FINAL NGAM Q A

Government Official Response to Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) FINAL RFP and Pre‐Preposal Conference Questions

Question Number Questions Proposed Resolution by Industry Official Response

The page limit for Volume III Past Performance Tab 7 Small Business Utilization is given as: 1 Page per Contract.

Section L-09.11 states “Small Business Utilization requires a narrative describing use of small business concerns plus Individual Subcontracting Reports for four contracts. Subcontracting reports do not count against the page limit.” Does the one page limit in Table L-05-1 apply to the narrative?

One page does not apply to narrative but to the SF 294 reports. Suggest a 3-page limit for Small Business Utilization narrative.

The page limit in Section L, Table L-05-1 for Past Performance Volume, Tab 7, applies to the narrative as stated in Paragraph L-09.11 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

2 Are there any page limits for the table in Tab 8? [Section L, Table L-09.11]

Suggest 2-page limit RFP Amendment 01 modified Table L-05-1 to reflect a one

(1) page limit for Other Potentially Relevant Contract, Table L- 09.1.

Section L-07.7 Requires that Section J, Exhibit A be modified and submitted as Tab 6.

However, the pdf has embedded images that are difficult to electronically modify.

Please provide Section J, Exhibit A in Word Format so it can be electronically modified and submitted.

Section J, Exhibit A - CDRLs will be supplied in Microsoft Word format upon request.

The statement in L-06.3 “place as much documentation on one CD/DVD as possible” seems to indicate that we may include multiple volumes on one CD/DVD. However, the footnote on Table L-05-1 indicates that each volume will need to be on separate CD/DVDs. Additionally, allowing multiple volumes on one CD/DVD will facilitate a fully linked Master Table of Contents.

Suggest revising statement to “place as many volumes on one CD/DVD as possible.”

Delete footnote on Table L-05-1.

RFP Amendment 01 clarified the number of CD/DVD/s required for each volume in Section L, Paragraph L-06.3.

Section L-07.6 states “The Offeror shall also cross reference all Shall, Will, and May statements included in the proposal or state why or why not they have complied.”

Is it the Government’s intention to have the Offeror trace all Shall, Will, and May statements from the SOO, Section L and Section M to where they appear in the proposal?

Suggest revising statement to:

“The Offeror shall also cross reference all Shall, Will, May, and Should statements from the SOO, Section L, and Section M to where they are addressed in the proposal and if there is no compliance state the reason why.”

The Offeror shall provide a proposal Shall Will Cross Reference Matrix IAW Attachment L-10 to cross reference the proposal to the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), the Statement of Objectives (SOO) (Section J, Attachment 1), the Performance Work Statement (PWS), Section L (Section J, Attachment 13), and Section M (Section J, Attachment 14).

The additional cross reference requirement is to assist compliance tracking by the Government.

The page limit for this section is defined as “1 spreadsheet.”

Would the Government prefer to have the spreadsheet as a separate electronic attachment, printed as Tab 5 or both?

Please clarify submittal request.

The Will Shall Matrix included in the RFP as Section L Attachment 10, must be filled out by the Offeror and be included in the Offeror's proposal as Tab 5 of Volume I Executive Summary in the hard copy and the electronic version.

Table L-05-1 identifies six (6) additional paper copies of Volume V Cost/Price. Section L-11.3, second paragraph identifies submittal of two (2) hard copies.

Please clarify the request number of paper copies for Volume V Cost/Price

Clarified per RFP Amendment 01. Updated Table L-05-1 to state that The Offeror shall supply one (1) Original Signed and two (2) Additional hard Copies of the cost/price proposal.

Paragraph L-11.3 was updated to remove the reference in its entirety.

Page 1 of 14 HQ0147‐10‐R‐0027

Government Official Response to Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) FINAL RFP and Pre‐Preposal Conference Questions

Number Questions Proposed Resolution by Industry Official Response

8 Further clarification is requested related to international participation. [L-04.2]

For clarification, Section L, Paragraph L-04.2, third sentence, will be modified in RFP Amendment 02 to include the words "related to this procurement" between the words "contact" and "with a foreign government…"

Paragraph L-04.2 also states restrictions on contacts with certain entities and people. If you are aware of the components and capabilities and know enough to analyze it while complying with paragraph L-04.2, you may include it in the trade space. Companies may draw upon international components and technologies in the trade space as long as the information can be obtained without contact as described in the third sentence of paragraph L-04.2.

The information concerning mailing the signed Past Performance questionnaire is more detailed on Page 26 than that on page 45. [L-09.8, Page 26 of 70 and Attachment #6, Page 45 of 70] Which information should we comply with?

RFP Amendment 01 modified all delivery addresses to be consistent with the address on page 45 of Section L. Note that email is preferred for the Past Performance Questionnaires.

The contractor would like permission to keep FOUO documents on its NGAM Proposal Server. Access to this server is limited to those contractor and subcontractor personnel who have been cleared to participate in the NGAM proposal.

The Government will not provide specific direction or permission regarding the sufficiency of security measures for FOUO electronic or paper data. It is the responsibility of the offeror to apply appropriate internal controls across their team.

There is a difference between the address for the Past Performance forms and the instructions in Section L.

Both addresses list Marie Hickox as the POC, but the address in Section M is more extensive than the address on the form letter.

Please provide which address to use for mail delivery of the questionnaire.

RFP Amendment 01 modified all delivery addresses to be consistent with the address on page 45 of Section L. Note that email is preferred for the Past Performance Questionnaires.

SOO Section 2.1.2 states the contractor shall ensure the concept is compatible with the Aegis BMD 5.1 weapon system configuration.

1) Since Aegis BMD 5.1 does not exist, what will allow for an understanding of potential impacts to Aegis BMD 5.1?

GFE interface definition to Aegis BMD 5.1, or an ACA with LMC during the CD Phase or a RFP to LMC during CD Phase.

2) When will contractors have access to the Aegis BMD

5.1 definition?

Please clarify

Government GFI will provide Aegis 5.1 characterization and interface assumptions. Per the GFI list provided with the RFP released 9/28/2010, this information will be provided 30 days after contract award.

Page 2 of 14 HQ0147‐10‐R‐0027

Government Official Response to Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) FINAL RFP and Pre‐Preposal Conference Questions

Number Questions Proposed Resolution by Industry Official Response

The Guidebook for Performance-Based Service Acquisition (PBSA) in the Department of Defense includes an explanation and examples of Performance Assessment Plans, Performance Standards and Acceptable Quality Limits associated with Performance Work Statements.

RFP instructions for the PWS did not include a template or detailed instructions on specifying performance measurements or standards.

Question: If the contractor is expected to define Performance Standards and Acceptable Quality Limits, will these be included in the 15 page limit of the PWS or can these be in a separate document (such as a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan)?

Please clarify

The offeror is expected to define Performance Standards and acceptable quality limits. RFP Amendment 02 will indicate a three (3) page limit for this document and it will be an attachment to the PWS. A sample will be provided with RFP Amendment 02.

SOO 4.2 and 4.3 references CDRL A011 and B007 respectively. These CDRLs reference a DID that is inconsistent with the SOO text. Please clarify.

Updated MAP/PMAP Requirements Applicability Matrix instruction DID information for CDRLs A011 and B007 will be provided via RFP Amendment 02.

The page count allocation defined in Table L-05-1 (1 page/contract) and the detailed Tab directions in L-09.11 (pg 26) are in conflict. The detailed directions indicate a narrative discussion followed by an unlimited page allocation for inclusion of the subcontracting reports (SF 294/295). It is not clear how long the narrative can be.

Update Table L-05-1 to indicate allocation for the narrative and an unlimited page allocation for the reports.

The page limit in Table L-05-1 for Past Performance Volume, Tab 7, applies to the narrative as stated in paragraph L-09.11 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

"Shall, Will Cross Reference Matrix" [Section L, Attachment 10] Do you expect to see each shall statement broken out line by line in the matrix (i.e., a single paragraph contains more than one shall, do you expect to see multiple entries for that paragraph)? Also, the example includes “should,” but “should” is not mentioned in Section L-07.6 Tab 5.

Are we expected to account for “should” statements?

Please clarify

A paragraph can contain more than one Shall, Will or May statement. Each statement shall be separately addressed.

"Should" statements will be removed from Sections L and M and the example Shall Will Matrix (Section L Attachment 10) in RFP Amendment 02.

Government refers to defining concepts in terms of the “Reference Missions” but did not provide the “Reference Mission” document as part of the RFP GFI list.

Please clarify Per the GFI list provided with the RFP released 9/28/2010, the Reference Missions Document will be provided 30 days after contract award.

Government refers to defining concepts in terms of the “External Sensor Track Data Package” but did not provide the document as part of the RFP GFI list.

Please clarify Per the GFI list provided with the RFP released 9/28/2010, the External Sensor Track Data Package will be provided 30 days after contract award.

Page 3 of 14 HQ0147‐10‐R‐0027

Government Official Response to Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) FINAL RFP and Pre‐Preposal Conference Questions

Number Questions Proposed Resolution by Industry Official Response

The Modeling and Simulation Review (SOO 5.2) is required no later than 12 MAC and is a review of plans and for ensuring proper interfaces for evaluation of contractor concepts. The timing of this review fits with Product Development Planning and Definition activities but including the "evaluation of contractor concepts" in the purpose sounds like a review of concept definition M&S tools. It is our understanding that this review would focus on the M&S tools planned for use in the Product Development phase, please confirm or clarify the intent of this review.

Please clarify

The review in SOO Paragraph 5.2 is focused on M&S planning for product development. M&S products developed during concept definition should be addressed in that context at this review.

When will the Government provide the appropriate documentation that should accompany the NGAM Threat Data Package (e.g. threat fact sheets, detailed threat description documents, optical signature input files, RCS field files, etc.)?

It is our understanding that the entire set of threat data defined in the Government Threat Data Package will be available to use at the start of the Concept Development phase and all formats delivered in advance so that the contractor can be ready to use that data with it models to support its trade studies.

Please confirm Per the GFI list provided with the RFP released 9/28/2010, the Threat Data Package will be provided 30 days after contract award.

SOO 2.3.1 states delivery of interceptor models and simulations but when these items are required is not stated. Please provide the expected delivery time frame of these items.

Please clarify CDRL B006 provides the requirement for model deliveries.

This paragraph [L-08.4 Tab 4] states “Document tasks in an Integrated Master Plan (IMP).”

Is the intent for us to provide an approach to document tasks in an IMP or is the intent to identify all tasks for follow-on development, production, and life-cycle support as part of the proposal response? The current page count limitations would imply that a description of the approach is the intent.

Please clarify Section L, Paragraph L-08.4(1) will be modified in RFP Amendment 02 to add the words "Describe the approach to..." to the beginning of the last sentence in the paragraph.

Page 4 of 14 HQ0147‐10‐R‐0027

Government Official Response to Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) FINAL RFP and Pre‐Preposal Conference Questions

Number Questions Proposed Resolution by Industry Official Response

We understand that the Government would not want ITAR-controlled or classified information provided to persons not authorized to receive it. However, as worded, this clause sweeps too broadly by precluding contractors (and their subs) from using any personnel who are not U.S.

Citizens, including those who hold dual citizenships. We are concerned this would require contractors/subcontractors to discriminate against all non- US Citizens and dual citizens in violation of fundamental laws precluding discrimination on the basis of national origin. However, we believe there is a simple fix to this clause that avoids the potential discrimination issue while restricting controlled information to those persons who can receive it.

1. Consider whether the Security Requirements set forth in DD254 attached in the RFP are sufficient to address the Governments concern. If so, this clause can be deleted.

2. If not, revise the clause to permit use of personnel to “U.S. Persons as defined in the ITAR,” or for classified information, to persons who have been cleared to receive such information.

The provisions of Section L, Paragraph L-04.2 apply regardless of any other clearances, approvals, mitigation plans, arrangements, or agreements. The Government does not agree that any other clearance, approval, mitigation plan, arrangement, or agreement is a substitute for or equal to compliance with the provisions of paragraph L-04.2. Offerors need to read and comply with paragraph L-04.2 as written.

The requirement remains as stated. However, for clarification, Section L, Paragraph L-04.2, third sentence, will be modified in RFP Amendment 02 to include the words "related to this procurement" between the words "contact" and "with a foreign government…"

A contractor has been advised by one of its selected subcontractors that they are not being given approval by other industry participants to submit Past Performance responses for recent and highly relevant programs to the contractor. It is our understanding that this competition does not allow exclusive teaming. Will the Government release guidance to ensure this does not preclude contractors from obtaining adequate past performance data from key subcontractors?

Please clarify This is a matter between contractors and their subcontractors.

SOO Paragraph 2.1.2 states:

“The missile canister can be larger than the current canister, but shall be contained within the size envelope of a MK 41 launcher module.”

It is the contractor’s understanding, based on the cited paragraph that the NGAM Concept is to include the missile and the canister.

Please confirm This contract effort is for missile concepts. Per SOO paragraph 2.1.2, the Government will provide missile constraints for MK 41 VLS compatibility, including canister.

26 SOO Paragraph 1 description and threat document differ. Please clarify

The final threat data package will be provided within 30 days after contract award. An example was provided with the RFP so that the offeror could obtain insight into the kind of information that will be provided and was not intended to be the final threat package (Threat Data Package for NGAM RFP V1 dated September, 2010).

Page 5 of 14 HQ0147‐10‐R‐0027

Government Official Response to Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) FINAL RFP and Pre‐Preposal Conference Questions

Number Questions Proposed Resolution by Industry Official Response

The descriptions of CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0003 preclude fee on Other Direct Costs (ODC) and “material”.

A. The requested approach appears inconsistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). FAR Part 31 recognizes Material and ODC as allowable costs. FAR

15.404 recognizes the application of profit or fee to allowable costs and specifically addresses how a structured approach considers fee to be applied to materials [Ref 15.404-4(d)(i)(1)(A)].

B. The requirement to flow this fee approach to suppliers is expected to delay supplier responses and may lead some suppliers to elect to no-bid, reducing industry access to a best value supply base. Ultimately, the current language is expected to create delays and reduce access to quality suppliers without generating savings to the Government.

C. The approach constrains offerors' discretion in defining a best value approach to the Government [reference FAR 15.404-4(a)(3) which states ("... reducing prices by reducing profit, without proper recognition of the function of profit are not in the Government's interest."]

Delete preclusion of fee on ODC and material cost elements bringing the RFP in compliance with FAR. Previously answered in posting on 10/11/2010, question #16.

Paragraph L-07.10.2 requires each offeror and each member of the offerors team to provide OCI Disclosure Forms for all MDA and BMDS contracts and all significant relationships with parties doing business with the MDA.

This requirement will result in delivery of hundreds of pages from each offeror and from many members of each offeror’s team. (i.e. most prime offerors have numerous direct contracts with MDA / BMDS and, further, each offeror and each member of their team will have even more numerous non-BMDS related relationships with firms having significant business with MDA even if this is limited to typical prime bidders such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman.) This level of detail will be overwhelming and will not aid in an MDA assessment of OCI issues. This issue is complicated by the lack of an identified page count (see question 29).

The paragraph should be amended to require each offeror to perform an OCI analysis consistent with it’s OCI plan providing the OCI Disclosure Form only for those contracts that present a potential OCI issue.

The Government disagrees with the suggestion. The RFP remains as stated on 9/28/2010

A page count is identified for the OCI Plan, but no page count is identified for the submittal of OCI Disclosure Forms. As currently requested in the RFQ, this response requires a significant page count (see question 28).

An unlimited page count should be identified in accordance with the proposal above to allow offeror’s to assess potential OCI concerns identified in accordance with the each Offeror’s OCI Plan.

The page limit on the OCI plan remains at 10 pages.

Amendment 01 added a statement to Table L-05.1 indicating an unlimited page count on the OCI disclosure forms.

Page 6 of 14 HQ0147‐10‐R‐0027

Government Official Response to Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) FINAL RFP and Pre‐Preposal Conference Questions

Number Questions Proposed Resolution by Industry Official Response

The subject paragraph notes a requirement for an annual IBR. Typically only a single IBR is required when the PMB is initially established.

Please explain the rationale for and expectations of the annual IBR requirements.

The Government requirement is for an annual IBR to be conducted. Refer to SOO Paragraph 5.3.1 of the Final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

Paragraph L-10.4.1 requests ‘proposed small business participation, including a breakout of prime and first tier participation as well as’… but does not specify type or format.

Reword to ‘proposed small business prime and first tier participation as well as’…

Paragraph L-10.4.1 remains as contained in final RFP posted on 9/28/2010.

The mission analysis scope regarding SRBM is inconsistent between the SOO [Paragraph 1.0] background and Paragraph 2.2.2.1. Background paragraph states early intercept capability against ‘some Short Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBM), …and non-advanced Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM)…’

2.2.2.1 states Maximum potential performance against the ICBM threat of the NGAM while retaining capability for the IRBM and MRBM.

Please clarify if mission capability against SRBM is included in analysis and trades.

Mission capability against some long range SRBMs will be included in the analysis and trades.

33 No international involvement is allowed, but there is a requirement to comply with DFAR 252.225-7004.

Recommend removal of DFAR.

Clause will remain in RFP posted on 9/28/2010. No report is required if work is not performed outside of the United States or Canada.

The paragraph [CDRL 2.1(3)] states “The contractor shall develop a CDRL Sequence-to-Performance Work Statement (PWS) index as part of their proposal.”

Section L, L-08.1 for the PWS does not require this as part of the Technical Volume.

Recommend adding as part of the PWS and specify “This does not count against the 15 page limit for the PWS section.”

Section L, Table L-05-1 and Paragraph L-08.1 will be revised to reflect two (2) pages for the Sequence-to-PWS index as part of the proposal. The two (2) pages will not count against the fifteen page limit. RFP Amendment 02 will reflect this change.

The paragraph [CDRL 2.2.10] states “all reports” and “all material” will have markings such as “For Official Use Only,” “Pre-Decisional Material,” and the disclaimer statement. Is this marking required for all material or only deliverable data?

Recommend only deliverable data. Marking requirements are applicable to all material.

36 States “electronic media format output deliverables in addition to paper format directions.”

Recommend remove all paper format requirements from all CDRLs due to the requirement of the Electronic Data Warehouse

The Government concurs that paper deliverables are not required for CDRLs A001, A007, A008 and A009. This change will be included in RFP Amendment 02.

37 The CDRL [A005] states delivery “in conjunction with

CPR”.

Recommend that since CPR data is required by the DID to be included in this delivery, to change the submission to 20 calendar days after account period and not in conjunction with the CPR.

The CFS CDRL (A005) is consistent with the CPR data (A004) in requesting data delivery on the 15th of the month following the reporting period. The Government disagrees with adjusting the submission date.

Page 7 of 14 HQ0147‐10‐R‐0027

Government Official Response to Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) FINAL RFP and Pre‐Preposal Conference Questions

Number Questions Proposed Resolution by Industry Official Response

38 The WBS [and Section L, Paragraph L-15.1] mention a technical data package not called out as a data delivery.

As the end product is a design concept, plans, and requirements, there will not be a design TDP.

Recommend deletion of this reference to a technical data package.

RFP Amendment 02 will delete example b in Section L, Paragraph L-15.1.

Paragraph [L-07.6] includes a requirement to cross-reference all Shall, Will, and May statements included in the proposal or state why or why not they have complied.

The format of [Section L] Attachment L-10 suggests the cross reference is required to map statements in the RFP to documents in the proposal.

Recommend changing requirement in Paragraph L-07.6 to read…to cross-reference all Shall, Will, and May statements included in the RFP to the offeror proposal documents or state why or why not they have complied.

Your understanding of the Government intent is correct.

Paragraph L-08.6 adequately conveys the requirements as written.

Paragraph L-07.6, Tab 5 cites Attachment L-10 as the template for the Shall Will Cross-Reference Matrix. The L- 10 matrix includes a “Should” column, however subject paragraph does not indicate this is required.

The paragraph requires cross reference to the WBS yet there is no table column for the WBS reference.

Recommend deletion of the “Should” column from Attachment L-10 template or add to requirement to subject paragraph.

Recommend deletion of Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) from the first sentence of L-07.6 since this document does not levy requirements

"Should" statements will be removed from Sections L and M and the example Shall Will Matrix (Section L Attachment 10) in RFP Amendment 02.

The WBS reference in Section L, Paragraph L-07.6 and Attachment 10 Cross Reference Matrix remain as stated.

The WBS column is the eighth from the left in the Matrix.

Please identify if there a set of Simulink based common models that the simulation should use that will map to the OASIS common models for the WGS84 earth model, gravity model, atmospheric model(s), etc?

Recommend provision to the bidder to reduce cost.

The Government will provide the OASIS compliant framework (SIMITAR) and Simulink based common truth models. These will be added to the GFI list and provided 30 days after contract award.

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 of FAR 52.227-3.

Delete FAR 52.227-3. Previously answered in posting dated 10/11/2010 question #40.

This clause [DFARS 252.227-7020] 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. Recommend deletion of

DFARS 252.227-7020.

Delete DFARS 252.227-7020. Previously answered in posting dated 10/11/2010 question #53.

Page 8 of 14 HQ0147‐10‐R‐0027

Government Official Response to Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) FINAL RFP and Pre‐Preposal Conference Questions

Number Questions Proposed Resolution by Industry Official Response

This clause [DFARS 252.246-7001] 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.

Recommend deletion of DFARS 252.246-7001.

Delete DFARS 252.246-7001. Previously answered in posting dated 10/11/2010 questions #44 and #54.

Paragraph L-05.5.3 states, “Exhibits shall be legible; font shall be no smaller than 8 point using Microsoft Word Times New Roman.”

The wording implies that Times New Roman font is required for exhibits, whereas other fonts such as Arial can make exhibits easier for the Government to read.

Reword to state, “font shall be no smaller than 8 point." The requirement remains as stated in the RFP posted on 9/28/2010.

Section L, Tab 7: Small Business Utilization Page Limit states 1 Page per contract, while detail in L-09.11 requires a narrative, and states that subcontracting reports will not count against the page limits for the past performance volume, leaving ambiguity in the allowable page count for the narrative.

Establish 5-page limit for the narrative in Table L-05-1.

Retain in L-09.11 the statement that subcontracting reports will not count against the page limits for the past performance volume.

The page limit in Table L-05-1 for Past Performance Volume, Tab 7, applies to the narrative as stated in paragraph L-09.11 in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010.

Cost/Price Data (includes BOEs, Cost Narrative and the Primes Cost Schedule/Spreadsheets is limited to 180 pages in FRFP.

Recommend changing page count to 300 pages to support complete compliance.

RFP Amendment 01 modified Table L-05-1 to reflect a change to the page limit for the prime contractor's cost volume to 300 pages excluding spreadsheets. There is an unlimited page count on the spreadsheets.

[Section L-05.5.4, Table L-05-1] Cost/Price Data (If Major Subcontractors are proposed) is limited to 40 pages Per Major Subcontractor for Schedules/Spreadsheets.

Clarify that the 40 page limit encompasses only schedules and spreadsheets, and is not a total page limit per Subcontractor.

RFP Amendment 01 modified Table L-05-1 to reflect an increase to the page limit for the key subcontractor's cost volume to 100 pages exclusive of spreadsheets. There is an unlimited page count on the spreadsheets.

[Section L-05.5.4, Table L-05-1] Currently:

“Cost/Price Data (If Major Subcontractors are proposed)”

“40 pages Per Major Subcontractor for Schedules/Spreadsheets”

All other references in document have referred to Key Subcontractor, not Major Subcontractor.

Change to:

“Cost/Price Data (If Key Subcontractors are proposed)”

“40 pages Per Key Subcontractor for Schedules/Spreadsheets”

RFP Amendment 01 changed words in Table L-05-1 in the Cost Volume instructions to "Key subcontractor."

Page 9 of 14 HQ0147‐10‐R‐0027

Government Official Response to Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) FINAL RFP and Pre‐Preposal Conference Questions

Number Questions Proposed Resolution by Industry Official Response

Section L, Paragraph L-09.7 states:

“Submission of the PPI for the subcontractors shall be no more than ten (10) pages per contract and not to exceed three (3) contracts per subcontractor.”

Recommend changing to:

“Submission of the PPI for the subcontractors shall be no more than ten (10) pages per contract and not to exceed three (3) contracts per subcontractor, other members of the offeror’s team, or sister company.”

Disagree. PPI is required on the offeror and key subcontractors and/or subsidiaries. See Section L, Paragraph L-09.1 for definition of key subcontractors and/or subsidiaries.

[L-11.2 and Section L, Attachment 9] Wording states:

“The Offeror, teammates, and all subcontractors shall submit proposed cost and fee (if applicable), by Contractor Fiscal Year (CFY), for each priced Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) using the Attached Cost Format A (Cost Element Summary - Attachment 9).”

Confirm that the prime contractor provides one attachment per CLIN. RFP Amendment 01 revised Section L, Paragraph L-11.2 to clarify the instructions.

The prime offeror, intra-corporate work transfers and subcontractors shall include supporting schedule/exhibit information (Excel spreadsheet/not PDF) within the cost volume presenting the labor categories.

Confirm that the detailed write-up will be on the prime’s own labor categories; teammate and subcontractor labor categories will be provided separately.

IAW Section L, Paragraph L-11.9 the information shall be included within the cost volume presenting the labor categories.

Previous draft RFPs identified the Safety Plan as one of the “Other Management Processes” to address in the proposal. In the Final RFP, there is no mention of the Safety Plan in Section L, but there is still an evaluation item listed in Section M for this process.

Eliminate Safety Plan from Section M.

Refer to Section L, Paragraph L-10.1.6, "Describe process used to develop, implement and maintain a Quality, Safety and Mission Assurance program..." in the final RFP released on 9/28/2010. RFP Amendment 02 will provide clarifying language.

[SOO 2.1.2] Wording states:

“The contractor shall provide missile characteristics, such as missile weight, length, diameter, outside structural characteristics, estimated 1st stage booster parameters [burn time, average mass flow rate, and gas temperature profiles] to support the Government’s HQ0147-10-R-0027 separate development of MK 41 VLS modifications.”

Please clarify whether MK 41 VLS includes the canister.

Recommend changing to:

“The contractor shall provide missile characteristics, such as missile weight, length, diameter, outside structural characteristics, estimated 1st stage booster parameters [burn time, average mass flow rate, and gas temperature profiles] to support the Government’s HQ0147-10-R-0027 separate development of MK 41 VLS modifications, including canister.”

This contract effort is for missile concepts. Per SOO paragraph 2.1.2, the Government will provide missile constraints for MK 41 VLS compatibility, including canister.

[SOO and Section L] Document references MDA 5010.24-

INS

“ The contractor shall assess the technical maturity and manufacturing readiness of proposed missile concepts in accordance with the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and Engineering Manufacturing Readiness Level (EMRL) definitions contained in MDA 5010.24-INS.”

Provide document MDA 5010.24-INS.

Provide document MDA 5010.24-INS The Government will add MDA 5010.24-INS as GFI in RFP Amendment 02.

Page 10 of 14 HQ0147‐10‐R‐0027

Government Official Response to Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) FINAL RFP and Pre‐Preposal Conference Questions

Number Questions Proposed Resolution by Industry Official Response

Wording States:

“The contractor shall identify technology investments that would mitigate risks, lower production costs, and raise the maturity level of key technologies to TRL 6 or higher, prior to entering product development in FY13.”

Having all technologies TRL 6 or higher is not consistent with HAENS level II requirement.

The requirement remains as stated in the RFP posted on 9/28/2010.

Data Item Description (DID) OT-MAP-090721 that is referenced for the CDRL A011 and CDRL B0007 (MAP & PMAP Requirements Applicability Matrix) provides instructions for preparation of metrics for the Mission Assurance Provisions (MAP) and On-Time Delivery.

Provide the DID that gives instructions for preparation and submittal of the MAP and PMAP Requirements Applicability Matrix.

Updated MAP/PMAP Requirements Applicability Matrix instruction DID information for CDRLs A011 and B007 will be provided via RFP Amendment 02.

58 CDRL B004 refers to DI-RELI-80685 (Apr 2007). We cannot find the April 2007 release. Provide April 2007 release of DI-RELI-80685. DI-RELI-80685 should be dated 30 Sep 1988. CDRL B004 will be revised as part of RFP Amendment 02.

CDRL B008 refers to DI-RELI-80255 (Oct 1986). The 80255 reports presents a tabulation of failures that have occurred during the reporting period, describes the analysis performed, and includes individual failed item analysis reports.

Propose DID DI-RELI-80687, Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis. This report contains the results of the failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis.

The Government will revise CDRL B008 to reference DID DI- RELI-80687, Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis in RFP Amendment 02.

The referenced section [L-07.2] requests contact information for the Government Paying Office POC for the Prime and each teammate/subcontractor. As the Prime will pay the subcontractor for their efforts, we do not understand the need for this requirement.

Recommend that only the Prime provide their Government Payment Office information.

RFP Amendment 01 modified Section L, Paragraph L-07.2 to delete the requirement to list the paying office for teammates and subcontractors.

The last bullet of the referenced section [Section L-07.2] requests identification of the “Cognizant Security Office”.

Is the individual security office of the Prime and subcontractors’ security office or the Government cognizant Security office being requested?

Please identify which security office information is requested.

RFP Amendment 01 modified Section L, Paragraph L-07.2 to reflect the requirement to list the Government cognizant security office.

The Technology Risk Reduction TRL has been raised to 6 from 5 by 2013. At this level the number of technologies for the NGAM may restrict options for future development.

The risk level for TRL 5 will be acceptable since any technology accepted have the performance, cost, schedule and risk well documented per the RFP.

Change the TRL level back to TRL 5. The requirement remains as stated in the RFP posted on 9/28/2010.

Page 11 of 14 HQ0147‐10‐R‐0027

Government Official Response to Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) FINAL RFP and Pre‐Preposal Conference Questions

Number Questions Proposed Resolution by Industry Official Response

In the referenced section [L-08.1 (2) (a)], are we to take the meaning of “level of component and sub-component” to mean component and sub-component as a lower tier under missile subsystem?

Change the text to:

“…level of missile component and sub-component trade studies…”

The context makes it clear that this refers to missile components. No change is required.

64 Will the New START Treaty discussions effect this program?

No

If the subcontractor is not to share any past performance information with potential prices, are we to understand that the past performance volume will only reflect past performance history of the prime? How can a prime write an adequate past performance volume if they cannot use all their team's information.

See Section L, Paragraph L-09.7 for PPI requirements. PPI is submitted directly to the Government by the prime contractor, and PPQs are submitted directly to the Government by the customer.

66 Do subcontractors need to send past performance information separate to MDA and not through prime's? No

67 Is there any other information that subcontractors need to send to MDA separate from the prime's?

Key subcontractors may submit proprietary cost data directly to the Government as stated in Section L, Paragraph L-06.1.

68 Will an attendance list for this meeting be available? Yes

In the PPI's (attachment 5) it references the relevancy table in Section M to note past performance relevancy on each subfactor. However, it calls out table M-1, but should it be M-2.

RFP Amendment 01 modified PPI (Attachment 5) to reference Table M-2 in paragraph D.

70 Would it be allowable to deliver a day early (11th vs 12th)?

No. November 11 is a federal holiday. The proposal may be delivered on another work day prior to November 12.

There is still some confusion over threat drivers. RFP still discusses threat range as equal consideration. All verbal description emphasis has been on ICBM/IRBM.

Recommend using terminology "design to" ICBM/IRBM or "assess to" SRBM/MRBM. This is important to help contractor recommend concepts from performance trades

SOO paragraph 2.2.2.1, which was provided in the final RFP released 9/28/10, provides guidance concerning conduct of trades with various threats. SOO paragraph 2.2.2.1 addresses performance trades. An Example Threat Data Package has been provided with the RFP and a final version will be provided within 30 days after contract award.

Technical clarity on what was meant by "onboard" vs "offboard" discrimination? Is this relative to weapon system vs missile?

"Onboard" discrimination refers to NGAM discrimination capability. "Off-board" discrimination refers to BMD System discrimination capability (i.e., external to NGAM).

Page 12 of 14 HQ0147‐10‐R‐0027

Government Official Response to Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) FINAL RFP and Pre‐Preposal Conference Questions

Number Questions Proposed Resolution by Industry Official Response

73 Are the Section M color ratings relative to other contractors or relative to the RFP?

Section M color ratings are relative to the RFP

The RFP clearly states the words "interceptor" and "missile" separately within technical capabilities. Today we heard that interceptor and missile is interchangeable.

Please provide written clarification

The words “interceptor” and “missile” are used interchangeably. When either of these words are associated with a specific type or class of interceptor/missile, additional language is present to indicate the specific type or class (e.g., ballistic missile defense interceptor or MRBM). RFP Amendment 02 will add qualifying words where needed in in Section M, Paragraph M-04.1.2 and Section L, Paragraph L- 08.2.

75 Define what non-advanced ICBM threat is? CM?

Trajectory?

The non-advanced ICBM threat, countermeasures, and trajectories are defined in the Threat Data Packages document identified in the GFI List provided in the final RFP released 9/28/10.

76 What does MDA consider the current SOTA BMD Interceptor to be? What is the baseline system?

This is up to offeror to tell MDA.

77 How will MDA evaluate "producibility" of the missile design"

See Section L, Paragraph L-08.2 and Section M, Paragraph M-04.1.2 in the final RFP released 9/28/10.

If contractor performs IRAD task for a component that could be applicable to NGAM AND another application outside of NGAM, does Government own rights?

All deliverables must come with some level of rights. The RFP requires disclosures of the level of rights of anything to be delivered with less than unlimited rights.

Is contractor proposed risk mitigation on MDA funded technologies to be priced as part of $45M or to be funded separately by Government

A list of Government funded efforts was provided with the RFP released on 9/28/2010. The offeror should price the costs of technology development and testing beyond this that is unique to their NGAM contract as described in the SOO Section 2.6.2.

80 If options are provided as part of an offeror's proposal, how will they be considered?

Neither options or alternative proposals are being solicited or evaluated for the NGAM CDPP effort.

81 When do we expect to see answers from the questions asked on Friday?

10/21/2010

Page 13 of 14 HQ0147‐10‐R‐0027

Government Official Response to Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) FINAL RFP and Pre‐Preposal Conference Questions

Number Questions Proposed Resolution by Industry Official Response

When will MDA allow the offerors to visit the various Government facilities that may be available for use under the NGAM Program? A list of the sites that are candidates are as follows: a) Surface Combat Systems Center (SCSC) at Wallops Island, VA, b) Aegis Test & Readiness Center (ATRC) at the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) at Dahlgren, VA, c) Combat Systems Engineering Development Site (CSEDS) at Moorestown, NJ, d) At least one of the US Navy ships used for system testing that is equipped with the latest version Aegis Weapons System equipment, including the Vertical Launch System (VLS). e) White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) and the White Sands Test Center in New Mexico

f) Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF)at Barking Sands, Kauai County, Hawaii, g) Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) at Pt Hueneme near Oxnard, CA”

Not all of the Offerors will be interested in all of the sites requested. We suggest that the PCO contact the sites and state that they may be approached by the Offerors for a site visit on an individual basis and that they may accommodate these requests without fear of providing unfair advantage to any one of the Offerors. Visiting the sites will be at the discretion of each Offeror, since some may be intimately familiar with some sites and not with others.

Visits to Government facilities are not required to prepare an offer for the NGAM CDPP effort.

Page 14 of 14 HQ0147‐10‐R‐0027