Comment_Matrix_Draft_RFP_ALEP_Blk_3_-_24_April_2018.pdf

Aircrew Laser Eye Protection Comment Matrix

FA8606-18-R-0013

24 April 2018

DRAFT Document Referenced / Paragraph

Number Comment Comment/Resolution

ALEP_3_Requirements Compliance Matrix

Section M identifies that the Technical Compliance rating is an assessment of the quality of the offerors solution for meeting Government requirements. In addition, Section M, Para 2.2.3 identifies that Technical Subfactor 1 will be evaluated based on the offeror's ability to perform at least one Government form factor IAW the ALEP B3 Requirements Matrix.

How shall offeror's address the KPP protection wavelength requirement in an unclassified proposal?

Submit classifed information IAW DD-254, 3.7 Proposal Classification of section M

ALEP_3_Section_L- RFP_Draft Paragraph 1.1

Which products does the government consider to be "Developmental Item" versus "Non-Developmental Items"?

The Government understands that across the required form factors, there are various levels of development. In general, technology readiness level 8 and above is considered as "non-developmental."

ALEP_3_Section_L- RFP_Draft Paragraph 2

(b)

Will the government provide Classified Reference A ahead of RFP release or with RFP release?

Classifed Reference A has not changed since Industry Day and will be released as requested.

ALEP_3_Section_L- RFP_Draft Paragraph 3.1

Below the Table 1 Proposal Organization Table there is a note stating that the page limits do not include the Quality Assurance Program Plan. There is no mention elsewhere in the draft RFP requiring submittal of a Quality Assurance Program Plan. Please clarify if this is a required proposal submittal and any guidance associated for this plan.

Quality Management Plan is the correct wording and has been updated in Sec L.

ALEP_3_Section_L- RFP_Draft Paragraph

3.1.2 (c)

Paragraph c lists exceptions to page count but it does not include *items listed under Table 1 (page 4). Recommend adding language to paragraph c to include appendices (excluded from page count) to place QAP Plan, Test Reports and Test Data.

Added appendices to excluded page count

ALEP_3_Section_L- RFP_Draft Paragraph 3.2

Paragraph 3.2 states no pricing data is required at IDIQ level. But Draft Model Contract, Section B contains item 0001 Contract Kickoff Conference as FFP line item. Should the contractor insert the price to attend the conference with proposal submission or will the government be providing a fixed funding amount?

Gov't providing a fixed amount of $5K

ALEP_3_Section_L- RFP_Draft Paragraph 3.5

Section 3.5 implies 4 paper copies (1 original, 3 additional), while Table 1 states 2 paper copies, please clarify. 1 Electonic + 2 hardcopys

ALEP_3_Section_L- RFP_Draft Paragraph 3.6

Section 3.6 states volumes one through five shall be submitted, however Table 1 only outlines 3 volumes, please clarify. Corrected to reflect 3 volumes

Comment Resolution Matrix

FA8606-18-R-0013

24 April 2018

DRAFT Document Referenced / Paragraph

Number Comment Comment/Resolution

ALEP_3_Section_L- RFP_Draft Paragraph 3.6

The 5th sentence states, "Each Volume shall be in a different directory on a CD." Does this mean a separate CD is required for each Volume electronic copy?

The CD should contain a different file directly for each volume not a different CD for each volume.

ALEP_3_Section_L- RFP_Draft Paragraph 3.8

This paragraph identifies proposal submission as 5pm on 23 May 2018. Is this the target date for proposals or will this be updated in the final RFP?

How many days will offerors have to respond to the final RFP? What is the Government's target date for final RFP release? Contract Award(s)?

May 2018 is the planned Final RFP release date and the Gov't intends to allow at least 30 calendar days for proposal submission. Date and time will be updated in Final RFP.

ALEP_3_Section_M- RFP_Draft Paragraph

1.2.1.2

Para 1.2.1.2 Classified Processing Gate, 2nd sentence states, The DD- 254 submission will act as the determination of this gate." Our understanding is the Government issues the DD-254 to offerors/awardees.

Please clarify what the offeror is to provide to meet the requirements of this Gate.

Updated language to Sec M Para 1.2.1.2

ALEP_3_Section_M- RFP_Draft Paragraph 2.1

Subfactor 1: Performance Capability has "Small Business inclusion" in parentheses. There is no guidance in Section L regarding Small Business as part of the Performance Capability subfactor. Please clarify what offerors are to address/provide in proposals regarding Small Business, and how Small Business will be evaluated.

Incorporated Small Business language Sec M Para 2.2.3 and Sec L Para 5.1.4

ALEP_3_Section_M- RFP_Draft Paragraph

2.2.1

Table 1 Technical Compliance Ratings identify five (5) different ratings.

Para 2.2.1, 2nd sentence states, "Each technical subfactor will receive a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable." Should this be changed to state each subfactor will receive one on the five ratings in Table 1? Also, recommend Para 2.2.1 provide reference to Table 1

Corrected Table 1 to show Acceptable/Unacceptable

ALEP_3_Section_M- RFP_Draft Paragraph

2.2.1

As identified in Para 2.2.1, technical subfactor ratings are not rolled up into an overall technical factor rating. Accordingly, recommend the last sentence in para 2.2.1 (sentence 5) be modified to identify that only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, good or outstanding for each technical subfactor....will be considered for award.

Corrected Table 1 to show Acceptable/Unacceptable

FA8606-18-R-0013

24 April 2018

DRAFT Document Referenced / Paragraph

Number Comment Comment/Resolution

ALEP_3_Section_M- RFP_Draft Paragraph

2.2.1

Table 1 Technical Compliance Ratings describe the outstanding (blue) and good (purple) ratings as having one or more strengths. Strengths are not discussed elsewhere in Section M or elsewhere in the draft RFP. In addition the ALEP Block 3 Requirements Matrix identifies that thresholds equal objectives for all KPP's and KSA's, and only three (3) APA's (physical coverage, operational temperature and Haze) have separate objectives. Recommend including an explanation of what constitutes a proposal strength for purposes of evaluation.

USG will take this under advisement

ALEP_3_Section_M- RFP_Draft Paragraph

2.2.3

The last sentence of para 2.2.3 Measures of Merit states, "This subfactor is met when…..and will be rated as Acceptable." Recommend changing the end of the sentence to "rated as Acceptable, Good or Outstanding IAW Table 1 Technical Compliance Ratings."

Corrected language in 2.2.3

ALEP_3_Section_M- RFP_Draft Paragraph

2.2.5

Paragraph numbering needs to be updated. This paragraph should be

2.2.4. Corrected

ALEP_3_SOW_-

_RFP_Draft CDRL Matrix

Could the Data Item Description (DID) number be added for each CDRL listed in the matrix to better clarify the CDRL requirement?

An updated SOW has been issued. Please see DRAFT

SOW.

ALEP_3_SOW_-

_RFP_Draft CDRL Matrix

Recommend adding CDRL references to each SOW paragraph requiring a CDRL submittal. Also, recommend updating the CDRL Matrix to list all the data requirements listed throughout the SOW; e.g., IMS, ECP, CCP, DAL, Deficiency Reports, Configuration Management Plan, Request for Deviation, Technical Data Package, Safety Hazard Analysis Report, Health Hazard Assessment Report, Minutes, Agenda, Presentation Material, Mishap Risk Assessment, Performance Specification, Contractor Work Breakdown Structure, DT&E Test Plan, Final Qualification Test Report, Acceptance Test Procedures, DTC/LCC/Variance Analysis, ALEP Quality Plan, Proposed Spare Parts List, Technical Manuals, Training and Training Equipment Plan, etc.

An updated SOW has been issued. Please see DRAFT

SOW.

ALEP_3_SOW_-

_RFP_Draft Paragraph 1.1

Will DOs be available for ALL IDIQ awardees to bid or will the DOs be released only to a subset of the awardees based on the scope of the DO? for all awardees

ALEP_3_SOW_-

_RFP_Draft Paragraph 1.4

Will AFI 63-145 (Manufacturing and Quality Management) be provided with the RFP?

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_aq/publication/afi63-

145/afi63-145.pdfPage 3 of 7

FA8606-18-R-0013

24 April 2018

DRAFT Document Referenced / Paragraph

Number Comment Comment/Resolution

ALEP_3_SOW_-

_RFP_Draft Paragraph 2.0 Where will the Post Award Conference be held? Planned for Aug 2018 at WPAFB

ALEP_3_SOW_-

_RFP_Draft Paragraph 2.0

Para 2.0 identifies the Post Award Conference. Model Contract Sections B and F, CLIN 0001 identifies a Contract Kickoff Conference. Assume the Post Award and Contract Kickoff Conferences are the same event.

Recommend a consistent conference name throughout RFP.

Contract Kickoff Conferences

ALEP_3_SOW_-

_RFP_Draft Paragraph 3.0 Will each variant be a separate DO or will they be grouped? Gov't intends to align with customer priorites and resources; there may be multiple variant in a singular DO

ALEP_3_SOW_-

_RFP_Draft Paragraph 3.0

How long after the IDIQ award(s) will Delivery Orders be issued? Will delivery orders be competed among IDIQ awardees or issued sole source? Will delivery orders be issued as a separate RFP?

The first delivery order will be for Ballistic Spectacles and will be a topic at the Kickoff Conference. All awardees may propose for a DO in the Fair Opportunity Proposal

Request (FOPR)

ALEP_3_SOW_-

_RFP_Draft Paragraph 3.8

Paragraph 3.8 JSAM title should be updated to "Joint Service Aircrew Mask" Corrected

ALEP_3_SOW_-

_RFP_Draft Paragraph

4.14

Para 4.14 Reviews and Meetings doesn't identify the need for agendas, presentation material, minutes, actions? Will these be required?

Recommend identifying the CDRLs in the paragraph for each requirement and updating the CDRL matrix to ensure appropriate CDRLs are added.

An updated SOW has been issued. Please see DRAFT

SOW.

ALEP_3_SOW_-

_RFP_Draft Paragraph

4.15

This paragraph states the requirement for Monthly Status Reports.

Recommend identifying the CDRL in this paragraph as well as in the CDRL Matrix.

An updated SOW has been issued. Please see DRAFT

SOW.

ALEP_3_SOW_-

_RFP_Draft Paragraph

4.17.1

Paragraph 4.17.1 Risk Management, sentence 1 requires the contractor to construct a risk management approach IAW MIL-STD-882E. This system safety standard seems more appropriate for SOW Para 5.2 System Safety and 5.2.1 Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health to perform hazard analysis and assess hazard risks. Recommend replacing MIL-STD-882E in paragraph 4.17.1 with the DOD Risk, Issue, and Opportunity Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs, dated January 2017. This guide may provide better guidance for Acquisition Program Risk Management.

Gov't will take it under advisement

ALEP_3_SOW_-

_RFP_Draft Paragraph 4.5 Is the DD-254 for the IDIQ available for review? USG will provide a draft DD-254 with final RFP release

FA8606-18-R-0013

24 April 2018

DRAFT Document Referenced / Paragraph

Number Comment Comment/Resolution

ALEP_3_SOW_-

_RFP_Draft Paragraph 5.0

Will the Performance Specification(s) (PS) be available with release of the IDIQ RFP? Pspec will be released for each FOPR/DO

ALEP_3_SOW_-

_RFP_Draft Paragraph

7.1.5

Will the quality plan referenced "Air Force Acquisition Quality Program (AFI 63-501)" be provided with the RFP?

AFI 63-501 has been recended, will ref AFI 63-145 in DO

SOW

ALEP_3_SOW_-

_RFP_Draft Paragraphs

1.1 and 3.0

Paragraph 1.1 states the government is in need of +38,000 ALEP units.

Section 3 lists the different variants required. What are the estimated quantities of each variant? Or are the quantiles still the same as identified in the USAF Industry Day brief?

They are the same as briefed at the August 2017 Industry day

Block 3 Spectacles--Day: 7,500; Night: 12,000 DayVisor: 5,000 Ballistic Spectacle- Day: 1,000; Night: 1,000 JSAM SA Outsert:10,000 JHMCS Visor 1,500 SupportEquipment:TBD Total 38,000

Requirements Matrix, Field of View (FOV)

Can the Government provide the Field of View (FOV) values of Block 2 spectacles?

Further clarification will be provided in the Performance Specifcation associated with each DO

Requirements Matrix, P43 Transmittance

The transmittance spectra of the JHMCS visor (with and without the reflective patch) is needed to calculate the P43 at the system level. Will the government provide this data?

Further clarification will be provided in the Performance Specifcation associated with each DO

Requirements Matrix, Physical Coverage.

The relative position of the eye and eyewear is usually characterized by the Eye Relief value (distance from the top of cornea to the internal surface of the eyewear (lens) along the forward looking line of sight). But to properly characterize Physical Coverage it is also important to know the position of the temporal canthus relative to the top of cornea. Please provide the position (distance) of the temporal canthus relative to the top of the cornea.

Further clarification will be provided in the Performance Specifcation associated with each DO

Requirements Matrix,Photopic Luminous

Transmittance (PLT)

Is there any upper limit to PLT-D65 value for the day variant? Without an upper limit the day variant could be designed with unacceptably high transmittance for day usage.

Further clarification will be provided in the Performance Specifcation associated with each DO

FA8606-18-R-0013

24 April 2018

DRAFT Document Referenced / Paragraph

Number Comment Comment/Resolution

Requirements Matrix,Photopic Luminous

Transmittance (PLT)

The transmittance spectra of the JHMCS visor (with and without the reflective patch) is needed to calculate the PLT-D65 at the system level.

Will the government provide this data?

Further clarification will be provided in the Performance Specifcation associated with each DO

Section L 3.2 and Section L 5

The SOW states “For awardees at the Multi-award IDIQ level, Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) A001 is the only required deliverable.”

- Section L states “Price will be evaluated at the Delivery Order competition level. No pricing data is required at the IDIQ level.”

- Section L, paragraph 5. Volume III, also indicates that Section B of the draft contract, containing CLIN 0001, is not to be included in the contract documentation response.

Please clarify if any pricing is to be provided with the IDIQ proposal.

Clin 0001 on the RFP/SOW. No pricing data is necessary for the IDIQ proposal submission.

N/A When does the USG plan to release the RFP and how much time is expected between the RFP release and the RFP submission due date?

May 2018 is the planned Final RFP release date and the Gov't intends to allow at least 30 calendar days for proposal submission. Date and time will be updated in final RFP.

N/A What is the anticipated contract length/period of performance? gov't is looking at 5 to 10 year contract duration

N/A IAW FAR 16.504(a)(4)(ii), what is the anticipated total minimum and maximum quantity of supplies or services the Government will acquire under the contract?

The Gov't intends to purchase at least 900 end items and up to 40,000 end items across all the form factors

N/A Does the USG envision multiple awards for EMD phase deliveries only or for production deliveries as well?

The government intends to award each DO to a signular vendor

Requirements Matrix, Phsyical Coverage

No headform standard defined for measurement criteria.

Suggest using an Alderson 50th Percentile male headform and evaluate according to existing language.

Clarification will be in the DO pspec

Requirements Matrix, Anthropometric Accommodation

Additional information needed to ensure performance.

Please provide headwidth ranges for aircrew population. Clarification will be in the DO pspec

What is the expected timeline for this program (e.g., contract award, LRIP, FRP, etc.)?

There are various efforts aligned with expected delivery orders. The first Fair Opportunity Proposal Request

(FOPR) will be discussed during the Contract Kick-off ConferencePage 6 of 7

FA8606-18-R-0013

24 April 2018

DRAFT Document Referenced / Paragraph

Number Comment Comment/Resolution

SOW paragraph 4.5 Is SIPRNET required for the program?

SIPRnet is recommended, as paper coordination with classified information will add undue delay for postage and processsing.

SOW paragraph 4.7 Is special access, above NISPOM, required for personnel, physical spaces and information?

special access, above NISPOM, is not required for personnel, physical spaces and information

Appendix A Is there updated classified requirements document?

The Classified Reference A, 10 Aug 2017 has not changed. If Classified Reference A dated 10 Aug 2017 does change the Government will notify interested Offerors.

SOW paragraph 5.1.7 What type of technological advances are envisioned? The USG would look to industry vendor for these types of advances.