OSF_Clarifications_and_Comments_(1.5.2011).docx

CLARIFICATIONS and COMMENTS Publication No. 2 Post Synopsis Responses to Industry Questions

DATE: January 5, 2011 These questions and the related MDA responses are provided for clarification or comment purposes only. NOTE: In some cases, the Industry questions provided in this document have been generalized or reformatted; but the content remains consistent with the submitted question.

Question No.

Subject Matter

PM

Section L, Attachment L-02b: System Performance Specification, paragraph 1.2

KPP2 states: “No framework-induced restrictions on composability.” This KPP threshold is not verifiable. Will the government provide a better threshold and objective?

KPP2 shall remain unchanged. Refer to Task Order 0001, paragraph 4.2 and Section L, Paragraphs L.08.2.1.1, L.08.2.1.3, and L.08.6.2. As per the Government’s response to Question 2 (above), the proposed design will be evaluated based on its simplicity/elegance (i.e. the absence of self-imposed constraints on system performance).

Section L, Attachment L-02b: System Performance Specification, paragraph 1.2

KSA Instrumentation and Data Logging – “Unlimited”. Will the government bound this requirement?

The KSA shall remain unchanged. Refer to Task Order 0001, paragraph 4.2 and Section L (Paragraphs L.08.2.1.1, L.08.2.1.3, and L.08.6.2). The OSF must be able to log all information contained in the specification. With regard to this particular KSA, should the Users, in the execution of their M&S Use Cases, need to log additional data, the OSF should be able to support these unplanned requirements without modification to the OSF using either their own or OSF-specific data storage mechanisms.

SPS

KPP4 states: “No upper limit on number or types of M&S representations or scenarios that can be executed by the OSF.” This KPP threshold is impossible to meet and cannot be verified. Will the government bound this?

KPP4 shall remain unchanged. Refer to Task Order 0001, paragraph 4.2 and Section L (Paragraphs L.08.2.1.1, L.08.2.1.3 and L.08.6.2). The OSF must be able to support all scenarios within the M&S Use Cases described in the Annex to the System Performance Specification (Attachment L-02b) without self-imposed constraints or limitations.

KPP4 states: “No deleterious effects to existing interoperable M&S representations or scenarios when adding any new M&S to the OSF.” This KPP threshold is not verifiable, nor is it completely within the framework’s control. Will the government provide a verifiable threshold?

KPP4 shall remain unchanged. Refer to Task Order 0001, paragraph 4.2 and Section L (Paragraphs L.08.2.1.1, L.08.2.1.3 and L.08.6.2). Per the Government’s response to Question 2 above, the Offeror shall propose an OSF design that minimizes unintended consequences.

PM

Section L, Attachment L-02b: System Performance Specification, paragraph 1.2

KPP4 states: “Seamless and transparent integration of the M&S to the framework enabling the integrated M&S to have immediate and complete access to information required to execute.” And KSA Extensible Architecture: “Engineer, develop and unit test / qualification of a capability allowing a new / modified Element model or HWIL to interoperate with the OSF. - Less than or equal to 20 working days and less than a total of 500 staff-hours of effort.” This KPP and KSA are in conflict. One says that the integration needs to be immediate and complete, while the other gives specific times and staff-hours. Will the government please clarify?

KPP4 is distinct from the Extensible Architecture KSA. The KSA bounds the maximum amount of effort and schedule time the Government is willing to expend to ADD a new M&S representation to any M&S configuration. KPP4 is the technical performance measure by which the new interface will be assessed.

Said differently, should the Government require a new M&S representation, the OSF contractor shall have 20 working days and no more than 500 staff-hours to enable the new M&S representation to interoperate with OSF and when the M&S representation does interoperate, all M&S data required to execute that representation shall be available immediately (without framework delays) and shall be complete (all required data sets are complete).

PM

M-04.1.2.1 states: “Provides a framework within the identified schedule and budget constraints and meets the OSF requirements identified in the SPS inclusive of KSAs/KPPs (See Attachment L-2b) while being consistent with the OSF Enterprise Architecture (See Attachment L-2a). NOTE: Attachment L-2a is an informational document only, compliance is not required.” Will the government clarify?

The change to Section L-08.2.1.1 provided in the Government’s response to Question 8 above addresses this concern.

Section L, Attachment L-02b: System Performance Specification, various paragraphs

The SPS contains the statement “but not limited to” in several locations, sections 3.3, 3.6 (several instances), 3.7.1 and 3.8.1.2. Can these requirements be clarified and bounded?

Review the Government’s stated needs for OSF (q.v. Attachment L-17 Base Contract Statement of Objectives (Paragraphs 1.0: Program Objective and 2.0: Contract Objectives)).

Said differently, should M&S representations change how they interoperate/exchange information, or the Users of M&S Use Cases evolve their scenario or data requirements, these changes should NOT require changes to OSF.

PM

Section L, Attachment L-02b: System Performance Specification, paragraph 1.2

Under the Framework Characteristic “Instrumentation and Data Logging” in the SPS, can the government provide a realistic bound for the Development Objective of “unlimited”?

See the response to Question 4.

Criteria

PM/

PCO

Section L-08.1.4.1 through 1.4.16 and Section M-04-1.1

Section L lists 16 proposal artifacts that do not have corresponding Section M criteria. Suggest that MDA include Evaluation Criteria for each artifact. Will the government please provide Section M Evaluation Criteria for subject proposal artifacts to support their full evaluation during source selection?

Please refer to Section M-04.1.1, Technical Subfactor 1 (TS1).

The solicitation states an OCI Disclosure form is required for each MDA, BMD and BMD-related programs. This will amount to over 100 forms for our OSF team. The page limitation in the Executive Summary for the OCI plan is 20 pages. Will the Disclosure forms be considered in the OCI plan page count or is the page count unlimited for OCI Disclosure forms? Does MDA really want a form for each program or will a statement suffice for those programs deemed to have no potential or real OCI?

An OCI Disclosure form is required for each team member’s MDA-funded contract or subcontract; BMDS-related contract or subcontract; and any significant, non-BMDS related business relationships with firms doing business with or in support of MDA. The OCI Disclosure Forms shall not be counted against stated page limitations. The solicitation shall be changed accordingly.

The solicitation states the maximum fee on CPIF is 12%, but Section L 11.2 states the maximum fee to be 13%. Please clarify.

The Maximum Fee for CPIF task orders is 12%. Section L-11.2 will be changed accordingly.

For example, based on the fee guidelines of Task Order 0001, there appears to be no incentive to underrun if all deliveries are on time.

Fee and profit guidance shall remain unchanged.

Task Order 0001 contains a Performance/Delivery Incentive and a separate Cost Incentive.

Section L-11.2 states the Ceiling Price shall be no greater than 120% of "Target Cost" (not "Target Cost plus Target Profit"). Therefore, PTA and Ceiling Price should result in the same value.

Additionally, the Maximum allowable Target Profit for FPI(F) task orders is 10%, however an Offeror may propose a profit of less than 10%.