FINAL NGAM Industry Q A on Draft RFP

Government Official Response to Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) Industry Questions on Draft RFP

1 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

This Section appears to be written in the context that the PRAG will assess relevant past performance at a “very relevant” rating if such “Past performance involve[s] essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires (e.g., scope, complexities and deliverables).” Is it the intent of this rating structure to allow for a higher rating be accorded to incumbents or existing major subcontractors as compared to other potential new Prime Contractors that have little or limited exposure to building complete missiles thereby discouraging such potential new Prime Contractors or subcontractors from bidding on this competitive effort?

There is no intent to discourage potential new prime contractors or subcontractors from bidding on this effort. IAW Section M, Paragraph M-

04.2.6 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010, Offerors without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral/Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance Factor.

This Section appears to be written in the context that the MDA is seeking a response from an existing Prime Contractor or existing major subcontractor. Is it the intent of this solicitation to discourage potential new Prime Contractors that have little or limited “demonstrated [complete] missile production capability” from submitting a competitive bid?

MDA is interested in contracting with prime contractors or contracting teams that have proven capability and capacity to design, develop and manufacture BMD interceptors. Sections M and L in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010 were updated to clarify the Government's expectations.

This Section appears to be written in the context that the MDA is seeking a response from an existing Prime Contractor or existing major subcontractor. Is it the intent of this solicitation to discourage potential new Prime Contractors that have not “proven“ delivery [of complete] missile systems for a production rate of at least four missiles per month” from submitting a competitive bid?

MDA is interested in contracting with prime contractors or contracting teams that have proven capability and capacity to design, develop and manufacture BMD interceptors. Sections M and L in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010 were updated to clarify the Government's expectations.

The Government intends to select up to three contractors for the Concept Definition and Program Planning Phase. What level of interaction / technical interchange is expected between the three prime awardees during this phase?

The Government anticipates no direct interaction between the awardees.

How will technologies funded by MDA investments under the Advanced Technology BAA and other avenues be made available to the three prime awardees for inclusion in architecture trades and other analyses?

The Government plans to make data from relevant technology risk reduction contracts (current and pending) available to all awardees for consideration in their concept definition trade studies. In cases where there are restrictions on data distribution, Non-Disclosure Agreements may be required to obtain access to data.

2 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

What is the intended acquisition strategy for the Product Development, Production, and Support phases that follow this Concept Development and Program Planning phase?

The acquisition strategy for the product development and follow-on work is still being developed.

7 Section M requests a Performance Work Statement deliverable but does not define format or content expectations. Offerors shall provide PWS in contractor defined format.

8 Scope of IMP / IMS development is unclear. Is it to cover EMD only or EMD plus production and deployment?

See updated Sections L-10.2 and M4.3(2) in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

9 What is the scope of the interface/integration activities? No mention of program meetings, milestones, TIMs, reviews or reporting requirements. See updated SOO Section 5.2 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

There is no information WRT requirements to access or support outside classified networks or portals. Is there a requirement to have access to or support classified networks other than the MDA classified portal (i.e. will SIPRNET access be required to support this effort?)

No, access to or support of classified networks other than the MDA classified portal is not required.

Current wording may encourage offerors to identify capability that is comprised of managing their competitors to this competition. Such an approach would misrepresent the offeror's ability to execute the solicited effort.

See updated Section M-04.1.2 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

13 The government can assure that past capability is representative of future capability if resumes of key personnel are required. See updated Section L-10.1.3.1 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

14 The government can assure that past capability is representative of future capability if resumes of key personnel are required.

Disagree, the Past Performance and Technical factors will be evaluated independently of each other.

3 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

Regarding "maximum fee": This is a best value competition with evaluated cost to the government (inclusive of fee) as a significant evaluation factor. This places market pressure on proposed fee rates.

Regulatory guidance on fee rates is also well established. Standardizing max fee does not recognize that the evaluated cost to the government should be considered independent of the proposed fee rate. Competing offerors will have varying levels of investment, capital, risk and talent and should be able to define the best value offerings consistent with FAR to consider these. Note also, the relevant guidance at FAR 15.404-4(3).

This CLIN does not reference "maximum fee". The purpose for establishing the fee percentage in the schedule is to identify the negotiated fixed fee that is fixed at the inception of the contract. (See FAR 16.306)

We take exception to the requirement to exclude fee on Material and ODC. Such an approach is inconsistent with the FAR definition of allowable cost and Part 15 guidance on fee to be calculated upon allowable cost. It also fails to reflect the contractor's responsibility for the cost and performance of its suppliers. Additionally, the flowdown requirement will limit access to suppliers necessary to perform the solicited effort. Most suppliers will reject this requirement and many (COTS) cannot implement from an accounting standpoint.

The Government disagrees. The prohibition of fee on ODC is common across many MDA contracts. The flowdown requirement applies to an offeror's subcontractors, not to the vendors solicited for the ODC products.

17 Who will be the design authority/approval authority for the MK 41 VLS?

For example Dahlgren?

The Government will define the missile constraints which are caused by MK 41 VLS modification concepts.

18 Will any GFE be available for demos? The Government does not intend to provide any Government Furnished Equipment for this effort.

Request the removal of the following clauses as they are applicable to only fixed-price contracts:

-52.232-2, page 20 of 51 -52.232-8, page 20 of 51 -52.232-11, page 20 of 51 -52.249-2, page 21 of 51 -52.249-8, page 21 of 51

The Government agrees. See updated final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

4 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

The following clauses have been identified as a Deviation, but the deviation is not addressed with text or by including the deviated clause in full text:

-52.219-8 (DEV), page 20 of 51 -52.219-25 (DEV), page 20 of 51 -252.219-7003 (Dev), page 22 of 51 -252.219-7004 (Dev), page 22 of 51 -252.225-7000 (Dev), page 22 of 51 -252.225-7001 (Dev), page 22 of 51

Industry may view a copy of the Deviation from the DPAP online at the (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/class_deviations.html) website for 52.219-8 (DEV), 52.219-25 (DEV) that was published on 19 November 2009. Changes are included with the memorandum. Industry can get a copy of the Deviation from the DPAP website for 252.219-7003 (DEV), 252.219-7004 (DEV) that was published on 12 February 2009. Changes are included with the memorandum. 252.225-7000 (DEV) and 252.225- 7001 (DEV) will be removed.

Subparagraph c (2) appears to prohibit contractors from participating in any follow-on work associated with the program. Previous MDA solicitations (such as MRBM and IRBM) included language such as “compete for work, other than succeeding MDA targets development support, based on such information for a period of one year after the completion of this contract, or until such information is released or otherwise made public; whichever occurs first.”

Subparagraph c(2) is not intended to prohibit contractors from participating in any follow-on work associated with the program. The NGAM CDPP effort is subject to the provisions of FAR 9.505-2(a)(3).

22 Will the Government use a common set of analysis tools to evaluate potential solutions?

The Government will evaluate all offeror's proposals in accordance with Section M.

23 What is the Government’s position on exclusive teaming of sub-tier contractors? See updated Section L-04.1 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

What is the Government’s plan for the existing or planned production facilities at Redstone, and what can bidders assume about the use of those facilities?

At this time, the Government has no specific plans for production facilities.

What, if any, constraints are imposed on the participation of International companies during the Concept Definition and Program Planning Phase of the NGAM Program. Will any constraints be placed on subsequent phases of NGAM?

IAW Section L, Paragraph L-04.2 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010, foreign participation as a prime or subcontractor is not allowed for this phase of the NGAM acquisition. Constraints on subsequent phases of NGAM are TBD.

5 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

What is the Government’s position on the availability of FOUO material to all bidders during the competition for the Concept Definition and Program Planning contract? During execution of the subject contract, will the Government make available all non-proprietary FOUO material from ongoing Aegis Land Based initiatives in a bidder’s library?

Aegis Non Proprietary FOUO material required to provide an offer for the NGAM acquisition was made available via the GFI list in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

27 Are bidders authorized to access the ECCA (to include SM-3, SM-3 variants, Aegis BMD, Aegis BMD variants) to support their proposals?

Offerors do not need ECCA access to write proposals. Analysis of other SM-3 variants is not part of the NGAM CDPP contract effort. The Government will provide the BMDS and weapon system characterization data needed for analysis within 30 days after Contract award as indicated in the GFI List in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

What equipment and/or simulations would be provided to the contractors by the Government (e.g. GFE) for testing the assembled second stage and payload?

No Government Furnished Equipment or simulations are required to accomplish the SOO.

Will there be an MK41 VLS Simulator available to perform production tests or will a real MK41 VLS be required? Will the Government specify flight test facilities to be used?

No Government Furnished Equipment or test ranges are required to accomplish the SOO.

Will the case canister be provided as GFE and if so which one and would it likely require modification? Would the canisters be arranged (e.g.

clustered) for efficient transportation?

No Government Furnished Equipment is required to accomplish the SOO.

31 When and how will the classified Performance Annex be provided? Instructions for obtaining classified GFI were posted to FBO with the final RFP on 9/28/2010.

32 Are the Government provided system context and constraints on performance capability, physics limitations, or both?

The Government will provide a description of the system context, environments, and VLS constraints within 30 days after Contract award.

See GFI list in the final RFP posted on 9/28/2010.

33 What HEMP/HAENS core standard level will be required? See SOO Paragraph 2.2.2.2, posted to FBO with the final RFP on 9/28/2010.

6 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

34 What ordnance classification will be required?

There is no requirement for hazard classification (HC) specified. The Government provided safety requirements in the GFI List with the final RFP on 9/28/2010.

35 Does the Government have specific recommendations for the timing and scope of technical reviews, programmatic reviews, and knowledge points?

SOO Section 5.2 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010 reflects required program reviews. The offeror may propose additional event-based reviews.

36 Recommend adding clause FAR 52.245-1. The Government agrees. See the final RFP released on 9/28/2010 .

37 Recommend adding clause 52.215-16 -- Facilities Capital Cost of Money The Government agrees. See the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

38 Recommend adding Alternate I to FAR 52.227-1 clause The Government agrees. See the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

39 Recommend adding Alternate I to 52.244-2 clause The Government disagrees. Alternate I will not be added.

40 Recommend deletion of clause 52.227-3 -- Patent Indemnity The Government disagrees. The clause will remain in the RFP.

41 Recommend deletion of clause 52.227-14 -- Rights in Data – General The Government disagrees. The clause will remain in the RFP.

42 Recommend deletion of clause 252.215-7003 Excessive Pass-Through Charges – Identification of Subcontract Effort The Government disagrees. See the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

43 Recommend deletion of clause 252.215-7004 Excessive Pass-Through Charges The Government disagrees. See the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

44 Recommend deletion of clause 252.246-7001 Warranty of Data Alternate II is deleted and DFARS 252.246-7001 is incorporated in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

45 Recommend deletion of clause 252.249-7002 Notification of Anticipated Contract Termination or Reduction The Government disagrees. See the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

7 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

Request the following clauses be deleted as they apply to Firm Fixed Price Contract Type:

52.242-17; 52.222-41; 52.222-43; 52.222-44; 52.228-5;

52.232-1; 52.232-2; 52.232-8; 52.232-11; 52.249-2; 52.249-8; 252.232- 7007; 252.246-7001

All but Clauses 52.228-5 , 52.232-1 and 52.246-7001 were removed from the final RFP released on 9/28/2010. Clauses 52.228-5 and 52.232-1 do not apply to the NGAM effort and will be removed before contract award.

Clause 252.246-7001 remains in the RFP released on 9/28/2010.

48 Government will provide support contractors access to bidding contractor’s proprietary data unless contractor objects.

Clause G-13 states that the Government will obtain the necessary Non Disclosure Agreements.

Clause FAR 52.227-3. is applicable to commercial item procurements and requires the contractor to be responsible for patent infringement (i.e., removes Government obligation under 52.227-1). Recommend deletion.

In the event an offeror proposes a commercial component as part of the NGAM development and production, Clause 52.227-3 will apply.

Recommend deletion of FAR 52.227-14, -17, and -23.

These clauses are in conflict with DFARS data rights clauses 252.227- 7013, -7014, -7015 and -7016.

FAR 52.227-17 is deleted. FAR 52.227-14 and FAR 52.227-23 remain.

51 Recommend deletion of FAR 52.232-11.

This clause is applicable only to fixed price contracts. The Government agrees. See the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

FAR 52.249-2 Termination for Convenience of the Government (Fixed- Price) and 52.249-8 Default (Fixed-Price Supply & Service) - These clauses are applicable only to fixed price contracts. Recommend deletion of FAR clauses 52.249-2 and 52.249-8.

The Government agrees. See the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

Recommend deletion of DFARS 252.2276-7020.

The clause is used only where the Government has a specific need to control the distribution of works first created and delivered under this contract, including controlling distribution by obtaining an assignment of copyright, or a specific need to obtain indemnity for liabilities that may arise out of the use, modification, or disclosure of such works. Note that 252.227-7013 and -7014 provide the Government with sufficient rights to data/software/software documentation created under this contract.

The Government disagrees. See the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

8 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

Recommend deletion of DFARS 252.246-7001 Alt II This clause is a data warranty that extends the typical FAR warranty period from 6 months to 3 years and also changes the remedy for correction of non-conforming data to entirely the contractor's expense instead of the FAR remedy of correction at cost with no fee. Additionally, Alternative II is only used when extended coverage is desired and a firm fixed price contract is contemplated.

The Government agrees. See the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

55 No common program milestones are provided for the C/D phase. SOO Section 5.2 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010 reflects the common program milestones for the concept definition phase.

This paragraph states the Government’s desire to achieve best balance between performance, schedule, risk and costs but the relative weighting for each of these factors is not stated.

See updated SOO Paragraph 2.2.1 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

The classified Performance Annex is needed to establish bounds for concept definition and proposed approach as is other Government Furnished Information.

The Government provided example Threat and Scenario data to offerors as part of the Classified GFI package in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010. Updated data products, system context, and performance expectations will be provided within 30 days after Contract award.

The first bullet states that the requirements for on-board KW discrimination capabilities will be driven significantly by threat complexity and off-board track and discrimination quality of service.

The Government will provide detailed, time tagged system performance data that includes object track quality and system discrimination status for all objects within 30 days after Contract award as indicated in the GFI List in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

59 This document does not provide any guidance on the logistics baseline or costing assumptions.

The Government provided SM-3 logistics documents as part of the GFI provided for the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

The Government will provide assumptions for program planning after Contract award and following contractor request.

9 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

The DRFP requires a broad set of objective trades, across many system attributes and missile technologies, without predisposition as to the outcome or solution. However, the criteria of M-04-1.2. (1 through 4) appears to focus on existing interceptor and kinetic warhead production capacity/approaches and seems inconsistent with the potential for evaluation of new, innovative approaches and industrial partners to enable high performance, low cost interceptors.

The criteria in Section M does not preclude innovative approaches. See updated Section M Paragraph M-04.1.2 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

If the Government desires unlimited rights to data, what is the government’s data sharing intent relative to this competitive phase? For example, does the government intend to share data generated in this phase across all teams? If data is shared across all teams during this phase or prior to development phase award, companies may be hesitant to inject their best solutions into the trade mix. The Government’s interest is best served by a robust competition of ideas during the concept development phase.

The Government anticipates no data sharing or direct interaction between the NGAM CDPP awardees during the concept definition phase.

MDA indicated at Industry Day that $135M is available for the contracts.

Consider including an available funding profile by year for the 32 month POP. This facilitates award without discussions and allows offerors to propose solutions that fit within the funding profile.

The planning provided for this effort includes approximately $130M between years of FY11-13. The profile is notional and may change.

Basis of best value award includes evaluation of cost/price. MDA has $135M available. Consider specifying $45M for each team. This will enable each team to propose best value solutions within the available funding and facilitate award without discussions.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(1) Price or cost to the Government shall be evaluated in every source selection.

64 Second sentence indicates the government is looking for 5 elements of the plan for the Product Development phase.

See updated Section M, Paragraph M-04.1.4 and Section L, Paragraph L-

08.4 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

These FAR and DFARS sections appear to be in reference to the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). Is it the intent of MDA to utilize ARRA funds for this effort?

FAR 52.203-15 and FAR 52.204-11 were deleted. The others remain in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

66 When will the requested OCI Analysis/Disclosure Form be available? The OCI disclosure form is Attachment 8 of Section L. See updated Section L in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

10 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

This effort is constrained within the existing Aegis BMD 5.1 and MK-41 VLS architecture and design. What data is available on Aegis BMD 5.1, and the MK-41 VLS? When and how will this data be made available to bidders? Will there be ongoing technical interactions with the Aegis Element during concept definition? Open access will enable improved solutions.

See GFI List for Aegis BMD 5.1 and MK-41 VLS documents identified in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

Will successful offerors have access to GFP equipment or access to government facilities (i.e., physical access to the MK-41, or access to Aegis 5.1 HWIL labs? Open access will enable improved solutions.

No GFP is required to accomplish the SOO.

MDA recently solicited BAA proposals for an HPI. What steps will the Government take to ensure that offerors have access to the technology developed in these BAA’s?

The Government plans to make data from relevant technology risk reduction contracts (current and pending) available to all awardees for consideration in their concept definition trade studies. In cases where there are restrictions on data distribution, Non-Disclosure Agreements may be required to obtain access to data.

70 Can classified data be submitted as an addendum to the proposal?

The offerors are proposing a process. The Government is not looking for detailed performance results at this time. Therefore, we do not anticipate the need for a classified addendum.

71 Suggest adding operating area to the summary performance metrics to address deployment flexibility.

Section L-08.1(4c) in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010 requires offerors to address operating area analysis

72 The intent of the trade “Impact of Countermeasures/Chaff and Seeker Electronics Counter-Countermeasures” is unclear and very specific. See SOO Section 2.2.2.1 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

Clarify your position on the requirement to have an existing factory producing at a capacity of 4 missiles per month. There appears to be an overlap between Technical Subfactor 2 and the Past Performance Section.

Refer to technical capabilities requirements in Section L-08.2 and Section M-04.1.2 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

74 Would it be beneficial to be thinking through technology demonstration as an adjunct activity? See updated SOO Paragraph 2.6 in final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

11 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

75 Would technology demonstration be like the BAA or part of the competition? See updated SOO Paragraph 2.6 in final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

76 Clarify your statement on teaming. The teaming restrictions for the NGAM CDPP are included in Section L-

04.1 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

78 Can a company operating under a Special Security Agreement (SSA) operate as a qualified subcontractor?

Offerors must demonstrate that the prime contractors and subcontractors meet the security requirements of this RFP as outlined in the DD254, Attachment 2 to the RFP. Offerors whose corporate form creates specific issues must identify those issues and state how they will resolve them.

See Section L-04.2 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010 for information regarding international participation.

79 The statement "Exclusive teaming agreements discouraged" applies to both primes teaming as well as subs teaming with a prime?

The teaming restrictions for the NGAM CDPP are included in section L-

10.1.2.1 of the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

80 Is it necessary to show that we have a 4 missile per month capability right now?

The reference to a production capacity of 4 missiles per month was removed. Refer to technical capabilities requirements in Section L-08.2 and Section M-04.1.2 of the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

81 Thoughts on cost sharing and risk reduction?

Industry may supplement contractual activities with clearly defined work scope on company sponsored research and development. This data must be segregated and tracked separately. All offerors will be required to identify their assertion of rights to data IAW DFARS 252.227-7017. Data produced under government funding must be delivered with unlimited or government purpose rights.

The bleeding of information across primes is a concern. With Aegis (for example) as a common interface to all the primes, how will each of the contractors' concepts be protected?

The Government will define the Aegis interface and any missile constraints within 30 days after Contract award as indicated in the GFI List in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010. The Government anticipates no data sharing or direct interaction between the NGAM CDPP awardees during the concept definition phase.

12 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

83 Do you envision this study going beyond the constraints of the Mk 41?

The Government will define the missile constraints which are caused by MK 41 VLS modification concepts as identified in the GFI list in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

84 What are the preferences on liquids vs. solids?

The SOO was updated to provide more clarity on the preference of solids versus liquids. See SOO Section 2.2.2.1 of the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

85 Will you tell us what parameters we should provide? See Exhibit A, CDRL B001 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

86 Can we obtain information on Aegis 5.1? See Aegis BMD 5.1 information identified in the GFI List in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

87 Are there treaties that would restrict Vbo and divert capabilities? No.

88 Should we read anything into the 2 ton constraint that General O'Reilly mentioned?

The only weight limitations are those associated with the design constraints of the MK 41 Vertical Launching System.

89 Will our models need to be validated to MDA standards? No formal model validation, verification, and accreditation will be performed on this contract.

90 Will our models need to have the capability to interface with DSA and SSF? See SOO 2.3 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

91 What is the modeling and simulation deliverable? What is the purpose and required fidelity? See Exhibit A, CDRL B001 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

92 Are the models and simulations required to be directly compliant with SSF and DSA? Is compliance with Oasis a requirement? See SOO 2.3 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

13 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

With respect to the noted inconsistencies, we observe that some of these open issues are significant and fundamental to communicating MDA’s objectives. For example, and referencing specific comments herein, we observe some uncertainty in the degree to which the missile is constrained by the MK 41 VLS (#8), MDA’s relative desire for sea- basing and the associated applicability of liquid propulsion (#5), and degree to which trades and modification of the BMD 5.1 are enabled (#6). We are also uncertain as to whether or not demonstrations are to be considered or proposed as priced tasking. Waiting until the final RFP to resolve these critically important requirements inhibits industry’s ability to provide an accurate and responsive proposal that meets MDA’s objectives.

Additional clarification on the issues raised was provided in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010. Clarification was also provided in the second draft RFP released on 9/2/2010.

Table L-05-1 does not list a Work Breakdown Structure which is listed as tab 5 in Paragraph L-07.5 A draft WBS has not been provided as an attachment to Section J, which would provide more insight into the Government’s intent.

See the final RFP released on 9/28/2010. MDA also provided a draft WBS in the second draft RFP released on 9/2/2010.

The instructions for the Volume IV tabs do not correspond to Section L- 10.12, page 35. The table does not include a tab for Past Performance Small Business while L-10.12 omits Commercial Client Authorization Letters.

Table L-05.1, Volume Organization, includes a Tab 7 for Past Performance Small Business Utilization. See Section L-09.10 of the final RFP released on 9/28/2010 for information about Commercial Client Authorization Letters.

Throughout Section L-08 and in the industry day charts, there are references to data or materials that MDA will supply. In addition to those referenced materials, the trade study would benefit greatly from access to information and technologies from MDA’s past and on-going investments relative SM3 IB and IIA. Such information would serve as a useful trade study baseline as well as facilitating technology, re-use, expansion or leverage points.

The Government plans to make data from relevant technology risk reduction contracts (current and pending) available to all awardees for consideration in their concept definition trade studies. In cases where there are restrictions on data distribution, Non-Disclosure Agreements may be required to obtain access to data.

We are unsure whether liquid propulsion solutions are truly considered by MDA to be part of the feasible trade space. Referenced L Paragraph (2c) asks the offeror to evaluate concepts for both land and sea-basing.

Paragraph (2e) states that an all-solid propulsion stack is the preferred solution, but, the SOO specifies conducting an NGAM solid vs. liquid propellant trade for the ICBM threat. Also, section M requests that all solid, all liquid and hybrid liquid-solid propellant solutions be examined.

SOO Section 2.2.2.1, Bullet 2, provides clarification on the solid propulsion option, as well as any alternative propulsion concepts.

Sections L and M of the final RFP released on 9/28/2010 include corresponding updates.

14 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

Paragraph first states that NGAM functionality and interfaces need to be consistent with the AWS BMD 5.1, and then later describes how trades on modifications of the BMD 5.1 concept are to be conducted. As a result, it is unclear whether potential modifications to the BMD 5.1 concept are to be considered in the trade space or the functionality and interfaces of the BMD 5.1 concept are to be treated as constraints.

Section L-08.1(2)(b) of the final RFP released on 9/28/2010 provides guidance on how trades on derivatives of the Aegis BMD 5.1 concept are to be conducted.

Section L states that sensor and communication engagement data will be given to the contractors to support their performance trades. No further information on content, scope, or format of the data is given.

See GFI list provided in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010. A draft GFI list was provided in the second draft RFP released on 9/2/2010.

The VLS constraints for missile trades are unclear. This paragraph states that changes within the VLS module external interface are acceptable.

However, it appears the only reference data that will be provided are the canister internal dimensions. Is the trade study constrained by the existing MK 41 canister internal envelope, or existing canister external envelope, i.e., must it fit within MK 41 frame structure, or existing MK 41 8-pack footprint?

The Government will provide constraints for the existing MK 41 VLS and constraints caused by MK 41 VLS modification concepts which allow a larger diameter missile within 30 days after Contract award as indicated in the GFI List in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

101 Government-provided maximum inside canister dimension is not sufficient to facilitate trades studies within the VLS module.

The Government will provide constraints for the existing MK 41 VLS and constraints caused by MK 41 VLS modification concepts which allow a larger diameter missile within 30 days after Contract award as indicated in the GFI List in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

Section L asks for trades studies that “improved reliability of avionics architecture” and list several parts. The SOO indicates that electronic piece parts shall be from OEMs when available. A list of OEM suppliers, parts, and part reliability is only available to the current incumbent.

The Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) requirement was removed from the SOO.

15 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

This section requires the offerors to perform trades as missile subsystems that are also part of the MDA funded “Component Technology Risk Reduction (CTRR)” BAA contracts. No details are provided as to how data and analysis from the BAA contract efforts will be flowed into the NGAM program. Nor is there any statement about making the results available to the contractors to incorporate, in a timely fashion, this data into their trade studies.

The Government plans to make data from relevant technology risk reduction contracts (current and pending) available to all awardees for consideration in their concept definition trade studies. In cases where there are restrictions on data distribution, Non-Disclosure Agreements may be required to obtain access to data.

The intent of Paragraph 3b is unclear. The paragraph seems to request as part of the proposal the identification of technologies for demo and testing including description of test articles, configurations, facilities, etc. SOO paragraph 2.7.2 defines this effort as an execution phase, rather than a proposal product in advance of the trade study as implied by Section L. Is the government requesting that we propose demonstrations as part of the price scope for this contracted effort?

The SOO, Section L, Paragraph L-08.3, and Section M, Paragraph M- 04.1.3, in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010 were rewritten to clarify the language regarding technology demonstrations. The Government is requesting that the offeror propose demonstrations unique to their concepts as part of the price scope for the contracted effort.

The specific reference to “missile defense interceptors and kinetic warheads” could limit competition and the potential for innovative concepts, solutions and technologies from offerors with relevant experience manufacturing missile systems of similar complexity.

Section L and Section M were rewritten to clarify this language. The offeror must demonstrate that the offeror's team has the requisite experience and capabilities outlined in Section M-04.1.2 of the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

RFP requires cost estimates for modifications to the Aegis Weapon System. All offerors need a standardized set of Aegis cost data against which to analyze potential cost implications.

The Government will provide costing assumptions for program planning after Contract award.

Paragraph asks for a Preliminary top level schedule for development, production, and deployment in the proposal. Without conducting the key trades such a top level schedule would be for a generic concept and hence would be more of an example of capability.

The intent of this paragraph was revised to describe the approach and methodology. See Section L-08.4, Sub-section (2) of the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

The specific past performance reference to “interceptor and kinetic warheads” production and deployment could limit competition and the potential for innovative concepts, solutions and technologies from offerors with relevant experience manufacturing missile systems of similar complexity.

The offeror must demonstrate that his team has the requisite experience and capabilities outlined in Section M-04.1.2 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

16 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

109 The Past Performance Reference List (PPRL) referred to as Section L, Attachment L-8 is not provided.

See the PPRL instructions in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010. MDA also provided Instructions for the PPRL in the second draft RFP released on 9/2/2010.

The requirement to provide “all Government narrative fee assessments…” conflicts with the instructions in Section L, Attach. 5, item I which requires award fee data for the entire POP. If the requested information is to be included in the Past Performance Information Sheets, they will exceed the five page limit.

See revised page count numbers in Section L Table L-05-1 and Paragraph L-09.6 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

It is stated that a “maximum of ten (10) PPIs may be submitted for the entire team.” The next sentences limit the number of PPIs to 3 for the Prime and 5 for proposed subcontractors which indicate a maximum of 8.

See the PPI instructions (Section L, Paragraph L-09.7) in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010. Clarification was also provided in the second draft RFP released on 9/2/2010.

The instruction requires five ISRs for the Prime (Offeror) and five ISRs for each key subcontractor. Subcontracting reports are typically only required for the prime contractor. The instructions of this paragraph (four ISRs for the prime contractor) conflicts with Section L-10.10 (five ISRs each for the prime and key subs).

Section L, Paragraph L-09.11 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010 states that four ISR reports are required. The ISR report requirement applies to the large business Offeror only.

113 Each proposal volume is unclassified.

The offeror is proposing their approach to completing the tasks outlined in the SOO and we are not looking for detailed performance results at this time. Therefore, we do not anticipate the need for a classified addendum.

The Performance Work Statement is allocated 15 pages and is part of Tab 1, Sys Eng. Is this 15 pages additional to the 30 pages allocated for the whole tab, or is part of the 30?

Clarification was provided in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

Clarification was also provided in the second draft RFP released on 9/2/2010 .

115 The Integrated Master Schedule is allocated 10 pages. Is this 10 part of the 20 allocated for Tab 3 or is this an additional, separate 10 pages?

Clarification was provided in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

Clarification was also provided in the second draft RFP released on 9/2/2010 .

116 “Expand (WBS) to at least level 4 or lower…” See Section L, Paragraph L-10.3 and the minimum WBS in Section L Attachment 11 in the final RFP dated 9/28/2010.

17 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

117 The reference in the second third line to L-07.9.2 is in error. Section L was revised to correct this error in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

The requirement to identify "all of its team's MDA-funded contracts or subcontracts; BMDS-related contracts; and any significant, non-BMDS related business relationships with firms doing business with or in support of the MDA."

The Government disagrees. The requirement remains as stated in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

“Describe, with rationale, the TRL before and after the proposed tests.

Describe the test article hardware...” Does this refer to or include parallel BAA technology initiatives, and/or prime CD phase funded efforts?

Please refer to SOO 2.6 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

120 To support OCI activity please provide MDA OCI Policy document (contract Attachment 12).

MDA OCI Policy was provided in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

The Policy was also provided in the second draft RFP released on 9/2/2010.

Statement: “The Past Performance Information Sheet for each contract is limited to five (5) pages.”

Comment: Attachment 5, Past Performance Information Sheet is four (4) pages without contractor inputs.

See revised page count numbers in Section L Table L-05-1 and Paragraph L-09.7 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

Comment: Section L-07.5 instructs the contractor to use the provided WBS in Section J, Attachment X.

Question: Will the contractor be given an opportunity to propose its own WBS, in line with established company guidelines since this is a study contract?

The contractor may modify the Government provided WBS with approval from the Government.

123 How many production missiles and what production rate are anticipated for the follow on product development phase of the program? The future NGAM production rate is not known at this time.

18 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

Statement 1: “Exhibits shall be legible; font shall be no smaller than 10 point using Microsoft Word Times New Roman."

Question 1: Do exhibits mean tables and figures? Question 2: If so, can the minimum font size for tables and figures and exhibits be changed to 8 point Times New Roman?

See Section L Paragraph L-05.5.3 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

The correction was also made in the second draft RFP released on 9/2/2010.

Statement 1: *Each volume shall be submitted on a separate CD/DVD.

Statement 2: Each directory (with hyperlinks in the electronic version) shall contain a Master Table of Contents for that Volume.

Question 1: Please clarify what is to be included in the Master TOC for each Volume? Is the intent to include a listing of all files on the disk?

IAW section L, Paragraph L.6.3 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010, the Master Table Of Contents is for each volume.

Statement 1: *Each volume shall be submitted on a separate CD/DVD.

Statement 2: Master Table of Contents. Include a master table of contents (with hyperlinks in the electronic version) of the entire proposal.

Comment: Since each volume will be on its own CD, the hyperlinks required in the above statement for the Master TOC will be broken.

Question: Can the requirement for hyperlinks in the Master TOC be deleted?

If separate disks are needed for a particular volume, then include the hyperlink in the Table of Contents only on the disk under which the information is contained.

127 Instructions for subject Tab 7 - PP_Small Business does not have an identified page limit per Table L-05-1.

See Section L Table L-05-1 provided in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010. It was also provided in the second draft RFP released on 9/2/2010.

Past Performance Reference List (PPRL) is identified as Section L, Attachment 8. Draft Attachment 8 is an OCI Analysis Form. PPRL attachment does not appear to be included.

This was corrected in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010. It was also corrected in the second draft RFP released on 9/2/2010.

Directions limit maximum number of offered programs to 10 and then further define 3 from the Prime and 5 total from subs. (Table L-05-01 Volume Organization, page 12, is also in conflict with number of offered programs).

This was corrected in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010. It was also corrected in the second draft RFP released on 9/2/2010.

19 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

Tab 2 PPIS (Attachment L-5) - The defined 5 page limit for each PPIS is insufficient to provide the requested information as the PPIS blank form is 4 pages.

See Section L Table L-05-1 provided in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010. It was also provided in the second draft RFP released on 9/2/2010.

The PPIS form does not specifically include Cost, Schedule, Technical, Management performance for each program? Also, is this where we should also include explanations for the following from page 32 of the RFP? "This may include an assessment of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Where problems existed, clearly demonstrate management actions employed to overcome these problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified."

Section L, attachment 5 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010 includes the Government's requirement for the PPIS.

132 Request that tables and figures be allowed to use Times New Roman 8 pt font

Changed. See section L, Paragraph 5.5.3 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

133 Version of Microsoft Office is not defined. See Section L-06.3 of the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

Will MDA identify the threats and scenarios to be evaluated as part of the proposal or contract? Will MDA provide the threat characteristics or models as part of the proposal or contract?

A threat and scenario overview suitable for defining analysis scope was provided as GFI with the final RFP released on 9/28/2010. As indicated in the GFI List, threat description and associated data files will be provided within 30 days after contract award.

135 Will MDA supply the MDA-defined Technology Readiness Level descriptions?

See TRL Definitions dated 7/1/2009 in the GFI released with the final RFP dated 9/28/2010.

"The Government will provide the maximum inside dimensions of the missile canister": Is this being provided now as part of the final RFP, or is this a future delivery after the C/D phase has begun (if so, how far into the C/D phase)? This significantly drives fundamental motor selection trade studies.

The Government will provide constraints for the existing MK 41 VLS and constraints caused by MK 41 VLS modification concepts which allow a larger diameter missile within 30 days after Contract award as indicated in the GFI List in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

20 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

In order to comply, we need as part of a Bidders' Library the appropriate set of IDD's, ICD's, and IRS's which fully describe the interfaces to the BMD 5.1, MK 41 VLS, and BMDS architecture.

Interface documentation was provided in the GFI List in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010, and the remaining Interface documentation will be provided within 30 days after Contract award.

138 When will the Government provide the description of the Aegis Weapon system functional and physical interfaces with the interceptor?

Interface documentation was provided in the GFI List in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010, and the remaining Interface documentation will be provided within 30 days after Contract award.

139 Please provide Points of Contact information for each Advisor to allow the contractor to enter Non-Disclosure Agreements with each of them.

IAW Section L-03.1 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010, the Government has received NDAs from the support contractors. Source Selection Team membership, to include advisors, is source selection information. See FAR 3.104 and 2.101.

Under this RFP Section, the Contractor is required to “Describe the approach of evaluating alternative weapon system concepts for both land and sea-basing.” Will the Government make available to Prime Contractors the necessary technical information, such as missile egress, for “sea-basing” so a company who has no current access to Aegis technical information can evaluate this information and submit an evaluating method that meets the needs of this RFP requirement?

Aegis technical documentation was provided in the GFI List in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010, and the remaining documentation will be provided within 30 days after Contract award.

This paragraph identifies a “maximum quantity of five (5) PPIs to be submitted by proposed subcontractors.” Does this maximum mean a total of (5) per each subcontractor or maximum of (5) in total for all subcontractors?

See Section L-09.7 of the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

Volume/tab breakout differs from detailed breakout found at L-07 Volume I

– Executive Summary (pg 15) due to the insertion of L-07.5 Tab 5 Work Breakdown Structure.

Table L.5-1 was revised in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010 to correspond with the detailed instructions.

Paragraphs notes a maximum of 10 PPIs may be submitted, but limits the total prime Contractor PPI to 3 and subcontractor PPI to 5, a total of only 8.

See Section L Table L-05-1 provided in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010. It was also provided in the second draft RFP released on 9/2/2010.

144 Each PPI response is limited to only 5 pages. This is insufficient to address the level of detail requested.

See Section L Table L-05-1 provided in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010. It was also provided in the second draft RFP released on 9/2/2010.

21 of 33 HQ0147-10-R-0027

Question Number Question Official Response

Requirement for OCI Disclosure Forms for, “any significant, non-BMDS related business relationships with…