P5 SSU RFP Questions and Answers .pdf

RFP document Paragraph/Section Question/Concern Recommendation Response Model Contract Sec B

SSU Pricing Worksheet

Per Part 1, Section B second paragraph: This is a single award IDIQ Firm Fixed Priced award for a five‐year ordering period with a potential six‐year period of performance. Ordering period is date of contract award through 5 years.

Model Contract 52.216‐18 States: orders may be issued from 6 Years ARO of contract award.

Per Instructions in SSU Pricing Worksheet:

Year 1 begins on date of contract award plus 12 months.

Recommend clarifying the order period as either 5 or 6 Years

Recommend clarifying Year 1 award period for CLINs 0003 and 0004, expressed as ARO Contract Award to align with Model Contract.

This is an error and should read "Such orders may be issued from Date of contract award for a period of 5 Years."

CLINs 0003 and 0004 in the pricing workbook have been updated to better clarifiy delivery terms. NOTE: For the purposes of the pricing worksheet, the term "contract award" is in reference to individual task order awards.

Model Contract CLINs 11, 12, and 13 CLIN 11 is for a first article effort consistent with the SOW. Also, CLIN 11 is listed as “If required”.

CLINS 12, and 13 are associated with the first article and appear they should also be “If Required” as well?

CLINs 11 and 13 both cite a quantity of 2 units (retrofit kits). Not clear how the two kits listed for CLIN 11 and two for CLIN 13 are related or not?

CLINs 11‐13 are all tied to CLIN 11 First Article Testing. If CLIN 11 is as required, please clarify related applicability to CLINs 12 and 13.

Please clarify the two units (Kits) each for CLINs 11 and 13.

Please clarify under what conditions CLIN 11 would not being required by the USAF?

CLIN 0011 is for FAT testing, CLIN 0012 is for FAT data, and CLIN 0013 is to purchase the retrofit kits required to perform FAT testing. Two retrofit kits will be purchased each time CLIN 0013 is ordered (see AFMC 260). The Government anticipates only ordering first article testing once (if required), however the IDIQ gives the Government flexibility to order multiple times if necessary. See AFMC 260 for conditions to waive FAT.

Section L Section M

Sections 4.2‐4.4 Factor 2, Subfactor 1, SB comment indicates that the government has deleted requirement in documents that mandate SB commitments are binding and enforceable.

Section M, Factor 2, Subfactor 1, Sections 4.2‐4.4 still have the following the following statement: "(Note: binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements) (SOW section 4.5.3)." This statement is also present in Section L, Attachment L‐5, paragraph 1., 2.

Respectfully ask that binding and enforceable comment be consistent across all RFP Section L, M, and attachment L‐5,paragraph 1.2.

The note stating "binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements" is an error and will be corrected

Section L 4.3.3.2, 4.3.3.3, and 4.3.3.4

We understand the USAF requires the following pieces of an IMS within the Technical Volume page count: NSA Certification Schedule, Integrated Test Schedule, and Kit Production Schedule.

To make these pieces as easy for the USAF to understand as possible, may we submit a full IMS as an annex to the technical volume with references to the specific sections that is not counted against the page count?

Agreed. The IMS will not count against the contractor's page count limitation. This will be updated in Section L

SOW 4.1 Per paragraph 4.1 of the SOW: 1) Design, integration, test and certification efforts for the USAF SSU program must be completed within 18 months. 2) Fielding of USAF SSU kits shall begin 18 months after contract award (currently envisioned CY2023). If CLIN 0003 Airborne Subsystem (AS) Retrofit Kits (USAF) is awarded simultaneously with CLIN 0001 Kit Integration and Qualification (USAF), it would require AS Retrofit Kits to begin delivery coincident with completion of CLIN 0001 Kit Integration and Qualification.

Recommend clarifying earliest award or delivery required under CLIN 0003 Airborne Subsystem (AS) Retrofit Kits (USAF). Further recommend clarifying Basic and Option CLINs and anticipated earliest and latest award of CLINs 0002 – 0013 (Note CLIN 0001 is assumed at Basic Contract Award).

There are no basic and option CLINs All CLINs on the contract have a 5 year ordering period to which the Government has the right to place an order at any time in accordance with the ordering clauses.

SOW 4.3 (U) SSU Kit Production Paragraph 4.3 notes the contractor shall provide personnel for two weeks of on‐site contractor kit installations for Continental United States (CONUS) and Outside Continental United States (OCONUS) locations contingent upon FMS country specific funding.

Since it is not possible to estimate on‐site costs until a specific country is defined, recommend specifying that FMS‐related on‐site support will be negotiated as part of an ECP once a country is named

Concur with recommendation to seperately price installation and activation support. RFP and SOW language will be modified to reflect this change.

NOTE: MULTIPLE QUESTIONS INCORRECTLY USE THE TERM

ECP. THE GOVERNMENT'S ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE

TERM"ECP" IS REFERENCING A REQUEST FOR EQUITABLE

ADJUSTMENT (REA). THERE WILL BE NO REA'S ON THIS

CONTRACT AS THE GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN SEPERATE STEPS

TO NEGATE THESE ISSUES.

SOW 4.3 Per paragraph 4.3 of the SOW: FMS partners will require on‐site contractor installation access. The contractor shall provide personnel for two weeks of on‐site contractor kit installations for Continental United States (CONUS) and Outside Continental United States (OCONUS) locations contingent upon FMS country specific funding. It is not clear how many specific FMS on site installations the contractor should price and what CLIN should include this 2 week support cost.

Recommend creating a separate CLIN for the 2 week on site support to be exercised with each FMS Airborne Subsystem (AS) Retrofit Kits (FMS) purchase conducted under CLIN 0004. Further recommend this new CLIN be added to the Pricing Worksheet to allow pricing to be provided for the entire 5 year IDIQ period. Also see row immediately above.

Concur with recommendation for seperately priced CLIN for installation and activation. The Government will add CLIN 0014, and it will not be part of the pricing worksheet as it will be negotiated on individual task orders

SOW 4.3 Per paragraph 4.3 of the SOW: Spares shall include all SSU Kit parts and Shop Replaceable Assemblies (SRAs) required to maintain and operate the system. Each spares lot will sustain 50 SSU kits for a three‐year period.

Should the contractor expect multiple orders of the Spare Kit over the 5 year IDIQ ordering period?

Recommend CLIN 005 and CLIN 0006 be added to the Pricing Worksheet to allow pricing to be provided for the entire 5 year IDIQ period.

Agree to add CLIN 0005 to the Pricing worksheet, however the Government has determined CLIN 0006 will be To Be Negotiated on individual task orders

SOW 4.8.3

Requirements Management [Dynamic Object Oriented Requirement System

(DOORS)]

Paragraph 4.8.3 states that if the DOORS product is used for the program, the contractor shall provide to the SPO the entire P5CTS updated and current DOORS database.

Will the contractor have access to the entire, current P5 CTS DOORS database from the Government?

Recommend specifying/confirming if the entire P5 CTS DOORS database is available as GFE/GFI.

The Government's requirement is for the contractor to deliver a requirements traceability matrix. The Government will require a DOORS database delivery for P5CTS SSU if DOORS is used, but will delete the SOW requirement for the contractor to deliver a current and updated DOORS database. The Government will also add verbiage stating "if DOORS is not used" that the contractor will deliver a requirements traceability matrix in contractor's format. In addition, the requirement for CDRLs A054 and B054 in the SOW are deleted and CDRLs A048 and B048 will be utilized for the traceability matrix

SOW 4.8.7 Packaging, Handling, Shipping, and Transportation

Paragraph 4.8.7 notes that the Freight Forwarder(FF) is responsible for shipping and all related shipping costs for FMS requirements, and all FMS shipments will be facilitated through the SPO using the designated FF.

Since it is not possible to estimate shipping costs until a specific country is defined, recommend specifying that FMS shipments will be negotiated as part of ECP once a country is named.

Concur with recommendation (ECP not required). FMS shipping requirements will be defined by RFP and will be facilitated through the SPO. CLIN for FMS Kits will reflect FOB:

"Origin", and Source Acceptance.

SOW 4.8.7.4 (U) Export Licenses Paragraph 4.8.7.4 notes the contractor shall acquire and maintain all export licenses required to ship end‐items and parts to OCONUS locations.

Since it is not possible to verify exportability until a specific country is defined, recommend specifying that FMS‐related export licenses be negotiated/confirmed as part of an ECP once a country is named.

The government rejects the statement "it is not possible to verify exportability until a specific country is defined." The contractor should be aware of what countries employ P5 Systems, and can obtain general export approval based on the nature of the technology without a specific request. The cost of obtaining and maintaining exportability of the FMS SSU Kit should be included in the price of CLIN 0002.

SOW 4.2.7 This is called out as “If ordered, the contractor…” Under what conditions is it expected for the First Article Test to be “ordered”?

If the Government decides its in it's best interest to order

SOW 4.2.7 There are no specific tests called out for the First Article Test. Please provide the specific tests to be conducted as part of the First Article Test.

Contractor shall present a test plan that includes specific tests to be conducted during first article testing to ensure the effectiveness of their manufacturing process, equipment and procedures.

There were two questions submitted regarding SRD 3.2.1.8 sections. The Gov’t provided two conflicting answers:

‐ The Government will change verbiage to state, " The SSU design shall include a configuration that is releasable to all countries employing the P5CTS (Threshold). A single SSU configuration shall meet USAF requirements and provide FMS exportablility (Objective)."

‐ The Government will change verbiage to state, "The SSU design will not prohibit FMS exportability (objective) however, exportability is not to be a driving factor in SSU design nor override US Air Force requirements."

The Gov’t updated SRD 3.2.1.8 to reflect one of these two answers: "The SSU design will not prohibit FMS exportability (objective) however, exportability is not to be a driving factor in SSU design nor override US Air Force requirements." In parallel, the Gov’t updated SOW 4.1 to state “A single SSU configuration for USAF and FMS is the objective, however a separate FMS SSU configuration that is releasable to all countries employing the P5CTS is acceptable. Exportability requirements shall not negatively impact the USAF SSU design requirements. FMS SSU design, integration, test and certification efforts shall be separate from the USAF."

The new SRD 3.2.1.8 and SOW 4.1 verbiage appear to conflict with the verbiage in SOW 4.3.3. “In addition to the production on behalf of the USG, this contract scope includes FMS requirements. The procurement and production of any FMS end‐items, spares, or technical documentation will be IAW SOW requirements and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL).

Any modifications required in support of a specific FMS case will be covered as an ECP to that specific FMS system design.”

SOW 4.3.3. acknowledges the likelihood that requirements from the NSA and other associated Gov’t agencies could drive unique implementations for some or all FMS partners, but the revised SRD 3.2.1.8 and SOW 4.1 verbiage do not acknowledge this.

SRD

SOW

Recommend updating SRD 3.2.1.8 and SOW 4.10 to reflect the alternative wording developed by the Gov’t in response to the initial query on this topic: "The SSU design will not prohibit FMS exportability (objective) however, exportability is not to be a driving factor in SSU design nor override US Air Force requirements."

This change will eliminate the conflict with the requirements in SOW 4.3.3

1. The Government posted the incorrect version of the Govt Responses to draft RFP comments Final.docx. A corrected version will be posted. The correct verbiage of SRD 3.2.1.8 is "The SSU design shall include a configuration that is releasable to all countries employing the P5CTS (Threshold). A single SSU configuration shall meet USAF requirements and provide FMS exportablility (Objective)."

2. The last sentence regarding FMS ECPs in SOW paragraph

4.3.3 will be deleted. FMS ECPs will be accomplished as part of integration.

3. SOW paragraph 4.1 has been changed to more closely reflect the objective/threshold configuration requirement

3.2.1.8 4.1

SOW 4.2.7 This paragraph lists FAT as including ..FCA and PCA Are these to be considered in addition to the ones called out in SOW paragraph 4.6.10?

The FCA and PCA referred to in the SOW paragraph 4.2.7 are the same as the FCA and PCA referred to in SOW paragraph 4.6.10

SOW 4.2.7 This paragraph states

“Each First Article (FA) shall be integrated into, and tested on a Government test or training range as part of testing/validation and delivery efforts IAW the SOW.”

Does this mean that the First Article Test are part of the Government DT&E and OT&E called out in paragraph 4.2.5?

That is correct. The Government may use FAT articles during DT&E and OT&E

SRD 3.2.2.8 The Gov’t answer indicated that the verification for this would be limited to contractor and M&S testing. However, Table E2 continues to indicate that flight testing will be required for verification of the requirements in 3.2.2.8

Recommend revising Table E2 to remove the requirement for flight testing verification of 3.2.2.8, in accordance with the Gov’t response to the query on this topic.

The table contained an error and will be revised to remove the requirement for flight testing verification

SRD 6.2 Table E1 covers the Verification Matrix Legend and doesn’t include First Article. And therefore, it doesn’t provide any clarification on the tests which are part of the First Article Test.

Recommend adding the First Article Test to Table E1 and E2.

The SRD tables adequately state verification methods and traceability for system requirements

TSRD 1.4.5 A question was posed to the Gov't "Recommend IASRD, UPA, SSAPD, and TMCR to all offerors . . . ". The Gov't reply stated "The Government will transmit all referenced/required documents prior to or with the RFP." The Gov't has provided the IASRD, the TMCR, and the MOA which is presumable the UPA. However they have not yet provided the SSAPD.

Recommend providing the SSAPD as referenced in TSRD 1.4.5

The SSAPD referenced in the Government response is a typographical error. It should be labeled the SAAPD (Software Analysis and Assessment Process Description). Also to further clarify, the referenced MOA is the NSA User Partnership Agreement (UPA)

AFMC IMT 260 Block 9 F First Article Delivery

Block 7

Block 9A

Delivery date is 120 calendar days from date of contract

Long Lead Material

Contractor Testing Requirements

The first article shall be examined and tested in accordance with contract requirements, the item specifications, Quality Assurance Provisions (QAPs) and all drawings listed in the Technical Data Package. The contractor shall conduct non‐destructive first article testing.

When is first article to be awarded relative to the production CLIN?

How is the long‐led material handled?

What specific tests are required for the FAT?

Please clarify.

If ordered, the First Article would be ordered prior to the issuance of any production task orders.

Please review FAR 52.209‐3, Alternate II, in regards to long lead items.

It was noticed that clause 52.209‐3 was not completely filled out and there was an incorrect reference to CLIN 0003. This will be corrected on the RFP amendment.

Section L ITO L.2.1.16 (U) Distribution‐The original proposal shall be identified. Proposals shall be addressed to the CO and mailed or hand carried to: AFLCMC/PZZKC Attn:

Mr. Sean Jones 6039 Wardleigh Rd, Bldg. 1206 Hill AFB, UT 84056‐5838

Will the Government consider electronic (Email, CD) delivery only? Many contractor personnel, including those in production/print, are still remote due to COVID.

Respectfully request that the Government consider allowing electronic (an email/ drop box, or CD) delivery only in lieu of the hard copy requirement. Many of our employees can burn discs from remote locations though none has the equipment to print and bind large volumes.

The Government will allow for electronic delivery and Section L will be amended to reflect this.

Section L ITO L.4.3.1.2 references Element B Maintenance Procedures

The description shall include keying procedures and timelines, key loading/zeroizing, monitoring status, and retaining key currency (SOW section 4.1.4).

Are we correct to assume this is actually SOW 4.1.3? SOW

4.1.3 is Encryption Keying. There is no requirement for 4.1.4.

Correct. The SOW reference will be corrected to 4.1.3 in Section L 4.3.1.2

Attachment L‐1 SOW 4.5.5 L.4.3.3.4 Element D Kit Production Schedule references SOW 4.5.5 Will the Government clarify if 4.5.5 is the correct SOW to reference Kit Production? Should this be SOW 4.3? SOW

4.5.5 is IMS; SOW 4.3 is SSU Kit Production.

The stated reference is correct. The IMS will describe events and milestones of the production schedule

SRD 1.1 Modification Overview Based on updates to the SOW, are we correct to assume the CDS should be removed from the SRD DSM requirements?

The Cross Domain Solution (CDS) verbiage in SRD paragraph

1.1 will be changed to reflect the verbiage in the SOW. The Government understands there are several solutions available to meet our requirement and our intent was to describe the functional requirements of the Data Security Module (DSM), not to direct a specific DSM solution to the contractors. The Government’s intent is for the DSM to meet the technical requirements, and receive NSA certification for operational use within the program timeline.

Attachment L‐1 SOW 4.8.7.4 The contractor shall acquire and maintain all export licenses required to ship end‐items and parts to OCONUS locations.

The USG FMS office usually provides a freight forwarder and acts as the exporter of record. Please confirm that the contractor will be the exporter of record and should pay for all shipping

Concur. CLIN for FMS Kits will reflect FOB: "Origin", and Source Acceptance. SOW language will be modified to reflect shipping costs will be negotiated once a country is named as necessary.

SOW 4.3.3 Based on 4.3.3, is it correct that FMS should not be proposed in this response? Agree that because each country will have unique NRE and therefor separate unique RFPs are appropriate. Please confirm.

Kit design and engineering for a Baseline FMS P5 SSU Kit (CLIN 0002) and production of a Baseline FMS P5 SSU Kit (CLIN 0004) shall be proposed and evaluated. Additional country specific engineering required as detailed in SOW 4.3.3 (CLIN 0014) and FMS spares (CLIN 0006) shall not be proposed at

Exhibit A A003 The SOW lists A003, Security Verification Report This appears to be missing from Exhibit A. Respectfully suggest the Government provide A003 in revised Exhibit A

Exhibit A will be corrected to ensure CDRL A003 is included

Section M M.2 Element C appears to be missing from Section M.2 but is included in Section L.4.3.2.3 and .M.3.3.4.

Is Element C – Rights in Data and Software Identification and Assertion an evaluation element under Subfactor 2?

Respectfully suggest revision of M.2 to include Element C under Subfactor 2.

Section M has been corrected to add Element C in paragraph 2.0

Section L, ITO Attachment L‐2, RTM Second Column (Sec. L) Each reference in Section L seems to be one level off from ITO Section L. For example, M.3.1.1 Element A – Test Infrastructure actually lines up with L.4.3.1.1 Element A – Test Infrastructure rather than L.4.3.1 listed in RTM. This appears to be the case through all Subfactors (M 3.3.4 Element D – Kit Production Schedule/L.4.5.4 in RTM but L.4.3.3.4 Element D – Kit Production Schedule in Section L. Respectfully suggest changing Attachment L‐2 RTM to match Section L.

The Cross Reference Matrix has been corrected

Model Contract/RFP

PART I ‐ THE SCHEDULE

SECTION. DFARS 252.232‐

DFARS 252.232‐7006, "WIDE AREA WORKFLOW PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS"

allow for industry to recommend billing terms. Does that match USAF expectations?

The Government does not understand this question. 252.232‐ 7006 is payment instructions that provides instructions to the contractor when submitting documentation for billing in the Wide Area Workflow System.

Model Contract/RFP

Attachment L‐6, Government Rights in Data (GRID)

How does the USAF intend to evaluate the Price for GP or Unlimited Rights requested as part of the GRID Document?

The Government will NOT be evaluating the price for the rights as a part of the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The offeror proposed pricing of the rights will be part of the evaluation of subfactor 2, Element C of the Technical Factor IAW Section M 3.2.3