competitive advantage and possible control of pricing to the incumbent.

a) Will the Government require bidders to provide quotes (raw costs) for high value items from directed sources to ensure that all bidders are on equal footing? This requirement provides for TEP normalization and has been used in the past as a means for the Government to assess competitive advantage achieved through pricing of directed source items.

b) Or, will the Government consider purchasing the directed source items and provide them to the winning competitor as

GFE / GFM?

c) Or, would the Government consider using average historical costs for directed source items as “plugged” costs for all competitors to bid through whatever their normal mark‐ups are?

The Government will NOT purchase these items separately from the JEDI contract, require bidders to provide raw costs for high‐value items from directed sources, or use average historical costs. The

Government intends to use the pricing workbook for quantity discount prices throughout the life of the contract therefore all prices must be as accurate as possible.