FA8552-18-R-0005_Round_1_Questions.pdf

Reference Document Question Answer

1 Section L, II.A.2

Will the Government consider 11 X 17 foldout only for Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets and have it count as one page?

This will eliminate the difficulty collating 8 1/2” x 14 with 8 1/2” x 11 in a 3‐ring binder.

The paper size as described in Section L will not be modified.

2 Section L, II.A.2

In draft Section L, the font size for volumes is listed as 12pt; however, no smaller font size is referenced for drawings, diagrams, charts, graphs, and the like. Will the Government allow a smaller font size (e.g. 8pt or 10pt Arial Narrow) for such graphics and Tables?

The font size requirements as listed in Section L will not be modified.

3 Section LII.C.1 and L.II.C.2.d

Section L.II.C.1 clearly states that the entirety of Subfactor Four Sustainment should be addressed in the Sustainment Technical Acceptability Matrix (Attachment 2) and not be included in the written portion of the Technical Volume. However, Section L.II.C.2.d subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) seem to be requesting narrative that may not fit in a spreadsheet cell. Please confirm if subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) are intended to be addressed in narrative format in the Technical Volume (within the 80 page limit) or if the bidders should include any and all narrative associated with all subparagraphs of Subfactor Four within the confines of the Sustainment Technical Acceptability Matrix (Attachment 2).

The offeror's response to the requirements contained in Subfactor Four: Sustainment shall be recorded in the Sustainment Technical Acceptability Matrix (Attachment 2).

4 SRD Paragraphs 3.6.2.5 and 4.6.2.5, The SRD requires operation at the high ambient temperatures called out in Table 3‐6. The high ambient air temperature for operational conditions called out in Table 3‐6 is 49C. SRD Paragraph 4.6.2.5 references a "on‐ operational" temperature of 71C. Per table 3‐6 and the MIL‐STD‐810G method 501.5, procedure I referenced, 71C is a non‐operting temperature for storage or transportation purposes. We beleive the "on‐operational" reference was a typo and recommend it be changed to "non‐operational" to align with Table 3‐6 and MIL‐STD‐810G method 501.5, procedure I.

In SRD Paragraph 4.6.2.5, "on-operational" should be "non-operational." The SRD has been amended to reflect this correction.

5 Section M / Paragraph 2. Technical Rating

Please clarify the relationship between Objective Requirements in the SRD and performance in excess of the stated threshold requirements. Will a Strength be awarded in such cases?

In accordance with Section M paragraph II.C.2, "In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration for performance in excess of either the stated threshold or objective requirements."

SRD / Paragraph 3.2.4.1 / Initial Landing Zone Assessment Please clarify whether the Objective Requirement of 3000 feet applies to all of the criteria in Table 3‐2, each of the criteria in Table 3‐2, all of the threshold criteria in tabe 3‐2 or each of the threshold criteria in table 3‐2. Will this be evaluated as one objective requirement, or many objective requirements? Is this an all or nothing requirement, or is the Government evaluating varying degrees of compliance to meeting the objective requirement.

The objective for landing zone assessment is intended to be evaluated for each of the criteria in Table 3-2 individually. It is intended as many objective requirements, not as an all- or-nothing single requirement.

SRD / Paragraph 3.6.1.1 / Clear, Night, and Degraded Visual Environment (DVE) Conditions

Can the Government please clarify, that when the terms "clear" or "DVE" conditions are used throughout the document, they always refer to the definition provided under paragraph 3.6.1.1, Clear, Night, and Degraded Visual Environment (DVE) Conditions.

Yes, "clear" and "DVE" are as defined in 3.6.1.1.

SRD / Paragraph 3.2.4.1 / Initial Landing Zone Assessment Please clarify what conditions the Landing Zone is scanned and the Johnson Criteria should be evaluated under, clear atmosphere and/or the conditions shaded in Table 3‐4 for the Landing Zone (Light, Moderate, and Heavy Brownout). If Johnson Criteria is applicable to performance under Whiteout Conditions in the Landing Zone, please provide industry guidance on what meteorological metrics to use to ensure that bidders apply a consistent approach.

The Johnson criteria apply to the imagery displayed to the pilot by DVES. The pilot must be able to use the imagery to assess the landing zone under clear and DVE conditions as outlined in Table 3-

4. Whiteout requirements are defined in SRD table 3-4.

9 SRD / Paragraph 3.7.1 / DVES Reliability

Per Section L criteria for Subfactor 4, sustainment, evaluations will be performed on an acceptable/unacceptable approach. How does the Government intend to evaluate performance which meets the objective performance, but evaluated as part of the acceptable/unacceptable evaluation criteria?

Performance at the objective level will be evaluated, but only rated as either acceptable or unacceptable per Section L.

10 Section K, page 74 of 77

At the top of page 74 of the RFP (between Clause 52.209‐13 and 52.222‐18) there is the following lannguage: "The following is fill‐in data for provision 52.204‐8 Para (c)(2)(ii)". The clause referenced is for "predecessor of offeror" information; however, the language that follows is fill‐in space for the certification regarding child labor. Is the referenced language a typo, or should there be fill‐in data inserted for "predecessor of offeror" information?

The RFP has been amended to add a space for the fill-in data.

11 Section K, page 75, Clause K‐900

Please confirm that Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) has signed a nondisclosure/proprietary information agreement with the Government to protect any proprietary data submitted by bidders

Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) has signed a Non- Discloure Agreement with the Government to protect any information/data submitted by offerors.

12 Section L.II.A.6

Language states "Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet", but no example language is provided. If this was not a typo, please provide referenced language

On 8 Auguest 2018, the solicitation was amended to correct the missing legend. Section L, II.A.6 now reads: "Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

– FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY."

13 Section L.II.E.1 and 6

References to "Cost or Pricing Data Requirements" in Section "10" seem to be in error. Please confirm that these references should be to Section 9, which is titled "Cost or Pricing Data Requirements"

The references have been correctly updated to reflect Section 9.

FA8552-18-R-0005 Round 1 Questions

Section M document, II.D.2 ‐ Small Business Participation Rating "Acceptable/Unacceptable" definitions

"Unacceptable" is defined as "proposal does not meet small business objectives".

This could be interpreted as conflicting with the definition of "acceptable", which seems to allow for some amount of not meeting the stated goals, provided there is adequate justification of how the bidder will strive to meet the goal or why the bidder believes the goal cannot be met at all. Recommend the definition of "unacceptable" be slightly changed as follows: "proposal does not meet small business objectives and/or lacks either a plan to meet during execution or justification that small business objectives cannot be met on this procurement."

The "Acceptable" and "Unacceptable" definitions are from Table 6 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

15 PWS 4.12.4 The PWS and QASP both seem to require the Contractor to submit a QMS, including a QCP prior to contract award. However, no mention is made in Section L or M to these. Please clarify whether a QMS/QCP is required to be submitted with the proposal. If so, please clarify in which volume should it be put and that it will not be included in page count.

Yes, offerors shall submit a QMS, including a QCP, IAW PWS paragraph 4.12.4. Section L has been amended with instructions on how to submit the QMS.

Attachment 1 ‐ Cross Reference Matrix Attachment 2 ‐ Sustainment Technical Acceptability Matrix

As bidders are required to complete Attachments 1 and 2, would the Government provide editable, excel versions of these documents?

The Government will provide these attachments in Excel format.

However, the Government-provided cells will be locked and are not to be edited.

17 SRD / Paragraph 3.2.4.1 / Initial Landing Zone Assessment

Follow‐up clarification to Q#8 from the questions submitted 8/8/18: Please clarify what conditions the Landing Zone is scanned and the Johnson Criteria should be evaluated under, clear atmosphere and/or the conditions shaded in Table 3‐4 for the Landing Zone (Light, Moderate, and Heavy Brownout). Please confirm the following is the correct interpretation of section 3.2.4.1 (and 3.2.4.2, 3.2.4.3, 3.2.4.4, and 3.2.4.5).

[DVES0190] DVES shall collect, process, and display imagery of sufficient color contrast and resolution to allow for the initial assessment of obstacles within a landing zone, as indicated in Table 3‐2, from a slant range of 1000 feet (T), 3000 feet (O) in clear conditions as defined in section 3.6.1.1. DVES‐produced imagery will allow aircrew to assess the LZ under clear conditions and in “see‐and‐remember” mode in DVE conditions as defined in section 3.6.1.1, during day or night.

If Johnson Criteria is applicable to performance under Whiteout Conditions in the Landing Zone, please provide industry guidance on what meteorological metrics to use to ensure that bidders apply a consistent approach.

The Johnson criteria apply to the imagery displayed to the pilot by DVES. The pilot must be able to use the imagery to assess the landing zone under clear and DVE conditions. It is up to the offeror to determine their approach (i.e. sense through DVE conditions, use see-and-remember or other method) to provide imagery to the pilots that is of sufficient color contrast and resolution to allow for assessment of the landing zone, as described in 3.2.4.1, 3.2.4.2, 3.2.4.3.,

3.2.4.4. and 3.2.4.5.

18 PWS Para. 3.7.1; 3.5; 3.7; 3.7.16; 3.10.1; and 4.4

During the pre‐solicitation phase, industry asked two questions related to data rights for the DVES:

6. Respectfully request clarification as this statement conflicts with FAR requirements. PWS, section 4.4: “The Government will have Government Purpose License Rights if any proprietary hardware, drawings or data developed at private expense is used.”?

and

112. Data Rights are a problem potentially, since there is no R&D funding but TRL 7 required. For companies who have developed systems in‐ house under own internal funds, including certifications. Can the Government clarify data rights?

Government responded that all licensing and proprietary assertions must meet FAR and DFAR requirements and that, yes, vendor‐funded code and data can be retained by vendor per FAR/DFARS. Anything created under this DVES contract must be Government Rights, as stated in RFP, PWS, and FAR/DFARS.

However, in the final PWS, Government references "ownership" of source code in Para. 3.7.1 and Government Purpose Rights for "data developed at private expense" in Para. 4.4.

Please clarify that, in accordance with the DFARS, the Government will incorporate in the final contract award all data assertions as may be properly claimed by bidder in their proposed data assertions table..

The data rights requirements are described in the PWS. Properly asserted data rights will be treated in a manner consistent with the

DFARS.

19 PWS Para. 3.7.1

Was the Government's intent in the final sentence to classify DVES data as export/ITAR/EAR‐controlled? To be compliant to the DFARS, recommend the Government revise the final sentence to read: "Any product developed under this order will be export‐controlled and must not be exported to outside entities without written Government approval."

That was not the Government's intent. This statement has been removed from 3.7.1.

20 PWS Para. 3.7.1

How does 3.7.1 requirement to provide for "Government ownership of the source code and object listings" apply to modifications made to the SMFCD, CDU, SGU/DSGU, and FLIR where the contractor may not have access to the data rights of the complete software product? In addition, please clarify that in lieu of "ownership" the Government means "unlimited data rights" to modifications made under this contract.

All modifications to source code packages to which the Government retains full rights shall be returned to the Government with unlimited data rights. In this case, the full, modified code package would be returned to the Government.

For source code packages to which the Government does NOT retain full data rights, only the specific code changes/modifications shall be delivered to the Government. These changes shall be delivered with unlimited data rights. Examples of such changes include the addition of a new function to a file, change lines, or new source files specific to this effort. All such changes would be delivered with unlimited data rights.

Paragraph 3.7.1 has been amended from "ownership"to "unlimited data rights."

21 Section L.II.E

Please confirm that the CLIN cost/price Excel spreadsheets (RFP Attachment 3) and the Total Resources Volume (RFP Attachment 4 ) are only to be provided on the CD‐R/DVD‐R copy of the Cost Volume and that the Government does not expect a printed copy of these Attachments.

Yes, RFP Attachments 3 and 4 shall be provided on the CD-R/DVD- R and not in a printed format.

22 Sections L.C.2 and M.C.1

Regarding PWS and SRD requirements, RFP Sections L.C.2 and M.C.1 state the following:

L.1: “…The written technical proposal shall address the following subfactors:

Subfactors One: Sensor Performance, Subfactor Two: Integration Approach, Subfactor Three: Weight and Power. The written technical proposal shall describe the offeror’s proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the PWS and SRD.”

M.C.2: “Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the System Requirements Document (SRD) and Performance Work Statement (PWS) and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks.”

Given that you are evaluating the technical proposal based on the subfactors, and that the subfactors only reference PWS and SRD paragraphs that specifically pertain to those subfactors, will the offeror still be expected to address every PWS and SRD requirement – even those that fall outside of the subfactors - within an only 80 page technical volume?

Proposals must meet all the requirements of the solicitation and attachments. The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with Section M.

23 PWS 3.12.5

PWS Paragraph 3.12.5 states IPMR Formats 1-7 are required; however, CDRL A01D only specifically addresses the IMS (Format 6). Per the IPMR DI-MGMT- 81861A, Formats 1-7 would be due 12 business days after month end, or 17 days if requested due to complexity and/or integration of subcontractor data (we suggest 17 days).

Question: Are we to assume there is no tailoring on the other Formats (1- 5, and

7) and they will be due/reported per the DID?

CDRL A01D is not tailored, so IPMR Formats 1-7 are required to be delivered in accordance with the DID.

24 PWS 3.15

PWS Paragraph 3.15 Laboratory and Simulator Kits states that the Contractor shall produce and deliver DVES Kits IAW the design approved at CDR to the Government for integration into the Government HH-60G lab and simulators. The kits shall be ackaged per the requirements in paragraph 3.14.2, and the applicable AFMC Form 158. Question/ Request for Clarification: The 152/162 EISE labs will need 2 full DVES kits, but is it the governments’ intention to provide a full up kit to include LIDAR to the simulators, where the LIDAR will only be detecting a black screen?

Yes, the Government's intention is to provide full kits including sensor(s) to the EISE lab and simulators.

25 RFP CLINs 1001, 2001, and 3001 The production options are for one year per option. What is the anticipated required delivery schedule for production during the option years?

The RFP has been amended to reflect a required delivery schedule of 5 per month beginning 6 months ARO.

26 PWS 3.8.11

The Penetration Test Report, IA Test Report, and the rest of the items after that in the third paragraph need to be run against an implemented system. Providing drafts of these before PDR is of limited value, and finals after CDR are probably not feasible.

Suggestion: Suggest plans be due 30 days before TRR with the reports due 30 days after actual system testing.

The delivery dates for the cyber deliverables in PWS paragraph

3.8.11 have been modified.

27 RFP

Would the Government consider removing the requirement for the Total Compensation Plan submittal (FAR 52.222-46)? Upon review, this clause appears to apply for service contracts that are being recompeted, while the solicitation cover page indicates that this is a supply contract.

This clause has been removed from the RFP and Sections L and M.

28 PWS 3.7

PWS section 3.7 states that OFP loading/handling methods are specified in Appendix B. There is no Appendix B.

In PWS 3.7, Appendix B refers to the System Requirements Document (SRD) and CONOPS document. The PWS has been amended to reflect the proper reference.

29 PWS 3.8.11.5 PWS section 3.8.11.5 has two conflicting statements on delivery of the Security Assessment Report. Statement one says "Report due as a draft at TRR and final 30 calendar days after completion of final assessment." and statement two says "A draft shall be submitted 30 calendar days prior to PDR and CDR, and the final document shall be delivered 30 calendar days after CDR." Which of these are correct?

PWS paragraph 3.8.11.5 has been amended to resolved the conflicting due dates.

30 PWS 3.8.11

The PWS calls out an older version of the Information Assurance DID. Does the Air Force prefer latest Cybersecurity DID (DI-MGMT-82135) as this is believed to be the latest standard when it comes to cyber and security controls?

The PWS has been amended with a more suitable Cybersecurity

DID.

31 PWS 3.12.5

PWS section 3.12.5 calls for development of a WBS in compliance to MIL-STD- 881C. Please confirm this is the correct standard as there appears to be a more recent one (MIL-STD-881D).

PWS paragraph 3.12.5 has been updated to reflect the recent MIL-

STD-881D.

32 PWS 3.13.11

PWS section 3.13.11 requires a 2nd TPWG 60 days prior to the start of "DT".

What event is being referred to as "DT"? For example, is DT the beginning of lab integration, prototype flight testing?

Developmental Testing (DT) refers to the ground and flight testing required to prove system functionality and proper integration into the aircraft.

33 PWS 3.8.11

PWS section 3.8.11 specifies "Documents shall be submitted 45 calendar days prior to PDR and 45 calendar days prior to CDR. The final document shall be delivered 30 calendar days after CDR." However, Information Assurance testing activities occur later than CDR, so test reports referred to in this section will not be completed by the PDR/CDR milestones given. Can these reports be delivered at a later date that is better aligned to testing activities?

The delivery dates for the cyber deliverables in PWS paragraph

3.8.11 have been modified.

34 PWS 3.8.17

PWS section 3.8.17 states that "Aircraft-level system integration shall be designed IAW MIL-STD-464C and MIL-STD-461G, Electromagnetic Environmental Effects Requirements for Systems, and shall be tested by a government-appointed test agency." This appears to be in conflict with the SRD section 4.6.3.1 where verification is by inspection of previous testing results. What testing is intended?

What if previous testing was not performed by a "government-appointed test agency"? Also, the related SRD requirements state that the EMI requirements shall be verified by " inspection of a test report prepared consistent with the directives of data item DI-EMCS-80200 Electromagnetic Interference Test Report, subject to prior approval of the test procedures using data item DI-EMCS- 80201". What if previous test procedures and reports were not specifically developed to those DIDs? Are previous tests then invalid?

As stated in PWS 3.8.17, use of a government-appointed test agency is required for aircraft-level system integration. Testing at the component and sub-system level is specified in SRD para 3.6.3 and related subparagraphs. Previous test procedures and results may be acceptable and should be submitted (after award) to the Program Office for approval. Any procedures or results that the Program Office deems unacceptable must be repeated at the cost of the contractor following the process outlined in the SRD. Per SRD para 4, the contractor may offer alternative verification methods with associated justification.

35 PWS 1.0 PWS section 1.0 states that an IMP shall be developed, but the requirements for the IMP later in the PWS (section 3.12.2) were removed in the final RFP. Is an IMP required?

The reference to an IMP in PWS 1.0 is an error and will be removed.

36 SRD 4.7.3.3

SRD section 4.7.3.3 states "DVES passive damage suppression design features may shall be verified by inspection of component design and materials lists." Is this "may be" or "shall be"? The correct wording is "shall be."

37 Sections L & M

Section L, Item II.C.2.d Subfactor Four: Sustainment instructions state "The subfactor will be considered acceptable when...". Items ii and iii listed below appear to be incomplete sentences (possibly missing “is met/completed”). This also occurs in Section M evaluation factors for this subfactor).

This subfactor's instructions in Sections L and M have been updated.

38 PWS 3.9.4

PWS section 3.9.4 states that "The Contractor shall conduct the ETPr on the first production hardware of each Contractor developed LRU design." This is in conflict with SRD requirements for verification of environmental compliance by analysis/similarity.

The intent of both the PWS and SRD is to allow verification by analysis of previous test results of unmodified components, sub-systems and LRU’s. If a component, sub-system or LRU has been modified or otherwise has not gone through environmental testing, the contractor shall be responsible to conduct such testing in accordance with the PWS and SRD.

39 Section L Does the Government expect that the pricing for this effort will be submitted in calendar years or Government fiscal years?

The effort should be proposed in calendar years applicable to the PoP.

40 Section L

Attachment 3 (Cost_Model Spreadsheet) contains "Format A" tabs for CLINS 0001 - 0003 & 0005 - 0006. Is the CBOM requirement only applicable for CLINS 0002 and 0003 and not for any other material CLINs, including options?

The CBOM requirement is only applicable to CLINs 0002 and 0003 as they are cost type.

41 Section L Within Section L, is there a format for the CBOM that the offerors have to follow?

As stated in Section L, offerors are to provide their CBOM in the Total Resources Volume (Attachment 4) with the kinds/quantities, and it should be an unburdened version of the priced BOM. The CBOM should be in .xls file format and can be formatted as the offeror's accounting/estimating system populates. The Government does require the ability to sort, filter, etc. the offeror's completed attachments.

42 Section L Should the CBOM be put into Attachment 4: BOE Material Summary? Yes, the CBOM should be included in Attachment 4.

43 PWS/TMCR

Please provide clarification in regards to the technical and aircrew manuals. There is some confusion as to the requirements as listed in the PWS vs TMCR regarding the USAF requirement for Paper vs Electronic manuals? For example, is the technical manual required to be in paper format (40%/80% IPRs) or IETM format (50%/75%/100% IPRs)? The same question applies to the Aircrew Manuals.

Additionally, is the intent of the USAF to provide the current H-60 GFI Paper and/or IETM manuals?

The maintenance and flight manuals are required to be delivered in both paper and IETM formats at the intervals described in the TMCR (CDRL A018). The Government will provide access to the current HH-60G technical orders to the successful offeror.

44 PWS 3.8.12.2

Paragraph 3.8.12.2 - We request clarity on this statement as the standard test window is only up to 18GHz unless contractually mandated to 40GHz. Do we know if 300GHz is the intent?

PWS 3.8.12.2 is intended to ensure personnel safety with respect to transmitted electromagnetic energy. Therefore, PWS 3.8.12.2 will be modified to require testing of electromagnetic transmissions instead of emissions.

Testing of emitted radiation from 0 to 18 GHz, which can cause electromagnetic interference, is required by PWS 3.8.17.

45 PWS 3.8.17

Paragraph 3.8.17 - We request clarity on this statement as MIL-STD- 464C is A/C level while MIL-STD-461G is component level. Our E3 tech fellows mention that only one should be used and they recommend the MIL-STD-461G.

The PWS paragraph 3.8.17 has been modified to reflect MIL-STD- 461G as the appropriate standard.

46 RFP (Pricing) In reviewing the Section L instructions under the Cost Volume and Attachment 4, there appears to be an inconsistency in reference to "Format C" and "Format D".

In the Attachment 4, "Format D" is the total price rollup and "Format C" is a supplier cost/price list. The instructions in Section L appear to reference the opposite

The Cost Volume instructions in Section L are correct. Attachment 4 contained mislabeled tabs; these tabs have been corrected, and the updated spreadsheets have been posted to FBO.

47 PWS 4.4 Does the “proprietary hardware, drawings or data” referenced in PWS

4.4 include software?

Yes.

48 PWS 3.7, 3.7.16, 4.4

Can the Government clarify its intent on software licensing rights in regards to the terms under PWS 3.7, 3.7.16 & 4.4 and in coordination with the DFAR clause 252.227-7013? Specifically, in the likely case that companies utilize pre-existing, privately expensed and company- owned processing cores as subcomponents of the total software solution; will these specific software elements be allowed protections, markings and limited/restricted/special rights if used or leveraged in the development of OFP or IDE?

Any software developed under this contract shall be given unlimited rights. The Government shall receive Government Purpose Rights for any software developed at private expense. The offeror may submit data rights and the Government will review the data rights claims.

49 PWS 4.11 Environmental Management System (EMS) Background: E.O. 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, and E.O. 13514, Federal Leadership in Environment, Energy, and Economic Performance, were both revoked on 19 March 2015. Question: Given that these E.O.s were revoked, will the offeror’s EMS still be required to comply with the E.O. requirements in PWS 4.11?

PWS paragraph 4.11.1 has been modified to reflect that compliance with EMS is not a requirement.

PWS 4.11.4 Affirmative Procurement Programs - Background Materials used in this effort do not meet any of the requirements outlined in any of the Agency Affirmative Procurement Programs (e.g., lumber, drywall, etc.). Will the offeror still be required to meet the Affirmative Procurement Programs requirements addressed in PWS 4.11.4?

PWS paragraph 4.11.4 has been modified to reflect compliance with the Agency Affirmative Procurement Programs is not required.

51 PWS 4.10.2 Communications Security (COMSEC)

PWS 4.10.2 requires the contractor “use only secure communications methods and/or equipment to transmit or otherwise transfer classified information and/or Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in accordance with DoD 5220.22-M.”

However, the DD254 provided in the solicitation does not reflect COMSEC access being required for this program. Will the PWS 4.10.2 COMSEC requirement either be removed from the PWS, or will it remain and likewise be added to the DD254?

PWS paragraph 4.10.2 refers to security with regards to communication. If there is a need for COMSEC equipment, then the DD254 will be modified.

52 PWS 3.10.4 Program Protection Plan (PPP)

PWS 3.10.4 states “The Contractor shall develop and provide a Program Protection Plan for DVES. (DI-ADMN-81306, CDRL A01B).” DI- ADMN-81306 (DD Form 1664) is titled Program Protection Implementation Plan (PIP). In the description/purpose section of DI- ADMN-81306 it states “This plan outlines and defines the contractor’s implementation of the Government developed Program Protection Plan (PPP).” Please clarify the requirement in PWS para 3.10.4. If it is to develop a PPP, please provide the correct DID for reference. If it is to develop a PIP, please provide the PPP.

PWS paragraph 3.10.4 has been amended to reflect the correct title, Program Protection Implementation Plan.

53 Section L, Sections E.1.6, E.1.9

Section L, section E.1.6 (page 8‐9) defines a “major subcontractor” as any subcontractor whose proposal “for CLIN(s) 0001, 0002, 0003, 0005, and 0006” is equal to or greater than $2 million. However, later in section E.1.9 (“Cost or Pricing Data Requirements” on page 11) there is a requirement to provide Cost Formats A, B, and C for all “subcontractors valued at equal to or greater than $2Million (for the entire effort to include Options)”.

Please confirm that the reference in Section E.1.9 should read “All offerors and major subcontractors shall provide data other than certified cost and pricing data using spreadsheet Cost Formats A, B, and C (see RFP Attachment 3) along with accompanying schedules, lists, and narratives to substantiate the cost realism for CLIN(s) 0001, 0002, 0003, 0005, and 0006.”

Section L, Paragraph E.1.9 does refer to the definition of a major subcontractor without using the language "major subcontractor."

The requirement is "All offerors and subcontractors valued at equal to or greater than $2Million (for the entire effort to include Options) shall provide data other than certified cost and pricing data using spreadsheet Cost Formats A, B, and C (see RFP Attachment 3) along with accompanying schedules, lists, and narratives to substantiate the cost realism for CLIN(s) 0001, 0002, 0003, 0005, and 0006."

Substituting "major subcontractors" for "subcontractors valued at equal to or greater than $2Million" does not affect the content of the requirement.

Table 1